Earlier text: Christian Socialism and the BallotBecause there are great men and great minds who seem to despise good breeding, many imitate their faults and really think that it adds greatness to them. The following from an article in the Home Department of the Christian Union, by Blanche Wilder Bellamy, contains things which it is worthy to ponder. Let us remember also that while practice is needed to perfect manners, there is no foundation so strong and good to build upon as a converted heart, the golden rule, and forgetfulness of selfish wants and desires. A man speaks a foreign language stiffly, with the shades of grammar and construction always before his eyes. He speaks his own language as he breathes, unconsciously. But, we are told, Do you really take taste, good breeding, and etiquette so seriously? They are only a polish, a veneer. Japanese lacquer is a polish, yet it is said that the splendid imperial specimens of lacquered work displayed with pride in Japan, have been handed down from father to son, from father to son, and the polish has been rubbed in and rubbed in, until now not the most practiced eye can detect where the wood ceases and where the lacquer begins. In this sense, good breeding may be a polish, but it is not superficial and separable; it is hereditary and ingrained. And an essential element in good breeding is a knowledge of conventionality. Of course it goes without saying that a man may be a very great man without having refinement of taste and with no knowledge of etiquette. The question is, Would he be any less great if he possessed them? We say unhesitatingly that Abraham Lincoln was the greatest American, yet we smile to remember that when a diplomat, in his presence, met with some slight accident, a cut perhaps, and asked the President for the loan of his handkerchief, he replied, "Really, I have not such a thing about me." We glory in Lincoln. Is that any reason why we should not point with pride, as one of the possibilities of a social republic, to the grace, courtesy, and elegance of Charles Sumner? Do we think any the less of Washington at Valley Forge because, when Baron Steuben and his gay cavalcade swept down to visit him, with jewels flashing and plumes waving and gilded sword-hilts shining in the sun, our general could meet him, not only with the dignity and fortitude of a patriot, but with the elegance of a courtier? There is a kind of logic prevalent in this connection which is not without danger, though its fallacy is laughably patent. It takes the form of a syllogism, in this way:— Many great men have disregarded conventionality; I disregard conventionality; therefore I am a great man. Geniuses are eccentric; I am eccentric; therefore I am a genius. And, perhaps oftener than any other: Many brilliant and able women have shown an entire disregard of the conventionalities of custom and costume; I will show such disregard; then I shall be a brilliant and able woman. I fully believe that this specious reasoning has led a great many young people into what they thought was a courageous rebellion against hampering conventionality, when they were really falling into a snare set by their own vanity. "Cursed be the social lies that warp us from the living truth," is a quotation which has comforted a great many would-be social reformers, who perhaps would have been less warped by a closer study of the living truth as it really exists. Free lances have done very brave deeds, but, on the whole, the effective fighting of the world has been done by the soldiers in the ranks. BOB BURDETTE, who, not long ago, was regularly advanced to the dignity of the pulpit by solemn ordination to the ministry, thus expresses himself on what he calls "natural religion":— "A friend named Blake, living in Chicago, has sent me a letter on 'natural religion.' It is a good letter, but I don't think I care to order any 'natural religion' just now. In fact, I have quite a large stock of it on hand that I would be glad to get rid of on any terms, if I knew what to do with it. I kind of hate to give it to the purchaser. It never did me any good, and I can't guarantee it as an article that ought to be kept in every household. 'Natural religion' gets into the market early and holds on long. I have seen babies in full possession of it, rending their playthings to rags, kicking and yelling with infantile rage, as though possessed of many devils; howling for pure 'cussedness' long, long before they were able to lisp a prayer. I have seen little children in full possession of 'natural religion' learning to lie, to deceive, to steal, ill-natured, vain, overbearing, treacherous, bad in a score of ways, and bad in spite of teaching and training, just 'naturally bad.' I have seen the guileless savage of the plains, with never a college or a theological seminary in all his tribe, so full of 'natural religion' that he couldn't get scalps enough to satisfy the unspoiled cravings of the 'natural man,' nor drunk enough to celebrate his triumph when the last prisoner was finally carved up into small fragments. "For people who enjoy the natural man in all his native naturalness, 'natural religion' is, no doubt, sweet and uplifting and tranquilizing. I prefer it with milder flavors, myself; I like it refined, softened, improved by educational processes." A BEAUTIFUL statue stands in the marketplace. It is that of a Greek slave girl, but she is well-dressed, tidy, and handsome. A dirty, forlorn, ragged slave-girl passes by. She sees the statue, stops and gazes at it in rapt admiration. She goes home, washes her face, and combs her hair. Another day she stops in passing, to look at the statue. Next day her tattered clothes are washed and mended. Each day she stops to look at the statue, and each next day she has imitated some of its beauties, until the dirty, ragged slave becomes completely transformed; she becomes another girl. This is the way Christ teaches. He does not hurl his own individuality upon others; he simply lives and works and loves before men, not to be seen of them but to inspire to a holy emulation.—Selected. HER LATE DISASTER PREDICTED.
