How often, dearest Lord,
Within the closet's hush,
Do we confess our sins to thee
With tear or blush!
But when in word or deed
Some brother we offend,
Though one sweet utterance would keep
Our friend our friend,
How, trampling on thy grace,
Pride will repentance foil,
And from confession due to him
Our hearts recoil!
"I cannot stoop to that,"
Self-love in secret cries;
The fear of man, not fear of sin,
Before her eyes.
Oh, if our fear of man
Were lost in love of thee;
If thy dear likeness we possessed
In least degree;
The coldness we might meet,
The poor, vague sense of loss,
The small contempt that often seems
The sorest cross,
The world's derision cast
On acts of lowliness—
How would we brave them for thy sake,
To make redress!
The hour is near when earth
No longer will appall;
But only words and deeds that hour
Beyond recall.
I would not leave undone
The work thou gavest me,
Nor my transgressions unconfessed,
Dear Lord, to thee.
But oh, that other test
Of those who name thy name;
The bearing of that outward cross
That thou dost claim!
Sweet Jesus, give me grace,
And make me swift to say,
"I own my fault, good neighbor mine;
Forgive, I pray."
And should my neighbor turn
Away from me his face,
Sufficient for my humbled soul
Would be thy grace.
—Harriet McEwen Kimball, in Congregationalist.
PROPPING UP THE BIBLE.
THERE are many people who think that the Lord needs their help to brace up the truth of the Scriptures; so that all the while they are trying to give additional force to what God has said, by the opinions of men. They seem to imagine that if Napoleon, or Charlemagne, or Frederick the Great, or some one equally noted in science or literature, shall be pleased to express an admiration for Christianity and the Bible, that telling it will make their preaching so much the more effective. If some statesman, after a life of public service, and perhaps a vain pursuit of the highest honors, acknowledges the divinity and authority of the Son of God, it is heralded from a hundred rostrums, as might be the words of a newly discovered original manuscript of the New Testament.
Such a view indicates a mistaken idea of what the church is called upon to preach, and an imperfect conception of the majesty and power of the truth as it is in Jesus. Who is helped in his appreciation of the truth that the sun shines with a power and brilliancy beyond all other heavenly bodies, by quoting what Huxley or Tyndall may say about it? What is the value of the testimony of Ruskin or Humboldt as to the grandeur of Niagara, to one who has gazed upon the majestic cataract, and listened to its unceasing thunder? Who will prop up the Pyramids with tooth-picks?
And yet men who think they are called to preach the gospel, spend much of their time in explaining, and apologizing, and proving it by the testimony of worldly men!
God has given us a revelation of himself in a book that cannot be overturned; his truth is so great and enduring that no testimony of uninspired men is needed to establish it. The structure of Christianity is as the New Jerusalem to the enraptured vision of the apostle John; so immense, so incomparably magnificent in design, so illimitable in its wealth of adornment and indescribable beauty, that when it is portrayed to the world in the words of the Spirit, it stands the wonder and joy of the ages! Let the sun shine on; let the tremendous torrent of Niagara roll forever over the mighty precipice; let the only remaining of the world’s seven wonders stand in their prodigious massiveness; and let God’s book and Christ’s divinity speak for themselves; none of them need the praise or testimony of men to establish them. And thou, O man of God, preach the word, not what men say about it; shun not to declare the whole counsel of God, unsupported by human testimony; remembering that heaven and earth shall pass away, but the words of Christ shall not pass away. And all who hear, and believe, and obey, shall be saved, because God hath said it, and not because some worm of the dust has indorsed it!—New England Evangelist.
ICHABOD.
By Frank Hope
THE ways and means employed by popular churches to make their services attractive are reaching a point that is almost incredible. It would seem that more iniquity is carried on under the garb of Christianity than is perpetrated by the most point-blank infidels. The prophet Jeremiah states this fact in speaking of professors of religion in the last days; says he, “They are waxen fat, they shine; yea, they overpass the deeds of the wicked.” In the professed Christian world of to-day there exists an almost unquenchable thirst for excitement, a desire for something new. Up to the present time this craving has been in a measure appeased by such eccentricities as the preaching of reformed drunkards, etc., while an extra inducement to spirituality has been occasionally offered in the shape of an evangelical pugilist or a converted cowboy.
