Was the First Day Gradually Sanctified by the Apostles after the Ascension of Christ?
By John Nevins Andrews
[From Les Signes des Temps.]
I.
The first day not sanctified during the first twelve years after the resurrection of Christ.
If the first day of the week is a day holy to the Lord, and one on which men ought not to labor, there was a time when it became holy, and some act or series of acts, which made it holy. The reason assigned by theologians why this day should be holy, is that Christ arose from the dead on that day. But it should be observed. (1) That no such reason is assigned in the Bible to establish the holiness of the day; (2) That the Bible does not even say that the day is holy; (3) That out of eight instances in which the day is mentioned, only one instance is found in which it is directly asserted that Christ arose that day. Mark 16:9. The Spirit of inspiration did not therefore attach any special importance to the fact that Christ arose on that day, though that fact would be of the highest importance if the people of God ought to observe the day in memory of that event.
In our examination thus far, we have learned three important facts: 1. That there was no act of sanctifying the first day at the resurrection of Christ, as there was of sanctifying the seventh day when the Creator had rested upon it. Gen. 2:2, 3; Ex. 20:11. 2. That Christ did not gradually sanctify the first day, during the forty days preceding his ascension. 3. That the apostles, during the period recorded in the first twelve chapters of Acts, said not one word in favor of the sanctification of the first day, and performed not one act which would indicate that they observed the day as sacred to the Lord. Yet these chapters embrace the first twelve259years of the gospel dispensation, a period during which the apostles laid the foundation of the church of Christ, by preaching the gospel not to the Jews only, but also to the Gentiles.
II.
The first day had not been sanctified when Paul preached at Antioch, in Pisidia.
In this article we continue the examination of the book of Acts. Our object is to find some act which instantaneously sanctified the first day; or if there be no one act of this kind on record, then to find some series of acts which gradually accomplished the sanctification of the day. If the apostles ever sanctified the first day, we shall find the fact attested by three things: 1. That they said something about the sacredness of the day. 2. That they treated the day as sacred; 3. That their words and acts in behalf of the first day occasioned controversy with the Jews. What then do we find on this subject in Acts 13?
In this chapter we find Barnabas and Saul, or Paul, sent out on their first missionary tour. Verses 1-4. In every case they preached first to the Jews and afterward to the Gentiles. When they arrived at Antioch in Pisidia, Paul preached a sermon which Luke has recorded. There are three important facts connected with this discourse: 1. That Paul said to the Jews (verse 27) that the prophets were read by their nation every Sabbath day. But if the seventh day had ceased to be the Sabbath, and the first-day had become the Sabbath, or if there were two Sabbaths each week, the seventh day and the first day, the declaration of Paul that the Jews read the prophets every Sabbath day, cannot be true. The term every Sabbath in Acts 13:24, means every seventh day, and cannot include one first day.
2. Paul declared to them (verses 30-37), that God had raised Christ from the dead, and that Christ had been seen of his disciples many days after his resurrection. Here was an opportunity for Paul to say that the resurrection of Christ had caused God to sanctify the first day of the week; but he did not say it, not because there was no need to say it if it were true, but because it was not true. Here also was an opportunity for Paul to say that Christ gradually sanctified the first day of the week during the many days that he was seen by his disciples, by appearing to them uniformly, or generally, on that day. But he said nothing of the kind; and our examination of the history of the forty days in our number for March (SIGNS for April), shows that Paul could not say it because it was not true. He might also have said—if it had been true—that during the twelve years that had elapsed since the ascension of Christ, the apostles had consulted together, and had decided to sanctify the day either by one united act of authority, or by many minor acts; but he said nothing of the kind, not because this was not necessary to be told, if true, but because it was not true, as we have shown in our number for April. [SIGNS for April 13.]
