Earlier text: Winter Woods“AND I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.” Rev. 12:10. Satan leads men to sin, then accuses them before God of that sin. His purpose is to discourage the sinful one, and to induce God to leave him to perish in his sins. But “God is love.” His character is the opposite of that of Satan. His purpose is to save; Satan’s to destroy. “Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father,” says our Saviour. John 5:45. That is not his work. He came to save, to help, and to encourage the trembling sinner to make an effort to overcome temptation, and to form a character that God can transplant into the eternal world of glory. The Saviour prays for the discouraged, struggling, sinful one. “If any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: and he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.” 1 John 2:1, 2. So abundant in mercy is our precious Saviour, that, when dying upon the cross, he prayed for his murderers, “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.” How earnestly, then, and with what tender love, does he pray for the repentant, sinful soul, “Father, forgive for my sake; I have paid the debt!” No accusation there. That is left for Satan. When doing his work for man, his mercy was so marked that the scribes and Pharisees, thinking to find an accusation against him because of this, bring before him a clear case of guilt, a woman taken in adultery. In a quiet manner Jesus brings their sins to light; then he says, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.” No stones are cast. The accusers are convicted by their own conscience. The Saviour inquires, “Hath no man condemned thee?” “No man, Lord,” the woman replies. “Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more,” are the gracious words which fall upon her ears. But Satan will not let the repentant sinner go free. He seeks to hamper with continual accusations. He said, concerning that perfect and upright man, Job, “Doth Job fear God for naught? Hast not thou made an hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every side? thou hast blessed the work of his hands, and his substance is increased in the land. But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face.” The accusation is that Job is not at heart upright. Our Lord sees fit to try Job for his own good, as well as for the benefit of all beholders. He is placed in the power of the one that has accused him. Satan finds help among Job’s “friends,” and the struggle is on. Many a struggling soul can see in Job’s experience an illustration of his own. We are encouraged to endure, for Job was benefited by the suffering. The latter part of Job’s life was better than the beginning. He was brought into a nearness to God that he had not known before. He says, “I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee. Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.” He learned humility of heart. In the case of the noble Joseph, Satan exerts his cunning ‘to lead him to sin against God. Failing in this, he uses the same human agent as an accuser. The accusation is received by man, and Joseph is cast into prison. But God knows his servant is innocent, and has a tender care for him. He comes forth from the furnace of affliction bright as purified gold. Thus the accuser does his work. But whether the accusation be true or false, the child of God can be benefited thereby by placing himself in the hands of God by faith. In humility and repentance let him draw near to God, and learn the needed lesson in the bitter experience. Our Lord will reward the accuser according to his works. He will come to an inglorious end, and the human agents that have aided him in his desperate work will perish with him. J. O. CORLISS
By John O. Corliss
The History of the Hebrew Sanctuary—No. 2
In a former paper, which related to the earliest manifestations of altar worship, Abel, Noah, Abraham, and Jacob each offered sacrifices at the altars of their own rearing. No priest officiated at these services other than each builder of his own altar, and no written law regulated the time or method of the offering to be made. It is easy to conceive that under the circumstances no regular system was recognized, but that each did in the matter as inclination, convenience, or apparent necessity prompted. It is true that in the days of Abraham one appears with the title of “priest of the Most High God.” Nothing is said, however, of his connection with sacrificial offerings. So brief, indeed, is the notice of Melchizedek, notwithstanding his commanding title, that even his pedigree is unknown. Heb. 7: 3. Though called “king of Salem,” it is not certain of what place he was king, whether of Jerusalem, or of the small town of Salem, situated in the valley of Shaveh,—the “king’s dale,”—near where his memorable interview with Abraham took place. After a moment’s appearance, he vanishes from sight, and thenceforward his personality is wrapped in mysterious obscurity. Abraham evidently paid tithes to his superior, but the record shows that the patriarch himself always attended to the offerings made upon the altars he erected in Shechem, Bethel, and Hebron, as well as in his Philistine home at Gerar. It must be evident, however, that as the circle of God’s people enlarged, and the mass of these became more or less deprived of direct communication with the Infinite, the order of national worship must be given to trusted agents, to be regulated under specific guidance. This