The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, vol. 77

February 20, 1900

“The Meaning of the Missionary Reading Circle” ¹ Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, 77, 8, p. 114.

A. T. JONES
(Continued.)

WE have found that God taught his people the truth in order that they might teach it to the nations. When they shut up the truth to themselves, they were scattered among the nations, and then and thus the nations received the truth. The first thing that the nations received where Israel went, was the knowledge of God. The next thing, as outlined in the book of Daniel, in the third chapter, Nebuchadnezzar set up his great image, and required that it should be worshiped. This brought in the thought of religious liberty, and the duty of the people to worship God, regardless of the will of the king. “The king’s word” must “change.” In the sixth chapter comes up again the duty of the children of God to worship God, even though the law be made for the definite purpose of interfering with the worship of those who fear God. We need not go into the detail of those chapters about the present situation. ARSH February 20, 1900, page 114.1

From the days of Abraham, God gave to Israel plain instruction upon all the subject of religious liberty—true separation of religion and the state. But Israel did not hold it fast; they would not believe it. Instead of holding fast the truth as they were taught, they went the way the nations went, and united church and state. And now, in her captivity, the Lord would teach to the heathen, by Israel when she was scattered among them, the very things that he gave to Israel to teach to the heathen, but which Israel rejected, and as a consequence became like the heathen. ARSH February 20, 1900, page 114.2

Now the book of Daniel is a last-day book. And religious liberty, the separation of religion and the state, is one of the great subjects of the last days. When Christianity was started in the world, it was started with the truth on this point, as on all others. This truth of God was revived in Christianity, and was given to the nations,—the separation of religion and the state. The apostasy from God stepped in, and swung off, not Christianity, but that which passed for Christianity, and joined church and state again. The Reformation came in with Christianity again, the separation of religion and the state. Protestantism apostatized, and went in the same direction, uniting church and state. And so the book of Revelation tells what would thus come in the world—in the Dark Ages, it was the beast; and in the present day, it is the image to the beast. ARSH February 20, 1900, page 114.3

Now all these years—fifty years—this has been studied by this people. It is a subject professedly known by this people. It is a truth given to this people to give to all the world. And yet, just now, in the very crisis of that thing, just before the last step is taken in which life shall be given to the image of the beast that he “should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed,“—just in this very crisis, one of the hardest things in the world is to get this people who profess to be in this time to see this truth, to acknowledge it, and give it to the world. ARSH February 20, 1900, page 114.4

Let me call your attention to the situation as it is to-day outside the Third Angel’s Message,—the other side of the message. It is a surprise to the people of the world,—to the people of the United States, and the people outside of the United States, the people of the world, I mean,—the nations of the world, how swiftly the present movement of the nation in repudiation of its fundamental principles has been accepted by the people of this nation. Yet to those who have been here these years, and have really studied during these years, and have really studied during these years, there is nothing at all mysterious, nor wonderful, nor strange about it. ARSH February 20, 1900, page 114.5

Let me call your attention to something that you know. You know that for thirty-seven years there has been an organization in this United States whose set purpose was to turn this government “into a government of some other form.” It began in 1863—the National Reform Association. ARSH February 20, 1900, page 114.6

These thirty-seven years that association has been working, and you know that one of the fundamental principles of the association of the National Reformers always has been, and is to-day, that “governments do not derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.” ARSH February 20, 1900, page 114.7

It has been preached by the National Reformers always, and there is nothing else in their theory. These thirty-seven years these men have been sowing that seed through all this land. Is it strange that the seed should grow? Is there anything strange that fruit should begin to appear from that sowing of thirty-seven years? ARSH February 20, 1900, page 114.8

Another thing: it is remarked especially by the public writers of the present time, the newspaper correspondents of the daily papers, that it is “the younger generation of public men,” not the older generation, who have taken this up so readily, and who are pushing this movement forward so strongly. ARSH February 20, 1900, page 114.9

The older generation of men, who have been in the halls of Congress for a generation, are the ones who say No. They say, That is dangerous ground; that is a road we can not travel, and continued to exist as a republic. It means ruin to go that way. ARSH February 20, 1900, page 114.10

