The Doctrine of the Immortality of the Soul Subversive of the Truth.
By A. T. Jones
THE doctrine of the natural immortality of the soul is one of the oldest, one of the most widespread, and one of the most destructive doctrines that has ever been in this world. It was preached in the world before ever faith in Christ the Saviour was preached. In fact, if the doctrine had never been preached to man, there would never have been any need of a Saviour, and it was the belief of the doctrine of the immortality of the soul that first brought sin into the world "and all our woe." "The serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die;" and from that day to this that doctrine has been believed more, by the children of men, than has the truth of God. Indeed, in our day the doctrine of the immortality of the soul has gained such favor among even those who profess the word of God as their standard of belief, that to deny it is considered by the majority of them as tantamount to a denial of the word itself. Whereas, instead of such denial being in any way a denial of the truth of revelation, the fact of the matter is that the truth of revelation can be logically and consistently held only by the total and unequivocal denial of the doctrine of the natural immortality of the soul. This we now propose to show.
There is no truth more plainly taught, nor more diligently insisted upon in the Bible, than this: That the future existence of men depends absolutely upon either a resurrection of the dead or a translation without seeing death at all. Paul's hope for future existence was in the resurrection of the dead. In speaking of his efforts to "win Christ," he says: "That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death; if by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead." Phil. 3:10, 11. It "was of the hope and resurrection of the dead" that he was called in question by the council (Acts 23:6); and when he had afterward to make his defense before Felix, he declared that the resurrection of the dead was the sum of his hope, saying: "And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust." Acts 24:15. Time and again Paul so expresses his hope of future life: in short, he expresses it in no other way.
Nor is Paul the only one of the writers of the Bible who teaches the same thing. The resurrection of the dead is that to which Job looked for the consummation of his hope (Job 14:14, 15; 17:13-15; 19:23-27). David says: "Thou which hast showed me great and sore troubles, shalt quicken [give life to] me again, and shalt bring me up again from the depths of the earth." Ps. 71:20. And, "As for me, I will behold thy face in righteousness: I shall be satisfied when I awake with thy likeness." Ps. 17:15. And what shall we more say? For the time would fail us to tell of Isaiah, and Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, and Daniel, and Hosea, and Micah, and all the prophets and apostles, and of our fathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; for Jesus himself declared that it was the resurrection of the dead of which God spake when he said, "I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." More than this, Jesus pointed his disciples always to the resurrection of the dead, through which alone they could obtain the reward which he promised. In reading John 6:39-54 we find that no less than four times, the Saviour, in giving promise to those who believe in him, sets it forth as the consummation of that belief that, "I will raise him up at the last day." And in Luke 14:13, 14 we read: "When thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind; and thou . . . shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just."
Paul, however, gives us, upon this subject, a straightforward, logical argument, which leaves the doctrine of the immortality of the soul not a particle of ground to rest upon. The 15th chapter of 1 Corinthians is devoted entirely to an argument in proof of the resurrection of the dead. The apostle first proves, by hundreds of living witnesses who had seen him after he was risen, that Christ arose from the dead. Still there were some who said, "There is no resurrection of the dead;" and in refutation of that idea, he introduces three points of argument, any one of which utterly excludes the doctrine of the immortality of the soul from any place whatever in Christian doctrine.
1. In verse 16, his premise is, "If the dead rise not." The first conclusion from that is, "Then is not Christ raised;" then upon this conclusion follows the logical sequence, "Your faith is vain," and upon that another, "Ye are yet in your sins." From his premise—"If the dead rise not"—the second conclusion is, verse 18, "Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished." Nothing can be plainer than that this statement and the doctrine of the immortality of the soul cannot both be true. For if the soul be immortal, as is held, it cannot perish, and therefore, so far as its existence is concerned, it is utterly independent of the dead. Is it not supposed by all those who believe the soul to be immortal, that all who have passed from this world in the faith of Christ, have gone to Heaven, and are now enjoying its bliss? It is assuredly. Then, if that be the truth, upon what imaginable principle can it be conceived that they "are perished," if there be no resurrection? What need have they of a resurrection? Have they not, without a resurrection, all that Heaven can afford? Upon that theory certainly so. Then it just as certainly appears that not one of them has perished, even though there never be a resurrection.
