PEOPLE reared under imperial government are accustomed to stand in awe of high officials and the nobility class in general. Men of the more common orders fear these higher castes, and never expect them to do common things. It is this principle of subserviency on the part of the masses, and the human disposition to worship wealth and title, that give the exclusive possession of these things to a comparatively small number of people, and endow them with the power that such advantages wield. Men would not care so much for wealth and title were it not that others are so inclined to look up to them, and honor them because of such possessions.
The Hearst newspapers have incidentally caused a surprise, even in London, by securing a common news interview from the Grand Duke Vladimir, of Russia. A London telegram says: “The interview with Grand Duke Vladimir caused a journalistic sensation. The British press is not accustomed to see the uncle of a czar quoted in a newspaper like an ordinary mortal. They could not believe such a thing possible until they had telegraphed to St. Petersburg, and received word that the interview was authorized and absolutely correct.”
Even the managers of those powerful English newspapers supposed there were human beings too august and dignified, because of wealth and title, for them to approach through ordinary business channels. Of course, the lordly ones of earth will perch high, and look with disdain upon the “mudsills” that form the foundation of their positions, as long as they are lauded and honored because of their good fortune. Nor are they likely to be brought down, excepting in isolated cases, while the efforts to humiliate them are confined to a mere envious ambition to change places with them.
No position in the power of man to confer, nor all the wealth of the world, can legitimately raise any man above the rank of “an ordinary mortal.” The greatest Man this world ever saw sought not the honor of men. When they would take Him by force to make Him a king, He hid Himself from them. “Being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself.” Had ordinary mortals been likewise minded, there never would have been such a thing as tyranny among men. But for the worship and envy of wealth and rank by the “common people,” no republic or democracy could ever become a monarchy. And while there exists the disposition to laud the autocratic class, and to imitate autocratic manners, monarchical principles will rule, whatever the form of government may be. G.
Please let me know if Rev. 20: 5 is found in the old manuscripts. F. C. C.
It is so stated by a class of people who deny the two resurrections, so clearly taught in the Bible. We repeat reply No. 1552 given to a similar question:
The earliest New Testament manuscripts are as follows: (1) The Codex Sinaiticus, now in St. Petersburg. It contains the whole of the New Testament. It was discovered by Tischendorf in the monastery of St. Catherine, on Mount Sinai in 1859. It was written in all probability in the Fourth Century, not later than the Fifth. It once included the whole Bible.
2. The Codex Alexandrinus, now in the British Museum, written in the Fifth Century. It contains the whole Bible.
3. The Codex Vaticanus, now in the Vatican, known also as Vatican MS. No. 1209. It was probably written in the latter part of the Fourth Century or in the Fifth. It contains the whole Bible, excepting parts of the New Testament including the Apocalypse (The Revelation).
4. The Codex Ephræmi Rescriptus. This is what is called a palimpsest, the original writing of which has been erased in order to use the parchment for another. In this MS. part of a Greek Bible was used on which to write some of the works of Ephraim, a Syrian “father.” So have the “fathers” in other instances obliterated the Word. But by chemical re-agents the old writing has been partially restored. It was written in the Fifth Century, and contains about two thirds of the New Testament.
5. Then we have the Peshitto-Syriac Version, but the “Oxford Helps” assures us that “there are no [Syriac] copies extant which were written so early as the oldest of the Greek MSS.
Now of the above, Rev. 20: 5 is found in the first, second, and fourth. The third does not contain the Revelation at all. The Syriac omits the passage, as does Vatican MS. No. 1160, of the Eleventh Century. Thus the three oldest Greek copies which contain the Revelation at all have the text. Wilson is correct when he says in a foot-note on the first part of Rev. 20: 5, in the Emphatic Diaglott, based on Griesbach’s Greek text: “The words were probably omitted by oversight in Vatican MS. [No. 1160] as they are found in A, B, C, tho not in the Syriac. By “A” is meant Codex Alexandrinus; by “B,” Codex Vaticanus, No. 2066 of the Seventh or Eighth Century; by “C” Codex Ephræmi Rescriptus.
