Earlier text: In Our Father’s CareA New Magazine
By Frederick Griggs
In the report of the secretary of the Department of Education this paragraph occurred:— For about six years the interests of the educational work have been served by a department in the REVIEW AND HERALD. Until the convention at College View in 1906, this department had two pages weekly in the REVIEW, since which time it has had eight pages monthly. Our work has grown to such proportions that it seems to demand the regular publication of an educational journal. Every effort must be made by our school workers to progress along all lines of effort. In order to do this, a journal of communication of larger scope than that afforded by the present means, seems to be required. Later the Conference adopted the following resolution:— Resolved, That the Executive Committee of the General Conference arrange for the publication of an educational journal adapted to the development of our school work, the policy and contents of the journal to be under the direction of the Department of Education of the General Conference. Accordingly the General Conference Committee took this subject under advisement, and voted to establish such a magazine. We firmly believe that this new periodical will greatly advance our educational interests. Not only so, but that it also may be a means of interesting and instructing parents and teachers not of our faith concerning our educational work. This will make unnecessary the monthly educational department of the REVIEW. As educational workers, I am sure we all appreciate very much the courtesy and help rendered us in our work by the REVIEW. While we thus abandon the monthly educational features of the REVIEW, we hope to present matter through its columns, as do other departments of the General Conference, from time to time. We believe such reports and information as will be given will be of interest to our people, and of value to our educational interests. It is now planned to issue the new magazine as a bimonthly. We find that several educational magazines are published every two months. We would have been glad to make it a monthly, but we were hardly warranted in doing so at this time on account of the expense. If our educational workers unite heartily in this new enterprise, it may be possible to issue it as a monthly after a time. It will contain forty-eight pages. The subscription price will be fifty cents a year, ten cents a copy. TURKEY has again claimed the attention of the world by the recent political revolution and by the terrible massacres which accompanied the effort of the old régime to reinstate itself in power. These recent developments have furnished the material for much newspaper and magazine writing in which the various phases of the Eastern question have been quite fully discussed. Among those who have thus expressed themselves is Dr. William Milligan Sloane, Professor of History at Columbia University, who has the name of being an authority on Oriental politics. In an article in Van Norden for June, Dr. Sloane considers the recent remarkable changes in the light of the religious belief of the Turk. We quote:— Recent events at the seat of Islam could not have been brought about unless there was a tendency among advanced Turks to depart from old religious beliefs. That the tendency is not altogether new becomes evident when we look at the many massive volumes of interpretations of the Koran, by which the Mohammedan world has hitherto been ruled. The more intelligent leaders of the new movement realize perfectly that they must either interpret away this body of doctrine or abolish it entirely. The Oriental mind is exceedingly adroit, and these leaders conceive that they can adapt their system to admit the establishment of a Western order of things.
But we must remember that the Mohammedan form of government is an absolute theocracy, and that the very essence of Moslem faith is the doctrine8 of the unity of life. I have traveled extensively in Morocco, Egypt, and Turkey, and it is my firm conviction that the simple, believing Moslem could not conceive of such things as the rights of man, nor could he make the distinction between ecclesiastical and social systems, which is fundamental to our idea of human liberty. . . .
The amount of transformation which must go on before government as we conceive it can replace that authority is stupefying to contemplate. The doctors of the laws have imbued the Moslem mind with the teaching that a Christian must either “believe, pay tribute, or die!” Confronted with that popular tenet, no weak power can continue the new order of things. It must rest on the authority of an adequate central military organization. Without this, only the power of Islam itself can prevent the “faithful” from turning to slaughter the Christians.
If Dr. Sloane’s analysis of the situation is correct, the establishment of the so-called constitutional government in Turkey denotes something entirely different from the idea conveyed to the Western mind by this expression. The inherited political views of a people, based upon the religious teaching of centuries, are not transformed by a revolution which is accomplished in a day, and it is evident that the Eastern question is not yet settled.
Methodism, Campbellism, etc.
