Earlier text: The Great Advent Movement“The First Day of the Week”
By Editor
[The discovery is periodically made by some advocate of the Sunday sabbath that the improper translation of the Bible is responsible for the absence of any inspired statement authorizing the observance of the first day of the week as the sabbath. One such writer furnished an article for the Bridgeton (N. J.) Evening News to which a scholarly reply was made by Dr. A. H. Lewis, the former editor of the Sabbath Recorder (Seventh-day Baptist), and as the subject is handled in a clear and convincing way, we reprint herewith the reply in full.—Ed.] “To the Editor of the News:— “My attention has been called to an article in your issue of April 1, 1908—‘The Sabbath Question’—which is signed by Edwin Edwards. Mr. Edwards’ contention is that ‘Infidels and Seventh-day Sabbatarians’ have conspired to mistranslate the Bible, and thus prevent the world from knowing that Sunday is the ‘Sabbath’ according to a certain pretended translation which he gives. Since his charge of ‘infidelity’ includes the translators of the Bible from that the Hebrew into the Greek and the Greek into the English during a period of more than two thousand years, it may merit a little attention because of the boldness of its unwarranted assumption, if for no other reason. So far as actual scholarship is concerned, or any evidence that Mr. Edwards has even a slight conception of the genius of the Greek or the Hebrew languages from which the Bible has been translated, the article demands no attention. “The last twenty-five years have been prolific in new and short-lived inventions to cover the want of authority for calling Sunday the Sabbath. Mr. Edwards joins in asserting that all translators of the New Testament have been ignorant or dishonest in translating so as to give the phrase, ‘first day of the week.’ These pretended critics assert that there is no such phrase as ‘first day of the week’ in the New Testament, and that a correct rendering of mia toon Sabbatoon would be: ‘One of, or first of the sabbaths,’ and that such a translation would indicate that at the resurrection of Christ the ‘old series’ of sabbaths ceased, and a ‘new series’ began. Others say that the phrase indicates that Christ rose on ‘one of the sabbaths’ of the passover week during which he was put to death. It matters little to these inventors what the new theory is, only that it is made a seeming means of escape from the claims of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment. Such claims are usually made by men who know a little Greek, or none at all. But since they are used to confuse those who have not the opportunity for such investigations as will readily detect the want of knowledge and the sophistry which lie back of them, I shall set forth the essential facts in the case. That the English reader may compare terms more readily I avoid Greek and Hebrew letters, even though the expression of sounds by English letters is sometimes quite unsatisfactory. “ORIGIN OF THE IDEA INVOLVED “The idea which gave birth to the phrase mia toon Sabbatoon (first day of the week) is primarily Hebraic. The Hebrews numbered the days of the week, and had no name for any except the Sabbath. They held the Sabbath as the chief day, the one which possessed all the rest. All other days honored it. The Hebrews designated the week as a whole, the seven days as a group, by two names; Shabua, which means a group of seven, and Shabbath (Sabbath). To understand the transfer of the Hebrew thought to the Greek we must begin with the Septuagint. This is the Old Testament translated into Greek from 280 to 150 B. C. This translation was made at Alexandria, where Greek and Hebrew thought were in closest contact, and at a time when both languages were living and vigorous. “The Greek equivalent of Shabua is Hebdomos, the exact equivalent of the English ‘week.’ If the reader will notice the following passages, remembering that in each one week is the counterpart of Hebdomos (or Hebdomad), in the Greek, and of Shabua in the Hebrew, he will see how the idea was first transferred. Gen. 20:27, 28; Ex. 34:22; Num. 28:26; Deut. 16:9, 10, 16; 2 Chron. 8:13; Dan. 9:24, 25, 26, 27; 10:2, 3. “This is quite enough to fix the identity between these three words and to link the Hebrew idea, now thousands of years old, with our own as expressed in ‘week.’ In Lev. 12:5, where the English has ‘two weeks,’ the Septuagint has: dis hepta heemeras, or ‘twice seven days.’ But we also find that Shabath (Sabbath), as the name of the specific seventh day of the week, was used as the equivalent of Shabua and Hebdomos, e. g., Lev. 23:15. ‘Seven sabbaths shall be complete.’ Here we have the Greek hepta hebdomos. In Lev. 25:8 it is thus: ‘And thou shalt number to thee seven sabbaths of years, seven years seven times; and the days of the seven sabbaths of years shall be to thee nine and forty years.’ The Greek has hepta anapausies etoon (seven sabbaths of years), ‘and these shall be unto thee’ hepta hebdomos etoon (seven weeks of years). The same rendering is found in Deut. 16:9. This identifies the Hebrew Shabbath with the Greek Hebdomos and English ‘week.’ “Coming to the New Testament, we find the same Hebrew conception of the Sabbath as possessing, and marking the bounds of the week, or that the week lies between two Sabbaths. Since these days which the Sabbath possesses are only numbered they must be designated as ‘first,’ etc., in their order within the bounds set by the Sabbath, or better still, as possessed by the Sabbath. Hence we have in the phrase mia toon Sabbatoon, the ‘genitive construction,’ ‘possessive case,’ by which this ownership of the Sabbath is expressed. This compact Greek phrase may be paraphrased or expanded so as to aid the conception of the reader: e. g., ‘The first of the days belonging to the Sabbath,’ or ‘the first of the days lying between the Sabbaths,’ but the term chosen by the translators is simplest and best, ‘The first day of the week.’ “The great Hebrew scholars of our time, Delitzsch, Bagster, and others, in translating the Greek into the Hebrew New Testament support the ordinary rendering in every instance although they adopt the Hebraic form of expression; e. g., in Matt. 28:1, Bagster’s Hebrew Testament has ‘day first in the Sabbath,’ using Sabbath in its old Hebrew sense as week. John 20:1, 19; Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2 are given ‘in the first day in the Sabbath.’ In Luke 18:12 we have ‘twice in the week’ (Heb.) Shabua, (Greek) Sabbatoon. Hebrew lexicographers give ‘week’ as a secondary meaning of Sabbath. Gesenius refers to Deuteronomy and Leviticus in support of this, and adds that in the kindred dialects, Chaldee and Syriac, it has the same meaning. The Syriac New Testament gives, ‘One in the Sabbath,’ and the Standard English translation of the9 Syriac by Murdock gives as its equivalent, in every instance, ‘first day of the week.’ This testimony comes directly from a language closely allied to the Hebrew, and without passing through the Greek. It forms a second and independent line of proof, showing that our English translators have not mistaken the meaning of this phrase. “In conclusion let the reader note what these inventors of a new theory do:— “1. They refuse to accept the testimony of more than two thousand years, as to the meaning of Hebrew terms, and of the Hebrew mode of thought. “2. They charge all Greek translators, from 250 B. C. to the latest revision of our Bible, with ignorance or dishonesty. “3. They ignore the testimony of the two cognate languages—Chaldee and Syriac—and call in question the accuracy of the English version of the Syriac, as well as the Hebrew and Greek. “4. The history of their claim shows that it has no standing with translators or commentators; that it is a weak makeshift whereby they seek to escape the force of facts they can not deny, but which they are anxious to evade. Of the character of their pretended scholarship nothing need be said. “We do not present these facts to defend the translators—Greek, English, Latin, German, or French—from the charges of ignorance or dishonesty. That would be like defending mountain peaks of granite against summer zephyrs. “My purpose is to place the facts plainly before those readers who have not the chance to consult the authorities adduced, and who might be confused by the noisy demonstrations which these pretending translators make in their little circles. We also ask the reader to note that these claims destroy the popular notion concerning Sunday as the specific day of Christ’s resurrection. For if this phrase is not ‘first day of the week’ there is no mention of that day in the New Testament. “These facts are sufficient answer to all Mr. Edwards says relative to Acts 13:42. “Mr. Edwards’ desire to find authority for observing Sunday leads to 1 Cor. 16:1, 2, even though it be translated falsely according to ‘the infamous insinuations of infidels and seventh-day Sabbatarians.’ (By the way, Mr. Editor, that phrase is a glowing type of descriptive rhetoric.) Here is the passage from Paul’s letter:— “‘Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I gave order to the churches of Galatia, so also do ye. Upon the first day of the week, let each one of you lay by him in store as he may prosper, that no collections be made when I come.’ “This text contains no suggestion of a public gathering, but the exact opposite. It is the work of theologians like Mr. Edwards to put such an interpretation into the passage, and not the work of the scholar to draw it from the passage. In support of this are the following facts:— “The English rendering, ‘Let each one of you lay by him in store,’ clearly indicates a personal work on the part of each man by himself. The Greek is equally plain, and, if possible, stronger. “It would be difficult to frame a sentence which would express the idea of personal action by one’s self more exactly. It is literally, ‘each one of you, by himself, lay away treasuring up.’ The Latin is: Per unam Sabbatorum unusquisque vestrum apud se reponat recondens, quod bene successerit, etc. “Literally, ‘Each one of you at his own house lay up, putting away,’ etc. “Tyndale says: ‘Let every one of you put a syde at home and laye uppe.’ “The Syriac Peshito reads as follows: ‘Let every one of you lay aside and preserve at home.’ “To this the following may be added:— “Three French versions read, ‘At his own house at home.’ Luther, ‘By himself at home.’ The Dutch version the same. The Italian version, ‘In his own presence at home.’ The Spanish, ‘In his own house.’ Portuguese, ‘With himself.’ Swedish, ‘Near himself.’ The Douay Bible, ‘Let every one of you put apart with himself.’ Belza, ‘At home.’ Rotherham, ‘Let each one of you put by itself, treasuring it,’ etc. “Meyer, one of the ablest of modern commentators, says para eautoo tithetoo can not refer to the laying down of money in the assembly. His translation is: ‘Let him lay up in store at home whatever he succeeds in; i. e., if he has success in anything, let him lay it up; i. e., what he had gained thereby, in order that gatherings be not made when I shall come.’ (On Cor., Vol. II, page 111.) “By such an array of scholarship the vague inference on which Mr. Edwards builds, is at once destroyed. The direction given by Paul is that each man should begin the work of the week by putting aside as much as he was able, for the poor saints at Jerusalem, in order that each having thus decided what he could do, there need be no delay about the matter when Paul should arrive. This order was only temporary and for a specific purpose. “It may be of interest to the readers of the Evening News to note that the latest books of the New Testament including the Gospel of John were written about the year ninety-five. In none of these is there any trace of the change of the Sabbath nor is the abrogation of the Sabbath law taught in them. The Sabbath is mentioned in the New Testament sixty times, and always in its appropriate character. Sunday is mentioned but eight times and six of these are in the Gospels in connection with the announcement of the fact that Christ had risen from the dead. It is mentioned but once in the book of Acts and only once in all the Epistles. “Perhaps your correspondent from Wildwood will say that Christ and his apostles kept the Sabbath ‘simply as Jews.’ If this be true, then Christ lived and taught simply as a Jew and not as the Saviour of the world. On the contrary he was at war with the false and extravagant notions of Judaism concerning questions of truth and duty. If Christ were not a ‘Christian,’ but a ‘Jew,’ what becomes of the system which he taught? If his first followers, who periled all for him and sealed their faith with blood, were only Jews, or worse, were dissemblers, doing that which Christians ought not to do, for sake of policy, where shall Christians be found? The assumption dies of its own inconsistency. “The popular outcry against the Sabbath as ‘Jewish’ savors more of prejudice and ignorance than of consistency and charity. Christ was in all respects, as regards nationality, a Jew. So were all the writers of the Old Testament, and all the writers of the New Testament. God has given the world no word of inspiration in the Bible, from gentile pen, or gentile lips. Is the Bible therefore ‘Jewish?’ The Sabbath, if possible, is less Jewish than the Bible. It had its beginning long before a Jew was born. It is God’s day marked by his own example, and sanctified by his blessing, for the race of man. Christ recognized each of the other eternal laws with which it is associated in the decalogue—recognized them as the everlasting words of his Father, whose law he came to magnify and fulfil. It tells of pitiable weakness, and unchristian irreverence, to attempt to thrust out and stigmatize any part of God’s truth as ‘Jewish,’ when all of God’s promises and all Bible truth have come to us through the Hebrew nation.’ For me my Saviour left his home above,
Where all was peace and happiness and love;
For me became a homeless wanderer,—
he
To whom in heaven all did bow the knee. By one false friend betrayed; by one
denied;
Deserted, too, by every friend beside;
Condemned to death by those he came to
save
And rescue from the sinner’s hopeless
grave. For me the One whom angel hosts adore,
The cruel mocking, scourging, smiting,
bore,
For me the crown of thorns his temples
pressed,
That starry crown upon my brow might
rest. And can it be? O, can it be that love,
Such wondrous love, shall fail my heart
to move?
