Your ShelfYour Projects

Signs of the Times, Vol. 10, No. 36.

The True Object of Education
Earlier text: The True Object of Education

Did Christ Observe the Seventh-day Sabbath?

By E. Hilliard

SOME say that he did, others say that he did not. We have no other standard but the Bible by which to test these opinions, so let us see what it teaches respecting this question.
After our Saviour had restored sight to the man who was born blind, the Jews accused him of desecrating the Sabbath. Many persons take sides with the Jews and claim that Christ did this miracle and others on this day, to show that he no longer regarded the Sabbath that the Jews observed, as holy time. They say that he was preparing the minds of the people for the reception of a new sabbath which he was about to institute. If those wicked Jews were the only ones who said that the day upon which this marvelous cure was effected was the Sabbath, there might be a deeper shade of reason in the above position; but there is better and clearer testimony. The apostle who penned this narrative some sixty-three years after Christ's resurrection, calls the same day the Sabbath. Hear his words: "And it was the Sabbath day when Jesus made the clay and opened his eyes." John 9:14. He does not say that it was the day that the Jews called the Sabbath, or that it used to be the Sabbath, but plainly says it was the Sabbath day.
Again: When Jesus was about to heal the man with a withered hand, the Pharisees kept their eyes on him to see whether he would heal on the Sabbath, that they might accuse him. They asked him, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath days?" There was no dispute between Christ and the Jews respecting the day being the Sabbath, but it was in reference to whether healing was a work that was proper to be done on that day. After the Saviour had shown to them that it was a work of mercy, and therefore perfectly proper to be performed on the sacred day, he answered their question in the following words: "Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the Sabbath days." Matt. 12:10-12. We justly infer from Christ's answer here that the violation of the Sabbath consisted in going contrary to some law that enforced it. Webster defines lawful—"Constituted by law; conformable to law." From this we must conclude that Christ observed the Sabbath enjoined by the law given on Sinai, for this is the only instrument whatever, in the whole Scriptures, that enforces the Sabbath by lawful measures.
Matthew, who wrote six years after the resurrection of Christ, mentions the first day of the week in contradistinction from the Sabbath: "In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn towards the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulcher." Matt. 28:1. We also learn in Acts 13:42 that some thirty years after the resurrection both the Jews and the Gentiles repaired to the synagogue on the Sabbath to hear Paul preach. After the Jews had gone out, the Gentiles went to Paul and invited him to preach the same words to them the next Sabbath. Nearly the whole city came together at the appointed time. "And the next Sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God." Verse 44.
Some tell us that the reason these meetings were held upon the seventh-day Sabbath was that it presented a more favorable opportunity for Paul and Barnabas to preach Christ to the Jews. On this very occasion these people became envious and contradicted Paul and his fellow-laborer, and even blasphemed. Then these noble men waxed bold and addressed these wicked Jews in the following manner: "It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you; but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles." Acts 13:46. Now after they had rejected the gospel, and these apostles had turned to the Gentiles, there was no obstacle in the way of proclaiming a new sabbath, if, indeed, one had been instituted. But no hint is given of any such thing. We have learned, on the contrary, that Christ kept the Sabbath of the fourth commandment, and that inspired writers called the same day the Sabbath many years after Christ was raised from the dead.
Dear reader, let us obey the teachings of the word of God, and follow the example of our blessed Saviour, no matter if the whole world should stand against us. E. HILLIARD. Medford, Minn.

The Death of the Righteous

“LET me die the death of the righteous, and let my last end be like his.” So prayed a man who had opportunity to know the value of the blessing which he sought. And yet he died as the fool dieth, simply because he, while desiring the peaceful death of a righteous man, was not willing to live the obedient, self-denying life of the righteous man. Although this happened several thousand years ago, it is still the law of life and death, and is likely to be to the end of time.—Sabbath Recorder.

Trust in God's Love

No ONE who is thoroughly convinced of God's love, can withhold implicit trust.

A Union of Catholics and Protestants as a Possibility of the Future.

