Earlier text: Faith the Christian's PrivilegeChrist's Yoke and the Yoke of Bondage.
By W. N. Glenn
WHEN a yoke is placed upon an ox, it is that he may serve and be in subjection to the one by whose authority he is yoked. So in the Scriptures, the figure of a yoke is used to indicate the subjection of men to the will of God or to the power of sin. Some hold and teach that the moral law is a yoke of bondage, from which, in the Christian dispensation, we are set free, to enjoy the "liberty of the gospel." Let us see if the inspired writings will bear out this theory. Paul says: "Know ye not that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey?" Rom. 6:16 Christ says: "Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me, for I am meek and lowly in heart; and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light." Matt. 11:28-30. This call is to those who are burdened under sin; they are "heavy laden." The promise is of an easy yoke, in contrast to the one now being worn. What is it, then, for one to take upon him Christ's yoke? If we rightly understand the figure, it is to become submissive to his will—yield obedience to his commands. His test of allegiance is, "If ye love me, keep my commandments." John 14:15, 23. Then it seems clear that his yoke is his commandments, and we are told by the beloved apostle that these "are not grievous." 1 John 5:3. When one came to Jesus asking what he should do to inherit eternal life, he answered, "If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." When the young man in surprise (supposing he had kept all there were) asked, "Which?" the Lord referred him to the moral law. See Matt. 19:16-22. In what, then, does the "yoke of bondage" consist? When the Israelites were serving the Egyptians, they were said to be in bondage. (The service of God is never so called.) When delivered from Egypt, and given liberty to serve the Lord, they were said to be brought out of bondage. Ex. 13:3; 20:2. And what did they gain by this emancipation? Was it exemption from the law of God? No; it was liberty to observe the law of Jehovah—a privilege denied them in Egypt. Here we have a type of unregenerate man in the bondage of sin, and the deliverance by Christ. Immediately after their escape from bondage, by the hand of their deliverer, Moses, the law of God was repeated to them from Sinai, as the embodiment of his will, together with blessed assurances on condition of obedience. Ex. 19:5, 6. So now, as the sinner is freed from past sins, through faith in Christ (Rom. 3:25)—that is, justified by faith—this same perfect law of liberty, the yoke of Christ, which Israel failed to keep, is again set before him in lieu of the "law of sin and death," the yoke of bondage, under which he has been serving. And what is the consequence? Let Paul answer: "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit; for the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death." Rom. 8:1, 2. It is evident, then, that even after justification by faith, one may backslide and cease to walk according to this law of the Spirit of Christ, as did Israel of old, and again become "entangled" in sin. Paul shows this danger, and the continual warfare, of the Christian, in Rom. 7:25: "So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin." And this gives us the force of his appeal in Gal. 5:1: "Stand fast, therefore, in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again in the yoke of bondage." W. N. GLENN. THERE is no religion in making yourself miserable. God loves to make poor sinners happy. In the Old Testament he bids you delight yourself in the Lord, and promises the desires of your heart. In the New he says, "Rejoice in the Lord alway." Prayer and Science.
By Rev. Dr. Sprecher
THE fact of the universality of law is a modern discovery. It is not many years since men believed that rain and cloud, storm and calm, harvest and famine, sickness and health, earthquake and volcano, and all the changes which they beheld in nature, were either uncaused or were the result of the varying moods of the gods, or of God, by whose interference they were produced. But modern science has resolved every seemingly fitful change to the action of most uniform laws. Now, if the Christian doctrine of prayer involved the belief that these laws of nature must be violated every time that God answers prayer, we should not blame the scientist for rejecting prayer in the name of science. But the doctrine of answer to prayer involves no such position. The Christian claim is that God can, when he sees fit, answer his prayers without violating the laws of nature. He claims, simply, that God can do what men can with nature's laws. Men are every day modifying the phenomena of nature by adjusting the laws of nature one to another, or one against another, and so bringing to pass results which nature would not have produced, and yet violating none of her laws. So the physician does, when he introduces a new medicine into