Earlier text: THE COMPASSIONATE SON OF GODKNOWLEDGE BY FAITH IN GOD.
It was not God's desire that our first parents should remain in ignorance of anything good. It was not His desire that man should not be able to distinguish good from evil. But it was His desire that man should know it in the only true way,—by faith in Him. It was Satan's desire to destroy man, and therefore he desired that man should know evil as he knew it,—by sympathetic, experimental knowledge. God's way was to lead poor, ignorant, finite man out of himself ever toward the infinite. The infinitely-loving God knew everything; He would therefore have revealed to man (even as He will now) all that it was best for man to know, and as rapidly as he could be trusted to know. But to do this the finite child must believe the Infinite Father. Man, by believing God, would have learned to trust Him and love Him, would have assimilated His character, would have opened his own heart to the infinite depths of the righteousness, the knowledge, the life of God. Infinite goodness would have been his center and circumference. What God said was good man would have believed, and in walking by faith would have come to know by happy experience that God's Word was true. What God said was evil he would have shunned, till, as character developed, he would more and more have come to know instinctively, even as God knows, that a thing was evil. This would not have been a knowledge which exalted self; it would have been the knowledge which sprang from God's Word Spirit-wrought in his character. To God would have been all the glory, as His was all the wisdom and power. Satan's object was to get man to believe himself a god; and thus artfully he put the temptation: "Ye shall not surely die; for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil." Gen. 3:4, 5. R.V. He would say, "God is telling you that which is not so; He is keeping back from you knowledge which will make you like Himself." Satan doubtless gave them ocular proof that touching and eating would not kill them; for was not he, the serpent, touching and eating, yet he was not dead. Man disbelieved God and accepted the word of the serpent and his own senses rather than God's Word. As a result, the garments of individual glory with which God clothed them, and which other eyes could not pierce, departed with their purity; they became naked and ashamed; sin became incarnate; and, notwithstanding Satan's lie, death passed upon all men. God uses the very words of Satan in irony: "Behold, the man has become as one of Us, to know good and evil." Gen. 3:22. God does not indorse Satan's lie. He wants man to weigh it now in the light of experience. And now He tells man that as he has chosen his own way, he must pursue it apart from the tree of life, and demonstrate in himself whether God's Word, "Thou shalt surely die," or Satan's, "Thou shalt not surely die," was true. Strange that men believe Satan yet, isn't it? All this is written for us. As Satan wrought then, more craftily and subtly does he work now. The only true knowledge is in God. The only true way to obtain it is by faith in God, "the faith which worketh by love." JESUS, THY NAME I LOVE.
By William C. Richards
JESUS, Thy name I love
All other names above
That tongue can sing;
Its sweetness fills my heart,
Soothes sorrow's keenest smart,
And dries the tears that start
When joys take flight. If shadows 'round me fall,
And fears my heart appal
Of coming ills,
The covert of Thy grace
I make my hiding-place,
Where one smile of Thy face
My bosom stills. When sharp temptations press,
From paths of righteousness
My steps to stray,
Thy name of love shall be
Heaven's talisman for me,
To make the tempter flee
In shame away. My life, from youth to age,
Shall bear on every page
Thy name of might,
To calm the waves of death,
As when Gennesareth,
Awed by Thy sovereign breath,
Slept in morn's light. And then, before Thy throne,
With all the glories shone
That crown Thy cross,
"Jesus!" the song shall be
Of millions saved like me,
To all eternity,
From sumless loss. —Wm. C. Richards, in Christian Enquirer. THE religion of Jesus is a joyful religion. One of the fruits of the Spirit is joy. Every Christian has this in some degree. It is a supernatural joy, and does not depend upon circumstances, for it comes from within. Worldlings rejoice when everything goes well, from a worldly standpoint; some professed Christians rejoice when prospered in worldly things, and sometimes even when in an enthusiastic religious service; but this may be but natural joy. Supernatural joy wells up from an unseen fountain when earthly joy has fled. It gushes out right in the midst of the desert, and if we looked at the desert for its source, we should not discover it. Habakkuk knew about this joy, for he says, "Altho the fig tree shall not blossom, neither shall fruit be in the vines; the labor of the olive shall fail, and the fields shall yield no meat; the flock shall be cut off from the fold, and there shall be no herd in the stall; yet I will rejoice in the Lord, I will joy in the God of my salvation." Any worldling can rejoice when all goes well. Only a Christian can rejoice when things seem to go wrong. In the darkest day a Christian ever saw he can rejoice in God when he can not in anything else. Joy makes a Christian strong in his every-day life. "The joy of the Lord is your strength." He is a weak Christian who has spells of the blues or carries about a gloomy face. He is a discomfort to himself and repels others. It is the expression of joy that makes a telling impression upon the world. This poor, heart-broken world, staggering under its burdens, is attracted only by this kind of religion. The shouts of redeemed saints and converted sinners have often sent more conviction into the hearts of sinners than tons of paper essays read from polished pulpits. The church of the future that is really to make inroads upon the kingdom of Satan will be the church that has a joyful religion, that buoys up the sinking soul.—Christian Witness. THE SABBATH, THE FATHERS, AND THE REFORMATION.