was absolutely necessary in order to teach the sense of these services, and so unite all in the knowledge of God, and his eternal purpose through our Lord Jesus Christ. Otherwise religious devotion would fall away, and the purpose of God would be thwarted. This necessity became more apparent after the “chosen” people had been enslaved in Egypt, and were educated in the forms of sun-worship. It was therefore in the land of “Mizraim,” or “red mud,” when the “house of Israel,” driven by the lash of taskmasters, groaned under their burdens until their cries reached to heaven, that a deliverer was provided to lead the way before them to a better country, and to a knowledge of the Most High. A decree had gone forth from the king of Egypt that every male child of the hated Hebrew race should be destroyed at its birth. About this time there was born unto Amram and Jochebed, of the tribe of Levi, a goodly son. Josephus says that his birth and future greatness were foretold to Pharaoh by Egyptian magicians, and to Amram, the father, in a dream. These probable events, together with the beauty of the child (Acts 7:20), induced the mother to arrange some plan for its preservation. It was therefore hidden for three months in the home, then placed in a water-tight vessel, and deposited among the tall vegetation at the verge of the River Nile. To this point came the king’s daughter to bathe, when she discovered the vessel, and drew it out of the water. Upon opening it, the sight of the weeping child moved her to compassion, and she adopted it as her own, giving it the name of Moses, which signifies in the Egyptian original, “Saved from the water.” Having grown to manhood, plots were contrived to destroy him, and Moses fled to Arabia, where his mission to the monarch of Egypt and to the Hebrew captives was revealed to him. Immediately human infirmity was pleaded as an excuse: “How shall Pharaoh hear me who am stammering and hesitating?” (as the Septuagint expresses it). But human8pleading proved unavailable. “Is not Aaron the Levite thy brother? I know that he can speak well. . . . He shall be thy spokesman unto the people, and he shall be, even he shall be to thee instead of a mouth.” Ex. 4: 10-16. The brothers, one an executive, and the other a divine mouthpiece, go in before Pharaoh, and demand the release of God’s heritage. The refusal and the plagues follow. The Israelites are driven forth. The king repents his loss, and follows with his army. Deliverance is wrought at the Red Sea, and the Israelite fugitives commence their wearisome journey across the desert of Arabia. But being semiheathen, they had only a very indistinct knowledge of the true God. In order that they might learn the difference between the impotent gods which they had known in Egypt, and Jehovah, the Creator of heaven and earth, they were brought to the base of Sinai, where God revealed his power in their presence. Amid clouds and thick darkness, and the droppings of the heavens, from “the secret place of thunder” (Ps. 81:7), the voice of “the Highest” (Ps. 18:13) declared his holy law. These ten words were then graven on stony tablets, to be laid up for the guidance of the liberated captives. But a law thus removed from the spring of human action could not gender reverence for the Unseen. Considering their early education, the Israelites, like the heathen of all ages, would not have been able, at that stage of their experience, to appreciate what might appear to be a “religion without a God.” A visible divinity was to them a necessity, as was demonstrated when they demanded, in Moses’s absence, that Aaron make gods to go before them in the way. Ex. 32:23. It was not enough to behold even occasionally the glory that shone from Moses’s face immediately following his secret communion with God, because that soon faded out, and left them ignorant of its origin. True, Moses attempted to prevent the suggestion of it being produced by magic, a practise so familiar to Eastern minds, when he put a veil over his face, after he talked with the people, that they might not see the glory gradually disappear. Referring to this, the apostle says that Moses “put a veil over his face, that the children of Israel could not steadfastly [steadily, or continuously] look to the end of that which is abolished.” 2 Cor. 3:13. He evidently intended to convey the thought of the Septuagint, as he usually did, that Moses veiled his face, not to hide the glory, but the vanishing away of the glory. The literal Hebrew of Ex. 34:33-35 also agrees with this rendering. But Moses, the greatest of all prophets,—because he was more than a prophet, being permitted to talk with God “mouth to mouth” and “face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend” (Num. 12:7; Ex. 33:11),—was not always to continue to be the bearer of God’s splendor to Israel’s hosts. The experience on Mt. Nebo was just before him. Provision must be made for the symbol of God’s presence, the light of his glory, to remain with the people, when he in whose face it was then permitted to shine, should drop from sight. In view of the general need of a visible proof of Divinity among the people, and because of God’s willingness to meet this elementary condition, he gave Moses minute instruction regarding the building of a portable tabernacle, for his indwelling, and before which the “pillar” of his presence might direct the wanderings of the people, night and day, throughout their wilderness journeys. Ex. 25:8; 13:21. A Reform Needed