Over against this theory stands the word of God, that "If the dead rise not, then they which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished." That word is the truth. Therefore it follows that if there be no resurrection of the dead, there is no hereafter for any who have ever died, or who shall ever die. But God has given assurance to all men that there shall be a hereafter, and that assurance lies in the fact "that he hath raised him [Christ] from the dead" (Heb. 9:27; Acts 17:31). The resurrection of Christ is the God-given pledge that there shall be a resurrection of all the dead: "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." And, "There shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust." Therefore it is by virtue of the resurrection of the dead, and not by the immortality of the soul, that there will be any hereafter for the dead, whether just or unjust.
2. The second point that the apostle makes in this connection is in verse 32: "If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? let us eat and drink; for to-morrow we die." On this nothing can be better than to present Dr. Adam Clarke's comment upon this same passage. He says, and the italics are his:731"I believe the common method of pointing this verse is erroneous; I propose to read it thus; 'If, after the manner of men, I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what doth it advantage me? If the dead rise not, let us eat and drink; for to-morrow we die.' What the apostle says here is a regular and legitimate conclusion from the doctrine that there is no resurrection; for if there be no resurrection, then there can be no judgment—no future state of rewards and punishments; why, therefore, should we bear crosses, and keep ourselves under continual discipline? Let us eat and drink, take all the pleasure we can; for to-morrow we die, and there is an end of us forever."
That is sound exegesis, and a just comment upon the words of the apostle. As we have shown, that is the point of Paul's argument throughout, and it is the thought of the whole Bible upon this subject. But if the soul be immortal, neither Dr. Clarke's comment nor Paul's argument is sound. For if the soul be immortal, whensoever it may be that we die that is not the "end of us forever," resurrection or no resurrection. By this it is plain that the doctrine of the immortality of the soul nullifies the plainest propositions of Scripture, and is therefore false.
This view fully explains the query which Dr. Clarke propounds in his remarks at the close of his comments on 1 Cor. 15. He says:—
"One remark I cannot help making: the doctrine of the resurrection appears to have been thought of much more consequence among the primitive Christians than it is now! How is this? The apostles were continually insisting on it, and exciting the followers of God to diligence, obedience, and cheerfulness through it. And their successors in the present day seldom mention it! . . . There is not a doctrine in the gospel on which more stress is laid; and there is not a doctrine in the present system of preaching which is treated with more neglect!"
From the Doctor's insertion of exclamation points and his query, "How is this?" it would appear that he was surprised that it should be so. It is indeed surprising that it should be so. But it is easily enough explained. The fact is that the doctrine of the immortality of the soul has become so all-pervading "in the present system of preaching" that there is no room for the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead. If the doctrine of the immortality of the soul be true, then the doctrine of the resurrection is indeed of no consequence. If that doctrine be true, then there is destroyed all need in laying stress upon the gospel doctrine of the resurrection of the dead. And although "the apostles were continually insisting on" the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, and although there is indeed "not a doctrine of the gospel upon which more stress is laid," yet through the insidious, deceptive influence of the doctrine of the immortality of the soul it is that the preachers of the present day "seldom mention it," and that in the present system of preaching there is indeed "not a doctrine that is treated with more neglect." And nothing is needed to show more plainly than does this, the irreconcilable antagonism between the truth of God and the mischievous doctrine of the immortality of the soul.
3. The third point is in verse 36: "That which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die." To quicken is "to make alive." What Paul says therefore is, "That which thou sowest is not made alive, except it die." That this is spoken directly of man and his resurrection, is plain by verses 42-44, "It is sown a natural body," etc. Now the doctrine of the immortality of the soul is, that the body properly has no life, that it is not the real man; but that the soul is the real, living, sentient man; that it is that about man which alone possesses real life. In other words, the body is only the house in which the real man lives, i. e., the real "I" dwells within the "me;" and death is simply the separation of the soul from the body. Death breaks down the house, and lets the real occupant free. According to this doctrine, there is no such thing as real death; because the body properly has no life, consequently it does not die; and the soul—the real man—is immortal, and it cannot die; therefore there is in reality no such thing as death. If this be true, there is not only no such thing as death, but there is, likewise, no such thing as a resurrection of the dead. For, upon the apostle's premise that "That which thou sowest is not quickened [made alive] except it die," it follows that, as the body, having no life, does not die, it cannot be quickened (raised from the dead); and as the soul does not die, it cannot be raised from the dead; consequently there is no such thing as a resurrection of the dead.
