An effort is now being made to revive and enforce the Sunday Law in Chicago. We are glad of it. Every effort of this kind is sure to bring the truth of the Sabbath of the Lord—the seventh day—to the notice of the people. We rejoice in every step, whatever the motive may be, which extends the knowledge of God's word in regard to his down-trodden commandment. Bro. Noydike, of Kankakee, Ill., has sent us an article published by the "Chicago Sabbath Association," in the Chicago Tribune. It is entitled, "An Argument in Favor of a Compulsory Observance of the First Day of the Week." The following paragraph on history is interesting:—
"SUNDAY HISTORY.—In the year 321 Constantine established the Sabbath [established the day of the sun] by exempting it from being juridicial. In England the Sunday Law reaches back to 693, when Ina, king of the West Saxons, punished servile work on the Sabbath by fine. In the time of Queen Elizabeth persons neglecting church services without excuse, were punished. The Statute 28, Charles II., chap. 7, enacted: 'That no tradesman, artificer, workman, laborer, or other person whatsoever shall do or exercise any worldly labor, business, or work of their ordinary callings upon the Lord's day, or any part thereof (works of necessity and charity79only excepted), and that no person or persons whatsoever shall publicly cry, show forth, or expose to sale any wares, merchandise, fruit, herbs, goods, or chattels whatsoever upon the Lord's day or any part thereof.' This, somewhat modified by subsequent laws, is the present Sunday Law in England, and is the foundation of the laws on the subject in the United States. The early laws of Massachusetts, Connecticut, Georgia, South Carolina, and Virginia, compelled attendance at church, the Massachusetts law (1782) providing that such attendance was not obligatory where there was no place of worship which the person could conscientiously attend. When the Federal Government was formed and the separation of church and State was fully organized, the earlier Sunday Laws were modified in conformity with this principle."
Sunday history, as far as Sunday law is concerned, is here commenced at the right point—the decree of Constantine. The Tribune properly corrects the statement that Constantine established the Sabbath, by inserting in brackets, "established the day of the sun." It will be seen in these references to history that the enforcement of Sunday was always a usurpation over men's consciences, compelling them to observe religious tenets in which they did not believe; always an essential element in the union of church and State.
Another quotation is taken from "a number of the French Institute," and again the Tribune brackets a query, thus:—
"Whenever a nation fails to keep this commandment respecting the Sabbath Christianity ceases to exist. [What commandment respecting the first day of the week?] There would then be an end to domestic life, to family ties, and civilization would soon be succeeded by barbarism."
Such queries and corrections as the Tribune inserts in this article cannot fail to have a telling effect on the minds of many readers.
The keepers of the true Sabbath in Chicago are taking steps to publish a paper in that city to advocate the claims of the seventh day, and to expose this Sunday-law sophistry. They are not situated there as we were in California; there is an exemption clause in the Illinois Sunday Law. But they consider that the occasion is a favorable one for letting the light of the true Sabbath shine in that city, and in that State, and that they have a duty to do both in regard to the truth of God, and to their fellow-men. We pray that God may guide them, and give them wisdom and discretion for their work, and crown their efforts with success.
Thoughts on the Twelfth Chapter of Hebrews.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
"WHEREFORE seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us, looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith."
The word "witnesses," in this text, conveys to many a wrong idea, or rather, many persons give it a meaning which does not belong to it in this place. A witness is one who testifies in a cause, from personal knowledge, and in this sense it is used here. This chapter is a continuation of the argument on faith, and the cloud or multitude of witnesses who are here spoken of, are the worthies whose deeds are recorded in chapter eleven. They are not "witnesses" in the sense that they are looking on to see us run the race, for all of them except Enoch died. Now of the dead it is said that "they know not anything," Eccl. 9:5; that in the day of their death "their thoughts perish," Ps. 146:4; and that they are not conscious of the elevation or disgrace of even their dearest relatives, Job. 14:21.
It is certain, then, that those of whom the apostle says that "they all died in faith," are not cognizant of anything that is now taking place on this earth. How then are they "witnesses"? They have all run the race, and obtained great victories through faith; and by means of the sacred record their lives bear witness to the power of a firm, abiding faith. Of Abel it is said that "he being dead yet speaketh." So likewise all these worthies are standing by to cheer us on by their testimony as to the possibility of making the race a success.
