Earlier text: The 2,300 DaysIS GOD PARTICULAR?
By F. H. Tripp
“And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the Lord, which he commanded them not. And there went out fire from the Lord, and devoured them, and they died before the Lord.” Lev. 10:1, 2. Nadab and Abihu were slain by the Lord, for their disobedience; for he had distinctly said that they should offer no strange incense upon his altar. “Ye shall offer no strange incense thereon.” Ex. 30:9. This strange fire was something different from what God had commanded; it was of man’s kindling, and God manifested his disapproval of it by depriving them of their lives. The fire kindled by the Lord was holy, and the Lord’s charge to his priests was to “put difference between holy and unholy.” Lev. 10:10. This, Nadab and Abihu had not done; they had offered the strange fire or incense in just the same way that God had commanded them to offer the holy; hence he was displeased, and slew them. The same lesson is taught in Numbers 16 by the rebellion of Korah and his company:— “And they rose up before Moses, with certain of the children of Israel, two hundred and fifty princes of the assembly, famous in the congregation, men of renown; and they gathered themselves together against Moses and against Aaron, and said unto them, Ye take too much upon you, seeing all the congregation are holy, every one of them.” Verses 2, 3. Now the Lord had separated Moses and Aaron for the priesthood, and Aaron had been anointed for that service, and they were therefore holy men. Yet the sons of Levi, because they had been separated from the congregation of Israel, to do the service of the tabernacle, thought they were just as holy as Moses and Aaron, and had the same right to officiate in the priest’s office; but the Lord showed his displeasure by bringing upon them swift destruction. Verse 32. All this goes to prove that God is particular to have his people do just exactly as he says, and to put difference between the holy and unholy. So also God has separated, set apart, sanctified, and pronounced holy, one day in each week, and has told us plainly which day it is; and yet men who profess to love him, and keep his commandments, tell us that “it makes no difference which day we keep, as long as we keep one; for all days are holy.” That was just what Nadab and Abihu said by their offerings of strange fire. They said, by their acts, it makes no difference, as long as we make an offering. But the Lord looked upon it as an act of disobedience to his command, and slew them for the same. Korah and his company said by their acts that one man is as holy as another, and that all are holy, every one. But God looked at it differently, as shown in Num. 16:32, by the earth opening her mouth and swallowing them up. So these men tell us it makes no difference which day we keep, for they are all holy; but, as in the cases cited above, God looks at it differently. He has named the day, and declared it holy, and says, “Remember” “to keep it holy.” It is obedience the Lord wants. This is shown again in 1 Samuel 15, where the Lord through his prophet Samuel commanded Saul to “go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.” Verse 3. And Saul went and smote the Amalekites; but, contrary to the word of the Lord, he saved Agag, the king, alive, with some of the spoils, that God had told him to utterly destroy:— “But Saul and the people spared Agag, and the best of the sheep, and of the oxen, and of the fatlings, and the lambs, and all that was good, and would not utterly destroy them; but everything that was vile and refuse, that they destroyed utterly.” Verse 9. Then the Lord spoke to Samuel in regard to Saul’s disobedience: “And it grieved Samuel; and he cried unto the Lord all night.” Verse 11. It always grieves God’s true servants when they see those who make pretensions of being his people acting disobediently. It seems that Saul was made to believe that he had done the Lord’s bidding; for when Samuel came to him, he said, “I have performed the commandment of the Lord.” Verse 13. “And Samuel said, What meaneth then this bleating of the sheep in mine ears, and the lowing of the oxen which I hear?” Verse 14. Altho Saul was himself deceived by believing he had kept the commandment of the Lord, he could not deceive God’s true and faithful servant; for he knew, when he heard the bleating of the sheep and the lowing of the oxen, that the word of the Lord had not been obeyed. Saul excused himself by saying, “The people spared the best of the sheep and of the oxen, to sacrifice unto the Lord thy God.” Verse 15. Then said Samuel, “Stay, and I will tell thee what the Lord hath said to me this night.” Verse 16. “The Lord sent thee8 (376) on a journey, and said, Go and utterly destroy the sinners the Amalekites, and fight against them until they be consumed.” Verse 18. “Wherefore then didst thou not obey the voice of the Lord?” Verse 19. And Saul said, “I have obeyed the voice of the Lord. . . . But the people took of the spoil, sheep and oxen, the chief of the things which should have been utterly destroyed, to sacrifice unto the Lord. . . . And Samuel said, Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt-offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.” Verses 20–22. O, it is obedience the Lord wants of his people! When he gives direction, he expects, and demands, perfect obedience, and for men to make excuses, and apologize, as Saul did on this occasion, will not answer at all. What right had Saul to allow those sheep and oxen to be saved for a sacrifice, when the Lord had commanded they should be utterly destroyed?