p. 46 | The Gospel Sickle, Vol. 2, No. 6. (3/15/1887)

A LAW FOR RESTING ON SUNDAY.

By George I. Butler

In our last issue consideration was given to the edict issued by Constantine in behalf of Sunday. This edict of Constantine greatly accelerated the current already setting strongly against the ancient Sabbath. It furnished some authority, if it was heathen, in behalf of the Sunday. Every advance it made correspondingly depressed the Sabbath, inasmuch as keeping two days in each week as a rest day would be absurd. An able writer thus expresses the result throughout the Roman Empire: “Very shortly after the period when Constantine issued his edict enjoining the general observance of Sunday throughout the Roman empire, the party that had contended for the observance of the seventh day dwindled into insignificance. The observance of Sunday as a public festival, during which all business, with the exception of rural employments, was intermitted, came to be more and more generally established ever after this time, throughout both the Greek and the Latin churches. There is no evidence, however, that, either at this, or at a period much later, the observance was viewed as deriving any obligation from the fourth commandment; it seems to have been regarded as an institution corresponding in nature with Christmas, Good Friday, and other festivals of the church; and as resting with them on the ground of ecclesiastical authority and tradition.”—Cox’s Sabbath Laws, pp. 280, 281.

We see, therefore, that that which caused the Sabbath to be greatly neglected was the heathen decree of the Emperor. Heathenism and corrupted Christianity united their forces in putting down the Sabbath and exalting Sunday in its place. It might be said that this decree was the expiring act of heathenism. In one sense it was so; but the kind of Christianity which took its place really resembled heathenism more than it did the pure and humble religion of Christ and his apostles. This remark at first may seem harsh and incredible; but truly the reflecting, observing mind must admit its truthfulness. What resemblance is there between the plain, simple forms of worship observable in the ministry of Christ and the apostles, and the gorgeous, pompous ceremonials of the Catholic Church? What resemblance is there in the appearance, manners, and dress of the two,—in our Saviour going about on foot, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief, healing the sick, and benefiting all, clad in his seamless coat, the garb of the poor, and the lordly priest, clad in his official robes of purple or scarlet, bowing before images with his train of attendants, and exacting the highest homage? What resemblance is there in the doctrine of the two? Christ taught the need of repentance, faith, baptism, and the living of a humble, pure, holy life of obedience to the truths of God’s word and the principles of God’s law. But look at the Catholic ceremonials, the confessions to the priest, the prayers for souls in purgatory, the holy water, vows of celibacy, worshiping of images, elevating and adoring the bread, believing it to be the actual flesh of our Lord and Saviour!

And what resemblance is there in the spirit of the two? Our Saviour was ever seeking to alleviate suffering, to benefit all within his reach. He wept over the people of Jerusalem because they would not let him save them, prayed, even for his enemies, while hanging on the cross in the greatest agony. On the other hand, look at the bloody Crusades, at the massacre on St. Bartholomew’s day, when the blood of the poor Huguenots ran down the streets of Paris, when the papists surprised them through deception; and look at the poor Waldenses, butchered by thousands, men, women, and children, because they would not take the pope’s authority, instead of the Scriptures as their rule of action. See the Inquisition with its horrors, men and women there tortured on the rack, or starved to death in deep dungeons. These things were done when the Roman Church had the power. What, we say, are the resemblances between their practices and the pure religion of Jesus?