One stanza of an excellent hymn that is based on this passage, is ruined because the writer of the hymn mistook the meaning of the word "witnesses." The stanza is this:—
"A cloud of witnesses around, Hold thee in full survey; Forget the steps already trod, And onward urge thy way."
But this is not true. These witnesses do not hold us in survey. They know nothing of our existence. In short, they know nothing at all, because they are dead.
"Seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses." The position of a small word in the sentence may make a great deal of difference. The word "also" is here out of its proper place. The text should read thus: "Wherefore seeing we are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight," etc. It is not true, as implied in the common version, that those in ancient times were compassed about with witnesses. The Bible was not written in their day, and they had no precedent for their faith. Noah had no example of those who had trusted in God before his time, and had been preserved. He had simply the word of God. There had been no rain on the earth, and if the philosophers of his day were like those of the present time, they doubtless said that such a thing was contrary to nature. Nevertheless he believed and obeyed the word of the Lord, and by so doing he "condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith."
Abraham was called out from heathen surroundings, and "went out, not knowing whither he went." He had not before him a long list of persons who had tested the promises of God, and found them sure. So far as we know he had never been associated with any one who worshiped the true God. Still he had evidence enough. He had "two immutable things," the promise and the oath of God. But we have in addition to these a great array of men "subject to like passions as we are," who gained glorious victories through faith in God. Since they accomplished such great victories through faith, let us be encouraged to do likewise. If they, who had so much less light and encouragement than we have, persevered thus manfully, what patience and faith and zeal ought we not to exhibit!
The apostle declares that "whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope," Rom. 15:4. Now there is to us abundant ground of hope in the lives of the patriarchs. We seldom take all the encouragement from the record of their lives that we ought. We are apt to imagine that those men were composed of different stuff from what men are now, that there was something peculiar in their natures which gave them favor with God. But this is not so. Some sin or weakness appears in the life of nearly every one. Human nature was the same in their day that it is now. Wherein, then, was their strength? Simply in this: They were able to take God at his word. It is written, "Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness." All the difference between them and us is that they believed implicitly, while we doubt. But it is just as easy for us to believe as it was for them; otherwise there would be no propriety in giving them as our example. Indeed it ought to be easier for us, since we have their lives as assurance that God is "a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." If human nature is the same now that it was then, we have the assurance that God is the same also, and is just as ready to give his aid in transforming ourselves that we may be made partakers of the divine nature. The lives of these worthies, and the exhortation of the apostle, were not written for nothing. Will we give them the attention that they deserve? (to be Continued) E. J. W.
The Two Covenants.
By John Nevins Andrews
“BEHOLD, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah; not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord; but this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel: After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord; for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord; for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.” Jer. 31:31-34.
The first covenant was made with the people of Israel at the time of their departure out of Egypt. This covenant no longer exists. The new covenant long since took its place. But a very serious error prevails in the minds of many persons respecting the points of difference between these two covenants. The old covenant was made with the Hebrew people. For this reason, whatever entered into it is supposed to be Jewish. Thus the law of God is summarily set aside as Jewish; and thus might the God of Israel himself be discarded as a Jewish God. But the new covenant is held up to our admiration, because it is, as they say, not made with the Jews, but with the Gentiles. The old covenant belonged to the Jews, and with it we have no concern; the new covenant is made with the Gentiles, and we, as Gentiles, are interested in it.
How can men thus carelessly read the Scriptures? The language of inspiration is very explicit in stating that the new covenant is made with the same people that were the subjects of the old covenant. Thus Jeremiah, speaking in the name of the Lord, says: “I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah.” And he further alludes to the fact that the new covenant is made with the Hebrew people when he adds: “Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt.” And yet again he identifies the Hebrew people when he says: “This shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel.” And Paul quotes at length, in Hebrews 8, this entire statement of Jeremiah respecting the old and new covenants being severally made with the Hebrew people. And, as if this were not enough, he makes a statement in Rom. 9:4, 5, that exactly meets the case. Thus he says of the Hebrews: “Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, AND THE COVENANTS, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever.” Thus it appears that everything valuable God has given to the world through the instrumentality, by the means of the Hebrew people. Those who choose to do so can venture to despise the law of God because given to the Jews, and to reject Christ because he came of the Jews; but one thing they cannot do. They cannot say, “We accept the new covenant because it pertains to the Gentiles, whereas the first covenant, and the law, etc., pertained to the Jews.” No such distinction can be drawn. Both the covenants pertain to the Hebrew people, according to the explicit statement of Paul; and both are said by Jeremiah and Paul, or rather by the Spirit of inspiration speaking through them, to be made with Judah and Israel.
