Earlier text: WOMEN AS TEACHERSWe have in the past examined somewhat hastily the second and seventh chapters of Daniel. In the second chapter, we found that the four universal empires of the world, namely, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Grecia, and Rome, were represented by the four different metals seen in the great image; while in the seventh chapter the same powers were symbolized by four great beasts. We also learned that while the ground covered is the same in both chapters, many additional features are brought out in the seventh chapter. For instance, in the second chapter we learn simply that the fourth kingdom was to be divided, but into how many parts the prophecy does not say; when we come to the seventh chapter, however, it is plainly stated that ten kings should arise. Another interesting feature of the seventh chapter is the little horn which arose among the ten, and before which three of the first horns, were plucked up by the roots. This horn was clearly identified as a symbol of the Papacy. But the little horn of Daniel 7 must not be confounded with the like symbol of the eighth chapter. The prophecy of this chapter, which was given some two years later than that of the seventh, covers the same ground as that covered by the second and seventh, with the exception of Babylon, but it also brings out additional features in regard to the three other kingdoms. This is especially true of Rome, the fourth kingdom, which in this prophecy is represented in both its pagan and Papal forms by the little horn which is said to come forth from one of the horns of the goat. The symbols used in the eighth chapter are a ram (verse 3), a he goat (verse 5), and a little horn (verse 9). The ram we are plainly told (verse 20) represented Medo-Persia the goat (verse 21), Grecia, and, as before intimated, the evidence is conclusive that the little horn symbolized Rome. The first consideration to be urged in support of this view, is the fact that of the three powers represented by the ram, the goat, and the little horn, the last is the greatest. Of the ram, we read (verse 4): “He did according to his will and became great;” of the goat it is said (verse 8) that “he waxed very great;” while the testimony concerning the little horn is that it “waxed exceeding great.” Verse 9. The prophecy says plainly that the first two powers represented in this chapter were Medo-Persia and Grecia, and that the third power was as compared with them exceeding great; and that has been true of but one power, namely, Rome. But let us note a few other characteristics of the little horn which mark it as a symbol of Rome. It is thus described in verses 23 and 24: “And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up. And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power; and he shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practice, and shall destroy the mighty and the holy people.” With this compare Deut. 28:49-57, a prophecy which certainly applies to Rome, as is clearly shown by the following extract from Josephus’s account of the siege of Jerusalem by the Romans:— “Now, of those that perished by famine in the city, the number was prodigious, and the miseries they underwent were unspeakable; for if so much as the shadow of any kind of food did anywhere appear, a war was commenced presently; and the dearest friends fell a fighting one with another about it, snatching from each other the most miserable supports of life. Nor would men believe that those who were dying had no food; for the robbers would search them when they were expiring, lest anyone should have concealed food in their bosoms, and counterfeited dying; nay, these robbers gaped for want, and ran about stumbling and staggering along like mad dogs, and reeling against the doors of the houses like drunken men; they would also, in the great distress they were in, rush into the very same houses two or three time in one and the same day. Moreover, their hunger was so intolerable, that it obliged them to chew everything, while they gathered such things as the most sordid animals would not touch, and endured to eat them; nor did they at length abstain from girdles and shoes; and the very leather which belonged to their shields they pulled off and gnawed; the very wisps of old hay became food to some; and some gathered up fibres, and sold a very small weight of them for four Attic [drachmae]. But why do I describe the shameless impudence that the famine brought on men in their eating inanimate things while I am going to relate a matter of fact, the like to which no history relates, either among the Greeks or Barbarians!—it is so horrible to speak of it, and incredible when heard! I had indeed willingly omitted this calamity of ours, that I might not seem to deliver what is so portentous to posterity, but that I have innumerable witnesses to it in my own age; and besides, my country would have had little reason to thank me for suppressing the miseries that she underwent at this time.”
