THE business of manufacturing angels is carried on quite extensively and successfully in this country, if the popular theory of human psychology be true. A man recently murdered his wife in San Francisco, cutting her in a most brutal manner. At one of the first "interviews" held with him in his prison cell, he said, with a congratulatory air, that she is now an angel! And this is the manner in which angels are made, according to the popular theological belief. Is it, or is it not, a bad business to follow? Ought, or ought not, our government to provide for the protection, or perhaps for the reward, of those who take poor suffering creatures and turn them into glorious and happy angels?163Not long since a young woman married a brute of a man in San Francisco, on the very eve of his departure for the penitentiary, where he was sent for the murder of his wife. Perhaps she, too, wanted "to be an angel, and with the angels stand," and so she married a man who was in the angel-making business. But she will have to wait a while, as the Court which convicted him broke up his business for ten years.
Now in all seriousness, we protest against the (more than) folly of this theory of the origin of angels, by reason of which murderers are led to look at the blood of their victims with self-complacency. As long as inhuman monsters are led to believe that their action converted their victims into glorious and happy angels in Heaven, and they themselves are petted and flattered by silly fools, and society, and the laws permit it, so long may we expect that the murder of wives will prevail in the land. This sickly sentimentality is owing to a false theology, which is a disgrace to the name of Christianity. The heathenism of the Platonic school has been grafted upon the gospel of Christ; and the pall of the "dark ages" hangs over the churches of to-day, enfeebling their influence for good by perverting their faith and morals. A murderer stood upon his gallows in an Eastern city, under the instruction of his ministers, and expressed his gratification that he had been permitted to commit the crime which had thrown him under the influence of religious teachers, and had led him to discover his lost condition, and to receive the salvation of Christ. We are not only shocked at the depravity of the man who spoke thus, but at the immoral tendency of the religious teaching which leads to such an expression.
The Scriptures do not justify the idea that angels are of human origin, yet it is a common expression among religious people to speak of their dead friends as ever being with them as their "guardian angels." Bishop Bowman, in a sermon preached in Oakland when he was on his way to Japan, said he was not a Spiritualist; and the disclaimer was certainly needed, for any one who heard his reference to the loving calls of his glorified wife, would surely have supposed he was a Spiritualist in full faith. To degrade the angels of God, to whom the saints shall be equal in the resurrection, Luke 20:35, 36 (but are not now), by making them to be demons or dead men, is to blaspheme them that dwell in Heaven. Rev. 13:6. Heaven had its glorious inhabitants before man was created, for "all the sons of God shouted for joy" when the foundations of the earth were laid; Job 38:7. The cherubim were in the garden of Eden to keep the way of the tree of life before death had fallen upon man.
We regret to say it, but it is truth, that the theology of the schools, the popular belief of the present day, is responsible for the growth of Spiritualism, and all its kindred vagaries.
The Origin of Memorial Days.
By Editor
“THE first day of this kind was the day next after the six days' work of creation, called the Sabbath day, or rest day.
“Jesus said, the Sabbath was made for man. It was not made for some part or kinds of men, not for Jew or Gentile as such, but for man as man; for the whole human family. One seventh part of time should be a time of rest from labor. This was to be a memorial day, and to be observed with reference to the day on which God rested from his works.
“How much or how well this day was observed from Adam to Moses, we are not informed. Whether observed or not, it was equally binding. The observance of this day is one of the ten commandments. Ex. 20: “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.” This would imply that they had some knowledge of that day, and God commanded them to remember it. Then the reason for observing the day is stated: “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore, the Lord blessed the seventh day and hallowed it.” Therefore, it was to be observed as a memorial day; not because they were Jews, but because they were men; and the Sabbath was made for man. For another reason, the Jews were required to observe this day, viz.: because they had been delivered from their bondage in Egypt. The heathens might have had their memorial day. If so, it had nothing to do with what God required. The Lord gave particular directions to the Jews how this day should be observed. The reason of this might have been to distinguish this day from any days the heathen idol-worshipers might observe.”
The above is the opening of a lengthy article on the subject of the origin of memorial days, by Eld. J. S. White, which we find in the World's Crisis Supplement. It is a clear statement of an important truth which we are pleased that the readers of that paper have an opportunity to read.