Therefore it stands proved to a demonstration that the doctrine of the immortality of the soul is utterly subversive of the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead. But the resurrection of the dead is a Bible doctrine: it is the very truth of God. So then it is plain that the doctrine of the immortality of the soul is subversive of the truth of God; and is therefore false, deceptive, and destructive. A. T. J.
Evangelist Varley's Testimony.
By Editor
In a letter to the London Christian, the English evangelist, Henry Varley, thus gives his impressions of the moral and religious condition of the United States:—
I never felt so deeply as I do to-day the vital importance of the teaching of Scripture concerning the premillennial advent of our Lord. In every city which I have visited I have given a series of Bible-readings on this momentous subject, and I am persuaded that our Lord has greatly used the testimony given.
Important and necessary as the work has been which has dragged to the light of day [in England] the shameless workers of iniquity, it must not be forgotten that our Lord said of the character of the times which would immediately precede his second advent. As it was in the days of Lot and Noah so shall it be in the coming of the Son of man,—days of utmost iniquity, bringing in the fearful and overwhelming judgments of the divine vengeance. Infidelity of a refined and highly civilized sort is everywhere abroad among intelligent men in the United States. The preaching is abjectly apologetic. The truth concerning sin and the sinner, the wrath of God and the coming Judgment, is scarcely declared, to say nothing of intemperance, covetousness, and licentiousness, political, social and moral corruption, infidelity and skepticism. The sacrifice of Christ as the only way whereby sin can be put away or its dreadful guilt expiated, is scarcely made known.
One of the most miserable travesties of a Christian service which it has ever been my lot to have presence in was that in Brooklyn, the last Lord's Day morning in May last. Henry Ward Beecher was the preacher, his subject, 'The Theory of Evolution;' the audience a spectatorship, the singing artistic, the prayers cold, lifeless, and perfunctory; the reading without spiritual intelligence, unction, or fervor; the preaching a reading, in which the testimony of Genesis was made light of, and described as inconsistent with the scientific doctrine of evolution, which, though not actually demonstrated, might be regarded as truth, because of its widespread acceptance on the part of educated minds. The testimony of Genesis might be regarded, Mr. Beecher said, as 'allegory or parable in the direction of truth.'
I need hardly say that I found many true and faithful men in every place I visited; but my firm conviction is that we are well into the perilous character of the last days (2 Tim. 3:1-6), and nowhere, in my judgment, is this more solemnly seen than in the great Western Republic of the United States.
The Unfailing Source
By S. S. Times
WHAT matters the heat and drought all around, if our river of life draws its waters from the eternal snows of the mountain-top? The very heat which parches all else only sends down more abundant waters from that treasury of the snows. With these waters of life we may pass through languishing valleys and parched plains, bringing relief to the thirsty, giving new life to the fainting, knowing all the while that behind us are sources that will not fail. That is the thing to be sure of,—that we are actually in direct vital connection with one unfailing Source. Then, however little there may be for us to draw from in the valleys and in the plains, there will always be for us a plentiful supply from our sources on the heights.
The Humility of Greatness
By John Ruskin
I BELIEVE the first test of a truly great man is his humility. I do not mean, by humility, doubt of his own power, or hesitation in speaking his opinion. But really great men have a curious under-sense of powerlessness, feeling that the greatness is not in them, but through them; that they could not do or be anything else than God made them.—John Ruskin.
The Missionary.
By John Norton Loughborough, William Ings
Meetings in Fresno, Cal.
ON account of excessive rains, our appointment at Burrough Valley, Fresno County, for November 19-22, had to be abandoned. We went with horse and carriage as far as Temperance Colony, but found a bridge carried away and no means of crossing the stream. We were informed by teamsters well acquainted with the road, that if we were safely over that place, we could not get to Burrough Valley, as there were other mountain streams to cross where there were no bridges, and that with such a rain they would not be fordable. Much as we regretted it, we had to turn back to Fresno.
We then decided to hold our meetings in Fresno one week ahead of time, so the appointment was circulated, and these meetings were held November 21-23. The only place that we could secure for meetings was the Good Templars' Hall, in which our people hold their Sabbath service. This was occupied so much of the time for other meetings appointed previous to ours, that we were only able while there to give four discourses, and hold one business meeting. The discourses were mainly directed to the church, its needs and position and opportunity as "laborers together with God." The Lord helped in speaking the word of truth, and the church responded, not only in their testimonies, but in planning for more efficient work. The question of a house of worship was talked up, and it was the prevailing sentiment of our people there, that in the opening of the spring, a Seventh-day Adventist meeting-house should be erected in Fresno.
