The first trial in Sacramento under the Sunday Law, took place March 31st. Two witnesses were sworn, testifying that the accused kept open his place of business and transacted business on the Sunday. The defense offered no testimony. Judge McFarland appeared for the defense. The following are extracts from his argument:—
“Let there be no discrimination. This is not right; it is not law. In our country we have a constitutional government. We live under a written Constitution. The people themselves make our Constitution. This is the highest law. And if the Legislatures pass a statute in conflict with our Constitution it is not law, and should not be enforced or obeyed. The law under which my client is arraigned is nothing but a religious act. The heading of this law should read: ‘An Act to enforce religion.’ Don’t we know that that would be unconstitutional? Is this law in question a law of that nature? In America the church and State do not go together. Our forefathers laid it down that political and religious liberty should be protected. A law to enforce the observance of Sunday is nothing more or less than a religious law. In the statute complained of the words “crimes against religion” appear. Crimes against whose religion?—yours or mine? As long as I don’t interfere with your religious belief you have no right to interfere with mine. If you have a majority of the Legislature, you have no right to legislate or pass religious laws. In Utah the Mormons have the majority, and they legislate in favor of their religion. In a Christian community laws are passed in the interests of the Christian religion. Is that fair? The Constitution says: ‘The free exercise or performance of religious profession or worship without preference shall ever be allowed in this State.’ Is not this Sunday law directly in conflict with the Constitution? [Mr. McFarland read several decisions showing that the law in question has been agitated from time to time since the Colonial Government, and has always been decided by the best legal minds of our country to be unconstitutional and in direct opposition to American liberty.]
The Jew who observes Saturday, and is compelled to observe the Sunday also, is compelled to do that which is contrary to his religion, and which is a loss to him financially. Is it right? Is it just? It is perfect nonsense, and a perfect farce, to say that you are not discriminating between the Jew and the Christian. The Constitution says you shall not discriminate. You compel one man to keep two Sabbaths, and the other one. It is mere pretense to say that the enforcement of the Sunday law is not done in the interests of religion. It is a religious law, and the statute plainly says so. It may be a duty I owe to my family which compels me to work seven days in the week. Under the Constitution the Legislature has no right to say you, or you shall not do so. It is a right guaranteed to us by the Constitution of our State, and the Constitution of the United States. This case will be followed by about one hundred of a similar nature; therefore I crave your indulgence in making more extended remarks than I otherwise should. Your verdict, of course, whichever way it is given, will have its effect on the cases that follow. A verdict of acquittal in this case will virtually end this litigation. A hung jury will in no way decide the matter. I wish to read some decisions of the Supreme Court on this law, in cases where there was stronger evidence against the defendant than there is in the case of my client. [Mr. McFarland read decisions from the Supreme Court of California which were applicable to this case, and which hold that the law is a discriminating one, and one directly antagonistic to our Constitution.] In 1830 the religious people of the United States flooded Congress with petitions, asking the carrying of the United States mails on Sunday to be discontinued, claiming that this practice was sacrilegious. Our Government is a civil and not a religious institution. That men have a natural right to do what they desire, so long as it does not interfere with the rights of others, cannot be denied. As long as I do not encroach upon your rights to pursue your usual vocations, or interfere with your religious rites, you have no right to interfere with mine. Such laws are invasions on the rights of the people.”
*
“The decisions of a Court are not law, but simply interpretations. The Supreme Court of this State has decided time and again that this Sunday law was unconstitutional. For twenty years those decisions have stood and been recognized as authority. Now, because a Court by the smallest majority and largest minority, has decided that it is constitutional, does not make it law. A death on the Supreme Bench to-day might result in the rendering of an opinion with the majority on the other side. Any kind of a Sunday law has been held by all eminent jurists and all Supreme benches to be unconstitutional. This decision was a mere scratch, as you might say. The three men who were in the minority on that decision have as much ability as the175four who decided that it was a constitutional law. Three of the majority on that bench are strong religionists. Instead of this matter being a settled fact as far as its constitutionality is concerned, it is the most unsettled question in this State to-day.”
