Having recently read a Catholic work, written by the Jesuit Weninger, entitled “Protestantism and Infidelity,” published in Cincinnati, in 1864, I copy some items which may be of interest to the readers of the Signs:—
“The Catholic church is the only means of salvation for men.”—Preface, p. 6.
“Americans, I do not mean to flatter you; but I may safely assert that there is no nation upon which the Catholic church looks with more tender solicitude than upon yours; none more worthy the labors of priests and people for their conversion.”—Preface, p. 6.
“Trusting to the guidance of the Catholic church, the lowest and the most ignorant among the faithful is as secure of his faith, as certain of the way of salvation, as the highest and the most learned. Through his own special pastor, placed over him by his bishop, every Catholic is in communion with his bishop, and through the bishop in communion with the legitimate successor of St. Peter, on whom Christ himself conferred the care and guidance of his whole flock.”—pp. 19, 20.
“With or without the Bible, learned or unlearned, the Catholic is secure.”—p. 29.
The Methodist Conference under Wesley, in 1770, declared publicly that the reason of the fearful, universal immorality then prevailing, was the widespread opinion that “Christ had annulled the moral law, and that evangelical freedom dispensed with the ten commandments. ”—p. 92.
“Martin Luther said, ‘What do I care for six hundred Augustines and Jeromes? With the Bible in our hand we can judge the Fathers, the apostles, and even the church.’”—pp. 163-4.
“Tell me why you baptize infants, though there is not a word about infant baptism in the whole Scriptures! and why you do not wash one another’s feet, although Christ apparently commands the practice as necessary for salvation? Christ said to Peter, ‘If I wash thee not, thou shalt have no part with me,’ and to all the apostles, ‘You also ought to wash one another’s feet.’ You administer infant baptism and omit the other practice, because the tradition of the Catholic church has taught you that the baptism of infants is necessary for their salvation, but the washing of one another’s feet was not commanded as an indispensable rite. Relinquishing the letter of the Bible on these points, and throwing yourself back on tradition, why do you mention that the Bible is the only rule of faith? Your practice as well as your theory is inconsistent with itself.”—pp. 170, 171.
“Alphonso of Aragon once had the audacity, in his philosophical pride, to utter the blasphemy that if he had been present at the creation of the world, he would have given God many a good advice. He had scarcely ended when a fearful thunderstorm arose, vivid flashes of lightning struck nearer and nearer around the palace; the king was terrified, and retracted his blasphemy.”—pp. 175, 176.
“God has no need of our advice. He has given us the Scriptures as one of the channels of our faith, and as such it is a precious gift; but not as a rule of faith, for it is so evidently unfit for that purpose.”—pp. 170, 172.
“The Catholic church places some restraint on the indiscriminate reading of the Bible in the modern tongues, and does not generally allow it, unless the translation is accompanied by authorized notes explanatory of obscure or difficult passages. In so doing she acts with wisdom, for it is clear from all past experience, that misinterpretation of the Bible may lead to the most terrific consequences, subverting faith, morality, and public order. But to say that the Catholic church puts any obstacle to the reading of the Bible, with authorized explanatory notes, and by those who can derive profit from it, is a most injurious calumny.”—pp. 204, 205.
In referring to the second commandment as quoted against their practice with images, he says: “The text limits its own meaning: ‘Thou shalt not adore them nor serve them.’ Do Catholics adore, do they serve images? They do not. To honor images as we do, to keep them in our houses and churches, is not to adore them. You cannot condemn us, unless you are willing to condemn God, for God ordered two cherubs to be placed in the temple upon the ark.”—p. 210.
On the matter of the priest drinking the wine and simply giving the wafer to the communicant he says: “One of the reasons is, that in giving communion under the species of wine to a large number of people, it is hardly possible to avoid irreverences; another is the scarcity of wine in many countries.”—p. 222.