IN the February number of the Century magazine, there is a suggestive article in the editorial department discussing the possibilities and probabilities "of a reunion in the future between the Roman Catholic and the Protestant bodies."
The discussion of that subject in such a place is peculiarly significant, because the Century, though a secular periodical, has always been conducted with special reference to meeting the tastes and steering clear of the prejudices of the average Protestant public. Its original editor, Dr. Holland, was a strict Calvinist, and its chief owner and manager, Mr. Roswell Smith, is a prominent and pronounced Presbyterian.
The Century takes for its text the celebration of the four hundredth anniversary of Luther's birth, which, it says, brought to view the fact that "the religious reformation of the last four centuries has not been confined to the Church of the Reformers. A constant reformation in discipline, if not in doctrine," it thinks, "has been going on in the church" assailed by Luther.
So premising, this Protestant exponent shows that bonds of sympathy are now joining Catholics and Protestants to a degree which twenty-five years ago could not have been anticipated. It sees especially the growth of a feeling that these two bodies of Christians need to be united to resist the onset of modern infidelity.
"As the conflict with materialism and agnosticism has been waxing hotter and hotter," to use the words of the Century, "it must have become evident to intelligent Protestants that they have in the Roman Catholic theologians a strong body of allies with whom they ought to maintain friendly relations. It is not Protestantism, nor the papacy, nor Calvinism, nor Trinitarianism, nor any other secondary Christian dogma, that is now on trial," it says further, but "whether there is any such thing as religion—whether there is a conscious God, and a life beyond the grave, and a free will, and a moral law."
The Century also renders just tribute to the exalted ethical standards of the Roman Church, and to its courage and consistency in maintaining them against all efforts at compromise. It acknowledges, for instance, that "the Roman Catholic doctrine and practice respecting divorce are much closer to the law of the New Testament than those of the Protestant churches have been." It speaks, also, of the "earnest effort at the present time to bring the practice of the Protestant churches a little nearer to the Roman Catholic standard."
It becomes more and more evident every day that the civilized world is dividing into two classes, the believers and unbelievers, the Christians and the agnostics. The separation between them is not like that between Catholics and Protestants, which is caused by difference of dogma and ecclesiastical practice, while both agree on fundamental points of theology. It is total, for modern belief does not attack portions of the faith only, but rejects the whole, abandoning faith altogether. In its view Christianity has no more supernatural basis than the mythologies it succeeded.
The ultimate union of all the forces of faith and theology to meet such an enemy, steadily increasing in numbers and audacity, seems, therefore, to be inevitable. Protestantism needs alliance with Roman Catholicism to enable it to stand up against the current of modern skeptical thought. It requires the aid of the more steadfast and uncompromising body the more because many of its leading exponents and some of its chiefs who have hitherto been most trusted are opening the gates of the fortress of faith to the hosts of infidelity. Even if they are not doing that, they are parleying with them, when there can only be war to the knife between the two.
There is no possible compromise between theology and infidelity. The church must understand that at the beginning. One or the other must triumph, and its victory will mean the utter destruction of the conquered. While this great contest is going on, intestine divisions must weaken the army of faith, and we are not surprised that intelligent Protestants desire to heal them.—St. Louis Globe-Democrat.

Did Christ’s Blood Decay?

