In the Chicago Times-Herald of February 12 there was an editorial entitled, “School Reforms Must Begin at the Bottom,” in which it was said that the speeches made at the banquet of the Merchants’ Club, held a short time before, were, in fact, “an indictment of the entire public school system in this city. It is true that the addresses were intended as strictures upon the scope and quality of the high school work. It was pointed out that our high school graduates seemed to be utterly lacking in the training necessary to fit them for any kind of a business career. Mr. Shedd deplored the manifest ‘professional’ tendency of the high school instruction, which seemed to imbue the student with the idea that only the ‘professions’ were worth striving for, while Mr. Farwell frankly stated that the best employees secured by his firm were ‘graduates of country high schools. They get outside training in ability to construct and to accomplish, which the city high school boys do not have.’
“But to discover the sources of the acknowledged deficiencies of our high school graduates one must go further back than the high schools. . . . If a young man is not fitted for the ordinary requirements of business when he gets through the highest grammar grade, the common school system is a failure. The higher school, with its courses in Latin and rhetoric and chemistry and geometry, can not be expected to supply the essential elements of a business training unless it is to be converted into a ‘commercial school.’ The truth of the matter is, There is no thoroughness in most of the work done in the lower grades of the Chicago public school system. Incompetency, shiftlessness, indifference, and incapacity are discernible on every hand. . . . The unfitness of hundreds of the teachers is a matter of such common knowledge and comment as to constitute a scandal and a reproach to the city. . . . No use beginning at the top while the foundations are crumbling.”
A correspondent wrote to the editor (issue of February 15), describing his experience in a school, thus: “I took about a dozen of the older boys and gave them pens and paper, and dictated a letter which I had written. I then pinned my letter upon the wall, and had the boys each go to the copy and mark the errors upon his written sheet. It was a short letter. This test revealed the fact of the total failure of these letter writers to follow me. The essentials named were atrociously inaccurate. Some of the letters were out of form, and contained as high as sixteen errors! How do you account for it?”
And to this the editor of the Times-Herald replies, in the following forceful and sensible sentences: “How account for it? Our correspondent has only to visit any one of the grade schools in Chicago to find the solution of his conundrum.
“Or if he can get hold of a programme of the meeting of the National Educational Association to be held here February 26, 27, and 28 next, he will perceive the wherefore of the phenomenon of inaccuracy of our present school system in the essentials of education. This is to be a gathering of school superintendents from all over the country, and the list of subjects for discussion proves that instead of a prayerful consideration of the ways and means of saving the children of the republic from ignorance of reading, writing, spelling, and ciphering, its members will devote themselves principally to psychology, physiology, and manual training. Not until the afternoon of Thursday, February 28, when the meeting is in the throes of dissolution, do the members get down to a discussion of ‘A Standard Course of Study for Elementary Schools in Cities,’ and ‘Some Aspects’ of Public School Training.”
“Instead of setting an example of accuracy in its ‘Programme,’ the National Educational Association starts out by spelling that word after the bob-tailed fashion of the Amalgamated Society of Faddists. A few years ago there was quite a rage for such a spelling. But the common sense of the English-speaking race asserted itself in favor of etymological accuracy. According to Skeats, a great authority with the philologists, the word found its way into English from the French, although the Latin form ‘programma’ appeared in Philips’s New World of Words as early as 1706. It came originally from Greek ‘programma,’ a public notice in writing.
“The programme also spells through ‘thru,’ although this word is merely a variation of thorough, which the spelling reformers with delightful inconsistency spell ‘thoro,’ as if the two words were not of common origin. Etymological consistency is a jewel they spit upon.
“Of course this gathering of experts will discuss the following proposition:—
“Would these young people (prospective teachers) catch the spirit of teaching and gain valuable APPERCEPTIVE material for their broader training-school course?”
“No discussion of modern pedagogy is genuine without the word ‘apperceptive’ blown into it with all the self-consciousness of psychological superiority.
“In the meantime the children of the republic are being robbed of the alphabet, multiplication table, and the commonest rules of syntax. The course of study in the elementary schools is so top-lofty that it is bound to come down with a crash.”