By G. E. Fifield
Who Are the “Fathers”?—Their Relation to the Church—No Authority for Sunday Observance—The Reformation—The Council of Trent.
BY professed Protestants who observe the sun festival instead of the Sabbath of the Lord, the “fathers” are often quoted in support of their practise. This leads us to ask, first, Who are these so-called fathers? and, secondly, What was their teaching concerning the Sabbath and Sunday? 1. We have shown both from prophecy and history that Christianity was very early in this era corrupted by paganism, and that this was the origin of Roman Catholicism. These fathers were not the leaders of the pure Christian thought of their times, but they were the leaders of that pago-Christian thought that developed into the Papacy. Many of them were pagan philosophers and teachers who accepted some parts of Christianity but who continued to wear their philosopher's garb until the day of their death. Had true Christianity overspread the world, they would have been looked back upon as pagans, or, at the best, as heretics. But when that pago-Christianity, now known as Roman Catholicism, by fraud and force and deceit triumphed and came to rule the world, these men were looked back upon as the founders of that kind of Christianity, and were called the “fathers of the church.” They sustain the same relation to the great church of the apostasy as the apostles sustain to true Christianity. This shows how unreasonable it is for a Protestant to quote them in support of a doctrine not found in the Bible. We recall again the words of Mr. Dowling: “The Bible, I say, the Bible only, is the religion of Protestants. Nor is it of any account in the estimation of a genuine Protestant how early a doctrine originated, if it is not found in the Bible.” “He who receives a single doctrine upon the mere authority of tradition [that is, on the testimony of the fathers], let him be called by what name he will, by so doing steps down from the Protestant rock, passes over the line which separates Protestantism from popery, and can give no valid reason why he should not receive all the earlier doctrines and ceremonies of Romanism upon the same authority.”—History of Romanism, book 2, chapter 1. 2. But these so-called fathers, even were their words authoritative to a Protestant, give no support to the present ideas concerning Sunday observance. “Chambers’ Encyclopedia” speaks the truth when it says, “By none of the fathers before the fourth century is it [Sunday] identified with the Sabbath, nor is the duty of observing it grounded by them either on the fourth commandment or on the precept or example of Jesus or His apostles.”—Article Sabbath. Kitto says the same. “Nor do these writers [the fathers] in any instance pretend to allege any divine command or even apostolic practise in support of it.”—Article Lord’s Day. How, then, are these writers now quoted by Protestants in support of their Sunday observance? The answer is easy. Their testimony is neither consciously nor unconsciously garbled. The same writers say ten times as much concerning the observance of the Sabbath among the early Christians. But these passages are passed by with religious (?) silence. Being the very persons who were betraying the church into the pagan apostasy, it is not strange that they should in some instances show some honor to the pagan sun festival. These are the passages quoted. Taken as a whole, however, their testimony, while not authoritative, bears unmistakable evidence that the sun festival was gradually substituted for the Sabbath, by the “pagan flood flowing into the church.” Tertullian, one of these fathers, admits the truth concerning the origin of Sunday festivities in the church. To the pagans who accused the apostatizing Christians of worshiping the sun, he retorts: “It is you, at all events, who have even admitted the sun into the calendar of the week; and you have selected its day [Sunday] in preference to the preceding day, as the most suitable in the week for either an entire absence of the bath, or for its postponement until evening, or for taking of rest, and for banqueting.”—Ad Nationes, book 1, chapter 13. Why does not Tertullian say, as the modern divines do, that Christ and the apostles made the change? The answer is, No such idea was dreamed of then. Every one well knew that Sunday came from paganism. To deny this and assert the other at that time would have been a deliberate falsehood, which would have brought him only contempt. But if Sunday came into the church from paganism and stands only on tradition, why was it not repudiated by the Reformation of the sixteenth century? Why did not the church return then to the observance of the Sabbath of the Lord? God’s plan is not to give a flood of light all at once, to blind men’s eyes, but to lead men in a path that grows brighter and brighter “unto the perfect day.” Nothing could be more gradual than the dawning of that Reformation. Luther at first was an enthusiastic papist. After having been professor in the university at Erfurth, he humiliated himself in monkish cowl, to beg his bread from house to house, in his ideas of popish penance, thinking this would be well pleasing to God. It was in a cell in the monastery at Erfurth that Luther found an old Latin Bible, bound by a rusty chain to the stone wall—fit symbol this of how the Word of God had hitherto been bound in his mind and in the church. This old book contained the power which, set on fire by the Spirit, was to move the world. Still, while walking in the light, Luther never saw the perfect day. Who of us have seen it? The human mind, like a pendulum, oscillates