1892

May 31, 1892

“The Sermon. Late Decision of the Supreme Court, and the Image of the Beast ^{1Sermon preached in the Tabernacle at Battle Creek, May 14, 1892. Reported for REVIEW by W. E. HOWELL.}” The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald 69, 22, pp. 337-339.

BY ELDER A. T. JONES

(Battle Creek, Mich.)

ABOUT this time in the month of March, it will be remembered by many who are here this morning, that I spoke in the Tabernacle on the third angel’s message, and said that it was not essential that there should be any legislation at all for the making of the image to the beast, and the bringing about of all that the third angel’s message warns against. There are many here this morning who doubtless remember the statement I then made; that from what I had already seen, and from what had already appeared in the drift of things in the United States courts, legislation was not at all essential to bring that about; but that there were elements at work already in the courts, that would establish it independent of any legislation, and that therefore legislation was not essential, nor an amendment to the Constitution, nor anything of the kind; and therefore, we were not to look for an amendment particularly, before we were to begin to prepare for the great things of the message and the coming of the Lord.ARSH May 31, 1892, page 337.1

It was about this time in March, when I called your attention to this. Well, as a matter of fact, that thing had then already been done, though I did not then know it. on the 29th of February the Supreme Court of the United States rendered a decision that does more than any constitutional amendment could possibly do, or Congress either, to make the image to the papacy. Although I did not know then that this decision had been rendered, I knew from the drift of things before that time, that such a thing could be done, and perhaps would be done, without any legislation whatever.ARSH May 31, 1892, page 337.2

I say again, that on the 29th of February of 1892, the Supreme Court of the United States rendered a decision on another question entirely, a question upon which there could by no possible means be fairly brought in such a point as this; nevertheless it was brought in, entirely out of place, and the image to the beast was practically made. All that remains is to give life to it by the enforcement of whatever religious observances any bigots may choose, who can control the civil power.ARSH May 31, 1892, page 337.3

I thought best this morning to call your attention to that decision: to what it is, and to what it does. I received an official copy of it about a week ago, from Washington; and it does so much that it is of interest, that every one should know about it. It is of supreme interest to every one who knows anything about the third angel’s message, and scarcely of less interest to those who do not know about it, but of supreme interest to those who do know about it, in order that they may tell it to all others who do not know about it.ARSH May 31, 1892, page 337.4

It came about in this way: Several years ago, Congress enacted a law forbidding any aliens to come to this country under contract to perform labor or service of any kind. The reason of that law was that large contractors in the United States, and corporations of great wealth who wanted to increase their wealth with as little expense as possible, would send agents to Europe to employ the lowest of the people whom they could get, to come over and work. They would pay their expenses over, and allow them to work it out at very small wages after they got over here. This was depreciating the price that Americans should receive for their labor, and therefore Congress enacted a law as follows:—ARSH May 31, 1892, page 337.5

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That from and after the passage of this act it shall be unlawful for any person, company, partnership, or corporation, in any manner whatsoever, to prepay the transportation, or in any way assist or encourage the importation or migration of any alien or aliens, any foreigner or foreigners, into the United States, its Territories, or the District of Columbia, under contract or agreement, parol or special, expressed or implied, made previous to the importation or migration of such alien or aliens, foreigner or foreigners, to perform labor or service of any kind in the United States, its Territories, or the District of Columbia.ARSH May 31, 1892, page 337.6

A certain church corporation in New York City hired a preacher in England to come over here and preach for them. They contracted with him before he came. He was an alien, and came over under contract, to perform service for the church. The United States District Attorney entered suit against the church for violating this law. The United States Circuit Court decided that the church was guilty, and rendered judgment accordingly. An appeal was taken to the Supreme Court of the United States, upon writ of error.ARSH May 31, 1892, page 337.7