Any one who himself understands the fundamentals of schooling can verify for himself the truth thus stated by the Times-Herald, by merely asking the pupils, or the teachers, in any school, and especially in the high schools and colleges, to spell some common words; to read a page of matter; or to write a common letter, an item, or a short article.
That reform in education will be the most successful, and the most quickly successful, that recognizes this truth so emphasized by the Times-Herald; and137that, in recognition of this truth, begins at the foundations, and builds only by a thorough teaching in the fundamentals.
THE DIVINE IMAGE
By L. A. Reed
WE have seen that literature has to do with thought and thinking and the expression of thought; and that Biblical literature has to do with God's thought and His thinking, and His expression of thought.
But the mind of man was originally made in the image of God. And though this image, in many instances, has been almost lost, yet in the minds of men are still the outlines of that image.
Hence literature in general must bear some resemblance in its make-up to Biblical literature, in so far as the author's mind still retains the image of his Creator.
But what are the common elements traceable throughout these two branches of literature? What principles and methods of the human mind are images of the divine mind? Let us attempt an answer to this question.
In all art, in all literature, in fact, in all expression of mind, we find three elements:—
1. A Theme—the thought above all other thoughts expressed, often called the subject.
2. A Plan—an arrangement of the theme, or leading thought. In fiction this is called the plot. One author calls it the massing of the thought, each part in the whole taking its own important place. Another author calls it the proportioning of the thought.
3. The Finish of the Details—the execution, or technique. To some this is the all of art and literature; as if the rubbing and polishing of the thought, as if the dressing out and adorning of the thought, were the all and in all. We are told that the life is “more than meat, and the body than raiment.” Consequently we believe that the thought itself must be more than its dress, and the truth, or theme, more than the language in which it is clothed.
Then in all Biblical literature, if we look deep enough, we shall find these three: (1) a theme; (2) an arrangement of the theme; and (3) details—a proper use of the words, figures, historical allusions, that are at once the means of communication between the divine mind and the human mind; and that will, by the proper agencies, lead the human mind up to a comprehension of the divine thought. L. A. REED.
Catholic Influence in the Philippines
In order to get rid of the friar incubus in the Philippines the President’s commission has recommended that the government of the Philippine Islands borrow money on the Philippine customs, and pay the friars the enormous demand for their holdings. And to the question as to “why the President delayed so long to publish the report of the Philippine Commission,” the Independent makes the following suggestive answer:—
Is it not conceivable that during that time he had quite another object than that of persuading Congress to pass the military bill, and that the Catholic authorities in this country were quietly consulted as to whether the proposal of the Taft Commission would be satisfactory, and that it was found to be acceptable?
And does anybody notice now that this last week or two the leading Catholic papers are quite changing their tone, and are speaking favorably of the report of the Taft Commission and the proposition for the purchase of the friars’ property and their withdrawal from the islands?
People should keep their eyes and ears open.
From the very beginning of this new “world-career” of the United States, the Catholic authorities have been quietly consulted by the President of the United States. And now it has become a regular thing. And if the United States ever gets out of the papal meshes thus already woven, it will do more than the papacy intends, and more than those expect who really keep their eyes and ears open. Leo’s statement of 1892, that what the papacy has done for other nations she will do for the United States, is fast coming true.
THE SUBSTANTIAL REQUIREMENT OF THE FOURTH COMMANDMENT
By Uriah Smith
A READER of the Christian Observer, a Presbyterian paper, published in Louisville, Ky., seems to be in trouble over the question of the day to be observed as the Sabbath, inasmuch as the day set apart generally by Christendom as the weekly rest day does not correspond with the day enjoined by the only law which the Bible has given respecting the weekly day of rest.
The Bible says, “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God;” but Christendom says, The first day is the day to be observed as the Sabbath. Hence the reader above referred to requests the editor of the Observer to “give an outline of the authority by which the weekly Sabbath has been changed by any power in heaven or earth. This will settle the question of the day of the week.” And with this request, in an article under the heading, “The Substantial Requirement of the Fourth Commandment,” the editor says that he “gladly complies.”
