Earlier text: The Georgia Convict Lease System"BOYS' BRIGADES."
By Editor
AMONG the many organizations and societies for the purpose of seeking to make up for the lack of spirituality in the churches, the "Boys' Brigades" are the latest. The following editorial from the Morning Times, of Oakland, will give the reader an idea of this new thing, and will furnish the thoughtful with some food for reflection. The possibilities which the Times suggests are by no means fanciful when we consider how much the churches are coming to depend upon civil instead of spiritual power:— A new departure is being inaugurated in the churches. "Boys' Brigades," as they are called, are being organized and drilled; in some cases by the pastors themselves, and in others by laymen who have been trained in a military school. The drum and fife are called for, and light-weight guns, with bayonets attached, are in demand. Coming up from the ferry the other day, the car in which we rode was nearly filled with well-grown boys, under the lead of a gentleman in black, who bore a veiled banner. In response to an inquiry we were told that this was a "Boys' Brigade" from San Francisco coming over to visit and have a companion drill with a "Boys' Brigade" on this side of the bay. Whereunto will this thing grow? Is the church of the future to be militant only in name, or in deed and in fact? Are carnal weapons to supplement or be substituted for spiritual weapons in coming evangelistic campaigns? In some of the churches we are told brass bands are formed, martial as well as sacred music is practiced—all the young men being members of the congregation. Are these church bands in training to furnish music for the marching of the "coming army of the Lord"? Is the old idea of the millennium, the "golden age," the reign of peace, when swords shall be "beaten into plowshares," and men shall learn the arts of war no more, to be given up and an appeal made to the "God of battles"? Is the day at hand when the overcoming of evil with good shall no longer be even talked of by our reverend clergy, but the exhortation and instruction of the pulpit to the church members and church sympathizers shall be, "Let him that hath no sword sell his garment if needful and buy one"? If this thing goes on and proves popular, as it promises to be, and especially if the spirit of emulation and competition is roused between orthodox and liberals, Protestants and Catholics, how long will it be before our sanctuaries will be bristling with a religious militia, and a magazine and an armory shall be considered as essential to a Christian temple with modern improvements as a Sunday-school room and a kitchen are now? These questions are suggested by the recent remark of a prominent clergyman of this section, who, after witnessing the military drill of the "Boys' Brigade" by the pastor of a Congregational Church, said, "These boys could be trusted to shoot the right way if a mob were wicked." We are not alarmists, but such drills and such remarks by the clergy set one to thinking what the probable result would be if this church "fad" should develop into a religio-military craze. Then, suppose there should be serious trouble some day on the Sunday question, or that of prohibition, or of the Bible in the schools, or of God in the Constitution, how much help could be expected from these "Boy Brigades" and Young Men Christian Battalions? Would it be safe in a time of great excitement to call out the church military contingents? In case of a mob and a riot could the baptized and battalionized boys be depended on always to "shoot the right way"? Perhaps so and perhaps not. Doubtful things are proverbially uncertain. One thing is sure, however, in such a case, the shots would not all be from one party or in one direction. LIBERTY-LOVING TENNESSEE.