The Supreme Court reversed the decision, first upon the well-established principle that “the intent of the law-maker is the law.” The court quoted directly from the reports of the Senate Committee and the House Committee who had the bill in charge when it was put through Congress; and these both said in express terms that the term “laborer” or “labor or service,” used in the statute, was intended to mean only manual labor or service, and not professional service of any kind. Therefore, that being the intent, and the only intent of the law, and the intent of the law-maker being the law, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the lower court, and said that the act complained of was not a violation of the law.ARSH May 31, 1892, page 337.8

So far as this goes, the decision is perfectly proper, and it needed to have gone no further. But between that paragraph and the closing paragraph of the decision, the declaring of this nation to be “a Christian nation,” this making of the image of the papacy, was stuck right in, as much out of place as anything could possibly be. It is altogether false; it is totally subversive of the government of the United States as the people established it at first, and virtually makes an image to the papacy. So I turn to that part of the decision.ARSH May 31, 1892, page 337.9

After reviewing the act of Congress, the reports of the committees, etc., and deciding that the law had no such intent as the lower court gave it, the Supreme Court proceeds thus:—ARSH May 31, 1892, page 337.10

But beyond all these matters, no purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, State or national, because this is a religious people. [Everybody knows that this is not true.] This is historically true. From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation.ARSH May 31, 1892, page 337.11

Suppose it be granted that this is “historically true,” what kind of religion was this “historical” religion? Was it of a kind that the people of the United States now desire to see perpetuated? We shall presently see what kind it is; and that whatever be the kind, or whether the people desire to see it perpetuated or not, it is perpetuated by this decision.ARSH May 31, 1892, page 337.12

In order to get it before you in the most forcible way, I will first run down to the end of the decision, and show the interpretation and application which the court makes, of the Constitution as it respects religion. After citing “historical” statements which show that the Roman Catholic religion might be the religion of this nation; which establish the righteousness of religious test-oaths as a qualification for office; which require belief in the doctrine of the Trinity—the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity, of course—and in the inspiration of the Old and New Testaments; and which establish the righteousness of Sunday laws,—after citing statements which establish the legality of all these religious things, then the court quotes from the First Amendment to the Constitution that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” and upon this, flatly declares:—ARSH May 31, 1892, page 337.13

There is no dissonance in these declarations. There is a universal language pervading them all, having one meaning; they affirm and re-affirm that this is a religious nation.ARSH May 31, 1892, page 338.1

Now when I read these “historical” statements, and you see what they say, and what they mean, you will know that is the estimation of the Supreme Court of the United States, that is what the Constitution of the United States means. I begin to read, as follows:—ARSH May 31, 1892, page 338.2

From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation. The commission to Christopher Columbus, prior to his sail westward, is from “Ferdinand and Isabella, by the grace of God, king and queen of Castile,” etc., and recites that “it is hoped by God’s assistance some of the continents and islands in the ocean will be discovered,” etc.ARSH May 31, 1892, page 338.3

What religion did Ferdinand and Isabella have in mind when they issued that document? What religion did they profess? And what religion did they possess, too? Does anybody know?—(From the audience, “The Catholic religion.”) Yes, the Catholic religion. And not only that, it was the Catholic religion with the Inquisition in full swing. For it was Ferdinand and Isabella who established the Inquisition in Spain under the generalship of Torquemada; and who, because Spain was a “Christian nation,” sentenced to confiscation of all goods and to banishment, every Jew who would not turn Catholic. And by virtue of such religious activity as this, Ferdinand and Isabella fairly earned as an everlasting reward, and by way of pre-eminence, the title of “THE CATHOLICS.” And that is a part of the historical authority by which the Supreme Court of the United States makes American citizens “a religious people,” and by which that court makes this a “Christian nation”!ARSH May 31, 1892, page 338.4

Now that is quoted to prove that this is “a religious people” and “a Christian nation:” and it is declared that the language of Ferdinand and Isabella, and the language of the Constitution of the United States, “have one meaning.”ARSH May 31, 1892, page 338.5

