The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, vol. 75

July 5, 1898

“Evangelistic Temperance. Importance of Good Cooking” The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald 75, 28, p. 425.

I

WE have found that one of the vital principles of true health reform is to eat that which is good, rather than merely to do without that which is not good,—that it is not health reform to stop the use of what is not good, unless that which is good is put in its place. And that is because an impoverished diet, even of things that are no injurious in themselves, has the same effect as a diet of those things that are, of themselves, not good. And it is but proper to say that good cooking of the things that are good in themselves is an essential in the carrying out of this principle. ARSH July 5, 1898, page 425.1

In putting into the dietary what is good in the place of what is not good, the attempt is a failure if that which is good in itself it not well cooked, or otherwise well prepared if it does not need to be cooked. That which is good in itself may be so poorly prepared as to cause it to be really injurious. And material that, in itself, is not good, may be so well prepared as to be really better food than material that, in itself, is far better, but is poorly prepared. ARSH July 5, 1898, page 425.2

For instance, fine-flour bread is not so good as graham or whole-wheat bread; yet light, well-baked, fine-flour bread is far better than heavy, poorly baked graham or whole-wheat bread. Yet it is a fact that too many people who could make good, light, fine-flour bread have attempted to be health reformers, and to make their families health reformers, by leaving off the use of this fine-flour bread, and proposing to put in its place graham bread or “gems,” so heavy, and many times even so sour, as to be unfit for any use in the world. And all this because “the Testimonies say” that “fine-flour bread can not impart to the system the nourishment that you will find in unbolted wheat bread.” ARSH July 5, 1898, page 425.3

But this is not health reform in any sense. Light, well-baked, fine-flour bread is far better than is heavy, poorly baked bread of graham or any other kind of flour. And bread that is sour should never be put on the table in any form or for any purpose. The only thing to do with sour bread is to throw it away. Nor is it any waste to throw it away. The eating of sour bread is the greatest possible waste that there can be about it. yea, that is worse than waste—it is injury. No bread at all is better than sour bread. It is much the same, also, with that stuff (probably we have all seen it) which is called graham bread, or “gems,” and which, though not exactly sour, is so heavy as to be turned back to dough, rather than to anything else, by eating. ARSH July 5, 1898, page 425.4

It is true that the Testimonies say that “fine-flour bread can not impart to the system the nourishment that you will fin in the unbolted wheat bread,” and that “the common use of bolted wheat bread can not keep the system in a healthy condition.“—Testimonies for the Church 2:68. And they say a good deal more than this. It may be well to set down here some of the main points in this matter, in addition to what is so often quoted in justification of the use of graham bread of the sort we have mentioned. Here it is:— ARSH July 5, 1898, page 425.5

“Because it is wrong to cook merely to please the taste, or to suit the appetite, no one should entertain the idea that an impoverished diet is right. Many are debilitated with disease, and need a nourishing, plentiful, well-cooked diet. We frequently find graham bread heavy, sour, and but partially baked. This is for want of interest to learn, and care to perform, the important duty of cook. Sometimes we find gem cakes, or soft biscuit, dried, not baked, and other things after the same order. And then cooks will tell you they can do very well in the old style of cooking, but, to tell the truth, their families do not like graham bread; that they would starve to live in this way. ARSH July 5, 1898, page 425.6

“I have said to myself, I do not wonder at it. It is your manner of preparing food that makes it so unpalatable. To eat such food would certainly give one the dyspepsia. These poor cooks, and those who have to eat their food, will gravely tell you that the health reform does not agree with them. The stomach has not power to convert poor, heavy, sour bread into good; but this poor bread will convert a healthy stomach into a diseased one. Those who eat such food know that they are failing in strength. Is there not a cause? Some of these persons call themselves health reformers, but they are not. They do not know how to cook. They prepare cakes, potatoes, and graham bread, but there is the same round, with scarcely a variation, and the system is not strengthened. They seem to think the time wasted which is devoted to obtaining a thorough experience in the preparation of healthful, palatable food. ARSH July 5, 1898, page 425.7

“Some act as though that which they eat were lost, and anything they could toss into the stomach to fill it would do as well as food prepared with so much painstaking. It is important that we relish the food we eat. If we cannot do this, but eat mechanically, we fail to be nourished and built up as we would be if we could enjoy the food we take into the stomach. We are composed of what we eat. In order to make a good quality of blood, we must have the right kind of food, prepared in a right manner. ARSH July 5, 1898, page 425.8