By Editor
TENNESSEE ought to be the headquarters, the Mecca, of National Reformers and Sunday-law people; for Tennessee not only believes in Sunday laws, but she has one which is by no means a dead letter, as those who are faithfully endeavoring to obey God have in the few years past found out. Some of these cases of persecution have from time to time been laid before our readers. There are some in Tennessee who go further than Sunday laws. They do not believe in tolerating anything not strictly "orthodox." The following from the Dayton (Tennessee) Leader will explain itself:— Where do we live, in Christian Dayton, or Western lands? In an age of religious liberty, or the blind intolerance and bigotry of the sixteenth century? A Christian minister ordered to leave town! A few weeks ago a Seventh-day Adventist minister from California, by the name of J. W. Scoles, was sent to East Tennessee by his church to do missionary work in behalf of that organization. He located at Graysville, and a short time afterward began a series of meetings in this city, and, it is said, made a number of converts to his creed. He is said to be an earnest and intelligent speaker, and discoursed upon abstruse scriptural doctrines peculiar to his church, but advocated the same standard of ethics that is accepted and preached by all theologians and moralists of whatever creed. From what we have been able to learn, he has transgressed no moral law, but has simply expounded his scriptural doctrines and advocated his creed, as all other preachers do every day in the year. Notwithstanding our boasted liberality, blind bigotry has asserted itself in this instance, as the following note, which Mr. Scoles received through the Dayton post-office last Monday morning, will show, and which we give verbatim et literatim:— "Mr Scoles we Notify you in Short to leave this town and Never More Return know We Will gave You till Monday Morning to leave In, and if you Do not leave you May take What follows
"We W C" This is an infamous outrage. Our Constitution and advanced civilization guarantee to every man the right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and everyone who would deny a man this right is an enemy to free government and free thought. We neither indorse nor condemn Mr. Scoles' doctrines, for we do not know anything about them. If he is satisfied with them, and conforms to a pure standard of morals, everyone else ought to be. We do not think he will submit to bull-dozing, and will likely be in town next Monday. "THE more I live by simple faith," says Lady Maxwell, "the clearer is the witness for purity of heart." But this is not the feeling of most. It is rather, The more I live by rapturous feelings, or emotion, the clearer is the witness for purity of heart. But it will be found in the end that living by faith—simple faith, naked faith—is the most satisfactory life. There are no grounds for doubt when simple faith reigns, while our emotions may mislead us, and often deceive us. If we trust to feelings, we may judge that we possess more piety than we really have, or we may conclude that we have less. It is possible for us, as Lady Maxwell says, to "feel becalmed in the ocean of redeeming love." There is a state where the child of faith pays little attention to the presence or absence of mere emotion. He has passed the rocky headlands of doubt, and has reached the open sea of infinite love, and the goodness of God to him beggars all description. Faith has become to him "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." "Lord, give us such a faith as this!"—Christian Witness. VIRTUE is certainly the most noble and pure possession a man can have. Beauty is worn out by time and sickness; riches lead youth rather to destruction than to welfare, and without prudence are soon lavished away, while virtue always remains with the person that once entertained her. SAVING FAITH.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
"BUT the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above); or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring Christ up again from the dead.) But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart; that is, the word of faith, which we preach; that if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." Rom. 10:6-9. May we accept these words, especially the statement in the last verse, as literally true? Shall we not be in danger if we do? Is not something more than faith in Christ necessary to salvation? To the first of these questions we say, Yes; and to the last two we say, No; and refer to the Scriptures for corroboration. So plain a statement cannot be other than literally true, and one that can be depended on by the trembling sinner. As an instance in proof, take the case of the jailer at Philippi: Paul and Silas, after having been inhumanly beaten, were placed in his care. Notwithstanding their lacerated backs and their manacled feet, they prayed and sang praises to God at midnight, and suddenly an earthquake shook the prison, and all the doors were opened. It was not alone the natural fear produced by feeling the earth rock beneath him, nor yet the dread of Roman justice, if the prisoners in his charge should escape, that caused the jailer to tremble. But he felt in that earthquake shock a premonition of the great judgment, concerning which the apostles had preached; and, trembling under his load of guilt, he fell down before Paul and Silas, saying, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" Mark well the answer; for here was a soul in sorest extremity, and what was sufficient for him must be the message to all lost ones. To the jailer's anguished appeal, Paul replied, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved." Acts 16:30, 31. This agrees exactly with the words which we quoted from Paul to the Romans. But someone will say, "Faith is good, and necessary, but it is not enough." If that be true, then Paul kept back something that was profitable to the jailer, and this we cannot admit. "But isn't there some work that must be done? Are we not to obey the commandments of God?"