The proper object of civil government and the limit of its authority are not sufficiently understood by many at the present time. Because of this those who would abuse this ordinance of God and pervert it from its legitimate sphere of usefulness find their designs much easier of accomplishment than they otherwise would.
Civil government was ordained of God, and consequently for a good purpose. This being so, no true child of God can ever be an Anarchist, or resist the powers that be. But, although ordained of God, and for a good purpose, civil government was not ordained to make men religious, or for the punishment of those who are irreligious. Its sphere does not reach to the realm of religion.
When, and for what purpose, then, was civil government ordained? Mr. Young, in laying down the principles of government and law in his “Government Class Book,” p. 12, and thus showing the necessity for civil government, says:—
Man is by nature selfish, and many would infringe the rights of others for their own selfish ends, unless restrained. Hence we see the necessity of some fixed rules, that each may know what he may do, and what he must not do.
This in brief gives the whole ground and basis for the existence and necessity of civil governments. Their object is to protect men in their rights by restraining others from infringing upon them. They were designed to act as a check upon the carrying out of selfish ends, a curb on selfishness. They have been a recognized necessity in the nature of things, a necessity because, as Mr. Young says, “man is by nature selfish,” and therefore needs something to prevent him from acting out this nature, so long as he is possessed of it.
But when did man become selfish? When did this trait, which is the taproot and mainspring of all the evil and misery the world has ever known, become a part of man’s nature? Certainly it was not at creation, for “God made man upright.” Man, therefore, as he came from the hand of the Creator, had no need of civil government. There was no need of civil government at creation. If, then, we can ascertain when selfishness entered the world, we can tell when civil government became a necessity. But this is not hard to determine. It was when man fell, when he yielded to temptation, when he became the servant of that being who is the embodiment of all selfishness, by choosing to follow his directions for personal improvement, in utter disregard of the express command and prohibition of God. This was when man by nature became selfish. And only subsequent to this time could there be any occasion or necessity for civil government.
Following this line of thought a little further, it must also be apparent that the necessity for civil governments can exist only as long as man remains in a fallen condition, so long as he is possessed of a selfish nature. There will be no such governments in the redeemed state. The necessity for it will then have passed away.
Still further, it is evident that those who have been converted, whose affections have been changed, who have in them the mind of Christ, who came to this world not to please himself, have no need of civil government even in this world, in order to keep themselves within the bounds of civility. They do not refrain from stealing, lying, and killing, because the government threatens vengeance upon those who do such things, but because it is not in their hearts thus to do. So far as they are concerned, men’s lives and property would be as safe without civil governments as with them. Those for whom these governments were ordained as a restraining power, seek to escape from punishment usually when they commit these offenses; but with Paul the Christian will say, “If I be an offender, or have committed anything worthy of death, I refuse not to die.” Acts 25: 11.
The Christian recognizes and regards the rights of others because he is converted, because he loves his neighbor as himself. In his actions he is governed by the higher law of love, and not by the penal code of the State. On the other hand, the fear of punishment is the chief incentive by which the State influences those who recognize no higher power, to respect the rights of their fellow-men. “For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? . . . For if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain; for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” Rom. 13: 3, 4.
Let it not be forgotten, then, that the proper object of civil government is the restraint which, through the fear of the punishment it threatens and executes, it places upon those who would otherwise disregard the rights of others in carrying out their own selfish ends. It can deal only with the fruits of selfishness. With the heart, the seat of selfishness, it has nothing to do. To transform this by such means is an utter impossibility. A change of heart is a work requiring creative power. It can be done only through the influence which religion brings to bear upon the soul, by the gospel, which is “the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth.”
The province of civil government and that of religion are therefore widely separated. Those, therefore, who seek to accomplish through the former that which can be attained only through the latter, show their ignorance both of true religion and of the proper sphere and object of civil government. They have a form of godliness, but deny the power thereof, seeking and using the power of the State in their religious work, instead of the power of God. Civil government is of this world. “My kingdom,” says Christ, “is not of this world.” And of his followers he says, “Ye are not of the world.” John 18: 36; 15: 19. The weapons of the State are carnal. “He beareth not the sword in vain.” But, speaking for the church, Paul says, “For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh; for the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds.” 2 Cor. 10: 3, 4.