3. But the most remarkable fact remains to be noticed. When Paul had finished his sermon, the Gentiles besought him to preach the same words to them the next Sabbath day. This time the circumstances are such that Paul must speak of the sanctification of the first day of the week, if the day had been sanctified. When asked to preach the next Sabbath, he could not do otherwise than to answer thus: "You ought not to wait to take the place of the seventh; I will preach to you to-morrow." The persons who requested him to preach were Gentiles, who would not be offended to hear of the sanctification of a new day, and who needed to hear of it if it were true. But Paul made no reference to the sanctification of the day, which is a conclusive proof that as late as the year forty-five, the first day of the week had not been sanctified. Luke informs us that the next Sabbath came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God. This fact is worthy of notice because it shows an extensive regard for the Sabbath among the Gentiles in the city of Antioch.
III.
The first day had not been sanctified when the first missionary tour was finished. The council at Jerusalem distinguished between the moral law and the ceremonial.
The fourteenth chapter of Acts finishes the history of the first missionary tour of Paul and Barnabas. They preached in the synagogues of the Jews wherever they found them. They could not have done this, if they had taught that the first day had been sanctified in the place of the seventh; nor could they have done it if they had ceased to celebrate the seventh day. The fourteenth chapter of Acts makes not the slightest allusion to the sanctification of the first day, neither in what it says that the apostles taught nor in what it records of any accusation made by the Jews.
The fifteenth chapter tells us that after Paul and Barnabas had returned to Antioch in Syria, that city was visited by certain persons from Jerusalem, who were scandalized to find that the Gentile converts were not circumcised. Verses 1, 5. If they had found the Gentile converts breaking the Sabbath, they would have been still more vehement in denouncing them. But they made no complaint in this respect, which shows that they had none to make. But to set at rest the question whether the Gentiles ought to be circumcised and to observe the law of Moses, Paul and Barnabas went up to Jerusalem to confer with the apostles. The law of Moses must signify the ceremonial law, for Peter called it a yoke which neither the apostles nor their fathers were able to bear. Verse 10. And the decision made by the apostles, shows that the moral law could not have been the subject of discussion in the council, unless we believe that the apostles broke down eight of the ten prohibitions against immortality, and even left in force only a part of each of the other two; that is to say, left in force a part of the second commandment and a part of the seventh.
The apostles were unanimous in the decision that the Gentiles should not observe circumcision nor the ceremonial law. Verses 1, 5, 24. If it be said that the apostles set aside, not the ceremonial law only, but the moral law also, then we ask why they should prohibit fornication if they had abolished the law which forbids adultery? And why also should they forbid the eating of things offered to idols, if they abolished the commandment which forbids idolatry? If they permitted in each case the greater sin, how could they with any reason forbid the less? Let those answer who think that the apostles set aside the moral law with the ceremonial.
IV.
The apostles took care that the Gentiles should not think any part of the moral law was set aside with the ceremonial.
There can be no greater absurdity than to represent the apostles as forbidding fornication, but permitting adultery; and, as forbidding the eating of meats offered to idols, but permitting the worship of idols. Yet this is precisely what they did, if they abrogated the moral law with its prohibition of idolatry, blasphemy, murder, and adultery, and only maintained the prohibition of meats offered to idols, and the prohibition of fornication. But they did nothing of the kind. The moral law was not in dispute, and the apostles did not grant permission to transgress one of its precepts. But they did set aside the ceremonial law, and this made it necessary that they should speak on three points which the Gentiles in their blindness might suppose to be set aside with the ceremonial law.
These were: (1) The sin of fornication which properly signifies the transgression of the seventh commandment, when both the parties are unmarried The false education of the Gentiles, led them to think that this sin was not a violation of the commandment that forbids adultery. (2) The eating of meats offered to idols. The Gentiles were in danger of thinking that this would not be a violation of the commandment which forbids idolatry. (3) The eating of things strangled, and of blood; that is the eating of flesh with the blood, and the eating of blood by itself. The Gentiles were in danger of regarding the prohibition of blood as a part of the ceremonial law which was not to be observed by them. Gen. 9:3, 4; Lev. 17:10-14. But the reason on which the prohibition of blood was founded, that the blood was used in making atonement for the souls of men (compare Lev. 16:15, 18; 17:11), and the honor of the law of God which man has transgressed, forbids that man should taste blood.