from one extreme to the other. Horrified at the papistical idea of salvation by works of penance, Luther grasped the truth of salvation by faith alone. He did not, however, see clearly the fact that the true faith is that which works by love to obey God’s law; that faith and works are not in antagonism, but that they stand related as cause and effect. He did not fully grasp the sublime truth that Christ is the end of the law only by so writing it in our hearts as the actuating principle of the life, that all external and commanding copies become needless. He could not see, therefore, the harmony and unity of the law and the Gospel. For the same reason he saw conflict between the Epistle to the Romans and the book of James, and repudiated the latter, declaring it to be an epistle of straw. For these reasons Luther did not recognize the claims of the Sabbath commandment; but while not claiming for Sunday any divine authority, he observed it as a custom of the church. Carlstadt, one of Luther’s co-workers, and a man whom Luther acknowledged as his superior in learning, did see all these things clearly, and he observed the seventh-day Sabbath. His views were more nearly right than Luther’s in many ways. Luther rejected only those things which the Scriptures directly condemned. He said, “Tho Christ has not commanded the adoration of the host, neither has He forbidden it.” So Luther retained this custom. Carlstadt saw that on this principle the church could be filled with the dead lumber of ritualism; so he said, “It is sufficiently against the Scriptures if you can find no ground for it in them.” As was natural, the church in this followed the less radical leader. For the same reason the reformed churches followed Calvin instead of Luther in retaining the doctrine of inherent immortality, for Luther declared that this was one of the monstrosities of the “papal dunghill of decretals.” Inconsistency of Reformers.
Thus the reformed churches, while professing to reject tradition for the pure Word of God, were led to deny their own position, by accepting Sunday on the authority of tradition only, and tradition directly opposed to the divine Word. It was the weakness caused by thus practically denying their own position that more than any other one thing arrested the progress of the Reformation. Draper says: “Toward the close of Luther’s life it seemed as if there was no other prospect for papal power than total ruin; yet at this day out of three hundred millions of Christians more than half owe allegiance to Rome. Almost as if by enchantment the Reformation suddenly ceased to advance. Rome was not only able to check its spread, but even to gain back a portion of what she had lost.”—Intellectual Development, vol. 2, page 216. At the Council of Trent, called by the Roman Catholic Church to deal with questions arising out of the Reformation, it was at first an apparent possibility that the council would declare in favor of the reformed doctrines rather than against them, so profound was the impression made thus far by the speeches and writings of Luther and the other reformers. The pope’s legate actually wrote to him that there was “a strong tendency to set aside tradition altogether, and to make the Scripture the sole standard of appeal.” The question was debated day after day, until the council was fairly brought to a standstill. Finally the archbishop of Reggio turned the council against the Reformation by the following argument:— The Protestants claim to stand upon the written Word only. They profess to hold the Scripture alone as the standard of faith. They justify the revolt by the plea that the church has apostatized from the written Word and follows tradition. Now, the Protestants’ claim that they stand upon the written Word only is not true. Their profession of holding the Scripture alone as the standard of faith, is false. Proof: The written Word explicitly enjoins the observance of the seventh day as the Sabbath. They do not observe the seventh day, but reject it. If they do truly hold the Scripture alone as their standard, they would be observing the seventh day as is enjoined in the Scripture throughout. Yet they not only reject the observance of the Sabbath enjoined in the written Word, but they have adopted and do practise the observance of Sunday, for which they have only the tradition of the church. Consequently, the claim of “Scripture alone as the standard,” fails;7 and the doctrine of “Scripture and tradition as essential,” is fully established, the Protestants themselves being judges. (See the proceedings of the Council of Trent; Augsburg Confession; and “Encyclopedia Britannica,” article Trent, Council of.) At this argument the party who had stood for Scripture alone, surrendered, and the council at once unanimously condemned Protestantism and the whole Reformation, and proceeded to enact stringent decrees to arrest its progress. It was by this means, and also by the denial of the other cardinal principle of the Reformation, the doctrine of soul liberty, by an appeal to force, that the glorious progress of truth was arrested as by a magic wand. Then the churches wrote their creeds, and so took the individual from the guidance of the Spirit, and delivered him over to the control and teaching of the organization, which must always be ultra conservative. Thus the light of the Sabbath truth did not shine clearly in the sixteenth century; but by the divine providence all this has been overruled. The test is needed now, and now the truth in this matter is being proclaimed. HOW CAN ONE REAP ACCORDING TO HIS SOWING IF ANNIHILATION IS THE PUNISHMENT?
