Earlier text: Protestant Magazine Distribution RecordsAmerica's Representative to the Papal States
By C. E. Holmes
It is probably not generally known that for over twenty years our government had a legally appointed representative to the Papal States. As stated in Moore's "Digest of International Law," "At one time the United States maintained diplomatic relations with the Papal States, which continued up to the time of the loss of the temporal power of the Papacy [1870]."—Vol. I, pages 130, 131. In his annual message to Congress, December, 1847, President James K. Polk said:— "The Secretary of State has submitted an estimate to defray the expense of opening diplomatic relations with the Papal States."—Congressional Globe, Dec. 7, 1847. Not long after, I find these interesting joint resolutions introduced into Congress by Representative Murphy:— "Resolved (the Senate concurring herein), That Congress regards the enlightened policy of the sovereign pontiff of Rome in extending to his people toleration of political opinion, a liberal press, and constitutional guaranties, and in removing religious disabilities, as demanding its admiration, inasmuch as such measures are founded upon principles cherished by the people of the United States as the true basis of popular liberty, and because they are a voluntary and peaceful tribute to right, unstained by blood, unbought by human suffering, and equally worthy of a high religious functionary, and a wise temporal sovereignty. "Resolved (the Senate concurring herein), That, in view of these interesting events, a country to which the people of the United States are indebted not6 only for many of the arts which adorn life, but for many of the political institutions which they enjoy, it is expedient that diplomatic relations be opened by this government with the Papal States, and that Congress concur with the President in his late message in regard thereto. "Resolved (the Senate concurring herewith), That the President be requested to transmit a copy of these resolutions to Pope Pius IX."—Id., Dec. 20, 1847. The reasons for opening diplomatic relations with the Pope of Rome, as set forth in these resolutions, were zealously assailed. I was not able to find where these resolutions were brought up for consideration; but in the Deficiency Appropriation Bill, introduced into the House Jan. 29, 1848, I note, among other items, a proposal to establish a legation in Rome. A lively debate ensued over this question; but the deficiency bill finally passed the House, containing these two provisions:— "For outfits of chargés d'affaires to Naples, the Papal States, and the republics of Bolivia, Guatemala, and Ecuador, $22,500. "For one quarter's salary to each of the chargés d'affaires to Papal States, Bolivia, Guatemala, and Ecuador, $4,500."—Id., March 8, 1848. I give a few extracts from a speech made in the House when this matter was being considered:— "We are told that Pius IX is a reformer. Indeed! In what sense is he a reformer? Has he divested himself of any of his absolute prerogatives? He has cast off his claims to infallibility? Has he cast aside his triple crown? . . . Has he become a republican? Does he acknowledge the inherent equality of mankind? . . . "He has made no fundamental alteration in the papal system. The edifice remains entire; it is supported by the same Gothic columns of medieval ignorance and superstition. . . . "No Pope can be a reformer, in the true sense of that term. He cannot give the people the rights they are entitled to, because from that moment he would cease to be Pope, and the people, ceasing to be slaves, would become sovereign. Pius never can do what would entitle him to American approbation. . . . "This country seems destined to be the grand theater of Roman Catholic power — not American papistry, but the papistry of Rome; of the Old World; of Austria and of the Pope. Shall we grow wise in time, or shall we surrender up our rights without resistance? "I tell you, and I tell the nation (for there is yet time to save it), that the propagandists of Europe are colonizing this country; that the foreign population is being dexterously located, not only with the view to holding the balance of power in certain States, but with reference to the organization of new ones, under the peculiar influence of the Jesuits. "The combination of despotism — the despotism of church and state power — must be counteracted by combinations of freeman, under the sacred guaranty of the Constitution, which makes resistance virtue, and stamps the denunciations of the 'unholy and revolting alliance' with the sublimest attributes of patriotism and benevolence. "Sir, we do protest against this religious link between our free republic and the papal throne,—a throne unlike all others, built upon power, spiritual and temporal, political and religious,—a throne which makes man a slave, and transforms kings into fiends, priests into tormentors, a people into drones, a country into a desert,—a throne which extinguishes the fire on the altar of domestic love, in a form peculiar, fatal, revolting; snatching its votaries away from the homage of nature to the cold convent, the repulsive abbey, the gloomy cell of the anchorite, the horrid dungeon of the Inquisition, and the demoralizing edict of celibacy; stirring up sedition, rebellion, and civil war, as the only means of extending a power which reason revolts from and persuasion fails to diffuse, which mankind has resisted in every age, at the peril and under the penalty of the cannon's mouth, the edge of the sword, the fire of the fagot, the torments of the stake, and the tortures of the rack."