the system of the sick man, and cures him. So the engineer does when he reverses steam in his locomotive, or puts on the air-brakes, and saves a train full of people from death. The sparks from a hunter's fire may set fire to a prairie, and change the condition of the atmosphere to bring on a rain. And if men can interfere with nature's operations in accordance with law, and so bring about results which would not otherwise have taken place, cannot God do as much? He who holds the reins, shall not he guide the steeds? Has not he knowledge and command of the laws of nature, which enables him to do definitely more for his children who cry unto him, than men can do for their children? Or does he not pity his children even as an earthly father? There is, then, nothing in the uniformity of natural laws to forbid the belief that God may answer prayer.—Rev. Dr. Sprecher, of San Francisco. MOSES was eminent as an intercessor. Seldom is there a record of his praying for himself. Perhaps it was because he was a distinguished type of Christ, the great mediator and intercessor, that we find him so often supplicating in behalf of those in distress or danger. The point to be noticed is, that he had special power in this respect. For whomsoever he prayed, an answer of mercy came. Thus when Pharaoh was suffering under the successive judgments of God, and, at each step of the discipline, agonizingly besought Moses to pray for his relief, Moses did so, and secured the withdrawal of the plague. When the Israelites went forth from Egypt, his imploring cry for deliverance from the pursuing monarch, divided the Red Sea for their safe passage. And so, on each fresh emergency of their life in the desert, his constant petition brought the needed relief. The culmination came, however, on those two solemn occasions, when the life of the whole nation was at stake, because of their rebellion and ingratitude toward God, and sentence had apparently gone forth against them for their destruction, together with almost a prohibition to Moses to intercede for them. Thus when they worshiped the golden calf at the very foot of Sinai, where the second commandment had been thundered in their ears, God said to Moses (Deut. 9:14): "Let me alone, that I may destroy them, and blot out their name from under heaven; and I will make of thee a nation mightier and greater than they." Here was everything to discourage petition in their behalf. The people deserved destruction; God seemed to have decreed their doom; Moses was apparently bidden not to pray against it; and provision was made to fulfill the pledges to Abraham and the other patriarchs, by raising up out of the posterity of Moses himself the promised nation. Thus reverence, fear, faith, and personal ambition might all be said to withhold Moses from intercession. But love for those threatened with death triumphed over every other consideration, and he had such confidence that God would not be displeased with prayer which came from a self-sacrificing and compassionate spirit, that even when three thousand had already fallen (Ex. 32:25-32), he went up to the mount, and said: "Oh, this people have sinned a great sin, and have made them gods of gold. Yet now if thou wilt forgive their sin [do so]; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written." And he fell down before the Lord, fasting and interceding for forty days (Deut. 9:18), till, as he writes it, the "Lord hearkened unto me at that time also." The other occasion, equally noteworthy, was that of their refusal to enter Canaan, on the report of the spies, when, as Moses records the occurrence (Deut. 9:23-29): "I fell down before the Lord, forty days and forty nights, as I fell down at the first; because the Lord had said that he would destroy you." At this time his three arguments were, that God after having done so much for his people, and borne so long with them, should not now destroy them; that he should show mercy for the sake of his pious servants, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, their fathers, and not regard simply the sin of the present generation; and that he must not furnish occasion for the Egyptians to think that he was unable to carry his people into the promised land. And again he succeeded. The case stands as a monument of the value of intercessory prayer, and should encourage Christian patriots to pray for their country, and pious souls to pray for the reviving of religion in a time of declension, and every saint to pray for sinners in danger of perdition. In all this, Moses is a character of special interest, because he was a type of Christ, the great Intercessor, who "is able to save them to the uttermost, that come to God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them." We read in the epistle to the Hebrews, that "Moses verily was faithful in all his house, as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after."—W. W. Patton, D. D. "They All Quote Bible to Prove Their Doctrines."