But there is a striking resemblance on the other hand between the ceremonies, the manners, the forms of worship, the bowing to images, the resplendent robes and persecuting spirit of Catholicism, and heathenism; indeed, Catholics themselves admit that many of their customs were derived from the heathen. On this interesting point we will venture to quote from two eminent Catholic writers. Cardinal Baronius, perhaps the most authoritative Catholic writer, says, “That many things have been laudably translated from Gentile superstition into the Christian religion, hath been demonstrated by many examples and the authority of the Fathers. And what wonder if the most holy bishops have granted that the most ancient customs of the Gentiles should be introduced into the worship of the true God, from which it seemed impossible to take off many, though converted to Christianity?” Bervaldus, another Catholic writer, speaks as follows: “When I call to mind the institutions of the holy mysteries of the heathen, I am forced to believe that most things appertaining to the celebration of our solemnities and ceremonies are taken thence; as, for example, from the Gentile religion the shaven heads of priests, turning round of the altar, sacrificial pomps, and many such like ceremonies which our priests solemnly use in our mysteries. How many things in our religion are like the Roman religion? How many rites common!” Truly our remark that Catholicism resembles the heathen worship more than it does the religion of Christ, cannot be denied. Catholicism is a system of mixed Christianity and heathenism, with the latter predominating.

The edict of Constantine, and the full adoption of the heathen Sunday by the Church, marks the point where this heathen union was consummated. Constantine at that point represented the heathen, being an ardent sun-worshiper. Pope Sylvester, at that time bishop of Rome, represented that Church. In its efforts to elevate Sunday, it joyfully accepted this heathen decree and heathen day, and thus fully blended the heathen system with their corrupted form of Christianity. From that point the barriers were broken down, and heathens and heathenism largely took possession of the church. At this point, so history informs us, many of the humble, God-fearing Christians withdrew into retired places, where they could still worship God according to the Scriptures. Pope Sylvester, by his apostolical authority, changed the name of the day, giving it the imposing title of “Lord’s Day.” See “Ecclesiastical History of Lucius,” cent. 4, cap. 10, pp. 739, 740. It had been called by that title by a few writers before; but Sylvester, as head of the church, now officially decided that its title should be “Lord’s Day.” Thus Constantine elevated the Sunday as a heathen festival to be observed throughout the Empire, while Pope Sylvester changed it into a Christian institution, dignifying it by the title of “Lord’s Day.”

Concerning the grounds upon which Sunday stands, we will here give a quotation from Dr. Heylyn: “Thus do we see upon what grounds the Lord’s day stands: On custom first, and voluntary consecration of it to religious meetings; that custom countenanced by the authority of the church of God, which tacitly approved the same; and finally confirmed and ratified by Christian princes throughout their empires. And as the day of rest from labors, and restraint from business upon that day, [it] received its greatest strength from the supreme majesty as long as he retained that power which to him belongs; as after from the canons and decrees of councils, the decretals of popes and orders of particular prelates, when the sole managing of ecclesiastical affairs was committed to them.”—History of the Sabbath, part 2, chap. 3, sec. 12.

Here we have truly set before us the authority on which the Sunday Sabbath rests. How different from that of the Sabbath of the Lord! The former is wholly human; the latter wholly divine. The former originated in heathenism and idolatry, and was finally adopted as a rest day by a corrupted church on the authority of a Roman tyrant; the latter began by the act of God himself, at the creation of the world, in resting, blessing, and setting apart the day for man to keep; and in commanding his people to observe it for all time.

Eusebius, who was a bishop, and a great flatterer and favorite of the Emperor Constantine, seems to admit that the change wrought in the Sabbath at this time was by human authority. He says: “All things whatsoever that it was duty to do on the Sabbath, we have transferred to the Lord’s day.”—Cox’s Sabbath Literature, vol. 1, p. 361.

We see at last a change of the Sabbath quite fully wrought; at least to this extent, that the Sabbath was put down by a Catholic council, and denounced under a curse as heretical, and that the Sunday was generally considered a day for public worship and, at least, for partial rest. We will next notice other steps by which the latter was rendered still more sacred in the eyes of the people.

G. I. B.

THE RESTORATION OF THE SABBATH.

By R. F. C.

