Earlier text: The Armies of the LordBecause the Seventh-day Adventists are establishing a mission in New Orleans, it was thought best for us to take that city in our journey from the East to California. We had held meetings in Michigan, Ohio, New York, and Chicago. In every place our meetings were encouraging to those who attended. But the weather was severely cold most of the time and the thought of getting into “the sunny South” was very pleasing. The last day we spent in Chicago was one of suffering because of the intensity of the cold. We came to the conclusion that it is not duty to subject ourselves to the rigors of such a climate again. Had we the privilege of remaining at home and making provision for personal comfort it would be different. But in years past we have been used to much exposure, both in traveling in the cold and in tent-meetings, and it has so told on our system that we have concluded to avoid it hereafter as much as possible. But what we anticipated in regard to the sunny South was not to be realized. We were told that it had rained almost incessantly for a month previous to the time of our visit, and only once while we were there did the sun seem to make even a feeble effort to show its face. It was rain day and night. As the Exposition was in the Park in the south-west part of the city, where the streets are unimproved, the constant rains rendered them impassable except on the railroads, of which there are five lines to the Exposition grounds. This was a great detriment to the Exposition, both as regards the attendance and the preparation of the exhibits. We expected, from reports made in the papers, that there was much unfinished work in the Exposition, but we were surprised at the amount of it. In the “Government Building” there were a great many things unpacked, the allotted space not being prepared to receive them. Even many of the United States exhibits were unprepared, some lying around in confusion, and some not yet removed from the boxes. And the same was true of the Main Building. The noise of the saw and the hammer was heard in every direction. The Machinery Annex to the Main Building was sadly late, comparatively few machines being in motion. And the Art Gallery was not opened. Our interest was in the space allotted to our mission. And here again we were doomed to disappointment. The space was indeed secured, which was an important point gained, but nothing had been done to prepare it for mission work. However, the books and papers had but just arrived, and work commenced in its preparation January 26, the loss sustained was not what it seemed to be. Under Elder Haskell’s supervision the space promised to be ready before many others in its immediate neighborhood. The gallery of the Government Building is set apart to the “Educational Department.” Our mission room is in this department, adjoining the room occupied by the American Missionary Society. The location is desirable and we hope for good results from the effort. On account of the floods, traveling in the South was very uncertain, and by reason of failures to connect trains Brother Haskell did not arrive until Sabbath, January 24. On that day we held a meeting at the temporary residence of Brother Frost, in the grounds of the Bloomingdale Nurseries. It was a good time, and as Brother Daniels was present, and reported the remarks which were made, we shall notice it fully hereafter. A number of workers were present, who expressed a desire to more fully consecrate themselves to the work, and to do with their might that which may present itself to their hands. It was proposed to commence immediately in the city. It is not as easy work to canvass in New Orleans as in many other cities, but, as was well said at the meeting, doubtless the Lord has people in that city, and to those who labor in faith he will open the way to gain access to them. Of the exhibits in the Exposition we shall speak next week. We do not propose to give a notice of the great aggregate of articles on exhibition. It is an immense affair, and weeks, instead of a few days, would be required to take in the whole, and to barely mention them would require more room than we have to spare. It was our purpose to take items only of the State exhibits, as presented in the United States Building, generally called the Government Building. When we arrived in New Orleans and found that the mission was not in operation, and that Elder Haskell was not there, and no one could tell when he would be, we resolved to cut short our stay, and leave on Thursday evening, Jan. 22. But on going to the depot of the “Star and Crescent Route,” the agent informed us that the train would not go out on account of a washout in the road near the Texas line; and he could not tell us certainly when we could go. We appointed to return on Sunday afternoon to ascertain the state of the road. Thus we were permitted to meet Elder Haskell, and to speak to the friends gathered there. Sunday we improved all the time we could spare in taking notes of the exhibition, and went to the depot toward evening. We learned that we could pursue our journey by means of a transfer around the washout, though one official thought we would better enjoy a little more delay. But we were anxious to pursue our journey, and preferred the risk, whatever it might be. We arrived at Orange, on the Sabine River, the boundary line between Louisiana and Texas, about half past five on Monday morning. After waiting nearly two hours, we started down the river on an old freight boat, antiquated in