Earlier text: Temporal MillenniumWHISKY is by no means the only dangerous stimulant. W. Mattieu Williams, in a recent number of the Popular Science Monthly, bears this significant testimony against a common stimulant on the tables of many temperate people:— “Cayenne pepper may be selected as a typical example of a condiment, properly so called. Mustard is a food and condiment combined; this is the case with some others. Curry-powders are mixtures of very potent condiments with more or less of farinaceous materials, and sulphur compounds, which, like the oil of mustard, of onions, garlic, etc., may have a certain amount of nutritive value. “The mere condiment is a stimulating drug that does its work directly upon the inner lining of the stomach, by exciting it to increased and abnormal activity. A dyspeptic may obtain immediate relief by using cayenne pepper. Among the advertised patent medicines is a pill bearing the very ominous name of its compounder, the active constituent of which is cayenne. Great relief and temporary comfort are commonly obtained by using it as a ‘dinner pill.’ If thus used only as a temporary remedy for an acute and temporary, or exceptional, attack of indigestion, all is well, but the cayenne, whether taken in pills or dusted over the food or stewed with it in curries or any otherwise, is one of the most cruel of slow poisons when taken habitually. Thousands of poor wretches are crawling miserably toward their graves, the victims of the multitude of maladies of both mind and body that are connected with chronic, incurable dyspepsia, all brought about by the habitual use of cayenne and its condimental cousins. The usual history of these victims is that they began by over-feeding, took the condiment to force the stomach to do more than its healthful amount of work, by using but little at first. The stomach then became tolerant of this little, and demanded more, then more, and more, and more, until at last inflammation, ulceration, torpidity, and finally the death of the digestive powers.” LIKE arsenic and strychnine, tobacco is good as a medicine, but it is the reverse as an everyday article of use, or rather abuse. The very fact that it is so disagreeable to others should restrain any thoughtful, considerate person from using it. The fumes of a tobacco breath, the scent of the cigar or the old black pipe, is forever floating on the air in all public places and in a majority of private ones. Indeed it is the exception and not the rule to go into any public gathering and find no scent or sign of the filthy weed. True, smoking is not allowed in the church, but chewing abounds from the pulpit to the pews, and a majority of the men’s clothes are full of the detestable and disagreeable smoke. The spittoons waft their scents around, the vestibule floats it in, and the open windows in summertime are filled with it. However disagreeable it may be to us, there is no way of escaping the ubiquitous fragrance (?) of the filthy stuff. You lift a book from the public library and its pages reek with the vile odor. You pick up a paper from the table of the reading room and there it is again—some old smoker has puffed it full of the everlasting scent of the weed, and you read with bated breath and protesting heart. I have heard loving wives groan in deep distress while they lamented that for long years they had not had one good, clean breath of pure air in their homes, but that every corner of the house was polluted by the stench of the filthy stuff. The best land is given up to its culture. Millions of money is invested in its manufacture, and yet, like alcohol, it is one of the greatest enemies of the human race. It is time that we had anti-tobacco societies all over our land. We need them as much if not more than temperance societies, for the evil is more insidious and undermining, because so few realize the great harm to health, brain, and life that is being done by this almost universal habit of chewing and smoking.—Sel. “But, doctor, I must have some kind of stimulant,” cried the invalid, earnestly; “I am cold, and it warms me.” “Precisely,” came the doctor’s crusty answer. “See here; this stick is cold”—taking up a stick of wood from a box beside the hearth, and tossing it into the fire, “now it is warm; but is the stick benefited?” The sick man watched the wood first send out little puffs of smoke, and then burst into flame, and replied: “Of course not, it is burning itself!” “And so are you when you warm yourself with alcohol; you are literally burning up the delicate tissues of your stomach and brain.”—Sel. THEY WERE SEEKING TO KILL HIM.