Prophecy foretold the casting down of the truth, the change, the mutilation of the law of God, the robbing it of its seal; which has been done by the Roman apostasy. It was also foreshown that this wicked power would substitute the mark of its authority in the place of the seal of God, which it has accordingly done, and that a strong effort will yet be made to compel all to receive this mark, under the severest penalties. Rev. 13:11-18. But the truth will not be left without vindication to the end of time. God prepared a message in prophecy, to be fulfilled by actual proclamation as the closing message of probation, forbidding the worship of the beast and his image, and the reception of his mark, under the penalty of the wrath of God without mixture, even the seven last plagues. This message will arouse the true and loyal, and restore to them “the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.” This is the closing work of God, the finishing of the work of the Reformation, as the next event is the coming of the Son of man (verse 14), to reap the harvest of the earth. These commandments include the down-trodden Sabbath of the Lord.

Isaiah 8:16 points to the restoration of the Sabbath of the law in these words: “Bind up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples.” This prophecy must necessarily have its fulfillment after the papacy has done its work of changing the law, tearing off its seal; for before that no breach in the testimony existed to be bound up and healed; the law had not been robbed of its seal, and therefore needed no sealing. God did not write a law at Sinai without a seal. His name and title of authority were signed at the bottom of the first table, that enjoining our duty especially to him, as our Creator.

The breach and its restoration are alluded to in Isa. 58:12, 13: “And thou shalt be called, The repairer of the breach, The restorer of paths to dwell in. If thou turn away thy foot from the Sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the Sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, honorable,” etc. The people addressed in this prophecy have the Sabbath under foot, doing their pleasure on the Lord’s holy day. Now, if they will change their course, take their feet off the Sabbath, and honor God by its observance, as he has commanded, he will fulfill to them the most gracious promises, giving them a part in the glorious inheritance of his people.

In the opening of this chapter it is said, “Cry aloud, spare not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet, and show my people their transgression, and the house of Jacob their sins. Yet they seek me daily,” etc. This language is full of meaning. At the time when it is applicable the people of God are guilty of one particular transgression, besides various other sins. This transgression must be shown them; for many of them are ignorant of it. They are seeking God daily, “as a nation that did righteousness, and forsook not the ordinance [singular number], of their God.” They must be aroused; therefore it is said, “Cry aloud.” This is the work of the last message, which says, “And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image,” etc. As the effect of this proclamation the remnant of God’s people are manifested keeping his commandments,—all of them; and this includes the long-neglected Sabbath. On this account Satan will wage his last war upon them: “And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.” Rev. 12:17.

Isaiah 56 is very plain in regard to a Sabbath reform in the last days: “Thus saith the Lord, keep ye judgment, and do justice: for my salvation is near to come, and my righteousness to be revealed.” This locates the application of the prophecy in the last days; for the elect of God are “kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.” 1 Pet. 1:5. It is the second coming of Christ that brings this salvation, as we read in

Heb. 9:28: “So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.” Now when Christ is about to come and bring this everlasting salvation with him, and the righteous judgments of God are about to be revealed in the seven last plagues, it is said, “Blessed is the man that doeth this, and the son of man that layeth hold on it; that keepeth the Sabbath from polluting it, and keepeth his hand from doing any evil.” On the supposition that the Sabbath was made for the Jews alone, the text should read, “Blessed is the Jew that doeth this, and the son of a Jew that layeth hold on it; that keepeth the Sabbath from polluting it.” But the promised blessing has a wider range. It includes all that can claim to be called man.

The language clearly implies a Sabbath reform—a laying hold of the Sabbath by those who have not been keeping it. We cannot lay hold of that which we already hold firmly in our hands; therefore the text refers to those who have not previously been keeping the Sabbath, but at this time begin its observance, as we see it being done at the present day. The text goes on to particularize the sons of the stranger, those who have not been accounted the people of God, the Gentiles, promising them, on condition of keeping the Sabbath and laying hold on his covenant, “an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off.”