—None at all; he rebelled against the Lord’s command, and thought, by submitting to the voice of the people, to please God just as well. So we find men to-day fearing the people, and submitting unto men’s teaching, rather than God’s commands, thinking, perhaps, as Saul did, that the Lord would overlook it. Especially is this true as regards the Sunday sabbath, or first day of the week. The leaders are determined that that day shall be observed as the Sabbath, when the Lord has said distinctly, “The seventh day [not the first] is the Sabbath.” Many fear the people, as Saul did, and do not obey the Lord, but obey men instead. This is rebellion against God’s law, and he says in his word that “rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry.” 1 Sam. 15:23. So, by being stubborn, and not receiving the light that God has for his people, they become idolaters; that is, they worship something else beside the true God, the Creator. They worship the power that has given them this false sabbath, instead of God, who has given them the true; hence they reject the word of God; and will not God say to them, as he said to Saul, “Because thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, he hath also rejected thee”? David committed this same sin of disobedience when he went to bring the ark of God from Kirjath-jearim. This is the record:— “And David went up, and all Israel, to Baalah, that is, to Kirjath-jearim, which belonged to Judah, to bring up thence the ark of God the Lord; that dwelleth between the cherubim whose name is called on it. And they carried the ark of God in a new cart out of the house of Abinadab; and Uzza and Ahio drave the cart. . . . And when they came unto the threshing-floor of Chidon, Uzza put forth his hand to hold the ark; for the oxen stumbled. And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Uzza, and he smote him, because he put his hand to the ark; and there he died before God.” 1 Chron. 13:6–10. Why was this? Was not David doing a good thing in bringing the ark of God “home to himself to the city of David”?—Yes; but he was not bringing it the way God ordered it to be carried. God had said the sons of Levi should bear the ark upon their shoulders, when it was removed from one place to another; and David, tho he knew this, had not paid any attention to it, but had placed it on the cart, instead of moving it as the Lord had directed. So he could not proceed with it to the end of the journey, but carried it aside into the house of Obed-edom, where it remained three months. During that time it seems David realized his sin, and determined to obey the Lord in moving the ark in the future; for we find him saying, “None ought to carry the ark of God but the Levites; for them hath the Lord chosen to carry the ark of God.” 1 Chron. 15:2. “For because ye did it not at the first, the Lord our God made a breach upon us, for that we sought him not after the due order.” Verse 13. When David decided to obey the Lord, he had no farther trouble in moving the ark; for we read that “the children of the Levites bare the ark of God upon their shoulders with the staves thereon, as Moses commanded, according to the word of the Lord.” Verse 15. “And it came to pass, when God helped the Levites that bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord, that they offered seven bullocks and seven rams.” Verse 26. “Thus all Israel brought up the ark of the covenant of the Lord, with shouting, and with sound of the cornet, and with trumpets, and with cymbals, making a noise with psalteries and harps.” Verse 28. “So they brought the ark of God, and set it in the midst of the tent that David had pitched for it.” Chap. 16:1. The Lord showed his approval, by helping the Levites that bare the ark, as soon as David decided to obey him in regard to the manner of its removal. God is therefore particular to have his orders and his laws explicitly obeyed. Many other instructions might be given. Can we, concerning any command of God, say that he is not particular? that we may transgress or alter them as we will? Will it stand the test of the judgment? Will God manifest his approval of such work?—Nay, verily, he will not. God requires perfect obedience. THE ACCURACY OF THE BIBLE.