By H. Clay Trumbull
There was no so common answer to Paul's preaching as a proposition to kill him. And that mode of meeting an argument—especially on religious subjects—has always been popular. The first murder was prompted by religious bigotry. Various bodies of Christians—Protestant as well as Romanist—have tried to kill off those who differed with them on points of theology. It would hardly be safe to-day to trust any religious denomination with irresponsible and unlimited power over other denominations. The probability is that there would be more or less killing done; at all events, violence would not be unknown. But killing a man never answers his arguments; nor does it destroy the cause he represents—whether that cause be good or bad. Killing a man, or offering him violence for his religious opinions, is the poorest way of dealing with him, notwithstanding the venerable precedents in its favor.—H. Clay Trumbull. New Orleans Exposition.
By Editor
It is a pleasing phase of the workings of the human mind that we easily believe that others will be interested in that in which we take an interest. Being so well acquainted with the productions and resources of the Northern States, and our time in the Exposition being so limited, we did not take the same pains to note their exhibits that we did those of the Southern States. Another reason for this is that the South is in a transition state; by the abolition of slavery, and the consequent introduction of new methods of development, the South is attracting more attention than was ever given to it before. We were somewhat surprised to see the evidence of its abundant resources, though some of the exhibits were not fully open—a circumstance which we much regretted. This seemed to be the case with Either its exhibit was not prepared, or we visited the space allotted to it in an unfortunate hour, for most of the articles were not in view. But beside some productions of the soil, we saw good exhibits of iron, asbestos, ochre, building stones, marble, etc. We judged from what we could see and what was nearly concealed, that the show of various ores from Virginia was highly creditable to the State. In ores North Carolina was represented by iron, copper, gold, and also coal. Fruit, good; but it must in all cases be borne in mind that the season was not favorable to a show of a great variety of fruits to advantage. Its grains were excellent, with a fine exhibit of manufactured goods and silk. Tobacco, of course, of the quality of which we are happily no judge. There was a good display of building material, such as fine mottled stones, granite, and marble. This State had a rich display of fine woods, and also of cotton, both raw and manufactured. A variety of building stones, granite, and marble. She also presented good fruits and excellent grain. But her special show was of phosphates, which were mined last year to the amount in value of $2,500,000. This State exhibited what we naturally looked for from North Carolina—a turpentine still. We know that that State produces turpentine largely. In stones the specialty of Georgia was fine limestone, iron ore, and asbestos. Her cotton exhibit was especially good. We turned away from this State in disappointment because there were so few of her productions ready for exhibition. This State also presented a good exhibit of building materials, both in stones and woods. Her specimens of southern pine were fine and attractive; also of cedar, of which she had a large display of goods. Her show of productions of the soil were mainly cotton, grass, and corn. Her manufacturing facilities were shown by her iron and coal. Mississippi seemed to especially pride herself on her woods, of which she made a creditable display. With a great variety of polished woods she had specimens of large ash, sweet pecan, sweet gum, chestnut-oak, many other kinds of oak, and the largest yellow poplar that we ever saw. Her display of nuts was corresponding to her variety of woods. Her productions were mainly shown in cotton, wool, and silk. One could readily judge that she has a rich soil, and that her resources are varied and great. The timber display of this State was good; also of stones, with iron and salt. She was not lacking in variety of productions, showing good grain and vegetables. But her best displays were of sugar, rice, cotton, and silks. She prides herself, as might be expected, in her cotton, as was evinced by her ingenious exhibition of "King Cotton and his beloved Louisiana," a household scene of a man and his spouse, with a kitten playing with a ball of cotton, and the dog watching her, every whit of which was made of cotton, mainly of "batting." The display of coal was excellent—we may say, unexpectedly good. But her fine show of grasses was just what we did expect from this State. Of hemp we can say the same. Her exhibit of grains was good; and in woods she scarcely came behind any. In all cases we have omitted the mention of liquors, and only wish they were omitted from the list of productions. The show of woods from Tennessee was excellent, but unfortunately they were not properly labeled. Iron ore and coal were good exhibits, but the display in marbles was particularly good. Fruit, fair, but grain good, especially corn. A good show of cotton, and also silk. This State offers great inducements to those who wish to go South, both in her productions, and her facilities for manufacturing. Florida presented a fine exhibit of grain and fabrics. Her show of woods was also good. But her specialty seems to be fruits, such as oranges and lemons. We saw also specimens of the date palm, which we learned is cultivated there. This State took us by surprise by the extent and variety of its natural and labor productions. A