It could, however, be said of these preachers that they made a pretense of preaching the Bible, but now in many places the Bible is altogether discarded. The thirst for novelty demands a greater stimulant, and the Bible is now foreign to many a popular sermon. It is not uncommon for ministers to give for a sermon such topics as, “A Tour in Italy” or an account of some foreign country, or, perhaps, some other entertainment. For example, the writer on three different occasions visited one of these popular and fashionable churches, once at the weekly prayer-meeting and twice on the regular Sunday evening service. The first time a Bulgarian, in full Oriental costume, gave an interesting, and in some parts laughable account of the customs and manners of his people. The next evening service consisted partly of some reminiscences given by a converted Jew and his wife from Joppa (both dressed in a most fantastic garb); the rest of the entertainment being made up of recitations by a well-drilled choir, to which the congregation listened with a listless, dilettant air, but who well appreciated the evening’s service, for on leaving, one of them was heard to remark that it “was as good as a circus”—which in fact it was. The third time, the services were conducted by a Chinaman—en costume, of course. With these facts in view the criticism of Paul can be appreciated. “This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, . . . lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof; from such turn away.”
It is also to be noticed that the means the churches employ to raise money are now as varied as the style of preaching. Church fairs, charity balls, etc., have to some extent become stale and “out of style.” So the church have to make bolder and more strenuous efforts. A short time ago, a paper carnival was given in San Francisco, when an investment of about $25,000 was made to raise $6,500. But as the Christians had a most enjoyable time of dancing and revelry, it was counted as a success. The Roman Catholics of Cincinnati have originated a new plan, which presumably will be taken up by other churches. This plan is to place a theatrical company on the road. This is ahead of anything that has been done yet in this country, but in Paris the climax is reached in the shape of a “charity bull-fight.” This can only be regarded as a startling fulfillment of prophecy in regard to men being “fierce,” as shown in 2 Tim. 3:1-5, but even knowing this, it is almost incredible that such a murderously cruel means should be taken to raise money for professedly charitable purposes. For all this the ministers are responsible, and there is only one remedy. The law of God must be preached. But many ministers dare not do this; they have pampered the taste and tickled the ears of the people to such an extent that they are now at their mercy. The people demand smooth things, and the preachers have to meet the demand; and although the most flamboyant wickedness is practiced in the very church, too often the minister dare not rebuke it, lest some old libertine should throw up his pew.
These are the churches that are expecting the millennium; these are they who wish Christ to be their king. How long will a long-suffering God endure such mockery. “Let God arise, let his enemies be scattered.”
FRANK HOPE.
NOT WORTH WHILE.
It seldom is worth while to insist upon uttering the last word in an argument or controversy. You may be, and know yourself to be, entirely right, and your opponent may exhibit a spirit at once unlovely and imprudent in persisting in the discussion, yet usually it is far wiser to allow him whatever semblance of victory there may be in the privilege of speaking the last word. The real aim of a Christian in such a case should be not to appear to get the better of an adversary, but to be right, to uphold the truth. If you have done this, you can afford to let your words lie in the memory of your opponent and every other person who has heard them, in the confidence that they probably will bear their appropriate fruit, while you will have avoided the appearance of wrangling.—Selected.
Our Obligations to God
WE have seen people so proud that they could not endure the thought of being under the faintest liability to anybody. A dollar’s worth of unbalanced obligation would be intolerable to them. And yet we have known just such men to go on for years owing everything to God, and apparently never giving it one thought. An honorable man, if he cannot discharge his obligations, will at least take a sad pleasure in acknowledging them.—Sel.
CONCEALED INFIDELITY.
By Editor
"The gentle Nazarene did not die to become an atonement for the sins of a fallen world, but to set an example to mankind of fidelity to principle, even unto death. His pure life and noble teachings speak to the soul now as never before."
THE above we find in an editorial in the Golden Gate. We would like to ask how the writer found out that there was such a person as the "gentle Nazarene;" how he knows that his life was pure and his teachings noble; and where he learned about his death. The answer must be, In the New Testament; for nowhere else do we find any account of Jesus of Nazareth. There are in one or two profane histories, references to Jesus; but if the Bible had never been written, the world would have no knowledge of the life, character, and teachings of Christ. Whoever, therefore, accepts the truth that there was once a person on earth whose name was Jesus, and that his life was the perfection of purity, and his teachings the perfection of wisdom, must do so solely on the authority of the Bible.