The fulfillment of prophecy is its confirmation. The breach in the law is being repaired by the restoration of the Sabbath. Thousands in various parts all over the earth are heeding the warning of the last message, turning from the commandments of men to the commandments of God. The word of God is being confirmed. Those who have little or no faith in that word look on “with brute unconscious gaze,” while those who believe are moving in the direction of the light so clearly shining from the precious Bible. They recognize the hand of God fulfilling his word, and rejoice for the consolation. They know by the fulfillment of his promises that the God of the Bible is the living God, that he lives to-day, and is not a God who once lived and is now dead, as many seem to suppose, from their lack of faith in present truth.

Reader, do you believe the Bible to be a revelation from God? Arouse! and see what God is doing in its confirmation at the present day. The prophecies of the last days are rapidly being fulfilled. Soon the great work of salvation for our race will be completed. Let us share in the work, before it is too late, and then in the great reward soon to be given. R. F. C.

ADMONITIONS AND WARNINGS: VS A CRY OF PEACE.

By Roswell F. Cottrell

Every true prophet of old had admonitions, reproofs, and warnings for the people. They were needed then, and still are at the present time. There never was a time when people could truly be told that they were all right and safe, and there was no need of reform, nor danger to be feared. On the other hand, it was ever a characteristic of false teachers to cry, Peace. Says the Lord, “Because, even because they have seduced my people, saying, Peace; and there was no peace.” See Eze. 13:10; Jer. 6:14; 8:11.

As it was anciently, so it is now. God sends his servants to sound an alarm, in order that his people may be prepared to escape coming judgments. Their work is opposed by a cry of peace and safety. Though the testimony of the word of God is that sudden destruction shall come upon such, and they shall not escape, yet they do not fear to array themselves on that side of the question.

At the time when the second coming of Christ is near, and all are admonished to watch in respect to that event, “lest,” he says, “coming suddenly, he find you sleeping,” he has described two classes of servants; one giving food to the household of faith in due season, that is, preaching the truth due at that time, which must of necessity be the doctrine of the advent at hand; the other soothing the world with an opposing strain, namely, “My Lord delayeth his coming.” And he opposes his fellow-servants, those preaching the truth for the time, eats and drinks with the lovers of pleasure, and, in a word, lives the life of an unbeliever. Said Jesus, “The Lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of, and shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites.” See Matt. 24:49–51.

Yet many a professed minister of the gospel of to-day takes his stand on that side of the question, and ventures to oppose the truth concerning the near advent with scoffs, and sneers, and ridicule; thus fulfilling themselves the prediction of an apostle, that there should “come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, and saying, Where is the promise of his coming?” 2 Pet. 3:3, 4. As the Jews fulfilled the predictions of the prophets, by rejecting and crucifying Jesus (Acts 13:27), so these venture to fulfill the apostle’s prediction, by scoffing at the doctrine of the advent. Well, these scoffers were to appear “in the last days,” and here they are. The wonder is that, in the face of the light in the fulfillment of signs and prophecies, they will venture to take the wrong side, fulfilling those parts of the prophecies which will tend to their own loss.

Since we are all fulfilling prophecy, let us choose the right side of the great question at issue. Let us receive and impart the “meat in due season.” “Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing.” R. F. C.

THE CREDULITY OF UNBELIEF.

It is often charged against the firm believer in God, and in the Bible as the word of God, that such a belief involves a large measure of credulity. And there are many who pride themselves on their freedom from credulousness, as evidenced in their refusal to believe in the personality of God, or in any explicit revelation of God to man. Yet it is a simple matter of fact, that the beliefs which are held to-day by many scientific and critical scholars who refuse to accept the Bible as the direct result of divine inspiration, and as the record of a revelation from God, involve a larger measure of credulity than would be necessary for the full acceptance of the Christian scheme, even on its face as a reasonable view of truth.