good display of woods, with trees of great size; as specimens: Cypress, five feet in diameter; Osage orange, three feet; red gum, five feet; sassafras, over four feet. Coal, zinc, soap-stone, granite, and variegated marble; a good show of grains, with the largest ear of corn we ever saw. Fruit, first-class; cotton and silk. Her motto presented with this display was: "We want more people." If she can present satisfactory advantages of climate she ought to attract more people. The display of this State went most largely into fancy articles. Fruit, fair to good; the same of grain. Her natural productions shown were woods, which were good, fine stones, marble, and coal. Wool and cotton were largely produced. Texas is the largest State in the Union, and has an immense area of unimproved territory. The Territories were most largely represented by minerals, though, by means of irrigation, they were enabled to present enormous specimens of vegetables. Dakota of course was rich in grains, of which Idaho and Wyoming also made a good showing; the latter has a wealth of coal. Besides her minerals, Arizona presented fine specimens of her cotton. If artesian wells can be successfully made in Arizona, that Territory could develop great resources. New Mexico had a large variety of ores, and a good show of both fruits and grains. The exhibit of Washington was principally of woods, ores, and grains. The Pacific Coast was well represented; Oregon had a fine display of woods, minerals, vegetables, grains, and fruits. But in the California exhibit the visitor is almost lost; her wide range of climate produces almost everything that can be produced anywhere except under the equator. The exhibit of California and Nevada was largely due to the efforts of the Central Pacific Railroad; but Colonel Andrews, the Commissioner for this State, has just procured an appropriation by the Legislature of $10,000 to have the State yet more worthily represented. Of the Eastern States we were particularly struck with the exhibit of Pennsylvania. The excellency of her fruits, vegetables, and grains, and the great variety of her manufactures, make her conspicuous among all the States. Michigan was creditably represented by her woods, fruits, grains, vegetables, ores, salt, etc. Of the private displays none equaled hers; the Grand Rapids Furniture Company occupy a respectable building of their own, and Mr. D. B. Harrington, of Mason, Ingham County, Mich., had a potato exhibit of over six hundred and fifty choice varieties! Those States which irrigate produce much larger potatoes, but no one can produce better than are abundantly raised in Michigan. Some of the displays were models of taste and art. The name of "Kansas" in wheat straws and heads attracted much attention; while Nebraska presented a rival to "King Cotton," in her exhibition of corn. Within a triumphal arch made of ears of corn, was a circle made of alternate colors of kernels of corn within which was a manly looking head and face, surmounted with a crown, all wrought with corn kernels, and, above all, the motto: "Corn is King." It was much admired. The reader must bear in mind that we have but glanced at the exhibits of some of the States, and in the Government Building only. The Main Building was filled with private enterprises, which showed yet more strongly the resources of the States from which they came. Here was carried on the whole process of cotton manufacturing, with very many like interests. And a greater display of fruits than the State exhibits contained was found in Horticultural Hall. We were not before aware that silk is so extensively produced in the United States as is shown in this Exposition. Another thing impressed us strongly. The people of the North who wish to escape the rigors of the Northern winters need not go so far as California to seek homes. In Tennessee, Mississippi, Arkansas and other States of the South, they will find a climate as mild as they will desire, and better chances to get good land than can be found in California. Land that can be profitably cultivated without irrigation, or that which has the benefit of irrigation, commands a good price, often a very high price, in California. To those who wish to visit the Exposition in New Orleans, who have command of their time, we would say, Go in the months of April and May. The whole country will present a more attractive appearance when spring is fully opened, and the exhibits will be sure to be in readiness. It has been a great detriment to the exhibition that the work of preparation was so far behind the time of the opening. And this will probably not be completely remedied before the month of March. But go when you will, you cannot fail to be impressed with the wonderful resources of this wonderful country. God has greatly blessed this land; but the gratitude of the people is not shown by their regard for his authority, or by obedience to his requirements. They worship the creature more than the Creator. And while they pride themselves with the blessings of divine Providence and boast of the work of their hands, they are not preparing for that day when God shall bring every work into judgment. May the Lord in mercy send forth his light and his truth, and give an earnest seal that is according to knowledge to his people to whom he has committed the work of warning the world of impending judgments. “LAY up for yourselves treasures in Heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.” "My wife, belonging to the Seventh-day church, has attended the meetings of the holy army with me several times, and we have a very good opinion of their intentions in regard to the salvation of souls; and we would like to know what you, as editor of the SIGNS, think of them and their work."