“There was a certain woman that dwelt beyond Jordan, her name was Mary; her father was Eleazar, of the village Bethzob, which signifies The House of Hyssop. She was eminent for her family and her wealth, and had fled away to Jerusalem with the rest of the multitude, and was with them besieged therein at this time. The other effects of this woman had been already seized upon; such I mean as she had brought with her out of Perea, and removed to the city. What she had treasured up besides, as also what food she had contrived to save, had been also carried off by the rapacious guards, who came every day running into her house for that purpose. This put the poor woman into a very great passion, and by the frequent reproaches and imprecations she cast at these rapacious villains, she had provoked them to anger against her; but none of them, either out of the indignation she had raised against herself, or out of commiseration of her case, would take away her life; and if she found any food, she perceived her labors were for others, and not for herself; and it was now become impossible for her any way to find any more food, while the famine pierced through her very bowels and marrow, when also her passion was fired to a degree beyond the famine itself; nor did she consult with anything but with her passion and the necessity she was in. She then attempted a most unnatural thing; and, snatching up her son, who was a child sucking at her breast, she said, ‘O thou miserable infant! for whom shall I preserve thee in this war, this famine, and this sedition? As to the war with the Romans, if they preserve our lives, we must be slaves! This famine also will destroy us, even before that slavery comes upon us; yet are these seditious rogues more terrible than both the other. Come on; be thou my food, and be thou a fury to these seditious varlets and a by-word to the world, which is all that is now wanting to complete the calamities of us Jews.’
“And soon as she had said this she slew her son; and then roasted him, and ate the one-half of him, and kept the other half by her concealed. Upon this the seditious came in presently, and smelling the horrid scent of this food, they threatened her, that they would cut her throat immediately, if she did not show them what food she had gotten ready. She replied, ‘That she had saved a very fine portion of it for them; and withal uncovered what was left of her son. Hereupon they were seized with a horror and amazement of mind, and stood astonished at the sight; when she said to them, ‘This is mine own son; and what hath been done was mine own doing! Come, eat of this food; for I have eaten of it myself! Do not you pretend to be either more tender than a woman, or more compassionate than a mother; but if you be so scrupulous, and do abominate this my sacrifice, as I have eaten the one-half, let the rest be preserved for me also.’ After which, those men went out trembling, being never so much affrighted at anything as they were at this, and with some difficulty they left the rest of that meat to the mother. Upon which the whole city was full of this horrid action immediately; and while everybody laid this miserable case before their own eyes, they trembled, as if this unheard-of action had been done by themselves. So those that were thus distressed by the famine were very desirous to die; and those already dead were esteemed happy, because they had not lived long enough either to hear or to see such miseries.”—Wars of the Jews, book 6, chap. 5.
Certainly no one can read this graphic description of the horrors of that siege and doubt for a moment that it was a literal fulfillment of the words which more than fifteen hundred years before the Lord had spoken concerning Jerusalem by the mouth of his servant Moses. But the length of the extract from Josephus renders it necessary to postpone the further consideration of this interesting prophecy till next week. WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE UNBELIEF?
By M. C. W.
In “Leaflet No. 7” of the “Sabbath Observance Department” of the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union, the question is asked, “Where are we drifting?” And among the replies is, “into hatred of religion, which means atheism.” That is, the growing disregard and open so-called desecration of Sunday, is responsible for this; and one of the great means of checking infidelity is for Congress to pass a law protecting Sunday! We wonder if the good women of the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union believe this. Most of the atheistic, skeptical, and worldly class in this country know that the first day is not the Sabbath; know that the only Bible Sabbath is the seventh day. Now will it help their unbelief to see these would-be reformers endeavoring to lay hold of civil law to compel an