The Topeka Daily Capital, vol. 11

1/12

The Topeka Daily Capital, Vol. 11

1889

May 7, 1889

“The Camp-meeting. The Adventist Celebrate the Seventh Day at Ottawa” The Topeka Daily Capital 11, 108, p. 4.

ATJ

As One of Rest and Protest Against Religious Legislation—Elder Jones’ Description of “Constitutional Rights”—Interesting Discourses Special Correspondence of the CAPITAL

FOREST PARK, OTTAWA, KAN., MAY 5.—The day opened at the camp meeting on Saturday all that could be desired and continued so. Early at 5 o’clock the campers began to rise and in half hour were assembled for the morning worship in the tabernacle. At 9 o’clock came the Sabbath school; at half past 10 the morning sermon at half past 2 the afternoon discourse; at sun-down the evening Sabbath worship, and at 8 the lecture. Visitors were numerous at all the day convocations, and at night the assembly hall was filled to its utmost seating capacity, many standing. TDC May 7, 1889, page 4.1

The number of classes formed in the Sabbath school was twenty-eight, five of them in the primary divisions, with a total membership of 228, of which twenty-seven were children. The lesson in the senior division was: “Unsanctified Service and the Result.” In the primary, “The Life of Christ.” Elder E.H. Gates reviewed the senior division, and Elder W. W. Hyatt the primary. The first named is from the Colorado conference and the latter from Nebraska. TDC May 7, 1889, page 4.2

The following is a summary of the last quarterly report (just prepared) of the Seventh Day Adventist Sabbath schools of Kansas; Number of schools reporting, 75 membership, 2,139; average attendance, 1,607; donations, $123.25. TDC May 7, 1889, page 4.3

The morning sermon, at 10:30 on Sabbath, was delivered by Elder A. T. Jones. TDC May 7, 1889, page 4.4

ELDER JONES’ SERMON

The speaker took his text from Exodus 20:8; “remember the Sabbath Day to keep it Holy.” “This,” he said, “is practically the fourth commandment, telling us what it is, and what we are to do with it, the balance being simply explanatory. The latter part of the commandment gives the reasons why we should observe it—we are to rest because God rested, and to keep it holy because He did. Again, it is “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy,” not “and keep it holy,” as is often quoted. If we do not remember to keep it holy we (not keep it holy when it comes to us. This is why the word “to” is placed there, the definition of the word being in substance a motion toward an object. Now, then, where does our observance of this Sabbath begin? When did Adam’s observance begin? Why, just when the first Sabbath was past, because Adam did not keep the first one, as God had to rest before a Sabbath was fully born, so that as soon as the sun went down on the first Sabbath Adam began to “remember to” keep the coming Sabbath; so should we do likewise. We therefore are to keep the commandment all the week up to Friday, and then begin to keep the Sabbath also, so that on the Sabbath we keep both the commandment and the Sabbath. It is plain then that all we do during the week should be done in reference to the coming Sabbath. If we fail to do this we are often placed in perplexing positions by having goods delivered, or business, or work overlooked pressed upon us on the Sabbath. If, then, we think to keep the commandment, we can keep the Sabbath when it comes, but otherwise we cannot. The keeping of the Sabbath holy, begins at once when the Sabbath comes. We cannot carry our work right up to the hour of its beginning or get so behind with our work that we have to crowd Friday full of work and overstep the time into the Sabbath to close up, and then keep the day holy. We have already profaned holy time and we cannot then comply with God’s requirements. TDC May 7, 1889, page 4.5