Those, therefore, who appeal to the State to enforce their ideas of religion cannot be Christians, however high their profession of Christianity may be. There can be no more certain evidence that a church which in the past has enjoyed the blessing and power of God, is fallen and has lost its connection with God and its hold upon him, than for it to seek the support of the secular power in its work. To all such the message, “Babylon is fallen, is fallen,” applies. And when this condition of things becomes general, the true and sincere children of God cannot long remain in their communion. They will hear and heed the call, “Come out of her, my people.” And, although the laws of the land may have been brought to the support of certain religious rites and customs, and are urged upon them on the ground that they should be in subjection to the powers that be, they will refuse obedience to whatever conflicts with the word and law of God, knowing that the province of civil government extends not to things religious. With the apostles they will say, “We ought to obey God rather than men,” and with the Reformers, “We pledge, therefore, our obedience to the emperor in all civil matters; but as for the word of God, it is liberty that we demand.”
The Right of Private Judgment
THE Protestant doctrine touching the right of private judgment is not that opposite doctrines may both be true, but it is that there is on the face of the earth no visible body to whose decrees men are bound to submit their private judgment on points of faith.—Macaulay.
Teach Us to Love and Give
“TEACH us to love and give like Thee:
Not narrowly men's claims to measure,
But daily question all our powers,—
To whose cup can we add a pleasure?
Whose path can we make bright with flowers?”
WHAT IS PROTESTANTISM.
By Alonzo T. Jones
BY ELDER A. T. JONES.
This is a question of living interest and vital importance just now to the people of the United States.
When the point has been reached where professed Protestants call upon Congress and courts to decide religious controversies for them, and to enact laws enforcing their church dogmas, and where they insist upon calling out the troops to enforce upon the people at the point of the bayonet the recognition and observance of religious observances, then it is time, and it is proper, too, to inquire, Is this Protestantism?
At the second Diet of Spires, held in 1529, there was presented the Protest, which originated, and gave to those who made it, the title and name of Protestants. And in summarizing this protest the historian states its principles as follows:—
The principles contained in the celebrated protest of the 19th of April, 1529, constitute the very essence of Protestantism. Now this protest opposes two abuses of man in matters of faith; the first is the intrusion of the civil magistrate; and the second, the arbitrary authority of the church. Instead of these abuses, Protestantism sets the power of conscience above the magistrate, and the authority of the word of God above the visible church. In the first place, it rejects the civil power in divine things, and says, with the prophets and apostles, “We must obey God rather than man.” In the presence of the crown of Charles the Fifth, it uplifts the crown of Jesus Christ.—D’Aubigné, Hist. Ref., book 13, chap. 6.
The Sunday managers [of the World’s Fair] claim that Sunday is the Christian sabbath, that it is the great charter of their religion, that it is indeed the very citadel of their faith. And they claim to be Protestants. Now did they oppose the intrusion of the civil magistrate into this great question of their religion?—No, indeed. Everybody knows that so far were they from opposing any intrusion of the civil magistrate that they actually and by threat required the civil authority to intrude upon the discussion and decision of the question and the enactment of a law requiring its observance, and also required the courts to intrude themselves into it when the act of Congress was called in question, and further called upon the executive to further intrude the civil authority by force of arms. All this they have done before the eyes of all the people.
Now, as it is the very essence of Protestantism to oppose the intrusion of the civil magistrate in religious things, and as they did oppose this, it plainly follows that they are not Protestants, and that their movement and work is not Protestantism. As it is the very essence of Protestantism to oppose the intrusion of the civil magistrate in things religious, and as the people engaged in the Sunday movement, professing to be Protestants, not only did not oppose it, but actually required the whole magisterial power of the United States Government under threats to intrude there, it follows that the people who engaged in this Sunday-law movement are not Protestants at all, and that neither their movement nor their work is Protestantism in any sense.
Secondly, it is the essence of Protestantism to oppose “the arbitrary authority of the church.”
Now, for Sunday observance in any way there is no authority but the arbitrary authority of the church. The Sunday-law people not only know this, but they openly say it. The American Sabbath Union itself, in one of its own official publications, in answer to a call for a citation to a command of God for Sunday observance, plainly says, “We admit there is no such command.” The Woman’s Christian Temperance Union, also, in one of its own publications, inquiring about the change of day from the seventh to the first, says that “Christ did not command it.” There are other such statements also—too many to cite here. Well, then, as they know that there is no command of God for Sunday observance, and as the church power only is that which requires its observance, this is proof in itself that the only authority for it is the arbitrary authority of the church.