observance that cannot be defended and is not supported by the word of God? Do not these classes know that the term “Sabbath” is inappropriate to the first day of the week? that the calling of Sunday by the term Sabbath, is but a trick to deceive and prejudice the ignorant? and that every text brought from the Bible to prove Sunday sacredness applies only to the seventh day, and is, therefore, only a perversion of God’s word, and a hiding of his counsel? The Woman’s Christian Temperance Union must105 know that many of the people—thousands and millions—know all this to be true. On the other hand, the people will reason that these Sunday Reformers know better; they know that Sunday is not supported by the Scriptures, or else they would not be so clamorous for civil law. Therefore it follows that infidels will remain infidels; skeptics will remain skeptics; worldlings will remain worldlings; for they will look upon all religion as exemplified by these reformers; and that religion, or pretense thereto, they know to be a mockery. But will not the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union and their co-reformers influence some by their appeals to religion? Very few, perhaps. They will influence many by political influence, political intrigue, and soft speeches. Politicians are susceptible creatures, and the unprincipled can defend any side of the Sabbath question which pays and will help them to retain office. And the dear Woman’s Christian Temperance Union will call them such “grand men,” and “noble Christians.” It will not be the first time that woman’s wooing has brought woe. May God save the honest from the deception. But before closing we wish to put one question to the honest hearted women of the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union, and that is this: In view of all the facts pertaining to the Sabbath and the Sunday, biblical and otherwise, and in view of the people’s knowledge of these facts, who is responsible for the infidelity? those who are supporting a sham, or those who are opposing it? How will you look at these things when before the throne of God, where every secret thing will be brought to light? A correspondent, one of whose queries was answered last week, says:— “It has been suggested that 2 Cor. 12:2 teaches the idea that there is such a thing as a man existing out of the body; and that the body is, therefore, only the case or house in which the man proper lives. The teaching of the fourth verse seems to indicate that this man, which may exist out of the body, and who heard unspeakable words, was therefore conscious between death and the resurrection.” Suggestions are a poor foundation. We might suggest that the passage teaches transmigration of souls, or future probation, but it does not. Well, what does it teach? The texts read as follows:— “I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell; God knoweth); such an one caught up to the third heaven.” “How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words which it is not lawful for man to utter.” 1. If the great apostle to the Gentiles did not know (admitting that he referred to the intermediate state of man) whether he was in the body or out, how can we tell? When this is the only case in which such a thing is mentioned, and when the individual connected with it did not know as to his condition, certainly a theory must be hard pushed for evidence which would depend upon a “whether” and “I cannot tell.” What God has not revealed, it is not becoming for us to explain. 2. Paul was not speaking of death or the intermediate state at all. He did know that a dead man “knows not anything,” that their very “thoughts” were “perished.” Eccl. 9:5; Ps. 146:4. The apostle’s subject was “visions and revelations of the Lord.” And in his view of the things of God, he did not know whether he saw them in mind only, as did Daniel and other prophets, or whether he was really caught up bodily to where God dwells. If it was but a mental view, it was just as real as though Paul had beheld it with the natural eye, so much so that he knew not how it was. 3. 1 Cor. 5:3 will give us a very clear idea of what Paul means by “in the body and out of the body”: “For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already.” The words were written at Philippi, 250 miles from Corinth, where Paul was, body and soul; but his thoughts were with those Corinthians. Yet Paul was alive. The only difference is, in the one case he was under the power of the Spirit of God, in the other, he had the control of his faculties. The passage in question has nothing to do with death or the separation of the soul and body. The only question is, Did Paul see the third heaven in a vision of the mind only, or with the natural eye? He did not know, neither do we. M. C. W. THE TREND OF MODERN WORSHIP.
By M. C. W.