O, no! Henceforth for him I’ll do and
dare,
And through his grace, reproach for him
I’ll bear. Then, when he comes to call his loved
ones home,
Amid eternal joys at will to roam.
My harp and voice, attuned to grateful
praise,
Shall sing that love through never-end-
ing days. Some Facts About China To-Day
CHANGES are coming so thick and fast in China that it is impossible even to note them all. No other nation on the earth is witnessing so many real innovations, affecting the welfare of her people, as is China. Dr. Arthur H. Smith says that we are confronted with the indisputable fact that parts of the Orient are undergoing greater changes, and are making more progress, than any other part of the world. Dr. W. A. P. Martin, another veteran student of the East, regards China as the theater of the greatest movement now taking place on the face of the globe. He says that “the Chinese are united in a firm resolve to break with the past, and to seek new life by adopting the essentials of Western civilization.” Old conservative China is indeed changing to new progressive China. Railroads are becoming a real factor in the great empire’s progress. The Canton-Hankow-Peking Railroad, which is to cut through the very center of the empire, is slowly but surely being built. Last month the new line was opened from Shanghai to Chin Kiang. For the first time in history, newspapers published10 in Shanghai were read in Chin Kiang on the same day. Only forty-four miles remain to be completed before the road reached Nanking, the southern capital. This was to be accomplished this month. In the north the railroad has already climbed up to the Great Wall. When this Peking-Siberian line is completed, the trip from Peking to Paris can be made in twelve days or even less. China, the oldest and the youngest of the nations, is becoming more like the other nations of the world. Post-office service and the telegraph have now been extended from Peking to Tibet, and the most distant provinces are being brought into touch with the capital and with one another. Plans for financial reforms are being made in Peking. Some things proposed are:— - Reorganization of the currency.
- The accumulation of gold, to prepare for a gold standard.
- The issue of government bank notes.
- New coinage of China’s own taels, to prevent the coming of so many foreign dollars.
- Sending of officials to study Japan’s financial system.
- The appointment of Chinese financial experts in place of foreigners.
Reforms of the finances of the country will lead to the development of business and manufacturing enterprises. A memorial, from the governors of four provinces, has recently been sanctioned by imperial rescript. This calls for the establishment of new iron works at Wuchang, to supply railroad materials needed in the four provinces. China is soon to open her own mines, use her own coal and iron, and build her own railroads. Perhaps nothing is having so great an effect on China to-day as the new education. Not only are there new schools for boys and young men all over the empire, but the education of women is coming to the front. Girls’ schools are being opened in the large cities, and high officials are encouraging this education of girls. The Chinese government has lately sent ten young men and six girls to study in America, and the girl students are expected to secure scholarships offered by Wellesley College. In the near future many more of China’s bright young students will be seeking an education in the Occident. It is a great opportunity for Christian America to open her schools and colleges to some of these sons and daughters of the East. Honorable Wm. H. Taft said, in his recent speech at Shanghai, “It is pleasant to know that the education of the Chinese in America has had much to do with the present steps toward reform in China.” Numbers of the well-educated young Chinese of the United States and Hawaii are even now returning to their fatherland to act as teachers and leaders in China. Western methods of teaching, and new educational books, printed by the hundreds of thousands, are being used everywhere in China. The people are becoming enlightened, and in many cases are giving up their superstitions. Temples are turned into schools. Idols are destroyed. At one new school, the teacher allowed the schoolboys to break up the idols in an adjoining temple. The effect of the new ideas on the girls and women is remarkable. They are taking an interest in the affairs of their country. Old customs are giving way. At one place, far in the interior, where it was not thought proper for girls to go on the street to school, a number of the young lady students adopted the student dress of the boys, having the name “woman” embroidered on their coat collars. Many of the mothers of New China are giving better names to their little girls. In place of names indicating dislike, or the wish for male offspring, now many are beginning to see