V.
The change of the fourth commandment was not recognized by the apostles, because unknown to them. The first day had not been sanctified when Paul preached at Philippi.
We have thus learned a fact of great importance. It is that when the apostles declared circumcision, and the ceremonial law, or law of Moses, not to be obligatory upon the Gentiles, they took care to define all the questions on which the Gentiles, through ignorance or false education, were in danger of transgressing the moral law. It was therefore in the highest degree necessary that the apostles on this occasion should speak of the change of the fourth commandment if the first day had been sanctified to take the place of the seventh. Or if it had not yet been sanctified, the time had come when they must sanctify it if they were ever to do it, for the apostles were assembled at Jerusalem for the last time. What did they say to indicate that the first day had already been sanctified? Not one word. What did they say by way of then establishing the sanctification of the day? Nothing!
Yet in this council the Sabbath of the Lord was expressly recognized. When James, as president of the council, briefly announced the judgment of the apostles, he assigned as a reason for the brevity of the letter which was proposed to be written to the Gentiles, the fact that in every city the books of Moses were read in the synagogues every Sabbath day. Acts 15:19-21. This shows: (1) That the only weekly Sabbath known to the apostles at the time of this council, A. D. 52, was the seventh day. (2) That the converted Gentiles were accustomed to hear the reading of the books of Moses in the synagogue on the Sabbath. (3) That the sanctification of the first day was unknown to the apostles in A. D. 52, and when this council was dissolved, the last opportunity for the apostles to sanctify the day by one united act, was gone forever, for they were never all assembled afterward.
We have a remarkable reference to the Sabbath in Acts 16. When Paul arrived at Philippi he found that a certain number of devout Gentiles were accustomed to meet for prayer on the Sabbath at the side of the river. Verse 13. He united with them in worship, and from this commencement arose the church of Philippi. If they were not keeping the right day it was the duty of Paul to tell them that the first day had been sanctified in the place of the seventh; but he certainly told them nothing of the kind, and the reason is evident: he could not do it and speak the truth.
J. N. A.
Miracles—Do They Now Exist?
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
Of late, this question has occupied quite a prominent place in religious journals, but none of them have disposed of it in so few words as the Christian at Work. We give its remarks on the subject, together with the question which called them out:—
“If the age of miracles is not passed, can the sick still be healed by faith and prayer? And are such cures now wrought? If miracles are not to be looked for, how are the remarkable cases of sudden healing, called ‘faith cures,’ to be accounted for? or are they not cases of sudden healing?”—Watch-Tower.
“The age of miracles is past; the modern ‘faith cures’ can all be explained by Psychology, just as bread pills have effected like wonderful cures. Miracles are something more than preternatural events,—they are supernatural occurrences sent to authenticate the divine character of a messenger. That is the touchstone of every miracle related between the covers of the Bible.”
When any question is thus arbitrarily answered, it is an evidence either that it has been so thoroughly canvassed previously that the answer is self-evident, or else that the one who answers the question has no argument except his dogmatic assertion. We think it can be shown that the latter is true in this instance.