By D. J. Weiss
In this century of infidelity and unbelief concerning the inspiration of the Bible, and especially that of the Old Testament, it is providential that God has permitted a new witness to arise and confirm the statements made in the Old Testament canon. While the so-called “higher criticism” has been undermining faith in the word, the testimony of the mute monuments of Assyria, Babylon, and Egypt, have, on the other hand, lent remarkable confirmation to the Biblical record, even in minor points that would naturally be overlooked. Many such instances could be given, but the scope of this article will not admit of more than one. In 2 Kings 23:29 are the following words: “In his days Pharaoh-nechoh king of Egypt went up against the king of Assyria to the river Euphrates.” The marginal date for this event is given as 610, and this is approximately correct, reckoning by the chronology given in the Bible. Now in Canon Rawlinson’s important work the fall of Assyria is dated 624 B.C. (“Seven Great Monarchies,” vol. 1, p. 500.) Here is plainly a conflict between the Scriptures and secular history; for it is self-evident that if Assyria fell 624 B.C., the advance of Pharaoh against that kingdom, spoken of in sacred history as occurring fourteen years afterward, must be an error. Or perhaps the inspired writer made a mistake and should have written Babylon instead of Assyria, as Babylon was the great power immediately succeeding Assyria. But neither of these conclusions is necessary, nor are they true. The statement is true as it stands. The primary evidence upon which the date 624 B.C. rests is upon Ptolemy’s Canon and the classical writers. Ptolemy dates the accession of Nabopolassar king of Babylon 624 B.C., and the classical writers furnish the statement that in his first year he threw off the Assyrian yoke, and, together with Cyaxares, king of the Medes, occasioned the downfall of the Assyrian Empire. If the accuracy of the classical writers could be depended upon, the above conclusion would be well-nigh unavoidable, for Ptolemy’s Canon is one of the most authentic and trustworthy documents extant. But, unfortunately, the statements of the classical writers regarding the dates of events are not rated very high, and they have repeatedly been shown to be in error. Since the publication of Canon Rawlinson’s work new light has been obtained from the monuments, and the most critical orientalists have now accepted a date which approximately agrees with the Bible. In one of his latest works the above author himself places the revolt of Nabopolassar in 610 B.C. See “Origin of Nations,” p. 38. In that well-known authority, the “Encyclopedia Britannica,” article “Persia,” the date given is 607 B.C. These facts may be summed up as follows: Nabopolassar was appointed viceroy of Babylon 624 B.C., and for fifteen years or so continued to serve as a faithful vassal, and then revolted from his suzerain, the king of Assyria. It is probable that Necho was a party with Cyaxares and Nabopolassar in the alliance which overthrew the Assyrian Empire. (“Sacred Chronology,” ad. voc. Asshur.) But it is perhaps better to suppose that he seized this as a favorable opportunity for extending his dominion. While Assyria was hard pressed by her enemies, it would be a favorable chance for Egypt to even up the score with her old oppressor, and extend her dominion to where it had not been since the reign of Thothmes and Rameses. These statements from such acknowledged authorities show that the sacred history has been honored by the complete concurrence of profane history with it. The acceptance of either of these dates would clear the difficulty (610 or 607); for it shows in either case that Assyria still existed at the time of Pharaoh’s advance to the Euphrates. God designs that these monuments which have been deciphered should cause deeper faith in his word, and lead men to accept the Scriptures as their rule of life. May we learn the lesson which God has in it for us. DOCTRINE AND PRACTICE.
By Bishop Huntington
THE common distinction between what is doctrinal and what is practical in the Christian religion exists rather in popular impressions than in the reality of things. Doctrine simply means what is taught; practice, what is done; and therefore any Christian truth may be said to appear first as doctrine, only that it may appear afterwards as practice. The entire body of Christianity, as we take it from Holy Scripture, is doctrine; but it is the most intensely practical doctrine conceivable, just because it most profoundly and9 comprehensively concerns the vital welfare of men. Christian purity, as it shines upon the world in the sermon on the mount, is a doctrine; as it chastens the conversation of society, or cleanses character, it is a practice. Christian charity, as delivered to us in St. Paul's thirteenth chapter to the Corinthians, is a doctrine; as it enlarges souls, reconciles diversities of temper and culture, and sweetens human homes, it is a practice. In general, Christian practice is simply Christian doctrine gone into the life, institutions, and manners of mankind.—Bishop Huntington. TWO PROHIBITION PARTIES.
