man, but of God the eternal, all-creative MIND. Those who were re-born or who become re-born through the power of the divine, all-creative God, do and can affirm that they are the children of GOD in fact; and it is not yet manifested what they shall be, but they know that if HE shall be made manifest, they shall be like HIM, for they shall see HIM as HE is. Everyone who hath this hope in Him purifieth himself, even as HE (Christ Jesus) is pure.1st John 3:2.

Christ Jesus recognizes, in all His utterances, the omnipotent will of GOD, an originating and omnipotent power in the realm of Mind; also man's spiritual relationship to God, not only temporarily in the economy of this world, but throughout eternity.

All nations are subject to the Divine law in its entirety, the same as they are subject to day and night, through the rotation of the earth on its axis every 24 hours, of which in early times they did not know.

The following quotations are given in regard to spiritual light: Matthew 5, 13, 14, 15, 16: "Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works and glorify your Father which is in heaven." John 1, 1, 7: "But if we walk in the light, as He is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus cleanses us of all sin."

The following references are given which can be referred to: Cor. 4:6. First John 2:10. John 8:12. John 12:36. First John 1:7. Isaiah 58:8. Isaiah 60:19-20. Isaiah 2:5. Psalms 56:13. Rev. 18:1. Rev. 21-23-24. Eph. 5:14. Luke 2:32. Samuel 22:29.

CHAPTER II

CHANGING A MONARCHY INTO A REPUBLIC.

It should not be attempted, in this twentieth century, to convert a monarchy of long standing, instantly into a republic, through assassination, like that of the Austrian grand duke, Ferdinand, of Sara Jevo, or by a bloody revolution, like that which was precipitated in France, during the reign of Louis XVI, or like that in Russia after the abdication of the Czar Nicholas II.

This change should be accomplished, if possible, through gradual evolution, and general education of the entire population, composing a nation. As the modern world becomes more progressive and liberal, the rulers of old empires, should keep up with the times, and permit their people to have more freedom, and they should be allowed to participate in the management of the government. The monarch, who stubbornly opposes this natural impulse, caused by the advance in liberty of surrounding nations, leaves himself liable to defeat and overthrow, by not conforming to popular demand for more freedom. But when he voluntarily relinquishes a portion of his authority, and permits the people, through their direct representatives, to participate in the various functions of a parliamentary or representative government, he can quietly retain his position as king, safely, with a limitation of former prerogatives, dividing his responsibility with competent chosen representatives of the people.

The colonies, which formed the original United States of America, cannot be taken as a fair criterion of the practicability of the rapid change of government from a monarchial to a democratic represenative form of government. This was accomplished not by an inexperienced combination of men, but by a class of enlightened citizens, well qualified by education and former experience to construct a constitution and administer the affairs of a free nation. Such men as Hamilton, Monroe, Madison, Washington and Franklin had participated in the local governments of the colonies previous to the "Declaration of Independence" and the revolution.

The colonies were new and far distant from England, the mother country, which had previously given them considerable independence. The attempt to rule them arbitrarily, without giving them due representation in Parliament, was naturally resented. The Republican constitution of 1787 could not have been successfully administered

in France, England, or Germany, at the time of its formation. This was proven, at least in France, by the fate of the constitution in 1793, much of which was copied from the English charter.

The progress and evolution of the British government has been achieved without assassination or bomb throwing, and the people have procured in many cases what they have demanded, by rational and constitutional means. (See Stubb's Constitutional History, Vol. 1, Page 522; English Constitutional History-Thomas Pitt, Taswale, Langmead, Mifflin & Co., Boston. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol 12, Page 317. Stubb's Select Charters. Illustration of English

Constitutional History.)

Starting with the Magna Charta, granted by King John, 1215, the English government has reached, through a process of evolution, a state of stability and freedom, which cannot easily be surpassed at this age. Lord Chatham said that, "the Magna Charta granted by King John at Runnymeade, June, 1215, the Petition of Rights, and the Bill of Rights (the latter granted 1698 to the English people), embodies the ideal of English liberties and constitute the Bible of English constitution."

Wellington said that "it is not kings who make constitutions, but constitutions that make kings." (See West's Modern History, Page 405.)