Finally, the best Greek text, that edited by Wescott & Hort, contains the passage in question, and neither of the Revised Versions, nor any of the critics, so far as we know, even questioned it. The Revisers adopted for their revision the text “for which the evidence is decidedly preponderating,” and when that differed from the Greek text “from which the Authorized Version was made, the alteration be expressed in the margin.” (See Preface to Revised N. T. Division II., ¶ 4.) But there is not even an indication of question over Rev. 20: 5. The clause is considered spurious only by those who have a doctrine to prove which the text condemns.
Who wrote the record of Moses’ death? Deut. 34: 5-7. L. J.
Some suppose that it was written by Joshua, and attached to the books of Moses, because pertaining to that.
ROME'S HAND IN THE PUBLIC TREASURY.
By G.
IT is a very old theory of the Roman Church that civil governments are designed primarily to be assistants to "the church." Therefore whatever "the church" can get from the government, by whatever means, is legitimate gain. There was a time when the United States Government made appropriations to aid Indian schools conducted under the auspices of religious denominations. But in course of time a number of Protestant denominations discovered that the Roman Catholic Church was receiving more money in this way than all others combined. Then these Protestants were suddenly aroused to the fact that the whole business was wrong; that the government had no right to expend the people's money in support of any denominational institution. They would not receive any more money themselves, and protested against such appropriations for any church.
The Benjamin Harrison administration took this view of the case also, and Mr. Morgan, then commissioner of Indian affairs, carried out that policy. A great deal of complaint was made in Catholic circles, and—Mr. Harrison was defeated in his race for re-election. While the Protestants have refrained from asking government aid for their schools, the Catholics have managed, on one pretext or another, to secure some assistance, and now there has been divulged a scheme to make the Indians themselves pay for their religious education out of money held in trust for them by the government.
United States Senator Bard, of California, recently made a somewhat startling statement before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. He stated that he had been solicited by a Roman Catholic agent to use his influence with Republican members of Congress to forward the interests of Catholics in getting a diversion of Indian trust funds for the support of Catholic schools on the reservations. In return for this service it was promised that the Catholics would see that twenty Congressional districts, in which the Republicans were weak, were carried for the party.
Prominent Catholics have essayed to deny the charge, and to discredit the alleged agents in the matter. But there comes to the front some statements of the Protestant Episcopal Bishop of South Dakota, which give data rather difficult of refutation. He describes the embarrassment to his mission schools when the government contract system was abolished, and tells of his efforts to get some relief from the rigid application of the rule. He mentions high officers of the government whose decisions were emphatic that "it was the settled policy of the government not to use the money entrusted to it in aid of any denominational school." To this he adds:
Imagine my surprise, therefore, on discovering, last September, that the same executive officers who had declared this to be the policy of the Government and had administered the policy with inexorable suddenness and severity, had been making large contracts for the conduct of mission boarding-schools.
On the spur of the moment it seemed to me that I might ease my pecuniary burdens by securing such a contract for my mission boarding-schools, and I wrote to W. A. Jones, Commissioner of Indian Affairs, asking for information.
He replied: "These contracts were entered into pursuant to a petition filed in the House by the Indians of the several reservations, the expense to be paid out of trust funds now to their credit in the treasury of the United States."
In answer to a second letter, he wrote me: "I do not think it is necessary for you to secure the consent, or even to have a request made for the tribe, for the purpose of entering into a contract for your boarding-school."
My eyes began to be opened, then I began to stare. I recalled the whole history of the action of the government in regard to the inter-denominational schools as rehearsed above. I wrote to three or four Protestant missionary societies and learned that their amazement was equal to my own. I next discovered that these contracts numbered in all nine, and eight had been made with one denomination, and that of the total amount of the contracts, viz., $102,780, all but $4,320 was for the benefit of one denomination.