On using Latin in their service, he argues, “A dead language always remains the same. It secures in her service, all the world over, the same uniformity that exists in her faith. In Asia, Africa, Australia, America, wherever a Catholic priest may travel, he finds the same missal and ritual. . . . The Latin language is the better adapted to the dignity and sanctity of divine offices, as it is placed beyond the criticism of the crowd, while the vernacular could not escape the cavils of those who pay greater attention to form than to substance. . . . If the native tongue were used, it would be of little benefit to the people. In many cases it would be impracticable for the priest to read loud enough to be understood by the whole assembly.”—pp. 222-224.
“With regard to persons born in Protestant countries and validly baptized, who, from want of instruction and opportunity, have never come to the knowledge that the Catholic church is the only true church of Christ, if they have never committed a mortal sin, or have atoned for their sins by perfect contrition, united to a sincere desire of doing all that God may require of them, they will be saved in the ordinary way, as members of the Catholic Church. Such persons are in reality Catholics; they have entered the church by valid baptism, and are only outwardly separated from her communion by inculpable error.”
“According to Catholic doctrine there is but one baptism; it is always valid, whether administered by a Christian, Jew, infidel, or heathen, provided it is conferred with the rites established by Christ, and with the intention of conferring what Christ has instituted; every man who is thus baptized becomes, at the moment of his baptism, a member of the Catholic church. It is true that Protestants are generally baptized on being received into the Catholic church, this is done because outside of the Catholic church, baptism is often invalidly administered.
“In some countries, there are large numbers of Protestants validly baptized, who are invariably ignorant of the true church; they are members of the Catholic church, and without knowing it die in the Catholic communion.
“. . . ‘Heathens who are in error inculpably, and serve God to the best of their ability, according to the light that they possess, and are ready to do all that Heaven may desire of them, will certainly be saved. They may never receive the baptism of water, but for them what is called in the Catholic church the baptism of desire is sufficient. By the baptism of desire they become members of the true church of Christ, the Catholic church, and are saved only as members of her communion.
“. . . ‘In other words there is only one way to Heaven, but there are several ways that lead to the Catholic church, for beside the baptism of water, there is the baptism of blood, or martyrdom suffered by an unbaptized person for the faith of Christ, and the baptism of desire of which I have just spoken.’”—pp. 237-240.
“The Catholic church, however, does not teach the rigid doctrines of Puritans and other denominations in England and America, whose views about the observance of the Sabbath are Jewish rather than Christian. The church, in virtue of the power which she has received from Christ, abolished the Jewish Sabbath, and substituted Sunday in its stead, in commemoration of the most glorious mysteries of our redemption. Sunday being instituted to commemorate mysteries of joy, the church has mitigated the rigor of the Jewish Sabbath, and does not forbid as sinful, decent recreations indulged in on that day.”—p. 257.
“Gregory XVI. used to say, ‘Out of the Roman States there is no country where I am Pope, except the United States.’ In Catholic countries, as the numerous concordats prove, the church in many respects has her rights restricted; here she is legally free, the only concordat she asks is your constitution. Indeed, all she asks in any country is her freedom, not concordats; she has no need of concordats when she is free.”—p. 262.
“A Roman journal, some time ago, expressed the opinion that one of the most glorious enterprises for the Catholic church to engage in at this day, is the conversion of the United States to the Catholic faith.”—p. 270.
Arguing in favor of eternal torments, he quotes no Bible, but says, “As compared with infidels, believers in everlasting punishments possess an immense preponderance of learning, talents, genius, as well as an incalculable majority of numbers. . . . Indeed, infidels put themselves in opposition to the whole of mankind, for the eternity of hell has been the uniform belief of men in all ages. The civilized, the barbarian, and the savage, Jews, Mahomedans, pagans, all tribes and tongues, of which there exists any record, have agreed in that belief, dreadful and mysterious as it is.”—pp. 317, 318. J. N. LOUGHBOROUGH.
Switzerland.