It is a sad fact that the answer given above voices the sentiment of a large portion of the religious world to-day. A sad fact, because it is only the stepping-stone to a disbelief in the inspiration of the Bible, and the divinity of Christ. The rank infidel claims, with equal reason, that such things as miracles never existed. Indeed, if we deny that miraculous cures may be effected now, we virtually do deny that they were ever performed. No one now living ever saw any of the miracles that are recorded in the Bible. We accept them on the authority of that book. The Bible has ample evidence in itself that it is an inspired book, and we are bound to accept its statements as the truth. We therefore believe that miracles were really performed by Christ, and by the apostles and prophets. But the same book upon which we rely for our information in regard to miracles in the past, assures us that they will occur. See Mark 16:17, 18; James 5:14, 15. Why should we accept the statement of the Bible in one place, and disbelieve it in another?260
“Miracles,” it is said, “are supernatural occurrences sent to authenticate the divine character of a messenger.” But it is well to remember that none of Christ’s miracles seem to have been performed for this purpose. There is nothing forced or unnatural about them. There was always a want to be supplied, some distress to be relieved. All of Christ’s miracles of healing were done as though they were the natural service of one who sees suffering, and puts forth his power to alleviate it. The idea of the pity and compassion of Christ is the most prominent in all his miracles. It is true that these miracles attested his divinity, and constrained the people to say “That God hath visited his people,” yet nowhere does the humanity of Christ appear more plainly than in his contact with the afflicted. At the tomb of Lazarus he wept; he had compassion on the widow of Nain, and on the multitudes who were ready to perish through hunger and fatigue. He “went about doing good,” not with parade and ceremony, as though to call attention to himself, but as one whose compassionate nature was touched by the sight of pain. Now we cannot believe that Jesus is any less tender and compassionate now than when he was on earth. Although we cannot see him with our eyes, he is as truly present, “beholding the evil and the good,” as when he walked with man; we read that he is “touched with the feeling of our infirmities,” and that he cares for us. We might reasonably expect, then, that his power would at times be put forth to help his creatures, even if we had not been assured that such would be the case.
But what is a miracle? It is simply a wonder, a wonderful thing. Then the fact that man, frail as he is, exists at all, is a standing miracle. David praised God because he was “fearfully and wonderfully made,” and Jeremiah felt that “it is of the Lord’s mercies that we are not consumed, because his compassions fail not.” No one could, by his own power, keep himself alive for a single moment. No man can create even the tiniest blade of grass, although he may know the elements which compose it, nor can he understand how it could be made to grow. The whole creation is a constant proof of the power of God continually exerted. Why, then, should we limit his power? If God is constantly performing miracles of one kind, why may he not perform others?
But there is still another point to consider. In Ps. 103:2, 3, we read: “Bless the Lord, O my soul, and forget not all his benefits; who forgiveth all thine iniquities; who healeth all thy diseases; who redeemeth thy life from destruction.” Here we have the forgiveness of sins, and the healing of diseases placed together, as two things for which to be thankful. Whoever will seriously consider the terrible condition of man in a fallen state, cannot but be convinced that the work of man’s redemption, the plan by which his sins may be constantly forgiven, is one of the greatest miracles that can be conceived. Now that Christ forgives sins, no Christian can deny. This is the good news which the gospel brings to man. If this were not true, the gospel would cease to be a gospel. But the psalmist carries the idea that the healing of diseases belongs to God as well as the forgiveness of sins, and it must be that he does heal diseases, or there would be no occasion for thanking him for it. And there is no intimation that the work of healing diseases should cease before the work of forgiving sins ceased.
If we study the New Testament, we shall find this fact still more clearly taught. Read the plain testimony in James 5:14, 15: “Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.” There is no guess-work about this. It is a simple declaration of what shall be if certain conditions are complied with. It is very common to ignore this passage, or explain it away, claiming that it does not mean exactly what it says. But if we dispose of the first part, we must treat the second in like manner, and claim that sins are not actually forgiven. Both statements are equally emphatic. There are many who can testify to the fact that God does forgive sins; and witnesses of his healing power are not few. Those who are disposed to cavil, will say that God does not heal all the diseases even of those who profess that their sins have been forgiven, for if he did, none would die. To this we can answer that man is not promised immunity from death. “It is appointed unto men once to die,” and this without reference to whether they are good or bad. Immortality is conferred upon God’s people only at the resurrection. See 1 Cor. 15:51-54. But the fact remains that men are healed by the power of God, when human power utterly fails. It is God that keeps us alive, and it is he that heals all diseases. As before quoted, “It is of the Lord’s mercies that we are not consumed.”