—Id., March 2, 1848. These appropriations for the establishment and maintenance of a mission to Rome passed the Senate March 21, 1848. I give below a few paragraphs from the debate in the Senate regarding this question:— "We all know that it is one of the claims put forth by the sovereign pontiff that he was constituted 'prince over all nations and kings,'—'he plucks up, pulls down, destroys, plants, and builds,' at his sovereign leisure,—exercising, in short, all those powers claimed by Pope Pius V, in his famous bull of excommunication. We know that the church, of which the Pope is the head, never changes. "It seems to me that when this matter comes to be carefully considered, it must be regarded as simply a mission from this country to the first bishop of the world; because it is only as an ecclesiastic that the sovereign pontiff exercises temporal authority."—Id., March 21, 1848. "Of all the great principles which lie at the foundation of our free institutions, I believe that there is none more conservative and more essential to the security of those institutions than the principles of universal toleration and equality of all the churches, each being left to the voluntary support of its own members. History has taught us that whenever the church becomes connected with the state,—without any imputation on the principles of religion itself,—corruption and abuse of power are the result."—Id., March 20, 1848. About a week after the passage of this bill, President Polk sent his appointment of a representative to the Papal States to the Senate for its approval: "I nominate Joshua L. Martin [afterward corrected to Jacob L. Martin], now secretary of the legation of the United States at Paris, to be chargé d'affaires of the United States to the Papal States."—"Executive Journals," Vol. VII, page 538. In giving Mr. Martin instructions (April 5, 1848) regarding his relations to the Pope, the State Department said:— "There is one consideration which you ought always to keep in view in your intercourse with the papal authorities. Most, if not all, the governments which have diplomatic representatives at Rome are connected with the Pope as the head of the Catholic Church. In this respect the government of the United States occupies an entirely different position. It possesses no power whatever over the question of religion. All denominations of Christians stand on the same footing in this country; and every man enjoys the inestimable rights of worshiping his God according to the dictates of his own conscience. Your efforts therefore will be devoted exclusively to the cultivation of the most friendly civil relations with the papal government, and to the extension of the commerce between the two countries. You will carefully avoid even the appearance of interfering in ecclesiastical questions, whether these relate to the United States or to any other portion of the world. It might be proper, should you deem it advisable, to make these views known, on some suitable occasion, to the papal government, so that there may be no mistake or misunderstanding on this subject."—Moore's "Digest of International Law," pages 130, 131. After his appointment, the chargé d'affaires had considerable difficulty in presenting his papers of credence. The Pope's subjects seemed to have failed to appreciate his reforms (?), and kept the States in such a turmoil that our first representative, and also his successors, had trouble in finding the person who could properly receive his papers. Instructions on this point were also given by the State Department to Mr. Cass, Jr., who, owing to the death of Mr. Martin the next year, was nominated by the President, and confirmed by the Senate after a debate conducted on three different days. "Shortly after these instructions were given, a revolution occurred at Rome, and the government of the Pope was displaced. The government of the United States, however, considering 'the speedy restoration of the Pope highly probable, if not absolutely certain,' instructed its chargé d'affaires, while proceeding immediately to Rome and gathering all the information obtainable, to withhold his letter of credence till he should receive specific directions as to the minister of foreign affairs to whom it should be delivered. [See Mr. Buchanan to Mr. Cass, Feb. 16, 1849. MS. Inst. Papal States, I, 11.] "Subsequently, the situation having7 apparently become 'more and more complicated and entangled,' it was left to his discretion, in order to avoid any unnecessary delay, to present his letter of credence to the minister of foreign affairs of the provisional government, or to withhold it some time longer."—Ib. In 1856 the President, Franklin Pierce, sought to raise Mr. Cass to the position of "envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary to the pontifical states." But a few months after he submitted this nomination to the Senate, he withdrew it. See "Executive Journals," Volume X. A speech made in the House about this time, by Mr. Whitney, contains some strong statements, which are worthy of reproduction. A few extracts are appended:— "The elements of freedom are not in the spirit of Roman Catholicism. One more text from the living witness of our own day. So prolific are the unwritten pages of the present, that it is needless to look back into the centuries of the past. 