Now let us notice another point. The commandment is not given, as men assert, because of man’s physical necessities. Man’s physical nature or needs are not considered at all. Man’s spiritual nature alone is considered. Man is to rest simply because God did so. Not because his physical nature needs it. Now, if a man works so hard that on the Sabbath he has to rest to refresh his body, is to violate the Sabbath instead of keeping it holy. If we come up to the Sabbath capable of talking delight in it, then we are blessed and able to keep it holy. This argument that man needs a day of rest in seven is a fraud and based upon a fraud. There is nothing in the commandment or its requirements in reference to man’s physical wants. But suppose we come up to the Sabbath in a proper way, how are we to keep it when it comes? In Leviticus 23:3, it is ordered that there shall be a holy convocation on that day—an assembly of the people, so that one of the duties is to have a meeting for God’s praise and worship. Now I want to show that it is our spiritual needs and not our physical needs considered. God did not rest because He was weary, hence His physical needs were not considered; neither are ours, as we rest because He did. Isaiah tells us so in Chapter 40:28. Nothing, then, which He gives can lessen what He has to give. Exodus 31:16, 17, tells us why we should rest. The idea of God being “refreshed” is, in the Hebrew, that “He took delight in the creation He had formed,” and this is certainly the only view of rest we can conceive of God. He being a spirit, it could only be a spiritual rest, and we rest because He did, then our rest must be a spiritual one, and the refreshing a spiritual refreshing. The speaker then read from the first chapters of Genesis to show how God saw all He had created as very good and delighted in it. TDC May 7, 1889, page 4.6

“Now then let us read why the Sabbath was given by reading Psalm 111:4. It is a sign by which we are ever to remember the Creator and why we keep His Sabbath. Now then how shall we keep it? Let us read Psalm 92:1, 4, especially the last. God delighted in His work, and David says we are to be glad for the same reason, and we are to delight in it, that it lifts us up to God and makes us know more of Him, His goodness and power. I am perfectly satisfied that God blessed the seventh day, and that there is a blessing that goes with it that no other day has, and when we realize our duty to remember to keep it, we will feel this sacredness more than we do now. We may hear preaching all the week, but when we listen to it on Sabbath it seems more sacred and consecrated. Well, then, if on the Sabbaths we lift our hearts to God we will feel nearer to Him, and if we contemplate His works to delight in them, we shall be blessed. I believe it to be part of the commandment to take our children out in the fields on the Sabbath day and point out the beauties of creation leading their minds up to God. If we act in this way we are keeping the Sabbath as God did, delighting in it, and our children will look forward to it also with delight, instead of fancying it to be a burden. TDC May 7, 1889, page 4.7

The speaker then narrated an anecdote of Kepler, the astronomer, when he discovered the real motion and orbits of the planets, and exclaimed, “I think the thoughts, after thee, O God!” “Now that is what David says in the Psalms; Brethren let us try to think God’s thoughts after Him, and so daily discover new beauties and grandeur in God’s creation, and our minds being elevated to Him, be filled with love and gratitude to God who enables us to understand His goodness toward us, and to delight in His appointed day on which we can draw nearer to Him and be refreshed. We can all be Keplers, in our own sphere, so brethren let us do it.” TDC May 7, 1889, page 4.8

He then gave a number of illustrations to show the magnitude of the power of God (describing the Gulf stream; the different texture in woody fiber growing in cold and warm climates; and showing how the snow-drop, is, by the law of gravitation, compelled to droop its head to become fruitful, and that to accomplish it God must have weighed the earth, to regulate the gravitation, or else the first snowdrop would have been the last), to prove to his hearers that God wanted man to investigate such things, and to understand them, that they may know Him better and delight in His creative power. “These are all for our contemplation and delight on the Sabbath day. And this is not all. We have eternal salvation to study and contemplate and delight in. In Ephesians 3:8, 11, the last particularly, shows that in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Lord is trying to make man understand something about His eternal purposes. Read Ephesians 2:4-6, which tells us it will be our study in the age to come. This life is merely the beginning of our study of God, His creation and His purposes in reference to Him. It will be the science and song of eternity. The Lord has given us the Sabbath for the purpose of thinking His thoughts after Him, delighting in His creative power, and drawing nearer to Him and to find the joy of the Lord in Him and to rejoice in Him because we know Him as He is.” TDC May 7, 1889, page 4.9

“The Camp-meeting. ‘Evils of Religious Legislation’” The Topeka Daily Capital 11, 108, p. 4.