“It is a religious duty for those who cook to learn how to prepare healthful food in different ways, so that it may be eaten with enjoyment. Mothers should teach their children how to cook. What branch of the education of a young lady can be so important as this? The eating has to do with the life. Scanty, impoverished, ill-cooked food is constantly depraving the blood by weakening the blood-making organs. ARSH July 5, 1898, page 425.9

“It is highly essential that the art of cookery be considered one of the most important branches of education. There are but few good cooks. Young ladies consider that it is stooping to a menial office to become a cook. This is not the case. They do not view the subject from a right standpoint. Knowledge of how to prepare food healthfully, especially bread, is no mean science. ARSH July 5, 1898, page 425.10

“In many families we find dyspeptics, and frequently the reason of this is the poor bread. The mistress of the house decides that it must not be thrown away, and they eat it. Is this the way to dispose of poor bread? Will you put it into the stomach to be converted into blood? Has the stomach power to make sour bread sweet? heavy bread light? moldy bread fresh? ... Many a wife and mother who has not had the right education and lacks skill in the cooking department is daily presenting her family with ill-prepared food which is steadily and surely destroying the digestive organs, making a poor quality of blood, and frequently bringing on acute attacks of inflammatory disease and causing premature death. Many have been brought to their death by eating heavy, sour bread. An instance was related to me of a hired girl who made a batch of sour, heavy bread. In order to get rid of it and conceal the matter, she threw it to a couple of very large hogs. Next morning the man of the house found his swine dead, and, upon examining the trough, found pieces of this heavy bread. He made inquiries, and the girl acknowledged what she had done. She had not a thought of the effect of such bread upon the swine. If heavy, sour bread will kill swine, which can devour rattlesnakes and almost every detestable thing, what effect will it have upon that tender organ, the human stomach? ARSH July 5, 1898, page 425.11

“It is a religious duty for every Christian girl and woman to learn at once to make good, sweet, light bread from unbolted wheat flour.”—Id., Vol. I, 681, 682, 684. See also Vol. II, 369, 373, 537, 638. ARSH July 5, 1898, page 425.12

“Editorial” The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald 75, 28, p. 428.

“THE joy of the Lord is your strength.” ARSH July 5, 1898, page 428.1

Did you know that there is real reviving strength in the joy of the Lord? ARSH July 5, 1898, page 428.2

It is really so, as every one can certify from experience, who knows the joy of the Lord. ARSH July 5, 1898, page 428.3

How could it be otherwise? Is there not reviving and strength in mere human joy? How much more, then, in divine joy,—in joy that is the Lord’s, and that comes direct from him to the believer! ARSH July 5, 1898, page 428.4

When a person is worn, and weary, and ready to faint, and just then receives a bit of joyful news, is not all his thought of faintness at once dissipated by the joy? and is not all his weariness supplanted by freshness and strength, which the joy has brought? ARSH July 5, 1898, page 428.5

And when that is true in affairs altogether human, how much more must it be true in affairs divine! It is so, as every one knows who know the joy of the Lord. ARSH July 5, 1898, page 428.6

But how shall we be partakers of the joy of the Lord? ARSH July 5, 1898, page 428.7

The joy of the Lord in human life is the fruit of the Spirit of God. “The fruit of the Spirit is... joy.” And we can not have the fruit without the root. ARSH July 5, 1898, page 428.8

“The kingdom of God is... joy in the Holy Ghost;” and “the kingdom of God is within you.” ARSH July 5, 1898, page 428.9

Therefore, the joy of the Lord in human life is only by the Holy Ghost. And “the joy of the Lord is your strength.” ARSH July 5, 1898, page 428.10

Is the joy of the Lord your strength? ARSH July 5, 1898, page 428.11

Are you worn, and weary, and ready to faint? “The joy of the Lord is your strength;” and this comes only by the Holy Spirit. Have you received the Holy Ghost? “Ask, and it shall be given you.” “Receive ye the Holy Ghost.” ARSH July 5, 1898, page 428.12

“Editorial Note” The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald 75, 28, p. 428.