'Freedom of conscience,' says Pio Nino, 'is an absurd and dangerous maxim,' and 'the liberty of the press is that fatal license of which we cannot entertain too great a horror.' . . . Mr. Brownson, the editor of the Roman Catholic Review, tells us: 'The Pope is the proper authority to decide whether the Constitution of this country is or is not repugnant to the laws of God!' Ergo, the Pope is the proper authority to determine whether his subjects in this country shall obey that Constitution or not. I say that the papal power—I speak of the hierarchy—is hostile in all its elements to what we understand as civil and religious liberty, and, therefore, as a politico-religious element it ought not to be encouraged. . . . "A Romish paper, called the Rambler, tells us that 'Religious liberty in the sense of a liberty possessed by every man to choose his own religion, is one of the most wicked delusions ever foisted upon this age by the father of all deceit. The very name of liberty, except in the sense of a permission to do certain definite acts, ought to be banished from the domain of religion.' "A word now as to the statesmen of America, on the estimation in which their political morality is held by the teachers and oracles of the Romish party in the United States. I read for their edification from the Boston Pilot:— " 'No human fact is more certain than that the politicians will hereafter court the Catholic vote.' "The Freeman's Journal is no less indelicate in its portraiture of their character. That paper says:— " 'Year by year the Irish are becoming more powerful in America. At length the propitious moment will come — some accidental, sudden collision, and a presidential campaign close at hand [italics his]. We will then use the very profligacy of our politicians for our purposes. They will want to buy the Irish vote, and we will tell them for how much they can buy it in a lump from Maine to California.'"—Congressional Globe, July 28, 1856. The warning of Congressman Whitney was none too soon. Without doubt, the political affairs of the present time are influenced by the Church of Rome to a large degree. How Nineveh Was So Quickly Warned
By STEMPLE WHITE
THE wickedness of populous Nineveh had come up before God. Like Sodom of old, it seemed ripe for destruction. Yet the infinite love of our Heavenly Father would spare the city awhile longer, if there were manifested by its people the least disposition to repent of sin. God takes no pleasure in the death of his creatures, but offers life to all on gospel conditions. Although infinite in love, the cross declares him to be likewise infinite in justice. Rom. 3:24-26. Were these Ninevites absolutely beyond the reach of infinite love? Foreseeing the whole experience of Jonah as related in the Scriptures, and how he could use all this in a peculiar way to arrest the attention of those wicked city dwellers, God said to Jonah, "Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and cry against it. . . . But Jonah rose up to flee unto Tarshish from the presence of the Lord." Jonah fled in the opposite direction, or toward Tarshish (now Spain), instead of obeying God. Many today, after hearing the call of God, are following the Jonah tactics, and, like him, soon fall asleep in their sin, from which nothing short of God's judgments can awaken them. As in the selling of Joseph and in the sore, bitter experiences of Naomi in Moab, God used the wrath of man and the apparent disappointment and sorrow of his children to the accomplishment of his eternal purpose, even so would God use the very flight of Jonah to the salvation of souls. "God moves in a mysterious way
His wonders to perform;
He plants his footsteps in the sea
And rides upon the storm." On comes the terrible storm, sent of God. The experienced mariners become fearful, and all tremble for their lives. Mercy is vainly implored of all gods save the great "Unknown God;" and because of the ever-increasing fury of the elements, the very cargo is thrown overboard in a futile effort to lighten the ship. Jonah is found below, fast asleep. He is quickly awakened and urged to call upon his God for help. But poor Jonah had not the heart to pray in the full assurance of faith, for he well knew, with the apostle John, that "whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight." Self-condemned, he tells his story to all, and confesses that he is the cause of the disaster. Much against the wishes of the shipman, Jonah is cast overboard. The waters become still, many vows are made by the thankful worshippers, and who can doubt that some of these very souls will be saved in the kingdom of God as the result of this most peculiar experience? No sooner had Jonah sunk beneath the waters of the Mediterranean than he found himself housed in a real, live, submarine boat, which took a bee line toward Nineveh. Jonah, who had paid the fare clear out to Tarshish, never got that far, but received free transportation back, though not with the most pleasant accommodations. He reviewed his past life in those three days, and sincerely lifted his heart to God, who can do for us all abundantly above all we can ask or think. Jonah being willing now to go to Nineveh, "the Lord spake unto the fish, and it cast up Jonah upon the dry land. And the word of the Lord came unto Jonah the second time, saying, Arise, go unto Nineveh, that great city, and preach unto it the preaching that I bid thee. So Jonah arose, and went unto Nineveh, according to the word of the Lord. Now Nineveh was an exceeding great city of three days' journey. And Jonah began to enter into the city a day's journey, and he