S. B. H. Such a question hardly comes within the province of our question department. We have endeavored to confine our answers to those questions which relate directly to the truth which we are set to promulgate and vindicate. Yet our questioner has touched a point which is of interest to many, and we will give our opinion and the reasons therefor. 1. We have no confidence in their methods. The sight of a straggling band of men and women and boys parading the streets with a flag and a drum, professing to be serving the cause of Christianity, is anything but pleasing to us. It is only ridiculous, and well calculated to bring the gospel of Christ into contempt in the sight of all intelligent, thinking people. And their street harangues are generally about as empty as the sound of the drums they beat. We have never seen this humiliating spectacle without regrets that the reasonable and sensible religion of the New Testament should be so burlesqued by its professed adherents. Of "their intentions" we have nothing to say. We do not know but the intentions of Buddhists are good; but this does not give us confidence in their system. The intentions of the veriest empiric in medicine may be good; but that does not make his system scientific or healing. The intention of the Hindoo mother was good when she sacrificed her child, but her religious intention did not justify her act, or save her from the guilt of murder. We believe that intention is an important factor in the measurement of moral actions, but a good intention is no sufficient plea for the neglect of a revealed truth, nor for the propagation of error or the practice of questionable methods in behalf of a truth. "If a man also strive for masteries, yet is he not crowned, except he strive lawfully." 2 Tim. 2:5. 2. There are so many errors and delusions abroad in the land,—so much fanaticism prevailing,—that we are compelled to call in question everything which does not come up to the divine standard. Spiritualism now claims to be the true religion, and the only one that can demonstrate its claims with power and with miracles. Perfectionism or "holiness" teaching (falsely so called) follows close in its wake, and is training up hosts of adherents to depend upon their feelings and impressions, to the exclusion of the word of God. With these things all around us, we are constrained to examine closely, and judge solely by the light of Scripture. "To the law and to the testimony; if they speak not according to this word it is because there is no light in them." Here is the test. And "this word" contains a "sure word of prophecy" unto which we are instructed to "take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place." In this word of prophecy we are assured that we may know when our Saviour's coming "is near, even at the doors." More than that; we are not only assured that we may know, but we are commanded to know, with the certainty presented before us that it will be fatal not to know. See Matt. 24:3, 32, 33, 37-39. And when his coming is near, a message of warning is given to the world; Rev. 14:9-14; and as God does not speak in vain—as man must not trifle with his words, this message must be heeded, or we shall be rejected when the Saviour appears. 3. The Saviour says that, when his coming is near, unfaithful servants will say, "My Lord delayeth his coming." And Peter says that in the last days they will scoffingly ask, "Where is the promise of his coming?" Paul also says that in the day when the Lord's coming is near, and "sudden destruction" is impending, they will say, "Peace and safety." And Paul again, speaking of "the last days," says of certain teachers, "And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables." 2 Tim. 4:4. The word of God is truth. John 17:17. And it is a sad fact that the tendency of the present time, especially among these "entirely sanctified" ones, is to ignore the word of God and trust to their own feelings and experiences. To prove that our assertion is true we will refer to a few examples which have come under our observation. A lady to whom we quoted a passage of Scripture to prove a certain point, laid her hand upon her breast, saying: "I have something here which tells me I am right!" And this in spite of the plain declaration of God's word. Another lady of the "holiness band," to whom we endeavored to quote the Bible, said: "God speaks to me in my soul." She would pay no heed to the scripture to which we tried to call her attention. A young preacher told us directly that he did not depend upon the Bible to learn his duty; God revealed it to him in prayer. Another very holy man, "powerful in prayer," who formerly professed reverence for the ten commandments, said that he had conversed with God himself, and that he had informed him that he need not keep the commandments! Another justified himself in the use of tobacco, saying: "It must be right, for God sanctified me while I was using it, which he would not do if it was wrong." As in this, so in all cases, they make themselves the standard. A holiness preacher, and one of some prominence, when asked by an inquiring friend whose mind was troubled about duty, why the first day was now kept instead of the seventh, answered in evident passion: "I have no patience to talk with a man who will ask such a question." A fully sanctified man, with no patience to talk concerning one of God's precepts; what a sight! We might multiply instances, but there is no need. We do not believe that the Saviour is honored by those who make such free use of his name, and use their faith in him as an excuse for turning away from the words of his Father. This is the course pursued by all these self-styled holy ones, who praise their own graces and boast of their humility! Will the reader please see Matt. 7:21-23; 15:1-9; John 7:16, 17; Prov. 28:9. Spurgeon said of the methods of the miscalled "salvation army," that he regarded it as an effort of Satan to make Christianity appear ridiculous. We see no reason to dissent from his opinion. Protestants or Not? No. 3.