In a racy though pungent article in the (Baptist) Examiner of January 31, entitled, “Dilettanteism in Worship,” Professor J. B. Thomas, D. D., sets forth the departures and tendencies of the Protestant churches toward ritualism and Rome, as contrasted with the simplicity of the past. “Streams of tendency,” he says, seems to threaten an aesthetic flood of no mean proportion. Churches once noted for the serene simplicity of their faith and worship are now aping Rome in style of architecture, “memorial windows,” “collects,” “responsive readings,” “first lesson,” “second lesson,” “Lord’s prayer” in concert, etc., etc., closing with the “gloria.” He says of such a spectacle in the Methodist Episcopal Church:— “Yet in the midst of this elaborate ceremonial, wrought out under the glory of stained glass and the enchantments of delicious music, one resting on luxurious cushions and feasting on the elegancies of ‘Queen Anne architecture’ could hardly help being beset by the recollection that this is the church which in its early days was most intolerant of the subtle arts that tend to foster the ‘lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life.’ With what blunt yet friendly fidelity it sought to smite all pretentiousness out of its votaries, as witness these homely counsels to the local preacher, which were given place in one of its early directories: ‘Do not affect the gentleman. You have no more to do with this character than with that of a dancing master. A preacher of the gospel is the servant of all. Be ashamed of nothing but sin; not of cleaning your own shoes or your neighbor’s.’” An “altar service” is spoken of in a Baptist church; “black-winged robes” in Baptist pulpits; “processional” hymns, and operatic music “interpreted” by “artists;” and many similar things introduced at Christmas and Easter. He continues:— “But what the fashionable quartette are to sing nobody knows, and what they have sung nobody knows any better when they are done, except it may be, as indolent congressmen are said to know the bill they have voted upon ‘by its title.’ The most familiar verse subjected to the tortures of the artistic inquisition becomes unrecognizable. Bereft of consonantal head, hands, and feet, broken on the rack, disemboweled, and its entrails strung out into trills and diminuendoes, it is shattered at last by a vocal explosion out of which fragmentary echoes only fall like the spray of spangles from a bursting rocket.” It seems almost a pity that John Wesley envied the devil his ‘good music,’ if it was to be secured only by getting the devil to conduct it after his own method. Here again it seems hazardous to ‘weed the garden of the Lord with Satan’s borrowed dibble.’ He who mistakes the ‘holiness of beauty’ for the ‘beauty of holiness,’ and transfers his worship from the one shrine to the other, may find himself a devil worshiper at last. The Greeks worshiped beauty in sensuous ecstasy; Paul exhorts Christians to ‘sing’ as well as ‘pray’ with the ‘spirit and the understanding.’” In speaking of the old-time preachers, too dull for this artistic day, he well says, “If they lacked sentiment, they did not lack sense.” The “straight line of rectitude” was more to them than the curved “line of beauty.” But the tendency of the age, like that of Rome, is to comfort the individual with the “apples of color, song, and incense.” He pointedly asks, “What signifies Easter apart from Good Friday and Lent?” And truly, with Dowling we may say, that if we receive one thing on the authority of tradition we are bound to receive all. The tendency of all this is Romeward:— “Unhappy will be the day when the minister ceases to command attention through the intelligent interpretation of the word, and must depend for success upon the histrionic grace with which he rolls his languid eyes (and reverberating r’s) toward heaven. No rush in the mire is more certain to launch into rankness of growth and to hold to tenderness of stalk than ritualistic enthusiasm. The sanest men have been lured into the Roman church by it, if Ruskin may be trusted, ‘like larks into a trap by broken glass.’” The only way to reach hearts is through the Spirit and power of God; and no forms of worship, no elaborate or ornate ritual, will ever take its place, or accomplish its results. Ritualism will impress the superstitions; but this union of the sacred and sensuous is liable to result, as says Mr. T.:— “The alien Cutheans in Samaria once concluded that their other infirmities might be healed if only they could perfect the ‘element of worship.’ That they might proceed secundum artem, they sagaciously sent for one of the ancient ‘priests’ to ‘teach them the manner of the god of the land.’ Having been thus made adepts in religious etiquette, they ‘feared the Lord and served their graven images, both their children and their children’s children; as did their fathers, so do they unto this day.’” UNLEAVENED BREAD AT COMMUNION.
By M. C. W.