The fact being thus clearly established that the two covenants are both made with the Hebrews, it becomes a matter of interest to inquire into the reason of this thing. Why did God thus honor one nation and pass by all others? Undoubtedly there was a sufficient reason for this action, and that reason we shall find fully laid open to our view in the Bible. The first thing which Paul has enumerated as pertaining to the Hebrews, is “the adoption;” and if we can understand why God adopted this family, we shall readily understand why all the other things which he has named should also pertain to this people.
Know, then, that God did not adopt the family of Abraham as his first action in behalf of mankind. He attempted thus to make his own the family of the first man, Adam, the common head and father of the human race. But at the end of the antediluvian age, only eight persons remained upon the earth who feared the God of Heaven. There was no alternative with him but to witness the extinction of piety in the earth, or else, by an awful lesson of judgment, to destroy every wicked man from the earth. And for this reason came the deluge. And now one family alone remains—the family of Noah, who is the second head of the human race. And this family, thus instructed in divine truth, and thus warned by God's terrible judgments, might all have been, if they would, the heritage of the Almighty. But when men began again to multiply upon the earth, they did not like to retain God in their knowledge. They forgot God. They plunged into sin. They united under Nimrod to build Babel. As they set God at defiance, he placed his curse upon them by confounding their language. Gen. 10 and 11. In the fourth century after the flood, only a handful of godly persons remained. Abraham, in the midst of this dense moral darkness, for even his immediate ancestors were idolators (Josh. 24:2), was so pre-eminent in virtue that he was called the friend of God. James 2:23. God said that he knew Abraham, that he would command his children and his household after him, and that they80would keep the way of the Lord to do justice and judgment. Gen. 18:19. God had pledged himself at the time Noah and his family came forth from the ark, never again to drown the world. Gen. 9:15.
But he must do something to save this one faithful family from ruin, and, by means of them, to preserve in the earth some degree of true piety, and to retain among men a body of faithful worshipers. To do this, he adopts this family of Abraham, his friend, and separates them by circumcision and the rites of the ceremonial law, from all the rest of mankind. Thus Abraham became the third grandfather of mankind. Not the father of the whole race, like Adam and Noah respectively; but the father of the people of God. This was the adoption. He gave up the rest of mankind to idolatry and atheism, not because he was willing that they should perish, but because they would not hearken to his voice. Yet, though he thus adopted this one family, he did not so reject the rest of mankind that he did not make provision for any of them to be received among the Hebrew people if they would become circumcised and unite with the Hebrews in his service and worship. The adoption was just, and right, and necessary. By means of it, God preserved his knowledge and his worship in the earth.
The Hebrew people being thus adopted, and by means of circumcision set apart from the rest of the world, found to their great profit that, though they were separated from the world, they were united to Him who made the heaven and the earth. They had the Lord for their God. They had much advantage “every way:” the adoption, the glory, the two covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, the promises, the fathers and the Messiah. And yet Paul says their chief advantage was that the oracles of God were committed to them. Rom. 3:1, 2. It is not best to scorn the law of God because committed to the Hebrews. It is not best to despise the new covenant, as Jewish, because, like the old covenant, it is made with Israel. Nor is it best to reject Jesus as the Messiah because he comes of that despised race; and, finally, it is not best to have some other god besides the God of Israel. Our God, indeed, bears that title; because he was for long ages worshiped by the Hebrews only, and by the Gentiles almost not at all. Yet that is not his fault, but ours. And so of all the sacred things committed to the Israelites. They were not Jewish, or Hebraic, but divine. In fact, we must have a part in these precious treasures which God gave to this people, for their preservation through the long period of Gentile darkness. They are of equal value to us, and we must share in them. “Salvation,” said our Lord to the woman of Samaria, “is of the Jews.” John 4:22. J. N. A.