By Alonzo T. Jones
WE have found that those who maintain the doctrine of the immortality of the soul, and those who maintain that Sunday, the first day of the week, is the Sabbath, are not Protestants. There are other doctrines held by certain professedly Protestant denominations, such as sprinkling for baptism, and infant baptism, which can no more be held in consonance with Protestant principles than can these, but such are found only in some of the different denominations; while the two which we have noticed, taken together, touch every Protestant denomination in the world (with one exception), and show them to be not in principle Protestants. We do not state this as a matter for exultation, nor to make capital of it, but simply as a solid fact deduced from sound principles. Nor will it do for any one to allow his prepossessions to hide his eyes from these things. They are facts, and it is high time to look them fairly in the face, and to plant ourselves firmly upon pure Protestant principles; for the time is coming, and coming soon, when genuine Protestantism will be a protest, not only against the papal church as such, but against papal principles under the garb of Protestantism. Because in the effort to sustain the Sunday institution, professed Protestants are willing to follow papal principles even to the full length of using to the utmost the arm of the civil power, to compel the observance of rites which are wholly religious. When, by the amendment to the United States Constitution, there shall be in this country a union of church and State, and when by this the united Protestant churches shall have gained the supremacy in the affairs of this nation, and all this for the express purpose of enforcing by penal statute the observance of the Sunday institution, which is wholly Catholic, what will that be but the triumph of Catholic principles? and this too through those who should be Protestants. And to accomplish this they are not only willing, but glad, and even anxious, to join hands with the Romish Church. As early as 1876 the Christian Statesman printed the following from a speech by Rev. W. W. Atterbury, Secretary of the New York Sabbath (Sunday) Committee:— 'One or two principles should always be observed in these efforts. First, avoid all entangling alliances with temperance, Bible, and common school laws, and concentrate the friends of the Sabbath [Sunday]. In New York, by this plan, the co-operation of the Roman Catholics had been secured.' Again says Mr. Atterbury:— 'The Protestant and the Roman Catholic, . . . have alike an interest in maintaining our Sunday law.' The very latest Sunday law book, less than two months from the press, presents as one of the main 'elements of hope' for the success of the Sunday law movement in the nation, the fact that the Catholic Church is sharing in it. This too in the face of the following, from a letter written to the author of the book, by 'Father Sylvester Malone, one of the most influential priests of Brooklyn':— 'I am just in receipt of your letter, in which you put to me several questions in reference to the teachings of the Catholic Church on what all Christians owe as their duty to the command of God, "Remember to keep holy the Sabbath day."' In the first place, I have to remark that the Sabbath of the Jews was celebrated on the last day of the week, and not on the first, which we Catholics call the Lord's day. For this change we have only the authority of the Catholic Church.'—The Sabbath for Man, by Rev. W. F. Crafts, page 63. Thus professed Protestants join heart and hand with Catholics in compelling all people to observe an institution which has 'only the authority of the Catholic Church.' True, they deny this, but they cannot disprove it. Every attempt at disproof only strengthens the proof; every effort they make to get out of the Catholic bog only sinks them deeper into it. The only defense of Sunday that can be made122 is by Catholic argument. And to try, by Catholic arguments, to escape from a Catholic position only the more entangles them in the maze of this mistress of witchcrafts, and mother of abominations. It is well known that the late Catholic Council at Baltimore, in its pastoral letter, took strong ground in favor of a 'strictly religious Sunday.' This, together with the fact that the same council observed Thanksgiving in accordance with the President's proclamation, is matter of great gratulation on the part of so-called Protestant papers, all over the country. It is looked upon as an indication of the final accommodation of the differences that now separate between Protestants and Catholics. The New York Independent says:— 'The New York Sabbath Committee could hardly do a better thing than to reprint for general circulation that eloquent and able section of the pastoral which treats of Sunday observance.' We