But the younger generation who have come in,—who are they? Listen! These National Reformers have had open doors, free access, these thirty-seven years, in the churches, in the colleges, in the academies of all this land. All these years they have taught these evil precepts to the young men in the colleges, in the academies, and in the religious and literary assemblies. And now these young men are the very ones who are coming upon the stage of public action to-day. To-day these young men are taking their places in the halls of Congress—some of them only thirty-seven years old, and yet the very leaders in this movement. These are the young men in whose minds were sown, by these National Reformers a generation ago and onward, the evil seed that “governments do not derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.” And now when they step into places of power in national affairs, they simply carry out the principles that they imbibed when they were in school, from the persistent and industrious teaching of the National Reformers through all these years. ARSH February 20, 1900, page 114.11

That is the philosophy of this sudden rush away from the principles of this nation, away from the principles that made it the model nation of the earth, by which it enlightened the world, and the abandonment of which causes it to become the very image of the beast. ARSH February 20, 1900, page 114.12

Now the National Reformers are still here, and are still preaching that same doctrine, that “governments do not derive their just powers form the consent of the governed.” And their supporters, their doctrinal children, are now in the halls of Congress and in the halls of legislation throughout the nation. And now we are upon the very verge of the last movement that will be made, in which this nation will give life unto the image of the beast, that it should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the beast should be killed. ARSH February 20, 1900, page 114.13

And just now, when we are standing face to face with this dreadfully dangerous and imminent issue, instead of all this people who have been here all these years, to whom God has given the truth to pass on to all these, and to give to all the nations—just now, when this people should arise as one man, with the might of God upon them, and sound the alarm and give the warning, instead of doing so, thousands of this people have not a word to say except it be to denounce those who would give that warning to the world! I am wondering, wondering every day, how long this can continue before this people shall have to be scattered among all these nations, in poverty, in distress, and amid confusion among the nations, in order that they shall give to all people and nations that which God gave us all these years to give, and for exactly such a time as this. ARSH February 20, 1900, page 114.14

From ten to fifteen years ago, this people were especially told, by the Spirit of Prophecy, that the National Reform movement was working in secrecy, was making its way silently underneath the surface, and that its results and its mighty movement would be sprung upon the nation unawares; and we are in the time when it is now being sprung upon the nation. We are now past the time when it is working in secrecy; for its own agents, whom it has raised up, are its agents now in the halls of Congress and the halls of legislation throughout the land. So they have the whole machinery in their hands,—the machinery that they themselves have created. They created it for this very purpose, and they will use it for the purpose for which they created it, and that speedily. ARSH February 20, 1900, page 114.15

And that is why it is that this Missionary Reading Circle work means a missionary work to which this people have now been called; and it calls for a missionary spirit, and an awakening such as has never been among this people. And if this crisis and work are not seen—then what? That is the important question: Then what? ARSH February 20, 1900, page 114.16

(To be concluded.)

“The Third Angel’s Message” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, 77, 8, p. 120.

GOD would have healed Babylon, but she would not be healed. In the Reformation he sent a balm for her, if so be that she might be healed; but she would not receive it, and, therefore, the Lord was obliged to leave her to her own ways. In the Reformation the Lord sent his gospel anew, and with power, to all people; and at that time all the people were in Babylon, because all were under the dominion of Rome. Multitudes received the gospel, and walked in the light as it was then revealed. but as that was the first step out of darkness, there were other steps to be taken, to reach the fullness of the gospel: there was advance light in which to walk. ARSH February 20, 1900, page 120.1

And here again history began to repeat itself. Many of those who had come out of darkness, and had taken the first steps into the light of the gospel, stopped there, became satisfied with that: they counted themselves sufficiently rich, and increased with goods, and therefore in need of nothing. And, as the consequence, they grew proud of what they had, exalted themselves upon what they had, and became exclusive. Then, as the gospel must go on as the light must increase more and more unto the perfect day, it followed that all those who would walk in the advancing light, all who would receive more truth,—the fuller gospel,—were excluded from the company of those who were self-satisfied, and were obliged to go forward as had the others at the first. ARSH February 20, 1900, page 120.2