The jury were out fifteen minutes, and returned a verdict of “Not Guilty.”
Was the First Day Gradually Sanctified During the Forty Days of Acts 1:3?
By John Nevins Andrews
[From Les Signes des Temps]
I.
Remarkable silence of the four Evangelists concerning the Sanctification of the First-day.
WHEN God had created the heavens and the earth, he set apart the seventh day in memory of his rest from the work of creation. "And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made." Gen 2:3. It is said that the sanctification of the seventh day has been superseded by the sanctification of the first day, in honor of the resurrection of Christ. If this were true we should read in the New Testament these words: "And God blessed the first day of the week and sanctified it, because that in it Christ arose from the dead."
But not one of the eight instances in which the first day of the week is mentioned in the New Testament speaks of the sanctification or setting apart of the day to a holy use by God; and only one of the eight instances asserts that Christ arose on that day. But if the first day of the week had been sanctified in honor of the resurrection of Christ, each of the four evangelists who record that resurrection would have announced that fact. Yet all of them are silent concerning that sanctification, and it is therefore certain that the day never was sanctified.
Though the resurrection of Christ is an event of the highest importance, the particular day of the week on which it occurred is of so little importance that only one of the four evangelists has even recorded it. Mark 16:9. Neither Matthew, Luke, nor John, thought it important to say that Christ rose on the first day of the week. We do not assert that Christ did not rise on that day, but we call attention to the remarkable fact that three of the four evangelists neglect to assert that his resurrection occurred on the first day, although John mentions the day twice, and Matthew and Luke once each. John 20:1, 19; Matt. 28:1; Luke 24:1.
So we have the important fact that no one of the four evangelists records the sanctification of the first day of the week in honor of the resurrection of Christ, and three of them do not even definitely assert that he arose that day. It is also worthy of notice that neither of the two instances in which the first day of the week is mentioned in the subsequent history of the New Testament church connects that day with the resurrection of Christ. Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2.
But why do we attach so much importance to the question whether the first day of the week was sanctified in honor of the resurrection of Christ? Our answer is direct and simple. The sanctification of a day by God is the act of setting that day apart to a holy use. If therefore God has set apart the first-day of the week in honor of the resurrection of Christ, the first-day Sabbath is a divine institution. But if he has not sanctified or set apart to holy use the first day of the week, then the festival on that day is only a human institution. It was of the highest importance that the four evangelists should mention the sanctification of the first day of the week in honor of the resurrection of Christ on that day, if that sanctification took place. They are, however, not only silent concerning the sanctification of the day, but three of the four even neglect to state that Christ arose on that day. It is certain, therefore, that the first day of the week is not a day which God claims as sacred to himself.
II.
The acts of Christ on the day of his resurrection were not designed to sanctify the day.
But many who well understand these facts assert that the first day of the week became a divine institution by a gradual process. They know that God did not sanctify this day in honor of the resurrection of Christ as he sanctified the seventh day in honor of the creation of the heavens and of the earth. Gen. 2:3; Ex. 20:11. But they think that various providential circumstances gradually sanctified the first day of the week. They acknowledge that the seventh day remained the Sabbath or sanctified day of the Lord, till the first day gradually acquired a sufficient degree of sacredness to take the place of the seventh.
The first act which is supposed to contribute to the gradual sanctification of the first day, was that of Christ in meeting with some of his disciples on that day. It is even asserted that he established the custom of holding religious assemblies on that day, but nothing of this kind appears in the testimony of the evangelists. Our Lord did not call together his disciples on that day and unite with them in worship, though he could have done this without the least difficulty. But we learn that the women who came to the sepulchre early in the morning, saw Christ and that he sent word by them to the disciples, not that he would meet with them on that day, but, that they should meet him on a distant mountain in Galilee, which meeting could not have occurred till after Christ met his disciples at the sea of Galilee. Ma.t. 28:9, 10; John 21:1-14.