Yet more than this. Even though Christ had commanded it, for the church to require, and force upon men, its observance by law—this would be nothing else than to assert arbitrary authority of the church; because Christ himself has said, “If any man hear my words and believe not, I judge [condemn] him not.” As, therefore, Christ leaves every man free to observe his words or not, for the church to compel any man to do it is to put herself above Christ and do what he does not do. And this in itself is only to assert the arbitrary authority of the church. So that whether there be a command of God for Sunday observance or not, in this matter the result is the same; to do as the professed Protestant churches of the United States have done and are doing, in requiring Sunday observance of all by law, is nothing else than to assert the rightfulness of the arbitrary authority of the church.
But it is the essence of Protestantism to oppose the arbitrary authority of the church. Therefore, as the professed Protestants of the United States have not opposed the arbitrary authority of the church in this matter of Sunday observance, it plainly follows that they are not Protestants. And as it is the essence of Protestantism to oppose the arbitrary authority of the church, and as these professed Protestants not only did not oppose it, but actually asserted it and still maintain it, it unmistakably follows they are not Protestants at all, and that neither their movement nor their work is Protestantism in any sense.
This proves that to oppose the Sunday movement in all its parts, to oppose Sunday laws in any and all their phases, to oppose and deny the right of congresses, or courts, or executives, to touch the question of Sunday observance, or any other religious question, in any way, and to reject entirely the authority of any such action when it is asserted—this and this only is Protestantism. Even admitting that Sunday were the Sabbath, those who observe it can be Protestants only by opposing all intrusion of the magistrate into the question, by opposing all attempt of the church to require its recognition or observance by law, and by asserting their own individual right to observe it as they choose, without any dictation or interference from anybody. This alone is Protestantism.
This is the living, present, absolute truth. There is no discount on it at all. “Protestantism sets the power of conscience above a magistrate,” even though the magistrate calls himself a Christian and a Protestant, and proposes to enforce the “Christian sabbath.” “Protestantism sets the authority of the word of God above the visible church,” even though the church calls itself Protestant. Protestantism “rejects the civil power in divine things, and says, with the prophets and apostles, ‘We must obey God rather than man,’” and that too as God commands it, and not as man commands it, nor as man says that God commands it. Protestantism opposes and rejects every human intrusion, whether of the magistrate or the ecclesiastic, between the soul and Jesus Christ, and everlastingly maintains the divine right of the individual to worship according to the dictates of his own conscience, exercised at his own free choice.
This is Protestantism; and genuine Protestantism, as related to this question, is the constant, unwavering, uncompromising, opposition to every form of Sunday legislation, or any other religious legislation, and to all interference or control of ecclesiastics in the affairs of government. Protestants are needed to-day to protest against this apostate Protestantism which is now carrying things with so high a hand.
PROGRESS.
By Eliza H. Morton
BY ELIZA H. MORTON.
Men talk of progress and of power. They say
“Humanity can lift itself to heights
Of goodness and of love. The beauty fair
Of righteousness is that which all may seek
And worship and pursue without a thought
Of God. Great principles of right exist,
Which all the world have seen, and yet will see
More clearly as the years go by.”
Ah! whence
Their source? Trace back and tell, far back and think,
Ye who believe in self-existing power.
Man cannot rise above his own ideas
Of purity and love. His standard, then,
Must give his thought the mould and give his life
Its power. If human wisdom, human love,
And levels of humanity alone
Are that on which he sets his longing eye,
Then he can never rise above himself.
All men are equal, and opinions that
Arise from merely human source can have
But little influence o’er the soul.
Our God in love has given us a rule,
A standard high above the things of earth,—
A perfect life, the truth revealed in flesh,
E’en in the heart of him who grasps by faith
The wondrous plan of love, whereby a world
May be redeemed. Unselfish acts are those
Which lead to moral growth. No man so low
That gospel faith can give no hope, no joy,
No impulse to arise. No man so high
That Christ is not before him still to point
To nobler deeds, to give new strength.