After this testimony to the origin of the Sabbath, he gives the origin of the Sunday. Speaking of the various kinds of heathen worship, he says:—
“They worshiped the sun and moon. They had a day once a year in which they celebrated their reverence for the sun. That time was in December, when the days are shortest. They did that with reference to the fact that the sun was about to return and make the days longer. From this worship of the sun has come the word Sunday, which is applied by some to the first day of the week. This word is of heathen origin. Some good people who would not follow the example of the heathen, do religiously apply the word Sunday to the day on which Christ rose from the dead.”
Still he argues in favor of Sunday observance, in honor of the resurrection of the Saviour, though he is constrained to say: “There is no express command to observe that day.” Even so; and hence the observance is entirely unauthorized, a human innovation, erected as a Christian institution without any warrant of the Scriptures.
How the writer can find it in his conscience to observe a day which has no divine sanction, to the neglect of that which God himself instituted at creation, which was made for man, binding upon man from the very creation, we are at a loss to conceive. The Sabbath has no heathen origin, nor uncertain traditional footing. It rests upon God's example, God's blessing and sanctification, and God's commandment.
“Blessed is that 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.” Isa. 56: 2.
Who sanctified the first day? who commanded its observance? who pronounced a blessing on the man that keeps the Sunday?
“To the law and to the testimony; if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” Isa. 8:26.
Dimanche.
By John Nevins Andrews
(Concluded.)
IV.
It is by fraud that Ignatius, Theophilus and Irenaeus are made to call the first day the Lord's day.
But it is said that, although none of the sacred writers have given the name of Lord's day to the first day of the week, we have positive proof from the Fathers of the church that John intended to designate the first day of the week when he spoke of the Lord's day. The first of the Fathers who is quoted to prove that John must have meant the first day of the week when he spoke of the Lord's day, is Ignatius Bishop of Antioch. He was the disciple and companion of St. John. His testimony is taken from the epistle which it is said that he wrote to the Magnesians.
The words ascribed to Him are these: "No longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's day," This testimony is offered as decisive proof that Ignatius had learned from John to call the first day of the week the Lord's day. But there are two fatal objections to this argument. First, that the epistle to the Magnesians is by the general consent of scholars and critics condemned as a production which falsely pretends to be the work of Ignatius, but which was actually written in a later age. Second, that even this epistle would say nothing concerning the Lord's day were it not for an inexcusably false translation. The words of this epistle are "living according to the Lord's life," but this is translated "living in the observance of the Lord's day." But the writer of this epistle did not use the word hemera, day, but the word zoe, life. There is therefore no excuse for asserting that Ignatius calls the first day of the week the Lord's day; for it is only by means of fraud that he is made to do this. We shall speak more at length concerning Ignatius at another time.
It is also said that Theophilus, who became bishop of Antioch in A. D. 168, bears the following testimony:—
"Both custom and reason challenge from us that we should honor the Lord's day, seeing on that day it was that our Lord Jesus completed his resurrection from the dead."
Those who quote Theophilus give no reference to the particular place in his writings where this passage is to be found. I have carefully examined every paragraph of all the writings of this Father and that several times over without discovering any such statement. I am constrained therefore to state that nothing of the kind above quoted is to be found in Theophilus. The quotation is a fraud for which no excuse can be offered.
The testimony of Irenaeus is also cited with the utmost confidence as follows:—
"Hence Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, a disciple of Polycarp, who had been the companion of the apostles, says (A. D. 178), that the Lord's day was the Christian Sabbath. His words are, 'On the Lord's day every one of us Christians keep the Sabbath, meditating on the law and rejoicing in the works of God.'"
This witness is brought forward in a manner as to give the utmost weight and authority to his words. He was the disciple of that eminent Christian martyr Poly-164carp, and Polycarp was the companion of the apostles. What Irenaeus says is supposed by many to be as worthy of our confidence as though we could read it in the writings of the apostles. Does not Irenaeus call Sunday the Christian Sabbath and the Lord's day? Did he not learn these things from Polycarp? And did not Polycarp learn them from the apostles? What need have we of further witness that Lord's day is the apostolic name for Sunday? But I am obliged to say concerning this remarkable testimony of Irenaeus, that every word of it is a fraud. And I respectfully request those who think my statement false to specify the place in Irenaeus where such language can be found.