Then, in turn, these became satisfied with what they had, grew proud of it, exalted themselves upon it, and became exclusive. But as the gospel must still advance, the light must shine yet more fully, and as those who would walk in the advancing light, and would receive more truth, could not do so and be recognized as of the company of those who had taken the former steps, they must, in turn, inevitably go on in a separate company. ARSH February 20, 1900, page 120.3

On this subject Mosheim says:— ARSH February 20, 1900, page 120.4

The doctrine of the Lutheran Church remained entire during this [seventeenth] century; its fundamental principles received no alteration, nor could any doctor of that church, who should have presumed to renounce or invalidate any of those theological points which are contained in the symbolical books of the Lutherans, have met with toleration and indulgence. ARSH February 20, 1900, page 120.5

And again:— ARSH February 20, 1900, page 120.6

The method... observed by Calvin... was followed, out of respect for his example, by almost all the divines of his communion, who looked upon him as their model and their guide. ARSH February 20, 1900, page 120.7

Thus those people, instead of continuing to be reformers, became respectively Lutherans and Calvinists. ARSH February 20, 1900, page 120.8

Thus each phase of advancing truth developed a separate denomination. And this is the whole philosophy of the principal divisions manifest in the different denominations of Protestantism. Primarily, of course, it should not have been so; yet, under the circumstances, as they developed, secondarily it becomes essential that it should be so. If those who started in the Reformation had continued to walk in the light as it shone more fully, if they had received advanced truth as they grew in the knowledge of the gospel, it is plain enough that there never could have been any other company, any new denomination: they would all have been reformers; there would have been one continuous and progressive reformation. ARSH February 20, 1900, page 120.9

And that is as it should have been. But when, instead of that, those who had received light and truth refused to receive more; when they held that they had all the light and all the truth, and grew proud, self-exalted, and exclusive because of it; and when they excluded from their company those who would receive increased light and advanced truth,—then, in the nature of things, there was nothing else for these to do but to associate together in the fellowship of the light and truth that they had received, and in the spirit of the gospel to spread it to all people. ARSH February 20, 1900, page 120.10

Then, history further repeated itself. These successive denominations, each in turn refusing to go further, and so rejecting truth, were turned from originally the “Gate of God” to “confusion.” Each one, in turn, as the mother at the first, joined herself to another man: they accepted kings of the earth as their head, in place of Christ, the true Head,—entered into illicit connection with the kings of the earth. The Emperor of Germany to-day, as king of Prussia, is the head, the supreme pontiff, of the Lutheran Church in Prussia. In the Scandinavian countries also the Lutheran is the state church, and the head of the state there, is the head of that church. In England the sovereign is head of the Church of England; and in Scotland the same sovereign is head of the church (Presbyterian) of Scotland. And so, because the same person is sovereign of both countries, the same person is head of one church in England and of another in Scotland: is an Episcopalian when in England, and a Presbyterian when in Scotland. And in New England the Congregationalists became the state church, as had the others each in her place; and each and all of them after the very example of “Babylon the Great, the other.” ARSH February 20, 1900, page 120.11

From the colonial period forward, will be considered next week. ARSH February 20, 1900, page 120.12

“A New Religio-Political Move” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, 77, 8, p. 120.

IN Willard Hall, Rock Island, Ill., Dec. 31, 1899, “under the auspices of the Young People’s Temperance Federation of America,” there was held a conference that, as reported in the Union Signal of Jan. 11, 1900, engaged in “the discussion of the necessity of unified action of Christians on political and reform lines.” And as a result, the following address was adopted at the closing session by a unanimous vote:— ARSH February 20, 1900, page 120.1

To all Christian Voters and Friends of Jesus of Nazareth throughout the United States of America, Greeting:— ARSH February 20, 1900, page 120.2

We believe the fullness of time to have arrived when the eternal principles of justice, mercy, and love, as exemplified in the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, should be embodied in the political economy of our nation, and applied in concrete form to every function of our government, national, State, municipal, and local. ARSH February 20, 1900, page 120.3