I happen to have missionaries in the Indian country who have been familiarly moving about among the people for twenty-five to thirty years, and who are thoroughly familiar with the Indian language. I addressed inquiries to these and to others, and learned that these petitions for these contracts were gotten up quietly; that they were entirely unheard of by them and a large number of Indians for months afterward, and that many of the Indians who signed them did not know what the petitions meant.
I received copies of the petitions sent in from different tribes. I found the petitions to be practically all in the same language, and language which the natives would not use. They were signed by women as well as men. About two-thirds of the signers merely attached their mark. The whole number of signers is a very small fraction of the tribes concerned, in one case 150 signers in a tribe of 5,000 Sioux.
Bishop Hare then presents an indisputable record of contracts made by the government Indian office with sectarian educational institutions, for the year ending June 30, 1905, which are as follows:
St. Joseph's School, Roman Catholic, total for year $18,860; St. Louis School, Roman Catholic, $9,375; St. John's School, Roman Catholic, $8,125; Immaculate Conception School, Roman Catholic, $7,020; Holy Rosary School, Roman Catholic, $27,600; St. Francis' School, Roman Catholic, $27,000; St. Labre's School, Roman Catholic, $6,480; St. Mary's School, Roman Catholic, $500; Foss Boarding School, Lutheran, $4,320; total $102,780.
Thus is indicated Rome's propensity to secure public funds for the support of her church work,—law or no law,—and her fecundity in devising ways and means for inducing politicians to further her purposes. As an offset to this particular phase of financial scheming, Representative Stevens, of Texas, has introduced in Congress a bill to prohibit the use of Indian trust funds for the education of Indian children in sectarian schools. Whether it will ever get any farther than a committee remains to be seen.
The President urges the passage of a bill introduced by Representative Lacey, which provides for paying the interest on the trust funds to the Indians themselves in severalty, and that would enable each one to do as he pleased about supporting schools. However, he says the contract system will be continued, unless Congress or the courts decide otherwise. G.
A SIGN OF THE TIMES.
By United Presbyterian
CHRISTIAN conversation is fast becoming a lost art. How seldom do we hear men in places of public concourse, in public conveyances, or in places of business, conversing on sacred themes. Is there any better way of strengthening faith, aside from fellowship with God, than just by laying one faith alongside of another, and comparing one with the other? Here righteousness and peace kiss each other. The way in which another has triumphed over temptation, will enable us to triumph. What has proved a comfort to him, may prove a comfort to us. When one man's hope is joined with another's, it is easier for them both to rise to higher things.
Suppose those two men on the Emmaus road had been talking about the sheep market down at Jerusalem, or the price of olive oil, or doves, or young pigeons, do you suppose their hearts would have burned within them, or Christ would have joined their company, or would have revealed Himself to them later in the breaking of bread? Indeed, they did not know until the long walk was over that the Master Himself had a share in their conversation. May it not be so with us? The failure of religious converse is one reason why our hearts are not more frequently made glad by His presence.—United Presbyterian.
CONCERNING SUNDAY OBSERVANCE.
By John D. Bradley
[From our Correspondent at Washington, D. C.]
Sunday and the Inaugural Ball.
ACTION in behalf of Sunday observance marked the initial meeting of the Washington committee having in charge the arrangements for the coming Presidential inauguration. The fixing of the time for the inaugural ball seems to have been one of the chief items of business at the first meeting, held on December 7, of this body, which, by appointment of the President, is headed by Gen. John M. Wilson, and is said to be "thoroughly representative of the city of Washington." It was decided that the only possible night for the ball and inaugural reception was the night of March 4, "notwithstanding the fact that the next day will be Sunday," but that "the festivities must cease at midnight, so far as the dancing and music is concerned."
A promenade will be allowed after that hour on the ground, as General Wilson declared that it is not improper to go visiting on Sunday. The committee decided that the music and dancing should be stopped promptly at midnight Saturday night, but that the doors should not be immediately closed; the idea being that those who wished to stay, engage in conversation, and admire the decorations, should be allowed to do so. The following statement concerning the matter is attributed to General Wilson:
I think that the people can get their full enjoyment out of the evening without extending the festivities into the Sabbath. Instead of arriving at the ball at 10 or 11 o'clock, and dancing until 2 in the morning, or later, they can come at 8. That will give four hours for dancing, and will get everybody home at a reasonable hour. As the hands of the clock point to midnight, the band will play "Home Sweet Home." Of course, if the guests desire to stay longer, the lights will not be put out. There will be no objection to the people remaining and looking at the decorations, but there will be no more dancing.