By W. S. G.
The attempt to carry temperance reform to ultimate success by means of a political party organization, has received another backset. The Prohibition National Convention, which recently met at Pittsburg, resulted in two parties and two national tickets. From the first the attempt to make the temperance cause carry a political party has been uphill work. Even the church element would not sacrifice political predilections for the much-needed reform. This fact was emphasized by John P. St. John, once a presidential candidate, who made the statement that out of 4,000,000 church voters the party could poll but 270,000. The party started out with the single issue of prohibition, but were induced to add some more political issues in order to win over certain “reform” elements to its support. So woman suffrage, Sunday lawism, government ownership of railroads, and a number of other planks, were added. While these additions to party policy drew some votes, many other temperance advocates found in them pretexts for not voting for the party’s nominees. But at the recent convention the process of platform making was suddenly blocked by the proposition to insert a free-silver plank. It would not be an up-to-date political party without striking on the rock of the free coinage of silver. After a heated contest, free silver was voted down. Then a single-issue resolution was introduced, and carried. Following is the platform as adopted:— “We, the members of the Prohibition party, in national convention assembled, renewing our declaration of allegiance to Almighty God as the rightful ruler of the universe, lay down the following as our declaration of political purpose:— “The Prohibition party, in national convention assembled, declares its firm conviction that the manufacture, exportation, importation, and sale of alcoholic beverages has produced such social, commercial, industrial, and political wrongs, and is now so threatening the perpetuity of all our social and political institutions, that the suppression of the same by a national party organized therefor, is the greatest object to be accomplished by the voters of our country, and is of such importance that it, of right, ought to control the political actions of all our patriotic citizens until such suppression is accomplished. “The urgency of this course demands the union without further delay of all citizens who desire the prohibition of the liquor traffic; therefore be it. Resolved, That we favor the legal prohibition by state and national legislation of the manufacture, importation, and sale of alcoholic beverages. That we declare our purpose to organize and unite all the friends of prohibition into one party, and in order to accomplish this end we deem it of right to leave every Prohibitionist the freedom of his own conviction upon all other political questions, and trust our representatives to take such action upon other political questions as the changes occasioned by Prohibition and the welfare of the whole people shall demand.” Because, as the Voice says, “the convention did not feel like leaving out the usual suffrage plank, which had for so many years held an honored place in the platform,” the following resolution was subsequently adopted:— “Resolved, That the right of suffrage ought not to be abridged on account of sex.” The candidates nominated by the convention are: For president, Joshua Levering, of Maryland; for vice president, Hale Johnson, of Illinois. Mr. Levering is a Baptist, and vice president of the Baptist Publication Society, while Mr. Johnson is a member of the Disciple Church. Prof. Samuel Dickie was reëlected chairman of the National Committee. But even inside the Prohibition party it has been demonstrated that politicians think more of politics than of temperance reform, so they can not consistently censure politicians in other parties for doing likewise. After the adoption of the foregoing platform, the free-silver advocates organized an independent convention. Their platform includes all the political points that might have been in that of the original convention had it not been for the free-silver proposition. It declares for prohibition of the liquor traffic; for woman suffrage; for government ownership of railroads and telegraphs; for no more land grants except to actual settlers; for the issuance of money only by the government, and that in sufficient quantities to supply business demands; for the free coinage of both gold and silver, at a ratio of 16 to 1; for a general Sunday law; for the abolishment of convict labor; for equity in taxation of the property and incomes of the people; for unsectarian public schools in the English language only; for pensions for ex-soldiers and sailors, graded according to disability and service; for the exclusion of paupers and criminals from other countries; for the election of president and vice-president by direct vote; and declaring that all money issued by the government should be a full legal tender for all debts, public and private. The convention adopted the name of the National Party for the new organization, and nominated