—Most certainly; the same apostle declares that we should "be careful to maintain good works" (Titus 3:8), and the works that God requires are works of obedience to his law; yet we still affirm that faith is all-sufficient for salvation. How is this? Let the Saviour's own words answer. On one occasion the Jews said unto Jesus, "What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?" Just the thing that we want to know. Mark the reply: "This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him whom He hath sent." John 6:28, 29. Would that those letters might be written in letters of gold, and kept continually before the eyes of every struggling Christian. The seeming paradox is cleared up. Works are necessary, yet faith is all-sufficient, because faith does the work. Faith comprehends everything, and without faith there is nothing. The trouble is that people in general have a faulty conception of faith. They imagine that it is mere assent, and that it is only a passive thing, to which active works must be added. But faith is active, and it is not only the most substantial thing, but the only real foundation. The law is the righteousness of God (Isa. 51:6, 7), for which we are commanded to seek (Matt. 6:33); but it cannot be kept except by faith, for the only righteousness which will stand in the judgment is "that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith." Phil. 3:9. Read the words of Paul in Rom. 3:31: "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid; yea, we establish the law." Making void the law of God by man is not abolishing it; for that is an impossibility. It is as fixed as the throne of God. No matter what men say of the law, nor how much they trample upon it and despise it, it remains the same. The only way that men can make void the law of God is to make it of none effect in their hearts, by their disobedience. Thus in Num. 30:15 a vow that has been broken is said to have been made void. So when the apostle says that we do not make void the law through faith, he means that faith and disobedience are incompatible. No matter how much the law-breaker professes faith, the fact that he is a law-breaker shows that he has no faith. But the possession of faith is shown by the establishment of the law in the heart, so that the man does not sin against God. Let no one decry faith, as though it were of little moment. But does not the apostle James say that faith alone cannot save a man, and that faith without works is dead? Let us look at his words a moment. Too many have with honest intent perverted them to a dead legalism. He does say that faith without works is dead, and this agrees most fully with what we have just quoted and written. For if faith without works is dead, the absence of works shows the absence of faith; for that which is dead has no existence. If a man has faith, works will necessarily appear, and the man will not boast of either one; for by faith boasting is excluded. Rom. 3:27. Boasting is done only by those who trust wholly in dead works, or whose profession of faith is a hollow mockery. Then how about James 2:14, which says: "What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?" The answer necessarily implied is, of course, that it cannot. Why not?—Because he hasn't it. What doth it profit, if a man says he has faith, if by his wicked course he shows that he has none? Must we decry the power of faith simply because it does nothing for the man who makes a false profession of it? Paul speaks of some who profess that they know God, but who deny him by their works. Titus 1:16. The man to whom James refers is one of this class. The fact that he has no good works—no fruit of the Spirit—shows that he has no faith, despite his loud profession; and so of course faith cannot save him; for faith has no power to save a man who does not possess it. This is but a brief presentation of this subject. Much more ought to be said, and many difficulties that arise in honest people's minds ought to be met, and this will be done in due time. But the scripture cited should be sufficient to cause us to heed the exhortation to hold fast the profession of our faith, without wavering, "knowing that he is faithful that promised." E. J. W. "A CIVIL SABBATH."
By Alonzo Trévier Jones
