p. 203 | Review and Herald, Vol. 44, No. 26. (12/22/1874)

Rome and Europe.

ALL through Europe the battle goes against the church. The pope having declared his supremacy over the States, the States are giving in their answers with an emphasis which cannot be misunderstood. In Berlin, Archbishop Ledóchowski has been tried before the highest tribunal for ecclesiastical causes, and has been deprived of his see. Other bishops are in prison, and they also will in time be deprived and possibly banished. They have taken issue on the right of the State to legislate upon the affairs of the church, have set the laws at defiance, and are paying the due penalty. Archbishop Ledóchowski would not, of course, recognize the competency of a civil court to try a bishop; that question has been settled quite conclusively.

In Austria the emperor has replied to the pope’s passionate denunciation of the new ecclesiastical bills. The first of these has already passed the Upper House of the Reichsrath, and only waits the imperial signature to become a law. The archbishops and bishops upon its passage left the legislative chamber; that will not help them; they may have to leave the country before long. The claim of the church to be wholly independent of the State is monstrous. A sovereignty within the State, it has since 1870 become throughout Europe a conspiracy against the State.

The points at issue between the governments and the church are very simple. 1. The sufficiency of civil marriage. 2. The control of the State over education. 3. The control of the State over the education of priests so far as to require their attendance at the national universities prior to their special training. 4. The notification to the State of the nomination of priests for parishes. This claim is grounded on the fact of the State’s contributions to the maintenance of public worship. 5. The control of the State over the property of ecclesiastical corporations. But for the exercise of this power the church would acquire all the real estate of every kingdom in Europe. Long before the Reformation, the statutes of England were framed to check its rapacity. The modern State has again and again found it necessary for its own safety to confiscate the church’s possessions. This will be done as long as the Roman Catholic church is a church. Able to acquire property from its subjects through the force of the terrors of the future world, it can measure its acquisitions only by its demands, and its demands are insatiable.

This, then, is the issue. Rome declares: “I shall do as I please, for by the appointment of God I am supreme over the world.” The State replies: “You shall obey in all things necessary to the State’s welfare. You are to be judged by the State, and not the State by you. While you have liberty within the State, you shall not organize conspiracy against the State.” In making this answer Bismarck and Andrassy, Switzerland and Italy, all concur. The attempt of an Italian priest, who has obtained a quasi-sovereignty, to carry the world back to the Middle Ages, is not going to succeed.—The Methodist.

Hold Fast.

By M. Wood

“Behold, I come quickly; hold fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.” Rev. 3:11. These words of our divine Lord evidently imply a necessity of constantly being on the alert lest the world, with its fascinating allurements and the power of Satan, draw us away from God and his truth, which is a test of loyalty and integrity. Paul, in his epistle to the Thessalonians, says, “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.” There are thousands who can testify that it is good to obey God, and keep his commandments, of which the psalmist says, “More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold; sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. Moreover, by them is thy servant warned; and in keeping of them there is great reward.” Ps. 19:10, 11. As we do not receive our reward until the second advent of our divine Lord, Rev. 22:12, it behooves us to hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast unto the end. Heb. 3:14. Because we have once started in the good way, and embraced the truth for the love of it, sacrificed, borne burdens, and denied self, is no evidence that we shall obtain eternal life. Many individuals have set out in real earnest to serve God and keep all his commandments; but in an unguarded moment, they gave way to the pleadings of the tempter. Inch by inch they yielded the ground so nobly gained, and refused to walk in the light. It is not enough to make a good beginning; we must “hold fast” that which we have, and be able to say as did Paul, “I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith.” 2 Tim. 4:7.

M. WOOD.

Boston, Mass.

Trifles.

OUR lives, or rather their happiness or misery, are in a great measure made up of trifles, just as time is made up of moments. The discomfort of having to wait for a meal beyond its regular hour, of finding slovenliness and discomfort where a little thought and pains might have introduced ease and even elegance, or of being brought up sharp at every turn by want of punctuality or of method—these are ills more difficult to bear than the uninitiated imagine. Yes, elegant! for comfort consists in finding everything where and as it should be; elegance in adding to what should be there that which need not be there, but whose presence surprises, attracts, and gratifies.