standard bearers as follows: For president, Rev. C. E. Bentley, of Nebraska; for vice president, J. H. Southgate, of North Carolina. L. B. Logan, of Ohio, is chairman of the new party’s national committee. Among the more prominent of the seceders we note the names of Ex-Governor St. John, Helen M. Gougar, and Chauncey Dunn, the latter being a California champion; also R. S. Thompson, editor of the New Era, Springfield, Ohio. It is not to be supposed that the “narrow-gauge” party, as the single-issue party is styled, have laid aside the principles heretofore espoused in their platforms. It is not denied that the dropping of every issue but straight prohibition is a mere political policy. It has become well understood that no platform including current issues and disputes can ever unite the temperance element in a political party. Experience ought also to have taught before this time that comparatively few men will vote for candidates for high office on a single moral issue, and ignore those who represent the political issues in which they are more interested. It is a fact that all the practical victories for temperance, and especially for prohibition, have been won when one or the other of the old political parties were in power; when prohibition was before the people to be voted upon, without reference to candidates for office. Neither in Maine, Iowa, nor Kansas did the special Prohibition party carry the prohibition victory. It was the dissemination of temperance principles through temperance literature and lectures that aroused the sentiment among men of all parties, who voted for prohibition and also for their party candidates. This division in the Prohibition party while yet a mere handful, on purely political issues, is the strongest possible evidence that temperance reform can not be built up on a political foundation. When it has become a power as a popular sentiment that politicians can not afford to ignore, then all the parties will recognize it. But that position will have to be attained by other means than party politics. W. S. G. “GROWING OLD.”
By Parrie L. H. Roberson
BY PARRIE L. H. ROBERSON. It was an autumn day, and during my walk through the orchard and woods, many solemn and melancholy thoughts passed through my mind. I beheld the dying and decaying herbage on every side. These things seemed to silently whisper to me of a comparison between their life and my life. It was such a little while since I had seen these same leaves and plants just bursting into life. Soon the blossoms appeared, then quickly disappeared, leaving seeds and fruits to develop. How swiftly the glad spring and beautiful summer had passed away! Autumn had come and adorned the trees and plants with a richer robe. The fruit had been gathered, and now the leaves, some yellow, some crimson, some sere and brown, were dropping upon the ground to decay. Old age had come to them. Winter was fast approaching, and soon the trees would appear naked and gray. Suddenly I was aroused from my mournful meditations; a fitful gust of wind sent a little scrap of dirty yellow paper fluttering to my feet. I picked it up, and, carefully straightening it out, I managed to read from it the following beautiful verses:— “The tallest lilies droop at eventide;
The sweetest roses fall from off the stem;
The rarest things on earth can not abide;
And we are passing, too, away like them;
We’re growing old.” “We had our dreams, those rosy dreams of youth;
They faded, and ’twas well. This afterprime
Hath brought us fuller hopes; and yet, forsooth,
We drop a tear now in this later time;
We think we’re old.”10 “We smile at those poor fancies of the past—
A saddened smile, almost akin to pain:
Those high desires, those purposes so vast,
Ah, our poor hearts! they can not come again;
We’re growing old.” “Old! Well, the heavens are old, this earth is too;
Old wine is best, matured fruit most sweet;
Much have we lost, more gained, altho’ ’tis true
We tread life’s way with most uncertain feet;
We’re growing old.” “We move along and scatter as we pace
Soft graces, tender hopes, on every hand;
At last, with gray-streaked hair and hollow face,
We step across the boundary of the land
Where none are old.” Ah, thought I, the wind has brought this to me that I might pass it along to those who are ripe enough to possess gray hair and wrinkles; and may these words bring peace and consolation to such! Let the sunken eyes, that have grown dim with long watching, look from beneath the wrinkled brows upon these lines and take courage. Dear aged friends, you have traveled far; your journey has been rough and wearisome. The snow of time is upon your heads, and your perishing forms tell of coming decay; but soon you will reach the boundary line, and blessed be your hoary heads if they be found in the way of righteousness; for such may firmly grasp the strong hand of the Great Shepherd, and safely step away over into the glorious land of the beautiful beyond, where the lilies never droop, the roses never fall, “where none are old.” Rural Health Retreat, St. Helena, Cal. O blessed word “remembereth”! So often we forget.