In an article in the Methodist Review, with the title “The Creed of Methodism: Where Can It Be Found?” Bishop E. E. Hoss of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, makes the following clear statement:— First, then, the creed of Methodism is contained primarily in the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. There is no church in the whole world that appeals more distinctly and directly to these Scriptures than ours does. Our Fifth Article declares explicitly: “Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation, so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.” If anybody should venture to say that this is Campbellism, my reply would be that it is nothing of the sort; for Campbellism, while professing to appeal to the Scriptures solely, does really appeal to a specific interpretation of the Scriptures, an interpretation which is none the less fixed in character for not being reduced to a written formulary. This is the true Protestant position, but we suggest to Bishop Hoss that the application of this Fifth Article, apart from the taint of Campbellism, must inevitably lead to the observance of the seventh-day Sabbath “according to the commandment,” as well as to the rejection of some other doctrines now finding advocates in the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. We greatly wish that this Fifth Article were operative in all professedly Protestant churches. Protection Against Apostasy
It is a perverted idea of religious liberty which asserts the right to remain in an organized body of believers and at the same time to teach doctrines subversive of the very purposes of the organization. This subject is discussed by the Advance (Chicago) in an editorial, from which we quote:— Certainly a body of believers ought to be free to organize for the purpose of teaching, preaching, and establishing such doctrines as they believe to be true and important to mankind. But if a member of the organization finds that he can no longer believe or teach such doctrines, but feels it his duty to antagonize them, and yet insists on retaining his membership in the body, what becomes of the freedom of all the rest of the members? Must the freedom of the many to organize for certain purposes be surrendered for the sake of the one who has changed his beliefs and become an enemy of that purpose? Is the freedom of a great body like that of the Baptist denomination of so little importance, while that of this individual professor [Professor Foster, of Chicago] is of such vast importance? The fathers of the American republic fought for freedom to build up a government which suited them; but when the government was once established, they felt it their duty to fight any citizen or state that undertook to destroy that government. They called it treason, and put it down. And the same principle runs through religious organizations and all other organizations. The member who proves false to the purpose of the organization is put down or put out. In no other way can the rights and freedom of the many be maintained. When therefore the Baptist Church asks Professor Foster kindly to take himself out of the body, it is putting one of the inherent necessities of freedom in the mildest form. It is not persecuting him or wronging him; it is simply asking him not to wrong a great and noble body of believers, by making them give aid and comfort to a cause which they abhor. True religious liberty consists in the privilege of believing and worshiping, or refusing to believe and worship, so long as one does not interfere with the equal rights of others, but does not involve the privilege of making others responsible for one's own beliefs. To do this is to rob others of their rights. A CORRESPONDENT of the Christian Herald asks for an explanation of Rom. 14:5, 6. In his reply, the editor shows a much clearer conception of the subject under consideration than is usually revealed by those who are seeking to prove the change or abolition of the Sabbath at the first advent. Here is his view of this scripture:— The passage has no special reference to the Sabbath, but to “fast” or holy days. Paul says that in such matters we must be guided by conscientious conviction. He wished to make it clear that acceptance with God and living the true Christian life (and not formal observance) was the only proper test of Christian fellowship. Only those who are searching the Scriptures in order to discover excuses for a practise contrary to the plain teaching of the Word of God would find in this passage any basis for the conclusion that the apostle Paul taught that the observance of the Sabbath was a matter of no importance. Such a conclusion contradicts the whole trend of the teaching of the great apostle. PREACHERS, physicians, and laymen continue to discuss the Emmanuel Movement. In a general way, it may be said that the physicians oppose the movement, preachers favor it, and laymen are in doubt, although there are exceptions in each class. In the Cleveland Medical Journal for July is an article on this subject by Dr. Wharton Sinkler, of Philadelphia, who summarizes his view in these words:— The key-note of the treatment of psychotherapy by the followers of the Emmanuel Movement is hypnotism and suggestion, or suggestion without hypnotism. For many years hypnotism, as a method of treatment, has been before the profession. It has been tried by many, but has been discarded for two reasons: First, because it was uncertain and unreliable, and its effects were not lasting; and, second, because it was a dangerous procedure. . . . The subjects of frequent hypnotism have become much unbalanced mentally, and the victims of self-hypnotism.
In closing his article, Dr. Sinkler quotes the following statement from a fellow physician:— Whatever Dr. Worcester [the founder of the Emmanuel Movement] may be in his own church clinic, the principles of psychotherapy to which he and his associates adhere, are based upon neither sound medicine, sound psychology, nor, to our lay-mind, upon sound religion.