Both the request and the answer betray the deplorable misapprehension which almost universally prevails on this question; for in the first place, the Sabbath has never been changed from the seventh day to the first day of the week, and can not be so changed by any power in heaven or earth. This will seem like challenging the power of God. But consider: The Sabbath, as to its outward formula, rests upon two great facts: (1) That God, on the first seventh day of time rested from all His works which He had performed in the creation; and (2) that He blessed the seventh day, because that in it He had rested from all His work. Gen. 2:3. “Wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.” Ex. 20:11.
Now for the Sabbath to be changed to some other day from that on which the blessing was first placed, the facts named must be transferred and made true of some other day than that on which they occurred. But this can not be done. God can not do it; for God can not lie. Titus 1:2. And man can not do it; for the obvious reason that man can not invade the realms nor the prerogatives of God.
Man may pretend to do it; but that does not accomplish anything. It only shows where we must look for the authority for any such change which may be claimed. We can look no higher than to the power which claims to make the change; that is, to man. The editor of the Observer says that he gladly complies with the request to “give an outline of the authority,” etc. We can assist him in this matter. It is only necessary to refer him to that power which the prophet declared would arise and make war against the Most High, and seek in every way to defame His name, and destroy His work. This is what the prophet foretold the predicted power would do: “And he shall speak great words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High: and he shall think to change the times, and the law [R. V.]; and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and half a time.” Dan. 7:25.
The law here mentioned belongs to the same category with the other things spoken of, namely, things belonging to the Most High; that is, this is the law of the Most High, the law which contains the Sabbath commandment. And this scripture contains the only intimation anywhere given that any such thing as a change of that law would ever be attempted. As for Christ, He said that heaven and earth would sooner pass away than even a jot or a tittle of the law fail. Matt. 5:18; Luke 16:17.
And what is this power which should think to change the law?—It is the little horn, which was to arise, and did arise, among the ten kingdoms out of the old Roman Empire; the power which Paul, holding to the same line of character, calls “that wicked,” “the man of sin,” “the son of perdition.” 2 Thess. 2:3, 8. All true Protestants know who this is.
The Observer continues: We “enter on the question whether the substantial principle of the law on Sinai, which requires the observance of the days of God’s appointment, calls at the present for the observance of the first day of the week.” It sounds very strange to hear any one try to dissect the law of God, and single out its “substantial principle,” as if some part might not be “substantial.” It is not conceivable that the law of God can thus be discriminated upon. It is all essential. It says what it means, and its language is to be taken just as it reads.
The Observer continues: “The first proposition in this matter is that the intent of the fourth commandment centers not on the specific day to be observed, but upon the great, broad principle that we are to observe the day which God may appoint.” Who can straighten out such a tangle as this? The commandment centers on no specific day; but we must observe the day God may appoint. Very well, has He not appointed the definite seventh day? Could He make the commandment more specific as to time?
Now comes an effort to slip in adroitly other days, as if on the same basis. The Observer says: “Under the Jewish economy this included the great day of atonement, the annual festivals, etc., as well as the Sabbath day. At present these are no longer of God’s appointment.”
Answer.—The Sabbath had nothing to do with the day of atonement and the annual feasts. It originated earlier in point of time. It was of an entirely different nature; it sprang from a different source, and was observed for a different reason. Moral and ceremonial or typical laws must not thus be confounded. Moral laws, of which the Sabbath is one, all grew out of the nature of the situation before the fall. The ceremonial and typical arrangements, of which were the great day of atonement and the yearly festivals, all grew out of the fall, and never would have had an existence had not sin entered, making a Redeemer necessary. This distinction, borne clearly in mind, sweeps away whole volumes of false reasoning, and a wilderness of confusion arising from the effort to blend moral and ceremonial into one. The moral laws are perpetual and eternal; the typical and ceremonial were dispensational, and temporary. They could be changed or abolished without affecting in the least particular the Sabbath or any moral law. Neither does the fact that the Third, Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth commandments are shown, by the words of Christ, in their spiritual nature, detract anything from the definiteness of the requirements, but only magnifies them, as Christ was to do (Isa. 42:21); neither does it release the Fourth Commandment from the definite seventh day, which God has appointed.
Reasoning on this point, the Observer says: “This throws light upon the Fourth Commandment. The specific matter named is the ‘seventh’ day. Yet the Jews of Moses’ day, under the sanction of this commandment, observed the ‘new moons,’ and the annual feasts of Passover, Pentecost, etc. They understood the principle of the Fourth Commandment to require the observance of these feasts.”