cried, Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown. "So the people of Nineveh believed God, and proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them even to the least of them. For word came unto the king of Nineveh, and he arose from his throne, and he laid his robe from him, and covered him with sackcloth, and sat in ashes. And he caused it to be proclaimed and published through Nineveh by the decree of the king and his nobles, saying, Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste anything; let them not feed, nor drink water; but let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God: yea, let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the violence that is in their hands. Who can tell if God will turn and repent, and turn away from his fierce anger, that we perish not?" "And God saw their works, that they repented from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not." From the time of Jonah to the final destruction of Nineveh, no doubt many honest souls who had been almost case-hardened by heathen education were at last led from darkness to light. Hope Beyond the Darkness
By C. Mackey
There was never a night without a day,
Nor an evening without a morning,
And the darkest hour, the proverb goes,
Is the hour before the dawning. Hope for the Homeward Journey
By J. R. Miller
LET us hope on though the way be long
And the darkness be gathering fast,
For the turn in the road is a little way on
Where the home lights will greet us
at last. Casting Out the Redeemer
By C. M. S.
IT seems paradoxical that at a time when the Word of God is being published as never before and going into countries which it has never before entered, the world itself should be preparing for just such a departure from God as that which characterized the world when ancient heathenism was at its height. But such, unfortunately, is the case. There is a force at work in lands and among peoples where the Word of God has had freest and longest circulation that is undermining the faith of the people, dulling the edge of Christian doctrine, and parrying the direct force of the immutable law of God. In the midst of this fierce struggle between light and darkness, God has multiplied his witnesses in the form of his printed Word. With no other force than this, the converting force of the Holy Spirit, and the living light of his faithful children, that battle will go on until the world has made its choice, "and then shall the end come." For years this attack upon the person and work of Christ has been filtering into almost all kinds of religious literature, and was never so prominent as it is today. In gilded phrases, in lofty panegyrics, man is declared to be able to do for himself what God himself could do for him only through the death of his own Son. Making man his own savior did not originate with Unitarianism. The germ of it was in Cain's self-invented sacrifice of the fruits of his own labor. It grew to perfection in the tower of Babel; it has been kept alive in penances and self-inflicted flagellations, which are being practiced even today in heathen and Catholic lands; and today in a new garb it parades through eloquent literature, and speaks from costly pulpits to luxurious pews into ears that flash diamonds and hear more of the jingle of gold than of the stately steppings of the true God. There is going on in the religious press at the present time a considerable discussion over the question of whether Christians should add to their prayers such expressions as "in Jesus' name" and "for Christ's sake." The printed agitation of the matter has come up as a result of its oral discussion; and that oral discussion reveals in the general body a malignant growth of doubt along the line of Christ's intercession in our behalf before the throne of the Father. Christ's own instructions upon this point should settle the question for those who believe in Christ and his work: "Whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son." John 14:13. Again: "Whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you." John 15:16. Those who look upon Christ simply as a great and good teacher must in their own hearts impeach his testimony in this matter, and accuse him of assuming a position which God the Father did not recognize. Such ones, of course, make no petitions "in his name" or "for his sake." At the same time there is going on in heaven, in our behalf, an intercessory work, "with groanings which cannot be uttered, . . . because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God." Rom. 8:26, 27. And there rings out from the direct testimony of Jesus, "Without me ye can do nothing." But Jesus Christ is not even "a great teacher" if he did not teach truly concerning man's inability to save himself and man's need of an intercessor at the throne of God. The teaching to which we have referred is one of the devices of Satan to make Christ appear to be an impostor. A work having a similar effect in discrediting Christ is that which exalts the Virgin Mary to the position of intercessor in man's behalf. This was particularly noticeable in the work of Pope Leo XIII, whose exaltation and glorification of Mary were very pronounced. Other Catholic writers have put her in a position which would almost entirely shut out Christ from the human race. Mariolatry is gaining at a rapid pace. With Mohammedanism and the heathen world generally repudiating Christ; with the unconverted of "Christian" lands too busy to listen to the messengers of the Lord; with the great Catholic world