But there is still stronger evidence that the healing of diseases and the forgiveness of sins are co-existent, and it is given by our Lord himself. Read the account of the healing of the man sick of the palsy, as recorded in Matt. 9:1-8, also in Mark 3:1-12, and Luke 5:18-26. When Jesus saw the faith of the sick man and his attendants, he said to him: “Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee. And, behold, certain of the scribes said within themselves, This man blasphemeth. And Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts? For whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise and walk? But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins (then saith he to the sick of the palsy), Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house. And he arose, and departed to his house.” Here we have the power to heal the sick given as an evidence of the power to forgive sins. “Whether is easier?” Both are entirely beyond the comprehension of man. Sin is disease of the soul, as sickness is of the body. Sickness and death are but the result of sin (Rom. 5:12), and God alone can save from both. In the future state, when all sin is forever done away, we are told that “there shall be no more death, neither sorrow nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain;” and it is said that the inhabitant of that country shall not say “I am sick.” Now since God, in his infinite mercy, is pleased to forgive us our sins, if we but comply with the conditions, and give us, even here, foretastes of the heavenly glory, is it not reasonable that he should at times relieve the pain which his followers suffer? Add to this the many plain declarations in the Bible, and who can doubt it? That there are many pretended cures, and many that are simply imaginary, cannot be denied, but to say that all “faith cures” are such, is to play into the hands of infidels.
The Bible itself is the best evidence that it is the word of God, because it is always consistent with itself. The different parts have so close a relation that they cannot be separated. The man who begins to doubt any portion of it, is in danger of disbelieving the whole. If we let one point go, and hold to our unbelief, the rest must surely follow. There are many things in the word of God that are “hard to be understood,” and we cannot hope to know how God can perform his works; but it is a foolish and wicked to reject and deny all that we cannot understand. Rather let us say with the psalmist: “Thy word is true from the beginning; and everyone of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.”
E. J. W.
The Missionary.
By Editor
Extracts from Letters.
WE give this week a few extracts from letters received by members of the Oakland missionary society. We trust that they will serve as an incentive to others to persevere in the good work.
A lady in the East, eighty years of age, writes that for a few months, some unknown friend has been sending her the SIGNS. She has read it carefully, thinks the arguments on the Sabbath question are sound, and has come out, in spite of opposition, to keep it. She has been a believer in the second advent for several years.
A gentleman writes from the South: “It has been exceedingly kind in you to send me a copy of your paper every week. I must say it has been a great comfort to me. I think it is a paper that all should read. I inclose $1.50 to have it continued, as my friends, as well as myself, are anxious to have such a religious paper.”
Another writes: “I am very thankful for your interest in my welfare. The SIGNS is a great comfort to myself and family, and to others around. One man, a Baptist minister, borrows the paper to read. If you like, I would suggest that you mail him a copy. I am pleased with everything contained in the SIGNS, and especially with the temperance part.”
A gentleman writes from Alabama: “I received your kind favor of recent date, and in reply must thank you for past favors in sending me your valuable paper. I can assure you it has been a most welcome visitor, and I don't suppose there is a copy goes from your press, that is read more than the copy sent to me. I have every copy you have sent me on file, and they are pretty well worn, I assure you. I read it, and let my neighbors read it. I shall be thankful for any reading matter you send me. I send you the names of some who will be glad to get the paper.”
Another writes from the East: “I have received seven copies of the SIGNS, and so far I am very well pleased with it. I had hoped to make up a club to send you, but have not had spare time. Inclosed you will find $2.10 for SIGNS and premium.”
A gentleman writing from the South, says: I can assure you of my appreciation of the SIGNS OF THE TIMES. I esteem it, as it presents the truths of the Bible so plainly. The advice to parents, and the temperance pieces of the paper, are so good. I am persuaded that any candid person, who loves the truth, and desires that light may appear to those whose minds are darkened by self-indulgence, intemperance, and dress, must appreciate it. Its visits have been pleasant, and I hope profitable. I will be much pleased to receive any other reading matter you may desire to send.”