Then in view of that quotation and this decision, should it be wondered at if the Catholic Church should claim that this is so indeed, and should demand favors from the government as such? Everybody knows that the Catholic Church already is not slow to take part in political questions, to interfere with the government, and to have the government recognize the Catholic Church and give it money from the public treasury. The people know that this is already the case. And now, when the Catholic Church is virtually recognized by official action of the Supreme Court, and when the Supreme Court declares that this is what the Constitution means, should it be thought strange if the Catholic religion should claim that that is correct, and act upon it?ARSH May 31, 1892, page 338.6

It is true, the Supreme Court does not stick to this side of the question all the way through, but turns over to the Church of England, and to Puritan Protestantism. But this rather intensifies than modifies the danger, as it opens the way for a strife among these religions, to see which shall be indeed the religion of the nation. ^{2Just here, look at “The Two Republics,” pp. 282-296.} This decision opens the way for that thing to be done, and all that the message tells about will come as the consequence of this.ARSH May 31, 1892, page 338.7

As the intentions of Ferdinand and Isabella did not reach the part of the continent now occupied by the government of the United States, the court now proceeds to introduce documents which give to Protestantism the prior right here, and which do in fact make this the national religion, so I read:—ARSH May 31, 1892, page 338.8

The first colonial grant, that made to Sir Walter Raleigh in 1584, was from “Elizabeth, by the grace of God; of England, France, and Ireland, queene, Defender of the Faith,” etc.; and the grant authorizing him to enact statutes for the government of the proposed colony; Provided, That “they be not against the true Christian faith nowe professed in the Church of England.” ... Language of similar import may be found in the subsequent charters, ... and the same is true of the various charters granted to other colonies. In language more or less emphatic, is the establishment of the Christian religion declared to be one of the purposes of the grant.ARSH May 31, 1892, page 338.9

This establishes as the religion of this nation and people the religion “professed in the Church of England” in Queen Elizabeth’s time. What religion was this? The queen’s title of “Defender of the Faith” will help us to understand this. That title was obtained in this way: Henry VIII., Elizabeth’s father, wrote a book against Martin Luther and the Reformation. He sent a copy of his book to the pope. In return, the pope bestowed upon him the title and dignity of “Defender of the Faith.” And this was the Catholic faith. Shortly afterward, Henry wanted a divorce from his wife. The pope could not make his political ends meet so as to grant it; and Henry took the matter into his own and Cranmer’s hands, and divorced both his wife and the pope. This separated the Church in England from the Catholic Church. Then that which had formerly been the Catholic Church in England, became the Church of England, the only difference being that Henry was head of the church instead of the pope. Thus Henry still maintained his title of “Defender of the Faith,” and it was the same faith—except only as to the head of it.ARSH May 31, 1892, page 338.10

Under Edward VI., a few very slight steps were taken further away from the absolute Catholic faith. Under Mary, a powerful effort was made to bring all back into full harmony with the papal religion. Mary soon died, and Elizabeth succeeded, and would have been glad to complete Mary’s scheme, but could not, and was obliged to be content with things as they were left by Edward, for the nation and people, while in her own private individual life, she inclined strongly to the papal religion outright. So that the sum of the matter is, that the religion professed in the Church of England in Queen Elizabeth’s time, was a religion which was just as near to the Roman Catholic religion as was possible, without being precisely that religion.ARSH May 31, 1892, page 338.11

And this is the religion which the Supreme Court of the United States finds to be historically intended to be established here, and which by this decision the court declares now to be established here, according to the meaning of the Constitution of the United States; because the language of the Constitution and the language of all these other documents is one language, “having one meaning.” It is to be expected also that the religion established should be as much like the papal religion as possible, without being precisely that religion itself, as the prophecy says that it would be said “that they should make an image to the beast”—the papacy.ARSH May 31, 1892, page 338.12

Yet the court does not propose to be partial, nor presume to establish strictly this particular phase of religion without giving any other any chance or recognition. It proceeds next to introduce Puritanism, as follows:—ARSH May 31, 1892, page 338.13

The celebrated compact made by the Pilgrims in the “Mayflower,” 1620, recites:—ARSH May 31, 1892, page 338.14

“Having undertaken for the glory of God and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the honor of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the first colony in the northern Parts of Virginia; Do by these Presents, solemnly and mutually, in the Presence of God and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid.”ARSH May 31, 1892, page 338.15