DR. DANIEL STEELE, in the Advocate of Bible Holiness, enters the following solemn protest against any such statement as that “The blood of Christ dried and decayed on the ground.” His objections are as follows:—
1. It is derogatory to the dignity of the Son of God, and plucks the crown of divinity from his head, to assert that one part of his humanity, and that a vital part, is permanently subject to death. If death retains the blood of Jesus, the vehicle of his earthly life, under the dominion of corruption forever, then the king of terrors is, in an important sense, Christ’s eternal conqueror.
2. It is taking the first step in the path which ends in “counting the blood of the covenant an unholy [common] thing,” i. e., like the blood of an ordinary man.
3. The Christian man who asserts that the blood of Jesus was decomposed like that of an animal, can give no better reason for his assertion than to say, This is the law of nature. In saying that natural law had its course in disposing of the blood of Christ, the writer has put himself into a position where a skeptic can logically force him to make the same admission respecting the body of Christ. Thus one-half of the fortress of supernaturalism is needlessly surrendered to the enemy, who will use his advantage to force the surrender of the other half.
4. If it is said that Christ’s resurrection is proved by positive Scripture testimony, we say that the incorruptibility of his blood is established by just as strong testimony of Holy Writ. Thus Peter, in Acts 2:27, asserts that the prediction of the psalmist is fulfilled in Christ, “Thou wilt not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.” This covers the blood, the very medium of life; if it does not, the Holy One saw corruption.
But still more plainly does Peter proclaim the undecaying nature of Christ’s blood in the first epistle, 1:18: “Ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, . . . but with the precious blood of Christ.” Acids may dissolve silver and gold, but no chemical agent can decompose the precious blood of the Lamb of God. If Peter does not assert this, then he asserts nothing intelligible on this question.
In refuting this error we are not under obligation to show what became of the blood of Christ, but for the information of the reader we will say that two theories have divided theologians and exegetes.
1. That it was restored to his veins when he arose from the dead. This is a modern theory devised by the Romanists after they had begun to deny the cup to the laity. They were told that the touch of the priest changed the wafer into the veritable body of Christ, and that, since the blood was in the body, the laity received the blood in the wafer. There is not a shadow of a hint in the Scriptures on which to base this theory of the restoration of the blood. It is a pure invention of popery.
2. The view of eminent Christian writers, including some of the greatest names in church history, such as Chrysostom, Calvin, and Bengel, is that the blood always remains blood shed, ever fresh and pure from corruption, in the presence of God, having been carried into the heavenly sanctuary by Jesus, the great high priest, after his resurrection. Heb. 9:12: “By his own blood he entered once into the sanctuary, after he had obtained eternal redemption.” Since the whole office of a priest, especially of a high priest, was blood-sprinkling, it follows that Jesus, the great antitype, must (Heb. 8:3) have had blood to offer in the tabernacle not made with hands.
In John 20:17, we have an intimation that this high-priestly act was performed on the resurrection morning, immediately after his appearing to Mary. He says to her, “Go to my brethren and say unto them, I am ascending unto my Father.” If this refers to the ascension after forty days, why did Jesus use the present tense? And why did he send such a message to his disciples, whom he was to see and speak to nine times during that period? Mary could have delivered no other message than this: “Jesus is ascending to his Father.”
I know that my readers may feel a shrinking back from the incongruity of material blood in Heaven, a sphere of purely spiritual realities. But there is no greater incongruity in the presence of Christ’s material blood in that sphere than there is in the presence of the very body that was laid in Joseph’s tomb. The advantages of this doctrine are:—
1. It makes the atonement a vivid, present reality, eternally fresh and efficacious, as if the blood of the divine victim were continually flowing before the eyes of all moral intelligences.
2. It explains the studied peculiarity of the Scripture phraseology. Our redemption is always through the blood shed, and not through the shedding of blood. As our redemption is eternal, the price remains eternally existent, just as if the Redeemer hangs on the cross daily, and daily dies for us. It is fitting that the price of redemption should ever remain an objective reality, the immutable basis of faith.
3. It gives a beautiful symmetry and a wonderful significance to the Lord’s supper, the bread being the shadow of a true substance, the really existent body; and the fruit of the vine the shadow of a true substance, the really existent blood of Christ, and not the shadow of a shadow, the non-existent blood of atonement.
4. It gives a powerful leverage to my faith, when I attempt to move God in prayer. Says Bengel, “He who will not straightway shrink from that which seems at first a paradox, will soon after taste its sweetness with the progress of faith.” My experience has abundantly verified this remark of the great exegete in his extended note on Heb. 12:24, where he shows that we have in Jesus a living mediator, and in his blood (a separately existing material substance), the ground of eternal salvation. “Ye are come unto Jesus, the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling.”
5. It affords an intelligent conception of the truth that the blood of Christ cleanseth from all sin. For the shed blood stands in the presence of God, as the eternal reason for administering pardon to the penitent believer, and the eternal purchase price of the Holy Spirit, the regenerator and sanctifier.

Christian Courtesy.

PAUL was a noble example of this grace, and Peter exhorts to its exercise. It were to the honor of religion were it more generally practiced by the disciples of the Saviour, in whom it was conspicuous. It is one of the methods by which his religion is advanced and recommended. More of it would please the great Master, honor his religion, and be promotive of good. The Christian who is deficient in courtesy, is lacking in one of the most beautiful garments that religion calls us to put on.—Sel.

The Sabbath-School.

LESSON FOR THE PACIFIC COAST—OCT. 11.