Doubtless appreciating the fact that the prospect of being restricted, after 12 o'clock, to standing around and admiring the decorations, will be apt to modify considerably the interest in the affair of those who usually take most interest and part in such affairs, the Washington Evening Star devoted an editorial to the matter, arguing that the holding of the affair on Saturday night entailed "the limitation necessarily imposed by the succession of Sun-7day," "the inaugural reception is not necessarily brought to a close any earlier than in other years;" that "merely the dancing and dance music must cease at midnight," and that "the dancing feature is not the most significant item of the occasion."
Sunday Legislation.
The following general summary of the Sunday laws of the United States, and all territory under the jurisdiction of the United States, so far as such laws relate to labor, appears under the heading, "Sunday Labor," in an article on "Labor Legislation in the United States," which constitutes a portion of "Bulletin No. 54, of the Bureau of Labor, Department of Commerce and Labor," which bulletin has just recently been issued:
All states and territories except Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, and the Philippine Islands have laws prohibiting the employment of labor on Sunday. In California, however, it is a misdemeanor for any employer to cause his employees to work more than six days in seven, except in cases of emergency. The Sunday labor laws usually make it a misdemeanor for persons either to labor themselves or to compel or permit their apprentices, servants, etc., to labor on the first day of the week. Exceptions are made in the case of household duties or works of necessity or charity. These exceptions are sometimes expressed in general terms and sometimes specified in detail. The excepted labor is usually that required in the sale of drugs, medicines, surgical appliances, milk, ice, soda water, newspapers, the letting of horses and carriages, undertakers' work, and railway transportation. In Colorado and Montana, barbering only is prohibited on Sunday, while in Alaska barbering is included among the excepted occupations. A number of states make special provisions for the running of railway cars on Sunday, such as specifying certain hours during which they may run, permitting the transportation of perishable goods, fruit, milk, etc., or leaving the regulation of the running of railway cars on Sunday to the discretion of the railroad commissioners. Nearly all the Sunday labor laws make exceptions in the case of members of religious societies, by whom any other than the first day of the week is observed as a Sabbath, provided they refrain from labor on that day.
The writer of the article from which this extract is made, who is no doubt an attaché of the Labor Bureau, states in beginning that he includes "only those classes of laws which are of greatest public interest at the present time." "Sunday labor" is fifth in his classification of the fifteen subjects considered. This classification of Sunday laws as labor laws is a conspicuous instance, illustrative of a change which Sunday legislation is now undergoing in the public mind. Its real character is being ignored, and there is being imputed to it a character which it does not possess except by imputation. It is no longer "Sabbath" legislation, but "labor" legislation.
No doubt it is possible in the course of time for religious statutes to issue in civil statutes having no religious character, for history furnishes examples; and so it may be that in time there can issue from Sunday legislation real, genuine labor legislation, but it certainly is an inexcusable disregard of the real character of most of the Sunday legislation existing to-day, to assume that it is labor legislation. The history and the text of these laws, and everything by which their character is to be determined, shows indisputably that whatever bearing they may have upon labor, they are "Sabbath" laws, and not "labor" laws—laws in the interests of the observance of the religious Sunday, and not laws in the interests of workers. Whatever benefit they are to labor, is incidental to their object, which is something else entirely.
A Legal Adjunct to Sunday Observance.
From present indications, the Sunday institution is not to continue in a complete monopoly of the weekly holiday and rest period business, but will be obliged to share that function, as well as popular favor and the recognition and support of the law, with another institution of that sort. The Saturday half-holiday seems to be gaining strength and favor, and establishing itself as a recognized institution. A recent notable instance indicative of this, has been a decision of the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, rendered on December 7, in which, interpreting a section of the District Code, it is declared that "the statute divides the Saturday into two parts, one for business purposes and the other for a holiday," and that "every Saturday after 12 o'clock is a holiday for all purposes" in the District.