HOW many times in the life of every one there come disappointments because some cherished plan or idea fails to carry. Particularly is this true in church matters, in the election of officers to carry on the Sabbath-school and church work, especially when there is present more of self than of Christianity. We think that if only this or that one had been given charge of the work, how much better it would have been. Perhaps so; yet it should not be forgotten that all are brethren; that each has a right to his personal opinion, the same as ourselves; and, obviously, that what would please us would not be likely to satisfy those who think differently. ARSH July 5, 1898, page 428.1

But suppose things have not gone as they really should, what ought to be the attitude of us who have been disappointed? Self suggests, “I will do nothing; let those who have the work in charge conduct it as they please.” Of course, single-handed, or with opposing elements, there may be a failure, and then out come the words, “I told you so.” ARSH July 5, 1898, page 428.2

How much better it is when we accept the situation and make the best of it, trusting to the future to right any errors that may be committed. A poor leader, with the co-operation and sympathy of his brethren, can accomplish more than a good leader without this co-operation and sympathy. If any member of the human body, because of physical weakness, is unable to perform its legitimate function, the other members assume additional responsibility; and what the weaker one is unable to perform, the others do, and the burden is equalized. So it should be in the Master’s service: we are exhorted, “Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.” When people who are disqualified are given charge of work in the cause, and that work is not a success, it is the cause that suffers, not particularly those who have failed. Can any one who loves the cause stand by and see it suffer for want of assistance that he could render?—Surely not. ARSH July 5, 1898, page 428.3

A. T. Jones, “The Bible the Leading Educational Book,” The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald 75, 28 (July 5, 1898), pp. 428, 429. ARSH July 5, 1898, page 428.4

FOR anybody to profess to believe the Bible for what it is,—the word of God,—and at the same time not to allow that the Bible must be the leading book in all education, are two things that will not hold together at all. ARSH July 5, 1898, page 428.5

The Bible claims for itself that it is the word of God. It comes to men as the word of God. If it is not accepted and held as the word of God, it is no more than any other peculiarly national book. To believe the Bible, is to accept it as the word of God; for that is the only claim that the Bible makes for itself. Not to except the Bible as the word of God, is not to believe the Bible at all. ARSH July 5, 1898, page 428.6

The Bible, then, being the word of God, is supreme knowledge and supreme authority upon every subject that is true. There can not be any truer knowledge than that of God: there can not be any higher authority than that of the word of God. As certainly, therefore, as the Bible is an educational book at all, so certainly is it the supreme educational book. ARSH July 5, 1898, page 428.7

Is the Bible, then, an educational book? Is it given to instruct, to educate?—For what other purpose could it possibly have been given, since it is given in written language? The Author of it says, “Learn of me.” “I am the Lord thy God which teacheth thee to profit.” And, “Who teacheth like him?” ARSH July 5, 1898, page 428.8

The Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father sends, “shall teach you all things,”—not all things good, bad, and indifferent; not all things speculative, conjectural, and false, but all things that are true; not false science, but true science; not false philosophy, but true philosophy. For he is the Spirit only of truth. He is a guide only into truth. And in this “he will guide you into all truth.” ARSH July 5, 1898, page 428.9

He, being God and being a teacher, is the supreme Teacher. His words are supreme instruction. Instruction is the only means to education; and his instruction, being supreme, the education accomplished through this instruction is likewise supreme. And that which is supreme is, in the very nature of the case, of the very first consideration. To the Bible, therefore, being the word of God and being instruction from the Lord, belongs, by divine right, the place of first consideration in all education. ARSH July 5, 1898, page 428.10

Therefore it is perfectly plain that any teacher in any Christian school who would lead any student into any study before the study of the Bible, does not really hold the Bible to be the word of God, and, therefore, supreme. And it is just as plain that any teacher in any Christian school, who, in any study, uses any other book before the Bible, or in preference to the Bible, does not really hold the Bible to be the word of God; he does not count is supreme knowledge; he does not acknowledge it to be the supreme authority. He may profess to hold the Bible as the word of God; but such action shows that it is not really that to him; some other book is more to him than is the Bible. ARSH July 5, 1898, page 428.11

It may be, indeed, that he thinks he holds the Bible to be the word of God, but uses some other book in preference to the Bible, because he is better acquainted with that book than he is with the Bible. But this does not relieve him; because if he is better acquainted with this other book than he is with the Bible, it is simply because he has studied that book more than he has the Bible: and the very fact of his studying that book more than he has studied the Bible, is proof positive that that book is more to him than is the Bible. And that being so, the Bible is not really the word of God to him: for the Bible is not the word of God to a man when, to that man, another book stands ahead of the Bible. ARSH July 5, 1898, page 428.12