The Obedience of Saul.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
WHEN Saul was sent to execute God's judgment against the Amalekites, the command given him was, "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." 1 Sam. 15:3. This order was explicit enough certainly, and could not be misunderstood. All will agree that disobedience to such a plain command could proceed from nothing else but willfulness. Saul set out upon his mission, and smote the Amalekites, gaining a great victory. He did not, however, follow strictly the directions given him, for we read, "But Saul and the people spared Agag and the best of the sheep, and of the oxen, and of the fatlings, and the lambs, and all that was good, and would not utterly destroy them; but everything that was vile and refuse, that they destroyed utterly." Did Saul obey orders? There can be but one answer: He went directly contrary to them. Should a modern officer obey the orders of his superior no better than Saul did, he would immediately be court-martialed and shot.
But how did Saul excuse himself for such conduct? Did he shrink from meeting the man of God, and say that the order could not be executed? No, he came boldly forward and said, "Blessed be thou of the Lord; I have performed the word of the Lord." What impudent assurance! No wonder the prophet asked in astonishment, "What meaneth then this bleating of the sheep in mine ears, and the lowing of the oxen which I hear?" Saul had his reply ready, and said, "They have brought them from the Amalekites; for the people spared the best of the sheep and of the oxen, to sacrifice unto the Lord thy God; and the rest we have utterly destroyed."
From these answers of Saul's it appears that he really thought that he had obeyed the Lord. He doubtless reasoned thus: "The Lord wants all these sheep and oxen destroyed; but the end will be accomplished just as well if we offer them in sacrifice, as it would if we should slaughter them where they are. By saving them for sacrifice we can fulfill the commandment of the Lord, and at the same time offer him acceptable worship." Now it is very evident that such reasoning is not reasoning, but sophistry. If the Lord had desired that those animals should be offered in sacrifice, he would have said so; and although the Lord delights in sacrifice, he cannot accept that which is made at the expense of obedience to his commandments. Saul's course shows that he was blinded by self-will.
There is a great deal of obedience at the present time of the same nature as this that we have just considered. In a conversation which we once had with a lady in regard to the Sabbath, she admitted that the seventh day is the Sabbath, just as the commandment says, and that it has never been changed by divine authority; "but," said she, "we keep the first day of the week in honor of Christ; and the Father has such great love for the Son that anything done in his honor will be accepted as obedience." Just think of it. The Father and the Son are one; yet God will overlook disobedience to his plainest commandment, if the person declares it to be his intention to honor the Son. Has Christ commanded the observance of the first day? No. Has God ever given anybody permission to keep it? Never. Has either one ever said that such observance would honor Christ? Such a thing was never even intimated. Has not God commanded men to keep the seventh day? Yes; and in the same commandment he has told them to work on six days. And Christ was one with the Father before the worlds were made, and was associated with him in that work; hence the commandments of the Father are also those of the Son. Then how can any-body possessing reason imagine that breaking the Sabbath and observing Sunday, is an act of honor either to the Father or to the Son? This question is beyond our power to answer.
Under this same head comes Joseph Cook's reason (?) for keeping Sunday. He once wrote an article for the Christian Union on "The Sunday Question," which begun thus:—
"If it be asked what is the Biblical authority for the observance of Sunday, my reply must be that the sermon on the mount, in my opinion, recognizes the moral spirit of the whole decalogue. The sermon on the Mount affirms that not one jot or tittle of the law shall pass away till all be fulfilled. That does not mean the ceremonial law, but the two great tables of the older dispensation. No one pretends that the law in the decalogue against theft is repealed by the New Testament, nor that against adultery."
Truly that is a reason worthy of Saul himself. "We keep Sunday, because the law enjoining the observance of the seventh day is still in force!" This reasoning goes beyond Saul, for he intended to obey the Lord, at some future time, and in his own way; but Mr. Cook intends to obey the Lord in his own way, which is by direct disobedience.
Let us use this reasoning in the case of another commandment. The first commandment says, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." Now why may not the heathen who has professed to be converted to Christianity, say, "If it be asked why I worship idols, my reply must be that the ten commandments are recognized by the New Testament as of full force. The spirit of that law enjoins worship, but since the object of worship is not specified, we are at liberty to worship what we please." Is there a sin common to mankind that may not be justified by such reasoning?