By E. Hilliard
WHEN any plain, Scriptural doctrine is presented that requires a change in practice, many will point us to the numerous isms extant in the land and say, "They all quote Bible to prove their doctrines." We think that the reason a great many become puzzled, and in their perplexity are often led to disregard the Bible entirely, is because of their individual lack of knowledge concerning what the Scriptures really teach. The good book teaches us that "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness," etc. 2 Tim. 3:16. True and false theories have existed in all ages of the world. The Bible has ever been the great test by which the false doctrines have been detected. If by it we could not find the genuine and detect the false, it certainly would not be a very profitable book. When any new doctrine is presented that involves a practical duty, we should not turn away from it with the flimsy excuse, "They all quote Bible to prove their doctrines." Paul and Silas met with much opposition while at Thessalonica, in preaching a crucified and risen Saviour. After they were driven from this place they went to Berea. Here they proclaimed the same doctrine. It was new to the Bereans, but they did not turn away from hearing it because it was contrary to their former religious education, or because Paul and Silas differed from the religious teachers of the day. They did that which is every individual's duty under similar circumstances. They searched the Scriptures daily to see whether these men were preaching the truth. The result was that many of them believed, and undoubtedly some of them will be rewarded with eternal life as the result of their effort to find truth. After looking into the matter, they had an individual satisfaction of knowing the truth for themselves. They were also able to give the reason of the hope within them if any man should ask them. Many false doctrines arise from the interpretation that learned men place upon the Scriptures. These men are highly esteemed among the common people for their talents and learning, and, consequently, are regarded as being right. It will not do to look to this class for Bible truth. They differ among themselves as widely as the common people. Those who were the most highly educated, and who held the highest social and religious positions, disputed with Christ face to face. Would it be strange if this class should misinterpret his sayings today? Christ very well knew that man's salvation depended on the words he uttered, so he did not speak them in such an ambiguous manner that they would require the interpretation of some LL.D. His sayings are plain and positive, and it will do to take him just as he said, and not as some one says he meant. Reader, in all doctrines in which are involved practical duties, it is very important that we examine them in the light of Scripture for ourselves. Take your Bible and search it carefully upon all Scriptural questions upon which there is a difference of opinion. Read it as though it was a communication directly from God to you. It may be that, like the Bereans, you will find some things that are Scriptural, although they may be contrary to what learned men teach, or your former religious training. E. HILLIARD.
Medford, Minn. The King of the North.
By R. F. Cottrell
WHAT power is designated in Dan. 11 as the king of the North? Since this power is noted in the closing scene of the prophecy, just before the standing up of Michael, or the reign of Christ, it is a question of great interest. There is a theory that this king of the North is Russia; and to the superficial reader and thinker this view may seem very plausible, because Russia is the most noted power in the northern part of Europe and Asia, and because she intends to possess Constantinople, which lies "between the seas." But there are difficulties which seem as insuperable objections to this view. 1. It is difficult to see how that "tidings out of the East and out of the North" shall trouble Russia. Tidings to her from the North must come from the frozen polar seas. 2. Though Constantinople is between two seas, the "glorious holy mountain" is in another place—between the Mediterranean and the Dead Seas. 3. Before the coming of Christ, and preparatory, as it seems, to that event, the king of the North is to come to his end, for want of help from other nations; but it seems evident that Russia will be victorious in the present struggle, unless other nations shall help the Turks, as they have formerly done. In the forepart of the chapter we have the conquest of Alexander and the division of his kingdom into four parts; after which the king of the North and the king of the South are the chief actors in the scene for a long time; and it is very evident that Syria, including Palestine, is the king of the North, and that Egypt is the king of the South. After this, Roman history is followed for a long period, and as we approach the time of the end, the infidel kingdom of France, naturally enough, bears a conspicuous part, as a king that regarded no God. Then, at the time of the end, the king of the South, Egypt, pushes at him, and the king of the North comes against him and overflows and passes over. In 1798, the very point where the time of the end begins, we are brought back from the digression to the kings of the South and of the North. Egypt was the king of the South, and that power which occupies Syria and the holy land, the Turkish Government, it is reasonable to conclude is still the king of the North. At that time there were events of history that verify the pushing of Egypt against the French, and the victorious coming of the Turks against them like a whirlwind, and passing over and wrestling Egypt from their power and making it tributary. The proof of this is given in "Thoughts on Daniel," published at the office of the SIGNS OF THE TIMES, Oakland, Cal. Now taking Turkey, which holds the possessions of the original king of the North, to be the power, every specification of the prophecy will apply. Tidings from the East, from Persia, and from the North, Russia, have troubled the Turkish Government, and, when it is driven from its present seat at Constantinople, as will evidently soon be the case, how natural it is to expect that a stand will be made in the glorious holy mountain of Palestine. Yet he shall come to his end and none of his former allies shall help him. Then will the symbolic river, Euphrates, be dried up, Michael, the Prince of God's people, having received his throne, the nations will be gathered, and the final battle, that of Armageddon, will be fought. To those who may read these brief hints, I recommend the careful reading of the work above referred to, "Thoughts on Daniel." It is a work of great value to the pious student of prophecy. None can well afford to be ignorant of the expositions it contains. A More Sure Word of Prophecy
"We have also a more sure word of prophecy unto which ye do well that ye take heed." The Sabbath-School.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
LESSON FOR THE PACIFIC COAST—JUNE 28.