But the same book which gives the history of Christ, tells us the manner and object of his death. Peter says (Acts 2:23) that he was taken and by wicked hands crucified and slain; and he says also, that he "his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness." 1 Peter 2:24. We read also that righteousness shall be imputed to us, "if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification." Rom. 4:24, 25. We read again, that "God commendeth his love toward us in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." Rom. 5:8. Again we read that we are justified "through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God." Rom. 3:24, 25. The same book which tells about the life of Jesus says, "He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned everyone to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." Isa. 53:5, 6.
These statements concerning the death of Christ might be multiplied indefinitely. They teach plainly that Christ did die as an atonement for sin, and that those who believe in him may be justified from sin. The same book which tells about the noble character and pure teachings of Christ, gives the above reasons for his death. If we accept the first, we cannot reject the other. The one who denies the atonement of Christ, convicts himself of inconsistency when he professes to believe that Jesus lived and taught. The historical narrative includes the death of Christ as well as his life.
Moreover, Jesus himself said: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved." John 3:16, 17. Now the man who says that the teachings of Jesus were pure and noble, and yet says that he did not die for the sins of the world, stultifies himself, for he virtually asserts that Jesus taught that which is not true.
Our object in noticing this statement from the Golden Gate is to expose a sort of infidelity that is becoming very common. It is a concealed infidelity, with which Spiritualists expect to entrap many professed Protestant Christians. They refer to the historical narrative of the Bible as though they accepted it fully, and thus gain the confidence of the unwary. Having thus concealed their hatred of the Bible, they proceed to undermine faith in it by perverting its teachings. The infidel who denies the Bible as a whole, rejecting even its historical statements, is not half so dangerous as one who professes a portion of it in order that he may more easily undermine its principles. It is simply an aggravated case of Judas betraying his Lord with a kiss.
It is not Spiritualists alone, however, who do this sort of thing. There are thousands who call themselves Christians, who segregate the Bible, calling this or that portion uninspired and throwing it overboard, if it runs counter to their preconceived opinions or perverse practices. If everyone who makes a profession of Christianity, should awake some morning and find the Bible or Bibles in his possession a perfect blank, with the exception of those portions which he really believed, there would be few whole Bibles in existence, and the supply of blank paper would largely exceed the demand.
"A WEIGHTY AND TIMELY UTTERANCE."
By Editor
(Continued.)
TESTIMONY FROM HISTORY.
WE now come to the examination of "proofs from church history." Under this head Dr. Bailey begins thus:—
"Mosheim, one of the most reliable of church historians, and chancellor of the University of Gottingen from 1747 to 1755, in Vol. I, p. 45, says: 'All Christians were unanimous in setting apart the first day of the week on which the triumphant Saviour arose from the dead, for the solemn celebration of public worship. This pious custom, which was derived from the example of the church of Jerusalem, was founded upon the express appointment of the apostles, who consecrated that day to the same sacred purpose, and was observed universally throughout the Christian churches as appears from the united testimonies of the most credible writers.'"
In Murdock's Mosheim (book 1, cent. 1, part 2, chap. 4, sec. 4), we find a statement somewhat similar to the one which Dr. Bailey credits to Mosheim, but it is not expressed in nearly so strong language. We presume the Doctor quoted from Maclaine's translation, which is well known to be a paraphrase of Mosheim, rather than a translation. But we will accept the quotation just as it is given to us, for it is of no importance anyway. According to the quotation given, Mosheim states that the observance of the first day of the week was founded "upon the express appointment of the apostles." Now where did he learn this? Did Mosheim have access to some writings of the apostles that we have not? Is it true that we have only a fragment of the Bible, and that somewhere there are inspired writings hidden away, which no one but Dr. Mosheim has been privileged to see? If there are such documents, and if Mosheim found in them an "express appointment of the apostles," fixing the first day of the week as the Sabbath, it seems as though he might have had the goodness to give less favored mortals the exact words of that "express appointment." But we have never heard of any Protestant so bold as to claim that there are in existence inspired writings of the apostles, other than those contained in the New Testament. Now if the apostles did expressly appoint the first day of the week as the Sabbath, that appointment may be read by everybody. Why, then, did not Dr. Bailey quote direct from the apostles, instead of saying that Mosheim says so? Simply because the apostles never made any such appointment. If they had, the reader may rest assured that Dr. Bailey would have given it in his "Scripture proofs."