The question of a spring camp-meeting was introduced and discussed, and it was unanimously voted by the Sabbath-keepers assembled to invite the California Conference Committee to arrange for a camp-meeting for Fresno and Tulare Counties, to be held near Fresno between the close of seeding time and the commencement of haying. The time suggested by the resolution was between the middle of April and the first of May. It did not occur to our minds until the close of the meeting that that date—the last of April and the first of May—is just the time of the annual meetings of the stock-holders of the Pacific Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association, Healdsburg College, and the Rural Health Retreat. So if the camp-meeting is held, it would probably have to be in the month of May.
Our meeting in Fresno, though short, seemed to be timely and encouraging to the church. Circumstances forbade a longer continuance of the meeting at this time, and in fact the purpose for which the meeting was appointed seemed to be accomplished, so in the night of the 24th we returned to Oakland, after an absence of nearly two months.
J. N. LOUGHBOROUGH,
WM. INGS.
The Grace of Fidelity
No GRACE is more necessary to the Christian worker than fidelity; the humble grace that marches on in sunshine and storm, where no banners are waving and there is no music to cheer the weary traveler.—Sel.
Laying the Foundation.
By Mary A. Allen, M. D.
THE first education of the child should be wholly objective. Through eye, and ear, and touch, it is being overwhelmed with knowledge. Do not be in a hurry to push it into the world of books. Let it be a student of natural things, and let your teachings be to increase its power of observation. When the little girl begins to go to school, say at seven or eight years of age, let it be understood by teachers that she is not to be crowded, but is to learn a few things thoroughly, and those of a practical character. Much teaching, of things not important to be remembered, is done, and the powers of the child put to a wrong use. The little school children of to-day live in a continual fever. There is upon them a constant strain, which is very wearing to nerve fiber. The fear of being tardy keeps a sensitive child in a fret from the time of rising until school is reached. I often see the tiny creatures running in great haste to reach the school-house before the bell shall cease ringing, and they must come to their morning's work with nerves exhausted, hearts beating unduly, and brains already worn by the anxiety of the morning. See to it, mothers, that your children start to school in time to walk there quietly, and that they leave home in a cheerful frame of mind, with your loving smile, and good-bye kiss, to give them a happy start on the day.
Some teachers, unfortunately, have a manner in school far from beneficial to their pupils. I know teachers who have good reputations as instructors of children, who do not refrain from calling the attention of the school to some trifling error in the conduct or work of a sensitive girl, who will hear in her heart for days the wound thus caused. I have known teachers to make such remarks as these, concerning a conscientious child, who had worked diligently and faithfully, but who had failed to have a perfect lesson, perhaps from a failure of the teacher to make plain some point or rule: "What do you think, scholars, of a girl who cannot get three examples out of five? Don't you think she is rather lazy?" Or, "See Jennie"—aged eight—"she spells technical with a k, and Popocatepetl with two capitals. Wouldn't you think she'd be ashamed?" Brutal teachers are not as common now as in years past; but they have a cruelty no less painful because more refined.
Parents are not altogether free from blame in wounding the self-respect of their children, and everything which wounds the self-respect lessens it, and weakens the desire to be better. Mothers ought to bear particularly in mind the fact that, if they wish strong, capable grown-up daughters, they should not put upon them the burden of sex too young. "Little girls should not play in that way, that is boy's play," is too often the household maxim of duty; and many an active girl, not ten years old, sighs over her restricted freedom, and longs for the liberty of boyhood, from which she is shut out by reason of her sex, and yet in her consciousness she has no knowledge of sex. She loves to play, to run, to climb, to jump, to coast, to slide, as well as her brother. Has the Creator made a mistake in giving her these desires?
"Boys have so much freer life than girls," said a little eight-year-old, when her brother put on his rubber boots and overcoat to go out and have a vigorous tussle with the storm. The combative wind would have tossed her hair, and pelted the roses into her cheeks, and swept, with its load of oxygen, through her lungs, but she was told that it was not ladylike to go out in a storm. She must be good and play with her dolls, while she, poor child, cared nothing for dolls; she wanted live companions, "with brains," as she said.