should not be at all surprised to see this suggestion carried out. And what an edifying thing it will be, to be sure, to see Protestants circulating Catholic tracts, directing Protestants how to keep Sunday! Again says the Independent:— 'For our part, we rejoice to know that there is a "Puritan" element in the Roman Catholic Church of the United States. . . . To the New Orleans writer, and the "Christian ladies," and the fathers of the pastoral, we extend our Christian salutations; and, pending the settlement of the questions which have separated Protestants and Catholics, for centuries, let us stand together in condemnation of Sunday dissipation and other such evils, whether those who practice them disgrace the Catholic or the Protestant name.' But the Independent is not alone; here comes the Christian Union and says:— 'For the well being of this country it is not important, perhaps not even desirable, that all Roman Catholics should become Protestants; but it is of prime importance that they should understand one another. . . . So important do we regard a good understanding between these two classes of Christian voters that we should be glad to see a system of pulpit exchanges brought about; we should like to see Dr. Hall telling the worshipers at St. Ann's some Sunday morning what Protestantism really is, and Father Preston in Dr. Hall's pulpit telling the Presbyterian congregation what Roman Catholicism is. Why not? Since these two congregations are to live side by side, why should they not know at first hand what each other's opinions are? We are, for this reason, very glad that Monsignor Capel has come to this country and has spoken on Roman Catholic themes to Protestant auditors. We have asked him to tell our readers in our own columns what the Inquisition is. He has accepted, and we hope that he will make the best showing he can of that historical institution of Romanism.' So there is to be a settlement of the questions that have separated Protestants and Catholics, and this is to be by mutual apologies. The Catholics are to apologize for the Inquisition, and the Protestants are to apologize for being called Protestants, we suppose. We can conceive of nothing else for which they could make apology to the papal church. But in view of existing circumstances we rather think that that is the proper thing to do, for it certainly is a misnomer for them to call themselves Protestants while the only doctrine that they maintain with any degree of activity is wholly Catholic, and while they are on the very eve of enforcing this doctrine by Catholic methods. By all this we plainly see the forces shaping themselves for the exact fulfillment of Dan. 7:21, 22: 'I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them; until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the Most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.' By every specification of the Scriptures, this "horn" is proved to represent the papal church. It did make war against the saints for the time and times and the dividing of time—the 1260 years—up to A. D. 1798; then its power was broken (Rev. 13:3), but it appears that it was only for a season, for the text shows that it afterward renews the war, and continues it till the saints possess the kingdom. Then the question arises: How can it be possible for the papal church to regain the power to persecute the people of God in the United States, when the Catholics are in the minority, and the Constitution forbids the enactment of any "law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"? And the answer comes swiftly and explicitly: By the Protestants securing an amendment to the Constitution, declaring this to be a "Christian nation," and placing "all Christian laws, institutions, and usages" on an undeniably legal basis in the very charter of this Government, and by this securing laws for the strict enforcement of Sunday observance, which rests for its authority upon the Catholic Church alone, this great nation is to be turned into a sect and delivered bodily into the cruel power of Rome, and compelled to do fealty to her,—compelled "to worship the beast whose deadly wound was healed." Rev. 13:8, 11-17. This is exactly what the papacy wants; this is what she longs for; but she knows that she dare not attempt it in her own name. She sees also that there is no need of attempting it in her own name. She sees the Protestant churches holding her own doctrines; she sees them sustaining these doctrines by her own methods; with joy she sees them exalting her pet institution, the Sunday, to the highest place in the nation; with exultation she sees them putting forth their strenuous efforts to accomplish the Constitutional amendment and the union of church and State. Thus exultant sits the "well-favored harlot," smiling benignly upon her dutiful daughters, pampering