Having thus established what it chooses to declare to be “the Christian faith” as the religion of this nation, the court next proceeds to cite historical evidence that it is legitimate to use the civil power to maintain “the disciples of the churches.” This is done by citing the compact of the Puritans who settled Connecticut, as follows:—ARSH May 31, 1892, page 338.16

Forasmuch as it hath pleased the Allmighty God by the wise dispensation of his dinyne pruidence so to Order and dispose of things that we the inhabitants and Residents of Windsor, Hartford, and Wethersfield are now cohabiting and dwelling in and vppon the River of Conectecotte and the Lands thereunto adioyneing; And well knowing where a people are gathered together, the word of God requires that to mayntayne the peace and vnion of such a people there should be an orderly and decent Gonerment established according to God, to order and dispose of the affayres of the people at all season as occation shall require; doe therefore assotiate and conioyne ourselues to be as one Publike State or Comonwelth; and doe, for our seluce and our Successors and such as shall be adjoined to us all day tyme hereafter, enter into Combination and Confederation together, to mayntayne and preserve the liberty and purity of the gospel of our Lord Jesus wch we now prfesse, AS ALSO THE DISCIPLYNE OF THE CHURCHES, wch according to the truth of the said gospel is now practiced amongst vs.ARSH May 31, 1892, page 338.17

By this “historical” citation, the Supreme Court just as certainly establishes and justifies the employment of the “Civil Body Politick” for the maintenance of “the discipline of the churches,” as by the previous ones it establishes the Christian religion as the religion of this nation. And this decision declares that the language of this citation and the language of the national Constitution is “one language,” “having one meaning.” By this, therefore, the Supreme Court has decided that the civil power, even of the United States government, can rightly be employed to maintain the discipline of the churches. And this, as we know and have shown over and over again, is exactly what the churches are aiming to bring about by the national enforcement of Sunday laws; and this is precisely what is done by the enforcement of Sunday laws, either State or national. And this the decision of the Supreme Court fully establishes by its decision, and sanctions and justifies by its (mis)interpretation of the national Constitution.ARSH May 31, 1892, page 338.18

So far, therefore, in this decision, we find a national religion established with the maintenance of the discipline of the churches. What next?—Why, the requirement of the religious oath of witnesses, and the religious test oath as a qualification for office. After citing William Penn’s grant of privileges to the province of Pennsylvania, and the Declaration of Independence, in which “the Creator,” “the Supreme Judge of the world,” and “Divine Providence” is referred to, and the constitution of Illinois, in which God is recognized, the court quotes from the constitution of Maryland, as follows, and for the purpose of establishing the legality of the religious oath and the religious test oath:—ARSH May 31, 1892, page 338.19

“That as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to him, all persons are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty; wherefore, no person ought, by any law, to be molested in his person or estate on account of his religious persuasion or profession, or for his religious practice, unless, under the color of religion, he shall disturb the good order, peace, or safety of the State, or shall infringe the laws of morality, or injure others in their natural, civil, or religious rights; nor ought any person to be compelled to frequent or maintain or contribute, unless on contract, to maintain any place of worship, or any ministry; nor shall any person, otherwise competent, be deemed incompetent as a witness, or juror, on account of his religious belief; Provided, He believes in the existence of God, and that, under his dispensation, such person will be held morally accountable for his acts, and be rewarded or punished therefor, either in this world or the world to come.”ARSH May 31, 1892, page 338.20

“Provided he believe in the existence of God.” That is, in other words, no man ought to be interfered with in his profession or principles of religious belief, provided he holds these according to the dictates in all the history of the Catholic Church. It is the very doctrine of the papacy. It was also the doctrine of pagan Rome, before the papacy supplanted it. Paganism declared that “no man should have particular gods of his own, except they are recognized by the laws of the State.” But the court continues this quotation, providing further:—ARSH May 31, 1892, page 338.21

That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution.ARSH May 31, 1892, page 338.22