V.
Tertullian, A. D. 200, is the first who definitely calls the first day Lord's day.
It is not till we come to the time of Tertullian, A. D. 200, that we find any clear definite statement in which the first day of the week is called the Lord's day. Dr. Kitto says that we have in Tertullian the earliest authentic instance in which the title of Lord's day is applied to the first day of the week. Tertullian in his "Treatise on Prayer," chapter 23, says:—
"On the Lord's day of the resurrection [die dominico resurrexionis] we ought to guard not only against kneeling, but every posture and office of solicitude; deferring even our business, lest we give any place to the devil. Similarly, too, in the period of Pentecost; which period we distinguish by the same solemnity of exultation."
It is to be observed that Tertullian places what he calls the Lord's day in the same rank, with the festival of Pentecost: In his treatise entitled, "De Corona," sections 3 and 4, he gives us further important information. He says, We count fasting or kneeling in worship on the Lord's day to be unlawful. He also says that they honored the period from Easter to Pentecost in the same manner, and that they made offerings for the dead, and that in all the ordinary actions of daily life they traced upon the forehead the sign of the cross. Next Tertullian gives us the reasons why they observed the first day of the week as the Lord's day, and why they made offerings for the dead and the sign of the cross:—
"If for these and other such rules, you insist upon having positive Scripture injunction you will find none. Tradition will be held forth to you as the originator of them, custom as their strengthener, and faith as their observer."
As Tertullian furnishes us with the first authentic instance in which the term Lord's day is applied to the first day of the week, and as the application became general not long after his time, we are interested to know what reason he had for this use of the term Lord's day. He classes the observance of the day with offerings for the dead and with the use of the sign of the cross in the forehead, and then says that there is no scriptural authority for these things, and that they rest upon tradition and custom. If it be said that the authority given by Tertullian ought to satisfy us that Sunday is the Lord's day, we answer that, according to the same authority, we ought to make the sign of the cross in our foreheads and to make offerings for the dead. But it will be asked, Are there no authentic instances between the time of John and that of Tertullian, in which the first day of the week is mentioned? We answer, Certainly there are; but in none of them is a sacred title applied to that day.
Justin Martyr several times calls the first day of the week the day of the sun. He twice calls it the "day after the Sabbath," and twice also he calls it the "eighth day." The so-called epistle of Barnabas written probably as early as A. D. 140, calls the first day of the week the eighth day. And Bardesanes, about A. D. 180, calls it simply "the first day of the week." These men certainly mention the first day of the week, but it is evident that they knew of no sacred title for the day.
VI.
The Sabbath commemorates the work of Christ as the Creator.
It will be asked, "Is there then no means of determining what John meant by the term Lord's day?" We answer that the Bible furnishes us the most decisive testimony upon this point. John recognizes the fact that in the gospel dispensation the Lord claims one day as his, but we must decide by the Bible what day it is that is entitled to this high honor. It is not only true that the Lord has never called the first day of the week by the title of Lord's day, but it is also true that he has never in any way claimed that day as his day.
Has the Lord ever claimed any day as his? In the beginning God sanctified the seventh day, that is, he reserved it to himself by setting it apart to a holy use. The first six days of the week were given to man for the affairs of this life. But the seventh day was to be devoted only to the worship of the Creator. Gen. 2: 2, 3. When the moral law was given all this was renewed. God told the people that they might employ six days in their own affairs, but that they must devote the seventh day to him in memory of the creation. Ex. 20: 8-11.
Many centuries after this, God spoke to the people by the prophet Isaiah calling the Sabbath his holy day. Isa. 58: 13. About 800 hundred years after this, our Lord had a remarkable controversy with the Pharisees concerning the right manner to observe the Sabbath. He asserted that it was proper to perform acts of mercy on the Sabbath for those who are in distress. They asserted that it was necessary to neglect such cases in order to observe the Sabbath. He asserted his authority to decide with respect to the right observance of the Sabbath, by saying that the Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath-day. Mark 2: 28. Christ claimed the Sabbath as his day by virtue of its original appointment. His language that he is "Lord even of the Sabbath day," implies that he regarded this office as one of high honor.