We know our dear ones’ weaknesses, we would be kind—and yet
Some quick, sharp word of chilling harsh breaks from us unawares,
Unheeded till “as we forgive” confronts us in our prayers. But He remembers, always, all the earthly fretting care,
Burdens that press on nerve and brain until they scarce can bear
Our weary striving day by day—He sees us weak and frail,
Yet never for one moment do His love and pity fail. And when sometimes the brain no more, so worn with toiling days,
Can range in words our heart’s desires, our thoughts of grateful praise,
When we can only call His name, as grieved children cry,
Then, quick as mother-love responds to helpless infancy,
Which never yet has learned to doubt, or fear that love to trust,
He hears our heart’s unuttered prayer, remembering we are dust. Polly Ann's Sister.
By J. L. Harbour
Little Polly Ann Hoyt came rushing into her mother's kitchen, eager and excited, one beautiful morning in June. “O mother! what do you think?” “I think a good many things, child,” replied Mrs. Hoyt, who was sitting with a great wooden bowl in her lap, ‘working’ a golden mass of butter just from the churn. “But you never thought of anything like this, I know,” said Polly Ann. “They're going to give away little boys and girls at the Methodist Church over in Hebron next Friday!” Mrs. Hoyt burst into a laugh. “Who has been telling you such nonsense as that?” she asked. “O, but it’s true, mother! Mrs. Hart told me just now, when I took the eggs over to her. She’s coming right over to get your basque patterns, and she’ll tell you that—here she is now!” Mrs. Hart had really started with Polly Ann, but the little girl had been so eager to tell her mother “the news” that she had run on ahead. “Good-morning, Mrs. Hart,” said Mrs. Hoyt. “Will you just make the cat hop out of that rocking-chair, and take it yourself? I can’t very well get up to get it for you. I guess Polly Ann’s been understanding things with her elbows this morning.” “Has she been telling you about their going to give away children over in Hebron next Friday?” “Yes, and it can’t be true.” “O, but it is true, Mrs. Hoyt!” “Why, Mrs. Hart! How you talk!” Mrs. Hart laughed, and said:— “It’s like this, Mrs. Hoyt: It seems that an agent of an institution called the Little Wayfarers’ Home, in one of the big eastern cities, is going to be at the church with eighteen or twenty children of from six to twelve years of age. He has brought them out here to Ohio to get homes for them; for they have no homes and no parents, but are just poor, unfortunate little ones, such as Jesus maybe had in mind when he said that any kindness shown to even the least of these little ones was a kindness shown to him.” “It seems queer for children to be given away like that,” said Mrs. Hoyt. “I never heard of such a thing before.” “I have. They brought a lot out to Westville, where my sister lives, two years ago, and my sister took a real nice little boy on trial for three months, but she adopted him out and out at the end of six weeks, and she couldn’t think more of her own child, if God had given her one, than she thinks of that little fellow. You don’t have to adopt them or bind yourself to keep them permanently at first.” “No; you can take them on trial for awhile, and if they don’t prove satisfactory, the society will take them back. I am thinking of going over to Hebron Friday and getting one of the children.” “Why, Mrs. Hart, I should think that you had your hands full now, with five of your own.” “O, I don’t know! I guess one more wouldn’t make much difference, and all of ours are girls but Johnie, and he’d be so glad to have a little brother. Then I feel so sorry for the poor little orphans, and I’m not sure but it’s my duty to take one of them. It’d be a real good chance for you to get a sister for Polly Ann.” “O, won’t you, mother?” pleaded Polly Ann. “I don’t know,” said Mrs. Hoyt, addressing her reply more to Mrs. Hart than to Polly Ann. “I don’t know what my husband would say. I’ve always felt that it was a good deal of a risk to take in strange children like that. There’s no telling how they’ll turn out. But I’ll talk to my husband about it.” The result of this conference was very disappointing to Polly Ann; for her father and mother decided that they would not go to Hebron on the following Friday. “Such children as those are apt to have mighty bad blood in their veins,” Mr. Hoyt said. “Nobody knows who or what they are. Lots of them have been picked up right off the street. Then, again, times are so hard we have about all we can do to take care of ourselves.” Polly heard this decision in tearful silence. She was an only child, and it seemed very hard that she could not have a little