The question at issue was over the computation of time allowed for appeals. "Counsel on each side of the case contended that the rule of the law that courts will not take notice of fractions of a day was applicable," but the court held that "the rule is no longer applicable that the law will take no note of fractions of a day," and that the Saturday half-holiday must not be included in the time allowed for the taking of an appeal. The decision stated that the question before the court was "a somewhat novel one, and necessarily so, since the establishment of the Saturday half-holiday is a comparatively recent institution." So we have here judicial recognition of the Saturday half-holiday as an established institution.
This institution will be welcomed and supported by the champions of the Sunday institutions, so far as it may be a means of promoting the latter institution. They will doubtless regard it as being useful and desirable, as a sort of introduction and preparation for the advent of the "Sabbath," and as a means of removing the unholiness of industry to a proper and suitable distance from the sanctity which attaches to the hours of the Sunday institution. But they who may suppose that the champions of a Sunday "weekly rest" period will have any such feeling with regard to the Saturday holiday and rest period that they have with regard to the Sunday holiday and rest period, are much mistaken. Notwithstanding their constant use of the phrases, it is not "weekly rest" and "release from toil" that is the concern of these people, but a certain weekly period of time to which they attach a special religious character, very different to them from any and all other time in the week; and "weekly rest" and "release from toil" at some other time, never can appeal to them as it does with reference to the time covered by the Sunday institution. JOHN D. BRADLEY.
IMPORTANT AND TRUE.
By Dr. Forsyth
THERE are many gospels which men are preaching to-day. There is the gospel of intellectualism, making its appeal to the intellect. There is the gospel of moralism, making its appeal to the ethical nature. There is the gospel of estheticism, making its appeal to the artistic nature. There is the gospel of symbolism, making its appeal to the imagination. In their extreme forms, each of these gospels exaggerates a part of man's nature which can not be dominant without disaster; and even in the less extreme and more admirable forms, they attempt to minister to the spiritual nature of man through some subordinate faculty, with a foreordination to failure. Man needs God. Dying man needs the Living Christ. The intellect can bring us only to thoughts about God, not to God. Morals can bring us only to determinations for God, not to God. Esthetics can bring us only to representations of God, not to God. Symbolism, however exquisite and suitable, can bring us only to symbols, and not to the Deity symbolized. The Gospel of Jesus Christ brings us to Jesus. In the central realm of spirit the Living Christ comes to us, demonstrates Himself to us. Therefore, let the first thing be first. Christ within, and thoughts, feelings, volitions, thenceforth spring from a new life, while intellectualism, moralism, estheticism, and symbolism, cease to be dangerous.”
—Dr. Forsyth.
CHINA WAKING UP.
MR. ARCHIBALD COLQUHOUN is one of the highest authorities upon all matters relating to China. That he is justly so regarded, is shown by his able work entitled "China in Transformation." Mr. Colquhoun contributes a most instructive and suggestive article to the July number of the North American Review, in which he calls attention to a number of important facts concerning recent movements which indicate that China is waking up. The article is entitled, "China in Transformation, and the War."
In the opening sentence, Mr. Colquhoun says: "Altho very few people, with any reputation as political students, would care to risk a prophecy as to the probable denouement of the present war, the writer is bold to foretell one thing: China will provide some surprises for the world at large, possibly before the conclusion of the war, inevitably after it is over. Russia and Japan present to the uninstructed observer the spectacle of two men fighting for the possession of a quasi-moribund third; but the supposed helpless one has opened, at least one eye, if not very widely, and is eagerly watching the struggle."