that the girls are just as good as the boys, so they name them “Little Love,” “Little Peace,” “Little Joy,” “Darling,” “Little Precious,” and other such names, indicating a tender feeling toward them. To-day China presents the grandest opportunity for gospel preaching the world has ever known. In all the provinces the doors are standing wide open. For many years the missionary has been asking the Chinese to come and hear. To-day the Chinese are asking the missionary to come and speak. Now is the time to go forward. In every Christian land the church of Christ should put forth special effort to bring the power of the gospel of Jesus Christ to the Chinese to-day. Christians have been long praying for the opening of the great empire to the preaching of the gospel. China is open to-day as never before. The work now done will bring forth fruit a hundredfold in the near future. Good News From the Famine District
After China’s terrible famine of last year, it is good to learn that conditions are much improved. Never have they had a better autumn crop than that recently gathered. The great flood has brought new soil and enriched the land, as in Egypt after the overflow of the Nile. The Christians, who have so generously sent bread for the starving, have now a rich opportunity of bringing the gospel truth, the “bread of life,” to many of these people who will gladly receive it. O, that the church might be fully awake, and alive to all these marvelous doors of opportunity to be seen at present in China! China to-day is not the China of yesterday. And the China of to-morrow depends much upon the faithful and earnest efforts of the church at home, to send out many more messengers, to bear the glad tidings to those now ready and waiting in this mighty empire of the Orient.—Rev. E. W. Thwing, in the Missionary Review of the World for May, 1908. The Book of Daniel
By Editor
Selected to Stand Before the King of Babylon
And the king spake unto Ashpenaz the master of his eunuchs, that he should bring in certain of the children of Israel, even of the seed royal and of the nobles; youths in whom was no blemish, but well-favored, and skilful in all wisdom, and endued with knowledge, and understanding science, and such as had ability to stand in the king’s palace; and that he should teach them the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans. And the king appointed for them a daily portion of the king’s dainties, and of the wine which he drank, and that they should be nourished three years; that at the end thereof they should stand before the king. Now among these were, of the children of Judah, Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah. And the prince of the eunuchs gave names unto them: unto Daniel he gave the name of Belteshazzar; and to Hananiah, of Shadrach; and to Mishael, of Meshach; and to Azariah, of Abednego. Dan. 1: 3-7. The vessels from the house of God at Jerusalem had been brought to Babylon, and placed in the palace of the leading Babylonian deity, as a testimony to the superior might of the gods of Nebuchadnezzar; and now, as further evidence of the complete subjugation of the conquered people, some of the captives of royal blood were selected by the king’s command to be trained for service in his royal palace. “That young persons of royal descent and of noble families should be chosen for such a service, is altogether in accordance with the pride and haughtiness of the Babylonian king, and the customs of the East.” That such a humiliation would be experienced by members of the royal family at Jerusalem was declared to Hezekiah by the prophet Isaiah in these words: “And of thy sons that shall issue from thee, whom thou shalt beget, shall they take away; and they shall be eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon.” Those who were to be selected are spoken of as “of the children of Israel,” as being descendants of Jacob, whose name was changed to Israel; but Daniel is expressly declared to be “a man of the children of the captivity of Judah,” and his three companions were doubtless of the same tribe. As the education of youths, according to the customs of the times, began when they were about fourteen years of age, it may be inferred that Daniel and his companions were of this tender age when they were recommended to the king as candidates for service at the royal court. The tests which these youths were required to pass before being accepted, were quite rigid; they must be above the average both in physical appearance and in mental capacity. The haughty king would not suffer to come into his presence one who exhibited any bodily imperfection. Neither would he bestow upon those who were deficient in mental ability the effort and expense necessary to give to foreigners the required education in order that they might render intelligent service to a Babylonian king.11 We have already called attention to the divine purpose that the gospel should