By John Nevins Andrews
I WELL understand the anxiety of the friends in America to hear of the advancement of the work in Europe. I assure them that we who are here are no less anxious for the advancement of the work. But the publication of tracts and of a paper, as well as the preaching of the Word, are essential parts of the work, and these have demanded no small labor with respect to the French language. I have spoken heretofore of the obstacles which have rendered time and labor necessary. Through God's mercy and assistance these are, I trust, nearly surmounted. If our brethren in America have needed patience,229faith and courage have been no less necessary here. But I have not one discouraging word to write. We still have obstacles to surmount, but God has helped us hitherto, and we can trust him for time to come.
My last report was written on my return from Prussia, where I had been to render some assistance to Bro. Ertzenberger. I was glad to find on my return that some ten or twelve had commenced to keep the Sabbath at Locle, through the labors of Bro. Bourdeau during my absence, and among them the esteemed teacher at Locle, Bro. Aufranc. We have now been in Bale several weeks. During this time we have printed an edition of the Exposition of Matt. 24, also one of The Sabbath of the Bible, and one of the Three Messages of Rev. 14. We have printed the Messages in three tracts; the first two being of 16 pages each and the last of 32 pages. We have also been making preparations for our French paper.
Since we have removed to Bale Bro. Bourdeau has visited Ban de la Roche in Alsace, and has found some persons ready to receive the truth. As he found that it would be difficult to obtain permission to preach in Alsace, he requested me to join him in a visit to the authorities. Though Alsace has been annexed to the German Empire, the authority of the French laws has been continued, so that the same difficulty exists in A. that must be met in France itself, and religious liberty in A. is not equal to that in Germany proper. Alsace is governed by a prefect or president appointed by the emperor of Germany, and under him are several officers called sub-prefects, each of which governs a certain district.
We first visited the sub-prefect at Scheleste, because he was the nearest of these officials to Ban de la Roche, but he would do nothing in the case, asserting that the places where Bro. B. wished to preach were in the territory of the sub-prefect at Molsheim, distant some 30 miles. We therefore next visited this officer, but he was discourteous like the first, and said that no one had authority to act in the case except the president at Strasbourg. When we gained access to the president he said that he intrusted such business to a certain secretary whose office was on the other side of the city. When we found this officer, he said that it was the duty of another secretary to decide such questions. We sought the office of this man, but he was absent. When he returned he sent us to another officer as the proper man. Fortunately, when we found this last secretary, we found, for the first time, a man who was willing to do something for us. He asked many questions, and made out the memoranda of a paper authorizing Bro. B. to preach in any part of Alsace. This paper, when made out in due form, is to be sent to Bro. B. through the mail. I shall be glad to learn that he has received it; for if it depends upon the signatures of the other dignitaries I fear it may be withheld.
In behalf of the cause in Europe I would express gratitude for the cheering words of the Conference Address. If the spirit which it breathes shall animate those who love the commandments of God, we shall witness, the present season, a great advancement in the work. I trust that, to a considerable extent, this spirit is possessed by our friends in Switzerland and Germany.
We can all do something. We will all do what we can. The greatest of all privileges is that of unreserved surrender to God. Then when God speaks we shall be ready in a moment to obey. We shall not ask how much we must give, but how much we may give. From all that we possess we shall bid the Lord choose that which best pleases him, and if he takes that which is dearest, or if he takes all, we shall not withhold. If he sets before us any painful duty we shall promptly and cheerfully obey. Nothing that God requires is unreasonable. Everything that he asks at our hands is with reference to our good, as well as with reference to the good of others and to the glory of God.
Obeying God never yet ruined any man. Sin, on the contrary, has been the ruin of every man that has dared to persist in its commission. Our time to work is now. Whatever our hands find to do, let us do with our might, and without delay. Our reward will be according to our work.
J. N. ANDREWS.
68 Mullerweg, Bale, Switzerland, May 24, 1876.
Watching the Sacrifice.