Another writes from North Carolina: “I have found the SIGNS to be welcome visitors. . . . Dear brother, I want you by the Lord's help, to spread the truths of your paper all over the land, for I believe the Lord is soon to come, and I want the truth known. I request your prayers for me; all my family are angry with me because I own the truth. Pray that I may be faithful.” He gives the names of others who wish to read the261paper.
Again, another one writes: “Inclosed you will find one dollar, to pay for the SIGNS for what time you have been sending it. I think I can soon raise a club to send you. I can hardly get a chance to read the papers, before somebody will take them to read. If you will send me some of your small tracts, with the price, I will send the pay for them.” He also gives a long list of names, to whom he wishes papers sent, and also tracts on the Soon Coming of Christ, The Judgment, State of the Dead, etc.
All these testimonies are an evidence to us that the Lord is preparing the hearts of people to receive his truth. May we all walk in the light, and be ready to improve the opportunities for spreading the truth, as God opens the way.
Academy Items.
By S. Brownsberger
THE spring term of our school closes two weeks from next Thursday. After a vacation of six weeks the fall term begins. Both teachers and students feel that this term has been a decided success. The latter are deeply interested in their studies, and much attached to the school. Thirty-eight have been enrolled thus far.
There is no doubt that the attendance next fall will be large. We shall be disappointed if there are not sixty or seventy at the opening. Quite a number outside the ranks of Seventh-day Adventists from Healdsburg and vicinity, have expressed their determination to attend.
All who expect to attend next fall should make it a point to be on hand at the opening. Much instruction, of great importance to students, will be given during the first week, which will not be repeated during the term.
For the benefit of young men and women who desire a special preparation for missionary work, Eld. Waggoner will deliver lectures upon Bible topics, and give instruction to classes in Bible and Church History. These lectures and class instruction will cover a period of about ten weeks. I am sure we would all be pleased if Eld. W. would give us through the SIGNS, as soon as convenient, a little more definite information concerning the object and character of this proposed course. Those who expect to attend this course will do well to come at the beginning of the term, even though the Bible instruction may not begin at that time. By so doing they will be able to devote more time to the study of the English language, and other branches of great importance to them, in preparation for their work.
The interest in Bible study, during this term, has been all that could be desired. We believe that Heaven is blessing the efforts in this direction, to the salvation of souls. The students take a greater delight in their Bible study than in any other branch they have. Their hearts are tender, and they seem eager and hungry for spiritual instruction. There is no listlessness or inattention in the classes, but a spirit of earnest inquiry.
To-day has been a profitable Sabbath for the Healdsburg Church. At the close of the usual social meeting, an invitation was given to the youth to come forward for prayers. About thirty came forward without a moment's delay. There appeared to be a hungering among them for God and his blessing. Nearly all in the house were affected to tears when they beheld these youths so eager to seek God. In the afternoon several of these students held a prayer-meeting in a neighboring grove.
We all feel that the Lord is ready to work for the youth who shall assemble here to attend the school, and that rich blessings are in store for the Healdsburg Church, if they are faithful to their own souls and to the souls of those brought under their influence. May God's spirit walk among us and prepare the way.
May 27, 1882. S. BROWNSBERGER.
Girls in China.
Our young people may like to hear about the real condition of girls in China to-day. Perhaps they suppose that the heathenish customs, such as binding the feet of girls, and of mutilating or selling them, have passed away in the light of these latter days. But China still sits in great darkness.