be proclaimed to the world, and the providence of God was overruling the national disaster which had overtaken his people so that messengers of his grace might carry the good tidings of salvation to a people who were sitting in darkness. But as in modern times missionaries to strange peoples must first learn the language of those to whom they are to minister the gospel, so it was in the olden time; therefore the custom common to victorious monarchs of educating royal captives for court service became the apparently natural means for supplying the required education to these young missionaries from Jerusalem. “As for the tongue of the Chaldeans, the necessity for learning it was obvious. In Babylon, amid the babel of languages spoken at the very seat of the confusion of tongues by persons assembled there from all parts of that vast empire, old Chaldee was perhaps the most ancient,—the very speech of Asshur, the sacred language, the peculiar dialect of religion and science, spoken by the Chaldeans, men of the race of Asshur, the reputed wise men of the world. Learning the tongue of the Chaldeans, moreover, suggests, even more than this, and perhaps the full scope of Daniel’s peculiar study will not be apprehended until the writing and language of the Chaldees are fully deciphered, translated from the bricks and cylinders, and a lexicon and grammar published for our instruction. Still, we know that the hieratic writing was in a distinct dialect, if not in a distinct character also, sacred to religious subjects, and known only to the wise men, who were designated as Chaldees, from their proficiency in this venerated science.” It was the set purpose of the king of Babylon to transform these noble youth from Jerusalem both by education and association into wise men of Babylon, causing them to forget as far as possible their national religion, and to become assimilated to the priestly class. “The priests in Babylonia were a caste, devoted to the service of the native deities and to the pursuits of philosophy, and held in high honor by the people. It was their business to guard the temples and serve at the altars of the gods, to explain dreams and prodigies, to understand omens, to read the warnings of the stars, and to instruct men how to escape the evils threatened in these various ways, by purifications, incantations, and sacrifices. They possessed a traditional knowledge which had come down from father to son, and which none thought of questioning. The laity looked up to them as the sole possessors of a recondite wisdom of the last importance to humanity.” It appears, however, that in the time of Daniel, the so-called wise men did not constitute a caste, “for Jews are enrolled among their number, and Daniel himself is made chief of the entire body. But they form a very distinct order, and constitute a considerable power in the state; they have direct communication with the monarch, and they are believed to possess, not merely human learning, but a supernatural power of predicting future events. . . . They were feared and respected by the people; the offerings of the faithful made them wealthy; their position as interpreters of the divine will secured them influence. Being regarded as capable of civil employment, they naturally enough obtained frequently important offices, which added to their wealth and consideration.” To be associated with such persons as constituted this wealthy and influential class, and to render such services as they rendered as the ministers of the false religion, Daniel and his companions were to be educated at public expense. Food and drink such as were found upon the king’s table were provided for them at the royal command, and they were to spend three years in acquiring both the language and the learning necessary for them to serve acceptably in their appointed places. “The Babylonians, notwithstanding their pride, their cruelty, their covetousness, and their love of luxury, must be pronounced to have been, according to their light, a religious people. . . . The monarchs were devout worshipers of the various deities, and gave much of their attention to the building and repair of temples, the erection of images, and the like. They bestowed on their children names indicative of religious feeling, and implying real faith in the power of the gods to protect their votaries. The people generally affected similar names—names containing, in almost every case, a god’s name as one of their elements.” As further means of disconnecting the royal youths from their past history and religion, their names, which suggested the true God and his service, were exchanged for names which would connect them with the deities and religion of Babylon. “The names given to them were formed partly from the names of Babylonish idols, in order that thereby they might become wholly naturalized, and become estranged at once from the religion and the country of their