The disciples saw no more of Christ on the day of his resurrection until the latter part of the afternoon, when two who were on their way to Emmaus were joined by him as they journeyed. When they arrived at that place, they invited him to enter and tarry with them because the day was far spent. While they were eating supper Christ made himself known to them. Luke 24:13-31; Mark 16:12, 13. Then the two arose and returned to Jerusalem, a distance of sixty furlongs. Luke 24:13. Each day of the week according to the Bible begins and ends at even or sunset. Gen. 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31; Lev. 23:32; Deut. 16:6; Lev. 21:6, 7; Deut. 23:11; Mark 1:32. But the day was far spent when they arrived at Emmaus, and it was not till after they had taken supper that they set out on their return to Jerusalem. At that season of the year, the early part of April, the sun sets about six o'clock. It must therefore have been almost sunset when they set out to return to Jerusalem, and the journey must have required at least two hours. The first day of the week must therefore have expired before they reached Jerusalem.
When they arrived they found that Peter had also seen Christ. Luke 24:33, 34; 1 Cor. 15:6. He must therefore have appeared to Peter after he had left the two at Emmaus, for previous to their departure from Jerusalem he had only been seen by the women. Luke 24:22-24. If our Lord had chosen to call his disciples together on the day of his resurrection would have been easy for him to do it. But he did nothing of the kind. He manifested himself three times on that day as follows. First he appeared to a few women at the sepulchre early in the morning; then in the latter part of the day he appeared to two of his disciples on their way to Emmaus; after this he was seen of Simon Peter just as the day was closing. When he actually met them all together after the return of the two from Emmaus, it must have been after sunset and on the evening which follows the first day of the week. Luke 24:33-36; John 20:19. For the first day of the week at even is really the commencement of the second day, just as the ninth day of the seventh month at even, is actually the commencement of the tenth day. Lev. 23:27-32.
When Christ met with the ten disciples that evening they were eating supper, for they had one common abode, and he upbraided them with their unbelief concerning his resurrection. Mark 16:14; Acts 1:13. Christ had intended to teach his disciples by his example that the first day of the week was henceforward to be their day for religious assemblies, and if he had designed to make his conduct on the day of his resurrection a model to govern his ministers in conducting such religious assemblies, he must have acted in a very different manner from what he did. He would have sent a message by those women calling the disciples together early in the day and would not have waited until the day was wholly past before manifesting himself to the ten apostles. It is certain therefore that Christ did not on the day of his resurrection take the first step toward the gradual sanctification of the day.
III.
Manifestations of Christ to Thomas and the ten; to the disciples near the sea of Galilee; and on the mountain in Galilee.
Thomas was not with the disciples when Christ met with them in the evening at the close of the first day of the week. John 21:19, 24. But after eight days from that evening meeting Thomas was with the disciples and Christ manifested himself to them. John 20:26. If after eight days signifies exactly one week, this meeting did not occur on the first day of the week but in the evening at the beginning of the second day. On this occasion Christ contributed no more to the sanctification of the first day of the week, than he did on the day of his resurrection, for he said not one word concerning the day, and the evidence clearly shows that the meeting itself could not have been on the first day.
The third important occasion on which Christ was seen by his disciples was at the sea of Galilee where they were fishing, but the day of the week is not specified. John 21:1-14. If it was the first day of the week the circumstances show that Christ did not regard the day as one that had been set apart from ordinary business. If it was not the first day of the week it follows that Christ regarded any other day to be as suitable as the first day of the week for his manifestation to his disciples. The disciples had doubtless gone from Jerusalem to Galilee in obedience to the commandment of Christ that they should meet him in Galilee upon a certain mountain. Matt. 26:32; 28:7, 10; Mark 14:28; 16:7.