We believe that the most direct means of accomplishing this end is the formation of a political body of united Christian men and women, who shall use their elective franchise for the selection of able, worthy, and conscientious public officials who will seek in their respective positions to reform the functions of government in the spirit of the Man of Galilee. ARSH February 20, 1900, page 120.4

We believe that a sufficient number of our fellow citizens have been so spiritually and intellectually enlightened by the example and teachings of Christ and his disciples as to equip them for wise and efficient leadership of such a political force; and to these we appeal for immediate and vigorous co-operation. ARSH February 20, 1900, page 120.5

We believe that the pressing need, year, the necessity of the times among the great masses of our fellow citizens, is a practical application, commercially and socially, of the spirit and principles of Jesus of Nazareth. ARSH February 20, 1900, page 120.6

1. The eternal principles of justice, mercy, and love, as exemplified in the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, never can “be embodied in the political economy” of any earthly nation or government. In the life and teachings of the Lord Jesus as exemplified in himself on earth, there was nothing of the kind ever seen. The opposite of it was seen there. He refused to hold political office (John 6:15; Matthew 4:8-10); he refused to touch economic questions, or to perform such functions (Luke 12:13, 14); he declared, “My kingdom is not of this world.” John 18:36. And to his disciples forever he said: “Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so AMONG YOU.” Matthew 20:25. ARSH February 20, 1900, page 120.7

That notion of applying the principles of Christ “in concrete form to every function of our government, national, State, municipal, and local,” sounds enough like, to be part and parcel of, that declaration of the National W.C.T.U., in 1887: “The Woman’s Christian Temperance Union, local, State, national, and world-wide, has one vital, organic thought, one all-absorbing purpose, one undying enthusiasm; and that is that Christ shall be this world’s king,—yea, verily, THIS WORLD’S KING, in its realm of cause and effect,—king of its colleges and its cloisters,—king of its customs and its constitutions.... The kingdom of Christ must enter the realm of law through the gateway of politics.” ARSH February 20, 1900, page 120.8

2. No “political body” can ever be formed by Christian men and women, united or otherwise; for Christians do not form political combinations, nor do they take part in politics. The Christian’s commonwealth, his citizenship, “is in heaven.” Philippians 3:20, R.V., or Greek. Christians are “fellow citizens with the saints,” not with sinners. Ephesians 2:19; Deuteronomy 33:2; Jude 14. They are “strangers and pilgrims on the earth.” Hebrews 11:13-16. All the affairs of government that Christians have anything to do with are the affairs of the government and kingdom of God, which “is not of this world.” ARSH February 20, 1900, page 120.9

3. No man ever can be so “enlightened by the example and teachings of Christ and his disciples” as to be equipped “for wise and efficient leadership” of any “political force.” And this, simply because there is neither example nor teaching, either of Christ or his disciples, on any such subject. All the example and all the teaching of Christ and his disciples, are designed solely to equip men for efficient work, and leadership, if need be, of religious and spiritual forces only. ARSH February 20, 1900, page 120.10

4. Yes; there is now and always “pressing need, yea, necessity,” “among the great masses,” of a “practical application, commercially and socially, of the spirit and principles of Jesus of Nazareth.” It is needed “among the great masses” of Christians everywhere in the world. That is just what Christians are in the world for. And this application is to be made by the individual Christian, in all the affairs of his daily life wherever he is. That is simply what it is to be a Christian at all. ARSH February 20, 1900, page 120.11

“Editorial” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, 77, 8, p. 120.

THE Boston University School of Theology is an institution of the Methodist Episcopal Church. Early in December nine students of the school protested against the infidelity that was being taught to them. As stated by one of the students, the case was as follows:— ARSH February 20, 1900, page 120.1

Coming from the West to Boston University School of Theology a year ago, I was shocked to find the most rabid rationalism being taught as Old Testament exegesis, under cover of a leading Methodist school. Coming to Messianic prophecy, only half a truth was taught. Further on, Jesus Christ was no authority on Old Testament Scripture. The miraculous conception was set aside, and the atoning blood made nonessential. ARSH February 20, 1900, page 120.2

The president and the faculty sustained the professor who so taught; the president remarking that these were only “eight or nine out of an aggregate of one hundred and seventy-eight students. The students appealed to the Board of Bishops; but these supported the president and the faculty, and advised the students to keep quiet on the subject. Then the nine students withdrew entirely from the school. It is good that they had enough faith to carry them so far; for there are hundreds of students who enter the “great” schools to-day, who yield to those perverse influences, and are carried out to sea, to be utterly shipwrecked unless the saving gospel finds them anew. ARSH February 20, 1900, page 120.3

“The Return of the Jews” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, 77, 8, p. 121.