That is the provision and the requirement of the constitution of Maryland. But, says the Supreme Court, that speaks the same language as the Constitution of the United States, and that the Constitution of the United States and this quotation have “one meaning.” And although the Constitution of the United States positively declares that no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under this government, this decision says that it means that no other religious test shall ever be required, as does the constitution of Maryland, for these documents “all” have “one language” and “one meaning.”ARSH May 31, 1892, page 338.23

So, then, we find that so far, this decision establishes a national religion, with the maintenance of the discipline of the churches, and the requirement of the religious oath in court, and the religious test-oath as a qualification for office. And what next?—Why, public taxation for the support of religion. This is justified and established by a quotation from the constitution of Massachusetts, as follows:—ARSH May 31, 1892, page 339.1

“It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society, publicly and at stated seasons, to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe.... As the happiness of a people and the good order and preservation of civil government essentially dependent upon piety, religion, and morality, and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community but by the institution of the public worship of God, and of public instructions in piety, religion, and morality: Therefore, to promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the Legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies-politic or religious societies to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion, and morality in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily.”ARSH May 31, 1892, page 339.2

And says the court, This document and the Constitution of the United States have the same language, have “one meaning,” and both alike, with all the other quotations, “speak the voice of the entire people.” So far, then, by this decision there is established here a national religion, with maintenance of the discipline of the churches by the civil power, the requirement of the religious oath and the religious test-oath, and public taxation for “the worship of God” and for “the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of religion.” The wicked thing grows rapidly as it goes.ARSH May 31, 1892, page 339.3

But what next?—Why, the requirement of all officers, of a belief in the doctrine of the Trinity and the inspiration of the Scriptures. This is established and justified by a quotation from the constitution of Delaware of 1776, as follows:—ARSH May 31, 1892, page 339.4

“I. A. B., do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ his only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed forevermore; and I do acknowledge the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be given by divine inspiration.”ARSH May 31, 1892, page 339.5

And the doctrine that is held all through the decision, that this thing and the Constitution speak the same language and have one meaning, is just at this point emphasized in the following words:—ARSH May 31, 1892, page 339.6

Even the Constitution of the United States, which is supposed to have little touch upon the private life of the individual, contains in the First Amendment a declaration common to the constitution of all the States, as follows: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” And also provides that the Executive shall have ten days (Sundays excepted) within which to determine whether he will approve or veto a bill. [And there is a sly recognition of Sunday observance as constitutional.] There is no dissonance in these declarations. There is a universal language pervading them all, having one meaning; they affirm and re-affirm that this is a religious nation. These are not individual sayings, declarations of private persons; they are organic utterances; they speak the voice of the entire people.ARSH May 31, 1892, page 339.7

Having now established a religion for “the entire people,” with all the appurtenances thereto, the court cites and sanctions the declaration of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, that “Christianity is, and always has been, part of the common law,” and then proceeds to establish the doctrine that it is blasphemy to speak or act in contempt “of the religion professed by almost the whole community.” And this is done by citing the pagan decision of Chief Justice Kent of New York, which “assumes that we are a Christian people.”ARSH May 31, 1892, page 339.8

There remains but one thing more to complete the perfect likeness of the whole papal system; and that is the direct and positive sanction of Sunday laws. Nor is this one thing lacking. It is fully and completely supplied. As before observed, it is broadly hinted at in the quotation last made above. But the court does not stop with that; it proceeds to cite the Sunday laws as one of the “organic utterances,” which proves conclusively that “this is a Christian nation.” The words of the court are as follows:—ARSH May 31, 1892, page 339.9

If we pass beyond these matters to a view of American life, as expressed by its laws, its business, its customs, and its society, we find everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth. Among other matters, note the following: The form of oath universally prevailing, concluding with an appeal to the Almighty; the custom of opening sessions of all deliberative bodies, and most conventions, with prayer; the prefatory words of all wills, “In the name of God, Amen;” the laws respecting the observance of the Sabbath, with the general cessation of all secular business, and the closing of courts, legislatures, and other similar public assemblies on that day.... These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that THIS IS A CHRISTIAN NATION.ARSH May 31, 1892, page 339.10