appearance beyond anything of which we could conceive. We thought if any one wished to prove that steamboats were in use before the days of Fulton, he might forcibly present this boat as evidence. However, it safely carried us down the river into Sabine Lake, and across to the mouth of Neches River, and up this to Beaumont, twenty-two miles from Orange by the railroad, but a ride of full six hours around by water. Our “time” at Houston was 9 A. M., but we arrived there late in the afternoon. Then our train was canceled, and we lay there until 9 the next morning, thus losing twenty-four hours in the transfer. The washout was between the two rivers. The Tuesday morning express carried us onward, and this day we saw some fine country in Texas. Between Houston and San Antonio the land is excellent; not subject to floods as the country through which we had passed, and cotton and sugar plantations abound. But as we near the Rio Grande (Grand River) the scene changes. The land is suited to grazing, not to tilling. Along the river it is high, dry, and hard. Here the river runs through a cañon, bold and grand, presenting an appearance quite different from that which it presents farther up, in New Mexico. For some distance the railroad runs in this cañon, about midway between the water below and the summit of the bank above. Across the river we view the largest of the Mexican States—Chihuahua. (Pronounced Che-wha-wha. Ch as in church; i as e, and then nearly as if saying what, what, dropping the sound of t; accent on the second syllable.) Aside from this the journey by this route is rather monotonous, and the scenery uninteresting. And now we feel that we have great reason to express sincere thanks to the God of all mercy and grace for his kind preserving care over us these past months. In the very arduous labors of the General Conference, and the meetings held in several States since then; in the intense cold of the North and the excessive wet of the South; and in the delays and discomforts of the journey, our life and health have been preserved, and we return to our labors with an abiding faith in God and his truth, and with a determination to dedicate anew our powers to the work of the spread of “the present truth.” And we are truly thankful also that the Lord has blessed and aided those who have labored in the office in our absence. The SIGNS OF THE TIMES is growing in favor with its many thousands of readers, and we trust it is fulfilling its mission as a disseminator of the religion of the Bible. Protestants, or Not? No. 2.
By Alonzo T. Jones
The second point upon which the practice of Protestants can be brought to the test of Protestant principles is the Sunday sabbath. With but two exceptions (Seventh-day Adventists and Seventh-day Baptists), all Protestants keep Sunday, the first day of the week, as the Sabbath. But it is with this, as it is with the idea of the immortality of the soul, instead of Sunday-keeping being in harmony with Protestant principles, it is in defiance of them. The word of God furnishes men with the only account of the institution of the Sabbath. That word likewise gives to men, in plain terms, the law of God which regulates the institution. Here it is:— “Remember the Sabbath-day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.” Ex. 20:8–11. This is the only Sabbath law that there is in the world. It commands the observance of the seventh day. Every reason, every provision, of the commandment has reference solely to the seventh day; and it is subversive of the commandment to make any part of it apply to any other than the seventh day of the week. To this agrees the word of God, the whole word of God. The person who obeys this commandment as it is written, can give to every one who asks why he keeps the seventh day for Sabbath, the excellent answer, The word of God commands it. It is not so with the Sunday. To the question, Why do you keep Sunday? no man can answer that the word of God commands it. In all the Scriptures there is neither authority nor reason given for the practice of keeping Sunday. And instead of the practice being directed by the Bible, the Bible is made to conform to the practice. Men have grown up in the practice of keeping Sunday, and when their attention is called to the fact that Sunday is not Sabbath at all, and the plain words of the commandment are cited and supported by the unanimous testimony of the Bible, instead of at once correcting their conduct by the Scripture, they set to work most diligently to contrive something by which they can make it appear that the practice is right. And in this contrivance to save appearances, there is nothing too far-fetched, nothing too illogical, nothing too puerile to be accepted with avidity, if there is any possibility of making it in any way effectual. One of the most common of these contrivances is usually expressed in about this formula: My father105 and mother, my grandfather and grandmother, and all my people kept Sunday, and I guess if they are saved I can be. But such argument is very defective. 