THE New York correspondent of the Cincinnati Commercial Gazette gives the following interesting facts in relation to the late disaster to the steamer City of Paris, about which there was such widespread apprehension:— “Among the passengers of the City of Paris, with whom a certain engineer was on intimate terms, was Mayor Bookwalter, of Springfield, Ohio. He says that after the first day out from New York, the mayor obtained access to the engine-room, where, upon critical inspection of the machinery, shaft, etc., he became alarmed for the safety of the steamer, but to verify his apprehension of danger, which was created by mistrust of the durability of a portion of the engine, he went to work calculating the tensile strength, force, resistance, friction, atmospheric pressures, etc., to which one particular portion of the machinery, weighing some fifteen tons, was subjected; and, figuring from its first revolution to the present date, he was alarmed at the result, which denoted that twenty-four hours was the limit of its durability. “The result of his calculation he imparted to his two or three scientific fellow-voyagers, asserting that the engines could not last twenty-four hours. They tried to reason him out of his whim, but in vain. Notwithstanding his prediction failed the first and second day, he remained firm to his conviction and mathematical calculation that the limit of endurance of the engines of the steamer had expired, and he was awaiting the inevitable crash. In a few hours it came, inflicting even more serious damage than anticipated. This to me is an incident demonstrating marvelous ability in the Ohio mechanic, whose fortune of millions would seem to be a meritorious acquisition. His engineering friends were profoundly impressed with the erudition and mathematical precision of Mayor Bookwalter.” Helping Others Helps Ourselves
"It is one of the most beautiful compensations of this life, that no man can sincerely try to help another without thereby helping himself." Prayer Learned in Distress
The truest philosophy of prayer is learned in the deepest distress. It is then God is everything to us—the helper of the helpless. CHRIST, THE SINLESS ONE.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
IN the last number but one of the last volume of the SIGNS OF THE TIMES, we published a short editorial note in reply to a question that was raised in a certain Sabbath-school, as to Christ's power to sin when he was here on earth. The statement was there made that he could not. We quote a portion of the note:— "Our whole hope of eternal life through Christ rests upon this; for if there had been any temptation that could have induced Christ to sin, that would show that there is temptation that is stronger than divine power, which, in turn, would show that he is not 'able to save to the uttermost.'" The question is simply another form of asking, "Can God sin?" for "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself." "The word was God," just as truly when it was "made flesh and dwelt among us," as it was in the beginning, "before the world was." The object of that mysterious union of divinity with humanity was to demonstrate the power of God over sin. We have received several letters in regard to this note, one brother claiming that it is in direct conflict with the following statement made by Mrs. E. G. White: "If it were not possible for him [Christ] to yield to temptation, he could not be our helper." We are sure that it does not conflict with that statement. The misunderstanding is an instance of the impossibility of giving all sides of a subject in one item. Perhaps we can relieve the minds of our questioners if we say that while holding to the statement previously made, we just as firmly believe the following:— Christ was made "to be sin for us." 2 Cor. 5:21. He was made "in the likeness of sinful flesh." Rom. 8:3. He was "made of a woman, made under the law." Gal. 4:4. He took on him the nature of Abraham, and was in all things "made like unto his brethren," and "he himself hath suffered being tempted." Heb. 2:17, 18. He was "in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." Heb. 4:15. These scriptures convey no other meaning to our mind than that Christ voluntarily took upon himself the feeble nature of man, to be subject to all the tendencies of the flesh, and the temptations of the devil. In short, he deliberately put himself into exactly the same position that fallen man occupies, to feel in his own being the full force of the power of Satan working upon fallen humanity. The temptations to which he was subject were real, not fanciful, and the strength of them equaled the strength of all the temptations that all the men in the world have to endure. The human nature that he took was a sinful nature, one subject to sin. If it were not, he would not be a perfect Saviour. We could not then go to him as one who is "touched