By John Nevins Andrews
WHEN Abraham asked a token of the Lord that he should actually inherit the land, he was bidden to offer a certain sacrifice. He made the offering as directed, but no signs of God's acceptance appeared. What did Abraham do? Did he become weary of waiting on God? Did he say that he had done what he could and that it availed nothing? That he was discouraged to find no response, and that he should never act in that manner again? Far from it. He had entered upon something worth all that it could cost, and that was sure to bring the wished for result, if he could only wait long enough.
The sacrifice needed watching. Abraham needed just exactly the task of doing that watching. He spent a whole day in doing it. For the vision in which God conversed with him was in the night season, as shown by the fact that Abraham was taken forth abroad, i. e., out of doors, to see the stars. When the vision ended, we may safely conclude that Abraham immediately prepared and offered the sacrifice. But it was not till the going down of the sun that the desired token was granted. So the whole live long day Abraham watched his sacrifice and waited for the hand of God to appear. See this remarkable story in Gen. 15.
What a lesson for our admonition. God bids us to present ourselves, and all that we have, a living sacrifice to him. Perhaps we make the sacrifice. Whoever is soundly converted, must do this very thing in order that God may thus accept him. But how few, having made this surrender of self to God, do thenceforward watch the sacrifice to see that it is not removed from the altar. How few, alas, do not rob the altar with their own hands. Having once given all to God, they break their solemn vows and take back, piece by piece, what they had solemnly devoted to God.
Consider Abraham watching his sacrifice through weary hours. There was a man faithful to God. But how few have the spirit that was in him. “If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham.” John 8: 39.
It is ours to make the unreserved surrender of all to God. It is his to reward our sacrifice. But is for us to wait his time. The time our God appoints is best. The waiting is for our benefit, not for the Lord's. We shall wait not one moment beyond what is strictly necessary. But who of us shall thus prove our fidelity? Who of us shall receive for our reward the things which God hath prepared for him that waiteth for him? Isa. 14 : 4. J. N. A.
Lord’s Day.
JOHN, speaking by the Spirit of inspiration, declares that he was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day. This was written about sixty-six years after the resurrection of our Saviour, and at a time when the Christian dispensation was fully introduced, and bears upon its bosom an important fact—that there is a Lord’s day in this dispensation. There are several positions taken in reference to this day; the chief are as follows: 1st. The day of the Lord which is introduced at the second coming of Christ, and extends during the thousand years, mentioned in Rev. 20. 2nd. It applies to the first day of the week. 3rd. It applies to the seventh day of the week.
We wish to examine these three positions in order to find out its right application.
1. That the “Lord’s day” is rightly applied to the thousand years we could never believe; for it is stated that John was in the Spirit (i. e., inspired) on the Lord’s day. Now if this vision had been concerning the Lord’s day, it might then, with some consistency, be applied to the thousand years; but instead of its being concerning the Lord’s day, it was concerning the seven churches in Asia. It was given on the Lord’s day, not concerning it. As the thousand years are yet future, and as it would be as impossible for a man to live in the future as it would be to live in the past, so it would be as absurd to claim that John was inspired in the days of Abraham as to claim he was inspired during the thousand years; for he neither lived in the days of Abraham nor in the thousand years. I admit that he could have had a revelation concerning the days of Abraham, and also concerning the thousand years; but I deny that he could be inspired during the thousand years any more than he could be inspired during Abraham’s day. This is utterly impossible, for he did not live at any of these times; consequently we see no reason why the above day should be applied to the thousand years. Now this revelation was given at a definite place, to a definite individual, and at a definite time: 1st. The place—the island of Patmos. 2nd. The person—John. 3rd. The time—on the Lord’s day. Therefore the time must be as definite as the person and place.