Right here it will be worth while to remind the reader that the apostles were not law givers. They had no authority to appoint a sabbath day. All that they were commissioned to do was to declare the words of Christ. See Matt. 28:19, 20. But even Mosheim does not profess to make the statement credited to him, on the authority of the apostles. He states that it "appears from the united testimonies of the most credible writers," that this example was derived from the appointment of the apostles. We accept Mosheim as a standard church historian, but when he tells us what the apostles did, he is on ground where the most unlearned can judge of the truth of what he says. Although he was a very learned man, there is not a child fourteen years of age who may not be just as well informed as to what the apostles said and did as he was. Mr. Bailey's argument from history is simply this: He says that the apostles kept Sunday, and appointed its observance. We ask him what authority he has for such a statement, and he says that Dr. Mosheim says so, and Dr. Mosheim says, "The most credible writers" say so. There is altogether too much "they say" about this. We should prefer to hear the apostles themselves speak. They are "the most credible writers" of whom we have any knowledge.
Since the custom of the early church has been stated, we might cite a few instances from history. In note 4 of the section before referred to, Mosheim says: "Perhaps also Good Friday, the Friday on which our Saviour died, was from the earliest times regarded with more respect than other days of the week." Again he says:—
"The Christians assembled for the worship of God in private dwelling-houses, in caves, and in the places where the dead were buried. They met on the first day of the week, and here and there on the seventh day, which was the Jewish Sabbath. Most of them likewise held sacred the fourth and sixth, the former being the day on which our Saviour was betrayed, and the latter on which he was crucified." —Book 1, cent. 2, part 2, chap. 4, sec. 8.
We hope that our friends who observe the first day of the week on the authority of Dr. Mosheim, will show their consistency by keeping also Wednesday and Friday.
Two or three quotations are also made from Neander, but as they are to the same effect, simply telling what certain professed Christians did, we will not stop to repeat them. We are not so much interested in what some people may have done, as we are in what the Bible commands us to do. Even the best intentioned people do not always do what they ought to do. In Gal. 2:12, 13, we find that even the apostles Barnabas and Peter were at one time guilty of dissimulation, but we do not therefore conclude that we ought to do the same.
Before leaving this part of the subject we will, however, give one of Mr. Bailey's quotations from Neander with his comments thereon:—
"Again Neander says: 'Those churches however which were composed of Jewish Christians, though they admitted with the rest the festival of Sunday, yet retained also that of the Sabbath; and it was from these that the custom became general in the Eastern churches of distinguishing this day as well as Sunday.' That is, the custom of keeping the seventh day as well as the first, arose from these Judaizing Christians. Do we want to follow their example in direct opposition to inspired teaching?"
This quotation shows that Christians in the early days observed the seventh day of the week, and Mosheim in the same paragraph from which a quotation has already been made, says that for doing this "the other Christians taxed them with no wrong." This proves positively that those in the early church who observed the first day of the week did not do so because of any apostolic appointment, and that they did not know of any such appointment; for if they had, they would have taxed those who did not follow it with doing wrong. These facts prove what Dr. Scott says in his comment on Acts 20:7:—
"The change from the seventh to the first day of the week appears to have been gradually and silently introduced, by example rather than by express precept."
Mr. Bailey says: "The custom of keeping the seventh day as well as the first arose from these Judaizing Christians. Do we want to follow their example in direct opposition to inspired teaching?" We say most emphatically, No, to both sentences. We do not want to follow the example of anybody, in direct opposition to inspired teaching. And we say also that the custom of keeping the seventh day did not119arise from "Judaizing Christians," but from the commandment of Jehovah, who said in thunder tones from Mount Sinai: "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work." We would that some people's professed fear of acting contrary to inspired teaching had more sincerity in it. All of the ten commandments were given to the Jews, who differed no more from the heathen around them in that they kept the seventh day, than they did in that they abstained from blasphemy and theft. Those who refuse to keep the Sabbath, lest they be like the Jews, can be consistent only by rejecting the entire decalogue.