1. It makes the actions of men, instead of the word of God, the standard of duty. It is guided by what men have done, rather than by what they should have done. 2. It rests upon the idea that we can be as good as our fathers were, by doing simply what they did. This is a very serious mistake, a mistake which should be well understood, and which we shall endeavor to point out. The principle that governs the acceptance of all our actions is expressed in this scripture: “If there be first a willing mind, it is accepted according to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not.” 2 Cor. 8:12. And it is illustrated in the Saviour’s words: “If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin; but now they have no cloak [margin, excuse] for their sin.” John 15:22. These people living according to what light they had, were accepted of God, but Jesus came speaking the word of God as never man spake, which their fathers had not heard, bringing great light which their fathers had not seen, and when they rejected this light, this additional truth, they had no excuse for their refusal to receive it. And the words of Jesus that “they have no excuse for their sin,” is a plain notice to all people that each one individually is responsible for the truth which is brought to his notice, and that the Lord will accept no excuse for its rejection. In the Judgment the question to us will not be what our fathers did, but what did we. The work of the Reformation has been progressive. From the extreme darkness into which the world had been plunged by the supremacy of the papal church, the light of the truth of God has been advancing step by step, from the energetic protest of Luther and his associates, through the like action of his successors, until our own day. And they who still endeavor to carry forward the work of the Reformation are the true Protestants. But as we have before shown, this can be done only by persistently asserting the supreme authority of the Bible, the word of God, the whole word of God, and nothing but the word of God. And when, in the onward march of the Reformation, additional light shines forth from portions of the word of God, when truths are brought forth which have hitherto been in obscurity, it is the most un-Protestant of all actions to present the plea that our fathers did not do thus and therefore we need not, and thus seek to evade the truth and refuse to walk in the light. If such a plea be allowable at all it were so in the ages that have gone before, and the Reformation would have ended where it began; nay, it never could have even begun. So such argument, logically considered, lands us plumply upon Catholic ground; in fact, the same argument was used by the Catholic defenders in their opposition to Luther and his work; in short, it is a Catholic and not a Protestant plea. It is true that the Jews were a stiff-necked and rebellious people, but that is only to say that they were human. Yet, though they were often rebellious, they were, likewise, at times, willing and obedient; and one of these occasions of their willing obedience is one of the most apt illustrations of this subject that we find in the Bible. In the eighth chapter of Nehemiah, after the people had returned from Babylon, we read that they all gathered together as one man into the street, and spake to Ezra “to bring the book of the law of Moses, which the Lord had commanded to Israel. . . . And he read therein . . . from the morning until midday; . . . and the ears of all the people were attentive unto the book of the law. . . . And on the second day . . . they found written in the law which the Lord had commanded by Moses, that the children of Israel should dwell in booths in the feast of the seventh month; and that they should publish and proclaim in all their cities, and in Jerusalem, saying, Go forth unto the mount, and fetch olive branches, and pine branches, and myrtle branches, and palm branches, and branches of thick trees, to make booths, as it is written. So the people went forth, and brought them. . . . And all the congregation of them that were come again out of the captivity made booths, and sat under the booths.” Now here is the point: “For since the days of Jeshua the son of Nun unto that day had not the children of Israel done so.” Certainly there, if ever, the plea would have been justifiable, that “our fathers did not do this, and why should we?” for since the days of Joshua—under Gideon, and Barak, and Samson, and Jephthah, and Samuel, and David, and Elijah, and all the prophets but Malachi—the children of Israel had not done this, and these knew it. But they asked no question, they made no plea, about what their fathers had done; here was the duty plainly written, and when they read it they immediately set about obeying it. The word of God said it, and that was enough. It was their duty to do it, if never a person in the world had done it. So it is with us. The word of God says plainly “the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work.” So far as we are concerned, it is our duty to keep the seventh day—the Sabbath of the Lord—whether our fathers kept it or not. Yea, even though it had never been kept by a man in this world, it would be just as absolutely our duty to keep it as though it had been kept by every person who ever lived in the world. God has commanded it, it is therefore our duty; and we repeat, our duty is to be regulated, not by what men have done, but by what they should have done; by the commandment of God, and not by the actions of men. Unwavering loyalty to the word of God is the sum of the Christian religion, and of Protestantism. These principles are indisputable. They are genuine Protestant principles, but before them the institution of the Sunday sabbath cannot stand for a moment. This is clearly proven by the methods employed in defense of Sunday-keeping, the most prominent of which is the universal appeal to the so-called Christian Fathers. One of the fundamental principles of Protestantism is, “We are not to take the Fathers to throw light on Scripture, but Scripture to throw light on the Fathers.”