Modern science discloses a system and a progression in the order of nature, which are every way consistent with the idea of an Infinite Mind as the source of all that is. Modern science fails to find the possibility of even the lowest conceivable form of animal life, save as the outcome of a prior form of animal life. Yet many a modern scientist believes that life itself, and the entire order of the universe, somehow came to be, and keeps on being, as the result of a primal senseless wriggle, and of a spontaneous undirected movement of soulless matter. What credulity is shown in this belief, compared with that simple faith in God as the Author of life and as the Creator of the universe, which is exercised by him who accepts the Bible view of God and of the works of God!

Modern science shows that the one invariable distinction between the lowest type of mankind and the highest type of the inferior animals, is in man's capacity to conceive of spiritual existences as such, and to imagine the possibility of a revelation from the great Unseen. Modern research shows that no race of men has fallen so low, and that no race of men has risen so high, as to be without a belief in the existence of God, or of gods, or as to reject the thought of communication with the Divine. Yet there are scientists who believe that a man's glory as a reasonable being consists in his refusal to exercise the one capacity of his nature which distinguishes him from the brute; or who, again, believe that if there be a God, he is somehow the great Unknowable, incapable of revealing himself or a knowledge of himself to mankind. Refusing to accept the Bible record of God's revelation of himself to primitive man, as fully accounting for the beliefs and the perversions of belief concerning God among the various races of mankind, such scientists endeavor to account for these universal conceptions of God, as a natural evolution of ideas from the custom of pre-human animal existence. Thus Herbert Spencer, one of the finest specimens of the scientific credulous unbeliever, actually suggests that the ordinary salutations of mankind are developments of the customs of brutes. In an African tribe's habit of a man's throwing himself on his back and rolling from side to side, while slapping his thighs with his hands, Spencer finds a survival of a little dog's custom of throwing itself on its back with its legs in the air, when before a superior dog. And kissing as a social custom—as he views it—had its origin in a dog's habit of licking one whom he liked. Was there ever such credulity as this on the part of a believer in the Bible as a revelation from God?

Modern science has overturned the theories of former scientists as to the order of creation, and as to the history of the primitive human race; and it has approached more and more nearly to a complete verification of the record of that order and of that history in the early chapters of Genesis. Yet there are scientists and critics who actually believe that the origin of those chapters was in the wild fancies of primitive man's brain, and that, without any revelation from God, or any guidance of divine inspiration, that record, in its simplicity, in its comprehensiveness, and in its marvelous accuracy, was so made up in the long-gone centuries, as to shine only the clearer and the brighter in the light of the fullest scientific research of to-day. To accept this theory of the origin of Genesis, requires a measure of credulity transcending any which has ever been charged upon the simplest-hearted believer in the infallibility of the text of that book in its literalness.

Modern research finds, practically all the world over, a tradition of a departed golden day of man's primal purity, and a hope of an ultimate restoration of such a day. In ancient Egypt the serpent represents the embodiment of evil, and a struggle with that serpent is the chiefest work of the pre-eminent son of the gods. In India the thousand-headed serpent is a means of destroying the very world itself, at the close of each distinctive eon. In primitive North America, the serpent figures as a source of evil to all who share its nature, or who feel its powers. And these are but specimens of a world-wide similarity of symbolism. The idea of a tree of life is, again, as nearly universal in the race as the idea of the evil-symbolizing serpent. Accepting the Bible story of Eden, and the fall of man, and the promises of redemption as an inspired record of truth,—whether the references to the serpent and the tree as such are understood, as divinely intended, to be taken by the reader in exclusive literalness, or as fitting symbolisms of the truth,—all those perverted traditions of that primal truth are simple and natural. But there are scientists and critics who actually believe that primitive men everywhere, however circumstanced or trained, happened to imagine almost precisely the same state of things as to the beginning of evil in their race, with the employment of the same symbols of the serpent of evil and the tree of life. It requires wonderful credulity to be one of that class of believers.