W.
(To be continued.)
IS IT STRANGE?
By W.
SOME time since, a religious writer of considerable prominence, in commenting upon the resurrection of Dorcas, said:—
"Imagine Dorcas's surprise when she first opened her eyes. Here she was back in the world again. How strange it is to discover that no one of those persons who were raised from the dead ever attempted to tell the story of what they saw or heard."
The grave is spoken of as that "undiscovered country, from whose bourn no traveler returns;" but as a matter of fact many have returned, yet none have ever opened their lips to relate what they heard or saw while dead. Now if the dead are conscious, this is passing strange. If it be true that death is simply the separation of the soul from the body, which has acted as a clog to it, restricting its free exercise, why is it that in those instances where the soul has been returned to its lodgment, no note is made of the wonderful things learned while it was permitted to expand unrestrained?
We say that it is indeed wonderful that no revelations have been made of what is beyond, if, as the poet says, death is only transition, and the soul is more acutely conscious in death than it ever was during life; but we do not bring forward the fact that no such revelation has been made, as proof that the dead are not conscious. We have proof of a more satisfactory nature, which clears the subject of all doubt, and explains why those who have been raised from the dead were silent as to what took place during their absence from among the living. The testimony is abundant, but we have space here for only the following:—
Those who are dead are asleep: "Consider and hear me, O Lord my God; lighten mine eyes, lest I sleep the sleep of death." Ps. 13:3. "It is in vain for you to rise up early, to sit up late, to eat the bread of sorrows; for so he giveth his beloved sleep." Ps. 127:2. "And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt." Dan. 12:2. "In their heat I will make them feasts, and I will make them drunken, that they may rejoice, and sleep a perpetual sleep, and not wake, saith the Lord." Jer. 51:39. "For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised; and if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished." 1 Cor. 15:16-18. "But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep." "For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him." 1 Thess. 4:13, 14.
People who are in a sound sleep are entirely unconscious of what is going on, and the Bible says that the dead are unconscious: "For the living know that they shall die; but the dead know not anything." "Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest." Eccl. 9:5, 10. "But man dieth, and wasteth away; yea, man giveth up the ghost, and where is he? As the waters fail from the sea, and the flood decayeth and drieth up; so man lieth down, and riseth not; till the heavens be no more, they shall not awake, nor be raised out of their sleep." "His sons come to honor, and he knoweth it not; and they are brought low, but he perceiveth it not of them." Job 14:10-12, 21. "The dead praise not the Lord, neither any that go down into silence." Ps. 115:17. "Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help. His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish." Ps. 146:3, 4.
Many more texts might be added but these are sufficient for our purpose. They are direct statements of fact, and need no explanation. There are only two things that can be done with them: Either accept them as literally true, or reject them altogether. But if we accept the Bible as the infallible word of God, we are not left to wonder why those who have been raised from the dead never told the story of what they saw or heard. They had none to tell. They were unconsciously sleeping, and were unable to take note of passing events. Then it is not a strange thing after all.
But there is one strange thing about this matter, and that is how, in the face of all these Bible texts, a Doctor of Divinity could write such a paragraph as that quoted at the beginning of this article. W.
THE COURSE OF "JUSTICE."
By J.
ONE of the worst elements in the defeat of justice in the courts nowadays, is the bad practice of continuances, which has grown to such an extent that it may almost be considered as an established system. Cases are continued over and over and again and again, until the chances are altogether against justice ever being done in them. One case in San Francisco has now been continued eighty times, and yet awaits trial. Another has been continued fifty times, and still waits. These are perhaps extreme cases, but they illustrate a practice that is followed in the courts everywhere to such an extent that in a multitude of cases the trial as well as the result at last is only a travesty upon justice.
By these continuances, so much time is consumed that in the natural order of events the witnesses may die, or move from the place, and even if they remain and are called to the trial, the facts are no longer fresh and clear to their minds, while many important points and circumstances are wholly forgotten. And when testimony, which at the best must be uncertain, falls into the hands of a sharp lawyer, and especially of the criminal lawyer, it is the easiest thing in the world for him to present it to the average jury in such a way that they shall see no real evidence in it, much less such evidence as would place the matter "beyond reasonable doubt."