As the meeting at the sea of Galilee was the third important meeting with his disciples (Mark 16:14; Luke 24:33-36; John 20:19-26; 21:14), the meeting upon the mountain of Galilee must have been the fourth important occasion on which Christ met with his disciples, and the one in which he was seen by the above five hundred brethren at once. Matt. 28:16; 1 Cor. 15:6. If this meeting was on the first day of the week, the Holy Spirit did not think the fact of sufficient importance to record it. If it was not on the first day of the week, then the most important of all Christ's manifestations to his disciples was made on a day which has no claim to our observance. This fact furnishes the most conclusive proof that a day does not become sanctified simply by the act of Christ's meeting with his disciples on that day.
IV.
Manifestations of Christ to James; upon the Mount of Olives at the time of his ascension; and to Saul near Damascus.
Christ was next seen by James, but we do not know on what day it was, which shows that the Holy Spirit attaches no importance to the particular days on which Christ manifests himself to his apostles. 1 Cor. 15:7. The next time that Christ was seen was when he led them out to Bethany, on the Mount of Olives, and, in their presence, ascended into Heaven. But we know that this was on Thursday, for it was forty days after his resurrection. Acts 1:1-9. This was, in some respects, the most important of all his manifestations, but it did not take place in honor of the first day of the week. The fact that it did not, shows that it is presumption to assert that the first day of the week became a sacred day because that Christ, on the day of his resurrection, was seen by the women at the sepulchre, by the two disciples at Emmaus, and just before sunset by Peter, at Jerusalem.176
The last occasion on which Christ appeared for the purpose of making his apostles witnesses of his resurrection, was to Saul, in the vicinity of Damascus. Acts 9:3-5; 22:6-8; 26:12-15; 1 Cor. 15:8. This could not have been on the first day of the week, for Saul would not have set out from Jerusalem on a journey of some three days at such time in the week as would cause him to be out over the Sabbath. This manifestation of Christ, therefore, like nearly all the others, was on some other day beside the first day of the week.
V.
No gradual sanctification of the first day before the ascension of Christ.
What facts, then, have we found to justify the idea that the first day of the week was gradually sanctified by the several manifestations of Christ to his disciples, during the forty days between his resurrection and his ascension? There were six first days during this period, but we are not certain that Christ was seen by his disciples on any first day, except the one on which he arose from the dead. And though he might easily have called all his disciples together on that day, he was seen by only a few of them, until the evening after the day had closed.
If he had designed specially to honor the day of his resurrection, by manifesting himself to his disciples, he would have appeared to them, either uniformly or generally, on the first day of the week; and certainly his most important manifestations would have been made on that day. But such was not the case, and his disciples could not have received the idea that he sought to honor the day by these manifestations, inasmuch as the most important of them, and by far the greatest number of them, were on other days of the week; and inasmuch as our Lord on all these occasions remained silent with respect to the sacredness of the day.
As the result of our investigation thus far, we have found the evidence conclusive that there was no act whereby God set apart the first day to a holy use, as once he set apart the seventh day. We have also seen that if the first day was sanctified gradually during the forty days between his resurrection and his ascension, no trace of that gradual sanctification is on record in the four gospels.
J. N. A.
A Sermon on Tithes.
THE following summary of a sermon on tithing, with a brief account of the preacher, we find in a little tract handed to us by a friend. We are glad to publish it for the benefit of our readers:—
[Blind Hohannes (John, sometimes called "John Concordance," because of his great knowledge of the Scriptures), graduated some years ago from the Theological Seminary at Harpoot, Eastern Turkey, and was afterwards stationed as preacher at Shepik, a small and very poor village not far from Arabkir. There he exerted a most happy influence, and there he first preached his sermon on tithes. Miss West, who heard him preach afterwards on the subject at Harpoot, sent an abstract of the discourse for the Missionary Herald, where it was published in October, 1868. It was reprinted in the Christian Work, a standard English publication, with the suggestion that it should be circulated by hundreds of thousands among Christians of England, was translated into Welsh, has been repeated in India, and China, and Africa.]
The preacher commenced his discourse by repeating that striking passage in Malachi: "Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Where in have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings," etc. He then, in few words, told us that he proposed to show from the word of God, that the giving of a tenth to the Lord was a primitive institution, attended with great benefits and blessings to the givers, and perpetuated and enforced under the new dispensation no less than the old.