By William Penniman
We only notice those objections the most urgent. There are many more which are so frivolous that they are not worth noticing, and they only prove how hard it is to bolster up a doctrine for which there is no Scripture authority. Mr. Lee, in his "Theology," p. 327, uses the following comparison:— One dies so soon as he is capable of knowing right from wrong; his first act of sin is his only one, and that involves as little guilt as any wrong act can, and yet for that he must be annihilated. Another lives to be a hundred years old, and fills up the entire period with crimes of the deepest dye, and goes to his retribution as quietly as a sinner can make himself in one hundred years, and he can be no more than annihilated. By this comparison he endeavors to make it appear that there are no degrees in punishment according to the annihilation plan, and no doubt many who do not think for themselves will drink this theology in. But how do we know how long God causes the wicked to suffer before they die? or, even admitting that all die at the same time (which is quite impossible), may not the degree of suffering differ much while they do live? This thought does not work against the position that death, or destruction, is the final punishment. This extreme comparison shows how much more merciful God is (if He does do this) in causing a child who has only committed one sin to cease to exist, than to torment in fire and brimstone forever. There is nothing in the Word of God which teaches that a person will be punished forever for one sin. Christ says (John 8:21), "Ye shall . . . die in your sins; whither I go, ye can not come." As Mr. Lee has made an extreme comparison, so we will try to make one. Is it consistent with the justice and goodness of God that Judas Iscariot, who betrayed our Saviour, or Nero, who illuminated the city of Rome with Christians saturated with combustible substances, or the wickedest man among the Spanish inquisitors, or among those who took delight in tormenting Christians or heretics in every possible way that human ingenuity can invent to make man wretched and miserable—that the wickedest person who has ever lived or ever will live should receive no more punishment than the one will who has committed the least guilty act one can commit? We know that God is more merciful than man. What human tyrant would punish a person one year for the least guilty act? It is said that the Siamese god only punishes sinners 1,000 years. Is it consistent with the attributes of God to administer infinite or eternal suffering for a finite sin, or for the sin, comparatively, of a moment? How can any of the wicked be said to suffer or "be beaten with few stripes" (Luke 12:47, 48) if all the wicked will suffer torment without end? A few words in conclusion in regard to the word "annihilation," which Mr. Lee and many of our opponents urge against us. It is said that all nature and the universe rebel against this doctrine of annihilation, yet its second definition, according to Webster, is "to destroy the form or the peculiar distinctive properties, so that the specific thing no longer exists." This definition does not imply the non-existence of matter, but only a change of condition. It is also a literal change, as represented in Mal. 4:3 (see also verse 1): "And ye shall tread down the wicked, for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet," etc. The objector who holds to the immateriality of the soul, and, consequently, to its indestructibility, can easily be taken on his own ground by the following texts, Eze. 18:20; Rom. 6:23; and Matt. 10:28, which prove that to die is to cease to exist. As the objector contends that the soul is immaterial, we ask what there is left of it after it dies? One may attempt to evade the question by ignoring the laws of language and the right definitions of terms in saying that to destroy is to preserve whole; to be dead is to be made more alive; to die is to wander in misery; not to be is to be; and "to burn up is to make a living salamander." We can not better close this article than by using the words of the Lord: "Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?" THE REJECTED MAN IS THE SAVIOUR.