sister when one might be had for the asking. “I’d be willing to give her half of my clothes, mother,” Polly said, “and I’d give her the best half, too—my red cashmere dress and blue sash, and I’d try to eat less, and she could sleep with me.” “You poor child,” said Mrs. Hoyt sympathetically, “I wish your father could feel that it was best for us to take one of these children, but if he doesn’t, you must be a good little girl and abide by his decision.” She tried to do this cheerfully, but her pillow was wet with tears on more than one night before Friday came. A few days after the occasion mentioned, Mrs. Hoyt said to Polly Ann:— “I wish that you would go down into the pasture, Polly, and see if you can’t find dewberries enough for a couple of pies. There are a good many vines by the fence between our pasture and Mr. Hart’s. I’ll make you a nice little turnover if you’ll get the berries.” Polly Ann started off with a little shining tin pail on her arm. The pasture was quite a distance from the house. When Polly Ann reached the spot indicated by her mother, she found the berries quite plentiful, and her pail was soon half full. She was down on her knees in some tall grass picking berries from some low-growing vines, when she was startled by some one saying:— Polly Ann was so startled that she upset her pail of berries. “I’ll help you pick them up,” said the same voice; and Polly, turning around, saw a little girl of about her own age climbing the fence. She was a very pretty little girl, with big blue eyes, and shining brown hair hanging in two long braids down her back, under a wide straw hat with a blue ribbon band. “I never saw berries growing before,” she said as she came forward. “My name’s Lucy Dean; what’s yours?” “You live here in this lovely country, don’t you?” “I’ve just come, but I hope I’ll be able to stay. O, I do hope I shall! It isn’t settled yet. The lady who lives up in that white house, Mrs. Hart, has taken my little brother Ray, and I cried and cried so when they went to separate us over at the church in Hebron yesterday, that Mrs. Hart said we just shouldn’t be separated—at least we shouldn’t be put in places far apart. She said she’d keep both of us first, even if she did have four little girls of her own.” “Then you’re from the Little Wayfarers’ Home,” said Polly. “Yes. It was a real nice place, too, but it’s lovelier here. It looked so beautiful down here that I just slipped off all by myself to see it. How many brothers and sisters have you?” “O, how dreadful! Get awful lonesome, don’t you? But we’d better pick up these spilled berries, and then I’ll help you gather the pail full.” “My mother will make you a turnover if you will,” said Polly. “She said she’d make me one, and I know she’ll make you one, too, if you’ll go home with me.” “I’ll go back and ask Mrs. Hart if I may. She said I could come off down here, but I think I’d better ask her about it before I go to your house.” Half an hour later Polly and Lucy appeared in Mrs. Hoyt’s kitchen. Mrs. Hart had given Lucy permission to stay as long as it would be convenient for Mrs. Hoyt to have her, and it was late in the afternoon before Lucy went back to Mrs. Hart’s. Polly went with her to see little Ray. When Polly had gone up to her own quiet little room that night, Mrs. Hoyt said to her husband:— “David, I want you to let me take that little girl and keep her. She’s as polite and well-mannered a little girl as I ever saw, and she’s had as good Christian training as our own child. She and Polly would be so happy together. When I kissed Polly good-night a little while ago, she put her arms around my neck and whispered, ‘Can’t I have Lucy for my sister, mother?’ and I said I’d ask you. What do you say, David?” “I say yes,” replied Mr. Hoyt, with marked emphasis. “Fact is, Martha, I’ve been thinking about the matter all day, and it seems to me that if Joe Hart and his wife, with their five, can take in another, we can surely take one. I’m ashamed to think that I refused in the first place. If the Harts would give him up, I’d be willing to take the boy, too.” Mr. and Mrs. Hart consented to this offer of Mr. Hoyt, because they felt that it would be kinder to Ray and Lucy to give them a home together, and because there were still two or three little boys unprovided for in Hebron, and they could secure another one to take Ray’s place in their house. Polly Ann was at first speechless with joy, and then she could talk of nothing else. “It’s so nice, mother,” she said, “to talk about ‘my sister Lucy’ and ‘my little brother Ray.’ I just know that you’ll never be sorry you adopted them”—a prediction that was fully verified as the years went by.—The Examiner. NOTES FROM RUSSIA.