fathers. Daniel, i. e., ‘God will judge,’ received the name of Belteshazzar, formed from Bel, the name of the chief god of the Babylonians. Its meaning has not yet been determined. Hananiah, i. e., ‘The Lord is gracious,’ received the name of Shadrach, the origin of which is wholly unknown; Mishael, i. e., ‘Who is what the Lord is,’ was called Meshach, the name yet undeciphered. Azariah, i. e., ‘The Lord helps,’ had his name changed into Abednego, i. e., slave, servant of Nego or Nebo, the name of the second god of the Babylonians.” There was no way in which these youths from Jerusalem could prevent the king from bestowing upon them such names as might suit his royal pleasure; but it appears that in their association with each other they clung to the familiar names of their childhood, and that at least, in the case of Daniel the knowledge of his original name was preserved, as we find that in the days of Belshazzar the queen recommended him to the king as “the same Daniel, whom the king named Belteshazzar.” We have noted that the cause of the downfall of Jerusalem was the failure of the people to retain the spiritual character of their worship and their proneness to adopt the principle of the heathen religions by allowing forms and ceremonies to take the place of spiritual fellowship with God. Although the temple and its services were designed to keep ever before them the gospel lesson of the provision made in order that the image of God, marred by sin, might be restored in the human soul, yet they were constantly losing sight of the real significance of these services. Furthermore, they had become absorbed in a life of ease and luxury, and had refused to carry out the purpose of God by being his messengers to the nations. Now, Daniel and his companions, members of leading families at Jerusalem, are captives in Babylon, deprived of the benefits of religious worship, surrounded with the outward evidences of idolatry, and placed under instruction for the service of the false religion. Under these untoward circumstances will they yield to Babylonish influences and accept the place of profit and power held out to them, or will they remain true to the religion of their fathers, and proclaim in Babylon that gospel which is the power of God unto salvation? With the strong current of worldly influence prevailing to-day, and the temptation to a life of ease and luxury working against the endurance of the hardships incident to the experience of the missionary, we can appreciate to some degree the strength of character required to resist the combined influences which were exercised upon Daniel and his companions in ancient Babylon. The story of their steadfastness to principle is one of the most inspiring in all history. A WELL-KNOWN divine was once reading his Bible in a railway carriage, when a fellow passenger of skeptical proclivities said, “It is time you ceased reading that book which the scientific world has long since repudiated.” “It would be better for you, sir, if you knew more about this old Book,” replied the clergyman. “O, I know all about that old Book! I have studied it from one end to the other.” “Then will you please tell me,” inquired the minister, “what you think of the book of Jehoachim?” “The book of Jehoachin, sir, is the best book in your Bible,” replied the skeptic; “but it is full of historical inaccuracies.” “There is no such book in the Bible,” replied the clergyman. The skeptic immediately subsided. Temperance in the Home
By Augusta C Bainbridge
“HANNAH, Mr. Prince gave me these seeds to-night: what do you suppose they are?” said Mr. Neal, opening a carefully wrapped little envelope. “I am sure I have no idea,” said his wife. “What did he say about them? and why did he give them to you?” “He said they came to him in his last shipment of choice seeds,—but they were not labeled. He is going to try a few, and he gave me these.” “You do not know whether they need sun or shade, or moist or dry soil,—what will you do?” “I will put a few over in that warm corner by the lettuce bed, and give Nathan a few to try.” The seeds were planted in various places, and the family watched them with interest. One day Pearl came in from the garden with a pan of crisp, fresh lettuce. “Mother, I wish you would smell of this lettuce. It seems to me it has a strange odor. I notice it every time I go down to that part of the garden. I wonder what it is.” “This lettuce seems perfectly fresh and sweet, my dear. What is there down there?” “Nothing unusual, except that those new plants are growing very fast, and beginning to bloom.” “We will ask Nathan, when he comes in, to investigate for us.” But Baby John had heard enough to make him want to “‘vestigate” for himself, and he trotted off to the garden, unnoticed by Mrs. Neal or Pearl, who were busy preparing dinner. Very soon he returned with his arms full of the “pitty fowers” and green leaves, and proceeded to amuse himself by picking them