with the feeling of our infirmities." We do not think this side of the case can be stated any more strongly; and yet we see no reason to recall the statement before made. If Joseph could say, in the face of strong temptation, "How then can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God?" (Gen. 39:9); if the beloved disciple could write by inspiration of the Spirit, "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God" (1 John 3:9); surely it may be said of the only-begotten Son of God, in whom dwelt "all the fullness of the Godhead bodily," that he could not sin. Take another point of view. Temptation comes through the working of Satan upon the frailty of human flesh, of which Christ himself was a partaker. We know that Satan in person put forth all his power on Jesus, not only in the wilderness, but through his whole earthly ministry, knowing that the fate of all men depended on him. If it had been possible for Satan to induce Christ to sin, he would have done it. The fact that Christ "did no sin"—that he "knew no sin," although subjected to the severest assaults of Satan, is sufficient to show that he could not be induced to sin. This is the idea intended to be conveyed in the note referred to. In one sense, it was possible for Christ to sin, provided he had wished to, for the nature which he took was a nature subject to sin. Yet it was impossible for him to sin, because "God was in Christ," and that in perfect fullness. Not simply did he have the power of God with him, but he was God; for even when he lay a babe in the manger at Bethlehem, the decree went forth, "Let all the angels of God worship him." Heb. 1:6. He never ceased to be God, and therefore he did not sin. He demonstrated in his own person the power of divinity to prevail against the power of Satan working through human weakness. But someone will say, "I cannot understand this." Neither can we. When we can understand how Christ could humble himself to the position of a servant, and become a man, and still retain his divinity; when we can understand how he could be at the same time God and man; when we can understand how the Mighty One who made the heavens and the earth could be born a helpless infant in Bethlehem; in short, when we can understand the mind of God, and can comprehend infinity, then we will explain "the mystery of the gospel." We advise our friends not to try to explain these things. The fact that we cannot understand how a thing can be, argues nothing against it. Finite minds cannot comprehend the workings of Infinity. We can only accept as true the statements which that same divine power makes concerning itself. But we can take comfort in every revelation of divinity. We take the highest comfort in thinking that Christ voluntarily subjected himself to every condition and every weakness that it is possible for men to be subject to; and our comfort in this arises not less from the fact that there is thus a bond of sympathy established between us, than from the knowledge that "his divine power," which was such that Satan could not by any possibility overthrow it, is that by which are "given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness." 2 Peter 1:3. A LOSS TO THE CHURCH.
By Editor
THE editor of the New York Christian Advocate quotes the plaint of the Churchman, that there is "a growing disregard of Lent," and that never before has there been during Lent "so much social gaiety, and so little regard for those forms of abstinence and practices of devotion which Lent especially enjoins;" and also the Tribune's inference that the church has lost by "society's" patronage of Lent, of which so much has been said, and adds the following pertinent comment:— "Of course it has lost. 'Society' is godless, the consummation of worldliness. When it patronizes the church, the result is pernicious. When evangelical Christianity coquettes with 'society,' it meets the fate of Solomon when he married Pharaoh's daughter; he sank even below her level. Spiritual persons may be surrounded by worldly society, and compelled, to a considerable extent, to mingle in it; but a patronage of the church by 'society' means corruption and death. "Massillon in one of his sermons said something to this effect: 'It is surprising to see great pleasure-loving Paris weeping under the spiritual truths of the gospel. It is even more surprising that a quarter of an hour after the sermon is over they will turn again to their ungodliness.' "Lent is an arbitrary invention, used by many as a kind of balancing of accounts. Whatever would be antagonistic to spirituality in Lent must be equally so during the three hundred and twenty-five remaining days of the year. Not infidelity is the pre-eminently dangerous foe of Christianity, but 'a form of godliness' without 'the power.' The 'form' finds its happiness in the creature not in the Creator; loves pleasures more than God. But the power finds happiness in godliness; its relaxations and recreations are simple, wholesome, never morally injurious or distracting, nor do they ever destroy the relish for spiritual things." Let "the church" take warning by this, and realize the loss that will come to her in still greater measure if she persists in enforcing upon society the observance of Sunday. NEWSPAPER READING AS A PREPARATION FOR CHURCH.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