By H. P. H.
The Russian Empire, already so vast, is constantly adding to its greatness. Her resources in soil, timber, and mines are almost unlimited; these are being gradually developed, and will in time render Russia quite independent of the rest of the world. The western world looks upon Russia as uncivilized, but Russia shares a different opinion. She does not look with favor on all the developments of modern civilization; indeed, she regards many of them as signal failures; she points to the universal discontent of the laboring classes of other nations as an evidence that modern civilization is wrong in its organization of society; in this, she thinks that she is superior, and that others will ultimately come up to her standard, instead of her coming down to theirs. The rapidity with which Russia is pushing the building of railways in various directions across her vast territory, is truly remarkable. Her great rivers are navigable to an unusual extent, and connect the large interior, containing the mass of her population, with the Baltic Sea on the north, the Black Sea on the south, and the Caspian in the interior of Asia. Railways are already operating far into the interior of Siberia and close to the border of India. The Siberian railway is already surveyed through China, reaching the sea at Peking; and another is being built north to connect St. Petersburg with the White Sea at Archangel. At present, the government is studying a project for a ship canal the size of the Suez Canal, to connect the Baltic with the Black Sea. This would be accomplished by connecting the Dyna with the Dnieper, at a cost of 500,000,000 rubles. The capital for this project is already in sight. With such a canal, the Baltic and Black Sea war fleets could quickly be united without passing foreign waters. Politically, Russia scored marked victories the past year; when the war between China and Japan closed, she quietly appropriated the best advantages; and in the long diplomatic contest between England and Turkey over the Armenian question, she, without any ado, coolly took the lion’s share. At this writing, Russia is all alive preparing for the coronation, which is to take place May 26. Judging by the number of distinguished guests from the leading nations of the world, it will be the world’s greatest event of the kind. Moscow is undergoing a general house-cleaning; most buildings, even to old houses tottering with age, are being repainted or perhaps painted for the first time. But all the gay colors and pompous robes of royalty will not atone for the wretched pavements, which are rough enough to shake all the delight out of those accustomed to the pavements of the western world. There has already been a general exodus from St. Petersburg. Many extra express trains were required by the unusual crowds. The majority of the fine coach horses have also been sent to Moscow. May 17, the day on which the writer passed from Moscow to St. Petersburg, the czar passed from St. Petersburg to Moscow. The railway line was well guarded by soldiers stationed about 100 yards apart. It was particularly noticeable that a soldier or two stood at every bridge or cattle guard. The greatest care is taken for the safety of the czar at Moscow. It is said that 200,000 soldiers will be present. Every one that comes to Moscow must have a clear record, well attested. On arriving at a hotel, one has hardly time to remove his hat before his passport is demanded. While all Russia is wrapped up in these coronation festivities, she is sensible of the enemy lurking within her borders. This situation presents a striking illustration of the uncertain foundation of earthly glory, and leads the mind to the heavenly, where there will be no sin to make afraid. Russia’s statesmen are dreaming of the future greatness of their empire; but they leave the prophetic word out of their calculations. Soon all the kingdoms of earth will crumble at the presence of the King of kings and Lord of lords; then “the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom.” It is cheering to know that some in Russia are so much interested in this kingdom of glory and the heavenly coronation; that they have very little interest in the earthly; their light shining in the darkness attracts others, and thus the Gospel is spreading in this great empire. There are many things to indicate that the closing triumphs of the Gospel will be great in Russia. Helsingfors, Finland, May 22.