By A. Carter
In the Signs of the Times last summer was a plea for less expensive burials. This is a reform urgently needed both for the sake of the individuals immediately concerned and also for God's cause. There were five hundred forty-eight deaths recorded in the REVIEW AND HERALD last year. Reckoning one hundred fifty dollars (a low estimate) for each burial, this amounts to sixty-eight thousand five hundred dollars. I am informed by one who knows, that in Switzerland twenty-five dollars will cover the cost of a burial. If it were the same in America, the expense last year would have been only thirteen thousand seven hundred dollars, a saving of at least fifty-four thousand eight hundred dollars. The suggestion in the Signs is deserving of consideration. Surely we should do something to control the excessive and needless expenditure. The REVIEW not long since contained a very timely article on the necessity of greater simplicity in living. If there is any time when this should be more conspicuous than at any other, it is at the last solemn scene, when sorrowing ones gather around an open grave. The Jews and Quakers set us an example in this respect worthy of imitation. One writer, Rev. John Snyder, commenting on what he designates as “our barbarous funeral customs,” has this to say of the Jews:— “The orthodox Hebrews have a noble and simple method of disposing of their dead. The body is decently wrapped in linen and put in the earth in a plain unornamented coffin. They endeavor to express their conviction that death levels all distinction of rank or wealth. But we often withhold the body from the grave till it has become a menace to health. Then we enclose it in a casket, the price of which would support a poor man's family for a year.”
In reference to the simplicity of the Quakers another writer remarks:— “The most impressive funeral service probably ever seen was held in a Quaker city over the remains of a good old Quaker. Not a word was spoken at the house or by the grave side, and the solemn silence and inarticulate respect paid the dead was almost unbearable in its impressiveness.”
But instead of Quaker-like silence at the grave, we think a prayer and the reading of a portion of Scripture the most appropriate expression of thought at such a time. Christian Business Principles
By James Montgomery
So much is being said in these days of commercial activity about business and business methods that it may not be amiss to attempt to set forth briefly some of the underlying principles of the business relation from the standpoint of Scripture. The worldly maxim, “business is business,” is frequently quoted to justify present-day methods. Too often it is intended merely to excuse some lack of Christian forbearance in dealing with our fellow men. It may, at times, even be made to justify some shady transaction. And it is therefore apparent that the Christian business man can not make use either of questionable principles or of this expression that justifies them. The foundation principles of true business relationship are but few and easily understood. They embrace first of all the matter of common honesty, which, I may say, is the foundation-stone of all right Christian business principles. This principle is greatly prized by all worldly business enterprises,—to the extent that it constrains employees to respect the property of the employer. Whether these same enterprising firms value honesty as an asset in their dealings with other firms, remains an open question. That such should be the case goes without question, for upon this rock of common honesty of man between man rests all safe business relations. And when once established upon this foundation, the matter of details in business affairs will quickly adjust itself. There can be no hesitancy in knowing what to do in any transaction when one is determined to be strictly honest. What is honesty? Is it not identical with the golden rule? The admonition, “As ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise” (Luke 6: 31), is not different in intent, so far as I am able to see, from this expression of the apostle, “Provide things honest in the sight of all men.” Rom. 12: 17. On the other hand, I would not urge that one practise honesty and upright dealing for the same reason some business men claim to use it; that is, because “honesty is the best policy,” for “a business man is not necessarily a scheming, policy man.”—“Testimonies for the Church,” Vol. VII, page 248. In doing anything from policy it is not done because it is right, but because it appears better before those whom we wish to please. It is merely scheming,9as intimated by the above quotation. The demoralizing influence of such motives is seen in the business world of to-day. It is to appear honest before the customer, but it is an open secret that the claims made for both goods and prices are to be taken with considerable allowance. The extravagant claims of the average advertisement do not lead one to think that the average merchant of our day is at all particular about strict honesty in all his dealings. There can be no reason for extravagance in advertising claims unless it be to deceive the public into believing that this one or that one offers more goods at the same price, or better goods at the same price, or else the same goods at a smaller price, than his competitors. Of course this, in the main, is not true. Hence any merchant that does this is not practising true honesty nor following the principles of