He who
Looks at the earth alone can never see
The stars. He who aspires to wear the robe
Of righteousness, wrought in the loom of love,
Must throw aside his own vile garments, stained
With sin, and humbly kneel before the cross,
And pray to be received and clothed, and then
By faith he must retain that which is given,
And, looking not at self, go on and on
Until he stands at length before the gate
Of that fair city, long foretold, where Christ
Himself, with outstretched arms, stands to receive.
True Freedom
By James Russell Lowell
IS true freedom but to break
Fetters for our own dear sake,
And, with leathern hearts, forget
That we owe mankind a debt?
No; true freedom is to share
All the chains our brothers wear,
And, with heart and hand, to be
Earnest to make others free.
They are slaves who fear to speak
For the fallen and the weak;
They are slaves who will not choose
Hatred, scoffing, and abuse,
Rather than in silence shrink
From the truth they needs must think;
They are slaves who dare not be
In the right with two or three.
—James Russell Lowell.
THE PRESENT CRISIS.
By James Russell Lowell
Once to every man and nation comes the moment to decide,
In the strife of Truth with Falsehood, for the good or evil side;
Some great cause, God’s new Messiah, offering each the bloom or blight,
Parts the goats upon the left hand, and the sheep upon the right,
And the choice goes by forever ’twixt that darkness and that light.
Hast thou chosen, O my people, on whose party thou shalt stand,
E’er the Doom from its worn sandals shakes the dust against our land?
Though the cause of evil prosper, yet ’tis Truth alone is strong,
And, albeit she wander outcast now, I see around her throng
Troops of beautiful, tall angels, to enshield her from all wrong.
Backward look across the ages and the beacon moments see,
That, like peaks of some sunk continent, jut through Oblivion’s sea;
Not an ear in court or market for the low, foreboding cry
Of those crises, God’s stern winnowers, from whose feet earth’s chaff must fly;
Never shows the choice momentous till the judgment hath passed by.
Careless seems the great Avenger; history’s pages but record
One death grapple in the darkness ’twixt old systems and the word;
“Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne,—
Yet that scaffold sways the future, and, behind the dim unknown,
Standeth God within the shadow, keeping watch above his own.
We see dimly in the Present what is small and what is great.
Slow of faith, how weak an arm may turn the iron helm of fate,
But the soul is still oracular; amid the market’s din,
List the ominous, stern whisper from the Delphic cave within,—
“They enslave their children’s children, who make compromise with sin.”
Then to side with Truth is noble when we share her wretched crust,
Ere her cause bring fame and profit, and ’tis prosperous to be just;
Then it is the brave man chooses, while the coward stands aside,
Doubting, in his abject spirit, till his Lord is crucified,
And the multitude make virtue of the faith they had denied.
Count me o’er earth’s chosen heroes,—they were souls that stood alone,
While the men they agonized for hurled the contumelious stone,
Stood serene, and down the future saw the golden beam incline
To the side of perfect justice, mastered by their faith divine,
By one man’s plain truth to manhood and to God’s supreme design.
By the light of burning heretics Christ’s bleeding feet I track,
Toiling up new Calvaries ever with the cross that turns not back;
And these mounts of anguish number how each generation learned
One new word of that grand Credo which in prophet hearts hath burned
Since the first man stood God-conquered, with his face to heaven upturned.
For humanity sweeps onward; where to-day the martyr stands,
On the morrow crouches Judas with the silver in his hands;
Far in front the cross stands ready, and the crackling fagots burn,
While the hooting mob of yesterday in silent awe return
To glean up the scattered ashes into History’s golden urn.
—James Russell Lowell.
DIGRESSION ON THE PRINCIPLES OF ROME
By Percy T. Magan
A REVIEW OF SUNDAY LEGISLATION IN CENTURY NINETEEN. NO. 13.
BY PERCY T. MAGAN.
DIGRESSION ON THE PRINCIPLES OF ROME.
What are the principles of the Roman Catholic Church? What are the fundamental laws that have governed her whole career? These are pertinent questions, which may be studied with especial profit at the present hour. In the light of what I have shown in Nos. 11 and 12 of this series of papers, what “she [Rome] will do for the United States,” a correct understanding of her primary polity becomes absolutely necessary to every man who will not be ensnared by her insidious devices.