  1. What is the meaning of the word "immortal"?
  2. What is the appointed lot of mankind? Heb. 9:27.
  3. Are any exempt from death? Rom. 5:12.
  4. Then can it be that any of the human race are immortal?
  5. What exhortation did Paul give to Timothy? 1 Tim. 6:12.
  6. Until what time did he charge Timothy to keep this commandment? Verses 13, 14.
  7. What did he say that Christ in his times should show? Verse 15.
  8. What did he say further concerning this "blessed and only Potentate?" Verse 16.
  9. Who is this "blessed and only Potentate" here referred to?
  10. Then who alone is possessed of immortality?
  11. Does Christ share this attribute equally with the Father? John 5:26.
  12. What contrast does the apostle Paul institute between God and man? Rom. 1:23.
  13. What is the meaning of the words "corruptible" and "incorruptible"?
  14. Since God only hath immortality, what term must be applied to man? Job 4:7.
  15. Who has eternal life to bestow? Rom. 6:23.
  16. Through whom may it be obtained? Ib.
  17. To what class of persons will it be given? Rom. 2:7.
  18. If men have immortality, would they be exhorted to seek for it?
  19. How are we to seek for it? Rom. 2:7.
  20. Then if none get it but those who seek for it, what can you say of those who do evil?
  21. Who is it that has brought immortality to light? 2 Tim. 1:10.
  22. By what means is it presented to mankind? Ib.
  23. Then where are we to seek for immortality?
  24. What can you say of those who do not accept the gospel?
THE definition which Webster gives of the word "immortal" is this: "Not mortal; exempt from liability to die; undying; imperishable; lasting forever; having unlimited existence." To say, then, that any being is immortal, is equivalent to saying that he cannot die. This will be the case with the redeemed saints, for Christ says: "But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; neither can they die any more, for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection." Luke 20:35, 36. When they obtain the resurrection from the dead, they are immortal, for they cannot die any more. But they did die once, and therefore they were not always immortal. And so Paul says that "it is appointed unto men once to die" (Heb. 9:27), and that "death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." Rom. 5:12. To say, then, that the Scriptures teach that men are by nature immortal, is to say that words have no meaning. Death is the appointed lot of mankind; and there are only two men (Enoch and Elijah) who have been favored above their fellows, in that they did not see death.
IN 1 Tim. 6:12 Paul gives the exhortation to "fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life." If we are already in possession of immortality, it would be impossible for us to heed this exhortation, for we could not "lay hold on" that which we already held; and no matter how earnestly we might fight the good fight of faith, it would have no effect on our immortality, if we already possessed it. Immortality is absolute; no man can be more than immortal. But in the thirteenth and fourteenth verses the apostle says that this charge must be kept until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ. From that we learn that we are to continue the fight of faith until the Lord comes; and since it is by that means that we lay hold on eternal life, we must also conclude that eternal life will not be gained until that time.
THE apostle goes on to say that Christ will show who is "the blessed and only potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; who only hath immortality." The reference here can be to no other than to God himself. Nothing, then, can be plainer than this statement that God alone has immortality. That is, he has "life in himself" (John 5:26). Immortality is an attribute of God, just the same as infallibility, omniscience, omnipotence. Christ, as the Son of God, possesses the same attributes, and is therefore equal with God and worthy to be called God. But man has no more right to claim one attribute of God than all; he may as well put himself on a level with God in respect to knowledge, as to claim equality with respect to life. The simple fact is, as the text shows, that God alone possesses immortality; and therefore if man ever gets it, it must be as a gift from God.