From our own investigation of the principles upon which this movement rests, we are prepared to accept this view of it as being justified by the facts. HON. DAVID J. BREWER, Justice of the United States Supreme Court, in an address before the New Jersey Bar Association as reported in the Commoner of July 16, gives this needed caution:— With brass buttons and epaulets becoming more plenty, with constant talk of fighting and inventions of new weapons, this country must watch to prevent its people drifting into dreams of empire that can only lead to disaster. Many wars are simply caused by political ambitions of men and the love of military action, and we must be careful not to use our great and growing prosperity as an excuse for building new navies and increasing standing armies beyond the point where they are still a mere guard. I do not ask, O Lord, that life may be
A pleasant road;
I do not ask that thou wouldst take from
me
Aught of its load; I do not ask that flowers should always
spring
Beneath my feet; I know too well the poison and the sting
Of things too sweet; For one thing only, Lord, dear Lord, I
plead:
Lead me aright, Though strength should falter and will
though heart should bleed,
To thee, my Light. A Revival Needed
By Ellen G. White
The Lord calls for a revival among his people, an acknowledgment of the peculiar obligations he places upon them. He calls upon every soul who has the fear of God before him to walk and to work with an eye single to the glory of God. There is a great work to be done, and none can properly represent that work unless they humble their hearts before God day by day, and walk in all the light he sends. A great work will be accomplished by God's people if they will work in unity and unselfishness and with humility of heart. All self-exaltation must be seen and put away. Truth and righteousness alone will stand the test for this time. We need to have the Spirit of God daily with us, that we may be kept from all evil thoughts and unwise actions. We should fear lest our eyes become blinded to our individual spiritual needs in these perilous times. Many professed Christians have been allowing themselves to become absorbed in the upbuilding of selfish interests. We are now to awake from our spiritual sleep. Brethren and sisters, let us begin at once the work of consecrating ourselves to God. Let every church-member offer himself a humble offering to the Lord. Parents, bring your children to the Lord. Be determined to seek the Lord with all the heart, and make a full surrender of yourselves to him. Pray, and believe the promises of God. Seek for the grace of Christ, that you may be taught his way and his will. As fathers and mothers, a sacred work is yours to remove every stumbling-block from the path of your children. Then the Lord can work. My brethren and sisters, labor for your own souls, and for the souls of others, that you may be accounted laborers together with God. When church-members are fully decided to be Christians, which means to be Christlike, to be humble, pure, honest, the Lord will manifest himself by his Holy Spirit. Now is the time to do the work that needs to be done. It is self-esteem that leads men and women away from God and away from those who need their help and tender sympathy. While he was clothed with human nature, Christ had such a firm conviction that he was doing the will of his Father that he could say, "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. . . . And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If ye will ask anything in my name, I will do it." Blessed be God for this assurance. The name of Jesus is all powerful to save. It is this magic name that dispels our darkness, and gives us light in the Lord. It cheers our hearts in the darkest seasons of our pilgrimage, and gives us peace with God. We have a work before us in preparing for the constantly changing scenes of the world's population. There needs to be a living testimony borne from converted hearts. God is our sufficiency. The church needs to awake to an understanding of the subtle powers of satanic agencies that must be met. If they will keep on the whole armor, they will be able to conquer all the foes they meet, some of which are not yet developed. Confederacies will increase in number and power as we draw nearer to the end of time. These confederacies will create opposing influences to the truth, forming new parties of professed believers who will act out their own delusive theories. The apostasy will increase. "Some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils." Men and women have confederated to oppose the Lord God of heaven, and the church is only half awake to the situation. There needs to be much more of prayer, much more of earnest effort, among professed believers. Satanic agencies in human form will take part in this last great conflict to oppose the building up of the kingdom of God. And heavenly angels in human guise will be on the field of action. The two opposing parties will continue to exist till the closing up of the last great chapter in this world's history. Satanic agencies are in every city. We can not afford to be off our guard for one moment. The true, stanch believers will pray more and more, and will talk less of matters of little consequence. More and more decided testimonies will come from their lips to encourage the weak and the needy. This is no time for the people of God to be weaklings, neither one thing nor the other. Let all be diligent students of the