IN a recent discourse on "The New Birth," Mr. Moody spoke in the following decided manner concerning the reading of newspapers on Sunday:— "I do not believe Gabriel himself could come down into this pulpit and preach with power to an audience that had been busy for two or three hours reading the Sunday papers. But someone says, 'Be mild, Mr. Moody, or the papers will pitch into you.' Let the papers pitch into me. I think the time has come for plain speaking. When ministers and members of the church buy newspapers on the street on Sunday morning from little boys who are kept out of the church and Sunday-school by selling these papers, I think someone should speak. I do not know what the Sunday papers contain. I never read one. I would as soon touch pitch; but I am told that the editors gather the scum from all over the world, and publish it on Sunday." The New York Observer, which quotes and comments on the above, says:— "It is greatly to be regretted that so many Christian people support the Sunday newspaper by purchasing it, and by advertising in its columns. It is a well-known fact that it receives a great deal more attention at the hands of its readers than the edition of any other day of the week, and this is why advertising is so readily found for the Sunday columns. Were every kind of support rendered by Christians withdrawn, it is questionable whether the Sunday edition would hold its own." This prompts us to make a few remarks. We think there has been a good deal of misdirected effort in connection with this Sunday newspaper business, both on the part of those who want them suppressed by law, and by many who oppose all Sunday laws. In the first place, we will say that the Sunday newspaper is as good as that published on any other day of the week. We speak from actual knowledge. Its only difference from the editions of other days is that it is usually larger. Secondly, we can heartily agree with all that Mr. Moody and others say in regard to the demoralizing effect that the reading of the newspapers before church service has upon the attendant at church. We are sure that he who reads the newspaper for an hour before going to church will not be likely to receive much benefit from the most powerful sermon. Therefore we have no fault to find with those ministers who severely condemn the practice. But let it not be forgotten that the evil effect does not depend entirely upon the day upon which the reading is done, nor at all upon the day on which the paper is printed. Reading newspapers is as poor a preparation for the mid-week prayer-meeting as it is for the preaching service. To be sure, newspapers are not the best nor even good reading for the Sabbath-day, and he who esteems Sunday as the Sabbath will not read them on that day; but so far as unfitting one for worship is concerned, they are no worse before the Sabbath service343 than just before the Tuesday or Wednesday evening prayer-meeting. And, as we have already intimated, a newspaper published on Tuesday or Wednesday is just as demoralizing Sabbath reading as one published on the Sabbath or Sunday. The man who reads the Saturday evening paper on Sunday morning will be in no better frame of mind for church service than if he read one published on Sunday morning. This must be obvious to everybody. Therefore, instead of fulminating against the Sunday paper, ministers and professional reformers should turn their attention to the delinquent church-members. Let them get up a genuine revival of religion in the church. Let them labor and pray for such a conversion of their flocks as shall make newspapers distasteful reading on the day of rest. The fault lies with the lax professors, and not with the newspapers, and the ax should be laid at the root of the tree. To lop off the Sunday newspaper would do no real good, so long as the desire for unspiritual reading remained. Those who are unfitted for church duties by reading the Sunday newspaper, would, in nine cases out of ten, read something worse if that were withheld from them. The existence of the Sunday newspaper, therefore, is no reason whatever for the enactment of Sunday laws. In justice to Mr. Moody, it should be said that, so far as we are informed, he did not make the stereotyped plea for the suppression of the Sunday newspaper. His complaint, and it was a just one, was directed against those who pursue a practice that is inconsistent with their profession. BASELESS REASONS.
By M. C. W.