"Open your Bibles," he said, "at the 14th chapter of Genesis, and let some one read the 18th and 20th verses." Bibles were instantly opened all over the house, and the passage read, in clear tones, by one of the congregation. "Abraham gave tithes to Melchizedek," said the preacher, "more than four hundred years before the giving of the law to Moses—Abraham, the 'father of the faithful,' whose children the Jews gloried in being,—Abraham, whom even Moslems honor and call 'the blessed.'"
"Now turn to the 28th chapter and read the 20th, 21st, and 22d verses." Jacob's vow was read, concluding with the words: "And of all that thou shalt give me, I will surely give the tenth to thee." He then rapidly drew the contrast between Jacob's going to Padan-aram alone, and in utter destitution—and the return, with his flocks and herds, and camels, men-servants and maid-servants; for the man had increased exceedingly, in spite of the covetousness of Laban. "And now," he said, "open at the 27th of Leviticus, and read the 30th verse. 'And all the tithe of the land is the Lord's,'" repeated the preacher; "nine-tenths for yourselves, but one-tenth 'is holy unto the Lord.' Open at Numbers 18th, and read the 20th, 21st, 26th, 28th, and 29th verses." This was done, and then Hohannes briefly commented upon each verse. He said the Levites, who ministered in the house of the Lord, were to have no part or inheritance in the land, for the tithes of the people were to be their inheritance; and of these tithes, they were to offer a tenth to the Lord, "even of all the best thereof!" "Read Deut. 14:22; and 26:12. See the abundant provision made, not only for the Levites, but also for the 'stranger, the fatherless, and the widow.' Read 2 Chron. 31:4-10, where the people are described as obeying the command of God, and bringing in 'abundantly' of the 'increase of the land.' And the chief priest answered king Hezekiah, when he questioned him concerning the 'heaps,'—'Since the people began to bring the offerings into the house of the Lord, we have had enough to eat, and have left plenty; for the Lord hath blessed his people; and that which is left is this great store.'"
"Now read Nehemiah 13:10th, 13th, and 14th verses. Mark the contrast! The people no longer tithes; the house of the Lord was desecrated, and the Levites had forsaken their sacred office, and 'fled, every one to his own FIELD!' And now," said the preacher, "we will turn to the new dispensation. Open at the 23d of Matthew and read the 23d verse: 'These ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone,' are our blessed Saviour's words to the Scribes and Pharisees. Ye do well to pay tithes—it is your duty—but ye ought also to do judgment, mercy, and faith. Now turn to Luke 11:42: 'Woe unto you Pharisees, for ye tithe all manner of herbs, and pass over judgment and the love of God; these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.' Read Luke 3:7-12: 'Bring forth fruits worthy of repentance,'" repeated the preacher. "John the Baptist was a connecting link between the Jewish and the gospel dispensations, and he spake as he was moved by the Spirit of God, 'Now also the axe laid at the root of the tree.' What tree? It was nothing less than the tree—the root—of self and selfishness! What this good fruit is he tells us in the 11th verse: 'He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none; and he that hath meat (food), let him do likewise.' Where now remains the tenth?" he exclaimed. "Under the new dispensation, not one-tenth merely, but one-HALF is required!" (At this announcement there was an evident sensation in the audience, many a face lighted up with a smile, as the electric current shot through the assembly).