The following question and answer occurred in a late number of the Herald of Truth, the leading Baptist paper on the Pacific Coast:— “There are some among us,” writes an esteemed pastor in our State, “not of our church as yet, who insist that our use of leavened bread at the communion table is wrong. They will not come unless we have unleavened. What would you do with such people?” “Answer—We should not urge their coming at all. Better to have none such than to introduce discord into the working fellowship of the church. Rev. J. R. Broadus, D. D., says: ‘It was unleavened bread of course our Lord used, as required by law, but our Lord makes no reference to this, and it is not wise to insist on using only unleavened bread at the Lord’s Supper.’ It might be told to these stickers for the mint and anise of things, at the Lord’s table, in their demand for unleavened bread, that one might just as well demand feet-washing at every celebration, in order to be exact followers of Jesus. See John 13: 1-17.” We wish to briefly notice a few points:— 1. The church should have yielded, when no principle whatever would be in any way compromised, to those who could conscientiously partake only of unleavened bread. In so doing they would obey the injunction of the apostle, “that no man put a stumbling block or an occasion to fall in his brother’s way.” “But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.” Rom. 14:13, 15. See also 1 Cor. 8:13. The principle is just as good in this case, as in the one which called out the apostle’s words, even admitting that unleavened bread had no other claim than custom. Apart from all other considerations, it is not bad or wrong in any way, and no one had any scruples of conscience against it. 2. But those who insisted on unleavened bread are, by the above answer, admitted to be right; and they are right. The paschal lamb of which our Lord and his disciples partook, was to be eaten with unleavened bread. Seven days the feast of unleavened bread was to be kept. Ex. 12: 8, 15; Deut. 16: 1-8. The fourth verse reads: “And there shall be no leavened bread seen with thee in all thy coast seven days.” Certainly this makes it clear that our Saviour used unleavened bread “as required by law.” 3. Christ’s example ought to be sufficient for Christians in such a matter as this,—the institution of an ordinance for the church, till he should come. But this appeal to example is met by a sneer at the ordinance of feet-washing, which was designed to ever present before the people of God an example of humility and union. Why not “demand feet-washing”? We have not only Christ’s example, but his positive injunction and specific blessing concerning it. “So after he had washed their feet, and had taken his garments, and was set down again, he said unto them, Know ye what I have done to you? Ye call me Master and Lord; and ye say well; for so I am. If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another’s feet. For106 I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you. . . . If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them.” John 13: 12-17. We know not what could be plainer. 4. We cannot in this connection help referring to two things. What would not Sunday-keepers give if they only had one-third of the evidence for Sunday observance that is given for feet-washing. If they could find but one example of the first day kept as a Sabbath, one command—one “ought”—for its observance, one “happy are ye,” how grateful they would be! But they cannot be found. How happy would they be to find as much proof for Sunday sacredness as for unleavened bread at that memorable institution of the Lord’s supper! But it cannot be found. 5. Again: Our Baptist friends have always been great sticklers for the mode of baptism. They claim to follow that practiced by the primitive church. But why cling to “the mint and anise of “Baptism, any more than that of the Lord’s Supper? Would not the same principles, the same logic, lead Baptists to be Baptists no longer? Or, if they cling to the word of God concerning baptism, ought they not by the same logic to accept of unleavened bread and unfermented juice of the fruit of the vine at the Lord’s Supper? Ought they not also to accept of the ordinance of feet-washing, and to disregard the Sunday holiday? We put these questions to Baptists. Are they followers of Christ in all things? Then let them take up the down-trodden truth of God. It certainly ill befits a Baptist to criticise a thing so evident as the above. 6. Why did our Saviour use unleavened bread and unfermented wine at the institution of the Lord’s Supper? For this reason: Just as a lamb without spot or blemish was required to represent the great and perfect sacrifice, so unleavened bread and unfermented wine only could rightly symbolize and memorialize the pure and perfect offering of Christ. Ferment and leaven are evidences of decay and corruption. Leaven is a symbol of hypocrisy. Luke 12: 1. And right in connection with our Lord himself, the apostle uses these words: “Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us.” 1 Cor. 5: 6, 7. And right in harmony with this principle is the following from Ex. 23: 13: “Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leavened bread.” 7. Very particular was Jehovah concerning the ordinances of his house in the past dispensation; is he less particular to-day? With him is “no variableness, neither shadow of turning.” James 1: 17. “He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses.” Every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense of reward, can we escape if we neglect or despise what he has given? Are we wiser than he? Heb. 2: 1-3; 10: 28, 29. Would it not be true that they who sit in judgment upon the institutions and precepts of God now, would have offered strange fire then, as did Nadab and Abihu (Lev. 10), or have drawn by cart the holy ark, and then put forth unholy hands to steady it? 2 Sam. 6: 3-7. We are glad that God has been so merciful to a backslidden church; glad for the word of life; glad that he is particular as regards his precept, for we then know that he will be concerning his promise; glad that he is enlightening the world with a message, which, if heeded, will bring men back to the simple truth of the Bible. The fermented wine and the leavened bread are fit symbols of the departure from the simplicity of Christ. May God help the honest in heart to accept of the pure truth, and purge out the leaven of all evil and error. The Sabbath-School.