IN our studies on the “Return of the Jews,” we found that the Scriptures, and the whole principle of the gospel, are directly against it. we found also that those who claim and advocate a return of the Jews as a people—a nation, to be re-established in the land of Palestine—are, by their claim, obliged to find another order of things from that of the true gospel as it is in Christ—another long period of time, indeed, an “age to come,” this “age” including the “millennium.” ARSH February 20, 1900, page 121.1

In the studies on the Millennium, we have found, by the straightforward story of the word of God, from the present day entirely through to the creation of the new earth and its everlasting occupation by the saved, that there is no possible place for any such long period of time, or “age, to come,” and, therefore, no possible place for any such return of the Jews as a people, a nation, to be re-established in the land of Palestine, as is claimed by those who advocate the return of the Jews. ARSH February 20, 1900, page 121.2

And even so saith the Scripture. How often in the New Testament there stands the expression, “There is no difference between the Jew and the Greek.” But what can be the force of any such expression when there is to be manifested such an enormous difference as is involved in this claim of the return of the Jews,—that they must be gathered from all the nations of other people, to that one particular place; and blessings, bounties, and favors be showered upon them, and not upon other people? ARSH February 20, 1900, page 121.3

It is true that the claim contemplates that these shall be made the means of conveying these things to other people; but this does not relieve the scheme from the charge that it does make a decided difference between the Jew and the Greek—the Jew and the Gentile. This, because the claim is that they Jews are to be gathered thus simply because they are Jews, without any reference whatever to character. It is true that God uses those who receive his blessing, his light, his truth, to convey all these to those who have them not; but all his blessing, all his light, and all his truth are equally open and free to all people alike to be received. And those who receive them are used to convey his blessings to others, not because they have been especially chosen from among all other people, without regard to character; but solely because of the character they have obtained in the accepting of these things from God, which were equally open to all. This is the gospel call and the gospel work, always and everywhere. ARSH February 20, 1900, page 121.4

But such is not in any sense the claim to the return of the Jews. In that scheme a man is to be drawn to Jerusalem simply because he is a Jew, without reference to what his character is. Then, when these Jews have been gathered there, it seems that the claim is that the Lord is to manifest himself to them in such a stupendously impressive and open way that they simply can’t refuse to believe in him and to receive him as the Messiah. ARSH February 20, 1900, page 121.5

And, surely, that can be nothing else than the making of a boundless difference between the Jew and the Greek. For if the Jew is thus to be gathered there simply because he is a Jew, and without reference to character, and, after he gets there, the Lord is to be so astonishingly revealed to him that he simply can not refuse any longer to believe, would not the same plan be equally effective in bringing any other man, and, indeed, EVERY other man, to the same point? And to do it for one man, or for one set of men, and not for all alike, could not possibly be anything else than putting a difference between those and others. ARSH February 20, 1900, page 121.6

But there stands the Scripture forever: “God is no respecter of persons.” “There is no difference between the Jew and the Greek.” Therefore it is certain that every Jew must believe in and receive Christ, and what he has to give, precisely as every Gentile must believe in and receive him. ARSH February 20, 1900, page 121.7

“Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also: seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision [the Jews] by faith, and uncircumcision [the Gentiles] through faith,” it follows that for both alike the means of justification, of salvation, is faith—not faith for the Gentile, and sight for the Jew; but faith alone for both alike. For “there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek; for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.” ARSH February 20, 1900, page 121.8

“Studies in Galatians. Galatians 3:19” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, 77, 8, p. 121.