Modern research has brought to light the so-called sacred books of the principal religions of the ages, and has laid them in comparison with the Bible as the Book of books. Not one of those books can be said, even by its warmest Christian admirers, to contain a single new truth; to be free from the teaching of gross error; to have a trustworthy historic value; or even to be composed in a large part of other matter than puerile absurdities. The best that can be said of any one of them is that it contains vestiges of primal truth. Yet there are both scientists and critics who speak of those books as if they had a similar origin to that book which furnishes in itself the proofs of its divine origin, and which in its substance commands the admirations of the loftiest human intellect, while its spiritual teachings satisfy the uttermost longings of the holiest human soul. The credulity which would put any one of the ethnic sacred books on a corresponding plane with the Bible, is in itself a marvel of marvels.

An unreasonable credulity is essential to an acceptance of the principal beliefs of the unbelieving scientist and critic of to-day. A reasonable faith is all that is required of one who believes in God, and in the Bible as the word of God. It is reasonable to believe that God is the Creator of all things. It is reasonable to believe that God, having created man with a capacity to conceive of his Maker, should make a revelation of himself to man. It is reasonable to believe that such a revelation of God, and of man's origin and destiny, as is found in the Bible as it stands, is the truth without any admixture of error. Credulity and faith stand over against each other for our choice. Man by searching cannot find out God; God by revelation discloses himself to man. “For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness [or the simplicity] of preaching [or the heralding of God's revelation of himself] to save them that believe.” 1 Cor. 1:21.—S. S. Times.

Beholding the Cross

ONE earnest gaze upon Christ is worth a thousand scrutinies of self. The man who beholds the cross, and, beholding it, weeps, cannot be really blind nor perilously self-ignorant.—Dean Vaughan.

The Trial of Faith

The trial of faith is the sure way of increasing it. We ask for more faith, and God tries what we have, and that is his way of answering prayer for its increase. He brings us into trials, so that we are compelled to look only to him for help. The life of faith is a wonderful life.

WINE AND THE BIBLE.—2.

By John Harvey Kellogg

BY J. H. KELLOGG, M. D.

THE BIBLE IN HARMONY WITH SCIENCE.

INSPIRATION, true science, and sound common sense always agree. Any apparent conflict arises either from a misunderstanding of the meaning of the language employed, or from an imperfect knowledge of the scientific facts supposed to necessitate a disagreement. Science says distinctly and unequivocally, All fermented drinks contain alcohol; alcohol is a poison under all circumstances and in all cases. The decision of science is sustained by that of reason; for common sense teaches that a substance with properties like those possessed by alcohol, can be nothing else than poisonous. If it is true that the Bible teaches that alcohol—in the form of wine, or otherwise—is good and harmless, then it will be made to appear that inspiration is less wise than reason and science; that man, the creature, has outstripped the Creator in knowledge.

Such a conclusion, though correctly drawn from the premises, is too absurd for belief by one who has a modicum of faith in inspiration; and its manifest falsity would seem to be sufficient to fully expose the weakness of those who make the Bible responsible for intemperance. The utter worthlessness of all arguments in favor of the use of alcoholic drinks founded on the Bible, becomes still more apparent by a careful examination of the character of the wines mentioned in the Bible, and a consideration in detail of the texts which are claimed to be favorable to the use of alcoholic liquors.

TWO KINDS OF WINE RECOGNIZED IN THE BIBLE.

It is undoubtedly true that intoxicating liquors are mentioned in the Bible; and it is equally true that a kind of liquor or wine is recognized and often mentioned which is not intoxicating. Ancient historians preserve the same distinction, making frequent reference to intoxicating wine and its effects, and also to unintoxicating wine and its wholesome properties.