King John undertook to over-ride the old constitutional privileges of the people and taxed them without the consent of the council, so they resisted him, the same as the colonies resisted George III, and eventually procured the Magna Charta, June 15, 1215. Petitions were made to different rulers, and at different times, and without bloodshed they were often granted, in part, or entire; thus little by little, the people became accustomed to manage national and local affairs. It is true that Charles the First lost his head, but he was previously duly tried and condemned for usurpation, treason, tyranny, and for violating the English constitution, but he was not violently assassinated.

As a proof of my contention in this respect, I call attention to Great Britain. It took a long time for that nation to reach its present efficient mixed form of government, with its democratic branch, acting through the House of Commons, the aristocracy in the House of Lords and the King representing Royalty. Through a process of evolution, the authority originally vested in the king, has gradually been transferred to able and well trained representatives of the people, who have shown themselves qualified to manage the complicated machinery of government without the continual dictation of a sovereign ruling over them. England's imperial policy for her possessions in South Africa, Egypt, Ireland and India are still autocratic.

Subject provinces and races should have the right of self-determination as to what their status shall be in the future and if not satisfied should be given the right to form their own system of government and be granted full freedom of action. This should apply to Ireland and other subject nations now under control of monarchial governments.

The British Empire should abolish its system of imperialism which is inconsistent with republican government and should give its different present dependencies a constitutional form of government.

"It was my dirty duty."

Thus Brigadier General R. E. H. Dyer, ex-commander of the British troops in India, has explained his order to a small squad of troops in April, 1919, to fire into a crowd of 5,000 unarmed Indian civilians at Amritsar until their ammunition was exhausted-the bloodiest order since the Indian mutiny. Dyer's men killed 500 and wounded 1,500 in less than a quarter of an hour.

First praised for his action by his chief, then when after nearly a year's complete suppression of the affair, the world learned of it and shuddered with horror-reprimanded, investigated and ordered to resign, General Dyer arrived in London today to protest against being made the scapegoat.

He said: "I am a soldier. It took me thirty seconds to decide that the shooting was necessary to save British rule in the Punjab, the province in which Amritsar lies. It has taken the government a year to decide that I did wrong.

"I shot to save British rule, to preserve India for the British Empire and to protect English men and English women who lived under my protection. Now I am told to go. Every Englishman I have met in India approved of my act, horrible as it was.

"What would have happened if I had not ordered my men to shoot? My force would have been swept away like chaff before the wind. Thousands of natives were marching on the city.

"At the time, no one in authority condemned me. On the contrary, I was given command of another operation afterward, as a result of which I was complimented by the general officer commanding the troops in India. Lord Hunter's commission afterward condemned me."

It was the report of this British investigating commission that led to the revelation of the Armitsar massacre.

"I should have been court-martialed, but there never was any suggestion of that," General Dyer concluded.

ARMY OF PERSIA NOW IN CONTROL OF GREAT BRITAIN.

By reason of a series of accords growing out of the AngloPersian treaty, Great Britain has established complete control over the Persian army, according to information just received here.

When the question of approval of the army scheme was brought before the Persian cabinet, four ministers, including the minister of war, resigned and one Persian officer on the Anglo-Persian commission killed himself, his act causing a great sensation throughout Persia.

The Persian army will consist of 70,000 officers and men. The generalissimo will be a high British officer, while a British officer will head each divisional staff. In each regiment the colonel and four other officers will be British.

French newspapers containing this report comment on it, and say that the purpose of England seems to be the creation of a new Persian army completely controlled by the British and which will serve to protect India from any attack from Central Asia.

The report says the Persian cabinet ministers who have resigned are protesting against the British scheme on the ground that the Anglo-Persian treaty has not been submitted to the League of Nations or to the Persian Parliament for approval, as one of the treaty clauses expressly requires.

THE FRENCH REVOLUTION.

There may be conditions, like those in France at the time of Louix XVI, when it requires forcible and even tragical methods, to bring about a necessary radical change in the structure of the government, in order to save the nation, when all peaceful and ordinary efforts fail; but radical and anarchistic revolutions are not to be depended upon to correct the evils of an unsatisfactory governmental administration.

A long period of misrule and oppression under previous kings, together with the domineering and selfish rule of the nobility, which is always favored and supported by the king had brought the French people through abject want and desperation, to the extreme limit of endurance. The masses had been neglected and forgotten by the rulers, who should have considered their interests and happiness, but who, instead, were blinded by their own personal greed and ambition, to every principle of justice and humanity. But even France, at this critical period of her history, could have been saved from a reign of terror, it is possible, if cool heads and wise statesmanship could have co-operated with a practical and common-sense king, if