The Constitution of the United States provides that in criminal cases the party accused shall have the right to a speedy trial, which of necessity implies that the accuser, that is "the people," shall have the right speedily to try him. But this provision of the Constitution, eminently wise and just as it is, is almost a dead letter; and this almost wholly owing to this baneful practice of repeated continuances and postponements. Both the fault and its remedy, lie with the courts. The matter of granting a continuance lies entirely in the option of the judge. There are, to be sure, times when a postponement ought to be made, and when it will serve the ends of justice, but such are the exception. Whereas it is safe to say that nine times out of ten, to grant the continuance asked for is only to play into the hands of the lawyers, and they in most cases directly into the hands of the criminals. Says the San Francisco Chronicle:—
"Too many judges have too kindly a feeling for the pockets of their brethren at the bar, and will not force a case to trial for fear that the attorney for the defendant should be compelled to sacrifice some other business in attending to the case in hand. They accept the plea of another professional engagement as a good and sufficient excuse for delay, instead of compelling the attorney for defendant to try the case or give it up to someone else. This is all wrong. There is no divinity doth so hedge about any particular member of the bar that the wheels of justice should stop because he cannot superintend their revolutions. An attorney violates the spirit if not the letter of his oath when he accepts an employment with full knowledge that he cannot give his services to his client at the time when they will be required, and it is the clear duty of the court to frown upon such unprofessional conduct by compelling the attorney to conform to the orders of the court or to relinquish the case."
And the New York Observer:—
"In many cases the pleas seem to be nothing more than a legal device for wearying out an opponent or making a trial so expensive to him that he cannot follow it up. The strangest part of the matter is that magistrates seemingly countenance such devices by granting adjournments on the most flimsy pretexts. So great are these abuses in the administration of justice that a court of law is about the last place in which a man seeks for a redress of wrongs or a restitution of rights."
But in this delay of the law and defeat of justice, the largest part, by long odds, is played by the lawyers. We know full well that there are honest lawyers—men who are faithful to the public good, and who would do nothing to defeat the ends of justice. But at the same time, it is undeniable that there are lawyers, and the number is increasing every day, who are unprincipled men, and have no scruples at all in regard to their conduct of a case—men with whom the question of justice has no place, but the sole question is whether the criminal can be cleared. They are men who, in behalf of the criminal, will enter and maintain any plea or any number of pleas that they think will give them the smallest chance of success—yes; and even pleas that are directly contradictory, each of which destroys the others. Often pleas are entered that it is impossible for a disinterested person to believe that the lawyer himself believes to be true. Yet the pleas, and perhaps contradictory ones, are solemnly entered, and the trial conducted upon them, before a jury perhaps itself in sympathy with crime, and the criminal is cleared. If not so fortunate as to obtain such a decided result, at least a disagreement of the jury is secured, and this repeated two or three times, and then almost certainly an acquittal. But if anywhere in all this procedure the verdict is that the accused is guilty, then a long series of exceptions and technicalities are brought up as the basis of a motion for a new trial. If the motion is denied, then an appeal is taken, and of that the result is almost sure to be that a new trial will be ordered; and then the same long, tedious process is gone through with again, unless an acquittal shall have been obtained by the privileges of the new trial.
The preparation for this course is diligently and steadily made and kept up from the very first. From the very first step that is ever taken in the case, the criminal lawyer keeps up a volley of irrelevant questions of his own, or of objections to the questions of the prosecution, upon all of which the court must decide, and if the decision is not in his favor, then an exception is marked. This thing continues unabated throughout the trial, which of itself is greatly lengthened by it, so that when the trial is ended he has a volume of exceptions upon which to base his motion for a new trial or his appeal to a higher court. It sometimes appears as though the principal office of the trial judge were only to decide upon objections so that the lawyers can take exception to his decision. So emphatically is this so that there is actually a practice known in the courts as "trying a case for the exceptions," that is, as defined by Judge Learned of the New York Supreme Court, "contriving as many ingenious pitfalls as possible, by offers of evidence and by exceptions to evidence and the like, in the hope, often well fulfilled, that the trial court will fall into some of these dangers, and that thus a client with no such defense might weary out his adversary by the delay consequent on an appeal."120
Then, when by such trickery the appeal is gained, the appellate court pays more attention and gives more weight to the technicalities involved in the exceptions than it does to the question whether justice has been done. Again says Judge Learned, of this practice: "Instead of being guided by the rules of codes of law, or by a sound judgment as to the merits of the case, appellate courts are constantly searching for precedents in other cases, and are anxiously making a precedent out of the case in hand. When a case is argued, the question is not whether justice was done in the court below; but it may be whether some witness said something which might be considered irrelevant—perhaps no more important to the merits than whether he stood at right angles to the jury when he testified."