It is not difficult to understand why this day should belong to Christ, and that he should be entitled to be called Lord of the Sabbath. The Sabbath was set apart to commemorate the creation of the heavens and of the earth, and we know that God created all things by Jesus Christ. Col. 1: 15, 16; Eph. 3: 9; John 1: 3. The Sabbath then was by divine authority entitled to the name of Lord's day when Christ dwelt among men; and it had been entitled to that high honor for more than 4,000 years.
It is a strange perversion of language to assert as many do, that if the Son of man is Lord of the Sabbath, it signifies that he must change or destroy the institution. On the contrary the Lord of the Sabbath must be the protector and guardian of that institution as being its rightful sovereign. The Sabbath day belongs to Christ as his day, because it commemorates the creation of the heavens and of the earth, and it was Christ by whom all things were created. These facts are recorded in the Bible. The distinction between the day which the Creator has reserved for himself, and the six days which he gave to man, is marked in the fourth commandment of the law of God; and as long as the law of God shall maintain its authority, so long will the seventh day remain the Lord's day, and so long will the first six days of the week remain appropriated to man's use as the six working days. Eze. 46: 1.
VII.
The Bible testifies that the Creator chose the seventh day and gave to man the other six; if he has since put away the seventh day and chosen one of the six, we must have the Bible and not tradition to assure us of this fact.
Since the time of Tertullian, the first day of the week has risen up to claim the title of Lord's day, on the authority of tradition, as Tertullian himself testifies. But the day itself is not more memorable in the history of Christ than is the day of his birth, recorded in Luke 2, or the day of his crucifixion, recorded by each of the four evangelists, or the day of his ascension, recorded in Acts 1. But no one of these days is the Lord's day, because the Lord has never claimed any one of them as his, and this is true with respect to the day of Christ's resurrection as it is with respect to the other three memorable days which we have here mentioned.
We have the authority of the Bible for asserting that the seventh day belonged to the Lord and the first six days belong to man. Those, therefore, who assert that the Lord has put away his holy day and chosen another, must bring forward the authority of the Bible, and establish the change with as great clearness as the original appointment is established. They must show that he has debased the day which he once sanctified and the day which he gave to the one of the six working days. They must show that he has elevated one of the six working days to be his holy, sanctified day. Those who think themselves capable of doing this are invited to undertake the task.
If the claim of the first day of the week to be called the Lord's day can be sustained from the Bible, let it be done. But if this be wholly impossible then let those who fear God, obey the fourth commandment instead of following the tradition by which the first day of the week is established. Finally, we say that it was in the highest degree proper, that that evangelist who begins his gospel with the declaration that Christ was with the Father in the beginning, and that by him all things were created, should speak of the day which commemorates that creation as the Lord's day.
From the Field.
INDIANA, Star City, March 20.—Three weeks ago I began meetings at the school-house here, which contains a large room 38x25. The room has been crowded every night, and God has stirred the people mightily by his Spirit. Twenty-five have thus far embraced the truth and begun the observance of the Sabbath. Among this number are those whose reputation for Christian love and character is untarnished. One of the wealthiest men here has determined to assist largely in the building of a commodious brick meeting-house, and several hundred dollars have already been offered toward the same.
Eld. Walker, of Kokomo, came here and desired a debate, but I refused to meet him until I had preached at least three weeks, at which time I was willing to meet him. He vehemently urged an immediate debate, but I replied that the people knew nothing of the truth that I was advocating, and prejudice was so strong that I desired time to remove it by preaching the truth. But he charged me with fear, etc., and preached here nearly one week, employing his time in stigmatizing the Sabbath of the Lord, and claiming that the ten commandments were done away. He also charged me with preaching an unscriptural doctrine concerning the soul, and finally claimed that the function of thought could exist without brains, i. e., a person can think much better without than with brains. I presume he referred to a spiritual brain. His preaching against the truth aided me considerably; for I could easily make the weakness of his arguments apparent to the people, and so hold up the present165truth in glorious comparison. Over one hundred were in attendance at our last Sabbath meeting, and last night the crowd was larger than ever, the house being literally packed. This is God's work. Pray for the work here.