2. The next position taken is that Lord’s day refers to the first day of the week. But those who put forth this claim do so without any Scriptural authority whatever. They claim that the word Lord refers to Christ, and as it is in the possessive case, Christ then owns or claims the day as his. We might admit this, but then the question is, Where did Christ claim the first day of the week as his? Where is the book, chapter, or verse that records such a claim? Not in the Bible, certainly. On the contrary, Christ never as much as once uttered the expression “first day of the week,” as far as we have any record, much less did he claim it as his.
3. If the Lord’s day does not mean the thousand years, neither the first day of the week, what day does it mean? We answer, the seventh day, which is the Sabbath. We reason as follows: Now if Christ the Lord claims a day as his, then the Lord’s day must be the day he claims. But does the Lord claim a day as his? He does. Please hear our Saviour’s claim on a day as put forth by himself: “Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath.” Mark 2:28. “The Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath day.” Matt. 12:8. Here we have two passages from our Saviour in which he claims to be Lord of a day. Consequently the Lord’s day must be the day of which he is Lord, which he himself says is “the Sabbath day.” Arranging the above reasoning in the form of a syllogism, we have the following: Christ is Lord of a day. Rev. 1:10. The day of which he is Lord is the Sabbath day. Matt. 12:8; Mark 2:28. Therefore the “Lord’s day” is the Sabbath day.
Though the above reasoning ought to be conclusive to all, yet there is another line of argument which drives us to the same conclusion. The Greek word kuriake, translated Lord in Rev. 1:10, is contracted from the two Greek words kurios oikon, which mean the Lord’s house. Dr. Adam Clark, in his comments on Matt. 16:18, at the conclusion of the chapter, expresses the same idea. Also Webster, in his Unabridged dictionary, under the word church, expresses the same. Now the above derivation of this word being correct, the idea expressed in the text is that John was in the Spirit on the day of the Lord’s house, that is, on the day which was accustomed to be spent in the Lord’s house. Now the day that was spent in the Lord’s house was the Sabbath; for it was to be a “holy convocation.” It was the custom of Christ, and also of Paul, to go to the house of the Lord on the Sabbath day, Luke 4:16; Acts 17:3. It was the Lord’s day that the Jews, as all admit, and also many of the Gentiles, spent in the house of the Lord. See Acts 13:42–44; 18:4. Consequently we conclude that the day of the Lord’s house, on which John was inspired, was the Sabbath day. Therefore, there must be a Sabbath in this dispensation, and that Sabbath must be the seventh day of the week.—Sel.
Second Coming of Christ.
THERE is no subject that is more calculated to inspire the heart of God's people with joy, than that of the second advent of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. And not only is it a subject upon which the lovers of Christ at the present day desire to dwell, but in examining the Word of God, we learn that the prophets, apostles, and the early Christians, dwelt upon this theme with pleasing anticipations. And Enoch, the seventh from Adam, looked forward (through a long series of intervening ages) to the time when the Lord should come with ten thousand of his saints. And Job, who was declared to be a perfect man, cried out in the language of inspiration, and declared that, at the latter day, his Redeemer should stand upon the earth. And although worms might destroy his body, yet in his flesh he should see God.
Paul, when he wrote to Timothy, declared that at that day, i. e., the resurrection, he should receive a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, would give him. And John, while looking forward to the glorious morn, when Christ would come to be glorified in his saints, and admired by all those that love him, cried out, “Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection.” And the early Christians were willing to suffer persecution and death, knowing that if they suffered with him, they would also reign with him, at his appearing in his kingdom.
If the prophets, apostles, and the early Christians were enabled to rejoice while looking forward to the long promised period, when the Tabernacle of God would be with men, and tears, sorrow, pain and death should be felt and feared no more, ought not we who are living on the eve of eternity, to lift up our heads and rejoice, knowing that the day of our redemption draweth nigh?—Selected.
INSIDE AND OUTSIDE.
It has been well said: “All true Christians must be like Noah’s ark, that was pitched without and pitched within, Gen. 6 : 14. They must have a holy inside, and a holy outside; their profession and practice must agree.”