There is often neither comfort nor elegance in the richer mansions, while both are found in the laborer's cottage. A jug filled with flowers, a neat white curtain, a couple of flower-pots, may effect what the expenditure of hundreds of dollars has not achieved. Let it not be said that these are mere trifles, unworthy of attention. Distrust the pretense of that spirituality whose eyes are too lofty for the common things of life. In the long catalogue of things to “think on,” they rank at any rate among the “whatsoever things are lovely.” You say they are trifles; then all the more they ought not to be neglected. But, trifles though they be, to neglect them is not a trifle; it is a breach of plain duty.—Hearth and Home.

The Tragedies of Gossip and Slander

Great crimes work great wrongs, and the deeper tragedies of life spring from its larger passions; but woful and most melancholy are the uncatalogued tragedies that issue from gossip and detraction; most mournful the shipwreck often made of noble natures and lovely lives by the bitter winds and dead salt waters of slander. So easy to say, yet so hard to disprove—throwing on the innocent and punishing them as guilty, if unable to pluck out the stings they never see, and to silence the words they never heard. Gossip and slander are the deadliest and cruelest weapons man has for his brother’s heart.

The Courage to Be Ignorant

HAVE the courage to be ignorant of a great number of things, in order to avoid the calamity of being ignorant of everything.

The Value of Quotations:

By John Nevins Andrews

THIS is found in three things: 1. In the doctrine or fact, or point stated in the quotation; 2. In the reliability of the quotation; 3. In the appending to the quotation of definite references to the book, chapter, and section, or to the volume and page of the author quoted.

1. Of the correctness of the doctrine expressed in a quotation, or of the value of an alleged fact, or of the sharpness of the point it makes, the reader can and will judge for himself.

2. In the matter of the reliability of the quotation, that is to say, in the question whether the author actually uses the language quoted, most readers are compelled to rely upon the integrity of the one who makes the quotation. There is, therefore, the most sacred obligation upon such person to quote accurately and honestly. It will not do to take a quotation found floating in the papers, for which no one is responsible, and give it to your readers as genuine, thereby yourself becoming responsible for its genuineness. The chances are at least equal that a quotation of this kind will not be found reliable. Sometimes they are made from memory by some careless writer, and then, because they suit the views of those who find them, they are quoted from writer to writer, none taking the trouble to go to the original author to see if the words are used by him. Sometimes these quotations are adhered to even by writers who have gone to the author cited and failed to find the words. These writers seem to think that the forgery has become respectable by use. Again, it is sometimes the case that quotations are deliberately coined in malice, in order to blacken the name of some eminent man, or to bring odium upon some sect or some doctrine. Sometimes they are deliberately coined for exactly the opposite purpose. In not a few instances I have taken quotations that were of immense importance if truthful, and have gone through page by page the voluminous works of the author upon whom they were fathered, and found that no such words were used by him. Therefore, those who make quotations should take great care to know that they are reliable. If it is not possible to see the original author, then give the name of a responsible writer who professes to make the quotation.

3. Tell just where the quotation is to be found. If it is an important statement, opponents will dispute its correctness, and deny that the author uses the language. Therefore, tell the volume, chapter, and section, of the work, and accurately name the work and the author. This is better than it is to give volume and page, because with respect to the volume and page, different editions are not always alike. If you quote a newspaper, or any periodical, give the date exactly, or give the volume and number. These suggestions are of much importance. J. N. A.

Profound Criticism.

By Uriah Smith

THERE appears a strange article, entitled “Mercy-Seat” in the World’s Crisis, of Dec. 9, 1874, written like other strange things of late in that paper by Miles Grant, and written for the purpose of giving another thrust at that over which he seems at the present time to be feeling so exceedingly bad, “Mrs. White’s Visions.” And we think the reader will agree with us that it is a strange production, when he learns the positions taken.