THIS is what is demanded of the State by the "American Sabbath Union" and its friends; but a "civil" sabbath is as much a misnomer as a civil baptism or a civil Lord's Supper. The Sabbath is a religious institution solely, pointing out a duty which man owes to God. Man cannot keep the Sabbath for his fellow; he is to keep it holy unto God, and in honor of God, in commemorating God's work as Creator, therefore the One to whom man owes all the powers of his being. Not one of these men who are so loudly demanding a "civil sabbath" would pause for a moment at the mere idea of legal rest. It is the religious Sabbath for which they are working. But what right has the government to take from anyone one day each week just as long as he does no injury to his neighbor in life, chastity, property, or reputation? These reformers, with good intentions no doubt, do not design to touch any man's conscience, yet they will compel him to observe an institution utterly repugnant to him, under the specious plea that the law is only a "civil" law! As well could it be claimed that the law of Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 3) was only a civil law, in harmony with the majority, for the good of the people, and necessary for the maintenance and stability of the government of Babylon. And Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego could have obeyed it as a civil ordinance, according to this same kind of logic, without compromising their faith! All that Nebuchadnezzar required was obedience to a civil statute. The Hebrews were not forbidden to worship their God. But the loyal279 servants of Jehovah thought differently. They would not bow down to the great image even though certain death was before them; and God vindicated their course. A legal sabbath involves, in a country where there are classes which disagree, a decision as to what day is the Sabbath. In so doing it discriminates against a religious class one side or the other. It involves, unless these classes will compromise on some other day of the week, the adoption of a religious institution held by more or less as sacred. It therefore places a religious dogma in the statute law, and therefore unites religion with the State. It elevates that portion of the Christian church which keeps Sunday, by establishing a religious tenet held by them, and it brings hardship upon those who disagree with them. Thus it would be with seventh-day observers if Sunday was established by law; and thus it would be with first-day observers if the seventh-day Sabbath was legalized. The matter of numbers on either side has no bearing on the case. To legalize either sabbath would be the wickedest of legislation. In case Saturday was legalized, hardship and injustice would come to the first-day observer, not by virtue of his relation as a citizen, but solely because of his religion, which comes not in conflict with the rights of his fellow-citizens, but in conflict with their religious belief enforced by civil law. And this would be just as true under a Sunday law. No sophistry can evade this point. Sabbath legislation means religious legislation, religious tyranny, religious persecution. The great wonder to our mind is that Christians, professed followers of Him who said: "All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them," and, "My kingdom is not of this world," should seek to compel and persecute those who may believe otherwise or do not believe at all. Well did Christ say: "Yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service." John 16:2. May God help these Christians to be Christ-like. M. C. W. Bible Reading in Public Schools
The Catholic Mirror comments as follows: "The Methodist Conference in New York demands that the Bible shall be read in the public schools. Which Bible—the Catholic or Protestant? There's a big difference." THE MISSIONARY SHIP.
By Editor
WE know that our readers are anxiously waiting to hear of the progress being made in the building of the missionary ship. Our last notice of this stated that a model was under consideration by the committee, and would be decided upon as soon as possible. The model has been accepted and a contract entered into with Capt. Matthew Turner, one of the best ship builders on the coast, for the building of the ship. This contract was signed April 22, 1890. The size of the ship is to be one hundred feet long, twenty-seven feet beam, or greatest width, and ten feet depth of hold. According to government measurement it is of about one hundred and twenty tons burden. It is to be delivered afloat in San Francisco Bay, complete in hull, spars, and iron work, on or before the 31st of July next. The price to be paid is $7,400, of which sum Captain Turner gives $500 in consideration of its being a missionary ship. The terms of payment are as follows: There is to be paid $1,500 when the keel is laid; $2,000 when the vessel is half completed; and $3,400 when the vessel is completed, delivered, and accepted. No work is to be done upon the ship on the Sabbath of the Lord. In addition to the above, there will have to be provided for this vessel, rigging, anchors, chains, boats, sails, charts, etc. The little ship complete will probably cost not less than $12,000; if auxiliary power is put in, it will increase the price. The committee have already received, without solicitation, quite a sum of money. Our Sabbath-schools are also doing what they can for this enterprise. And now if any of our readers not otherwise giving, desire to have a part in the good work of carrying the precious truth of God to the islands of the sea, let them send in their contributions to Pacific Press, Oakland, Cal. Please specify the purpose of the contribution and mention this paper. Contributing to this ship will be casting bread upon the waters, but the promise is that it will return after many days. NEW YORK, April 16, 1890. OFFICIAL and private investigation of the government of this city still continues. The legislative committee is still at work, and is said to