It matters not to some minds how strong may be the positive testimony against a long-cherished belief, a few seemingly plausible inferences in its favor are stronger. They are honest in these convictions; for when a long-standing dogma is supported only by inference and not by positive testimony, the former takes the place of the latter. It becomes to him who has long used it as such, the strongest evidence. And what makes it more so is ignorance of what may be said on the other side. This is emphatically true of the dogma of the immortality of the soul and man's consciousness in death. The arguments generally adduced in its favor are, (1) the majority of the Christian church believe it; (2) it is an old dogma; (3) it is in harmony with man's aspirations and desires; (4) the opposite has been popularly considered materialistic and atheistic; and (5) it is supported by inferences drawn from certain scriptures. It is freely admitted by its ablest exponents that there is no positive Bible evidence in its favor. We have shown in past numbers that man is not by nature immortal, and that his only good hope of immortality is Christ and the resurrection. We are not disposed to leave the matter here, however. We wish, with our readers, to examine the question more thoroughly than we have yet done. Let us first notice the arguments above mentioned. 1. The majority of the Christian church believe that the soul is immortal and conscious in death. But this is not proof that it is so. If there are any people on earth who ought to look with suspicion on mere majorities, Christians are that people. The history of the people of God in all ages has shown the adherents to truth a "little flock," while those who have opposed it were a great multitude. Noah and his adherents were few at the time of the deluge; many were those who did not believe him or his message, and they numbered among them mighty men, "men of renown." Yet Noah was right, and what he believed was truth. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were pilgrims and strangers, few in number among the surrounding idolaters. The entire nation of Israel at its best was few in number compared with the corrupt world. Daniel stood alone in Babylon, Ezekiel in the valley of the Chebar, Elijah in Israel. Jesus and his disciples were few, and in his darkest hour our Lord stood alone. And since that time the true disciples of Christ have not been the great multitude, but the "little flock," and such Jesus assures us they will be when he comes. Luke 12:32-36. Were majorities of earth to rule, we would all become Catholics, and then pagans. After all, he who has the truth is in the majority, for God is on the side of truth, and if God be for us, who can be against us? 2. The immortality and consciousness of the soul in death is an old doctrine. Yes, it is. But all error is very old. Salvation by works, or by man's righteousness, is nearly as old as the race. Cain believed it, and slew his brother to vindicate it. The foundation of the immortal-soul belief goes back farther than Cain. It can be traced to the garden of Eden, to the utterance of one known and noted, "Ye shalt not surely die; . . . ye shall be as gods." Gen. 3:4, 5. Christians, however, can hardly accept the foundation or the immense but fabulous superstructure which is reared upon it. A doctrine is not better for being old; in fact, it is worse, for it more easily deceives, just as well-worn counterfeit bills pass as genuine. But the bill is not the less counterfeit though it may have been accepted as genuine a thousand times, any more than it would be genuine if detected in the first attempt at passing. So a doctrine is no better though it may have been believed by the good for ages; neither is the truth the worse for having been hidden. 3. The immortality of the soul is in harmony with man's aspirations. And what of that? Can we say that mankind in general desire immortality, therefore all are immortal? As well might we say that mankind in general desire perfect health, therefore all have perfect health; mankind in general desire happiness, therefore all are happy. We know in these cases the reasoning is false; is it not just as false in the other? God has planted in men's minds aspirations, longings for the ultimate good, and he has made it possible for man to reach that; but that possibility does not come through any inherent qualities, but through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. 4. The immortality of the soul has been considered a Christian doctrine, while conditional immortality has been considered materialistic and infidel. But this charge does not prove the doctrine to be so, or does not make it so. Many good things have been ruined by a term of contempt. For instance, the Sabbath has been contemptuously called "the old Jewish Sabbath," while it is never thus termed in the Bible. Yet it has been called so so frequently that many believe it. It is called by Inspiration, "The Sabbath of Jehovah thy God." So men have brought reproach against the doctrine of life only in Christ. It has been called by every reproachful term possible, and those who believe it have been characterized as unchristian, materialistic, soul-sleepers, infidels. But this is no test of truth. Elijah was called the troubler of Israel. Jesus was said to cast out devils by Beelzebub the prince of devils, was classed with wine-bibbers and sinners, and died at last as a malefactor. When nothing but terms of reproach can be brought against a doctrine by those who profess better things, we may, on general principles, count it worthy of investigation. Truth has something better to advance either for or against a doctrine than names of reproach or ridicule. 5. Inferences from certain passages of Scripture are in favor of the immortality of the soul. This is true, but our inquiry here must be, Are these inferences just? Will the general testimony of the Scriptures warrant them? Among the passages from which such inferences are drawn are the following: Matt. 17:1-9, which gives an account of the appearance of Moses and Elijah with Christ; Matt. 22:32, where God is spoken of as not the God of the dead but the living; Luke 23:43, which gives our Saviour's words to the dying thief. There are others also. But we must defer examination of them to future numbers. A FRANK ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND LAME DEFENSE.