Word. We must be strong in the Lord and in the power of his might. We can not live haphazard lives and be true Christians. With emphasis these words were spoken: "Be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might. Put on the whole armor of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Wherefore take unto you the whole armor of God, that ye may be able to stand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness; and your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace; above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God: praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints." The Lord would have us awake to our true spiritual condition. He desires that every soul shall humble heart and mind before him. The words of inspiration found in the nineteenth and twentieth psalms are presented to me for our people. It is our privilege to accept these precious promises, and to believe the warnings. I pray that our hearts may be fully awake to the perils that surround those who are indifferent to the soul's eternal welfare. We need to search the Scriptures as never before. The Word of God is to be our educator, our guide. Let humility of soul be cherished, and entire surrender to God be made. Let our churches put away selfishness and pride, and cease to lift up the soul unto vanity. The end is near, and we are to give the message of warning and mercy to the world. And not only are our lips to proclaim this message, but by lives of simplicity and meekness and right-doing we are to reveal that we believe the truths of the Word of God. PERCY T. MAGAN
By PERCY T. MAGAN
The Turkish Revolution—No. 5
For more than half a century the Seventh-day Adventist people have maintained that the Scriptures plainly teach that in the last days the Ottoman empire in Europe will come to an end, and that following this there will be world-wide war—“a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation, even to that same time.” And we have further declared that according to the Word of God this universal war would terminate in the battle of Armageddon, the end of the world, and the coming of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Amid all the ebb and flow of international events affecting10 the disorganization or the integrity of the Turkish empire, this people have unwaveringly and unfalteringly warned all men that the empire of Turkey would, in the language of Holy Writ, “be dried up,”—that is, would come to an end,—and that this is one of the great signs of the coming of the Son of man. And now that the Turkish question has become the question of the hour, now while it is the subject under discussion in all the cabinets and chancelleries of Europe, and the theme of diplomatic and political treatises in the great dailies and the magazines, should not every Seventh-day Adventist be awake to the situation, and as never before make manifest the deep and hidden meaning of all these things? The question before us now is, What is the relation of the Young Turk movement—the Turkish revolution of July 23, 1908, and the present revolution in Turkey—to the general question of the coming to an end of the Turkish empire? This brings us to a study of some fundamental, international facts. The near Eastern question is a triangular one. At the top of this triangle is the Russian government at St. Petersburg. At one angle of the base is Constantinople and the Sublime Porte, and at the other the British Foreign Office in Downing Street, London. Between these three powers, for the past two centuries in particular, a three-cornered struggle has been going on. Turkey has been fighting to maintain her position in Constantinople. Russia has been fighting to put Turkey out of Constantinople, and gain that long-coveted position for herself. England, while caring little for the Turk, per se, has fought to hold him in Constantinople for the purpose of keeping Russia out. Ten times—in other words an average of once in every twenty years—during the past two centuries, has Russia been in deadly combat with Turkey. In the majority of these wars she has been the aggressor, “and seven of them she has fought single-handed.” See Monroe, “Turkey and the Turks,” page 302. The questions at once arise: Why is Russia so often at war with Turkey? Why does the Muscovite government so earnestly desire to possess Constantinople? Is Russia the national and eternal enemy of Turkey? The fundamental principles which dictate Russian policy will answer these questions. A glance at the map of Europe will shed some light on this subject. In all Europe there are approximately 3,861,156 square miles. Of this number 2,123,626 square miles belong to Russia. Only 1,739,067 belong to all the other nations of the European continent put together. These figures will give some idea of the tremendous size of Russia, as compared with any other European power. But now look at another set of figures: The entire coast line of Europe approximates 21,177 miles. Of this, Russia owns only 5,550 miles, while the other powers own 15,627 miles. Thus although Russia is greatly superior to all the others combined in point of territory, she is greatly inferior to them in point of coast line. To be sure, the seas which lave the Russian shores are many. On the north is the Arctic Ocean, which by the vast reaches of the White Sea penetrates deep into the country. Half of Russia’s coast line is on these two bodies of water. But they are navigable during only a few months of the