A. W. Bartlett.
KANSAS, Lebanon, Smith Co., March 12.—Our work in this place is just finished, after nearly eight weeks. Since our last report, nine more have decided in favor of the truth, making in all fifteen, all heads of families, that have embraced the Sabbath and kindred truths since our coming here. Six of the above were addicted to the use of tobacco, but have discontinued the habit, according to 2 Cor. 7: 1. Six have united with the Lebanon church by baptism. With but few exceptions, this church is of good courage. Our stay in this place has been a profitable and pleasant one. The Lord has worked far beyond our expectations. When we are humble and consecrated, God works through us.
M. and H. Enoch.
MICHIGAN, Covert.—Came to Covert, and commenced a series of meetings March 10. Have given twenty-two discourses, to congregations ranging from fifty to one hundred and fifty attentive listeners. The interest here is excellent. Twenty have already signed the covenant, and we hope for more. We have held two Sabbath meetings, which were well attended, and many heartfelt testimonies were borne in favor of the truth. Have also organized a Sabbath-school, and sent for ten copies of the Instructor, with lesson books and hymn books.
R. C. Horton.
NORTH CAROLINA, Valley Crucis, Feb. 9.—I have made a hasty visit to the central part of this State. Have preached in several different counties. Some will keep the Sabbath of the fourth commandment. Could only preach to them—the power to compel to action is the province of the Holy Spirit. There are thousands in this State who never so much as heard that there was such a people as the S. D. Adventists. I feel confident from my experience that much and lasting good could be accomplished in this State if the work could be carried forward. There is an interest awakened in different localities. Found but little opposition, though a Methodist minister on one occasion disputed my word during a discourse. Many returned thanks for the discourses given, among whom were several ministers. I also visited some Sabbath-keepers in Wilkes county. Found them firm on the law and Sabbath, but they still belong to the First-day Adventists. We have no minister in this State who devotes all of his time to the ministry. The ministers are compelled to labor for their support. Pray for us.
S. H. Kime.
The Missionary.
By Stephen Nelson Haskell
The White Man and the Sandwich Islanders.
THERE are doubtless very few persons who are not more or less acquainted with the adventures of Captain Cook, in connection with the Sandwich Islands. It is well understood that civilization and Christianity go hand in hand, and while the white man boasts of carrying civilization to a greater state of perfection than any other race, the manner in which he has many times introduced himself to those who are uncivilized has brought great discredit on the cause of Christianity. Even the savages themselves are not guilty of more atrocious acts than have sometimes characterized white men in their dealing with native barbarians. To a great extent this was true of those who first visited the Sandwich Islands, although there were a few honorable exceptions. This, as will be readily seen, rendered the work of missionaries in after years far more difficult than it would otherwise have been.
While on a voyage of discovery in 1778, Captain Cook came in sight of several of these islands and dropped anchor near one of them. The natives having never before seen ships of any kind, or any people but themselves, were greatly astonished at the sight thus offered them. Having learned something of the value of iron from scraps which had been washed on shore, their attention was at once attracted to the large quantities which they discovered about the ship. Entirely ignorant of the persons who were paying them a visit, one of the natives proposed to go and seize this iron, and upon attempting to do so, was shot by one of the ship's company.
As the vessel moved about on the water, the natives very naturally concluded that it was a vehicle of some of their gods, and proceeded to render to the commander, Captain Cook, the homage which they supposed would please him, giving him the name of Lono, a Polynesian deity. Upon his landing and going on shore, some of the people bowed down and worshiped him; others fled away in fear. At length a priest approached him, and after placing a necklace of scarlet bark cloth upon his shoulders, stepped back and presented hogs and other offerings with rapid incantations and prayers; then leading him to their sacred temple, he worshiped him as one of their long acknowledged deities. The king also presented him with some of his most valuable articles, brilliant feather mantles, plumed rods, etc., showing him great respect. To this religious homage it appears that no objection was raised by Captain Cook, and for the favors received, he made but small returns.
The deluded natives were, however, soon undeceived by the overbearing, and in other respects criminal, course of the captain and his crew, and a spirit of resentment and hostility was aroused which resulted in a hand to hand fight, in which the captain, four of his men, and thirty of the natives were killed. Had the captain pursued an upright course, following the example of St. Paul at Lystra, a city of Lycaonia, Acts 14:8-18, no one can estimate the good that would have resulted therefrom. He would thereby have achieved great honor to himself, while an opposite course brought to him disgrace and death.