Now let us sum this up and see what has been done: There is a national religion established, and it is called Christianity and Protestantism. With this there is also specifically justified and established as the meaning of the Constitution of the United States, (1) the maintenance of the discipline of the churches by the civil power; (2) the requirement of the religious oath; (3) the requirement of the religious test-oath as a qualification for office; (4) public taxation for the support of religion and religious teachers; (5) the requirement of a belief in the Trinity and the inspiration of “holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments;” (6) the guilt of blasphemy upon every one who speaks or acts in contempt of the established religion; (7) and laws for the observance of Sunday, with the general cessation of all secular business. All this is declared by unanimous decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, to be the meaning of the Constitution of the United States.ARSH May 31, 1892, page 339.11

Now what more was ever the papacy than that? What more than that was ever required by the papacy?—Not one thing. And all this is declared in favor of Protestantism. What, then, is this but the legal establishment, and that by the highest court of the government,—what is this but the legal establishment of the very likeness of the papacy? If there is one here who does not think so, then I wish he would tell us what more needs to be done, or what more could be done, to make the likeness of the papacy, in the principle of the thing?—in principle, I say, not yet in its practical workings, for life has not yet been given to it. But so far as the making of the things goes, and the establishment of the principles of it, the likeness of the papacy is made in this decision.ARSH May 31, 1892, page 339.12

Look at it from another standpoint. Suppose an amendment to the Constitution has been passed by Congress and presented to the people for adoption. Suppose that amendment had recited in a preamble these very historical statements here cited by the Supreme Court, and then upon that had declared that this is a Christian nation. What then ought Seventh-day Adventists to think? I do not say, what would they think, but what ought they to think? Ought they not to think that if that should be adopted and become a part of the Constitution of the United States, that the image to the beast would be made? I think they ought, don’t you? But even more than this has been and is now actually done by this decision. If such an amendment were even adopted, and so were made a part of the Constitution, it would still remain for the Supreme Court to define the meaning of it. But the court has already done all this.ARSH May 31, 1892, page 339.13

The court has traced the whole course of religious purposes in government from Ferdinand and Isabella down “to the present hour,” and has declared that this is the “meaning” of the Constitution as it now stands. This is the unanimous voice of the authoritative interpreter of the Constitution. Legally, and so far as the governmental action is concerned, what the Supreme Court says the Constitution means, that is what it means. Such then being the officially declared meaning of the Constitution as it now is, what more could be done even by an amendment containing these very statements, when it would still remain for the same court to declare its meaning?ARSH May 31, 1892, page 339.14

This decision, therefore, is actually stronger, if anything, than an amendment would be in itself. Consequently if we would be justified in saying to the people that such an amendment would be the making of an image to the beast, how much more are we justified in lifting up the voice and saying to all people that this is the making of the image to the beast, that that image is now made, and that this decision opens the way for the fulfillment in completest meaning, of all that the third angel’s message announces and warns against.ARSH May 31, 1892, page 339.15

Now do not misunderstand. I do not say that the image is living and speaking and acting. I only say that in principle it is made. There yet remains that life shall be given to it, that it shall speak and act. The prophecy says, “They should make an image to the beast,” and that “he had power to give life unto the image of the beast that the image of the beast should both speak and cause,” etc. The thing must be made before life can be given to it. And so far as the making of it goes, that is as certainly done by this decision, as it could possibly be done in any other way. As to how long it will be before the evil thing shall be given life by the enactment or enforcement of whatever religious laws or observances bigotry in possession of power may choose to enforce—as to this I know nothing.ARSH May 31, 1892, page 339.16

But this I do know: that in view of what this decision has done, it is high time to awake out of sleep. It is time every one should know just where he stands before God, and with respect to the message of warning which the Lord has given to us, that we may give it to all the world. Where do you stand? What are you doing? Are you ready for the work that is now before us?ARSH May 31, 1892, page 339.17

(Concluded next week.)