“WHEREFORE then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions.” ARSH February 20, 1900, page 121.1

The Greek term that is here translated “added,” is the same word that, in Hebrews 12:19, is translated “spoken,” in the clause referring to the voice of God speaking from Sinai, “which voice they that heard entreated that the word should not be spoken [or added] to them any more.” It is the same word that is used also in Deuteronomy 5:22 where it is translated “added,” in the sentence, “These words the Lord spake unto all your assembly in the mount out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice: and he added [or spoke] no more.” ARSH February 20, 1900, page 121.2

In both Hebrews and Deuteronomy the word is used with direct reference to the giving of the law of God, the ten commandments. This passage in Galatians, therefore, would certainly seem to suggest that the law here referred to would be the same law. And this is further sustained by the expression later, in this verse, that the law referred to was ordained “in the hand of a mediator.” Now, since there is only “one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus,” it was certainly Christ’s hand in which this law was ordained. And Deuteronomy 33:2, speaking of the same scene referred to in Deuteronomy 5:22 and Hebrews 12:20, says: “The Lord came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them: he shined forth from mount Paran, and he came with ten thousands of saints: from his right hand went a fiery law for them.” ARSH February 20, 1900, page 121.3

Now the ten commandments were not only written by the hand of the Lord himself, but they were written on tables of stone, which “tables were the work of God,” as well as the writing, which was the writing of God. And these tables were given by the hand of the Lord, unto Moses. And even when Moses had broken these tables, and had been directed to make other tables, the Lord wrote again with his hand on these tables the same law that at first he had written on the tables that he himself had made. ARSH February 20, 1900, page 121.4

But this is not true of any other law. It is true that the ceremonial law—the law concerning sacrifices, offerings, the sanctuary, the whole Levitical system—was also given by the Lord to Moses; but it was not given by the hand of the Lord to Moses. It did not come forth from his hand, either in writing by his own hand, or upon tables made with his own hand. It was given to Moses by the Lord, and was written altogether by Moses, and not at all by the Lord. ARSH February 20, 1900, page 121.5

Some, taking the English word “added” in this clause in Galatians 3:19, and holding it in the restricted English sense of “added,” have supposed that it is here taught that whatever law is referred to was necessarily added to something as a part of that thing, and so have held that it was added to the covenant with Abraham. But such a view as that would plainly be a mistake, because, in Galatians 3:15, it is positively stated that “though it be but a man’s covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man ... addeth thereto.” Thus it would be impossible for anything to be added to that covenant. The word translated “addeth,” in Galatians 3:15, is not the same in Greek as that translated “added” in Galatians 3:19, nor are the words akin. ARSH February 20, 1900, page 121.6

From the Greek word itself, in Galatians 3:19, and its use in connection with the law, in Hebrews 12:20 and Deuteronomy 5:22, as well as its further use in the Scriptures, it is plain that it is not necessarily implied that what is referred to should be literally added in the sense of a mathematical addition. One expression in which the Greek word is used is, “Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.” Matthew 6:33. Here it is plain that the expression is equivalent to merely to “give”—“all these things shall be given unto you,” or “ye shall receive all these things.” Such is exactly its meaning in Mark 4:24, in which our translation is, “Unto you that hear shall more be given”—shall more be added. In Acts 12:3 our translation reads, “He proceeded further to take Peter also.” This, translated as in Galatians 3:19, would be, “He added to take Peter.” Thus the word in Galatians 3:19 could, with equal propriety be translated, “Wherefore then the law? It was spoken because of transgressions,” or, “It was given because of transgressions.” One translation of the clause is, “It was set because of transgressions.” Another is, “It was introduced,” etc. True, to translate it, “It was added,” is just as good, provided it be understood that the word “added” conveys these senses, and is not to be restricted to its special meaning of a mathematical addition, as of adding “one cubit unto his stature.” ARSH February 20, 1900, page 121.7

The law, then, was given, was spoken, was added, because of transgression. Will this statement that “it was added because of transgressions” hold in the case of the law of God, the ten commandments? With respect to that law as it is referred to throughout in the discussion in which the Galatian Christians were involved, that is, the law in its written form, the expression does certainly apply. This will not only be clearly seen, but it is positively stated, in a passage already several times quoted in these “Studies in Galatians;” and we here set it down again:— ARSH February 20, 1900, page 121.8