By Thos. H. Nelson
[Thos. H. Nelson, in Pentecost Herald.] It has been almost universally the case that the man, the idea, or the movement that was destined by God to save, bless, or benefit humanity, has been unpopular and rejected at first. This is true in science, literature, politics, government, and religion, and everything else, as history proves, and I suppose it will continue to be so till the final end. The world will not reason or think. It always makes a popular clamor for the superficial idea, or man, and refuses to learn from the past. In the minds of solid thinkers so far are they from feeling that the popular judgment must be right, that the honest conviction of each is that it is universally wrong. These thinking men yield to it, but they do so for selfish reasons, and not because they see it is the right thing. Were a man to honestly seek that which was sound in principle and right in practise, in the absence of all other proof, he would be safer in standing alone against the thoughtless popular decision than he would in standing by it. Christ was not the only being who came with blessings “to His own, and His own received Him not.” He was not the only man, nor His tenets the only tenets, that were “wounded in the house of their friends.” To illustrate:— Joseph was rejected and put out of the way, but this unpopular man afterward proved to be intrusted with a divine mission. Moses was at first rejected by the Jews, but forty years afterward this rejected man proved their deliverer. Jephthah was rejected by his brethren because of his illegitimate birth, but when their day of trouble came, they sent for him to deliver them. Micaiah’s advice to wicked Ahab was set aside because it was the very opposite of the advice of the four hundred popular priests, but the outcome proved that he alone was right and they were wrong. The cases of Jeremiah, Daniel, in fact, all the apostles and prophets, and even the Lord Himself, could be cited in proof of the above. Yet for all this the blind, unreasoning old world still decides that a man must be in the wrong if he is unpopular. The reformers should take heart and rejoice, however, for they are in good company. God has ever blessed liberated and elevated humanity through the unpopular-man movement and idea. The popular cry is, “The majority rules;” but the facts show that in reality the minority rules, and always has. We are blind, and controlled to-day by ideas that were once popularly rejected. Let none consider himself wrong simply because unpopular. INFIDELS hate hypocrisy, and find great fault with hypocrites in the church. Here is a short catechism for them, with answers. “Did you ever see a counterfeit bank-note?”
“Yes.”
“Why was it counterfeited?”
“Because the genuine note was worth counterfeiting.”
“Did you ever see a scrap of brown paper counterfeited?”
“No.”
“Why not?”
“Because it was not worth counterfeiting.”
“Did you ever see a counterfeited Christian?”
“Yes.”
“Why was he counterfeited?”
“Because he was worth counterfeiting.”
“Was he to blame for the counterfeit?”
“Of course not.”
“Did you ever see a counterfeit infidel?”
“Why, no.”
“Why not?”—Selected. “THE best day in the whole year for duty is to-day.” THERE are two ways of beginning the day—with prayer and without it. You begin the day in one of these two ways. Which? There are two classes of people in the world—the righteous and the wicked. You belong to one of those two classes. Which? There are two rulers in the universe—God and Satan. You are serving under one of these two great rulers. Which? There are two roads which lead through time to eternity—the broad and the narrow. You are walking in one of these two roads. Which? There are two deaths which people die—some "die in the Lord," others "die in their sins." You will die one of these two deaths. Which?—The Inland. WHAT DOES IT SIGNIFY?
By T.