"AND the barbarous people showed us no little kindness." "The Greeks regarded all as barbarians who did not speak their language, and applied the name to all other nations but their own. It does not denote, as it does sometimes with us, people of savage, uncultivated, and cruel habits, but simply those whose speech was unintelligible. See 1 Cor. 14:11. The island is supposed to have been peopled at first by the Phœcians, afterward by the Phœnicians, and afterward by a colony from Carthage. The language of the Maltese was that of Africa."—Barnes. "AND when Paul had gathered a bundle of sticks." This was perfectly in keeping with Paul's character. He was never idle. He was the foremost preacher of the age, commissioned directly by the Lord, yet he was not above engaging in the most menial work when it was necessary. In Paul we find all the characteristics of a true missionary. He was able to adapt himself to all circumstances. His knowledge was varied. He could preach the truth in such a way as to make kings tremble, could direct the management of a ship, and control a mutinous crew, and when shipwrecked, could at once provide for the comfort of himself and companions. He was what we would call a man of resources. WHEN Paul reached Rome he acted with characteristic promptness. Within three days he called the chief of the Jews together to lay his case before them. Although he was manifestly in the hands of God, he did not think it unnecessary to take any precaution for his defense. It was best for him to get the good will of these Jews as far as possible before the case came to trial, by disabusing their minds of wrong impressions which they might have gained. He asserts his innocence in these words: "Though I have committed nothing against the people, or the customs of our fathers, yet was I delivered prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans." This was all strictly true. He had not done anything against his own nation. On the contrary, he had devoted much time and strength to the collection of alms for the poor of Judea. And he had really done nothing against the customs of the fathers—the special point of which he was accused. It was while he was engaged in the performance of duties enjoined by the ceremonial law that he had been arrested. While it is true that Paul had mingled with the Gentiles, and had held that circumcision was a matter of indifference, he was entirely innocent of the charge brought against him, and it is of this that Paul speaks. It is a common form of speech, when one is falsely accused, to say, "I have committed no crime, nor been guilty of any wrong act." By this the speaker is not understood as claiming that he never did anything wrong in his life-time, but that he is innocent of the thing brought against him. WE would not be understood as intimating that Paul had committed any wrong act at any time, although he had, during his ministry, done many things which a Jew of that age would not have done. But he refers to the fathers, and we have evidence that the exclusiveness which led the later Jews to refuse all intercourse with Gentiles was not shared by them. It is worthy of note, however, that even the Pharisees, those zealous advocates of the law, never brought any charge of immorality against Paul. He was never accused of breaking the Sabbath or of any other violation of the ten commandments. This is as strong evidence as is needed to prove that Paul was always a devout Sabbath-keeper. If he had not kept the Sabbath of the commandment—the seventh day of the week—his enemies would have speedily become aware of it. Such a flagrant violation of the law would not be allowed to pass unreproved. And the fact that when they were clamoring for his blood, and inventing grievous charges against him, they did not accuse him of Sabbath-breaking, shows that Paul had never even technically violated the fourth commandment. He could truly say to the Sanhedrim, "I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day." Acts 23:1. He believed "all things which are written in the law and in the prophets;" and what he believed he acted upon. So we see that when Paul preached in the synagogues of Antioch, Thessalonica, and Corinth on the Sabbath-day, it was not an accidental occurrence, but in perfect harmony with his life-long habits and settled convictions. E. J. W. Paul’s Assistants.