The preacher continued: "Read now the 6th of Luke, 38th verse: 'Give, and it shall be given unto you.' Give, and you shall have the wherewithal to give! Shut your hand and your heart, and you shut the windows of Heaven; you keep back the blessing of God. See what Christ says in Luke 12:33: 'Sell that ye have and give alms, etc., which means, consider yourselves as stewards of God's grace on the earth, seeking your inheritance in the world to come. You are to set light store by your earthly possessions, and lay up treasure in Heaven. Now read Luke 14:33." Slowly and solemnly the preacher repeated the words of the Master: "'So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not ALL that he hath, he CANNOT be my disciple!' Ah, my brethren," he said, "It is not merely a tenth, or even a half of our wordly possessions that Christ claims, it is our ALL! Think upon the meaning of those words. It is thus He speaks to you: 'If you wish to be my disciple, you must count the cost! You cannot serve two masters. You must give up everything that the children of this world seek after. You must hold yourselves aloof from your earthly possessions (the Armenian version of the text quoted from Luke 14:33), holding to them loosely, setting your affections on things above. Your comfort, pleasure, honor, ease, yea, your very life, you must esteem as nothing in comparison with my service! And in thus losing all you will find ALL, and that forever.'"
"Open your Bibles at Matt. 19:29, and Mark 10:29, and the glorious promise to those who truly 'forsake all' for Christ and his cause. 'See,'" exclaimed Hohannes, after solemnly repeating the passage, "'see how rich the reward! A hundred-fold in this life, and life everlasting beside! Now open at Luke 19th, read from the 2d to the 10th verse. Note the words of Zaccheus: 'The half of my goods I give to the poor'—and mark the answer of our Saviour. But what say you? Is salvation to be bought with money? We all know that it is 'without money, and without price.' Why then this blessing upon Zaccheus?" "Because," answered one of the congregation, "the giving was the fruit of his faith!" "Yes," rejoined the preacher, "Zaccheus brought forth fruit worthy of true repentance, and immediately received the promised blessing."
"Now let me tell you a story. When I was in the class in sermonizing, in the seminary, our teacher was very anxious that we who were soon to go forth as preachers, and perhaps become pastors, should work upon right principles; and he often talked to us about our duty, as leaders, to teach the people to do for themselves. He sometimes told us of places where much money (of the Board) had been expended by missionaries, and little real good accomplished, because the people had not been taught to give for Christ's cause. 'In one little village,' he said, '40,000 piasters of the Board's money was spent, the people giving only fifty piasters during thirteen years! And the work in that place amounts to nothing, to-day, in consequence of this unwise course.'"
"It so happened, that when my course of study was finished, I was appointed to that village. It was the last place I should have chosen. I had no desire to go to that field, but God had so ordered, and I went. The missionaries told me that my wages would be 1,500 piasters per year, of which the people were to raise 600 piasters; and before I left, one of them took me aside, and counselled me to make it as easy for the people as possible, by eating at their houses, etc., etc., because it would come hard to them at first to do so much. Soon after I went there, a neighboring pastor came over to the village, and we held a meeting with the brethren. We talked about my support, and it seemed that they had, with much difficulty, subscribed 500 piasters per year. I told them the missionaries had said they would raise 600. 'Never!' they exclaimed, 'we cannot raise another para!' And pastor M. said it was impossible—they were too poor. 'Where then shall I get my other hundred?' I asked. 'We will help you from our place,' he answered.177
"But my mind was not at rest. That night I thought much on the subject. I said to myself, 'Suppose the American Board should some day withdraw its support from this and other feeble churches, what will become of them?' And I prayed: 'O, Thou who knowest all things, and with whom are all plans, show thy ignorant servant how thy kingdom can best be established in this land.' And it seemed to me that a voice said, in my soul, 'It can be done, by giving one in every ten!' When I told it over, it occurred to me to test it first in my own case. One-tenth of my 1,500 per year would be 150 piasters. 'No!' I said, 'I can't give as much as that; I should suffer for it.' But when I came to take it out of every month's allowance it did not seem so much. 'One-tenth of my 125 per month, will be 12½ piasters; I can do it,' I said, 'and I will, even if I do have to pinch a little!' It happened that pastor — visited us about that time, and I laid the subject before him. 'It can be done,' he said, 'and it must be. I will give a tenth of my salary.' And so said preacher —, who also came over. 'Well, then,' I said, 'do you think it will do for me to lay it before the brethren?' 'Yes,' they replied, 'it is the best thing you can do.' So I prepared myself and preached to the people on the next Sabbath. The Lord blessed his own word. They accepted it, and came together to be 'written' for their tithes. When we made a rough estimate it appeared that their tenths would amount to more than my entire salary! 'Why, how is this?' they all said; 'it was so hard before, but now it comes very easy, and is truly pleasant.'"