Although barbarians, and sunken in idolatrous degradation, the natives were at first unsuspecting of evil toward the white men, and seemed to be awed into reverential subjection by their superiority. Such was the influence of this tragedy upon the civilized world that for seven years no ship visited these islands.
In 1789 another revolting scene was enacted, in which savages were out-savaged by one Captain Metcalf, of the American ship Eleanor. While the watchman of the vessel, who was asleep in it, was stolen by two natives, the captain discharged the whole broadside of his vessel into the multitude which had assembled on the shore, thereby killing over one hundred defenseless, unresisting, and unoffending, natives, and wounding many others.
It requires no very lively imagination to form an idea of the impression which any people, however ignorant and degraded, would receive from acts of this kind, and of the barrier which they would erect against the introduction of Christianity. Yet men and women have possessed a degree of fortitude and self-sacrificing love for souls which has led them to leave all that was dear to them in a loved and peaceful country, in order to break down such barriers, and contend with vice, ignorance, superstition, and degradation for Christ's sake. Of missionary efforts on the Sandwich Islands we may speak at some future time.
S. N. HASKELL.
Amot, Sweden.
By John Gottlieb Matteson
We have continued the meetings here with good interest. Although the people are plain, and most of the men come to meeting with their black leather aprons on, yet they possess hearts ready to receive the truth; and willing hearts, with less intelligence and learning, are quicker to comprehend the word of the kingdom of God, than those that have more learning and less interest in heavenly things.
Last Sabbath a church was organized of nine members. Bro. Anderson was unanimously chosen and ordained elder. We were solemnly impressed on this occasion by the presence of the Spirit of God, and all felt thankful for his blessing. Monday evening we celebrated the ordinances, while sweet harmony and love united our hearts. The brethren, though comparatively poor, are willing to lay aside a tenth for the Lord, to help forward the mission.
The roads were very muddy, but recently we have had severe cold weather and snow. We had two meetings Sunday, the house being crowded with people. Many hearts were moved, and in the afternoon several expressed their desire and determination to serve the Lord. This was done with many tears, and prayers were offered and testimonies given.
Wednesday morning Bro. Rosqvist left for Grythyttehed. He had to appear in court Thursday morning, being again charged for transgressing the order of the church council. This time the penalty will no doubt be more severe than before. A proposition to change this law was presented before the legislature, and Bro. R. had hoped that it would pass, but before he left this place, intelligence was received that it had been voted against by the majority.
I still hold meetings. To-night will be the last this time. Then I go to Grythyttehed, the Lord willing. To-day two brethren united with the church by baptism. It was cold weather, but the Lord cheered and warmed our hearts by his truth and the blessed hope. Two more keep the Sabbath and meet with the brethren, which makes thirteen Sabbath-keepers. Pray for the blessing of God on his own work in old Sweden.
March 2. J. G. MATTESON.
Intemperance and Hard Times.
Mr. Grow, of Pennsylvania, in a pamphlet discussing the causes of financial panic, stated that in the three years, 1871, 1872, and 1873, nearly 20,000 miles of railroad were built, and argued that the sudden stoppage of railway building led to financial distress. He also found that in these three years, $98,000,000 worth of silk was imported, which he estimated was sold at retail for $200,000,000. But his "eyes were holden" so that he could not see that in 1872 there were consumed in the United States 33,828,806 gallons of distilled liquors, costing $735,728,048. So while he was poking about the ladies' wardrobes to hunt up $200,000,000 worth of silks, the dram drinkers, in the same three years, had spent for liquor $1,800,000,000, enough to build seven lines of railroad across the continent, each 3,000 miles long, at $20,000 a mile, put on $180,000,000 worth of rolling stock, build another railroad around the world, and put on rolling stock worth $100,000,000, and still have $600,000,000 to invest in silks for the ladies. This is a specimen of the "political economy" of which we hear so much at the present time.
Says the Decatur Sun: "Each inhabitant of the United States pays $2.02 for the support of the public schools, and over $40 per year to support the liquor traffic. The $2.02 a year tax, although spent for a good purpose, causes a great deal of grumbling and complaint; but when we say a word against the $40 tax, we are fools, fanatics, and agitators, and have no right to show it up and ask people who have to pay to vote against it."