A DESPATCH from Washington, under date of October 21, says in part: "Archbishop Chapelle, recently appointed by the Vatican as delegate apostolic to the Philippines, was closeted with the President this morning for nearly two hours. Mgr. Chapelle is here by appointment to confer with the President before his departure for the Philippines. "Archbishop Chapelle presented a mass of data dealing with the alleged spoliation of churches and church property by American troops in the Philippines. It had been originally intended that this data should be presented to the Board of Archbishops at their recent meeting at the Catholic University. The President intimated an intention to order a special inquiry. "In his capacity of delegate apostolic, Monsignor Chapelle has been commissioned by the President to submit to the Filipino insurgents, in general terms, certain propositions of peace. He is also authorized to inform the insurgents of the intentions of the American Government as to the future administration of the archipelago when peace shall permit civil officials to supersede the military. . . . This is a general summary of his civil instructions. "Mgr. Chapelle intimated to the President that he would be satisfied if the church property in Cuba and the Philippines was allowed to stand, so far as title and occupation were involved, upon exactly the same ground as any corporation having vested rights. The President said he would refer that suggestion to Congress. "Mgr. Chapelle will leave the United States for Manila early in December. Meanwhile he will consult freely with the principal members of the administration." Another sentence in the foregoing despatch says of Mr. Chapelle, "His Roman ecclesiastical mission does not conflict with his undertaking any mission on behalf of the President which will tend toward a peaceful solution of the complications now existing." Right in line with the foregoing despatch is the following, from Washington, under date of October 27: "President McKinley to-day appointed the Rev. W. D. McKinnon, late chaplain of the California Volunteers, chaplain in the regular army. Chaplain McKinnon will return to the Philippines very shortly. He has been chosen by Archbishop Chapelle to work with him in the Philippines toward the pacification of the insurrection and the settlement of various church property questions which have arisen." The Signs of the Times for a whole quarter of a century has been teaching that the beast with two horns like a lamb, mentioned in Rev. 13:11, is a symbol of the United States. Our presses have put forth several pamphlets and small books at various times showing our reasons for this conclusion. And hundreds of articles from time to time have appeared in our columns upon the subject. We have not only maintained that the United States is symbolized in this prophecy, but have also affirmed the doctrine so generally taught by Protestants, that the "beast whose deadly wound was healed," spoken of in Rev. 13:12, is a symbol of the Papacy. Following this interesting prophecy to the close of the chapter, we learn that this country is to make an "image" to the Papacy. And, therefore, Protestant America will bow at the feet of Rome. When an "image" is made to anything, it shows adoration that is begotten of the spirit of worship. We have both known and taught that Protestantism, even in this most Protestant of all countries, would so far depart from its principles that it would combine with the Papacy. And the reason why we have known and taught these things all these years is because we could read it clearly in the never-failing Word of prophecy; and we need only place the prophecy side by side with passing events in order to see the striking fulfilment. It is a new thing for a United States President to send for a Catholic prelate so that he may confer with him and instruct him how to act in the capacity of a representative of the government. And it should be noted that Archbishop Chapelle not only secures his own appointment as United States representative in the Philippines, but also gets an assistant sent with him, under the title of an army chaplain. Mr. McKinnon will be called an army chaplain, and will draw his pay from the government as such. But he was chosen because Archbishop Chapelle wanted him as an assistant. And right in this connection it should be noted that at numerous banquets and public celebrations and parades of late the place of honor has been given by the President to some Catholic dignitary. Truly we are in eventful times; and how can any one fail to see the meaning of passing events? IT has been only a few weeks since the New York Diocese of the Episcopal Church held its convention. One of the notable features in that convention was the report of Doctor Dix in regard to Sunday observance. The doctor introduced some resolutions with a view of arresting "the decay in the observance of the Lord's day," reference being had, of course, to Sunday. The doctor's report deplored the growing disregard of Sunday and its devotion to "bicycle riding, excursions, golf, tennis, large dinners, and social receptions," with the consequence of a "wide neglect of public worship." Even clergymen, so Mr. Dix said, now indulge in "bicycle riding, golf, tennis, large dinners, and social receptions" on Sunday, and commend the practice. To put the situation in a nutshell it is this: The great majority of the people regard Sunday as a mere holiday, and treat it in every respect as such. And many of the clergy have fallen in with this idea of things rather than condemning it. And then there is another large and growing class of clergymen who deplore this condition of things and desire to have civil laws passed so that they can invoke the police power in compelling the observance of Sunday. Even if Sunday were the true Sabbath of the Lord, which it is not, if men could not be persuaded to observe it, they would only be made worse by trying to compel them to do so. God does not compel men to serve Him. He draws them by love. Then why should men undertake to do what the Lord, with all His love and omnipotent power and infinite wisdom, has not considered within the realm of moral possibilities? But this seeking to compel the observance of religious dogma by civil force is in the line of fulfilling prophecy. It is also history repeating itself. It is of importance as well as interest to studiously watch the developments. WAIT TILL THE APOSTOLIC DELEGATE REPORTS!