He says: “The word here [in Heb. 9:5] rendered mercy-seat, is ilasteerion.” Then he says the word propitiation, in Rom. 3:25, is “from ilasteerion, the very word rendered mercy-seat.” Then he draws the conclusion, “Christ is now our mercy-seat.” And “as the mercy-seat was ‘in the holiest of all,’ . . . it follows that Christ the great antitype has been ‘in the holiest of all,’ ever since he went to Heaven to be our mercy-seat.” From which he leaps to the desired conclusion, as follows:—

“As Christ has been our ilasteerion—mercy-seat, for over eighteen hundred years, and as the place for the mercy-seat is only in the holy of holies, it follows that Mrs. White’s visions, which declare he did not go into the holy of holies till A. D. 1844, are untrue.”

If Christ is the mercy-seat, we wonder who is the priest that ministers for us before the mercy-seat, or, have we no high priest in this dispensation, only a mercy-seat?

But if Eld. G. has enough knowledge of the Greek language to consult the lexicons (a feat which we judge from his criticism he is unable to perform) he will find not ilasteerion or ilasteerios, but hilasteerios, an adjective. He will see moreover that in Rom. 3:25, it is in the masculine gender, agreeing with Christ, in which case it means an expiatory sacrifice, and in Heb. 9:5 it is in the neuter gender, in which case it means the mercy-seat, the cover of the ark. From this use of the word, Greenfield, in his lexicon gives two words, one hilasteerion, neuter, meaning “the cover of the ark, mercy seat,” Heb. 9:5, the other hilasteerios, masculine, “one who makes expiation, a propitiator, or propitiatory sacrifice, Rom. 3:25.”

If Eld. G. could only divest himself of a little of his sanctified hatred against the visions, he would save himself from such mortifying blunders as confounding the high priest with the cover of the ark before which he ministers, and mistaking one Greek word for another.

U. S.

The “Statesman” on the Stand.

By Joseph Harvey Waggoner

THE Christian Statesman has noticed the questions put to it some time ago, and says they are “frankly answered.” We are thankful for the information, for we should never have thought so from the mere reading of the answers. Its answer amounts to this, that they do not propose to establish “all Christian laws, and usages, and institutions,” as they have often and plainly avowed, but to strengthen by the force of the National Constitution such as are already “in our government.” It enumerates as follows:—

“Among these are the laws which regulate marriage, and those which forbid and punish blasphemy, the offering of prayer in our National and State legislatures, the maintenance of religious worship and instruction in our asylums, reformatories, and jails, the observance of public thanksgivings and fasts, the use of the oath in courts of justice, and many others. All these, as well as the laws which guard the Sabbath, we desire to maintain. All these, moreover, are proper to the State, and cannot, in any candid mind, be confounded with baptism and the Lord’s supper.”

Without any fear of contradiction “in any candid mind,” we declare the above to be simply an evasion of the issue. It is true that these are not to be confounded with baptism and the Lord’s supper, and why? Simply because they are not peculiar to Christianity, as are baptism and the Lord’s supper. Every point specified, as marriage, blasphemy, prayer, religious instruction, fasts, and the judicial oath, could be and are subjects of legal enactment with Jews as well as Christians. It certainly does not tell well for the frankness or discrimination of those who object to our Constitution as suiting those who reject the Christian religion as well as those who accept it, that in explaining what they mean by “all Christian laws, usages, and institutions,” they should enumerate points not peculiar to Christianity, every one of which may be accepted and enforced by a people who reject the gospel of Christ!

A writer and advocate of the Amendment, who is also a Vice-President of the National Association, said:—

“We are not a Jewish, but a Christian, nation; therefore our legislation must be conformed to the institutions and spirit of Christianity.”