ATJ

After an hour spent in this way the congregation separated to come together again a half hour before sunset (the close of the Sabbath) to seek God in prayer, after which Elder Jones began the delivery of the evening lecture on the— TDC May 7, 1889, page 4.10

The speaker said: “In beginning the study of civil government and religion we will take the Declaration of Independence to start with. All men are born free and equal, and endowed with certain inalienable rights. At that time this was a new statement, because there had been monarchical forms of government for ages, men being born noble, so-called, and recognized as such, but our country denied the nobility of birth and asserted all men to be free and equal in matters of rights, and so every man in this nation has all the rights of all others, and with a right to assert them. The president has no other right than the humblest citizen. He has more authority but no additional rights. Senators and other law makers are servants, we, the people, the masters. The president has only delegated authority, receiving it from the people, so that in this country there are no rulers except the people. Every man, then, is a master, and a ruler, and those we elect are our servants, serving more or less according to their office. This is not a new idea, but the very one our fathers had in view when they made the Declaration. President Lincoln declared our government to be ‘a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.’ If all would abide by this declaration we would indeed be a happy people. The Declaration of Independence embodies the very ideas expressed in Christ’s gospel, that of perfect liberty. When a republic reaches that point where they cease to govern themselves, a power will arise to govern them, so that the republic will cease to exist, even ours. As we are then equal, with equal rights, how does a government arise? Each has the right to assert his right; but for the good of all, each surrenders certain rights, but there are some that are inalienable rights and cannot be delegated, among them being life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. There are others which we will notice presently. If each retain all his rights and asserted them independently, no one would be as well off as he would by surrendering certain ones; therefore each one does so surrender some for the good of all. For instance, each one has the right of self protection of person, family, and property; but as all do not recognize the right, some invade the rights of others, so the amount of single protection one possesses is not adequate. Hence men combine for the purpose of obtaining the benefit of the combined strength of all, so that each receives in turn a thousand fold what he so surrenders. It is the interest therefore of all men to enter into some such compact, and the result is civil government, so that statement is true, and asserts that governments derive their powers from the governed.” TDC May 7, 1889, page 4.11

The speaker then read from the Massachusetts Bill of Rights to substantiate his statements. “Commonwealth,” he said, “means common wealth—common good—and that is what governments are organized for. But there are certain rights that no man can surrender and be a man, and one of these is the right of conscience. The commonwealth of Massachusetts (as an example) admits this, and says, that no man can ever receive an equivalent for them. No man can surrender, for instance, his right to believe, at least no man has any right to do so—the right to search the Scriptures for himself, find out the truth for himself, and obey it for himself—to any man or any form of government. Now we come to consider the denial of the right of any government to legislate in matters of religion. It has no right to legislate against or in favor of, what any man believes. It has no right to legislate in favor of or against Christianity. Men can never assent to legislation in favor of the religion they profess without surrendering their right of belief, because they surrender their right to change their belief afterward, so that, in doing so, men surrender their religious liberty. TDC May 7, 1889, page 4.12

“Ever deny then the power of government to legislate in favor of what you believe. This is genuine assertion of religious liberty. Tell this to others also, because the assertion of religious liberty has not reached this point. The assertion of my right to believe as I please is not true religious liberty, but my assertion of your right to believe as you please is true religious liberty.” TDC May 7, 1889, page 4.13

The speaker then quoted Macaulay’s ironical argument that the majority have the right to assert their belief and force the minority to change their belief to harmonize with their own. “The time has come, however, for us to assert the right of others to believe as they please, and to assert it at all times and places. If you or I sit idly down and see another’s rights invaded and taken away, and do nothing, because it does not harm us we will have no right to complain when ours are invaded. The true solution, then, of the problem is to assert the rights of others. The question is not who is right, but what are the individual rights. The Baptist has the right to believe as he does but he has no right to compel the Methodist to act as if he was a Baptist, and so of all denominations, every man having a right to be what he pleases, but not the right to use the civil power to compel any man to respect any religion. A man has a right to be an infidel or Christian as he pleases and no one has the right to interfere with him. So long as the Constitution stands as it is, all are protected in their rights and even though infidels or Catholics filled all the seats in congress they could pass no laws hurtful to Christianity, because the Constitution forbids religious legislation. Now, brethren, in announcing our position bear in mind that we stand on the Constitution and Declaration of Independence.” TDC May 7, 1889, page 4.14