shutting Christ away from man by putting another in his place as mediator; with the popular churches of the land repudiating the idea of the fall of man and Christ's redemptive work for the race; with many who had been loyal questioning whether they should longer pray "in his name" and "for his sake;" and with the higher critics (nominally Christians) sowing broadcast the seeds of doubt concerning the very Bible itself,—this present world seems to have about reached the place which the ancient heathen world had reached when the record states of that age, "As they refused to have God in their knowledge, God gave them up unto a reprobate mind;" when, "knowing God, they glorified him not as God, neither gave thanks; but became vain in their reasonings, and their senseless heart was darkened." He who is denying Christ's work for us and his death in our behalf, is certainly not giving thanks for that work and that sacrifice. It is a terrible accusation that such philosophers are bringing against our Lord, this denial of him and his work. To such apply with fearful distinctness these words of our Saviour: "Whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father who is in heaven." Matt. 10:33. We can leave him out of our reckoning here; we can call his life and death a "sweet, sad story," but without worth in our salvation; nevertheless, when our name and our record come before the Judge of all the earth, the fact of our denial of Christ will be the first witness against us, and none other will be necessary. "When the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?" He will, in a little, persecuted band; for, says the Spirit that indited the Revelation, "Here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus." But the world will have denied him, and that "evangelism9 of denial" is making most rapid headway today. In view of the conditions which exist today, and in view of what those conditions mean, the duty of every true child of God is exceedingly plain,—to talk faith, to work in faith, to work definitely for individual souls. "Blessed is that servant, whom his Lord when he cometh shall find so doing." Still Seeking the Lost in Far Places
Well may we rejoice in the good providence of God that is pressing onward the work of the missionary translators in our day in every uttermost part of the earth. How difficult a task it is to teach some tongues to speak the language of the kingdom is shown by a report that the British Bible Society makes regarding the issuing of the Gospel of Matthew in the Lisu tongue, spoken by an aboriginal people in Yunnan, southwestern China. We are told:— When we looked for a word for "holy," one meaning "good" or "clean" was the best to be found. For "influence" the Chinese word had to be used. Words for "sign," "reward," "amazement," "glory," have not been found yet. But in a new tongue the voice of the Good Shepherd is heard calling to the lost in the farthest recesses of Yunnan. It is wonderful to see how this work of Bible translation has been hastened on in this generation. Truly it is the gathering time, when the call is to be heard among every tribe and people. Influence of the Divorce Evil
By F. M. W.
Of the widespread influence of the divorce evil but few have an adequate conception. The last few years have witnessed a wonderful increase in the number of divorced persons. Especially is this true in the United States, where the statistics are out of all proportion to the figures representing similar conditions in the Old World. February 4 Senator Joseph Ransdell of Louisiana delivered a striking speech in the United States Senate in favor of a Constitutional amendment for the prohibition of the divorce evil. Of its rapid increase he spoke as follows, as reported in the Washington Times of that date:— Practically every one who has given the subject the slightest study admits that divorce is one of the most serious problems confronting our republic. In the United States, divorce is spreading with alarming rapidity. It has permeated every walk of life, and is prevalent among every class of people. The total number of divorces granted in 1867 was 9,937, or 27 per 100,000 population. Forty years later, in 1906, there were 72,662 divorces, or 86 per 100,000; thus in actual numbers there were more than seven times as many divorces granted in 1906 as in 1867, or, allowing for the increased population, divorce had increased 319 per cent. To put it in another way, in 1867 there was one divorce for every 3,666 persons, while in 1906 there was one for every 1,162. To make a most striking comparison, during 1901 the total number of divorces granted in the United States was more than twice as great as in all the rest of Christendom combined; yes, actually more than two times as many divorces among 75,000,000 Americans that year as among the 400,000,000 souls of Europe and other Christian countries. England stands in bold contrast with this country. In 1911 she granted a total of only 655 divorces, or 1½ per 100,000, while in 1906 the United States allowed 72,062 divorces, or 86 per 100,000. During the twenty years ending with 1906 Ireland had only nineteen divorces, or an average of less than one absolute divorce per year for her entire population of 4,500,000. There is danger that common association with evil will lessen in our minds its sinfulness and deadly influence. That this is the effect of the divorce evil upon the present generation is the opinion of a New York social commission, which quotes the head of a prominent girls' school