—D’Aubigne, Reformation, Book 9, chap. 5. Yet, in defiance of this principle, all Protestant denominations appeal to these Fathers in support of the Sunday institution, and by that very thing they demonstrate that they are not Protestants. And that is not all. Stuff that the Fathers never wrote is passed off as theirs, and held up as of authority which we are to accept in matters which concern our salvation. It makes no difference, however, whether the Fathers wrote what is attributed to them or not; what they did not write is of just as much authority as what they did write, and that is, of no authority whatever. Suppose that Ignatius, Irenæus, Clement, Origen, etc., even the whole gang of the Fathers, had said, The first day of the week is the Sabbath, would that prove that it is so? Not by any means. It would simply prove that they said what is false, that is all. The word of God says, “The seventh day is the Sabbath.” That word is truth, and when men say anything that differs from it, they say that which is false. Luther says of the Fathers:— “When God’s word is by the Fathers expounded, construed, and glossed, then, in my judgment, it is even like to one who straineth milk through a coal-sack, which must needs spoil and make the milk black; even so likewise God’s word is of itself sufficiently pure, clean, bright, and clear. But through the doctrines, books, and writings of the Fathers it is very sorely darkened, falsified, and spoiled.” “Although it becometh not me to censure the Fathers, yet, notwithstanding, the more I read their books, the more I find myself offended; for they were but men, and (to speak the truth) with their repute and authority they did undervalue and suppress the books and writings of the sacred apostles of Christ.” “Among all the writings of the Fathers, I took most delight to read St. Austin’s [Augustine’s] works; but since the time that (by God’s grace) I understood St. Paul, I could esteem nothing of any Father whatsoever; they are all of very small value.”—Luther’s Table-Talk. “How often did not Jerome commit mistakes! how often Augustine! how often Ambrose! how often do they differ in opinion! how often do they retract their own errors! . . . There is only one volume inspired by the Spirit of Heaven, pure and true throughout. . . . There is a philosophy enjoined us in regard to the Book of God; and it is, to employ it as the touchstone by which all the opinions and maxims of men must be tried.”—D’Aubigne, Reformation, Book 5, chap. 7. We will again quote D’Aubigne’s words, for they are peculiarly applicable at this time, and especially in this connection:— “We are not to take the Fathers to throw light on Scripture, but Scripture to throw light on the Fathers. The Reformers and the apostles held up the word of God alone for light, just as they held up the sacrifice of Christ alone for righteousness. To attempt to mix up human authority with the absolute authority of God, or human righteousness with this perfect righteousness of Christ, is to corrupt Christianity in its two foundations. Such are the two fundamental heresies of Rome, heresies, moreover, which some teachers would fain introduce, though, doubtless, in a modified form, into the bosom of the Reformation.”—Id., Book 9, chap. 5. Through the channel of the Sunday-sabbath institution, this which he calls heresy, this “attempt to mix up human authority with the absolute authority of God,” has at last found a large place in “the bosom of the Reformation;” so large, indeed, that when that shall succeed which its most earnest advocates are laboring to accomplish, namely, a penal Sunday law, that which passes as Protestantism will be, not such, but an exact image of the papal church. We see, then, that the language used to express and explain that Sunday, or the first day of the week, is the Sabbath, is not the language of the Bible; that in support of this institution the Bible is not explained by itself, but by tradition and the Fathers, and contrary to itself; and that so the sufficiency of the Scripture is virtually denied; and, as quoted last week, “Those who deny its sufficiency are not in principle Protestants,” therefore it is inevitable that all who maintain the doctrine that Sunday, the first day of the week, is the Sabbath of the Lord, are not Protestants. A. T. JONES. The Locusts Eaten by John the Baptist
By J. O. C.
A CORRESPONDENT asks: “Will you please explain in the SIGNS what kind of locusts were eaten by John the Baptist?” The Old Testament law that distinguished between clean and unclean meats gave permission to eat locusts, which the record (Lev. 11: 21–23) says were “flying creeping things.” At the present time the locust is still eaten by the poorer classes in the East, no doubt on account of the Levitical law originally pronouncing them “clean.” Reference to locusts is made but four times in the New Testament; twice it is said they were a part of the food of John the Baptist, and twice they are alluded to in Rev. 9, as symbols of a devastating power. In these last references to them, they are represented as having wings and flying. The same Greek word is used in describing the food of John the Baptist as is used in the symbolical references, showing that the same thing is meant. In the markets of Bagdad dried locusts are now found on sale, which are deemed delicious food in that country. There is no doubt that these insects constituted part of the Baptist’s food. J. O. C. The “Signs” Canvass.