No, they did not. No appeal was ever made to the Fourth Commandment to sustain the new moons or festivals. They rested on injunctions peculiar to themselves, just as the Sabbath rested on its own law. Then the editor of the Observer comes to the question, thus:—
“The question, therefore, which now concerns us is whether God has so appointed the first day of the week. If so, the requirements of the Fourth Commandment apply to it.”
“Yes; if it is so stated. But not at all if no such statement is made. Now we look for the statement. He introduces his proof for “The Sabbath in the New Dispensation,” with these words: “We have just seen that the Fourth Commandment requires10the observance of the day which God appoints.”
He might have added, And we have just seen that God appointed the seventh day, in language which was not qualified nor limited, nor to be subject to any change so long as heaven and earth should endure. This would have settled the question, and left him nothing more to do. But he has undertaken to make out a case, and so drives confidently and blindly along.
This is the turn he here takes: “The Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath. . . . Of course He may change the day.” But did He change it? Where is the statement? We must have evidence, not far-fetched and groundless inferences.
“But He appeared to His disciples on the first day of the week.” Suppose He did; did He say that henceforth that day should be the Sabbath? As He rose from the dead on the first day, when should He have appeared to His disciples, if not on that day?
“The day of Pentecost on that year fell,” we are told, “on the first day of the week. Christ selected that day for the marvelous outpouring of the Holy Spirit, and the initiation of the Christian dispensation.” Not at all. Christ had nothing specially to do with selecting the day of the week on which the Holy Spirit should at that time be poured out. The law of types fixed that; and had Pentecost fallen on any other day of the week, that year, the Holy Spirit would have been poured out on that day just the same. The Pentecost was fixed to the fiftieth day after the offering of the wave sheaf, and would, of course, occur on the same day of the week as that offering. Lev. 23:15, 16. The resurrection of Christ, on the first day of the week, was the antitype of the wave sheaf; and this occurred not because it was the first day of the week, but because it was the sixteenth day of the first month. The Pentecost was fifty days later, on a corresponding day of the week. The day was located by law, not fixed by special choice; and in the record no mention is made of the day of the week on which the antitype of Pentecost was fulfilled.
We are next told: “His [Christ’s] entrance into His rest was on the first day of the week.” How? Answer.—The scripture says that He was out among His disciples, traveling to Emmaus with two of them, etc. But it does not say a word about His reproving them for traveling on Sunday, nor about that day being the Sabbath.
Again: “This threefold example of Christ intimates that the day was changed by Him from the seventh to the first day.” Answer.—Will any man dare to go to the judgment on what he acknowledges is a mere intimation of a change? Show the record that a change was made by some authority higher than man’s. When? where? and by whom?
He now turns for comfort to the apostles: “We find Paul recognized the continuance and obligation of Sabbath observance. By his instruction, ‘Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together’ (Heb. 10:25), he indorses that law.” On the first day of the week?—Nothing said about the day. With the voice of God ringing in their ears, “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God,” dare men plead for a change on such pretexts as these?
He adds: “But the same Paul did at the same time warn the Colossian Christians (a) not to accept any change made by human authority [we warn Christians the same to-day]; and (b) not to feel under any obligation to observe the seventh day of the week.” Where does Paul say this? Oh, we are told, in Col. 2:16. Please read the whole passage, Col. 2:14-17. Anything said about the seventh day of the week here?—Not a word; no reference to a weekly Sabbath at all, but to meats, drinks, new moons, holidays, or festival days, and the annual sabbaths. This is another instance of the inexcusable mixing up of the ceremonial and moral laws. The things to which Paul refers were “shadows,” or types; but “the body is of Christ.” Just as much reference here to the first day of the week as to the seventh; and if the seventh is swept away by this, the first goes with it.
But a little apostolic practice must be had to go with the apostolic precepts, to make the evidence complete, and so Acts 20:7 is brought in: “And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow,” etc. According to the record the whole point in the narrative is Paul’s intention to depart on the morrow. This “morrow,” says the editor of the Observer, was on Monday. Thus he claims that the apostle delayed the entire day of Sunday to break bread and keep the Sunday sabbath with the disciples at Troas. By failing to perceive one plain fact, he throws the whole narrative out of focus, and entirely loses the point he wishes to make, as will in a few words appear.