By Editor
REGARDING the fellow-laborers of the apostle at Rome, we find the following in “Sketches from the Life of Paul,” by Mrs. E. G. White:— “Among the assistants of Paul in his labors were many of his former companions and fellow-workers. Luke, ‘the beloved physician,’ who had attended him in the journey to Jerusalem, through the two years’ imprisonment at Cæsarea, and upon his last perilous voyage, was with him still. Timothy also ministered to his comfort. Tychicus was his mail-bearer, taking his messages to the different churches which they had visited together. Demas and Mark also were with him. “Mark had once been refused by Paul as unworthy to accompany him, because, when his help was much needed, he had left the apostle and returned to his home. He saw that, as Paul’s companion, his life must be one of constant toil, anxiety, and self-denial; and he desired an easier path. This led the apostle to feel that he could not be trusted, and that decision caused the unhappy dissension between Paul and Barnabas. “Mark had since learned the lesson which all must learn, that God’s claims are above every other. He saw that there is no release in the Christian warfare. He had obtained a closer and more perfect view of his Pattern, and had seen upon his hands the scars of his conflict to save the lost and perishing. He was willing to follow his Master’s example of earnestness and self-sacrifice, that he might win souls to Jesus and the blessedness of Heaven. And now, while sharing the lot of Paul the prisoner, Mark understood better than ever before, that it is infinite gain to win Christ at whatever cost, and infinite loss to win the world and lose the soul for whose redemption the blood of Christ was shed. Mark was now a useful and beloved helper of the apostle, and he continued faithful even unto the end. In writing from Rome just prior to his martyrdom, Paul bade Timothy, ‘Take Mark, and bring him with thee; for he is profitable to me for the ministry.’ “Demas was now a faithful helper of the apostle. A few years afterward, however, in the same letter to Timothy which commends Mark’s fidelity, Paul writes, ‘Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world.’ For worldly gain, Demas bartered every higher and nobler consideration. How short-sighted, how unwise the exchange! Those who possess only worldly wealth or honor are poor indeed, however much they may proudly call their own. Those who choose to suffer for Christ’s sake, will win eternal riches; they will be heirs of God, and joint-heirs with his Son. They may not have on earth a place to lay their heads; but in Heaven the Saviour whom they love is preparing mansions for them.” NOTES ON THE INTERNATIONAL LESSON.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
“THEN came all the tribes of Israel to David unto Hebron.” The adverb “then” connects this chapter, in point of time, with that which immediately precedes. It also introduces what follows as a consequence of that which had just occurred. The third chapter relates the defection of Abner from the house of Saul, and his murder by Joab. Ishbosheth (man of shame), Saul’s son, was nominal ruler of the tribes of Israel, Abner being the real ruler. As soon as he heard of Abner’s death, “his hands were feeble, and all the Israelites were troubled.” 2 Sam. 4:1. He was not a man to command respect, and it was not long before he was slain in his bed by two of his own guards. 2 Sam. 4:5, 6. The murderers immediately brought the head of Ishbosheth to David at Hebron, thinking by this act to gain his favor. But David, who had slain the man that falsely claimed to be the murderer of Saul, his active enemy, would not suffer the slayers of an unoffending man to live, and immediately ordered their execution. “Then came all the tribes of Israel to David.” They had no ruler, and the justice and unselfishness of David, as well as his military power, had won them to him. More than this, they now remembered, what they had conveniently forgotten when Abner was living, that God had chosen David to be king over Israel, long before the death of Saul. Compare 2 Sam. 5:2 with 1 Sam. 16:1-13. They therefore made a league with David, and acknowledged him as their king. Thus David commenced his reign over all Israel, B. C. 1048, having already reigned seven and one-half years over the tribe of Judah alone. He was now in his thirty-eighth year. 2 Sam. 5:4, 5. A more full account of the assembly of the tribes at Hebron, is found in the eleventh and twelfth chapters of 1 Chronicles. We find there that the numbers of fighting men sent by the various tribes amounted to fully 350,000. The assembly was made an occasion for a three days’ festival. THE course of the remaining tribes of Israel is a good illustration of the service which many people render to the Lord. While they are in prosperous circumstances, and see no danger approaching, they forget the claims that God has upon them. But as soon as their support is taken away, when they are brought into straitened circumstances, they remember that God has long before marked out a course for them to follow. They come to the Lord, literally “because they have nowhere else to go,” and not because they are drawn by a sense of his love to them. Their words seem to indicate that if they had anywhere else to go, they would not be found in the service of the Lord; and too often, like the Israelites at a later date, they readily turn aside to follow a usurper, willingly deceived by his false pretensions, or his appearance of power. “THIRTY years old”—the prime of life; the age at which the Levites entered upon their duties (Num. 4:3); at which young men commenced to take part in public business in Greece; at which Joseph was made ruler over Egypt (Gen. 41:46); at which Jesus Christ was anointed with the Holy Ghost” in his baptism, and began his public ministry. Luke 3:23.