THIS distinction between God and man is clearly defined throughout the Bible. Paul, in showing the depth to which the heathen had fallen, says that they "changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man." Rom. 1:23. This might with equal propriety be translated: "Changed the glory of the immortal God into an image made like to mortal man." In Job 4:17 the question is asked, "Shall mortal man be more just than God?" In Isa. 51:12, the Lord, through the prophet, asks: "Who art thou, that thou shouldst be afraid of a man that shall die, and of the son of man which shall be made as grass?" In contradistinction to this, God is everywhere spoken of as "the living God," that is, the one who ever lives, who can never die. If man were possessed of immortality, then he might with propriety have the same titles applied to him that are applied to God.
"For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Rom. 6:23. Here we have the statement that eternal life comes alone from God, and the additional fact that it comes only through Christ. In Rom. 2:7 we learn still further that God will give it only to them who "seek" for it, by patient continuance in well-doing. And in 2 Tim. 1:10 we learn that we are to seek for it in the gospel. The apostle says that Christ has "brought life and immortality to light through the gospel." From these three texts we are forced to the following conclusions: No sinner can have eternal life, for "the wages of sin is death." No one can have eternal life unless he seeks for it, and the proper way to seek for it is by patient continuance in well-doing. Again; since it is only through the gospel that immortality is brought to light, and eternal life comes only through Christ, it is evident that no one who rejects Christ and the gospel can have immortality.
IT may be argued by some that, while it is true that immortality comes from God alone, and he alone has life in himself, he has implanted it in all human beings. But this will not harmonize with the Bible. If men were by nature immortal, then it would not be true that immortality comes through Christ and the gospel. If we accept the Bible as authority, then immortality cannot be bestowed until it is seen who have accepted Christ, and have persevered in well-doing. And this cannot be seen in this life, for there is always a possibility of the best man's falling from his steadfastness. And still further, if it be true that all men have in them an immortal principle, then there can be no such thing as sin. For immortality means exemption from death. Whoever is immortal cannot die. But "the wages of sin is death;" that is, whoever sins will die; and no one will die except those who sin. Now, then, if we claim that all men are immortal, and that none can die, the logical conclusion is that none are sinners. In other words, wages will be given wherever due; and if death, the wages of sin, is given to no man, then it follows that no man is deserving of it. Thus immortal-soulism is pure universalism.
THE following extracts from standard commentaries will be read with interest, and will show that the conclusions which we have drawn from the texts used in the lesson, are warranted by the best scholarship.
ON 1 Tim. 6:16 Olshausen says: "Who only hath immortality. He is therefore the source of immortality to all who are partakers in it; out of him is death."
Dean Alford quotes Justin Martyr as follows: "God is said only to have immortality, because he hath it not by the will of another, as the rest who possess it, but by his own proper essence."
Dr. Bloomfield says: "'ho monos echon athanasian,' i. e., immortality self-derived; by which it is implied that he alone can confer it."
Dr. Barnes says: "'Who only hath immortality.' The word here—athanasia—properly means exemption from death, and seems to mean that God, in his own nature, enjoys a perfect and certain exemption from death. Creatures have immortality only as they derive it from him, and of course are dependent on him for it."
ON Rom. 5:12 Dean Alford says: "Literally 'on ground of,' 'on condition that,' which meaning, if rightly applied, suits the case in hand. Life depended on a certain condition, viz., obedience; death, on another, viz., disobedience. Mankind have disobeyed; the condition of death's entrance and diffusion has been fulfilled; death extended to all men, as a consequence of the fact that all have sinned."
ON Rom. 2:7 Dr. Barnes has the following: The word immortality means that which is not corruptible, or subject to decay. It is applied to Heaven as a state where there will be no decay or death, in strong contrast with our present condition, where all things are corruptible, and soon vanish away. These expressions are undoubtedly descriptive of a state of things beyond the grave. . . . 'Eternal life.' That is, God will 'render' eternal life to those who 'seek' it in this manner.