year,—from June to September. At the best they are practically useless for naval purposes in time of war. Next comes the Baltic Sea, with the gulfs of Bothnia, Finland, and Livonia. But the Baltic, also, in its two most northern gulfs is frequently frozen. Armies have crossed upon its ice with all their heavy ordnance and stores, and navigation is stopped from November to April. Russia has a war fleet in the Baltic. The freezing of the waters of this sea, however, make dependence upon this naval arm a doubtful quantity. Besides this, the Baltic is full of treacherous shallows; the passage through the narrow channels which separate the Danish islands is at all times difficult and dangerous for ships of large draft, and if the Danish islands should be seized in time of war by a third power,—a comparatively easy undertaking,—Russia would find her northern squadrons bottled up and useless. The Caspian Sea also washes Russian shores. But it can not be seriously considered at all from an international standpoint. Besides, it is also often frozen, especially in its northern half, which includes Astrakhan, its most flourishing port. There is also the Sea of Azof; but this in places is little better than a marsh. Lastly comes the Black Sea. Russia first planted herself on its shores in 1696, when Peter the Great captured Azof. But to that most famous empress of Russia, Catherine II, must be credited the scheme to make the Black Sea a Russian lake. “She resolved that the possessions of the sultans should become the heritage of the czars; and, as an expression of her faith in Russian destiny, she christened a grandchild Constantine, and had a gate at Moscow, that opened toward Turkey, named ‘The Way to Constantinople.’”—Id., page 303. Had not death interfered and removed this ambitious woman, she would undoubtedly have accomplished her aim. Her son Paul was almost as much of a woman as his mother was of a man, and did not find it to his taste to press the battle against the Osmanlis. But the scheme of the audacious Catherine is just as much a part of the Russ program to-day as it was in the time of its conception. Russia is now firmly established on the shores of the Black Sea. Here she has fine warm-water ports. Why, then, is she not content? Why should she be so determined to drive the Ottoman power from off the Bosporus and out of Constantinople? At this juncture the conformation of the map of Europe must be borne in mind. The Black Sea, with the exception of one little outlet at its south-western extremity, is a vast land-locked lake. That one small channel is the Bosporus, or the Strait of Constantinople, as it is more properly termed. Russia and Turkey between them surround the entire Black Sea with their territory. Consequently, if the straits of the Bosporus be closed, Russia is literally locked into the Black Sea. A narrow channel is this Bosporus—approximately seventeen miles in length, and in places scarce half a mile in width. Its waters are deep, however, so that ships of war can steam close in-shore on either side. In its course it passes between the city of Constantinople and its Asiatic suburb of Scutari. The Bosporus in turn opens into the tiny Sea of Marmora, out of which the way westward is through the Dardanelles. The Dardanelles is the only passage into the archipelago, and thence into the Mediterranean. Like the Bosporus, the Dardanelles is very narrow and very deep. A glance at the map will reveal the fact that the status of these straits is of the greatest moment to both Russia and Turkey. If these straits be closed against naval vessels, the Ottoman capital is secure from assault by sea. This gives the Turk a tremendous advantage in the defense of his European stronghold. On the other hand, if these straits be closed to ships of war, the Russian fleet in the Black Sea is debarred from the waters of the Mediterranean and from all the oceans of earth. Now this very “closed” condition is the status of the Dardanelles and the Bosporus. Almost from the horizon of Turkish history have the Dardanelles and the Bosporus, being such narrow channels, flanked on either bank by Turkish territory, been regarded in a different light from “high seas.” For centuries the sultans have claimed the right to exclude foreign men-of-war from both the straits. This status is a part of the international law of Europe, and the subject of a host of treaties. The Treaty of 1809, between Great Britain and Turkey, confirmed by engagement “the ancient rule of the Ottoman empire” forbidding vessels of war at all times to enter the Canal of Constantinople. The Treaty of Unkiar-Skellessi, between Russia and Turkey, contained a secret clause, binding the Porte to close the Dardanelles against all war-vessels. Later, when the great powers combined to regulate Turkish affairs, the famous Treaty of London, made July 13, 1841, provided that even in times of peace no foreign ship of war should be admitted into the straits of the Bosporus and the Dardanelles. The Treaty of Paris, in 1856, which settled up matters at the close of the Crimean War, still further affirmed this doctrine. And the same was still further provided for in the Treaty of Berlin, in 1878. By all of these treaties the Black Sea fleet of Russia has literally been made a Black Sea fleet. It is prohibited from operating elsewhere than in the Euxine. It can not reach the Mediterranean Sea,11 or contend with the fleets of other powers in the Atlantic or the Pacific. Viewed from this standpoint, the position