Christian business methods. This applies to religious institutions as well as to business concerns, perhaps in a larger sense, for certainly those who have been converted from the old ways and principles need to put into practise the new. In a certain scripture we have the right principle set forth, as follows: “If thou sell aught unto thy neighbor, or buy of thy neighbor’s hand, ye shall not wrong one another.” Lev. 25: 14, A. R. V. After all, “business transactions” are merely the act of buying and selling. Be the deal large or small, it is either buying or selling. The exchange of money for goods or goods for money, and the trading back and forth of goods for goods, are various forms of buying and selling, and the transactions are freely covered by the text quoted. We are to do no wrong to one another whether we buy or whether we sell. It makes no difference whether it be a deal in which railroads change hands or merely the exchange of a five-cent piece for a bag of nuts, the principle involved is the same—“Ye shall not wrong one another.” This leaves no place at all for driving sharp bargains, or for taking advantage of a brother’s necessity. The opportunity comes sometimes when a man is hard pressed for money and is obliged to sell some of his possessions at a great sacrifice, but we are not to take advantage of his necessity to defraud him out of his possessions at a price below their actual value, or at least what they are worth to the buyer. “According to the number of the years of the crops he shall sell unto thee;” “thou shalt increase the price thereof, and according to the fewness of the years [of the crops] thou shalt diminish the price of it.” See Lev. 25: 15-17. We are not by any means to take advantage of another’s necessity. It is better that we suffer ourselves to be defrauded than that we defraud another. These principles are infinitely superior to the principles of the business world. The one is that of unselfishness, the other is that of self, pure and simple. The one is of the world, worldly; the other is from the Lord of heaven. And it is this fact that we are permitted to make known to those with whom we deal. “By his grace every provision has been made for us in all our transaction of business to demonstrate the superiority of heaven’s principles over the principles of the world.”—“Testimonies for the Church,” Vol. VII, page 142. As we faithfully manifest these principles in all our business deals, great and small, we commend to the world that One whose principles we follow. “Sharp dealing, the effort to drive sharp bargains with one another, is a wrong that he will not tolerate.”—Id., Vol. VII, page 174. “We are to be ‘not slothful in business; fervent in spirit; serving the Lord.’ We are to be active in our work, but another element is to mingle with this energy,—a living zeal in the service of God. . . . If you carry on your business without this, you make the greatest mistake of your lives; you commit robbery toward God, while professing to serve him.”—Id., Vol. VII, page 196. Thus we are greatly in the wrong if we do not find the true principles of all business dealing and follow them. There can be no loss in doing the right, even if Satan is busy trying to persuade many that Bible principles can not be applied to present-day transactions. Are You Honest?
By A. T. Robinson
I AM a member in good standing in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. That is a strange question to ask a good Seventh-day Adventist? I pay every man his due, nor do I owe any man in the world a dollar. You had better explain what you mean by repeating this question. What would you say of one who appropriates for his own use that which belongs to another? I would say he is dishonest, a thief, a robber. How much of all that comes into your possession does God say “is mine;” “it is holy unto the Lord”? “And all the tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land, or of the fruit of the tree, is the Lord’s; it is holy unto the Lord.” Have you been appropriating for your own use the whole or any part of that which the Lord says is his? Are you honest? I pay some tithe occasionally; so my conscience does not trouble me much on that point. But are you honest? Are you bringing all the tithes into the storehouse? No, to be truthful, I have not been particular in this matter. In fact, I have not felt that I could afford to pay a full and honest tenth of all I receive. Then are you honest? What does God say about this matter? “Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me . . . in tithes and offerings.” My brother, my sister, are you honest? Are you honest with God? If not, you would better repent of this robbery against God, before you are called upon to render an account of your stewardship. “Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful.” More for Missions
By E. K. Slade
In a recent speech made by Rev. Principal Gandier, of Knox College, in London, expression was given to the following words:— “Britain could keep two hundred twenty thousand men in South Africa at a cost of one million dollars a day, to look after a little corner of the empire, but all that Protestant Christendom can muster in the mission field is twenty thousand men to-day. Britain spent more money and sacrificed more lives in three years to conquer a little handful of Dutchmen in South Africa than the whole of Protestant Christendom has given or sacrificed in the past one hundred years to missions for the whole heathen world.”