Mr. Brunot, in taking the chair as President of the convention at Pittsburgh, said:—

“We propose such an amendment to the Constitution of the United States as will suitably acknowledge . . . Jesus Christ as its ruler and the Bible as the supreme rule of its conduct, and thus indicate that this is a Christian nation, and place all Christian laws, institutions, and usages, on an undeniable legal basis in the fundamental law of the land.”

Now, to legislate for Christians as distinguished from Jews, and to recognize Jesus Christ as ruler, it is necessary to place on a legal basis that which is peculiar to Christianity in distinction from Judaism, or that which is established by Christ in the gospel. But in the above enumeration by the Statesman there is not a single point of that character. And if each and every item of its specification were enjoined by Congress on a constitutional basis, no one could thereby judge that we are “a Christian nation,” more than they can by our present Constitution and laws. We are left, willing or unwilling, to the conclusion that the “Amendment party” do not frankly avow their position, or else that their position is not well defined in their own minds.

In an appeal to the members of the Pittsburgh Convention we tried to point out to them the difference between the principles of morality and the “laws or institutions” of Christianity; a difference of which the speakers in that Convention seemed to be oblivious. Baptism and the Lord’s supper are “Christian institutions,” and really come within the province of the Amendment as advocated by the Statesman. But marriage, fasts, prayers, the judicial oath, &c., are not Christian institutions. They are all accepted by the Jew as well as the Christian, and a Constitution enforcing all these might be accepted by the Mohammedan as well as by either Jew or Christian. How, then, will the authority of Jesus Christ as a ruler, or the Christian character of the nation, be recognized by enforcing these by the general government? We think there is yet room for an answer, or an explanation of its answer, from the Statesman. And an explanation is necessary to establish its claim that it frankly answers questions.

We have thus far omitted all reference to the Sabbath, and will now endeavor to show that their ground is no more tenable on that question than on the others. The point which first meets us on this subject is, whether or not it is a Christian institution. We say it is not. The Sabbath of the fourth commandment—the only Sabbath of the Bible—is the seventh day, which God sanctified when he created the heavens and earth, “because that in it he had rested from all his work.” This antedates Christianity, as does marriage; they were both instituted before sin entered into the world. The Statesman properly includes marriage in those things which are not to be confounded with baptism and the Lord’s supper. Properly, because it is not peculiar to Christianity—it does not belong exclusively to Christians. And the Sabbath, dating from creation, belongs to the same class.

But the Statesman does not accept this position. It does not accept the seventh day, the rest day of the Creator, as the Sabbath. It puts forth the first day of the week under the title of the “Christian Sabbath,” as an institution erected by Christ, and as peculiar to the Christian religion. If this is truth, then the Sunday is to all intents a “Christian institution,” “usage,” or “law,” and as such is necessarily classed with baptism and the Lord’s supper.

We have tried in vain to get the “Amendment party” to notice this point, but so far they have proved slow of perception, or unwilling “frankly” to meet the question.

The “questions” to which it professes to reply contained this very point, to wit: “Do they hold that the observance of the first day of the week is a Christian institution?” The Statesman well knows that this was the point at which we aimed; yet in its frank reply it conveniently passes it over in silence!

Again, if the Sunday is a Christian institution, it is the only “Christian institution, usage, or law,” embraced in the Statesman’s enumeration of laws to be maintained by Constitutional authority; the only thing properly embraced in the avowed object of the amendment party. And that it is the main object in all their efforts we believe to be the truth. Despairing of upholding the Sunday on Scripture grounds, they call for aid from the general government. The same course on the part of the Romish church led to establishing the inquisition. Every church is satisfied to rest their cause on the Scriptures when these are plainly in their favor. For unscriptural dogmas they have always invoked the aid of secular power.

The Statesman asks in turn if we are in favor of granting the “Demands of Liberalism.” So far as their demands are just, so far as they require what we consider justice to all men of all beliefs or no belief, we answer, Yes. But

so far as they would obstruct the legitimate action of civil government, we answer, No. But of this we will speak more definitely in the future.