Is the Foundation Sure?
By Roswell F. Cottrell
THE wise man seeks a good foundation on which to build. The Word of God is a sure foundation. The building not resting on this foundation will be sure to fall. The storms and floods which will ere long arise will sweep away the refuge of lies, and overflow the hiding place, while that which is built upon the Word of God will stand.
Our position in regard to present truth claims as its foundation the “sure word of prophecy.” About a quarter of a century has elapsed, in which to prove the falsity or truth of our position. What has been the result? Has any one disproved it, or shown anything unscriptural in it? Are the evidences of its truth diminishing? Not in the least. On the contrary, time and events continually strengthen it. The signs at present show that the events we have been expecting in connection with the final test and the close of probation, are at hand. Nothing but blind unbelief can doubt, and no one can show any reason why this government is not preparing to do the very work which we have been looking for, on the strength of prophecy. The image of the papal beast is now emphatically called for by the “religious amendment” party; and power to enforce the mark is a prominent part of the proposed amendment. The persecution foretold is sure to follow.
My brethren, in view of the increasing strength of our position, is it a time to backslide? Shall we, with the truth which the church and the world need, lose our interest and perish with the blood of souls upon us? Is it possible that we have backslidden, having a full knowledge of such thrilling truths? Yes, it is human to go away from the Lord. Without constant watchfulness and work, we become unguarded; and, such a course pursued, the Lord leaves us to ourselves. The spirit of the world comes in imperceptibly, and we have not strength to resist. Let all take warning. Let us heed the message to Laodicea; be zealous and repent. The lukewarm cannot forever be tolerated. While Christ is knocking, let us open the door. His hand is not shortened. He is ready to bless.
The writer asks the prayers of those near the Lord. My determination is to go forward and see the end of the Christian hope. I know the way. I want the Spirit of God to help me to walk in it. I thank God for the light, and pray for grace to walk in it. Our hope is truly blessed and glorious. To gain it is to gain everything; to lose it is to lose all.
R. F. COTTRELL.
Praying and Doing.
As a general rule, God would not have his people pray without some corresponding activity, any more than he would have them act without prayer. He may for a time confine them to one service of petitioning; but it is only till they feel their dependence and become ready in all things to do his will. He says, “I will yet for this be inquired of by the house of Israel, to do it for them;” but he will have all the inquiries made in a practical, obedient spirit. He says, “I will bring the blind by a way that they knew not; I will lead them in paths that they have not known; I will make darkness light before them, and crooked things straight.” But in all this he requires that they unresistingly, cheerfully, follow his guidance.
When Moses, on the shores of the Red Sea, environed with difficulties and threatened with dangers, made his appeal to God for deliverance, the answer came in an unexpected form. “Wherefore criest thou unto me? Speak to the people that they go forward.” When prayer is offered, not unfrequently the first answer consists in a plain indication of something to be done, and the doing of that thing becomes a condition of further light. Success at the throne of grace may be hindered by a single neglected duty. Jacob understood this when threatened with attack by an armed band, and made the best disposition he could for defense before he spent that night of persistent wrestling. He had “power with God” for one reason at least. He was a consistent petitioner; he did not ask God to do what he could do for himself.
Jesus would not raise Lazarus from the grave till the bystanders had taken away the stone. He who will not perform duty when fairly made known, may as well cease praying, for he will pray in vain. Ordinarily, God points out one duty at a time and lays it upon the conscience as primary and paramount, virtually saying, “Do that and then look to me for further illumination.” Christ said “if any man will do his will he shall know.”—Dr. Stow’s First Things.
Sorrow.