Would you, then, have girls rough, rude, and uncouth as boys? I would not have boys rude and uncouth. I would have the same standard of conduct for both, the same motives held up for right action. An action is wrong or right, it is polite or impolite, it is kind or ungenerous, it is truthful or dishonorable, it is brave or cowardly. These motives are sufficient to guide the lives of both boys and girls. "It is unladylike" means that it is impolite, and that is equally ungentlemanly. Boys and girls should have put before them the highest motives for right doing, and this will result in making them ladies and gentlemen in the truest sense. Boys are often allowed to be unkind and overbearing, because it is supposed to be of less importance that they should develop such traits than that girls should manifest them. The truth is that boys should be more subject to the restraints of true politeness, while girls should have less of the restraints of false ideas of impropriety. Do not be afraid that the girl who loves to jump and play in childhood will, of necessity, be coarse and rude in more mature life. The sweetest, most truly feminine women I have known have confessed to being great romps in childhood. A happy, free, and natural childhood, guarded and guided by the wisdom which sees far into the future, and prepares for it, must result in a healthful, vigorous, and efficient womanhood.—Mary A. Allen, M. D., in Congregationalist.
Uses to Which Paper May Be Put.
By Anna Barrows
PAPER, being nearly air tight, will exclude cold, and should be used more than it now is. Builders place paper between the boards and clapboards of a house, and we should do well to follow their example in smaller matters. Farmers have found that the extra warmth secured by tacking several thicknesses of newspapers around the inside of hen-houses, etc., has saved extra food. A layer of paper under a carpet is preferable to straw, which is sometimes used; and if the paper made for this purpose cannot be obtained, several layers of newspaper will do nearly as well. Papers spread between bed coverings will take the place of extra blankets. A folded paper is an excellent lung protector; one over the chest and another around the shoulders, under the outside garment, would often save a cold and perhaps pneumonia. Dissolved in flour paste, newspapers make a useful filling for cracks in floors and elsewhere. Scraps of paper, wet and scattered over the floor when sweeping, will save the dust in the room as well as brighten the carpet. Bits of paper, with soap suds, are effectual in cleaning bottles, and are easily removed with the water. Greasy dishes and kettles, if first rubbed with paper, wash much easier; the paper absorbs the grease, and is all the better for kindling the fire. A grease spot can often be taken out of a carpet or garment by placing two or three layers of paper over it, then put a warm iron on the paper. The heat softens the grease, and the paper absorbs it; and by changing paper and iron occasionally, all the grease will disappear. Soft newspaper or tissue paper is preferable to cloth for cleaning lamp chimneys, windows, mirrors, etc., as it leaves no lint; also for knives, spoons, and tinware after scouring; and a stove will not need blacking so often if now and then rubbed with paper. Paper in bread and cake tins protects the loaf from burning, and insures its safe removal from the tin; by this help a tin with holes in it may be used. Laid over a loaf of cake in the oven, paper is also a protection; but unless it is warmed first, the cake may settle. Cut in strips and curled with the scissors, writing paper makes a good filling for pillows for hammocks, or the large pillows sometimes used to show off the elaborate "shams." Postal cards and thin pasteboard can be cut in strips for lamplighters; newspapers for the same use are cut in strips and rolled.—Anna Barrows, in Good Housekeeping.
The Home Circle.
ADVERSITY.
If none were sick and none were sad,
What service could we render?
I think if we were always glad
We scarcely could be tender.
Did our beloved never need
Our patient ministration,
Earth would grow cold, and miss, indeed,
Its sweetest consolation.
If sorrow never claimed our heart,
And every wish were granted,
Patience would die and hope depart;
Life would be disenchanted.
—Sel.
Dreams to Order.
SIR WILLIAM JOHNSON was a canny Scotchman, who served the English Government as its agent to the Five Nations of Central and Western New York at the time of the French and Indian War. A story of his dreaming goes to show that he had peculiar qualifications for the post he occupied. It may serve, also, to throw some light upon the occult philosophy of dreams.
Soon after he was appointed to the superintendence of Indian affairs, he wrote to England for several suits of clothes, richly laced. When these were received, a noted chief of the Mohawk nation, called Hendrick, who happened to be present, particularly admired the suits.
In the course of a few days the chief called at the agency again, and informed Sir William that he had had a singular dream, and in answer to Sir William's questions, Hendrick told him he had dreamed that the agent had given him one of the fine suits recently received.
Sir William took the hint, and immediately made the chief a present of one of the richest suits. The Indian chief went away highly pleased with the generosity of the donor.