as saying:— I have heard it said, and our experience confirms the fact, that the children of divorced parents are more likely than others to regard divorce as a normal part of the scheme of life. A generation has already grown up among whom divorce and remarriage has been a fairly common practice ever since they can remember anything. Church people and church educators have before them the problem of creating a new conscience in this matter in the rising generation. Quoting this report, the Northwestern Christian Advocate of December 3 truly says:— In this brief observation a most distressing situation is pointed out. When society reaches that stage of acquiescence in an evil environment as to commonly consider it normal, woe be to society. It was not always thus. Time was, and that within the memory of the writer, when a divorcee was looked upon as a social menace, and regarded as either wicked or very unfortunate. The one sustaining that unnatural relation was regarded as a pariah, and his name whispered with awe. But today conditions have changed; divorces have so multiplied, and mingle so freely and acceptably in all the walks of life, that one makes reference to the subject with apprehension, lest one in the company take personal offense. It has come to the point that ministers question prospective grooms with trepidation, lest it be discovered that one of the contracting parties has been a subject of divorce proceedings; indeed, ministers have occasionally been known voluntarily to remain in ignorance on this phase of investigation. Of course all this has its deadening effect on the public conscience. It is with evil as with good—a little leaven can leaven the whole lump; and a careless acquiescence in an incipient social reversion will sooner or later bear fruit in a positive and general contamination. The Scriptures of Truth recognize but one ground for divorce; namely, the violation of the seventh commandment by one of the parties to the marriage relationship. The laws of the land have come to recognize many reasons. Cruelty, desertion, lack of support, drunkenness, ungovernable temper, incompatibility, and scores of trivial causes are enumerated as the basis of divorce suits in our courts of law. We cannot believe that God regards this question any differently today than he did when Christ instructed his church concerning it. It is safe to conclude that the great majority of divorces which are recognized by our courts of law are not recognized by the court of heaven. The Christian and the Law
By C. M. S.
In Dr. Lyman Abbott’s reply to a Sabbath-keeping Christian, to which reference was made last week, some propositions and deductions were stated which it may be well to consider, not because they are new or striking, but because many who desire a reason for not keeping the Sabbath of Jehovah have really accepted such arguments as that reason, and trample upon the law of God while they think they are doing his will. Dr. Abbott says:— Jesus Christ came to fulfill the law and the prophets; that is, to fill those that love him so full of the divine Spirit that they would spontaneously live the divine life; that they would obey the law without considering the law. But there is neither logic nor reason in such an interpretation of the expression "to fulfill the law and the prophets." In making use of this expression the writer is evidently referring to that declaration of our Saviour in Matt. 5:17, which reads: "Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfill." Dr. Abbott would have us believe that Jesus meant to say: "I came not to destroy the law, but to eliminate it," to wipe it out of the people’s minds so that they would forget there is any law of God. The interpretation which this writer gives of the word fulfill is peculiar, and makes one wonder at the leaps which a mind can take when it cuts loose from the law of God. There is no connection whatever between what Christ did and what Dr. Abbott says he did. Christ says he came to fulfill the law. Dr. Abbott says, "That is, to fill those that love him," etc. The Saviour is speaking of the law and the relation of his mission on earth to the law. He is not speaking of the people. It was Christ’s mission on earth "to magnify the law, and make it honorable." Isa. 42:21. Dr. Abbott’s interpretation of "fulfill" would make Christ a minifier of the law instead of a magnifier. He would have Christ do a work that would take the law entirely out of the minds of the people. Is the law of God something that either heaven or earth should be ashamed of? Why this uneasy desire and persistent endeavor to get God’s law out of the way, to hide it, to spiritualize it off the earth and out of the universe?—For no other reason than to furnish a reason for continuing to do something we ought never to have done—to have substituted a man-made Sabbath for the one which God made. How can one whose heart is really filled with the Spirit of God and love for God declare that when Christ said he came to fulfill the law, he meant that he came to fill the people with something that would eliminate the law from their minds? It is a very serious matter to misinterpret and misconstrue the plain declaration of our Saviour. Even if it is done honestly, its consequences are disastrous. Jesus came to fulfill all the requirements of the law, and he did it. But does that abolish it?—No; it magnifies it, for it was his mission to magnify it and make it honorable. He came to keep the law, and he kept it. Does his keeping the law release his followers from all obligation in reference thereto?