of Russia is intolerable. As long as it shall continue, her supremacy in eastern Europe will count for little. Consequently, considered from this angle of vision alone, it is the most natural thing in the world that Russian ambition should tend toward the ultimate possession of Constantinople. In all her attempts to gain control or possession of Constantinople, England has been Russia’s consistent and constant enemy. England, Russia, and Turkey resemble one another in one respect—they are all Asiatic as well as European powers. But Turkey could never prove a menace to British interests in the Orient. She is too decrepit and decadent. On the other hand, there has seemed to be something akin to a natural antagonism between England and Russia in the East. From the days when the Northern Bear first lifted his shaggy strength onto the horizon of Europe, England has feared for her Indian empire. And the Indian empire is one of the fairest jewels in the British crown. Then there were ever stories of Russian intrigue in Afghanistan, and in the region of the Persian Gulf. These apprehensions and alarms may not have been just or reasonable, but they certainly counted for a great deal in determining the attitude of England toward Turkey and Russia. It was in great measure out of these alarms that there grew up among certain statesmen and classes in England the conviction that the maintenance of the integrity of the Turkish empire was part of the natural duty of England. Sharply defined, the condition of things was this: “Russia, by reason of her sympathy of religion or race with Turkey’s Christian populations, was brought into chronic antagonism with Turkey; England, by reason of her Asiatic possessions, was kept in just the same state of antagonism to Russia.”—Justin McCarthy, “History of Our Own Times,” Vol. I, chap. 25. Consequently England sought to shut up Russia in the Black Sea, knowing full well that, divested of the power of the sea, Russia could never prove herself an antagonist of the first magnitude to British designs and interests in the Orient. This policy upon the part of England began in the days of William Pitt, who in 1791 called upon the Commons to furnish the sinews of war for the purpose of rescuing Turkey from the clutches of the Empress Catherine. See Stanhope, “Life of Pitt,” Vol. II, chap. 25. And from that hour down to the summer of 1907 that policy was a part of the platform of every British ministry without respect to party. The Last Hour
By ALBERT WERKS
“LITTLE children, it is the last hour: and as ye heard that Antichrist cometh, even now have there arisen many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last hour.” 1 John 2:18, A. R. V. When we speak of Antichrist, we think of the great power that began to develop in Paul’s day and extended through the Dark Ages. But this development of which John speaks is of many antichrists that appear in the ranks of the Lord’s children. It is said of them, “They went out from us.” 1 John 2:19. But why did they go out?—“They were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they all are not of us.” What constitutes Antichrist?—Being against or opposed to Christ. Not by profession, for the great antichristian hierarchy profess very loudly the religion of Christ, but by works they oppose Christ. In Titus 1:16 we read, “They profess that they know God; but by their works they deny him.” “This is the Antichrist, even he that denieth the Father and the Son.” How?—By what they do, not by what they profess. That the danger of being deceived in regard to our own condition before God is very great is made certain by the instruction of the Saviour in Matt. 7:21-23: “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy by thy name, and by thy name cast out demons, and by thy name do many mighty works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” Thus it is clear that the manifestation of miraculous power by a person is not an evidence that he is accepted of God. Doing the will of the Father is the only evidence that is certain. “By their fruits ye shall know them,” says our Saviour. Verse 16. Then how careful we ought to be in all we do and say, that we be not found against Christ. Lightly regarding the special instruction that he sends us is to be on the wrong side; for “he that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth.” Matt. 12:30. Paul says: “Mark them that are causing the divisions and occasions of stumbling, contrary to the doctrine which ye learned: and turn away from them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Christ, but their own belly; and by their smooth and fair speech they beguile the hearts of the innocent.” Rom. 16:17, 18. In the same strain John continues: “As for you, let that abide in you which ye heard from the beginning. If that which ye heard from the beginning abide in you, ye also shall abide in the Son and in the Father. And this is the promise which he promised us, even the life eternal. These things have I written unto you concerning them that would lead you astray.” 1 John 2:24-26. With what carefulness, then, should we walk in the light that God in his love sends us, that we be not led astray from the path of life. Again, Paul entreats: “I therefore, the prisoner in the Lord, beseech you to walk worthily of the calling wherewith ye were called, with all lowliness and meekness, with long-suffering, forbearing one another in love; giving diligence to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” Eph. 4:1-3.