We do not say that the accused should have no lawyer to plead for him, even though the case be one known to all as deliberate and unmitigated murder. We care not how confirmed a criminal he may be, nor how manifestly guilty, he has a right to a fair trial. He has a right to counsel. This the State assures to everyone. If the accused is unable to hire counsel, the State appoints counsel, and it is only just and right that it should be so. But whether the counsel be hired or appointed, he has no right to try to delay or to defeat justice in the case. Let him fairly present the prisoner's plea, let him bring into notice all the extenuating circumstances that can be fairly and honestly set up: to all this the accused has a perfect right. But no lawyer has a right to work by tricks and quibbles and technicalities to compass the escape of a criminal from the just penalty that he deserves.
There are indeed times when a lawyer will not allow his client to plead guilty, or having already plead guilty will try to persuade him to withdraw it and plead not guilty. Such a case which we recall particularly occurred not long ago in New York City. A prisoner had plead guilty, and a lawyer tried to induce him to withdraw it, and allow him to defend him as not guilty. The prisoner persisted that he was guilty. Then the lawyer addressed the court, saying, "He is undoubtedly guilty, but the people can't prove it." The rebuke that the judge administered to this man was as richly deserved as it was stern. Not all such lawyers have the frankness to so openly reveal their real sentiments and purposes, but there is an immense number of them who act strictly upon the principle here avowed. The following from the Interior gives the true status of all such men:—
"The lawyer who helps him to secure an acquittal by unfair and dishonorable means, under the color of law, is as guilty as if he went to the jail at night and helped the prisoner to escape. The practice in our criminal courts has fallen into the hands of smart but unscrupulous men. There were great criminal lawyers in the former generations who were also honorable men. But there has been a great change in this respect. And the men who make it their business to defend thieves and murderers have more sympathy with their clients than with honest and law-abiding citizens. They are really partners in the crimes which those clients are encouraged to commit, because they depend on these unscrupulous practitioners to get them free through loop-holes in the law."
When such is the gauntlet which Justice has to run, how can she come out clear and untarnished? But this is the condition of legal procedure that is most prevalent in this nation to-day, and again we ask, What can the end be?
SCRIPTURE STATEMENTS VS. CONJECTURE.
By Editor
We cannot refrain from expressing the wish that the writers of the Sunday-school lesson notes in some of the religious papers, would occasionally read what the Bible says upon the subject of the lesson. If they should, it would save them from some egregious blunders, and would be a mercy to the pupils whose ideas are moulded in large measure by the lesson notes in their favorite journals. The lesson entitled "Lot’s choice" was improved by nearly everyone to moralize on the wickedness of Lot. The Christian Standard writer ended his sentimentalism as follows:—
"Lot pitched his tent towards Sodom, then entered the city, ceased to be shocked by its gross sins and idolatry, was humiliated by being captured and plundered by the five kings. His soul hardened against even such direct warnings as angel messengers from Heaven. At last forced to flee from the city empty-handed, and look back on what once seemed the garden of the Lord, as a fiery furnace, he makes his home in the caves of the earth, and finally ends life a drunken outcast, dishonored by men and disowned by God."
Now read in 2 Peter 2: 4-8 that God condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah with an overthrow, turning them into ashes, "and delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked (for that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds)."
Lot may have been selfish in his choice of territory, although the Scripture nowhere gives any intimation of such a thing. But we do have emphatic testimony to his righteousness, and that he himself was uncontaminated by the horrible wickedness around him, and from which he suffered greatly. Unscriptural morals are among the worst things written.
In this connection we would call attention to the International Lesson Notes that are given every week in the Signs of the Times. The writer indulges in no guess-work, but directs the student’s attention solely to the Bible. Sunday-school teachers and students will find it to their advantage to read the Commentary Department in the Signs. Those notes alone will more than make up for the price of the paper.