J. H. WAGGONER.

The Meetings in Battle Creek.

By James White

The lectures of the Biblical Institute course are proving deeply interesting and profitable to a class of about 150. From many cares and burdens of the cause borne for weeks and months past, Bro. White has not been able to take as active a part as all his friends hoped he would be. For a beginning, as they have continued yet but a few days, they present a prospect of abundant success. Bro. Smith has given several lectures on the subject of immortality to great acceptance.

The meetings on the Sabbath were of special interest. After a social meeting, wherein many spirited testimonies were given, Bro. White, in the forenoon, gave a discourse from a large painted chart of the “Way of Life,” showing the harmony of the two Testaments, and pointing out the presence of Christ in all the Bible, and that his work is not confined to the present dispensation. Though afflicted with a severe cold and cough, he was enabled to rise above his infirmities and to speak with earnestness and freedom. The subject is vast, and there seemed to be but one desire, that he may soon have opportunity to extend his remarks on the same subject.

In the afternoon, sister White made one of her most powerful appeals, directed especially to the ministers and those who expect to engage in the ministry, but applicable to all. At the close, there was a call made to come forward for prayers, but it was in vain to carry out the design of giving place to those who desired to seek a closer walk with God. The whole house was moved. It was a solemn time. Most of the ministers felt, as they never felt before, the sacredness and the magnitude of the work, and the necessity of purity of heart and life to engage in this work, and to be prepared to stand before the Judge.

We feel more and more impressed with the importance of this time and of this course of lectures, and fully believe that the servants of God will go forth from these meetings with renewed zeal and courage, and that they will be much better prepared to fulfill the responsible duties of their office than they ever were before. It is the intention to continue to make it a season of revival interest to the close.

J. H. W.

The Sanctuary.

By Uriah Smith

In the World's Crisis, of Nov. 25, 1874, an article on this subject, by Miles Grant, opens as follows: “It is claimed by the Seventh-day Adventists that the sanctuary to be cleansed at the end of the 1300 [2300] days, mentioned in Dan. 8:13, 14, is in heaven, and that the cleansing began in the autumn of A. D. 1844. If any one should ask why they thus believe, the answer would be, the information came through one of Mrs. E. G. White's visions.”

Let us contrast this statement with the facts in the case. Works upon the Sanctuary are among our standard publications. Hundreds of articles have been written upon the subject. But in no one of these are the visions once referred to as any authority on this subject, or the source from whence any view we hold has been derived. Nor does any preacher ever refer to them on this question. The appeal is invariably to the Bible, where there is abundant evidence for the views we hold on this subject. All this Mr. G. well knows. But his object being not to make a candid statement of facts for the information of his readers, but to create prejudice which shall prevent them from listening to the views we may present, he imagines his purpose will be best accomplished by representing that the only authority we have for our belief is a vision of Mrs. White's. Therefore he resorts to this course, though at the expense of truth. We charge him in the above with uttering a willful and malicious falsehood.

U. S.

The Next Term of School.

By George Ide Butler

This term will commence January 4, 1875. It will be held in our new school building where facilities are ample for the accommodation of all who will attend. Our new building is a credit to the builders and the town. It is very pleasantly situated on the high grounds opposite the Health Institute. When it is properly filled with students, earnestly engaged in qualifying themselves for usefulness, then, indeed, will the great object of its erection be met. We trust this first term will give good evidence that our people are awake to the great importance of education. We expect there will be the largest attendance, by far, that we have had since our school was instituted. The winter season is, all things considered, the most favorable in which to attend school. In addition to the ordinary branches in our own language, there will be excellent opportunities afforded to study French, German, Latin, Greek, &c. In addition to these, we have secured the services of a competent teacher in the Danish language. This will be a matter of great interest to our Danish and Norwegian people. They can now, not only pursue those studies in English which they choose to take, but become educated in their native tongue, and qualify themselves to labor among their countrymen in this or the old country.