THE INSTITUT

At 9:15 each morning the institute comes together for the purpose of asking questions on previous lectures and sermons in order to give opportunity for elucidation of points not made clear or not sufficiently elaborated. The Institute class of 100 members took up to begin with, Elder A. T. Jones’ opening lecture on the “Evils of religious legislation.” In reply to inquiries from the elder it was found that, although our government if founded on the Declaration of Independence, scarcely any of the class had ever read it through. In reply to a question as to what the Declaration declares, the reply was “all men are born free and equal,” but it does not say so, the words being, “all men are created equal.” The elder took this mode of showing all the necessity of quoting an authority correctly. Alienable rights were defined as follows: An alien is a foreigner. To be alienable is to be able to give up rights, and not be able to assert rights. An Englishman alienates himself in leaving England and is an alien in America, giving up the rights he had in England and unable to assert his English rights in America. Inalienable rights, therefore, are the opposite of alienate, that is, they can not be abrogated or given away, such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Life can only be alienated by suicide, nor his liberty, or those things that pertain to the proper enjoyment of life. All just powers are derived from the consent of the governed. They derive only just powers, unjust powers is usurpation, tyranny and despotism. When the people are all equal, all the people have the rights and consent of all that gives the power to government. The first thing a band of men coming together have to do is to organize, and that is government. Therefore government is inherent in the very nature of things among men. The principle of inherent right is that of religious liberty. If men had considered life the dearest, very little progress would have ever been made in Christianity. The Declaration of Independence mentions these inalienable rights, but religious liberty is dearer and more important than all these. Some men have loved their civil liberties better than their life, and because of this the world eventually emerges from despotism. TDC May 7, 1889, page 4.15

“The Camp-meeting. An Interesting Discourse” The Topeka Daily Capital 11, 108, p. 4.

ATJ

The next was a sermon by Elder A. T. Jones. He said: TDC May 7, 1889, page 4.16

AN INTERESTING DISCOURSE

The subject of the lesson was the church as the house of God, bringing together those texts which speak of the church as the body, etc. The first I call attention to is 1 Timothy 3:14-15 which calls the house of God the church of God, and the object of Paul’s writing in this particular place was to show us how to behave ourselves in the church, a most important study and for want of knowledge on this point come many of the church difficulties, but I read the text to show that the house of God is the church of God. Now reading Hebrews 3:6, we find that we are Christ’s house, and the chapter shows how faithful Christ was over his house, the subject opening in the second chapter, and he is set before us to consider that he was faithful; Moses was faithful as a servant, but Christ was faithful as a master, and in being so He wants us to be faithful in the house of God, as servants to Him who has called us—faithful in everything, verse 17, Paul showing Christ as coming as Adam did and made perfect through suffering and being tempted that He might save us when we are tempted—doing all this that we in His strength might triumph; by Him and Him alone we can be faithful. Christ met every temptation that we will have to meet and our faith, putting Him in the place of every temptation, we have His strength to overcome and be faithful. TDC May 7, 1889, page 4.17

1 Corinthians 3:9 states that we are God’s building. There is not a proper view in the world of what the church of God is and the relations of members to it. It is often said, ‘I can be as good of Christian out of the church as I can in it,’ but this is not so. No one can separate himself from the church and be a Christian, because such a one is out of Christ. In 1 Peter 2:1-4, 5, this is carrying forward the idea of Paul and in addition that it is a spiritual house being built up of lively (living) stones- Christ being the living stone, and we living by Him are, through Him, made living stones. In the same way the commandments are called “the lively oracles,” being the law of the living God. Now by coming to Him and becoming living stones having life given free, we are built a spiritual house. TDC May 7, 1889, page 4.18

“Further along a living stone is called precious, living stones giving light and capable of being polished so as to reflect an image. The Scriptures carry that very idea of Christ, a precious stone set before all the people and we looking at Him see ourselves, and looking upon, seeing His perfection become like Him and so are built up into Him. This idea is followed in 2 Corinthians 3:18, we looking upon the Lord as into a looking-glass are changed from glory to glory, into the same image. The idea is again referred to in the fourth chapter, verse 6. The same One who made light out of darkness in the beginning has shined into our hearts and changed us into His own image. Christ then is the living stone, coming to whom we are built up a spiritual house. In 1 Peter 2:6-7. Can we all say that we believe in Him to that extent that He is precious to us? We ought to so believe. The Scripture Peter refers to is Isaiah 28:16. TDC May 7, 1889, page 4.19