"Now, to show you how God blessed that little flock, I will mention one case. There was one of the brethren who had a vegetable garden, which the Turkish official, in writing down the taxes, had estimated at 900 piasters (for that year's produce), taxing him ninety piasters. Others said it was too much; it would not produce that amount. But mark the fulfillment of the promise in Malachi 3:10. That brother sold 3,000 piasters' worth of vegetables, besides what was eaten by a household of thirty-two persons, and given away—amounting to full 3,000 more. Others were also blessed, and all acknowledged that they had never known a year of such prosperity. The people not only supported their preacher and school-teacher, but also paid over 2,000 piasters for other purposes."
The preacher was about to close his discourse, when a member of the congregation arose, and asked permission to say a few words. "I have learned," he said, "from one of the missionaries, another truth which has great weight in this giving of one-tenth of our income to the Lord. Under the old dispensation, the Jews were only required to care for their own nation, but under the new dispensation the command is, 'Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature!' Therefore a tenth is not enough for Christians to give." To this the preacher responded: "A tenth is the very least that a disciple of Christ can give. Over and above that, he should give as God prospers him." "And now," he added, "let us seek the aid of the Holy Spirit, that we and all our offerings, may find acceptance before God."
The True School.
By S. Brownsberger
BY PROF. S. BROWNSBERGER.
THE characteristic features of a true school are as manifest to the educator as are the leading traits of a good character to a competent judge of human nature. The true school will always secure to its pupils completeness in their studies. The expression "completeness in their studies," as used above, does not mean a finished course of study as popularly understood, but the performance of every day's work to completeness. It is a lack of a habit of completeness in their work that makes many a farm hand, domestic, and seamstress, next to worthless.
Completeness in school work on the part of the pupil, means more than simply to commit to memory, rules and definitions, and parrot-like to recite them; more than to perform examples in a certain way because "the rule says so," and to consider the work right only because the result obtained is like the answer. In English Grammar it consists of more than penning up the words of a sentence in a mechanical frame-work called diagraming, and dignifying each by one of the eight conventional titles of noun, verb, adjective, etc.
The habit of doing things well will not come from such methods of study. To insure completeness, and to instill habits of original thought, the teacher must lead the pupil, with certain facts before him, to reason and draw conclusions from the stand-point of an original investigator.
The true school will attach great importance to practical studies. These properly pursued cannot fail to give good mental culture, and at the same time the pupil is acquiring that knowledge which he will most need when he becomes a man.
It has become a kind of mania among young people in many of our public and preparatory schools throughout the country, to attach very great importance to the higher branches, while the common branches are looked upon with disdain, and as something to be passed over in a superficial manner. As a result their penmanship is poor, their spelling worse, and their knowledge of practical Arithmetic is not sufficient to meet the demands of most ordinary business.
The true school will inculcate in its pupils the habit of doing everything well. This habit may become just as deeply and firmly seated in the character of the student as the habit of carelessness and superficiality. Children, when properly informed, appreciate and love to practice thoroughness.
In many cases patrons judge the merits of a school and teacher, simply from the reports of the children in attendance. If the pupils love the teacher, then the school is good; if they express indifference or a dislike for the teacher, the school is accordingly bad.
The following from a certain school examiner may be readily comprehended in the light of the foregoing statements: "I have in my possession commendations from parties setting forth that Mr. A or Miss B had taught an excellent school, giving the best satisfaction, etc. And, yet, on further inquiry, it was found that not a member of the School Board, nor a soul of the district, had visited the school during the term in which these persons had been employed as teachers."
Whoever enters into heart sympathy with child-life, may command the love of children, but the possession of their love by the teacher, is not a safe criterion by which to judge the character of the school, and its educational power upon the minds of the children.