By John Norton Loughborough
THE SIGNS OF THE TIMES is so well calculated to instruct and benefit its readers that we desire to see its circulation greatly increased. There are thousands of homes to which it should be a weekly visitor, that, as yet, know nothing of the paper or its mission. A good work has already been done in obtaining subscribers for the paper; but this work should be pushed still more vigorously as we approach the perils of the last days. In the past, canvassers for the journal have been either those who were able to give a portion of their time, or else were paid for their services as colporters by their respective Conferences. This plan was devised because at the low figures at which the SIGNS is offered, the publishers could not pay canvassers or agents. It should be borne in mind that the SIGNS has no paid advertisements, but that its columns are filled, almost exclusively, each week with new reading matter; so that, while the expense of preparing it for print is much greater than that of other religious papers which insert standing advertisements, its receipts are much less in proportion. Its sole income is from subscriptions. Some Conferences find that with their numerous workers, their funds are not sufficient to settle fairly with both ministers and colporters. I am gratified to learn that our late General Conference so fully considered this matter, and that plans were devised which must bring relief to the Conference treasury, and prosperity to the workers. The proposition to club the book called “Sunshine at Home” with the SIGNS, at such terms as to give the canvasser a fair profit, is a good one, and I do not see why it may not prove a means of great good. By this means the colporters can support themselves, while pushing the canvass for the SIGNS. The book has given great satisfaction to the thousands who have already purchased it. Many of these have spoken and written of it to their friends, so it is not like107 introducing a book on which the market has not been tried. It is an attractive and useful volume, whose pioneer work is done, and it has become quite popular. I hope we shall see all the members on the Pacific Coast taking hold of this canvass. I see no reason why thousands of names may not be added to the list of SIGNS subscribers. As the pressure of tax-paying time is over, and business begins to look up, and prices for produce to advance a little, people will not feel quite so near bankruptcy. It seems to me that earnest canvassers, who now, with cheerful hearts and smiling faces, come to the homes of the people with the SIGNS and “Sunshine at Home,” will meet with many a kind reception. Of course the canvassers must expect varied experiences, and more or less repulses; but if their hearts are imbued with the spirit of the truth for this time, and the uppermost thought in mind is, that in introducing this journal they are scattering precious seeds that may lead souls to God’s kingdom, angels of God will go with them, and success must be the result. Who will respond at once to the call that is being made in this direction? Who? The “Pacific” and the Sunday Law.
By Alonzo T. Jones
The Pacific, of February 4, is out with a defense of the positions of the Congregational Club, which we discussed in the SIGNS of January 22. In defense of the efforts for the re-enactment of the penal Sunday law in California, it attempts the usual distinction between the civil and the religious aspect of the day, and with the usual degree of success. It says:— “Nothing needs to be made plainer than the distinction between civil Sunday and Christian Sunday.” It is true that, under the circumstances, nothing needs to be made plainer, but it is a fact that no one who claims such a distinction has ever succeeded in making it plain. Most assuredly it is not made plain in the address of the Ministerial Union. In that there is no hint of a “civil Sunday,” but of a religious one solely. We quote:— “The friends of the Christian Sabbath are deeply pained in witnessing the high-handed and defiant desecration of all that is sacred and righteous in this holy day. It is hostile to our religion.” Will the Pacific please take this passage and point out the distinction in it between the civil Sunday and the Christian Sunday? Or will the Pacific take the complete address, as printed in its own columns, and show in it any such distinction at all? In view of these terms, “desecration,” “sacred,” “righteous,” “holy day,” “hostile to our religion,” as used in the address, the plea of the Pacific that the Sunday law is to be “in the interest of such ends” as “health,” “good order,” “the freedom and stability of the commonwealth,” etc., is most lame and impotent. “The fourth commandment, which designates one day of the seven as specially dedicated to God, remains in our Bible, and we propose to recognize its authority and its wisdom.” Yes, they are going to recognize the authority of the fourth commandment, by violating it at every opportunity. They propose to recognize its wisdom by totally disregarding it. See:— “But it is an undeniable fact that that weekly day, in the Christian Church, came to be observed on Sunday rather than Saturday. This was brought about by no express law. It was a spontaneous tribute.” Here is a plain admission that the fourth commandment enjoins the observance of Saturday; but with “no express law,” by simply “spontaneous tribute,” the Christian church disregards the day enjoined by the commandment, and substitutes Sunday instead. They will break the commandment of God, and then mend the matter by their own merit! They will commit sin and then atone for it by their own “voluntary tribute”! And in this way they propose to recognize the authority of the fourth commandment! Dear Pacific, when you get your penal Sunday law, will you allow us to recognize its authority in this way? If you will we shall be glad. Further, if such is your idea of proper recognition of the law of God, will you please point to a person in this wide world who does not “recognize” its authority? In our discussion of this subject before, we said: “Nothing can be duty toward God, that has not been commanded by God,” because of the words of Christ, “When ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say . . . we have done that which was our duty.” And, “Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man.” We stated that, as man can do no more than his duty, and as the commandments of God contain his whole duty, therefore nothing can be duty that is not commanded. The Pacific notes this argument and says:— “The voluntary tribute of grateful hearts to the Redeemer is obedience to command. For gratitude to the Saviour is certainly a duty.” Yes, gratitude to the Saviour is undoubtedly a duty. But we wish to inquire by what principle of righteousness it can be that one duty can do away with another. How is it that gratitude to our Saviour can supplant obedience to our Creator? Is it true that we must disobey God in order to obey Christ? that we must dishonor the Father in order to honor the Son? Is gratitude to Christ, and his salvation from sin, best displayed in contempt of God, and his law by which is the knowledge of sin? But this is not all; these people are not content to thus show their own “gratitude;” they want to compel everybody else to show their gratitude in the same way. If they would content themselves with showing their “gratitude” in their own way, and allow others equal liberty, we should not have so much cause of complaint; but when they propose to compel us by fine and imprisonment to show our gratitude in their way, then we most decidedly object. ALONZO T. JONES. The Coming Issue.