By C. P. B.
Notes on the International Lesson.
THE GREAT TEACHER AND THE TWELVE.
THERE is some difference of opinion regarding the time of this visit of our Lord to Nazareth, but from several considerations it seems probable that it was the same as that recorded in Matt. 13:54 and Luke 4:16, namely, the first after he entered upon his public ministry, and that it took place about six months after his baptism. IT would seem from the narrative, as recorded in our lesson, that Jesus spent some time, probably a day or two, at least, in Nazareth, before the Sabbath. Just how this time was employed we do not know, nor are we told aught of the memories of his childhood which were brought to his mind by the old familiar scenes; but we know that on the Sabbath he repaired to the synagogue for the purpose of teaching the people, and that opportunity was afforded him to do so. IF, as we have supposed, this was at the time of his first visit to Nazareth, our Lord’s discourse upon this occasion was from Isa. 61:1. Reading this prophecy, he identified himself with it; and this, together with the fact that his teaching was so different from that of the scribes, filled his hearers with astonishment, and caused them to ask, “From whence hath this man these things?” They were probably not aware even of his ability to read, and when he not only read to them out of the Scriptures, but expounded to them in a forcible and intelligent manner that which he had read, they immediately began to question among themselves where he obtained his knowledge. BUT it was not alone surprise that occasioned this questioning; they disliked his doctrine, and finding themselves powerless to resist his reasoning or to answer him from the Scriptures, they began to say, “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.” The idea that one of the humblest of their own townsmen should assume to instruct them, was offensive to them. Had some great man of the world come among them they would probably have received him, but they were moved with envy against Jesus; why he, a humble carpenter, formerly of their own humble town, should rise to distinction rather than themselves, they were not in a condition to understand; they were envious, hence they were offended at him. THE natural heart is prone to envy, and this is one reason why a prophet is without honor in his own country. Because of envy, his friends and neighbors refuse to pay him the same honors that he receives from strangers; they feel that in some way or other the honors ought to come to themselves. And this is true from the family circle to the councils of nations; few if any rise to distinction without exciting more or less envy. Joseph’s brethren were filled with envy against him because of the affection which his father had for him; Saul envied David because of the esteem in which the people held the youthful warrior; and even Satan’s fall was caused by envy. “And he could there do no mighty work,” This does not mean that Jesus did not have the power to work miracles in Nazareth, but that the circumstances were such that he could not consistently do such works. To have wrought mighty works there would have been like casting pearls before swine, and Jesus could not do that, in the same sense that an honest man cannot lie nor steal; or more properly speaking, in the sense that God cannot deny himself. THE incident of our Lord’s sending forth the twelve is full of interest and instruction. Why did he not send them forth singly? is a question which might arise, but the answer is not far to seek: he who “took our infirmities,” who “was in all points tempted like as we are,” knew that if sent out alone, the disciples would sink under discouragement; hence he sent them two and two, that they might strengthen and encourage each other. It is God’s order that men should be associated together in his service for mutual encouragement, and those who ignore this fact, and from choice attempt to stand alone, are likely to fall. A spirit of humility will prompt those who have it, to seek help from every available source; and while every one should feel individually strong in the Lord, none ought to feel that they have no need of human help and sympathy,—not to take the place of the help of God, but simply as a divinely ordained means of grace. CHRIST sent forth the twelve two and two; the seventy were also sent forth in pairs; Peter and John labored together; Paul and Barnabas were for a time yoke-fellows, and when they separated they each chose a companion. It is not alone for encouragement that men are thus associated together in the service of God; it is also for prevailing power in prayer. Said the Saviour, “If two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in Heaven.” Thus it appears that not alone in temporal, but in spiritual things as well, “in union there is strength.”