to pieces on the back porch. “It seems to me that I smell that odor every where I go,” said Pearl, going out the back door to meet her father and Nathan; for she felt sure they could help her out of her trouble. The trio came upon John and the odor at the same moment. “O, Johnny Boy! what have you done to the pretty plants?” said Nathan. “I ’vestigate,” said John, wisely. “Well, I think I have found the smell I have been bothered about. Ugh! how nasty,” said Pearl. “You will need a good washing and some clean clothes, my little “‘vestigator,” before you are fit to sit at table with the rest of us,” she added, and carried “Johnny Boy” off to the bath-room. Mr. Neal picked up a few of the viscid lanceolate leaves, and a cluster of the pink, funnel-shaped flowers, saying, “This belongs to the nightshade family. It must be a medicinal plant; but, like Pearl, I find the odor very disagreeable. I’ll take these down to Mr. Bond, the druggist, and see if he can tell me what they are.” He wrapped them in paper, while Nathan swept up the broken leaves, and carried them to the far-off trash pile. “Why, Mr. Neal, this is tobacco,” said Mr. Bond. “Since you do not use the weed, little wonder that you did not recognize it; though the aroma and flavor are not fully brought out until the leaves are dried, cured, and packed for fermentation. A constituent called nicotin gives an odor, and an essential oil, or resinous matter, gives the flavor. This is the smoking tobacco used in the United States for cigars and pipe-smoking. The export tobacco is a gummy product, having a creosotic flavor, much liked abroad, but distasteful to most Americans.” “I thank you, Mr. Bond, I will study this a little farther,” said Mr. Neal at parting; “but when I tell the name of it at home I doubt if a leaf remains to see another noon. We all dislike it so.” “Yes, Nathan, Mr. Bond knew it, and I wonder if you can guess what it is.” “I looked up ‘night shade,’ while you were gone, and read about belladonna, and medicine, and narcotic poison,” said Nathan. “We find it in the botany, as well as the encyclopedia and dictionary,” said Mr. Neal, as they came into the house together. “Suppose you look up ‘tobacco.’” “Just to think of clean folks, like ourselves, raising a plant that the savages of America used and gave to the colonists,” said Pearl. “Yes, and they raised it and sold it,” said Nathan. “Even buying their wives with it,” added Mrs. Neal. All were soon busy with reference books. “Good to kill vermin and smoke insects from plants,” read Nathan. “Produces a deathly sickness where first used,” added Mr. Neal. “Animals never touch it, if left to their own instincts, and I’ve read somewhere that cannibals will not eat a tobacco-user,” said Pearl. “Is that an argument in its favor, sister?” questioned Nathan, laughingly. “Well, hardly,” she replied, “yet it reveals nature.” “Causes an unnatural thirst and depression of spirits, which often leads men to the use of liquor,” read Mrs. Neal. “We may call it the ‘ally of the saloon,’” added Mr. Neal. “We generally see them in each other’s company; for, ‘Birds of a feather flock together,’” replied Mrs. Neal. True Worth
By Abraham Harper
Some love the glow of outward show,
Some love mere wealth, and try to win
it;
The house to me may lowly be,
If I but like the people in it.
What's all the gold, that glitters cold,
When linked to hard and haughty
feeling?
Whate'er we're told, the nobler gold
Is truth of heart and manly dealing.
Then let them seek, whose minds are
weak,
Mere Fashion's smile and try to win
it;
The house to me may lowly be,
If I but like the people in it. A lowly roof may give us proof
That lowly flowers are often fairest;
And trees whose bark is hard and dark
May yield us fruit and bloom the
rarest.
There's worth as sure ’neath garments
poor
As e'er adorned a loftier station,
And minds as just as those we trust,
Whose claim is but of wealth's creation.
Then let them seek, whose minds are
weak,
Mere Fashion's smile and try to win
it;
The house to me may lowly be,
If I but like the people in it. “You are building a good wall there,” said a passer-by, stopping to look at a workman by the roadside. “Some of your material looks rather poor to work with, too,” and he glanced at a pile of rough, jagged stones. “I ain’t pickin’ my materials,” the man answered, simply. “What I’m here for is to build as good a wall as I can with the stuff that’s brought me.” The same is true with the life we are building. We can seldom choose our material. Many a rough and unexpected thing befalls, many an occurrence which we not only did not desire, but against which we cry out in bitter protest. Still it comes to us—material that some way, for good or ill, must find its place in our building. We can not choose our material, but we can choose what we will do with it, and what it shall do for us,—whether it shall weaken or strengthen the character we are forming.—Wellspring.