A few months ago there lived near Swatow, a girl of thirteen, named A Na. Her father and two married sisters were Christians, while her mother remained a heathen. One sister was at the English Presbyterian Mission School at Swatow. She was taken sick there, and A Na was sent for to take care of her. So A Na came, and went about her duties with a pleasant, cheerful face, though the missionaries soon found that she had great trials. Her mother was determined to bind her feet, as nearly all the women in the village where she lives have the little misshapen feet produced by binding them tightly in early life. It is a torturing process, and the missionaries and Chinese converts set their faces against it as unchristian. Poor A Na declared that she would not submit to it, and that she wished to follow her father, and do as a Christian should. However, her mother consulted a fortune teller, and he fixed upon the twenty-seventh day of the twelfth moon as a lucky day to begin the binding. At that time she sent for A Na, who refused to go. The mother then came herself, but when A Na saw her, she threw herself into the matron's arms, and clung to her till she was pulled away by main force. Her mother dragged her down stairs, scolding and raving as only a heathen woman can. So the poor child was carried off, weeping bitterly as she went. Her last words to her sister, were, "My heart is fixed. I will be a Christian, and will not have my feet bound."
The Peking Gazette of March 15, in the year of grace, 1881, states that the Governor-General of Sze-chuen asks imperial honors for a girl of eighteen who starved herself to death, after the burial of her betrothed. He also asks honors for other females who have "displayed their filial piety by mutilating themselves." The honors were granted.
Miss Safford, of Foochow, writing for Woman's Work in China, says that parents do now sell their daughters, and husbands their wives. When a man sells his wife, the sale paper is stamped by the woman herself. The palm of her hand is smeared with ink, and makes on the paper a full, clear mark that could not be obtained without her consent. A paper thus attested proves that the woman was not stolen from her husband.
Chinese books for women are mostly stories of ancient discreet heroines, or "Rules of Propriety." In these books, industry and reverence for parents are commended, but so is suicide. Devotion to a husband's memory is enjoined, and widows are entreated to disfigure themselves by cutting off their ears and noses, rather than marry a second time.
As to the number who read, Miss Safford says that she kept for some months a carefully-written record of all the women who could read, within a given number. Out of eight hundred there were only eight who could read at all. Of the eight only two could read well, and of the two, the best reader did not understand the meaning of the classics, though she knew the characters very well. Of course Chinese girls differ in capacity as other girls do, but their standard of education has left them as a whole in a low and dull mental condition. In one of the Methodist mission schools the girls said that Moses created the world, Adam was the true God, and Pilate was an apostle. On the other hand, Miss Porter, who reports this, found in a tour through villages south of Pekin, a girl who had read the catechism and the whole New Testament. She had asked help of any one who could tell her the characters, and had studied her lessons by night, after the family had retired and the house was quiet. She had read the New Testament till she had become familiar with it, and above all had learned to love it and to treasure special portions. "She came to my room alone one night, and read passage after passage, giving with each selection some reason why she enjoyed it. Her eyes filled while reading the crucifixion, and she soon stopped, saying she could not read that without crying. Such progress on the part of the few," says Miss Porter, "strengthened hope for all and enlarged our vision of the whole work among the women."
Girls of the better classes are not expected to go beyond the doorway after they are ten years old. One lady is held up as a model, because she never even went near a window to look out. This custom is now observed to some extent in Foochow. The little daughters of wealthy families, who used to visit Miss Safford, come no longer, nor do they play around their front doors. She inquired for them, and was told, "They are too old to go out now, it is not proper." "I was not allowed to go to the front door during my husband's life-time," said a mandarin's widow.
The amusements of the wealthier women consist chiefly of smoking, gossiping, card-playing, and fancy work, while some few use musical instruments. They make occasional visits to female relatives. Perhaps an afternoon jaunt is allowed, once in a great while, to some pleasure garden. Of course they cannot walk thither with their deformed and weakened feet; they must ride in the palanquin, which has the merit of screening them from sight. Shall we not come to the rescue of these poor souls without God and without hope?—Missionary Herald.
Temperance.
The Little Shoes Did It.