ARCHBISHOP CHAPELLE is the "apostolic delegate to Cuba, Porto Rico, and the Philippines." He is practically the go-between of the Vatican and the United States in the matter of the church's interests in the new colonies of the now imperial republic. General Funston is one of the army officers who have been fighting the Filipinos. Returning to America not long ago, he delivered a number of public addresses, in which he spoke very emphatically in regard to the sinister influence of the friars in the islands. In his address before the Stanford University he is reported to have said that "if Congress would drive out the friars and confiscate every inch of church property, the bottom would drop out of the insurrection in one week. . . . The inhabitants of Luzon are completely under the church." Archbishop Chapelle takes exception to this statement, and doubts the correctness of the report. He thinks that if the general did use such language, he must have referred merely to a demand of the Filipinos as a condition of surrender. In rebuttal of the alleged statement that the natives are under the influence of the Roman Church, he cites as a fact that for the last 18 months more than 350 friars have been prisoners and "undergoing unheard-of torture in insurgent dungeons." I have no judgment to pass as to the truthfulness of either of the foregoing statements. It is possible that there is truth in both of them. This possibility is shown by the following further utterance of the archbishop:— "Whatever the natives are or have they owe to the friars. By them they were lifted out of savagery and brought under the blessed and refining influences of Christianity. By them they were educated not only in the schools, but in the fields and the workshops were taught by them the very industries which are now the source of their prosperity." Mr. Peyton, the agent of the Episcopal Foreign Mission Association, tells us that the natives are the most moral and religious people on the face of the globe. Now, the men who taught them to be so can not be such men as some narrow-minded people would try to have us believe. Rev. Dr. Abeel, a Scotch Protestant missionary, also testifies that nearly all the population of the Filipino archipelago has been converted to the Catholic faith by the Spanish monks, and a wonderful improvement in their social condition has been the result. This is a frank admission that the so-called "insurgents" are under the influence of the education given to them by the friars. It is a further admission that the character of that influence is manifested in the disposition to inflict "unheard-of torture in insurgent dungeons." They must be acting under the influence of "the church," for the apostolic delegate says, "Whatever the natives are or have they owe to the friars." Then this spirit of dealing out torture to their prisoners is a specimen of "the blessed and refining influences of Christianity" which they have received from the Roman Church. The principle of torture for opponents always has been a doctrine of the Roman Church where it had sufficient influence with the civil government to carry out its doctrines to their full extent. The Inquisition was in full blast in Spain when that government gained control of the Philippines and established there the Catholic religion. "Rome never changes," only as compelled by circumstances to make an outward show of change, and having had undisputed sway in the Philippines from the beginning of Spain's occupancy, of course the spirit of the Inquisition has continued to permeate all of her work in bringing the natives under "the blessed and refining influences of Christianity." This being a prominent feature in the religious training of the natives, when they became hostile to Spanish tyranny and the friars took the side of the government, which in reality they controlled in the archipelago, it was not natural for the Filipinos to cruelly treat those of the friars who fell into their hands. This was natural because the government, under priestly domination, had so treated the insurgent natives who became prisoners of war. Thus whatever of torture or other ill fare the captive friars may have received at the hands of their former pupils, it is but the fruit of Rome's own seed-sowing. But the blandest suggestion on the part of the apostolic delegate is that the people of the United States should not believe anything concerning the situation in the Philippines—that is, anything derogatory to Romish influence—until he has personally investigated and reported. Of course he will do exact justice, and tell the exact truth as no other can! The "opinions of gentlemen" who have been there before him are not reliable! Here is his appeal:— "In a short time I will start for the Philippines, and I will personally investigate all charges made against religious orders, titles of property, etc. Until I have completed my work I would ask the good people of the United States not to be too ready to swallow as facts the opinions of gentlemen whose previous training and lack of opportunities to get at the root facts do not warrant their statements concerning the Catholic ministers of religion, the intellectual capacity, the moral and social condition, of the people of the archipelago, to be taken as undisputed facts by sensible and just minds; nor can they, therefore, be taken as an exact presentation of a condition of things in the Philippines upon which the United States Government could prudently and equitably base its policy with regard to this archipelago. The church asks only justice, and I will not countenance the retention of one inch of property which is not now legitimately held." It would not be justice to take from the church "one inch of property" that is lawfully held by her. The same is true concerning the rights of the Filipinos. It was just as true four hundred years ago, when, under the papal blessing and support, the whole archipelago was forcibly taken from its natural owners by Spain; and it was just as true when the ill-gotten property was purchased from Spain by the United States. But, granting that "the church" has many property