One truth concerning sorrow is simple and clear enough for a child's comprehension, that grief is the most nobly borne which is allowed to weigh the least heavily upon others. Not every one, however, is unselfish enough to perceive this. Many feel a certain pride in putting on, and long retaining their sackcloth and ashes. They conceive that when they have sustained a heavy affliction, that there is a sort of disgrace in not displaying their grief. They cannot see that any real wound in a deep, loving heart is removed. We may bury our dead out of our sight, or out of our neighbor's sight, which is of more importance; we may cease to miss them from the routine of our daily existence, and learn to name people, things, and places, as calmly as if no pulse had ever throbbed at the merest allusion to them, but they are not forgotten. They have merely passed from the outer to the inner fold of our double life—which lies nearest our hearts.
Worry.
Don't you know that multitudes of human beings turn away from the many blessings of their lot, and dwell and breed upon its worries? Don't you know that multitudes persistently look away from the numerous pleasant things they might contemplate, and look fixedly, and almost constantly at painful and disagreeable things? Now I put it to every sensible reader, whether there be not a great deal too much of this kind of thing. Are there not families that never spend a quiet evening together without embittering it by raking up every unpleasant subject in their lot and history? There are persons who, both in their own case and that of others, seem to find a strange satisfaction in sticking the thorn in the hand further even in twisting the dagger in the heart; their lot has its innumerable blessings, but they will not look at these. Let the view around it in a hundred directions be ever so charming, they cannot be got to turn their mental view in one of these.
Vicarious Punishment.
THIS is the term applied to such punishment as that which Christ bore when he suffered on the cross, the just for the unjust. You do not quite know what it means, do you? I think I hear you say, “Oh, we do not want to know what such long words mean.”
But stop a minute; I have a story to tell.
It was a warm summer afternoon; a lazy breeze stole through the windows of a little district school-house, lifting the white curtains, and rustling the leaves of the copy-books that lay open on all the desks. Thirty or forty scholars of all ages were bending over their writing, quiet and busy; the voice of the master, as he passed about among the writers, was the only sound. But though so silent, this little light, hot schoolroom has its heroes and heroines as certainly as the wider sphere of life.
The bell rings for the writing to be laid by; and now comes the last exercise of the day, the spelling, in which nearly all the school join. At the head of the class is a delicate little girl, whose bright eyes and attentive air show that she prizes her place, and means to keep it.
Presently a word which had passed all the lower end of the class, came to Eunice. The word was privilege. “P-r-i-v, priv—i, priv-i-l-e-g-e, lege, privilege,” spelt Eunice. But the teacher, vexed with the mistakes of the other end of the class, misunderstood and passed it. The little girl looked amazed, the bright color came into her cheeks, and she listened eagerly to the next person, who spelt it again as she had done.
“Right,” said the teacher; “take your place.”
“I spelt it so,” whispered Eunice, partly to herself; the tears springing to her eyes as she passed down. But too timid to speak to the master, she remained in her place, only determining soon to get up again. But her trials were not yet over.
Many expedients had been tried in the school to keep out that arch-enemy of all teachers—Whisper. At length the following plan was adopted. The first whisperer was stood upon the floor in front of the teacher’s desk. Here he acted as a monitor; as soon as he detected another he took his seat, and the next offender kept a sharp lookout to find some one to take his place; for, at the close of school, the scholar who had the whisperer’s place was punished very severely—as the school-phrase was, “took a feruling!” This plan appeared to operate very well; every one dreaded being found last on the floor; but, though it secured an orderly school, many of the parents and scholars doubted its justice.
The boy who was on the floor when Eunice lost her place, was an unruly, surly fellow, who had smarted for his faults often before; and as school drew near its close he began to tremble. The instant Eunice’s whispered complaint reached his ear, his face brightened up; he was safe now. And when the class was dismissed he said, “Eunice whispered, sir.”
Eunice rose, and in a trembling voice related what she had said; but the teacher saw no excuse in it, and she was called to take the place of the ungenerous boy who had told of her.
Books had been put away, and the waiting school looked on in sorrowfulness as Eunice left her seat to take the dreaded punishment. She was one of the best scholars; bright, faithful, sweet-tempered, and a general favorite. Every one felt that it was unjust; and many angry glances were cast at the boy who was mean enough to get a little girl whipped. Overcome with shame and fear, she stood by the side of the desk crying bitterly, while the teacher was preparing to inflict the punishment.