—No; for we read: "He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also to walk even as he walked" (1 John 2:6); and again: "He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him." 1 John 2:4.10 He that loves God with all his heart and soul and strength, and loves his neighbor as himself, obeys all the ten commandments, including the fourth. We grant it, and it is true. But he does not keep all the commandments, "including the fourth," who substitutes a day of his own choosing for the one Jehovah chose and blessed and set apart as his memorial and man’s Sabbath. He who makes that substitution does not keep God’s fourth commandment, but his own in place of God’s. In view of that fact, the one who does it when he knows what is involved in it, does not love God with that intensity that the child of God ought to have. The amount of love set forth in the above quotation will lead the one who has it to want to know, above all things, just what God requires, and will not be satisfied to substitute something of his own choosing for what God has chosen for him. Dr. Abbott expresses the idea also that the literal interpretation of the fourth commandment is made impossible on account of the shape of the earth. And yet Dr. Abbott, who keeps Sunday, does claim to be keeping the ten commandments, "including the fourth." Is it not strikingly peculiar that one can keep the ten commandments, "including the fourth," and on a round world, too, if he will only read "the first day of the week" into the commandment wherever God has written "the seventh day"? The round world never bothers the man who keeps Sunday; but tell him that the commandment requires the keeping of the seventh day, and immediately the commandment cannot be obeyed because of the shape of the earth. Now Jehovah knew the shape of the earth, for he made it; and it is hardly honoring God for one of his professed children to declare that God has required something of man which man cannot do because God made the world round. In other words, God is charged with making a round world and then requiring man to do something which the shape of the earth makes it impossible to do. Is that magnifying the law and making it honorable? Is it not rather dishonoring the Giver of the law and making of him an inappeasable tyrant? But there is no difficulty. The Sunday keeper admits that, so far as Sunday is concerned. We cannot keep the day where it is not. We must keep it where it is. When it comes to us, our duty toward its observance begins. When it leaves us, our obligation ceases. God’s own direction concerning this matter makes all plain, and clear, and simple: "From even unto even, shall ye keep your Sabbath." Lev. 23:32. When the evening of the sixth day comes, God’s Sabbath begins; when the evening of the seventh day comes, God’s Sabbath ends. How futile will be the excuse, in the day of judgment, that we "could not keep the Sabbath of the fourth commandment because the world is round"! And the ones who will make it are telling us today that they keep the first day of the week in honor of the resurrection of Christ, and they keep it on a round world and all around the world in spite of the fact that a very small number of people live on the meridian that runs through Mt. Calvary. Christians, above all people on earth, ought to be consistent. Again let us call attention to our Saviour’s own declaration concerning this very matter: "Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." Matt. 5:19. A Good Word From the South
By W. A. Spicer
It is characteristic of the enlarging work that items of interest that a few years ago would have secured the attention of all the denomination are frequently passing by with scarcely a paragraph calling general attention to them. The work has grown beyond the measure of an itemized record of progress. For instance, we have seen nowhere any general statement of the annual report of the Southern Publishing Association, presented in connection with the union conference meeting at Nashville. Reporting book sales from the Southern office during 1913 of $204,395, the manager’s statement gives us this paragraph, putting the publishing house figures in an interesting way:— During the year we have sold 190,485 volumes of all classes, while we roll up the splendid total sales of 5,559,920 pages of tracts and pamphlets. Our retail sales have averaged $17,032.94 a month, or $3,930.68 a week, or $786.13 a day, which means we have handled 1,246 pounds of literature every working day of the year. To handle this volume of business has required 1,440 packing cases. Our total tonnage for 1913 has been 167 tons, making 13½ carloads of our literature which has been shipped out and distributed to the homes of the people. Another encouraging feature of the report is that in doing this volume of missionary work the house itself made a financial gain of over $6,000. This is but one side of the encouraging changes that have taken place in the Southern field during the last few years. The conferences are pushing forward their evangelistic work, increasing the constituency, and planning for yet stronger service in giving the message. In commercial and industrial development the whole Southern belt has won the title of “the new South” during recent years, and as we watch the developing strength and increasing activity among our conferences in that region, we realize that in our own work it is a new South that is forging steadily ahead in these times. W. A. S.