Or he might say, The Lord takes great pleasure in the things that he has made. When he had finished the work of creation, he pronounced it very good; and the psalmist says: "The works of the Lord are great;" "His work is honorable and glorious;" "He hath made his wonderful works to be remembered." Now, reasoning as in the first instance, the heathen might say, "It is true that the Lord has commanded us to worship him; but I worship the sun and moon in honor of God's creation; and God thinks so much of his works that he will accept sun-worship as obedience to himself." Why should the heathen be condemned for breaking one commandment, and the Christian be justified for breaking another, for the same reason? Do men think that they can deceive the Lord by such sophistry, and cause him to think that disobedience is obedience? Do they imagine that they will convert the Lord to their way of thinking? or that he will withhold punishment out of respect to their persons? If they do, let them consider the case of Saul, and its consequences, and take warning. E. J. W.
Fresno and Tulare Counties, California.
By G. D. Ballou
I HAVE spent the last eight weeks with the churches and scattered brethren and sisters in these counties, part of the time in company with Eld. M. C. Israel, and part of the time alone. We have on all occasions borne a very plain testimony. The subjects of "present dangers and duties," "conversion," and "growth in grace," have been made especially prominent. We have labored to instill a spirit of faithfulness and devotion to the cause of God into the hearts of all connected with the work. The missionary and Sabbath-school interests have received a due share of attention. We have endeavored to set before the young the importance of taking advantage of present school privileges, to fit themselves for fields of usefulness in connection with the closing messages, and we have not failed to urge upon the older brethren the importance of encouraging the young in taking such steps.
Other interests of the cause have been looked after as occasion demanded. Nearly every family of Sabbath-keepers, and also the scattered individuals, have been visited, and their spiritual interests looked after.
Many of the brethren were very kind in rendering assistance, by going with their teams and taking us from place to place. We have found plenty of work to do everywhere we have been, and have seen some very encouraging results. We have often realized the truth that "He that watereth shall be watered also himself." The blessing of the Lord has attended us in all our labors, and we feel greatly strengthened to labor on in this cause.
The results of our labors in Fresno City, though encouraging in some respects, were not quite as full as we hoped for. One hundred and twenty dollars was raised to help pay for the special edition of the SIGNS, and steps were taken toward the erection of a good church building; but we did not see that deep, anxious heart searching, and that earnest desire for a personal experience in spiritual things that we expected to see. But there are omens for good and some evidences of substantial improvement, not only in Fresno City, but also in other parts of the county.
At Temperance Colony the work stands better than it did. At Burrough Valley a V. M. Society was organized, and a club of fourteen SIGNS ordered, making over twenty copies in all for that church. At Visalia ten copies were ordered.81At Lemoore the work is progressing well. A spirit of courage and good cheer characterized the meetings from the first. Some of the seasons we had together were especially marked by earnestness and solemnity. Prejudices of long standing were removed, and new life seemed to manifest itself in every branch of the work. The brethren here subscribed $83.50 toward the special edition of the SIGNS. I remain here one week longer.
G. D. BALLOU.
Temperance, Cal., Feb. 6, 1883.
The Missionary.
By Stephen Nelson Haskell
Who Are Entitled to Premiums.
THE work of canvassing is being engaged in with interest in many places. A premium is offered with each of our periodicals, and not one of them should be neglected. With the Review is offered the "Biblical Institute" for $2.50; with the Signs of the Times, the "Life and Epistles of St. Paul" for $2.25. The "Household Manual" is offered with Good Health for $1.31; and "Sunshine Series" with the Instructor for 85 cts. The question is often asked, Can all who renew their subscription for these periodicals have the premium? Are these offers made only to those not of our faith, or are our brethren who are not now subscribers included? In reply, we would state that the premium arrangement has been made for one purpose only; namely, to increase the circulation of our periodicals. Our brethren are expected to use the premiums for this purpose, and not to benefit themselves; therefore no one who is an old subscriber should expect the premium, neither would we consider it right for persons to change their subscription to another member of the family in order to secure the premium. There may be cases where persons have lost their interest in the Review or Good Health, and ceased to be subscribers, where the premiums should not be withheld. Let all act conscientiously in the matter.
S. N. HASKELL.
An Unprofitable Trade.