have unearthed some remarkable facts which will get somebody into trouble in the near future. The Central Labor Union are also taking a part in the investigations, and have placed spies upon the track of the police captains of the city. These captains are accused of making merchandise of their official powers, and are, it is said, growing rich by accepting bribes from liquor dealers and prostitutes. A serious conflict over Sunday laws and their enforcement seems to be impending in this State, if indeed it has not already begun. The World has recently made the charge, and proved it too, that the Sunday-closing law is violated to a considerable extent by the saloons. The World also charges that the police are payed to wink at this Sunday selling of intoxicating liquors. The result is that strict orders have been issued to the police captains to see that the law is enforced as far as possible. The superintendent of police has, however, expressed the opinion that it is impossible to enforce prohibition one day in the week. And it certainly seems that as the law now stands he is quite right. This has led to a demand, which is voiced by the World, for the repeal, or rather the amendment, of the law so as to permit the sale of liquors during certain hours of the day on Sunday. But, pending any legislative action which may be taken upon this matter, there is certain to be a more or less honest effort on the part of the police authorities to enforce the Sunday law, and their efforts will be directed not only against the saloons but against all offenders. Indeed, it looks as though there would be an effort made to make all Sunday laws odious by filling the courts with such cases. The Mail and Express of last Monday reports seven arrests by a single officer on the previous day for violations of the Sunday law. The defendants were Sellich Felchman, who sold oatmeal; Louis Lippman, who sold eggs; Moses Schauskey, who sold flour; Harris Gilbert, who drove an express wagon; Jacob Cohen, who sold clothing, and Benjamin Levine, who sold potatoes. The justice before whom the prisoners were arraigned was evidently displeased at the arrests, and inquired of the arresting officer if there were no saloons on his beat. Being answered in the affirmative, he inquired: "Then why did you not arrest some of the keepers? Why did you pick out these people?" The policeman made no reply. The justice, however, held the prisoners for trial. Undoubtedly, between the police and the saloons, about the only ones who will suffer by this agitation will be those who are engaged in some reputable business that ought to be protected at all times. It may be that the offending saloons will be closed on Sunday for a few weeks, but, as has been demonstrated many times in the past, drinking will go on just about as before. If liquor cannot be obtained in one way it will be in another, so long as there are men in the neighborhood licensed to sell it six days in the week. I fully believe that, as a prohibitory measure, Sunday closing of saloons is of no more value than high license. It is still my opinion, as expressed in a former letter, that California with no Sunday law has better Sunday observance than has New York with such a law. On the 14th inst., the New York presbytery elected twenty-eight commissioners to the General Assembly of the denomination to convene at Saratoga, May 15. The entire delegation are in favor of some revision of the Confession of Faith. This fact has been unfavorably commented upon in some quarters. The Mail and Express says:— "The action of the New York Presbytery in sending as commissioners to the General Assembly a solid delegation of revisionists is a surprise. When there is such a strong minority in any presbytery as exists here, it is only fair to have that minority represented; certainly out of the twenty-eight commissioners at least three or four should have been of the minority. The presbytery even refused to appoint any conservatives on the list of alternates. Such an adoption of political methods by an ecclesiastical body is not likely to advance the cause it advocates." It may be that the criticism is a just one, but it does seem that the paper that makes it is about the last one that should object to political methods in ecclesiastical bodies. The National Reform tendencies of the Mail and Express are well known, hence the impropriety in its criticising politico-religious methods. The National Convention of Working Girls' Societies is now in session in this city. Last night they held a mass-meeting in Cooper Union. Seventy-five co-operative societies are represented in the convention. The papers read were by working girls, and were admirably clear, brief, practical statements of fact and opinion. In many instances the writers were unable, by reason of their daily duties, to be present at the day session. The transfer of the immigrant business from the State to the Federal authorities will be made on the 19th inst. On and after that date all immigrants coming to this port will be landed at the Barge Office until a permanent station can be established on Ellis Island. Wonderful things might be written of Castle Garden by those who know its history,—stories of joys and of sorrows, of high hopes and of bitter disappointments,—but cannot be fully written till time has developed more perfectly the influence of our foreign population upon our civil and religious institutions. RELIGIOUS SENTIMENT OF INDIA.