The meeting at Troas was not held in the daytime, but in the evening. Verse 8. The Bible day, as reckoned by the Jews, began with the setting of the sun. At sunset on the seventh day, therefore, the first day of the week began; and an evening meeting on that day, when “many lights” were required, would not be possible except in the first portion of the day, or what would be, according to our calendar, Saturday evening. Let these facts be carefully noted; for they determine the value of the whole narrative. So, then, the disciples, having come together Saturday evening, Paul began his preaching, spoke a long while, went down and healed Eutychus, returned to the “upper chamber,” and talked on till the “break of day,” and then departed. When?—Sunday morning! Sunday observers would like to avoid this conclusion; but it is not possible. Was this keeping the Sabbath? Ask the apostle, as he was toiling in his foot-journey across the base of the peninsula, while his companions were taking the ship around the promontory to Assos, where he had appointed to meet them, and did meet them, and so continued his journey. There was no waiting over here till Monday morning, in order to keep Sunday; but having rested over the Sabbath, Paul’s companions went before to ship, to take that along (verse 13), while Paul remained behind to hold an all-night meeting, and then took an all-day Sunday tramp across to Assos. That is the kind of apostolic practice we have in regard to Sunday.
Of course 1 Cor. 16:2 must not be omitted; hence that is brought in to show that Christians had meetings on each first day of the week to make their “offerings of money” to God. This is as much against the Observer’s position as Acts 20:7; for what the apostle enjoins here is not a public collection, but a private contribution of anything they had to spare, laid by, by each one, “by himself at home,” which is what the words “par’ heauto” mean. But this would involve the looking over of secular affairs, and casting up of accounts, work not lawful for the Sabbath day, but wholly appropriate for the first day of the week. This proves that the first day is not the Sabbath.
Like most of those who advocate Sunday observance, the editor of the Observer seeks to round out his argument by an appeal to the testimony of the Fathers. The first appeal is to what is called the “Teaching of the Twelve Apostles.” It is claimed that it refers to the Lord’s day. But there is this embarrassing feature about the testimony: the word “day” does not occur in the original. It is something about the Lord; but it may be the “Lord’s life” or the “Lord’s Supper,” which were frequent subjects of remark by the early disciples. It is piling assumption upon assumption to assert that it refers to the Lord’s day when the word “day” does not appear in it at all.
The epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians is cited. We answer, There is no such epistle, and even that which purports to be such contains not a word of what is attributed to it about the Lord’s day. The epistle itself is a forgery, and the forgery is further forged to say something about the Lord’s day, which it does not say.
Melito, bishop of Sardis, is said to have written a book on the Lord’s day. But his manuscript does not contain the word “day” at all. His treatise is something about the Lord, not the “Lord’s day.”
Justin Martyr is appealed to in behalf of the proposition that all Christians understood Sunday to be the Lord’s day, and recognized it as the Sabbath; but Justin does not call Sunday the Lord’s day at all. He mentions Sunday, to be sure, but affirms nothing of it which is essential to a Sabbath, or would indicate that it was regarded as the Sabbath.
On these points, the reader is referred to the “History of the Sabbath,” to be had at any Seventh-day Adventist office, in which all the so-called statements of the Fathers, many more than are here cited, are carefully examined, their false and fraudulent nature exposed, and the authorities cited which prove the statements made.
To recapitulate, what have we?—An impossible proposition set forth as something to be proved; attempts at proof which are just the opposite of truth; no “example from the risen Saviour,” and no instruction from Him in regard to the day, for He said not one recorded word concerning it; no instruction of inspired apostles, nor example to regard the first day as sacred time, but rather to devote it to secular purposes. No element attaches to the first day of the week essential to make it the Sabbath. No divine being ever devoted it to Sabbath rest. No law has ever transferred it to the place of the seventh day. There is no law commanding its observance except a law from the man of sin, and no penalty threatened against any legitimate work upon it. And the apostle plainly says that “where no law is, there is no transgression;” and that “sin is not imputed when there is no law.” Rom. 4:15; 5:13. This is the “substantial requirement” of God’s law in this matter.