Such startling comparisons should arouse serious thoughts. The nations of the earth seem to feel justified in spending vast sums of money for the accomplishment of ends that may seem of slight importance. A million dollars a day to maintain a national prestige may be politically justified. A million dollars a day and many thousands of souls is a tremendous price to pay, and yet that nation feels the investment was a good one. In connection with the closing gospel work which is to take place in the last generation of the greatest epoch of all the ages, an entire world is to be warned and made acquainted with the saving truth for this time. Is it unreasonable to expect that a work of such magnitude should call for large supplies for this warfare, in the shape of men and means? The magnitude of the work to be finished in this generation has not been properly estimated. To proclaim an unpopular truth to one billion five hundred million souls in the face of seemingly unsurmountable obstacles is a task that calls for serious and earnest consideration on the part of those to whom such a work is committed. The nations of the earth can not be expected to enter into the sacrifices largely, but those who have come to know and love this cause, and who have enlisted in God's service, will manifest a loyalty and show a willingness to sacrifice that should compare favorably with the practises of those engaged in a less worthy cause. As we enter upon the year 1910, our world-wide work calls anew and more emphatically for more men and more means for missions. Those who have a proper grasp of the situation will confidently expect large developments in the missionary operations in connection with this closing work in the year to come, and they will faithfully work to that end. The First Years of Childhood
By Luella B. Priddy
I ONCE read in an old book an apt figure comparing the life of an infant to a tiny rivulet, which was so narrow that a hand across its path could turn it out of its course. As the rivulet trickled down the hillside, it gathered other rivulets to itself, until it became a brook. The brook gathered other brooks, until it became a river. The river received the waters of other rivers, until it became so mighty a stream that it could not be turned out of its course without disastrous results. The author of the foregoing illustration also said that so small a matter as the feeding of the baby at regular intervals, or, on the other hand, the giving of food whenever the child cried for it, might determine the course the life would take. This is a strong statement, but it implies that the other rivulets flowing in all trend in the same direction. I have often wondered why the author placed so much stress upon two such simple habits. It is just this: The child fed at regular intervals early learns the habit of self-control. He learns to wait patiently for the regular meal hour. The babe who is fed whenever he cries for food learns to watch his own feelings, and he makes them his guide. He learns to depend upon putting something into his mouth as a remedy for almost any kind of unpleasant sensation, either physical or mental. Aside from the harmful physical effects of such indulgence, it tends toward gluttony, intemperance, and immorality. It is possible to break up those evil habits, but the prospect of doing so diminishes greatly with increasing years. In the first years of life the foundation of physical, mental, and moral health should be laid broad and deep. The baby is not merely a beautiful plaything, existing for the amusement of relatives and friends. His habits should be considered in the light of what they might become if allowed to develop. He should learn from the first that crying does not bring favors that are not good for him. When he grows older, it will not be so pleasant to have him confirmed in the habit of making people uncomfortable whenever he can not have his way. The Christian needs fortitude to endure the numerous ills of life, and the child will be far happier if he learns the lesson early. Many a promising human bud has been blasted before it reached the blossom stage. I once stepped into a store to buy some goods. I met the little four-year-old son of the merchant, and by way of being sociable, I said, “Well, Freddie, are you a good boy this morning?” “No, I ain’t,” was the prompt reply, and with an air of deliberate finality, he continued, “I can’t be good; I’m going to be a bad boy.” Why had this sharp-eyed, wizen-faced lad come to so unhappy a conclusion? There was reason enough: he had been allowed to have his own way. When he was not behind the counter helping himself to candy or other eatables, he was quite apt to be engaged in some other kind of mischief. Instead of keeping him in wholesome restraint, he had been teased and hectored that people might hear his pert remarks, until he had become quite troublesome. Then he was frequently told what a bad boy he was. The poor little child did not know how to be good, and he was too discouraged to try. When a little older, what can hinder this child from smoking cigarettes, and becoming one of the rough boys of the town?