If man had kept the law of God, as given to Adam after his fall, preserved by Noah, and observed by Abrahams, there would have been no necessity for the ordinance of circumcision. And if the descendants of Abraham had kept the covenant, of which circumcision was a sign, they would never have been seduced into idolatry, nor would it have been necessary for then to suffer a life of bondage in Egypt; they would have kept God’s law in mind, and there would have been no necessity for it to be proclaimed from Sinai, or engraved upon the tables of stone. And had the people practiced the principles of the ten commandments, there would have been no need of the additional directions given to Moses.—“Patriarchs and Prophets,” page 364. ARSH February 20, 1900, page 121.9

This corresponds exactly to the other expressions with reference to the entering of the law of God: “The laws entered, that the offense might abound.” Romans 5:20. “That sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.” Romans 7:7, 13. “To bring transgressions to a head.”—Farrar’s translation of Galatians 3:19. “In order to bring about as transgressions the transgressions of it.”—Alford. ARSH February 20, 1900, page 121.10

This will be followed further next week. ARSH February 20, 1900, page 121.11

“Back Page” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, 77, 8, p. 128.

AT a grand reception in Manila in honor of Apostolic Delegate Archbishop Chapelle, January 23, a petition was presented to the apostolic delegate “praying for the withdrawal of the friars from the Philippine Islands.” In the midst of the reading of the petition, the apostolic delegate stopped the reading, and said that “that question would be regulated by the pope, General Otis, and himself.” And so already it has come to pass that the United States government in the Philippines is an essential party in a triumvirate in which the pope and his apostolic delegate are the other two. But as the pope is in Rome, this leaves only the other two in the Philippines. And as the apostolic delegate is the mouthpiece and sole channel of communication with the pope, this makes him the superior of the two who are on the ground in the Philippines. And this makes the United States second to the Church of Rome in the Philippine Islands. Therefore, in truth, whatever settlement is made will be really by “the pope and himself;” and the only place where General Otis will really come in, will be with the power of the United States to compel the acceptance of such arrangement as shall have been made by “the pope and himself.” And so the United States government becomes the tool of the papacy. ARSH February 20, 1900, page 128.1

CONGRESS, by an overwhelming vote, excluded Mr. Roberts from taking a seat; and at the same time, and by the same vote, excluded the Constitution of the United States. That is to say, the thing that Congress did was unconstitutionally done, when the same result could have been Constitutionally attained. This is recognized throughout the whole country; and no one can doubt it who will read the speeches on the subject. More than this, what was unconstitutionally done, even by an overwhelming majority, could in effect have been Constitutionally done by a unanimous vote. The question is, Why should Congress do a thing in an unconstitutional way when its whole purpose and intent could have been attained in a strictly Constitutional way? The answer is that by the majority influence of this nation, the Constitution, as to true Constitutional principle, has been completely lost sight of. Ever since the nation, in 1892, tore the Sabbath of the Lord from its place in his own law, and set up Sunday in its stead, the nation in every crisis has taken the wrong course. By that high-handed act the nation was handed over to the perverse spirit, and it is manifested on every occasion; and all the more as occasions multiply. ARSH February 20, 1900, page 128.2

AS is well known, Archbishop Chapelle is apostolic delegate to Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines, and is now in the Philippines. He has been there but a little while; yet he has already proposed that there “the ecclesiastical court should be reorganized as it was during the Spanish régime.” This, because of the fixed papal doctrine that “ecclesiastical offenders against the law should be brought to trial only before an ecclesiastical tribunal.” That is, when a priest breaks the law, he must not be tried by the regular courts like any other lawbreaker, but must be tried by his fellow ecclesiastics. Such a system, of course, leads to practical exemption of the ecclesiastics from all punishment for crime, and so results in an unmitigated ecclesiastical tyranny. No wonder that the archbishop’s proposal stirred the resentment of the Filipinos. And now it will be a matter of intense interest to all to watch the course of events, and see whether the United States government supports the archbishop or the Filipinos. ARSH February 20, 1900, page 128.3