By Stephen N. Haskell
It is a difficult matter to describe the religious condition of India so that it may be appreciated by those who have never been on the ground and seen for themselves. The heathen of India are unlike those of Africa, where a native knows nothing but his own kraal, wives, and tribe, having had no knowledge of other nations, and where they do not even keep a record of weeks, months, or years, only from the last war or famine or some noted event; and even where the missionaries have been obliged to invent a name in the native language for the Supreme Being. In India the heathen have had their religion, their holy books, and their genealogical reckoning for thousands of years, as they claim, before the Christians' Bible was given. They had commercial relations with other nations at a very early date, and some historians assert that such existed before the days of Solomon. It is certain that at a very early age the Egyptians carried arms to the Ganges, and fitted out a fleet of four hundred ships in the Arabian Gulf, to establish trade with India. The Turks founded Alexandria to rival Tyre, and it became the greatest commercial city of the world, and was for eighteen centuries the chief seat of trade with India. Indian commerce insured Egyptian opulence, so when Rome controlled it, her streets were filled with aromatic spices, clothes, linen, coral, silver, and jewels brought from Hindustan. Constantinople became the mart for Indian and Chinese goods. The Scriptures make mention of India as early as the time of Esther. Five hundred years before Christ, the Brahmins worked out in the schools of philosophy a religion for the people of India. They had a knowledge of the solar system, so as to fix dates for their feasts; and they gave to the Greeks a knowledge of astronomy. Since the Europeans have established schools and colleges in India, the natives enter, compete with those from the Occident, and even take prizes on essays written upon the "Evidences of Christianity" as well as the sciences, and still they remain Hindus or Mohammedans as the case may be. They are not ignorant of the Christian religion, nor of other religions, any more than they are of the sciences. This refers more particularly to the higher castes. Neither is India like the United States, the people of which came from all the different nations of Europe. Americans profess to believe in one true God, and Christ as a Saviour of mankind, but differ in faiths and modes of worship. In India it is entirely different. There is a mixture of all the Asiatic nations, and all agree in denying the doctrine of creation out of nothing, yet they differ in their teaching as to the origin of the appearance of the universe. Creation out of nothing is to them an absurdity. It is said:— "The product of something is something, the product of nothing is nothing. Oil is in sesamum before it is pressed, milk in the udder before it is drawn, rice in the husk before it is shelled. A thing possible is made from that which is competent to produce it. Cloth, not pottery, is made from yarn; milk, not water, is taken to make curds; a potter does not weave cloth, but makes jars and vessels from his clay and wheel. The product is nothing more than the cause itself. The divinity is fire; he is the sun; he is the brilliant stars; he is water; he is the lord of all creatures; he is man; he is woman; he is the maiden; he is youth; he is the bee with the dark plumage; he is the green bug with ruby eyes; he is the cloud, the womb of lightning, the seasons, the sea. He is the universe and all things produced in it."280 To the Hindu, Brahma is the supreme being, the god of gods, of whom Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva are manifestations. "All the gods are in Brahma as cows in a cow-house. In the beginning Brahma was this (universe). He created gods; having created gods he placed them in these worlds." When charged with polytheism and violating the primary law respecting the unity of God, they reply that Brahma, Vishnu, Siva, etc., are only manifestations of the supreme Brahma. There is one other point on which there is a general agreement by Indian worshipers. They are idolators, as manifested in the worship of graven images as well as all kinds of animals. What to the European would seem to be most absurd and preposterous, is not only consistent and popular here, but any forms representing the Christian worship to an unseen god, unless it be the ritualistic service, are equally absurd to the Indian. The Parsees worship the sun, the moon, the sea, and fire. They have their temples, and altars on which sandal-wood is kept burning day and night, yielding its sweet fragrance, and before it they bow and worship their god. The Jews have their synagogues, with their ritualistic forms. The heathen with his ten thousand gods has his ceremonies, and his various temples, some for the monkey god, others for the sacred cow, and for graven images of every description of wood, stone, iron, and brass. The Mohammedans have their mosques, without idols, yet so sacred that none are allowed to step within the precincts with shoes on. The Romanists have their churches, with holy water, and they burn incense like the heathen. As far as rites and ceremonies are concerned, there is apparently no difference, save that one is termed Christian and the other idolatrous. The idols of the heathen have been transferred to the Roman churches, christened with the names of the various apostles, the Virgin Mary, saints, and others, and made sacred by holy water which has been prepared by the hand of man. The images of the heathen have been made sacred by the living river of the Ganges. Now imagine a city of eight hundred thousand heathen, with their various temples, the holy Ganges running through it, to its shores thousands flocking daily, some having made long pilgrimages to bathe in its holy waters, the sick being brought and covered with the sacred mud, and the dead carried to be burned on its banks; and in this city of