Honest reader, search the Scriptures and see if you are not just as much at liberty to engage in any legitimate secular calling on the first day of the week as upon any other working day. But “if thou wouldst enter into life, keep the commandments.” Matt. 19:17. Christ sends word to His people, through the beloved John, in Patmos: “Blessed are they that do His commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.” Rev. 22:14. U. S.
THE PRESENT SITUATION AND NEED IN SCANDINAVIA
By George A. Irwin
Prior to the recent Week of Prayer, a small leaflet, entitled “An Appeal in Behalf of Our Work in Scandinavia,” was sent out to all our Conferences and churches in sufficient quantities to place one in each home. The leaflet contained a statement of the situation of the Christiania Publishing House, and the propositions formulated by a general council held at Battle Creek in October, consisting of the General Conference Committee, the presidents of Conferences, and other leading men, and submitted to the creditors of that house; also an earnest appeal from Sister White for us to rally to the support of the institution in this its time of need.
The object of sending out the leaflet so generally was to acquaint our brethren everywhere with the situation, so that they might have the privilege of assisting their Scandinavian brethren in their need. It has been reported to us that in many places the leaflet failed to reach its destination in time, or was forgotten by those to whom it was sent for distribution, so that the Week of Prayer passed by with simply the ordinary collection, while they held money in reserve to help Scandinavia, supposing from some things they had read in the Review that a special opportunity would be given for donations for this purpose.
The object of this article is to correct any misunderstandings, and to show that there is still opportunity and need for our giving. We trust that every family has not only received the Appeal, but has had time carefully to read it; and if you have done so, you have noticed that the propositions submitted to the creditors involve the payment in full of all legitimate claims within a specified time. Word has been received that the creditors have accepted139the propositions, thus showing faith in the honor and sincerity of the denomination. This means the payment of about eleven thousand dollars every six months for three years. The prompt payment of these obligations will not only redeem the present plant, and place a valuable property, free from debt, in the hands of the denomination, but it will raise the honor and credit of the denomination above reproach throughout the world.
Elder O. A. Johnson, writing from Christiania, under date of Jan. 31, 1901, says, “I have watched with much interest the outcome of the financial difficulties here, and so have our brethren. While corporations, firms, and religious institutions have gone into bankruptcy, and have been reported in the papers here to their own injury and disgrace, yet up to date not a discreditable word has appeared against our institution.” Surely the Lord has been good thus to shield us and preserve our credit while we were passing through severe trial, not knowing exactly what to do. But now that the way is clear before us, we should show our appreciation of His goodness by our liberality in assisting to meet these obligations as they become due, or even before.
The plan adopted by the council for the raising of money to meet this obligation was as follows, as can be seen by reference to page 6 of the leaflet:—
“That each of our Conferences do all in their power to largely increase the annual offerings, and that the amount raised in excess of the amount received from the same source last year, be applied on said debt.”
“That we pledge ourselves to do all that we can to increase the various offerings to the Foreign Mission Board, with the understanding that a portion of the same is to be applied in the liquidation of the aforesaid debt, the amount to be fixed by the Foreign Mission Board, in counsel with the General Conference Committee.”
It will be seen by the foregoing that the Foreign Mission Board has been made the channel through which money to meet this obligation is to pass, and it will also be apparent that their ability to meet it, without in any way curtailing their missionary operations in other parts of the world, will depend upon the increase of contributions that comes into the treasury. In view of this, much anxiety has been felt as to the amount of the annual offering. An official report of the 18th inst. gives the amount received to that date on annual offering, and for the work in Scandinavia, $24,405.50. This is four thousand dollars more than was reported at the end of the month of March last year. Unless the States have been more prompt than formerly in sending in returns, it will be safe to conjecture that the increase over last year has been from five to seven thousand dollars. But even if the larger amount may be realized, or even more, it will come far short of meeting our obligations.