Board can be obtained at the rate of $2.50 per week. Rooms in which to board themselves are generally obtainable by students, where they can board themselves much cheaper. It is the aim of the trustees and teachers to make our school thorough in its instruction, and of high moral tone, and every way worthy of the patronage of our people.

We hope there will be a large attendance of our young people from all directions the coming term. GEO. I. BUTLER.

“Peace and Safety.”

By Joseph Harvey Waggoner

The Apostle Paul, speaking of the coming of “the day of the Lord,” says, “When they shall cry, Peace and Safety, then sudden destruction cometh upon them.” The “battle of the great day” will be fought, and the inhabitants of the earth will arm for the conflict, yet they will cry, “Peace and safety,” in the very face of impending destruction. So great will be the blindness of the wise of this world under the influence of the deceptions of the last days.

Another prophet says that “many nations” shall say that nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more; they shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Micah 4. But the Lord says by Joel, “Proclaim war, wake up the mighty men; beat your plowshares into swords, and your pruning hooks into spears.” The context shows that this is a prophecy of the last days; when the harvest of the earth is about to be reaped, and the battle of the great day to be fought.

This shows that in the last days, when men are crying, Peace and safety, or, in more modern language, are singing, “There’s a good time coming,” when almost every pulpit is congratulating the world on its “progression,” and teaching that the nations are laying aside their thoughts and their weapons of war, and are about to inaugurate a new era of peace, the world is actually arousing its war spirit, and the nations are making preparations for war on the most gigantic scale.

We have sometimes represented it in this light as an illustration: If an inventor should produce some implement or machinery by which the products of the soil might be greatly increased or utilized, something of the greatest possible advantage to the agricultural interests of the world, he must secure his right, and manufacture at his own risk; and if he has not the means to defend his rights in the courts, he may, by infringements, lose his labors, and be suffered to die in poverty.

On the other hand, should he invent some instrument of destruction, something by which war could be carried on more successfully, by which human life could be destroyed far faster than ever before, he need not be subjected to any risk or expense. Any government in the world will purchase his invention or so patronize him as to assure to him a fortune.

Our own country—the land of genius and inventions, of agricultural and commercial enterprise—furnishes us a case in point. Eli Whitney is celebrated as the inventor of the “cotton gin.” The planters of the South were about to abandon the idea of the extensive raising of cotton, as the expense of cleaning was so great that it was considered impossible to raise and clean it to profit. The attention of young Whitney, a “yankee schoolmaster” in Georgia, was called to the subject, and he invented the machine which has made cotton the great staple of the South. Its great value was in its simplicity, but this fact led to infringements, and they were everywhere made and sold. The courts refused to vindicate his rights. “It was rare that a jury in a cotton State gave a verdict in his favor.” In the book entitled “Great Fortunes,” Mr. Whitney’s failure to secure his rights is thus noticed:—

“Whitney, thoroughly disheartened, now abandoned the manufacture of cotton gins in disgust, wound up his affairs, and found himself a poor man. In spite of the far reaching benefits of his invention, he had not realized one dollar above his expenses. He had given millions upon millions of dollars to the cotton growing States, he had opened the way for the establishment of the vast cotton-spinning interests of his own country and Europe, and yet, after fourteen years of hard labor, he was a poor man, the victim of a wealthy, powerful, and, in his case, a dishonest class, who had robbed him of his rights and of the fortune he had so fairly earned.” “America never presented a more shameful spectacle than was exhibited when the courts of the cotton-growing regions united with the piratical infringers of Whitney’s rights in robbing their greatest benefactor.”

In this emergency Mr. Whitney turned his skill in another direction. He undertook to improve the fire arms of the country, and with success. He established an arms factory in New Haven, Conn., and the book already quoted says: “He has the honor of being the inaugurator of the system of progressive improvements in fire arms which has gone on steadily for now fully sixty years past.”

In this business Mr. Whitney received the patronage of government, and was enabled, not only to “pass the evening of his days in comfort, but also to leave a handsome estate to his family.”