SUNDAY morning, May 25, Rev. Mr. Silcox, of this city, preached a sermon on the necessity of Sabbath laws in general and a California Sunday law in particular. His text was Isa. 58:13, 14. According to the report of the Times of May 26, he mourned because California repealed her Sunday laws, and declared that "they ought to be enacted without delay." He said:— "It is our duty as Christians and as patriots to favor the re-establishment of these laws. Seventh-day Adventists and some others agree that the State has nothing to do, and should have nothing to do, with religion or any religious observance. But our Declaration of Independence recognizes in its very beginning our obligation to God. Our inalienable rights are declared to be God-given. It is on that principle that our republic is based. When we ask the State, therefore, to enact Sunday laws, we are acting in harmony with the Declaration of Independence. We believe it to be an inalienable right of men to rest from their labor every seventh day." Mr. Silcox was a member of the American Sabbath Union convention of the California branch recently held in San Jose. He was one of the advertised speakers, his subject being, "The Relation of the State to the Sabbath." He may be said, therefore, to speak as a representative of that organization. Now that organization has claimed again and again that all that they wanted was that a civil rest-day might be established by law. We know that it is otherwise; that Sunday as a civil day cannot be separated from Sunday as a religious day. The first includes the second. We thank Mr. Silcox for this frank statement. He tacitly admits that the State ought to have something to do with religious observances, contrary to the claims of Seventh-day Adventists, and attempts to defend it by an appeal to the Declaration of Independence. His reference proves a veritable boomerang in unskilled hands. The Declaration of Independence recognizes nothing of the kind that he claims. It speaks of nature's God in a way which the veriest atheist might consistently do. It declares that men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights and privileges; and the Jew, the atheist, the idolater, the Christian, could one and all subscribe to this sentiment. In fact, some of those who signed the document were not Christians nor believers in the Bible as the word of God; and he who penned the document has been almost execrated by National Reformers as an infidel. It recognizes as a self-evident truth that the Creator of man—an emphatic general term which recognizes no system, creed, or religion—has in nature given men certain equal rights, among which is not the liberty to dictate religious observances to one's fellows, but the liberty to rest or not rest on any day. It is "an inalienable right of men to rest from their labor every seventh day." It is equally an inalienable right to labor, or else the rest is not by right but by compulsion and of necessity. The right to eat and drink implies the right to abstain from eating and drinking. And this is the "liberty" which the Declaration of Independence recognizes that the Creator has endowed men with; but this is also the liberty which Mr. Silcox and his friends would take from us. There is the same8 difference between Sunday laws and the Declaration of Independence that there is between light and darkness, between liberty and tyranny, between Roger Williams and Ignatius Loyola. The "liberty" of Sunday laws is the liberty for a class—those who keep Sunday. The "liberty" of the Declaration of Independence is liberty for all men. Mr. Silcox and as many as think like him have already the liberty to keep Sunday as holy as they can, but others ought to have the same liberty not to keep it. It does not require Sunday laws for the first any more than it does for the second. One more point. It is our duty as "patriots" to stand by the Declaration of Independence, but from foregoing reasons it is evident that to do this we must oppose Sunday laws. It is our duty as Christians to follow the golden rule, to do to men as we would have men do to us were circumstances reversed. We would not like the Mohammedan to compel us to observe his sacred sixth day; we would not like the infidel to compel us not to observe any day. The Sunday keeper would not desire the Jew to compel him to observe the seventh day. Therefore they ought not to compel any of these classes to observe the first day; and therefore it is the duty of Christians to oppose all Sunday laws. At a recent meeting of representatives of various religious denominations in New York, Dr. R. S. MacArthur, of the Calvary Baptist Church, in the course of a speech, made a point that is not emphasized nor even believed by professed Protestants as much as it should be. The point is contained in the following paragraph:— "The famous dictum of Chillingworth is to be emphasized—the Bible and the Bible only, the religion of Protestants. Recently I was asked to give my indorsement to the statement that the Bible is to be regarded as the ultimate authority in all questions of faith and practice; that statement is not satisfactory. The Bible ought to be considered the sole authority in all questions of faith and practice. We must have infallibility somewhere. We utterly disregard the idea of an infallible man; but we are permitted to rejoice in the authority of an infallible book. Many, however, who are Protestants, hesitate to accept the Bible as the sole authority in religious belief. They give tradition and churchianity an authority which the word of God nowhere recognizes,—an authority which, to some degree, displaces the word of God as the only standard of faith. When the Bible speaks, we may not be silent; when the Bible is silent, we may not speak. Here, and here alone, is sufficient authority for our guidance in life, our hope in death, and our joy in eternity. More and more must the word of God be exalted to the supreme place in the church of God, as the only guide alike in faith and practice."