What shall we do then? Curtail our missionary operations, call in some of the workers from foreign fields, and turn a deaf ear to the Macedonian cry from fields not yet entered, and use the money that comes in in meeting our obligation in Scandinavia? To this question I am confident a decided “No,” will reverberate from one end of the land to the other. And not only would we hear “No” from every loyal Adventist, but we would hear the same from the heavenly intelligences who stand ready and anxiously waiting to co-operate with us in meeting the demands upon us from whatever source they may come.
There have been times of crisis in the work of God in all ages, when, viewed from a human standpoint, defeat seemed inevitable; but the Lord’s cause has never been left without faithful men to stand in the breach. At the crucifixion of Christ, when His followers were scattered, with hopes blasted, and, because of their poverty, with little or no influence to turn the tide that was set against them, Joseph of Arimathea, and Nicodemus, men of wealth and influence, came boldly to the front, and used their talents to sustain the cause of Christ, and tide it over a crisis that its enemies had hoped would prove fatal. Such experiences are tests of character; and the Lord has frequently permitted threatened disasters to overtake both individuals and His Church to test their loyalty and develop their real characters. Our present financial distress will prove a test to us as individuals, as churches, and as institutions. The enemy has been at work for years to bring about just such a condition of things as confronts us at this time, in hope of stopping the work entirely, or of so hindering it that souls would be lost who might otherwise be saved.
There is means enough within the ranks of Adventists to-day to wipe out the debts of every one of our institutions, and place sufficient money in the hands of the Lord’s regularly authorized agencies to carry forward His work in strength and power. There are those of our number to-day, who, if they would come forward, as did Joseph and Nicodemus, could relieve the situation in a very short time. When the Lord, by the earnest appeals that are coming to us, is asking, “How much owest thou?” shall we turn a deaf ear to the inquiry, and hoard up, or invest in houses and lands or worldly enterprises, the money He has intrusted to us as stewards? In view of the troublesome times just before us, let us beware of the leprosy of Gehazi, and instead of receiving “money, . . . and garments, and olive yards, and vineyards, and sheep, and oxen, and men servants, and maid servants,” let us invest our money in the bank of heaven.
Some Conferences that failed to grasp the situation in December, are now planning to make another effort, and we sincerely hope and pray that success may crown the effort, and a spirit to give be thereby set in operation that will not cease until those having charge of the work shall say, “It is enough,” and the people be restrained from giving.
It is expected that our coming General Conference will be characterized by a missionary spirit and zeal hitherto unknown, and if these expectations are met, money will be needed to transport and sustain the missionaries in the field. The time has fully come for the message to go with a loud cry to the ends of the earth; so let us, one and all, young and old, rich and poor, rally to the support of the cause to the utmost of our ability. Let us strengthen the hands and hearts of our brethren in Scandinavia by rescuing their printing plant, thus enabling them to set the machinery in operation at an early date, to print the precious truth for distribution throughout that entire field.
Who will be the first to respond to this call by a liberal contribution, and thus set the tide going in this direction? May the Lord inspire all our hearts with courage and devotion at this time.
GEO. A. IRWIN.
The Federation of Churches
The following from the Outlook, February 16, is of interest to all our readers. The Federation of Churches is the movement that now is most to be watched in the development of the Image of the Beast on the side of the Church:—
The movement for the Federation of Churches steadily advances. In 1895 it was organized for work within the limits of this city. By 1900 such proof had been given of its possibilities that a conference held here last February resulted in the appointment of a National Committee to promote the formation of local and State federations. The establishment of its central office at 83 Bible House, and the appointment of the Rev. E. B. Sanford, D. D., as secretary, were followed by the formation of the New York State Federation last autumn. In view of the formation of local federations in various cities, and movements for organization in other States, a conference in the interests of federative action throughout the United States was held at Philadelphia, February 5 and 6. Delegates were present from the Interdenominational Commission of Maine, the Boston Evangelical Alliance, the Connecticut Bible Society, the New York State Federation, the Evangelical Alliance of Pennsylvania, the local federations in this city, Jersey City, New Haven, Hartford, Syracuse, Cleveland, Harrisburg, and Philadelphia. These represented churches belonging to nine denominations, evangelical only, though membership, as we understand, is not restricted to such. The conference received, and replied to, a message of fraternal greeting from the National Council of Free Churches in England and Wales, where the federation movement has had a success that has been influential in its propagation here.