More than this, the teacher to whom any other book is more than the Bible, or is preferred to the Bible, is not prepared to teach in any Christian school; for he will certainly, even though not consciously, put the word of man before the word of God. And that is not Christian teaching. ARSH July 5, 1898, page 428.13

This is not in any sense to say that no book but the Bible can be used in teaching. Other books can be used,—yes, in a number of studies other books must be used,—but they will always be used only with the Bible. And when these books are used with the Bible, they will always be used in subordination to the Bible; in each particular study the Bible will lead, and the other book will follow. No other book can ever lead, and the Bible follow, in any Christian school, nor with any teacher in a Christian school. ARSH July 5, 1898, page 428.14

We have much more to say in illustration of this great and vital principle. But all that we shall say more just now is that no person is qualified as a teacher in any Christian school until he is so acquainted with the Bible that in anything which he undertakes to teach, he can make the Bible the leading book. ARSH July 5, 1898, page 428.15

But let not this truth discourage any one. If you are not so acquainted with the Bible now, go to work, and become so acquainted with it. And this is simply asking you to become acquainted with God, with his wisdom, and with his power. ARSH July 5, 1898, page 428.16

A. T. Jones, “Editorial Notes,” The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald 75, 28 (July 5, 1898), pp. 428, 429. ARSH July 5, 1898, page 428.17

IT is said by a no less trustworthy authority than Harper’s Weekly, that only lately France and England have been on the very eve of war. It says: “Very few persons outside of officials circles in France and England know how near to war the two nations were. The tactics of the fleets had been arranged, and those who were in the secret were keeping watch on the movements of the English Channel squadron.... So complete were the preparations, that France had made ready ships for cutting England Cable communications with the world, while England had fitted out vessels for relaying them.” Happily, this crisis is past, and a peaceful status now prevails. But how true it is that “the nations are angry,” and that the angels are holding the four winds! ARSH July 5, 1898, page 428.18

“Passing Events. That Papal Scheme” The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald 75, 28, p. 429.

ARCHBISHOP IRELAND has not yet published his promised “reply to the attacks made upon him,” in which he is to “go into details” about his and the pope’s manipulating the government of the United States. However, in his explanation to the effect that he is going to explain, there are statements sufficiently suggestive to cause serious thinking and careful watching on the part of all who would discern the signs of the times, or who care for true American liberty and independence. ARSH July 5, 1898, page 429.1

Having failed to preserve peace in the interests of papal power and revenue, his plan is next to make the war turned to the credit of the papacy—and especially to the promoting of the power of the papacy over the United States. The scheme announced in behalf of the Archbishop, and endorsed by “one high diplomat,” even before the war had actually been begun, is as follows:— ARSH July 5, 1898, page 429.2

He [Archbishop Ireland] expects to bring about a Congress of nations. If this is considered in impracticable, such a concert will be arranged that the impossible elements and factors in the situation may be eliminated by friendly pressure upon Spain and upon the United States. ARSH July 5, 1898, page 429.3

It is possible and probable that a congress of nations will be called immediately after a positive declaration of hostilities. ARSH July 5, 1898, page 429.4

The whole matter will then be taken up and adjusted. Spain will receive some adequate compensation for loss of the island of Cuba, if the experiment now on trial fails, through war; and at the same time, Cuba will be put under stable rule and government, probably under the protectorate of the United States. ARSH July 5, 1898, page 429.5

In doing this the wisdom of the Monroe doctrine will be acknowledged, but the incidental responsibility of the United States thereunder will be defined and demonstrated. This will work greatly for the preservation of the peace of the world. As matters stand now, there is constant danger that some puny nation may, through braggadocio or truculence, involves some great powers. ARSH July 5, 1898, page 429.6

Thus the papacy is determined to make herself felt, and will force herself in to recognition, in the affairs of the United States. Having failed to hold her power and revenue in Cuba by holding that suffering people under Spanish despotism, she now proposes to accomplish that purpose, and a great deal more, by engineering a settlement in which she will have to be recognized as a chief party to be reckoned with. ARSH July 5, 1898, page 429.7