Mr. Colquhoun agrees with the statement made in The Northwestern a few weeks ago, that the great man of China to-day, the man whose name should be remembered, is Yuan Shih Kai. Yuan has secured the favor of the empress dowager. He supports the more practical reforms, and his present great effort is to train and equip properly a modern army in northern China, for he has become a convert to the idea that a policy, without force to back it, is useless. He is making use of Japanese military methods, and his purpose to create a strong Chinese army is based primarily upon the doctrine, "China for the Chinese."
An item of great significance, says Mr. Colquhoun, is found in the fact that in the Chinese civil service examinations, which open the way to official station, a revolution occurred last year. Hitherto, the examinations had been rigidly confined to that antique Chinese classicism which seems to Occidentals so very absurd in a practical age. But now the examinations include questions as to the significance of the Monroe doctrine, the value of the Panama canal and the Siberian railroad, the meaning of free trade and protection, the chief points in the educational systems of different countries, and the modern development of Japan.
Other significant facts are the following: Chinese workmen are now crowding Japanese arsenals and factories, to be taught the use of modern machinery and manufacturing methods. The Japanese influence in China is being widely extended by means of a native press, controlled and directed by Japanese, which extends to the remote interior of the Chinese empire. One of the early results of this form of agitation for modernization was an exodus of Chinese students to Japanese colleges, of whom in Tokyo last year there were over 1,000 enrolled. A network of postal service has been spread over the length and breadth of the eighteen provinces, which makes the dissemination of the newspapers and literature possible.
Mr. Colquhoun, in summing up these points, remarks: "Who can doubt that China is on the eve of a new era, and that the new reform movement, of which Japan is the prime instigator, will be successful, because it does not center in any one district, class of society, or political party, but has centers of activity in the army, the mandarin class, the literati, and the industrial class? All have been touched with the magic wand, while the widely-disseminated literature of the Japanese press carries new light to the farthest ends of China."
—Northwestern Christian Advocate.
AFFAIRS IN RUSSIA.
ON February 10, conflicts were reported in various parts of Russia between strikers and troops. At Sosnovice 28 persons were killed, and 36 severely wounded, several of whom have since died. On the previous evening over a hundred are said to have been slain at Warsaw. At Lodz twenty are said to have been killed in one conflict and 12 in another, with a large number wounded. Strike news comes from all parts of Russia, but at the close of the week it is reported that the men are returning to their work.
A report from St. Petersburg states that the czar has decided to convene the ancient land parliament, known as the Zemskyzabor. The report has been received with rejoicing by the people. Later reports indicate that the ducal party is seeking with all its power to prevent the czar carrying out his purpose in this respect.
In many parts of Russia are heard cries of "Down with autocracy," and these cries are by no means confined to the middle and lower class. The reform cry is said to be gaining ground.
On the afternoon of February 19, Grand Duke Sergius, uncle and brother-in-law of the czar of Russia, was assassinated by a member of the Socialist party. The duke, with a large escort, was driving to his palace, when a man in workman's garb threw a bomb which destroyed the vehicle, and tore the duke's body to fragments. Duke Sergius is held responsible for most of the harsh methods employed by the government. It is felt that he has stood in the way of the reforms which the czar intended to bring about.
By a unanimous vote the House of Representatives has passed a resolution, introduced by Senator Campbell, of Kansas, requesting the secretary of Commerce and Labor to investigate the methods and operations of the Standard Oil Company. The harsh methods of the trust in the state of Kansas have resulted in the passage of a bill by the State Legislature under which a state refinery of oil is to be established.
Cold weather during the past week throughout the Eastern and Central states has caused many thousands of dollars' worth of damage. Thousands of head of cattle have perished in Texas and other states, and in many places fruit buds have been destroyed, and many fruit trees have been killed. The full extent of the losses will not be experienced until next autumn's crops are harvested.
There was another wild flurry in the Chicago wheat pit on February 16. John W. Gates and his contingent are said to have cornered the wheat market. It is stated that their profits, if their holdings were sold now, would be $12,400,000.
The Church of England is inaugurating a crusade against the English "Godless Sunday," as it is called. The movement just now is directed mainly against the "smart set," who spend their Sundays in pleasure seeking.