The principles of Papal Rome are undeniably the same as the principles of Pagan Rome; for Papal Rome in its conception and birth in century four was nothing else but a fusion of paganism with apostate Christianity, in the persons of an avaricious emperor (Constantine), backed by a clamorous rabble, and mercenary bishops, seconded by world-loving congregations. Says Macaulay:—
In the fifth century Christianity had conquered paganism, and paganism had infected Christianity. The church was now victorious and corrupt. The rites of the Pantheon had passed into her worship, the subtleties of the academy into her creed. In an evil day, though with great pomp and solemnity—we quote the language of Bacon—was the ill-starred alliance stricken between the old philosophy and the new faith.
Hear, also, the solemn and preëminently truthful accusation, made by the pagan Faustus to the celebrated Augustine:—
You have substituted your agaphæ for the sacrifices of the pagans; for their idols, your martyrs, whom you serve with the very same honors. You appease the shades of the dead with wine and feasts; you celebrate the solemn festivals of the Gentiles, their calends, and their solstices; and as to their manners, those you have retained without any alteration. Nothing distinguishes you from the pagans except that you hold your assemblies apart from them.
These are facts of adamant, which history faithfully reveals. It has been well said by a writer of intelligent wit that “new presbyter was but old priest writ large.” With equal truth may it be affirmed that Holy Roman Church is only paganism spelled long, for all the principles of paganism may be found in full bloom in the papal system. Now, what were the principles governing the birth and history of Pagan Rome?
In Dan. 11:14 the founders of the Roman nation are introduced:—
“In those times there shall many stand up against the king of the south; also the children of robbers [margin] shall exalt themselves to establish the vision; but they shall fall.”
The Revised Version reads: “The children of the violent among thy people shall lift themselves up to establish the vision.” Both renderings taken together make the meaning very obvious. It is a historical fact, and a well-authenticated historical fact, that Rome, the great Roman nation, was founded by a band of robbers, and “violent” robbers at that.
And, moreover, it is equally true, and also a matter of historical record, that the Roman nation was perpetuated by the children of these robbers, born to mothers who had been stolen by these robber fathers. And, lastly, it can be clearly shown, if proof be necessary, that these children inherit the “violent” and thieving disposition of their ancestors, and that they did in verity “exalt themselves,” as Holy Writ said they would.
It therefore follows that the fundamental principles of Rome and Romanism are robbery and self-exaltation; for these are the principles in which, and upon which, Rome was founded. These, therefore, are logically the principles of the Roman Catholic Church.
Now Romulus himself was a bandit chief, but he, says Arnold—
found that his people were too few in numbers; so he set apart a place of refuge [on the Palatine Hill, in Rome] to which any man might flee and be safe from his pursuers. So many fled thither from the countries round about,—those who had shed blood, those who were driven out from their own homes by their enemies, and even men of low degree who had run away from their lords. Thus the city became full of people; but yet they wanted wives, and the nations round about would not give them their daughters in marriage. So Romulus gave out that he was going to keep a great festival, and there were to be sports and games to draw a multitude together. The neighbors came to see the show, with their wives and their daughters; there came the people of the Cæ nina, and of Crustumerium, and of the Antemna, and a great multitude of the Sabines. But while they were looking at the games, the people of Romulus rushed out upon them, and carried off the women to be their wives.
This confirms the origin of the Romans, as stated by the Bible. So does the following, taken from a letter written by Mithradates, king of Armenia, to Arsaces, king of the Parthians:—
That to look back to their foundation and origin, whatever they have, they have from violence,—homes, wives, lands, and dominions. A vile herd of every kind of vagabond is, without country, without forefathers, they established themselves for the misfortune of the human race. Neither divine nor human laws restrain them from betraying and destroying their allies and friends, remote nations or neighbors, the weak or the powerful. They reckon as enemies all that are not their slaves, and especially whatever bears the name of king.
(To be continued.)
Not to Be Decided by Law.—
“It is not the legitimate province of the Legislature to determine what religion is true or what false. Our government is a civil and not a religious institution. Our Constitution recognizes in every person the right to choose his own religion, and to enjoy it freely, without molestation. The proper object of government is to protect all persons in the enjoyment of their civil as well as their religious rights, and not to determine for any whether they shall esteem one day above another, or esteem all days alike holy. What other nations call religious toleration, we call religious rights. They are not exercised in virtue of governmental indulgence, but as rights, of which government cannot deprive any portion of citizens, however small. Despotic power may invade those rights, but justice still confirms them.”—U. S. Senate, 1829.