TAKEN all in all, the liquor traffic isn't profitable to either party in the transaction. Now and then you hear of a man who has made a comfortable little fortune in the trade, but it generally happens that these men have had sagacious wives who held fast to the profits. A large majority of those men who have gone into saloon-keeping or tavern-keeping to get rich or to make a living by easier means than productive labor, have lost money. Look at the commercial reports of Dunn or Bradstreet; month after month I have noticed that the failures in the liquor business have outnumbered those in any other branch of trade, and in some States they have exceeded in number the failures in all other branches. Of course, in a large measure, this fact is accounted for not by the smallness of profits, but by the damaging personal consequences of the trade upon the dealers. The man who makes drunkards, soon or late, becomes a drunkard himself, and that means bankruptcy all around. Moreover, the liquor seller ruins his health, almost without exception. Here is testimony from a reliable source. The general life insurance office of Canada has lately issued the following order: "In consequence of the excessive mortality experienced in the case of innkeepers whose lives have been assured with the company, it is hereby notified that from this date the directors will not undertake these risks on any terms." Everybody understands the meaning of this statement.
In every locality may be found conspicuous illustrations of the facts here stated. Where can you point to a liquor-selling hotel or restaurant that has had a quarter of a century of unbroken prosperity, that has not changed proprietors, settled its obligations at a discount, or been sold out under the hammer? There are some, of course, but they are few. I believe that not a dozen liquor dealers of Onondaga County, either wholesale or retail, can look back on an unbroken quarter-century of honest financial success; those acquainted with the facts will recognize the general truth of this statement without disagreeable specification, and if the estimate is found to be slightly erroneous, they can make their adjustment. I might name village after village whose inn-keeper has fallen from a position of respectability (as the word is commonly applied) down to the level of beggary or imbecility, or has gone to jail for crime. There is now pending in the United States court the case of a man, a hotel keeper, who a dozen years ago controlled the politics of the largest town in the county. His present condition is truly pitiable, and strikingly contrasts with his affluence of a few years ago. His head is white, his strong frame is shaken, his credit is ruined, his home broken up, and he stands indicted for one of the most serious offenses against the Government.
Another case quite as distressing came to my notice not many days ago. A man who had long had a monopoly of the liquor business in one of the suburbs of this city, was supposed to have laid up a competence for himself and family. In the early life he had seen the ill effects of the traffic in his father's family in England, but this did not deter him from engaging in the same business when he had reached the age of manhood. He made money, and his stout constitution endured the strain. By and by his wife died from the tremens, and he for a time abandoned the business, but subsequently re-entered it and added to his establishment year by year. The other day he was carried to the poor-house, a wreck in the prime of life, his strong frame transformed to hideousness. His property has been all dissipated, and his little ones have been taken care of by families from whom he would a few years ago have scorned to receive a favor.
This seems to be one of the saddest aspects of the liquor evil. There is a double loss, an absolute wasting of resources. If the money which the man takes from his family to spend in drink were to be bestowed upon the family of the seller of the drink, the tragedy would be less appalling; in a certain way good would come out of evil in that case, and the produce of a generation's labor would be preserved. But this double degradation—the ruining of buyer and seller and the families of both—with what may we compare it? It is defeat without corresponding victory, loss without gain; it is murder and suicide at a single stroke.
San Juan, California:
By Isaac Morrison
Since camp-meeting I have labored in San Juan and vicinity, visiting small neighborhoods in the mountains, with tracts and papers, and holding meetings as I had opportunity. I have met regularly on the Sabbath with the little company in San Juan, to encourage them, and instruct them in the truth. The brethren have taken up a subscription, and bought the Baptist church, the only Protestant church in the place; it cost $2,500 when built, and sold for $500. It has a bell in its steeple, which every Sabbath reminds the people of that town and neighborhood of God’s holy day. The little company of Sabbath-keepers there have a Sabbath-school of about twenty-eight members, and are of good courage. Isaac Morrison.
Healdsburg, Feb. 8, 1883.
Upper Columbia T. and M. Society.
By Mrs. G. W. Colcord
REPORT FOR QUARTER ENDING DECEMBER 31, 1882.
MRS. G. W. COLCORD, Secretary.
Gospel and Expenditures
By Christian at Work
The American Churches give for evangelizing 800,000,000 heathen about $3,000,000 a year. The American Churches give for home mission-work and benevolence, $75,000,000. For a single bridal-dress is given $6,000. For ladies' foreign dress goods are expended annually $125,000,000. New York alone is said to expend for kid gloves annually $30,000,000. For intoxicating drinks our American people expend annually $900,000,000. Let the vital power of the gospel rule in Christendom, giving soul-interests their due prominence, and how easy to so divert and direct the streams of expenditure and personal effort as speedily to evangelize every individual of the race.—Christian at Work.