The experienced educator may know the true school by its methods; the inexperienced must judge it chiefly from its results.
Pay Your Vows
"When thou vowest a vow unto God, defer not to pay it; for he hath no pleasure in fools; pay that which thou hast vowed. Better is it that thou shouldst not vow, than that thou shouldst vow and not pay."
Cheerful Giving
"God loveth a cheerful giver."
Temperance.
Tobacco—Its Effects on the System.
IN the United States, intelligent medical men have estimated that 30,000 die every year from the use of tobacco. In Germany, the physicians have decided that of all the deaths which occur between the ages of eighteen and thirty-five, one-half originate in the waste of the constitution from smoking. Such opinions should be made known to the world, especially to mothers, and girls on the eve of marriage. To expend the trifling sum of six cents a day for tobacco, amounts to $21.90 a year. This sum would be called an outrageous tax if laid on a young man for any other purpose. This sum, if put to interest, would in thirty years amount to $3,529.30. There are many thousands in this land who spend from twelve to twenty-five cents a day, which would amount to from $45 to $100 a year. To spend this sum on such a degrading poison is a crime. Some men are miserable if they cannot have fifty cents a day for cigars to soothe disturbed and aching nerves. The consumption of cigars in the city of New York, in 1850, was $10,000 a day; this would be $3,650,000 a year for cigars alone; no doubt it at this time reaches up to $4,000,000.
The nature of tobacco on the human system is sure to kindle a love for alcoholic drinks; and when a love for alcohol is coupled with tobacco, a man is doubly insured as a drunkard for life. The Rev. Mr. Trask, of Massachusetts, a lecturer, says: "Tobacco and alcohol live in endearing friendship in each other's bosom."
It is true that laws, however stringent, in regard to temperance, will prove no better than a child's toy, unless the mainspring of the disease, the tobacco mania, with the youth, is chained in its march. Mr. Delavan, of New York, says: "It is my opinion that while the use of tobacco continues, intemperance will continue to curse the world." The use of tobacco leads to the use of intoxicating drinks; they are all of one family. There may have been inebriates who were not tobaccoists, but we have not yet found them. Art, poetry, and science, have found their truth, and so must society in regard to the great vampire which has flooded the earth with its vials of degradation in the form of tobacco, causing all manner of crimes, from petty larceny to murder and incest, craft and licentiousness; the mainspring of disaffection in our legislative halls, leading to dissolution and despotism. There is no vice that acts alone. There is no evil which affects one-half of humanity, that does not also influence the other half.
Intemperance, insanity, and scrofulous diseases, are crowding every household, predominating from the poisonous properties of tobacco. Its effects on the nerve forces are exceedingly powerful, arousing to unnatural activity, or stupefying. There is one who uses tobacco that is not invariably irritable when the effect of the poison has in some degree passed away. Then the fire burns in the brain until their lips are polluted with the weed again. Paralysis is daily increasing in our country—from the contraction of the nerve forces—from this enemy. Rheumatic diseases on the right hand and on the left, from the absorption of the oils from the nerve, the narcotic of the tobacco consuming the natural supply of oil which is necessary to the nerve forces to keep them in natural running order. Dr. Adam Clarke remarks "that so inseparable are drinking and smoking, that in some places the same word expresses both acts." We sometimes hear girls and women say that they like the smell of tobacco. Such is not the case unless their system has absorbed the fetid elements of the weed from in-nate conditions or inhalation, so that their organs of smell have become diseased. Man is fully organized, by nature, with all the requisitions necessary for the qualifications of each individual organ; or put in force of action all of the requirements of nature, both moral and physical. Let those requirements be put in force and we have a paradise surrounding us. Then we should need fewer prisons, poor-houses, and lunatic asylums; no craft or creed to bind men's souls. Man is prone to evil. That may be true, so far, as when a man will use bad materials to build a house he will make a bad job. So, also, when you fill the system with bad materials that destroy the moral principle in the action of the brain, from whence cometh pure life.—Christian at Work.