Religion and the State
By Samuel T. Spear, D.D.
THE morality as derived from religion which the State needs will be the best supplied by the confinement of its agency to things temporal, and the entire omission on its part of any attempt to administer things spiritual. The State can do religion no favor so great as to have nothing to do with it, and itself no favor so great as to let religion alone. The moment the two are put in alliance with each other both are injured.—Samuel T. Spear, D.D.
GOD A TIMELY HELPER.
We read the other day an interesting incident in the life of Stilling, a celebrated German writer, who died over fifty years ago. In early life he was very poor. He wished to study medicine, but knew not where to go, nor had he any money to take him anywhere. But, young as he was, he had a firm faith in God. He reasoned thus: “God begins nothing without terminating it gloriously. He alone has ordered my circumstances, and everything regarding me he will bring about in his own way.”
His friends were as poor as himself, and they wondered where he would get the money he needed for his education. After raising all the money he could for his long journey to Strasburg, where he was to spend the winter, he started on his way, but when he reached Frankfort, which was three days’ ride from Strasburg, he had only four shillings left. He said nothing, but he prayed much. While walking the streets he met a merchant belonging to his native place, who said:—
“Stilling, what brought you here?”
“I am going to Strasburg to study medicine.”
“Where did you get your money to study with?”
“I have a rich Father in heaven.”
“How much money have you on hand?”
“Four shillings,” said Stilling.
“So!” said the merchant. “Well, I’m one of your Father’s stewards,” and he handed him seven pounds.
He had not been long in Strasburg when his seven pounds were reduced to seven shillings. One morning his roommate said to him, “Stilling, I believe you did not bring much money with you,” and he gave him six pounds.
In a few months after this he had no money to pay his college dues. The lecturer’s fee must be paid by six o’clock on Tuesday evening or he would be obliged to leave college. Five o’clock came, and still he had no money. Then, while he was in great grief, and praying to God for help, a gentleman came in and gave him eight pounds.
Thus it is that God never fails those who trust in him. Some of those who read this article may be poor and trying to get along in the world. Do not get discouraged. Do all you can and the best you can, and God will help you. He may not send people with gold or bank notes just at the very time you need them, but he will find some way to keep his promise,—“I will never fail thee.”—Family Churchman.
THE POOR.
By David Bates
["Give me neither poverty nor riches." Proverbs.]
TELL not the poor that poverty knows
A bliss that wealth will ne'er disclose,
That their sleep is sound and their bread is sweet,
Because of their toil through cold and heat,
For poverty robs, as well as wealth,
The cheek of its bloom, and the pulse of its health;
They both are evils for man to bear,
But poverty has the greater share.
With the comforts wealth may now obtain,
The winter tempest may beat in vain;
But how does it tell on the half-clad forms
Exposed to the chilling winter storms,
Or crowded together, cheerless and cold,
In a rude dwelling, open and old,
That rattles and creaks as the cold winds blow
And sift through the chinks the drifting snow?
O ye who feast, till your senses pall,
On the blessing Heaven designed for all,
To be happy, learn of your hoarded store
You need much less, and the poor need more,
Ye brood o'er the wealth, oppressed and sad,
That should make your hearts and thousands glad,
And forget that you cannot be happy alone;
'Tis the bliss of others that makes our own.
—David Bates.
THE EFFECTS OF TOBACCO ON HEALTH.
By E. L. Hart
BY E. L. HART.
(Concluded.)
Mr. George Crickett, the great London authority on the diseases of the eye, says that he is constantly consulted by gentlemen for commencing blindness, caused solely by great smoking. He accordingly condemns smoking in most unqualified terms, as most dangerous to human health.
It will be seen that medical opinion on the evils of smoking is prolific. The causes that lie at the root of these evils, and the reasons that have led to their prevalence, are not so fully recognized, nor have the investigations of the medical faculty indicated any effective remedy.
The majority of smokers could at once and forever renounce the practice, with no injury and with little inconvenience. Many who have found smoking a slavery do not believe this, and, if they did, would lack the moral power to free themselves.
Again, tobacco is woman's rival. She often becomes, in consequence of its pernicious action, a secondary consideration with the opposite sex. Women should therefore be the strongest foes to smoking.