And this is the way of all the world in these days except that the war spirit, and the preparations for war have greatly increased since the time of Whitney who died in 1825.

The following articles from the Inter-Ocean show how the nations are turning their swords into ploughshares, and how fondly they are dreaming of peace! With the many facts of this character before our eyes we are sometimes led to question if the ministers of the day believe their own preaching of the prospects of peace and the millennium. If they do, they are the blindest of all people, and least fitted to be teachers and leaders. But here are the articles.

THE NEW FRENCH MUSKET.

The Journal de Paris states that orders have been given to proceed immediately with the manufacture of the new muskets, model 1874 (system gras). These weapons will only be constructed in the work-shops of the state; private firms will not be called upon to assist. The calculation is that in about a year a million of them will be made. Then only will the arms be placed in the hands of the soldiers of the acting army, and the men of the reserve, and the territorial army will be drilled in the management of this musket. The chassepots will be withdrawn, and they will be altered to the new pattern.

France has at present 1,800,000 of them; so that, by adding 200,000 new ones to be constructed in the interval, the Minister of War counts upon possessing, at the end of 1876, 3,000,000 of muskets (model gras), with a store of 250 metal cartridges per weapon. The manufacture will afterwards be continued on a normal scale, and in proportion to the resources of the ordinary budget of war. The news concerning the artillery is no less satisfactory. France will have at the end of the year 1875, 494 batteries of six cannon each of calibres 5 and 7, with iron carriages, the pieces in bronze, breech-loading, on the Reffye system. From the beginning of next year the construction of bronze cannon will be abandoned, and those in steel on the Lahitolle system will be adopted.

—Inter-Ocean.

“THE WAY OF PEACE.”

Experiments lately made in the Austrian Loan Office have created something approaching to a panic in military circles throughout the Empire. The new Krupp field gun, eight centimeters in diameter, has been tried, and found superior in every respect to the Austrian cannon heretofore in use. According to the official returns, the superiority of the Prussian gun was in the proportion of five to one. The reform of the Austrian artillery had already been decided upon in principle, and the Krupp gun had many partisans previous to these experiments, which seem to have settled the point in its favor. Great as is the anxiety of the military authorities to effect the change, the reconstruction of the whole material of the army cannot be the work of a day, and the cost, estimated at from three to four millions, will quite upset the equilibrium of a budget which is never remarkable for a large surplus. This Krupp gun is not quite the same as that used by Prussia during the late war, being something lighter, with a wider range and greater precision. It is, in fact, because the German army is not yet itself completely provided with this new gun that the Austrians can afford to restrain their impatience; and they might perhaps do well to remember that before they have obtained a full supply for their own artillery, something more perfect in the way of engines of destruction may have been invented; for the progress made in artillery since Napoleon III. introduced the rifled cannon into the French army has been little short of incredible. The Austrians, enlightened as they thought by what took place at Solferino, flattered themselves in 1866, that they had the best field artillery of any European nation, and many competent foreign officers shared this delusion, which was rapidly dispelled by the campaign in Bohemia. The superiority of the Prussian artillery was still more manifest during the war with France, and since that time further improvements have been effected. And so the game goes merrily on, every nation arming itself to the teeth, and spending millions upon millions because it loves to walk in “the way of peace.”—Inter-Ocean.

J. H. WAGGONER.

Dr. Cumming of London.

By John Nevins Andrews

WHEN in London a few weeks since I took especial pains to hear Dr. Cumming. He is a man of fine personal appearance, perhaps something more than sixty years of age, and is a very interesting speaker. He has a voice of remarkable sweetness, though it did not seem capable of being heard by a multitude. One cannot listen to him, even for a few moments, without being impressed with the fact that he is a man of remarkable ability. My interest to hear him, however, was due to the fact that he is of world-wide reputation as a preacher of the near advent of Christ. We as a people have found this an extremely unwelcome theme to the most of those whom we address. They speak of it in harsh and opprobrious terms, and they do not confine these terms to the doctrine, but apply them also to those who teach it. Nor can it be said that this is occasioned by our fixing the time of the advent of Christ, for it is well known that we do not believe the time of that event is revealed in the Bible.