—Nothing, except an early and entire change of his home life. He is not learning to restrain his natural impulses, and it will be easy for him to yield to any temptation. All men have inherited sinful natures, but inherited traits are often less difficult to overcome than are those which result from wrong training. Both parents should be united in the plans they pursue in the management of the child, and they should never say anything in his presence that would weaken the authority of either. A young mother was about to punish the baby for some fault, but the father pleaded, “She is too little to be punished; she doesn’t know any better.” At another time he saw the baby down the garden path picking the tops off his seed-onions. With rapid steps he sped after her to prevent further mischief in that direction. Something in his quick movements alarmed the child. She feared consequences. “Don’t know any better,” was the appealing argument she used. He saw at least that it was not wise to discredit the mother’s methods in the presence of the child. It is nice work to deal with human minds, and the all-wise Father has promised wisdom to those who seek him in faith. Denying a Child Wisely
By Dr. Madison C. Peters
CHILDHOOD is appealing—when the innocent eyes are upraised to ours in beseeching look, and the little hands extended for the expected gift, it is hard to refuse the request. It is always pleasant to gratify a child, and there is a real enjoyment in giving what he asks for when we can do it prudently. But wise withholding is quite as important as generous giving—the unkindest treatment of a child is giving him everything he asks for. Love may become folly, and it is possible so to gratify a child’s whims as to hinder rather than to help him. Many a promising youth has had his career blasted by well-meaning parents, who in misguided love denied the child nothing he asked which they had in their power to give. A child ought to be denied many things that are harmless. We often see children at the table pampered with delicacies, giving the child the slice it craves, the pie it wants, and the cake that tastes sweetest, with never a thought of digestion and health. The child who has never a legitimate desire denied is poorly fitted for the duties and trials of every-day life. It is to a parent’s discredit when the child can say: “I was never denied any pleasure which it was in father’s or mother’s power to give.” Lately, an elaborately dressed American baby, six years old, walked unattended into the huge dining-room in one of our great hotels, seated herself at a table, and said to the waiter: “Bring me some deviled crabs and pink ice-cream.” The child ate the medley while the smiling guests looked on. What’s ahead of that child?—Digestion ruined, vanity increased, independence forced before time, and the whole sensibility blunted. Overindulged children generally grow up selfish and exacting, overbearing, and tyrannical, and, if they can not get their whims gratified, will resort to any measure, however base, to satisfy themselves. Many children hardly know what self-denial is—fulness falls upon them; it is hard to surprise them with an unexpected pleasure. They grow up selfish and exacting, and lack that enjoyment which comes of the occasional gratification of their desire, which has been long felt without the expectation of its being speedily met. Even an only child need not be spoiled. Some of the best-trained children of the world have been only children. Few people can have everything they want, and can get along without many things others have. Overindulgent parents are very often those who were denied many things when children, and they do not now realize that it was all for their good that thus they were taught to deny themselves, and that they enjoyed the little that they did have, in spite of the lack of a great deal which they would like to have had. Men to-day who were children of the rich very often find themselves disadvantaged in comparison to those who have risen from poverty. Their parents’ wealth, so freely at their disposal, increased the number of wants which they now think must be gratified, and their pampering in childhood so enervated them for the struggles which are a necessity in business that they frequently find themselves distanced by those who in early life were disciplined through enforced self-denial and made strong by enduring hardships and by finding contentment with a little.11The rigid discipline of constant self-denial was characteristic of the child training of the old Spartans. The best primitive peoples everywhere have recognized the importance of teaching the child self-denial, and its neglect has come only with the growth in luxury among peoples whose civilization, however high, has not yet gotten beyond the material. —Dr. Madison C. Peters, in Washington Post. Back to Brazil Again
By F. W. Spies