At this moment a tall boy stepped out of his seat, and going to the desk, said:
“Are you going to whip Eunice, sir?”
“Yes; I never break my rules!” the teacher answered.
“We will not see her whipped!” said the boy in an excited voice; “there is not a boy here but that one, who would see her whipped! Whip me, sir, and keep your rule, if you must, but don’t touch this little girl!”
The master paused; the school looked on tearfully.
“Do you mean to say you will take her punishment?” asked the teacher.
“I do, sir,” was the bold reply.
The sobbing little girl was sent to her seat, and without flinching her friend stood and received the punishment that was to have fallen on her. The school was dismissed, and the boys paid him in admiration and praise for all he had suffered.
And was this vicarious punishment? It was;—one suffering from his own free will the punishment that was to have been borne by another.
You see—do you not?—that this is just what he did who bore our sins in his own body on the tree—the Saviour of men. What he suffered we cannot know, in this life; but God laid on him the iniquity of us all, which he willingly bore to save us from death. With his stripes we are healed. How great the gratitude each of us owes such a friend.
“Love so amazing, so divine,
Demands my soul, my life, my all.”
Public Schools in England.
The important question of compulsory attendance and of religious instruction in the public schools have been so much discussed in England, as well as in this country, that the status of the controversy and the results of experiment there so far merit our close attention. Though the compulsory education law in this State was repealed by the last Legislature, and was by no means strictly enforced during the two years of its existence, the principle involved has many friends among those specially interested in our schools, who are determined to secure for it yet a full and fair trial. The opposition in England, as here, both against compulsory education and religious instruction in the schools, is strong, and a compromise there has been effected for the present on both points.
Until about forty years ago England had no system of public education, and the children of the poorer classes were allowed to grow up without even rudimentary instruction. But the revelations of police courts and the reports of prison authorities, showing that nine-tenths of the convicted criminals were absolutely without any knowledge of the fundamental principles of morality, roused the community and forced the government to provide for free schools, which it did in 1838.
Notwithstanding the government in 1870 expended $10,000,000 on her schools besides several millions more voluntarily contributed, little more than half of her 3,200,000 children of suitable age were found to attend. Hence the call for a compulsory law, a modified form of which was adopted by the Forster act of 1870, which declares that “every parent is legally responsible for the proper education of his children.”
The compromise local-option or permissive law allows local authorities to make compulsory regulations or not, as they choose, but the hired employment of children is forbidden without a ticket certifying to a certain amount of school attendance.
On the whole, the results are reported satisfactory. An increasing number of towns are adopting the compulsory plan, and opposition is gradually decreasing as the new system becomes better known and its beneficial results better appreciated.
A similar compromise is that with regard to religious instruction. It is left with the local boards. The Birmingham board and more than sixty others have adopted the secular system. But in London and many of the larger towns and cities religious instruction of an unsectarian character is required for one-half hour each morning.
In Birmingham and other places the use of the school-rooms for an hour or half-hour, before the regular school exercises begin, is allowed to the “Religious Education Society,” who volunteer to instruct such children as will attend, which has been less than one-half the whole number thus far.
And so the battle of educational ideas goes on apace, much the same in England and America.—San Francisco Post.
Paying for the Pitchers.
DR. ADAM CLARKE was preaching to a large congregation in Ireland, and after dwelling in glowing terms upon the freeness of the gospel, and telling them that the water of life could be had “without money and without price,” at the conclusion of the sermon a person announced that a collection would be made to support the gospel in foreign parts. This announcement disconcerted the preacher, who afterwards related the circumstance to the lady of the house where he was staying. “Very true, Doctor,” replied the hostess, “the water of life is free, ‘without money and without price,’ but we must pay for the pitchers to carry it in.”