their pride and flattering their vanity by pretended concessions in public celebrations of Thanksgiving and official deliverances on the sacredness of Sunday. And they, in their excessive verdancy, receive her hypocritical smiles and treacherous concessions as veritable evidences of divine favor, and, in return, they the more diligently pander to her ruinous power and her blasphemous ambition. Dr. Van Dyke, one of the foremost men of the Presbyterian Church in America, said in the Presbyterian Review for January, 1885:— 'The mission of Protestantism, as such, is ended.' Within his meaning, and in view of the evidence which we have here adduced, who can dispute the Doctor's proposition? When Protestantism deliberately proposes the settlement of the questions which have for centuries separated it from Catholicism; when it states in sober earnest that "it is not even desirable that all Roman Catholics should become Protestants;" when it proposes to "stand together" with Catholics in support of an institution that is wholly Catholic, and "in condemnation" of all who choose to disregard such institution; when it proposes to form the adulterous connection of church and State, to trust in man and to make flesh its arm, then who shall say that its mission is not ended? Aye, its mission is certainly ended, and that most shamefully. And after this shameful display of herself, who shall say that Babylon is not fallen? And why should not the Lord in mercy send a voice from Heaven crying to the honest souls that are in her, "Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues"? Rev. 18:2-4. And when, by cruel oppression, her sins shall have "reached unto Heaven," why should not God remember "her iniquities," and "in the cup which she hath filled, fill to her double"? "As such," Protestantism is indeed ended. But as represented in faithful allegiance to the word of God in opposition to all earthly powers, it is not ended. For at the very time when this union of Church and State, and of Protestantism and Romanism, is being effected, to compel people to worship the papal church, there is a "little flock," a despised company, who publish to all the world the word of God, saying: "If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God. . . . Here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus." Rev. 14:9-12. And although "war" is made against them by the beast and his image, by both Catholics and professed Protestants, yet they get "the victory over the beast and over his image, and over his mark, and over the number of his name, and stand on the sea of glass, having the harps of God. And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvelous are thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true are thy ways, thou King of saints." Rev. 15:2, 3. The commandments of God and the faith of Jesus, embrace the word of God, the whole word of God, and nothing but the word of God; they are the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth; to keep them truly, is to be a true witness for God and the Lord Jesus Christ, and is a protest against even "Protestantism as such," as well as against Catholicism. And now, in taking leave of this subject, we subjoin two sentences from the famous Protest at Spires, which are as fully applicable at this time as when first delivered:— "This Word is the only truth; it is the sure rule of all doctrine, and of all life, and can never fail or deceive us. He who builds on this foundation shall stand against all the powers of hell, whilst all human vanities that are set up against it shall fall before the face of God." ALONZO T. JONES. Good for San Francisco.
By Editor
THE following item is from the Chronicle of Feb. 13. It is one of the best omens we have seen; but we fear that the Grand Jury will never act in the matter:— "The jury in the case of J. Ginegg vs. Martha Spellman, a suit to recover $500 back rent for a house of prostitution on Quincy Street, and $1,500 damages for detention, rendered a verdict in Judge Rearden's Court on Wednesday afternoon granting a restitution of the premises to the plaintiff, but refusing to allow him any damages, on the ground that the house had been leased for immoral purposes. The jury also asked the Court to bring before the Grand Jury the fact that a crime had been committed by the plaintiff in leasing his premises for immoral purposes, and to ascertain whether the jury could not take action in the matter, as similar offenses were being perpetrated daily." Dynamite and the Liquor Dealers
THE chief of police of Montreal, last week received a letter notifying him that unless he desists from interfering with tavern-keepers in Hochelaga for keeping open Sundays, they will blow up the City Hall with dynamite. Which is the liquor dealers' argument to prove that their business is "legitimate" and for the public good.