A woman who allows a man unrestricted liberty to smoke in her presence at all times and under all circumstances loses something of her own individuality, and comes, it may be unconsciously, into competition with a pipe or cigar. Instead of creating in herself an ideal, and “setting upon herself her own price,” she loses the power to make “brutes men and men divine,” and comes down from her God-given pedestal of purity and goodness to the level of the debased habits of man.
It is sad to note the couples walking together in the parks and streets, and mark how the female has learned to tolerate the smoking habits of her companion. There are women who say they like their lovers to smoke, and see no harm in the practice. When married they will probably tell a different tale. . . .
Dr. Adam Clarke says: “It is with pain at heart I am obliged to say that I have known many who, through their immoderate attachment to the pipe, have become mere sots.”
In some instances smoking leads to intemperance, immorality, and crime.
If the money spent in tobacco by the young men of the middle and working classes were devoted to self-education, self-culture, and improvement in their various trades and professions, they would be greatly benefited individually and collectively.
The question of smoking does not resolve itself into a merely personal one, though under that aspect it is chiefly considered.
As a national habit it aids in undermining the noblest characteristics of our race. The use of tobacco is of world-wide importance in its bearing upon human health and happiness, and affects generations yet unborn.
Dr. Hardwicke said he thought that, as public men, the medical profession ought to speak out more boldly than they were wont to do about the evils caused by tobacco smoking. From his own experience he would say that there were no perfectly healthy men who smoked. He believed that smoking caused many severe diseases.—London Phrenological Magazine.
HOW THE HEDGEHOG KEEPS WINTER.
By Edmund Collins
The hedgehog, like the bear, does not need to provide against cold, storm, and snow, for at the beginning of winter he finds a hole in some patch of woods, or often in a garden, which he enters, rolling himself into a hard, prickly ball, remaining in this posture till spring. But the hedgehog is rather particular about his lodgings. He spends several days collecting very dry leaves, and builds an exceedingly cozy nest; and his quarters are so constructed that he is safe from rain, wind, and snow. The animal is said not to move during the winter, and the bands of muscles lying under his skin are as tense after four months as when he went into winter quarters. Few prowling animals care to attack the hedgehog should they find him in his retreat; his body is like a sphere of rubber, and he bristles with sharp, hard elastic spines, which get into the muscle of the attacking animal. Some bands of gypsies eat the hedgehog, and declare that his flesh is superior in flavor and nutrition to that of the rabbit.—Edmund Collins.
CARE OF CHILDREN'S EARS.
In her anxiety that her children's ears shall be thoroughly clean, the mother endeavors to remove every particle of earwax from the inner portion of the ear by boring it out with a hairpin or other sharp instrument covered with a towel, or with the corner of a towel twisted to a point. Nature knows how to take care of those hidden recesses far better than does the most accomplished mother. This portion of the ear requires no attention. Nature takes care of it in the most admirable manner.
Nothing more irritating than a few drops of olive oil warmed to a temperature a little above blood heat should ever be placed in the ear.—Exchange.
THE DESERT OF SAHARA.
It has been ascertained that the greater part of the Desert of Sahara, instead of being below the level of the ocean, is from 6,000 feet to 8,000 feet above that level. The desert is not rainless, but showers cover it with grass for a few weeks every year, and large flocks and herds are maintained upon its borders. The oases are depressions in which water can be collected and stored.—Engineering, London.
Appreciating the Funeral
“SOME MEN are willing to spend more in one week on a wife's funeral than they have been willing to spend in five years for her dresses. They evidently appreciate the funeral.”
Easily Solved
EASILY SOLVED.—“I can't see why bread should remain at the same price, when wheat and flour have come down so.” “My dear boy, the main things in bread are water and air. Neither one is a cent cheaper than it was at the close of the war.”—Indianapolis Journal.
Good Roads
Good roads are a great benefit to a farming community; they, by time saved, shorten the distance to markets, save wear and tear of the harness and vehicles. In localities where good roads are the rule, farms are more valuable, and there is less complaint that farming doesn’t pay.—Baltimore Sun.
The Economic Argument for Temperance
THAT the economic argument of temperance advocates is founded on facts is every day more apparent. An old gin distillery in England, with a dozen old cottages for the men employed, has been converted into a soap factory, while a hundred new houses have been built to accommodate the increased number of workmen necessary to carry on the work.