By Stephen Nelson Haskell
It is now about thirty years since the position was taken by those looking for Christ to come the second time to this earth that the prophecy of Rev. 13, respecting the two-horned beast, applies to the United States. At that time there was but little outward evidence that this country, established by those who fled from the persecutions of a State religion, would ever be brought to enforce religious dogmas by law. The people said, We want a nation without a king; we want a church without a pope; we want a land of freedom, where all can worship God according to the dictates of their consciences. This was their sentiment, as it is to-day the sentiment of every person who loves gospel liberty. Our Saviour said that his kingdom was not of this world, but the truths and principles which he taught were to so change the heart and transform the person that, so far as they were received, the spirit of enforcing laws to bind men's consciences, would not exist. But as the churches lose the Spirit of Christ, the same road that other nations have traveled in instituting laws to destroy religious liberty, is being followed by this Government, through political and other agencies. A work published by R. L. Fletcher, entitled, “The Great Temperance Controversy,” gives no uncertain sound upon this question. The author seems to think that could this nation engraft religion into its Constitution, it would thus become elevated and ennobled, even to the standard of the Christian religion itself. On page 42 he says:— “I recognize that temperance legislation is Christian legislation, that it is a master stroke of policy for the advancement of Christ's kingdom. And when that is done, what may we not expect will follow? We may then expect a constitutional amendment for the protection of the holy Sabbath day. And then, following closely upon the heels of that, a constitutional amendment recognizing the Christian religion. And when these things come to pass, we will have practically and essentially a union of church and State.” Again, on page 89, he says: “Commonly, intelligent men have said, Keep temperance out of politics, and they shrink with a devout horror from the thought that the Sunday law is going to be made a political issue, and that this mooted question is going to be settled at the polls and by the ballot in the hands of free voters.” “It is but a question of another decade when we will have an enforced statute and constitutional law protecting the sanctity of our Sabbath and shielding the sacredness of our holy religion.” “A State religion is not only admissible, but it is right, and will be an inevitable achievement of the near future. Mark my prediction. You cannot keep temperance, you cannot keep the Sunday question, you cannot keep religion out of politics.” In speaking of the character of a government into which religion has been engrafted, he says that it will be “at least an infinitely better, purer, and nobler standard of human government than the one in which we are governed in this day and century. And if the truer and loftier conception of the civilian and statesman in that age demands a changed, an improved, or even a new Constitution for our National Government, they will get what they demand, even though it should be purchased by the blood of patriots.” These are the views of those who are contending so strongly on the temperance question. The Sunday question and the temperance question are inseparably connected. If this movement succeeds, it can readily be seen how it will affect those who claim the privilege of keeping God's commandments as he spoke them on Mount Sinai. There are certain principles which underlie all practical reforms, and were these principles adhered to they would work a reform in the heart without compulsion. Our Saviour did not compel men to worship him. “Whosoever will, let him come.” But as men lose the grace of God, they feel the necessity of appealing to some other power to make men religious; and when recourse is had to law, liberty of conscience is taken away. Toward this condition we as a nation are fast drifting. It is before us; and if we are prepared for it, it will be because we have placed our feet in the path of God's commandments, and have kept the faith of Jesus.