A YOUNG man who had been reclaimed from the vice of intemperance was called upon to tell how he was led to give up drinking. He arose, but looked for a moment very confused. All he could say was: "The little shoes, they did it." With a thick voice, as if his heart was in his throat, he kept repeating this. There was a stare of perplexity on every face, and at length some thoughtless young people began to titter. The man, in all his embarrassment, heard the sound, and rallied at once. The light came into his eyes with a flash; he drew himself up, and the choking went from his throat. "Yes, friends," he said, in a voice that cut its way clear as a deep-toned bell, "whatever you may think of it, I've told you the truth—the little shoes did it. I was a brute and a fool; strong drink had made me both, and starved me into the bargain. I suffered—I deserved to suffer; but I did not suffer alone—no man does who has a wife and children—for the women get the worst share. But I am no speaker to enlarge on that; I'll stick to the little shoes I saw one night when I was all but done for—the saloon-keeper's child holding out her feet to her father to look at her fine new shoes. It was a simple thing; but, my friends, no fist ever struck
me such a blow as those little new shoes. They kicked reason into me. What reason had I to clothe others with fineries, and provide not even coarse clothing for my own, but let them go bare? And there outside was my shivering wife, and blue, chilled child on a Christmas Eve. I took hold of my little one with a grip, and saw her feet. Men! fathers! if the little shoes smote me, how must the feet have smote me? I put them, cold as ice, to my breast; and they pierced me through. Yes, the little feet walked right into my heart, and away walked my selfishness. I had a trifle of money left; I bought a loaf of bread, and then a pair of shoes. I never tasted anything but a bit of bread all the next day; and I went to work like a man on Monday, and from that day I have spent no more money at the public house. That's all I have got to say—it was the little shoes that did it."
Ukiah, California.
By J. D. Rice, E. A. Briggs, L. A. Scott
Began meetings in this place Friday evening, May 26. Have given eight discourses to date. Audiences have been quite good, notwithstanding another protracted meeting is being held at the Disciple Church, by Elder John McCorkle, who commenced the next evening after we began. We have distributed quite a number of tracts and papers, and sold some books. There seems to be considerable interest manifested. There have been more invitations to visit than we have been able to fill. We are endeavoring to do what we can in this line. We feel of good courage, and trust by the blessing of God to turn many from darkness to the light of the present truth, and faithfully warn all of the approaching day of the Lord.
Pray that the Lord's will may be accomplished for the people here.
J. D. Rice.
E. A. Briggs.
L. A. Scott.
June 2, 1882.
The Smoker.
THE smoker who is wedded to the habit, cannot readily understand why every one else does not like the odor. But the fact is patent that the scent of tobacco is not only disagreeable to some persons, but also absolutely poisonous. It does not mend the matter to say that this is mere prejudice or weakness. You have no right to make others uncomfortable for your own satisfaction. No gentleman will thrust himself in close proximity to ladies, with his coat saturated with stale smoke. No gentleman will pass through a car carrying a lighted cigar in his hand, and leaving a trail of offensive smoke behind him. No gentleman will get in a stage carrying a smoldering stump in his hand, and keep it there until it smolders out and emits a more hideous stench than before. No gentleman will puff out his costly smoke on the platform of the horse-car, when the passengers inside cannot escape some portions of the fumes. But you can find "men" doing these things every day in the week.—Sel.
Growth of Vice.
By The Philadelphia Times
"TWENTY years ago, the young man who drank was the exception; now the young man who does not drink is the rarity. We are accustomed to blame everything on 'the war,' and perhaps the war will serve as a reason in this case. Certainly it was about that time or shortly after that lager beer began to grow in popularity, and young men and boys began to cultivate a fondness for it, and thereby to acquire a taste for alcoholic liquors of all kinds. The cigarette vice followed to reinforce and stimulate the drinking habit, until now a boy is scarcely in his teens before he begins to smoke his nasty cigarette, and drink his sophisticated beer and bad whisky; and gangs of youths who ought to be at school or serving an apprenticeship to some honest calling, go swaggering about the streets, and in and out of taverns, and are not ashamed to greet their mothers with their breath reeking with smoke and alcohol."