Unintoxicating Wine.— The intoxicating property of wine is due to the alcohol which it contains. Wine which contains no alcohol is unintoxicating. Alcohol is produced only by fermentation. Wine which has not undergone fermentation, then, is unintoxicating, since it contains no alcohol. All that is required to preserve wine free from alcohol, and thus from intoxicating properties, is to prevent fermentation. That the ancients were acquainted with several modes of preventing fermentation, is clearly shown by reference to history. Ancient historians describe four principal methods of effecting this, which were as follows:—

1. Boiling. In order that sweet fluids should ferment, it is necessary that a certain amount of water should be present. If a portion of the water is removed, fermentation cannot take place. This is easily effected by boiling; and this method was very commonly practiced among the ancients. The fresh juice of the grape was boiled until a considerable portion of the water was evaporated. Sometimes the boiling was continued until the juice acquired the consistency of sirup. This same method is employed now in the preservation of cider, and the sweet juice of the maple-tree and the sugar-cane, which would speedily ferment and produce alcohol if left to themselves, but which can be preserved any length of time in the form of sirup or molasses.

According to Pliny and Virgil, the Romans preserved wine in this way. Pliny mentions wine which had been preserved in this manner and was perfectly sweet, and of the consistency of honey, though two centuries old. Aristotle states that “the wine of Arcadia was so thick that it was necessary to scrape it from the skin bottles in which it was contained, and to dissolve the scrapings in water.” Kitto says, “The Mishna [a collection of ancient Jewish writings held in the highest esteem by the Jews] states that the Jews were in the habit of using boiled wine.”

2. Filtration. The fermentation which develops alcohol in a sweet fluid by decomposing its sugar, is largely dependent upon the presence of albumen and certain impurities. These were carefully removed by repeated filtration, after which the purified juice was placed in bottles or casks which were carefully sealed, and buried in the earth or submerged in water, and thus kept cool and sweet.

3. Subsidence. The ingredients of fresh juice which aid in exciting fermentation, were also removed by keeping the juice sufficiently cool to prevent fermentation until they had settled to the bottom, when the clear liquid was poured off, and carefully bottled as after filtration.

4. Fumigation. Sulphur is a powerful antiseptic. The ancients were familiar with this fact, and often preserved the juice of the grape from fermentation by subjecting it to the fumes of sulphur, or by adding to it the yolk of eggs, mustard seed, or other substances containing sulphur. The same methods are now used for preserving cider.

The fresh juice of the grape, or any other sweet fruit, when treated in any of the above ways, is entirely free from any intoxicating property, and is not only harmless, but palatable and nutritious. Says Prof. M. Stuart, “Facts show that the ancients not only preserve their wine unfermented, but regarded it as of a higher flavor and finer quality than fermented wine.”

Intoxicating Wine.— As already stated, the intoxicating element of wine is alcohol, which is produced by the decomposition of sugar in the process of fermentation. Alcohol can be made from any juice which contains sugar. The ancients made intoxicating drinks from millet, dates, beans, palm juice, pears, figs, pomegranates, and other fruits besides the grape. These liquors were known to the Jews, and are frequently mentioned in the Scriptures. In Prov. 23: 31, we have a striking reference to the fermentation of wine, as follows, according to Dr. Kitto’s translation: “Look not thou upon the wine when it is turbid, when it giveth its bubble in the cup, when it moveth itself upright.”

RELATIVE STATISTICS.

The prohibition sentiment is making more rapid progress at the present time throughout the country than ever before. Already a number of State legislatures have passed bills providing for the submission of a prohibitory amendment to a vote of the people. In Michigan the amendment will be voted upon April 4, and the Sickle earnestly hopes to see it carried. The more this question of prohibiting the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquor is discussed, the stronger do the arguments appear in behalf of such prohibition. As containing some very convincing evidence on the subject, we give below an extract from an address delivered by Mrs. M. E. Pengelly before the State Convention of W. C. T. U. held at Manistee, Mich., a few months since:—

“I now turn to the published reports, acknowledged only approximately correct, as it is absolutely impossible to arrive at the definite amount expended in this liquor business. So much of dishonesty is resorted to to evade law, that it is truly a “herculean task” to dig into the depths and bring to light of day this nefarious business.