NOTES ON THE INTERNATIONAL LESSON.

By W. N. Glenn

OCTOBER 5—1 KINGS 1:22-35.

THIS lesson begins so abruptly that it is necessary to go back to the beginning of the chapter to get a proper understanding of it. David was on his death-bed, and all effort to raise him had proved futile. He was but seventy years of age, but had suffered many afflictions, both physically and mentally, which, with an unusually exciting life, had made him prematurely old.
Adonijah, the son of Haggith was now David's oldest son, at least he was older than Solomon (chap. 2:22), and he set about establishing himself in the kingdom. There was much in his case that resembled that of Absalom; he was good-looking, self-conceited, and his father "had not displeased him at any time" by requiring him to give an account of his conduct, and the result was much the same as in the case of Absalom, though not so aggravated. It is another illustration of how good men in other respects may bring trouble upon themselves and homes by a lack of family discipline.
It is an unsettled question whether the original appointment of Solomon to the succession was generally known. David says, in verse 30, that he had sworn to Bathsheba that her son Solomon should sit upon his throne, and Nathan seems to have been aware of the Lord's will in the matter. But some other circumstances are supposed to prove that no others were aware of the intention. The oath is nowhere previously recorded. Joab, and Abiathar, both of whom were loyal to David in Absalom's rebellion, were now with Adonijah; and the latter, as soon as he saw that Solomon was proclaimed king, immediately gave up the contest and sued for pardon, although a high priest and the commander of the army had espoused his cause and assisted in his pretension as king. Dr. Adam Clarke takes the view that "no man knew who was to succeed to the crown, and the minds of the people were as unsettled as the succession."
ADONIJAH's omission to call the prophet Nathan, who was the king's counselor, and Zadok, a high priest, as also Solomon, to his inaugural feast, when all the rest of the king's sons were invited and present, would indicate that either he knew he was usurping Solomon's rights, or that he knew these parties would oppose his own rights. Again, Nathan's warning to Bathsheba to save the lives of herself and son, by appealing to the king, shows that for some reason Adonijah would have put them to death. He must have known that Solomon had been promised the kingdom or was fearful that Bathsheba and her son were intriguing for the throne as against his prerogative. If the latter, he would not, with his influential backing, have yielded his advantage so readily upon Solomon's success. It seems plain that Adonijah knew that he was doing wrong, which opinion is strengthened by his contradictory statement in chap. 2:15, where he says to Bathsheba, "Thou knowest that the kingdom was mine, and that all Israel set their faces on me, that I should reign; howbeit the kingdom is turned about, and is become my brother's; for it was his from the Lord."
ABIATHAR and Zadok have both been mentioned as high priests. They both acted in that capacity, the former having care of the ark at Jerusalem, and the latter ministering in the tabernacle at Gibeon. Abiathar was a high priest of the line of Eli, was the only one of the sons of Ahimelech who escaped the slaughter of his father's house by Saul for giving bread to David and his men. Zadok was of the house of Eleazar the son of Aaron, the eleventh in descent from Aaron. After Solomon's promotion to the throne, he banished Abiathar from Jerusalem, and placed Zadok in his place.
THE ceremony of anointing the successor to the throne was quite imposing. No subject could use anything that belonged to the king without forfeiting his life, and of course a king would not use anything that had been previously used by a subject. Then when Solomon rode out publicly upon the king's mule, escorted by the king's guard under Benaiah, that of itself was evidence of his appointment. But he was taken to a public watering-place, where there were generally many people assembled, and there anointed by Nathan the prophet and Zadok the priest, whom everybody knew; and then a further proclamation was made by the sounding of trumpets.
The honor attached to riding upon the king's mule, escorted as Solomon was, may be better understood by a reference to the reply of Haman, when king Ahasuerus asked him, "What shall be done unto the man whom the king delighteth to honor?" Esther 6:6. Haman, supposing the honor was for himself, of course chose the most distinguished consideration of which he could imagine, and that was, to wear the king's apparel, and to ride the king's horse through the city, escorted by one of the king's most noble princes.
THIS ceremony of conducting the anointed one in public, shows the significance of the Saviour's entry into Jerusalem riding upon a colt "whereon yet never man sat," and all the attendant honors. The Lord had anointed him three years and a half before, and here was the formal public proclamation, in the capital, of his kingship. It was a veritable transaction; it meant much more than a mere demonstration of joy on the part of the people. They were looking for a temporal king, and here he came, proclaimed to them according to the ancient custom (2 Kings 9:13), and in exact fulfillment of prophecy. See Zech. 9:9. From these circumstances we can better realize the culpable nature of his rejection by the authorities, and the hardness of heart over which he so tenderly wept. There was probably nothing in his whole life that came so fully within the scope of the Jewish understanding, and so plainly fulfilled the Scripture before their eyes. It seems that just at the last, following right upon his bringing to life the decaying body of Lazarus, was the crowning evidence of his Messiahship brought home to their comprehension, and made so plain that even the children could understand it. Matt. 21:15.

Temperance.

By Dr. Holland

Teach the Children.