—Cambridge Bible. DAVID now determined to make Jerusalem the capital of his kingdom, no doubt because it was the most strongly fortified by position of any city of Palestine. It was built upon two hills (Zion and Moriah), and was itself surrounded by still higher hills, which served as a defense. See Ps. 125:1, 2. The Jebusites, a tribe of the Canaanites, still occupied it,375 the Israelites having been hitherto unable to dislodge them. “AND the king and his men went to Jerusalem unto the Jebusites, the inhabitants of the land; which spake unto David, saying, Except thou take away the blind and the lame, thou shalt not come in hither; thinking David cannot come in hither.” 2 Sam. 5:6. Bishop Hervey says, “This passage should be translated thus: ‘And [the Jebusites] spake to David, saying, Thou shalt not come in hither, but the blind and the lame shall keep thee off,’ that is, so far shalt thou be from taking the stronghold from us, that the lame and the blind shall suffice to defend the place.” These insulting words were doubtless in reply to a demand from David for them to surrender. Thinking their city impregnable, they rested in vain-glorious confidence, and intrusted its defense to those who were incapacitated for service. Men are usually the most confident in their own strength when their downfall is imminent. See Prov. 16:18. “NEVERTHELESS David took the stronghold of Zion.” Thus briefly is the result described. The reason why he was thus successful is easily seen when we read the last clause of verse 10: “For the Lord God of hosts was with him.” What wonder that he conquered, when he had such an ally? “There is none like unto the God of Jeshurun, who rideth upon the heavens in thy help, and in his excellency on the sky.” Deut. 33:26. PAUL says (Rom. 15:4) that “Whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope.” There is nothing in the Bible from which the Christian may derive more comfort than from those passages which speak of the power of God, as manifested in overthrowing armies, upholding or changing the course of nature, or healing the sick and raising the dead; for he can remember that this mighty power will be exerted (if he asks for it in faith) to shield him from the power of Satan, and enable him to overcome all his faults, to endure all his trials. In every trouble bear in mind that “the eternal God is thy refuge, and underneath are the everlasting arms.” Deut. 33:27. We are not obliged to arouse God to an interest in us, for his heart of love went out to fallen man and provided help before he asked for it. “What shall we then say to those things? If God be for us, who can be against us?” Rom. 8:31. “AND David went on and grew great, and the Lord of hosts was with him.” 2 Sam. 5:10. This is always the case with those who have God with them. They grow continually. If a professed Christian has no new experience to relate; if he does not have a deeper sense of the love of God this year than he had last year; if he is not growing strong to encourage others, it is to be feared that God is not with him. The weakest one may become a pillar in the church, if God is indeed with him. And such we all must be. David says of those who go from strength to strength, that “every one of them in Zion appeareth before God.” Ps. 84:7. “They that trust in the Lord shall be as Mount Zion which cannot be removed, but abideth forever.” Ps. 125:1. HOW important it is that our daily walk and conversation harmonize with our profession, so that we may not bring reproach upon the cause of Christ or to ourselves. If we are his true disciples, we shall ever be trying to do his will and keep his commandments; and if men persecute us, and say all manner of evil against us, let it be said falsely, and we shall receive the divine approbation.—Sel. IN the fear of the Lord is strong confidence. Temperance.
By Rev. Herrick Johnson
Failures of High License.
HIGH license leaves the fountain untouched while trying to dam up some streams. The evils of this traffic that so curse society and home, do not commonly start in the vile, disgusting dens where there is only raggedness and filth. They are born further up. Suppose you shut a few of the low dramshops. They will inevitably be opened again. The wash of the upper saloons must go somewhere. The respectable varieties need the low groggeries to take care of their cast-off rubbish. For this reason you won't find them troubling each other much, because, perchance, selling without license. Such talk is sheer nonsense. The poor, doomed victims of drink, robbed of their manhood and decency, if they step down-hill, must find the saloon down-hill. They will find it. That stream of descending lust and filth must have an outlet. If you would stop it, you must go to the top and break up the fountain. Prohibition is the word, not license. You cannot trust men with this thing any more than you can trust them with dangerous explosives. Prohibition is ever strengthening its own restrictions. License of every kind, low or high, is ever weakening its own restrictions. Prohibition thunders "No!" to every evil of the traffic. License keeps the door open for all the evils to enter in, and issues a kind of standing invitation to them. Prohibition tends to victory by its enforced denial. License tends to defeat by its legalized indulgence. License is getting rid of the evils of hydrophobia by cutting off the tail of the mad dog somewhere along its bushy end. Prohibition is getting rid of those evils by cutting the tail off just