Duties and Charms
By Dean Stanley
DUTIES AND CHARMS. We urge the duties of Christianity upon the consciences of men; but duties are constraints till they are changed into charms by love. The very word duty is a harsh one, until the heart grasps it, and then the lowliest service and the boldest endeavor are cheerfully accepted and welcomed. To win men to the performance of Christian duties, it is necessary to win them to the love of Him who requires them, and to the love of those for whose benefit they are required.—Dean Stanley.
Sacrifice or Privilege
By Livingstone
PEOPLE talk of the sacrifice I have made in spending so much of my life in Africa. Can that be called a sacrifice which is simply paid back as a small part of a great gift owing to our God, which we can never repay? Is that a sacrifice, which brings its own best reward in healthful activity, the consciousness of doing good, peace of mind, and a glorious destiny hereafter? Away with the word in such a view, and with such a thought! It is emphatically no sacrifice. It is a privilege.—Livingstone.
Conceit and Support
By John Ruskin
CONCEIT may puff a man up, but never prop him up.—Ruskin.
Temperance.
By W. N. Glenn
Why Indians Use Tobacco.
BY W. N. GLENN.
Devil-worship is quite common with the heathen, in fact with some who claim to be more enlightened than the material idol worshipers. One instance is no doubt fresh in the minds of many Californians, of a Spiritualist “professor” whose prelude to a lecture in San Jose was a prayer to Satan. The American Indians, in their savage state, are no exception to this idea of appeasing the wrath of bad spirits and soliciting their favor.
An old missionary among the western tribes, who is well acquainted with the Indian customs, and has inquired into the reasons for many of their habits and ceremonies, informs us that tobacco-smoking with them is really a form of devil-worship; that they imagine that producing tobacco fumes, and teaching the practice to their little ones, are very pleasing to the bad spirits.
This venerable missionary also informs us that he has seen many savage Indians converted to Christianity by the power of the Holy Spirit, and that they invariably threw away their pipes and tobacco, without any special instruction on that point.
To this testimony it may be added, that in both the form of devil-worship and the discarding of tobacco upon espousing Christianity, the Indian idea of the “eternal fitness of things” is to be commended. A more convincing evidence of true conversion on their part could hardly be given, and their example in this respect is worthy of imitation by all professing Christians.
Increase of Liquor Drinking.
By Editor
THE following statistics show that, in spite of the vigorous blows struck by temperance reformers, the liquor traffic is not destroyed by any means:—
“The report just issued from the National Bureau of Statistics shows a steady increase during the past five years in the consumption of liquors in this country. The consumption (not manufacture) of distilled spirits during the years 1878, 1879, 1880, 1881, and 1882, respectively, were 57,111,982, 54,278,475, 63,526,694, 70,607,081, and 73,556,036 gallons. For the same years the consumption of wines, native and foreign, was 19,812,675, 24,532,015, 28,484,428, 24,231,106, and 25,628,071 gallons. But the chief increase has been in malt liquors, which aggregated 310,653,253, 345,076,118, 414,771,690, 444,806,373, and 527,051,236 gallons.”
These figures give the simple facts, and are not gotten up in the interest of temperance. But they prove one thing beyond the shadow of a doubt, and that is that the use of beer and wine does not tend to diminish the use of other intoxicating drinks. They show, what temperance people have always claimed, that the use of any intoxicant only creates an appetite for intoxicants as a class.
Some will also use these figures to show that all this temperance agitation has done no good, but it does not strike us in that way. If the liquor traffic has increased so rapidly, notwithstanding the great amount of temperance work, what would it have been had nothing been done to check it?
The Costs of Intoxication
By Anvil
INTOXICATION costs the United States annually one thousand millons of treasure. It costs one hundred thousand lives. It produces seven-eighths of the crime and pauperism in the country. It causes nine-tenths of the ignorance and illiteracy. It is indirectly the cause of nearly all the carelessness which results in accidents destructive of life and property. As a consequence life insurance companies are refusing to take risks on habitual drinkers. Fire companies are declining to insure saloons and restaurants as extra hazardous. Railway companies are discharging all conductors, engineers, and brakemen who drink. Steamboat owners are requiring their officers to abstain from drink when on duty. Why do you not vote as these men act? Acts are prayers.—Anvil.
Responsibility Within One’s Abilities
EVERY person is responsible for all the good within the scope of his abilities, and for no more, and none can tell whose sphere is the largest.