Some time after this, Sir William, happening to be in company with Hendrick, told the chief that he too had had a dream. Hendrick wished to know what the dream was, and Sir William said that he had dreamed that his very excellent friend, Hendrick, had made him a present of a particular tract of land, the most valuable on the Mohawk River, and including about five thousand acres. Hendrick was prompt in presenting the land to the agent, but not without making this shrewd remark,—
"Now, Sir William, I will never dream with you again. You dream too hard for me."—Youth's Companion.
Driving Boys from Home.
MOTHERS who are disturbed by the noise and untidiness of boys at home must be careful, lest by their reproaches they drive their children from home in search of pleasure elsewhere. "There are those banisters all finger marks again," said Mrs. Cary, as she made haste with a soft linen cloth to polish down the shining oak again.
"George," she said, with a flushed face, as she gave the cloth a decided wrench out of the basin of suds, "if you go up those stairs again before bedtime, you shall be punished." "I should like to know where I am to go?" said George. "I cannot stay in the kitchen, I am so much in the way; and I can't go in the parlor for fear I'll muss that up; and now you say I can't go up to my own room. I know of a grand place where I can go," he added to himself; "boys are never told they are in the way there, and we have lots of fun. I'll go to Nil's corner. I can smoke a cigar now as well as any boy, if it did make me awful sick the first time. They shall not laugh at me again about it." And so the careful housekeeper virtually drove her son from the door to hang about the steps and sit under the broad, inviting portico of the village grog-shop.—Philadelphia Home.
“Be not among winebibbers, among riotous eaters of flesh; for the drunkard and the glutton shall come to poverty.” Prov. 23 : 20, 21.
“Strong drink is raging, and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise.” “Who hath woe? Who hath sorrow? Who hath contentions? Who hath babblings? Who hath wounds without cause? Who hath redness of eyes?” Prov. 20 : 1; 23 : 29.
“They that tarry long at the wine; they that go to seek mixed wine. Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his color in the cup, when it moveth itself aright.” Prov. 23 : 30, 31.
“At the last it biteth like a serpent, and stingeth like an adder.” Prov. 23 : 32.
“It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor anything whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.” “If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.” Rom. 14 : 21; Luke 9 : 23.
“Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard; and he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.” Gen. 9 : 20, 21.
“Do not drink wine nor strong drink.” Lev. 10 : 9.
“Woe unto them that are mighty to drink wine.” Isa. 5 : 22.
No drunkard “shall inherit the kingdom of God.” 1 Cor. 6 : 10.
“Woe unto him that giveth his neighbor drink.” Hab. 2 : 15.
Woe unto them that “follow strong drink.” Isa. 5 : 11.—Temperance Tract.
Stimulus of Poverty.
MEN are naturally indolent. They love to take their ease, and are therefore averse to active effort. It is not uncommon to find capacity for mental labor combined with reluctance to undertake it. An indolent, capable man finds it painful to set his mind in motion. His inertia must be overcome by a force outside of himself. Many men, afterward eminent lawyers, artists, inventors, and even preachers, were made to exert themselves, at the beginning of their careers, by the pressure of poverty.
The eloquent Erskine, after he had attained fame and fortune, often said he would have failed had he not felt his wife and children twitching at his gown. Sir Samuel Romilly, the greatest chancery lawyer of his day, worked up an income of fifty thousand dollars a year, equivalent to more than a hundred thousand dollars in these days.
When he began his professional life, he had a small fortune, and thought of buying with it the lucrative position of a clerk of the court. But his father, a jeweler, was in straitened circumstances, and the pious son turned the money over to him, and went to work. His subsequent success at the bar, as he himself wrote, arose out of the pecuniary difficulties and confined circumstances of his father.
When Lord Eldon began his practice at the Chancery bar as John Scott, Lord Chancellor Thurlow promised him a commissionership of bankruptcy. But the promise remained unfulfilled, for a reason which Lord Thurlow afterward gave thus:—
“Jack,” said he, “I withheld it as a favor to you. I saw that you had ability, but that you were naturally indolent, and that only want could make you industrious.”
Baron Tenterden, Lord Chief Justice of England, was a barber’s son, and used to go about the streets of Canterbury as an attendant of his father, when he went from house to house to serve his customers. One day, after the barber’s boy had become Chief Justice, he visited Canterbury Cathedral in company with a friend. The choir was singing, and the friend praised the voice of a certain chorister.