I have often wondered at the great popularity of Dr. Cumming, as he is well known to have preached much concerning the definite time of the advent of Christ, and to still hold that that event is emphatically near at hand. His congregation is large, and it embraces not only many of the upper class of Londoners, but even a considerable number of the nobility. They hear from his lips very much concerning the speedy advent of Christ. And by the advent of Christ Dr. C. means no spiritual or mystical coming but the actual personal appearing of the Son of man. How is it that such a congregation does not take offense at such preaching?

While listening to him I thought I discovered the explanation. He spoke familiarly of the near advent of Christ, as though it were a well known and indisputable fact. But he told them that the coming of Christ would introduce a new era in the preaching of the gospel, and that it would then be preached with a power which has never hitherto attended it, and that the nations would then receive it. And so the warning voice of the advent at the door gave no alarm; for the revelation of the Son of God in flaming fire to take vengeance on them that know not God, becomes in the estimation of his hearers only the harbinger of a more merciful dispensation to sinful men. The sharp sword of this divine truth respecting the advent at hand had no power to wound the conscience; for it was encased in a scabbard of error. Would to God he might see that Christ comes the second time as a King to destroy sinful men, and not as a priest to save them.

J. N. ANDREWS.

The Literal and Spiritual Meaning of Language.

By John H. Waggoner

It has become quite common in these days to say that the language of Scripture has two meanings, or a double meaning, a literal and a spiritual. So common has it become that the statement is put forth with the utmost confidence, as if the saying were an axiom—so evident as to require no proof. But it is more nearly a self-evident absurdity than a self-evident truth.

Language is used literally and figuratively, but it cannot therefore be said that language has a literal and a figurative meaning. The figurative use must conform to the literal signification, otherwise we could no more judge of the correctness of the figure than if the terms used had no meaning. We have lexicons to define terms, and a word may have several meanings, yet any one is as literal as any of the others; that is, it has only literal meanings. No man would ever attempt to convey the idea of a figure which was the opposite of the idea conveyed by the literal meaning of the words employed. Or should it be attempted it could not succeed; and we could only catch his idea by a change of the language. Figures must be expressed by terms that are understood.

What, then, shall we say of the spiritual meaning of words? It is either identical with the literal meaning, or it is not. If it is identical with the literal meaning, there is then no such distinction in reality. But if it is not identical with the literal meaning, how is it to be determined? There could be but one way to determine it; we should have a spiritual dictionary to give us the true spiritual definitions, otherwise we should be under the necessity of guessing at the meaning, which is rather a poor method to settle disputes about language! But who ever heard a person claim a spiritual meaning for language that had anything but guess-work in his effort? Were any two persons ever known to agree in regard to the spiritual meaning of terms? If such a distinction exists, would it not be well to establish a spiritual school and employ a professor of spiritual language to give instructions, so that somebody may become qualified to read the Bible understandingly?

From some observation on this subject I think the following may be adopted as the first and chief rule of spiritual grammar. The spiritual meaning of words is the opposite of the literal. This may not be of universal application, but is doubtless more nearly universal than any other. The next in importance will be the following: The spiritual meaning must always be taken in preference to the literal. The conclusion from the above is easily arrived at, but in the absence of a lexicon, grammar, or any other spiritual standard literature, the following will probably be the wisest and safest course to pursue to arrive at the spiritual meaning of language, to wit, when you read the Bible, believe it means anything except what it says!

Now I do not pretend that I have settled this question very definitely (and who can?); but where I have erred, I am ready to be corrected. Will some one of that faith be so kind as to point out the errors in the above rules, or give us better ones? As there are many who set up that claim, and some of them are eminent men, no doubt correct and definite information may be obtained on this subject.

J. H. WAGGONER.

Continue reading: On Character and Death