“Now see 1 Corinthians 3:10. Here then is the foundation, that living precious stone, and we as lively stones are built upon that foundation, a spiritual house. Now read Ephesians 2:19-22. We have here the building thus far. Christ the cornerstone, the prophets the foundation and we build upon these. In Him the builder is fitly framed together (not being living stones before coming to Him) groweth unto a holy temple in the Lord. That is what the church is and we builded for a habitation for the dwelling place of the Lord. When we get such a view of the house of God, is not a membership in it of more importance than we realize? If we can not live peaceably in His house on earth, can we expect to do so in the house hereafter? Now we see by the expressions in 2 Corinthians 6:16 and 1 Corinthians 3:16 that we are the dwelling of Christ, so then Christ dwelling in us and we in harmony with Him, Christ dwells among us by His Spirit. In the book of Revelation, we have the city of the New Jerusalem presented to us, the foundations being of the most precious stones, the most precious one being the Jasper. Who is called the most precious stone in our spiritual house? Christ clear as crystal. Above all these is built the wall of colored stones and above this the Jasper stone again, and the glory of God showing through (for God will dwell there), and not needing the sun, although it shines seven times as bright as it does now. How far then can this city be seen on the new earth? As far as vision will extent. Now we have a simile of this in holy temple of God in the church. Christ as the cornerstone of Jasper, the apostles and we as the wall and Christ, and His glory shining out of His face to us above it all. Now we are the light of this world as a city set on a hill. Let us read Matthew 5:14 and then Philippians 2:15. Then we should not murmur or dispute. We must be blameless and harmless before we can be Christ’s children and stop murmuring or disputing. As a city set on a hill, our light should so shine that it can not be hid any more than the glory of the new city can be in the new earth. And a church composed of such members is what Christ will have soon here, a church which nothing in this world can hide and on which the people will see the glory of God—a church to which all honest people will come as doves do to open windows. There can not be, therefore, brethren, anything more sacred out of heaven, and if we look upon it as anything less than this we fail to appreciate it. Let us, then, never again have as common view of God’s building and habitation.” TDC May 7, 1889, page 4.20

“The Camp-meeting. Religious Legislation” The Topeka Daily Capital 11, 108, p. 4.

ATJ

Following this came the daily class study on reporting and preparing articles for the newspapers, in which nearly all on the camp ground took part, and then came the regular evening sermon on “The Evils of Religious Legislation,” by Elder A. T. Jones, the speaker began by saying: TDC May 7, 1889, page 4.21

RELIGIOUS LEGISLATION

“Tonight I will notice first the definition of Civil: ‘Pertaining to a city or state, or to the relation of a citizen to a city or state.’ Government we call civil, and its laws civil laws. What, then, can any civil government rightly have to do with anything pertaining to God? The government pertains wholly to earthly things, to man related to his fellow man or to the state. By the very definition no government has anything at all to do with God or religion. Religious acts are religious, civil acts civil. Now, as my subject is civil government and religion, let us define religion; ‘The recognition of God an object of worship, love and obedience.’ There is a deeper meaning, however. All nations have had some form of God, which they worshiped and honored. There are infidels, of course, but they are known only where the true God has been presented, and not known among heathens. The better definition, therefore, would be, ‘The recognition of a God.’ Another definition is, ‘man’s personal relation of faith and obedience to God.’ These two define religion, now then, what can any government have to do with religion? What is it to you whether I love, honor, or obey God, or not? What harm does it do you if I do not? What can any company, or government, have to do with it? Nothing at all. And the definition of civil deprives government from having anything to do with religion. And that is what the Scriptures teach. TDC May 7, 1889, page 4.22

“Turn to Matthew 22:15-23. Now Cesar was the head of the Roman government—of the whole world—and so when Christ said, ‘Render unto Cesar the things that which are Cesar’s; He meant the civil government. What was to be rendered to Cesar? That which was God’s? No, for he said, ‘And to God that which is God’s’—making a clear distinction between those things that belong to God and those things which belong to Cesar. Are there things that belong equally, or partially, both to God and to Cesar? If so, where are we to make the separation? We cannot do so unless the distinction is dearly defined. Now mark what the Pharisees came to do—‘entangle Him in His talk.’ If these are those things that belong both to God and Cesar, then they did entangle him—but no—they left Him convinced they had failed. TDC May 7, 1889, page 4.23