Virginia drinks up her entire wheat crop annually, and it is stated that the liquor drank in Louisiana costs $47,000,000, or 2,000,000 more than its combined cotton, sugar, and rice crops.
Who wonders that men complain of hard times? Whisky will make famine and hard times in Ireland or anywhere else. Hundreds of poor savages in the frozen north have lately starved to death, because of the liquor sold there by traders from "Christian" lands, which caused them to spend their time in idleness instead of providing themselves food for winter.—Golden Censer.
Time's Lesson.
By Phillips Brooks
“Brethren, the time is short.” There is the fact forever pressing on us. Behold, it is no dreary shadow hanging over our heads and shutting out the sunshine. It is an everlasting inspiration. It makes a man know himself and his career. It makes him put his heart into the heart of the career which he knows to be his. It makes the emotions and experiences of life great and not petty to him. It makes life solemn and interesting with criticalness; and it makes friendship magnanimous, and the desire to help our fellow-men real and energetic. It concentrates and invigorates our lives. In the brightest, freshest, clearest mornings, it comes to us, not as a cloud, not as a paralysis, but as a new brightness in the sunshine and a new vigor in the arm.—Phillips Brooks.
A Thought for Self
A THOUGHT FOR SELF.—We talk so much, and we think so much more, of the trouble we have with others, that we more than half persuade ourselves that if everybody else were just right, we could get on pretty easily in life; but the fact is, that more than half—a great deal more than half—of all our troubles, even of our troubles with others, grows out of our own faults and our own failures, and not the faults and failures of other people; and the world would not yet be half right for us, when everybody was right except ourselves. Until we get rid of ourselves, or until we are lifted above all selfish thought of ourselves there is continual trouble for us, however other people bear themselves.—S. S. Times.
Whatsoever Thy Hand Findeth to Do
“Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might.”
Temperance.
By Editor
Christian Purity.
WHILE some religious teachers think that the church is out of place in requiring cleanliness as a requisite to membership, we are glad to see others stand for the right. The following from the American Baptist Flag is good:—
Read what God says: 2 Cor. 7:1: “Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.” And 1 Cor. 3:16, 17: “Know ye not that ye are the temples of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.” 1 Thess. 2:3-5: “For our exhortation was not of deceit nor of uncleanliness, nor in guile. But as we were allowed of God to be put in trust with the gospel, even so we speak; as not pleasing men, but God, which trieth our hearts. For neither at any time used we flattering words, as ye know, nor a cloak of covetousness; God is witness.” 1 Thess. 4:7: “For God hath not called us unto uncleanliness, but unto holiness. He therefore that despiseth, despiseth not man, but God, who hath also given unto us His Holy Spirit.” 2 Pet. 2:9, 10: “The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptation, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished; But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanliness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, self-willed.”
The central idea of the religion of Christ is purity, and it applies to the body as well as to the soul. Is it any wonder that God requires a pure temple to dwell in? Would we offer a dear friend, who came to see us, a filthy room to occupy? Nay, but we would provide for his reception with the greatest care. How much more careful should we be to furnish a pure temple for the Holy Spirit to dwell in.
We are to present our bodies a living sacrifice, and to keep under the body. Of course we include the passions, lusts, carnal affections, anything contrary to the principle of faith or the law of love, anything that would in any way supplant the stay of the Divine Being. Now how can a man be said to keep under the body, when at his leisure he must partake of that which, to a considerable degree, clogs the brain with a breathed smoke, and pampers the affections of the flesh?
Now the common use of tobacco is a most filthy habit to lungs, mouth, and clothes; it is a perfect stench. It is not necessary to see a pipe in a man's mouth to know whether he is a smoker; he literally stinks as he goes about, his very breath is fetid and loathsome. How can such uncleanliness be reconciled with the purity required in the above passages of Holy Writ, and indeed not by them only, but by the whole gospel? If cleanliness is a part of Christianity, it undoubtedly is, to be filthy is to be wicked; yet the common use of tobacco is extremely filthy and therefore sinful. Besides, God positively asserts in his word that he who dares to defile his temple shall be destroyed.
We do not expect anything better of horse jockeys and debauchers than that they should indulge in such filthy lusts of the flesh, but the children of God—the men and women who profess the holy religion of Christ—are expected to put away every unclean thing, and to abstain even from the appearance of evil.