eight hundred thousand heathen there are half a dozen missionaries more or less, and less than one hundred European citizens who profess Christianity, and an army of a few hundred soldiers; and many of those who nominally profess Christianity outside of the missionaries live lives not as good as those of many of the devoted heathen, and are guilty of crimes that would make the idolator blush,—imagine all these, and more, and you have to some extent an idea of an Indian town. In some of the cities there are a larger proportion of Christian missionaries and native Christians, and in others there are less. The Hindus who worship these various idols all agree as to the holiness of the Ganges water. Some cities are Hindu cities, because that element is prominent; others are Mohammedan cities, because that element is the most prominent; and there are a few small towns in India that may be said to be Christian. But out of the two hundred and sixty-eight million people in all India it is claimed that there are somewhat more than one million native Christians, besides the Europeans. The popular religion of India is Hinduism, but modern Hinduism is not a unit. It means the worship of a thousand gods. The word Hindu itself is not a national, nor even a geographical, denomination, but signifies a fortuitous conglomeration of sects, tribes, races, hereditary professions, and pure caste, so that the religion of this population of Hindus is at first sight a heterogeneous confusion. From the most ignorant to the Brahmins, the higher castes, they are all idolators, and this idolatry may be divided into two classes—Brahminical and non-Brahminical. Idolatrous worship is from blind allegiance to custom, or from fear, or a pure desire to obtain some worldly benefit. Practically, the worship of the land has deteriorated from its former religious caste into mere amusement and sensuous display, and it is not associated with any religious and moral teachings as it was in former time. The large temples are richly decorated, some of them are even covered with gold plates. The thought of India where Christianity has taken its strongest hold is as diversified as its popular worship; and this mixed idolatry of this pre-Christian world, which to Europeans or Americans appears dead, is universal here, and lives with a power, held by caste, although most of its ancient vigor has declined. The agents which have riven asunder and keep separate the general interests of the Indian people are furnished and applied by caste. The great outward and visible signs of caste,—fellowship, intermarriage, and the sharing of food,—are the points which unite or isolate groups. Now, caste seems to be a stereotyped mould which has in India preserved those antique prejudices of blood and religion, which have been worn out or destroyed in almost all countries of equal or inferior civilization, where particular distinctions, through amalgamation, and according to the ordinary course of civilization, have declined; but in India this process is interrupted and foiled by the religious element of disseveration. The community, instead of coalescing, is again split up by divergencies of doctrine, of ritual, or by some mere caprice of superstition, into separate bodies, which eat and intermarry only among themselves. This establishes and preserves idolatry. New objects of adoration are continually being discovered and becoming popular, certain shrines come into fashion, or a new image is set up, or a temple built. New prophets arise with fresh messages to deliver, or with fresh rules for a devout life. Holy men are canonized after they are dead, as among the Romanists; thus the objects of Hindu adoration are constantly changing and increasing. Said a leading missionary: "Should I set up a hideous object, different to any other that is worshiped, in a niche in the wall, soon the heathen would flock around it, bringing their holy water from the Ganges, and pour out their libations to it." It is evident to every observant mind traveling in India that the forms of the Romanists and of the ritualists, wherever they may be found and under whatever name, have had their origin in idolatrous worship. When the Saviour uttered the words, "The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth; for the Father seeketh such to worship him; [and that] God is a Spirit; and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth," they had a far deeper meaning than many suppose. It is not in forms and ceremonies, neither is it our works that bring to us salvation, it comes wholly in and through our Lord Jesus Christ. It has ever been a plan devised by Satan to in some way get into partnership with the Lord, so that he may leave his mould on Christian experience. Idolatry as manifested in India is only this Satanic principle in full bloom; but many sincere and devout men in every class of Christian association bring with them, to a greater or less extent, this principle, and weave it into their Christian experience. But in proportion as this principle is brought into Christian experience, it detracts from the honor due to our Lord Jesus Christ. It is the divine power of God, and the influence of his Holy Spirit, which must affect the heart; and when it is thus touched by the Spirit of God, it becomes transformed in its tastes and desires, and the work of Christ becomes a delight, and his holy law is loved, his requirements, whatever they may be, are a pleasure, not because they are imperative duties that must be performed, but because the divine principle has changed the heart, and it now is the outgushing of the soul. Where this does not exist, there is something wrong in our service to God, the Creator. The religion of Jesus Christ enlightens the mind, and sanctifies the judgment, so that the worship of God becomes intelligent and acceptable in his sight. D. L. Moody, who has for some time been laboring in New York and Brooklyn, has gone to Harlem, one of the suburbs of this city, where he is said to have large and interested audiences.