ON Nov. 5, 1909, at 7 P. M., our steamer dropped its anchor in the beautiful Rio de Janeiro Bay, and we felt that we had returned home. The voyage had required four weeks, and had been, for the most part, rough. We were heartily greeted by the brethren here the following day, it being Sabbath. During our absence the good work had not stood still. On that first Sabbath after our return, we found in the meeting several new faces that we had not seen there previous to our leaving, and we were informed that in the meanwhile several had begun the observance of the Lord's commandments, and some had also been added to the church. Aside from this, the way had been opened to preach the truth in Nictheroy. In that place reside several brethren. There were some persons there who were interested in the truths we advocate. These together began contributing toward the furnishing of a small meeting-hall, and when, upon my return, I visited them, I found a nicely arranged and neat little place of worship right in the center of Nictheroy. While we were glad to see this evident interest and growth, it only increased the difficult problem of who shall labor in this new place. Even before these services in Nictheroy (which lies just across the bay from Rio de Janeiro) began, the only worker in Rio de Janeiro, a native brother, who holds a missionary license, was as busy as he could be with his duties, and could not answer all calls. Now, there are three meetings a week more being held in Nictheroy, and our laboring force is the same. I would not leave unmentioned the fact that the elder of the Rio de Janeiro church does all he can, but, being a man with a large family to provide for, through his business as tailor, he can not spend so much of his time in evangelical effort outside of his church duties as he would like. As we look through the city of Rio de Janeiro, we find that all sorts of things are being introduced to take the attention of the people. And those who are not fascinated by the world's pleasures and entertainments probably belong to that other class whose hearts are charged with the “cares of this life.” When we think back to the time when we arrived here thirteen years ago, and compare that time with the present, we feel that we have indeed lost much time in getting to work in the large cities of this country. And even to-day we are doing a little in only two of Brazil's large cities. We very much need more help for the capital, and our daily prayer is that the Lord may send it. I am now on my way to the general meeting in Espirito Santo, which will soon be held. We ask an earnest interest in your prayers; and may they be answered by the Lord's placing upon some one a burden to come here and help us find the precious souls, which the Master tells us he has scattered around in the large cities. Annual Meeting at Canton
By E. H. Wilbur
WE held our annual workers’ meeting at Canton, China, October 1-10. From 6:30 to 7:30 A. M. we met for prayer and social service. From 10:30 to 12, and from 2:30 P. M. to 4, Bible studies were conducted. The evening hour was occupied in preaching. Our Canton schools took a week’s vacation, thus enabling the teachers and pupils to attend the sessions. Elder W. C. Hankins, superintendent of the South China Mission field, was present, and gave several Bible studies. His counsel also was much appreciated. We were glad to have with us Sisters Hankins and Anderson, and Elder N. P. Keh, of Amoy. Brother Hung (Ang), of Chao Chou Fu, near Swatow, was12present, and assisted. Brother J. P. Anderson, Dr. Law Keem, and the writer, as well as each of our Chinese evangelists, had a part in the program. On each of the two Sabbaths, about one hundred fifty persons were present at the Sabbath-school and the midday preaching service. On the second Sabbath afternoon, October 9, about forty brethren and sisters participated in the ordinance of humility, and in the Lord’s supper. The next morning Elder Keh preached on the subject of baptism, after which fourteen new members — seven men and seven women — were received into the Canton church. One of these was received on her former baptism. The others were baptized that same afternoon, in the presence of a large company of brethren and sisters and friends. This is the largest number we have ever baptized at one time in this province, and indicates that this field is ripe for the message. One encouraging feature of this baptism was that eleven of the candidates were rescued direct from heathenism. Two are pupils in the boys’ school, and six from the Bethel girls’ school. Of the fourteen new members admitted, four are teachers of several years’ experience. We feel to praise the Lord for the many tokens of his goodness and mercy manifested to us. The Fields Beyond
By Rev. A. C. Wuchter
How many still in darkness lie,
Who know thee not, O Lord,
Who have not heard the blessed sound
Of thy sweet gospel word!
Who bow before some idol shrine
To offer incense vain;
Who know thee not, the Lamb of God,
For wretched sinners slain. Where rolls the Ganges’ mighty flood,
They vainly stoop and pray,
And teeming millions call for help
From Nippon and Cathay.
From distant isles that lie serene
Upon the surging sea,
They lift their fainting hands in death
And seek, O Lord, for thee. From Afric forests dark and damp,
Deep-stained with sin and crime,
The soul’s deep yearning cry is heard,
With those from every clime.
They pray and plead for light divine
To guide them on the way;
O, that that blessed time may be!
Speed thou, O Lord, the day. Yea, thou hast taught us how to pray,
“Thy kingdom come, O Lord;”
That we must teach their dying souls
To feast upon thy word,
How we should give for thy sweet sake
The silver and the gold,
That those who still in darkness dwell
May come into thy fold. —Rev. A. C. Wuchter, in the Lutheran Witness.