THERE is, probably, no hallucination so obstinate as that which attributes to alcoholic drink a certain virtue which it never possessed. After all the influences of the pulpit and the press, after all the warning examples of drunkenness and consequent destruction, after all the testimony of experience and science, there lingers in the average mind an impression that there is something good in alcohol, even for the healthy man. Boys and young men do not shun the wine cup, as a poisoner of blood and thought, and the most dangerous drug that they can possibly handle; but they have an idea that the temperance man is a fogy, or foe to a free, social life, whose practices are ascetic, and whose warnings are to be laughed at and disregarded. Now, in alcohol in its various forms, we have a foe to the human race so subtle and so powerful that it destroys human beings by the million, vitiates all the processes of those who indulge in it, degrades morals, induces pauperism and crime in the superlative degree when compared with other causes, and corrupts the homes of millions.
It is a cruel thing to send a boy out into the world untaught that alcohol in any form is fire, and will certainly burn him if he puts it into his stomach. It is a cruel thing to educate a boy in such a way that he has no adequate idea of the dangers that beset his path. It is a mean thing to send a boy out to take his place in society without understanding the relations of temperance to his own safety and prosperity, and to the safety and prosperity of society.
What we want in our schools is to do away with the force of a pernicious example and a long-cherished error, by making the children thoroughly intelligent on this subject of alcohol. They should be taught the effect of alcohol upon the processes of animal life. 1. They should be taught that it can add nothing whatever to the vital tissues, that it does not enter into the elements of structure, and, in the healthy organism, it is always a burden or disturbing force. 2. They should be taught that it invariably disturbs the operations of the brain, and that the mind can get nothing that is to be relied upon. 3. They should be taught that alcohol inflames the baser passions, blunts the sensibilities, and debases the feelings. 4. They should be taught that the appetite for drink is certainly developed by those who use it, which is dangerous to life, destructive to health of body and peace of mind, and in millions of instances ruinous to fortune and to all the high interests of the soul. 5. They should be taught that the crime and pauperism of society flow as naturally from alcohol as any effect whatever naturally flows from its competent cause. 6. They should be taught that drink is the responsible cause of most of the poverty and want of the world. So long as six hundred million dollars are annually spent for drink in this country, every ounce of which was made by the destruction of bread, and not one ounce of which has ever entered into the sum of national wealth, having nothing to show for its cost but destroyed stomachs, degraded homes, destroyed industry, increased pauperism, and aggravated crime, these boys should understand the facts and be able to act upon them in their first responsible conduct.
The national wealth goes into the ground. If we could only manage to bury it without having it pass thitherward in the form of a poisonous fluid through the inflamed bodies of our neighbors and friends, happy should we be. But this great, abominable curse dominates the world. The tramp reminds us of it as he begs for a night's lodging. The widow and the fatherless tell us of it as they ask for bread. It scowls upon us from hovels and haunts of the poor everywhere. Even the clean, hard-working man of prosperity cannot enjoy his earnings because the world is full of misery from drink. The more thoroughly we can instruct the young concerning this dominating evil of our time, the better will it be for them and for the world.—Dr. Holland.

Natural Enemies.

THERE is just so much money in any community to spend for all purposes. There is just so much and no more to buy with, and pay for. The workingmen, in whose pockets are found the bulk of the money in circulation, get but so much a day, or week, or month, and they can only spend what they get—no more. As a rule they can only buy what they have money to pay for. Each and every one of these workingmen will bear strong testimony that he is not getting wages enough to maintain himself and family in the comfort he and they desire.
Consequently every dollar spent for beer and whisky is a dollar taken out of the tills of the dealers in the necessaries of life. In place of the retailers of this or any other city having interests in common with the beer-sellers, as the latter impudently claim, in their attempts to bulldoze others into acting with them, the reverse is true. The interests of the two classes are hostile—implacably so.
The more money spent in the saloons the less there will be spent in the dry goods stores, the groceries, the shoe stores, and the real estate offices. If a million dollars are paid out for beer and whisky, the business of the sellers of the comforts and necessaries of life is decreased by that amount.
The other branches of retailing are not hostile to each other. A man and his family can only eat up so many barrels of flour per annum, and can only wear so many pairs of shoes. What money is left over and above after buying these is expended in other stores. But a man's capacity for consuming beer is infinite, and constantly increasing. He may begin by expending only one-hundredth of his wages in beer; it is not unlikely that he will end by pouring all of them down his throat.
Therefore, instead of the retailers of all kinds uniting in support of the saloons, they should do just the contrary, and bend all their energies to help pulverize the rum power.—Toledo Blade.
Continue reading: Nevada Camp-Meeting