And notice how coolly her arrogant position is assumed. See with what an air of superiority it is that she announces that “friendly pressure” will be put “upon the United States” as “upon Spain,“—as if the United States were subject, as Spain has always been. ARSH July 5, 1898, page 429.8

Notice, also, and inwardly digest, the deep and sinister meaning of it,—how self-confidently it is declared that by this “congress,” or “concert,” of her calling, “the whole matter will be taken up and adjusted.” See the assumption of supremacy displayed in telling just how the parties interested will be dealt with: “Spain will receive some adequate compensation;” “Cuba will be put under stable rule and government;” and “probably” this will be “under the protectorate of the United States.” Cuba declared, and made, “free and independent” by the United States; and the United States, professedly at least, the free and independent in her own right, are to be taken charge of by the papacy and her “concert,” and are to be dealt with as she decides, as if they were her absolute subjects, to be placed and moved like “men” on a chess-board! And then, to cap it all, “the incidental responsibility of the United States,” under the Monroe doctrine, “will be defined and demonstrated” for the United States. ARSH July 5, 1898, page 429.9

There can not be the least doubt that the papacy will do every possible thing to carry out this program announced by Archbishop Ireland. ARSH July 5, 1898, page 429.10

And who is prepared to say that she will not succeed in having this program carried out according to her own ideas and wishes,—if not in every detail, largely in very substance? Especially who is prepared to say that she will not succeed in it, when at her very first move, she has been successful in gaining official recognition from the government of the United States,—when at her very first that, she succeeded in having an official communication from her “secretary of state” officially received by the Secretary of State of the United States, and her “representative” recommended in this official communication, also officially received, through whom, afterward, “the official texts of the concessions which Spain was willing to make for the sake of peace” were “laid before this government.” When she can do all that at the very beginning of difficulties what will she not do before the difficulties are in did? ARSH July 5, 1898, page 429.11

And when it is understood that the Philippines and San Juan are solidly Catholic, and Cuba almost so, and when it is understood that in all three of these places the papacy has immense vested interests, who can doubt that when the time comes for settlement of the pending difficulties, the papacy will be sure so insinuate herself as to secure recognition as one of the parties entitled to consideration with the other “powers,“—especially when she proposes, even now, to take the initiative in calling the congress of nations that shall “adjust” matters? ARSH July 5, 1898, page 429.12

Another thing that just now makes all this worthy of only the more careful consideration, is the movement to have the United States enter the lists as one of “the powers” in the affairs of the whole world. ARSH July 5, 1898, page 429.13

Just now is a time for deep study in careful thinking. ARSH July 5, 1898, page 429.14

“Worldly Fame and Church Membership” The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald 75, 28, p. 429.

DURING late years there appears to be a disposition on the part of the churches to claim, as a church-members, men prominently before the public in an official capacity, whether they give any evidence of making a profession of Christianity, or not. Nearly all the leading religious journals have published portraits of Admiral Dewey. The Protestant Episcopal church claims that he belongs to it, because, when a boy, he was confirmed by one of their bishops. The Catholics, through an editorial in the Cleveland Universe, a Catholic paper, have announced, in a confident tone, that he is a convert to that church. The United Presbyterian of June 16 asserts that he is one of the ruling elder’s and the Presbyterian church. Now it transpires that he is neither Protestant or Catholic, but a Jew; for the American Hebrew comes forward with a claim that” unless Admiral Dewey’s mother renounced her faith before his birth, she was a Jewess; and under Jewish law and custom, the child follows the religion of the mother.” ARSH July 5, 1898, page 429.1

One near him in his every-day life has said, “If Dewey is a religious man, I have yet to discover it.” But whether he is, or is not, religious, why didn’t these churches claim him before the battle of Manila? And why should they be so anxious to claim him now, unless it be that worldly fame is the principal element in prominence of membership in those churches? And when that is the case, those churches themselves are essentially worldly, and value worldly fame far more than the value Christian character. ARSH July 5, 1898, page 429.2

Whether Admiral Dewey is religious or not, is altogether a matter of his own individual concerned. But that any professed Christian church should think it a feather in her hat to claim him as a member, just because of his fame, however well merited, shows that that church’s idea of the qualifications to church membership are far more earthly than heavenly. ARSH July 5, 1898, page 429.3