behind the dog's ears. High license is a failure in practice. It increases revenue, but it does not lessen saloons, nor change their real character. It puts more dollars into city and county treasuries, but it does not smite and destroy the dreadful evils of traffic in strong drink. Men are sometimes content with it because it helps pay taxes. But does that make it a success? Here is the logical process: Grog-shops confessedly make criminals. Criminals necessitate police. Police cost money. High license makes the grog-shops pay the money. In that vicious circle crime is made its own successor. It says to the saloon-keepers, "Go on perpetuating crime and manufacturing criminals, but pay for it." I appeal to any intelligent judgment if that is not bad citizenship, and bad morals. If that is all of success there is in high license, I brand it as a stupendous failure. Is that all its success? I know no other. I have yet to hear of any moral or social transformation it has brought about. On the other hand, the proofs of failure are signal. I give but two, the one covering a city, and the other a State. The city is Des Moines, Iowa, and the facts are vouched for by a gentleman over his own signature as "taken from the records of the city clerk." In 1871, with the license fee $150, there were twelve saloons. In 1872, with license at $200, there were twenty-five saloons. In 1880, with license at $250, there were forty-nine saloons. And in 1882, with license at $1,000, there were sixty saloons. The State referred to is Nebraska, where prohibition is the general State law, but high license is optional and the local exception. The fee is $1,000. The law was enacted in 1881. In 1882 the records showed 226 less saloons, but in 1883 the records showed a gain of fifty-nine. The Hon. H. W. Hardy, ex-Mayor of Lincoln, Nebraska, and father of the high license idea, testifies: "There has been no improvement in our saloons. Gambling and prostitution go hand in hand. High license has done nothing toward waking up temperance sentiment. Saloon-keepers violate the law just as they always have." John B. Finch, prominent in the advocacy of the law, and an ardent temperance man, testifies: "I was a friend of the law at its birth. I now know I was terribly mistaken in my theories. Many of the delusions urged in defense of high license have been exploded by the trial of the law." Contrast now these statements and figures with those recently published as to the success of prohibition in Kansas. They were gathered by James A. Troutman, of Topeka. He wrote to every county attorney and superintendent and police judge in the State. Reports were received from sixty-six out of eighty-one counties. And these reports, be it remembered were made by State officers, not by temperance partisans. In these sixty-six counties the number of saloons has been reduced since May 1, 1881, when the prohibitory law took effect, from 708 to 313, of which latter number more than half are in Leavenworth. During this time the population has increased twelve per cent. In forty-one counties there is not one saloon. The fines have amounted to $95,000, and eighty-one saloon-keepers have been imprisoned, their imprisonment aggregating eleven years, five months, and nineteen days. In fifty-one counties the reports all agree that prohibition sentiment is growing stronger. In seven counties it is reported as growing weaker, and in eight, as at a stand-still. Look on these two pictures, and judge ye, does high license restrict? Does not prohibition prohibit? It is said high license will at least shut up the unlicensed saloons, for those who have paid so heavily for their license will prosecute in self-defense. This is the absurdest of fallacies. Here are three good reasons why: First, the house of the liquor-dealer will not divide against itself. Secondly, the higher liquor-dealers are mostly violators of the law themselves. Many of them sell to drunkards; sell to minors; sell on Sundays. They live in glass houses, and they will not throw stones. Thirdly, they need these low saloons to take their refuse. They want these stations down-hill to get their own victims out of the way when they are done with them. The brotherhood is too close. Saloon-keepers will not turn prohibitionists as against their own clan. SAYS the New York World: "The women of Ulster County may be said to have seized the demon of intemperance by the throat. They have gone to work in a manner that will either eradicate the habit of drinking from that county, or drive all the men out of it. The matrons have pledged themselves to neither buy nor sell of a man who drinks, who sells drink, or who holds that it is defensible to do either. The young women have signed a pledge which binds them to avoid speaking to all young men who cannot put themselves right on the total abstinence question. These determined women will make no exception on account of social position, wealth, genius, or influence. They intend to boycott every merchant who does not vote for prohibition." A GENUINE temperance work is going forward in Concord, N. H. The pastors and many of the leading citizens are deeply interested. A Law-and-Order League is about to be formed. Public sentiment is so strong that one man who fitted up a new saloon at a cost of fifteen hundred dollars, and has on hand cases of liquor, dares not open them. THE Retailer asserts that "in union there is strength." The phrase does not sound entirely new, but perhaps it explains the reason why "retailers" and distillers mix such quantities of drugs with their liquors. THE St. Louis National American says: "The evils of the liquor traffic have not been reduced one particle by high license."