“Ah!” said the Chief Justice, “that is the only man I ever envied. When at school in this town, we were candidates for a chorister place, and he obtained it.”
The disappointed boy, who needed the small salary, was consoled by the gift of an Oxford scholarship. Poverty made him study, for he had his own way to make in the world. In due time he gained a fellowship, whose income supported him while studying law.
When he was called to the bar, he had to contend with a husky voice, leaden face, and a painful bashfulness. But poverty made him a diligent worker, and in a few years his fees amounted to forty thousand dollars a year.
Kenyon, another eminent English lawyer, was so poor when he began practice that he used to dine at a cheap eating-house, where dinners were supplied for fifteen cents. When he was Chief Justice, he gave this advice to a young lawyer:—
“Spend your own fortune, marry, and spend your wife’s, and then you will have some chance of succeeding in the law.”—Sel.
The Ignorance and Deceit of Brahmanism
The ignorance and deceit of Brahmanism is well illustrated by an incident narrated by a Zenana visitor in India. He was calling on a lady a day previous to a lunar eclipse. A Brahman priest, freshly bathed and marked with holy ashes, came to prescribe a ritual to be observed on the day of the eclipse, and gave the woman a bundle of sticks, telling her to break them into every pot of water in her house, and this would act as “an antidote to the poison that the snake which was swallowing the moon would vomit!”
Health and Temperance.
Ethics of Sleep.
THE ethics of good sleep should form a part of household morality. It is hardly an extravagant assertion that comparatively few people, after childhood has passed, know by experience what perfect sleep is, and they satisfy themselves with a poor apology for this most perfect refreshment. Rising tired and weary from a disturbed and imperfect sleep, they proceed to summon up lost energies by strong tea or coffee, which in its turn interferes with perfect rest at night, and this process of life, more than any mental or physical labor, wears women out, and makes them prematurely old. “I have been reading myself to sleep after retiring,” said a Boston woman the other day, “and when I have done this for two or three nights I can see that I look five years older.” This is an experience that any woman can verify, and, conversely, she can see that sleeping in a perfectly dark and well-ventilated room brings back the contour and the roses of childhood or early youth.
The most perfect sleep is obtained by carefully closing the blinds, raising and lowering the windows to admit plenty of pure air, and drawing down the heavy shades, thus making the room perfectly dark. Then, on going to bed, go there to sleep, not to write or read, to think or plan, but for the most valuable of all things, the foundation of all activity and energy, perfect sleep. A few nights of this experience will work a magic transformation in looks and in feelings. Above all, let us divest ourselves of a traditional prejudice that there is, somehow, virtue in early rising. When early sleep is obtained, early rising is indicated by nature by waking; but, artificially produced, it is pernicious. Unless there is exceptional reason, it is far wiser to sleep till one wakes naturally, and one hour then will do the work of three when one comes to it tired and unrefreshed.—Herald of Health.
A Few Facts About Whisky.
ONE bushel of the best corn will only make three gallons of whisky; but a little strychnine easily raises the quantity to four gallons. This is so universally practiced that four gallons is now an average yield. One drug house in London, in 1867, sold more strychnine to a liquor house than the whole city could use medicinally. Mark the progress in evil. A distiller adds one-fourth by the use of strychnine. The wholesaler takes this adulterated stock, and doubles it by the use of stramonium and opium. The retailer gives it another turn. He doubles it again by the use of belladonna. This brings ten cents a drink, and here is the motive power. This is the practice all over the land.—Dr. Fowler.
An Alarming Feature.
ONE of the most alarming features of the growing intemperance in our land, is the hold it is getting upon women. It is not an uncommon sight in this city to see women and children going from saloons with pitchers of beer. We frequently notice the patrol wagon hastening to pick up a woman in a state of intoxication, who, guarded by nicely dressed policemen, is taken off to a place of temporary imprisonment. Fashionable drinking saloons are elegantly fitted up in our large cities for society women of the wealthy class. The number of habitual visitors of such places is said to be alarmingly on the increase. In this, the devil is using his most ingenious devices to apply his deadly venom to the very heart of the race. Well may the alarm be sounded all over the land, and the strong ones put forth every possible effort to exterminate this terrible curse, when mothers begin to fall before the rum-fiend. Say or think as we may, these facts stare us in the face, and should rouse every lover of sobriety and virtue to determined action against this terrible destroyer of the human race.—Vanguard.