“When they admitted the coin was Cesar’s they admitted that with which they came to entangle him. Christ went further yet and told them to give God what belonged to him. So we are to render God what is His, but not through Cesar, and without Cesar. The bill in the last Congress claimed to be one for the better observance of ‘the Lord’s day.’ Now let us ask then, whose image and superscription does it bear? Why they will say it is the Lords! Then what has Cesar to do with it? And if it is the Lord’s, then Cesar is robbing God of His day, is he not? Then again, the Sabbath they say is to be observed by civil process. Now then, how can a religious institution be observed civilly? It must be, and can only be observed religiously. Christ’s word is against the making of any laws in reference to the Sabbath, or any other religious legislation. A number of states have statutes against morality, or moral offences, and also statutes forbidding offences against God. Now they have no right to have such laws. It places them as guardians over the Lord. How also are they to know what is or is not an offence against God? What has government to do with offences against religion! It makes government partisans in character. TDC May 7, 1889, page 4.24

Now for a government to attempt to punish offences against God is to have heathen states. Heathen governments had to enforce observance of worship toward their gods because the gods were not capable of taking care of their own honor; but God is fully capable of taking care of His. Our states have upon their statutes books heathen enactments contrary to all Christian principles. To such, the reading found in Judges 6:25-32, will be a good study. These courts that attempt to punish offences against God argue just as did the worshipers of Baal. They may learn wisdom from Joash’s answer. These states usurp the prerogative of God in attempting to punish offences against Him. Offences against religion include blasphemy, which is to speak disrespectfully against the established religion, and there are statues punishing such blasphemy. But every man has a right to speak so against any religion. Jesus, the apostles and all Christians have had to do so. And if the statues of Pennsylvania, New York and other states were controlling all, it would not have been possible to have spread Christianity, because it is necessary to speak against the accepted religion in order to establish it. TDC May 7, 1889, page 4.25

“Another definition here is morality, ‘The relation or conformity of an act ... to the divine law.’ And the definition of the divine law is ‘obligatory on conscience.’ If these statutes have to do with morality they have to take cognizance of man’s conscience. ‘The moral law is summarily written in the decalogue.’ Now this law does take cognizance of the conscience. If then their state is to enforce morality and punish for immorality, it has, according to our Saviour and the apostle John, to punish a man for thinking impurely or hating another. Can states punish where no outward act is committed? Certainly not. Then how can governments take cognizance of morality? God alone can judge in such matters. A government cannot move against such a man until he becomes uncivil, and take charge only of civility, and not morality. I do not attack the statues, but the heading and wording, using morality to define civility. States punish crime which is the outward act, and sin God punishes, being the thought of the heart. TDC May 7, 1889, page 4.26

“A crime or breach of justice is a deed of the individual, which the state returns upon the head of the individual, ... but a sin is a breach against holiness, and utterly refuses to be measured ... and cannot be atoned for by any finite action,” is part of a lengthy quotation by the speaker. “Crime is known to government but sin is known alone to God. Crime is not mentioned in the Bible, crime being a civil breach—sin is that which God supervises. The papacy claims to be a moral government and to supervise the thoughts of man, and to find out the thoughts they had to establish the inquisition, and this belongs to every government that attempts to take cognizance of morality. The inquisition was always carried on to save men’s souls, not to punish them. Now the Constitution of the United States embodies the principles of Christ when it says Congress shall make no law respecting a religion, so that provision utterly prohibits our government from making any law to enforce religious observances.” TDC May 7, 1889, page 4.27

The speaker then read from Bancroft’s history of the U. S. in reference to the perfect liberty in religion introduced by Christ and its contamination by Roman government making it national, circumscribing it, and forcing a change in its character. Until the United States was freed from its contamination and reestablished its true nature, being the only government in the world that is in harmony with Christ and the Scriptures, and should ever be maintained inviolate, yet, there are people in every state, Kansas included, that are doing their best to obtain a change of the Constitution to establish a national religion. Just as soon as such a thing is done religious freedom in our country becomes a thing of the past. The speaker then went on to show that the constitution of the United States did not protect a citizen of a state from religious legislation in the states. It only protected an American if in a foreign country, but every state can make all the laws it pleases. This is why Utah is not admitted because the Mormons would establish their’s as a state religion. Congress should prohibit states from making such laws, and so the effort should be to lift the Constitution of the states up to the level of that of the United States. TDC May 7, 1889, page 4.28