“First, then, from the report of the Auditor-General of Michigan, 1885, I learn the number of dealers

in liquor, wholesale and retail, including brewers, to be 4,180; amount of tax paid, $1,058,898.85.

“The expense to the State in 1885 of the following institutions over and above their earnings is as stated below:—

Institution	Amount
Detroit House of Correction	$2,030 81
State Public School	41,092 86
Michigan Insane Asylum	183,980 39
Eastern “	139,637 84
Appropriated for Building Northern Insane Asylum	152,266 46
Appropriated for Insane Criminals	26,940 92
State Reform School for Boys	74,055 72
Industrial Home for Girls	50,924 85
State House of Correction	129,204 23
Michigan State Prison	106,891 32
Poor-houses (very low estimate)	1,088,099 13
Jails, for arrest, board, and prosecution of criminals	541,000 00
Transportation of the same	33,360 47
Total Expense to State	$2,569,485 00
Total earnings of Prison, House of Correction, Reform School, Industrial Home for Girls and State Public School	132,002 69
Taken from gross expense leaves net total expense	$2,437,482 21
Good authority states that nine tenths of the net expense of these institutions are due directly or indirectly to the liquor traffic. But to be safe in these calculations, I place the percentage at three fourths, amounting to	$1,828,111 65
From which subtract revenue	1,058,898 85
Leaving net loss by liquor trade to taxpayers over and above all revenue	$769,112 80
Dead capital invested in these institutions, at a low figure	4,514,396 30
Three fourths at 5 per cent interest	169,289 86
Add the above loss	769,212 80
And we have a net total loss to taxpayers of the State of	$938,502 66

“Thus it is readily seen that for every dollar of revenue from the trade, it costs the tax-payer at least two dollars.

“The New York Tribune estimates that in the United States, labor fails to earn (through the drink habit) $200,000,000. Michigan being about one thirtieth of the population, on this ratio, fails to earn $6,666,666.

	Amount
The sum spent by consumers in Michigan last year is estimated at	$30,000,000 00
Add to this the failure of earnings	6,666,666 00
The three-fourths expense of humanitarian and penal institutions	1,828,111 65
The interest on three-fourths dead capital therein invested	169,289 86
And lastly, the amount paid for poor, made so by drink, and not otherwise reported	36,182 81
And we have before us this stubborn fact, namely, that the liquor trade, so often quoted by business men, and especially by political party leaders, as a source of revenue to the State, is an actual, annual source of poverty to an overwhelming amount, that for 1885 being	$38,700,250 32

Relatively the figures stand thus:—

	Amount
The liquor industry of the State pays into its treasury	$1,058,898 85
Takes out of the wealth of the State	38,700,250 32

“Appalling as are these figures, I cannot close this report without emphasizing the fact that the legalized liquor trade is not only accountable for this amount of values destroyed and lost to all legitimate lines of trade, and therefore largely responsible for the present state of society among the working classes, as evidenced by the strikes, boycotts, and anarchy of the day, but also for at least three fourths of the crime, and a large per cent of the idiocy and insanity of our State, to care for which we now have four asylums full, besides twenty-eight private institutions devoted largely to caring for the ruin of the trade!”

“These statistics should be sufficiently alarming to arrest the attention of every sober father, every intelligent business man, every Christian layman, and especially every minister of the gospel, who holds within his hand the power and the only power to dethrone this King of Crime, and arouse him to immediate action against this enemy of our government and our homes.”

In the light of the foregoing incontrovertible testimony, we fail to see how any voter, of even ordinary intelligence, can do otherwise than work for the passage of the prohibitory amendment.—Reader, study the foregoing statistics, and reflect upon their full significance.

Continue reading: DISPUTE BETWEEN THE BIBLE AND THE DOCTRINE OF THE IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL