THE claim that the Christian Church is indebted to the papacy for Sunday as a Christian institution, rests upon manifold proofs.
We have, first, the prophecy (Dan. 7:25) that the papal power should undertake to change the law of God; and it is easy to show that what the Church of Rome has attempted to do in changing the Sabbath, is a most explicit fulfillment of the prophecy; and further, that no other event can be found which can be claimed as a fulfillment, and if that has not fulfilled the prophecy, then the prophecy has failed.
We have, secondly, the testimony of history showing how the first day of the week was lifted up among festival days, till finally that power which attempted to dictate respecting both faith and practice to all the churches, claiming to be the head over all, even Christ's vicegerent upon earth, endeavored to enforce it upon all as a divine institution.
We have, thirdly, the doctors of the Catholic church expressly claiming that their church has changed the Sabbath, that it had the power and right to change it, that its success in putting Sunday in place of the Sabbath, is proof of its right in this respect, and that all who observe Sunday as the Lord's day, thereby acknowledge the right of that church to institute festivals of precept, and therefore act inconsistently when they refuse to observe other festivals ordained by the same church. And this teaching they put into their standard catechisms for the instruction of their children; and the priests and all Catholics who are intelligent in regard to their faith, will tell us that such is the position of that church respecting the institution of the first-day Sabbath.
But here an attempt is made to nullify all this evidence by the assertion that we do not receive the institution of the Sunday-Sabbath from the Catholics, but from the apostles; and that Romanists themselves claim that the change was made by apostolic authority, and hence that it is wholly wrong to call Sunday-keeping a papal observance.
We recently received a letter from a Methodist minister, who had just read the tract published at this office, entitled, "Who changed the Sabbath?" in which are given extracts from Catholic catechisms in which they claim to have made the change. Our clerical friend thought we were appealing to the prejudices of the people on the Sabbath question. We replied that we were not appealing to prejudice, but to facts; that we claim no more than what the Catholic church itself claims, that it has made the change, and that we are indebted to it for the Sunday-Sabbath. He replies535that the catechism of the Council of Trent claims "that the change was made during apostolic time, and was done by apostolic authority." And he adds, "If your authorities are correctly quoted, of which fact I have no doubt, it simply shows the want of harmony in that church respecting this question; but as my authority is that of a Council, and 'published by command of Pope Pius the Fifth,' it will stand against all the individual writers that can be brought on the other side."
The catechisms from which we quote do not rest upon merely individual authority. They are not the expression simply of individual opinion, but published by authority, and used for the education of Catholic children everywhere. And we may be sure that a church which exercises such untiring and keen surveillance over all the literature that goes into the hands of its members, would not tolerate any lack of harmony in the fundamental principles which they teach their children.
That the Catholic church claims that the change was made in apostolic times, we are all well aware. For instance, in one of the catechisms quoted in the tract above mentioned, in answer to the question, "What warrent have you for keeping the Sunday, preferable to the ancient Sabbath, which was the Saturday?" this answer is given: "We have for it the authority of the Catholic church, and apostolic tradition." Now because they refer it to apostolic times and apostolic tradition, does that invalidate their claim and ours that it is an institution of the Catholic church? Let us look at this point candidly.
The rule of the Protestant is, that whatever is taught in the Bible, we can find there as well as others, so that there is no need of tradition in the matter. But do the Romanists claim that this change of the Sabbath can be proved from the Bible? By no means. On the contrary, they say that "the Scriptures do not in particular mention this change" (Cath. Chris. Instructed); and after referring to Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2; and Rev. 1:10, they say, "Neither the one nor the other [of these texts] tells us that the first day of the week was to be henceforth the day of worship, and the Christian Sabbath; so that truly the best authority we have for this is the testimony and ordinance of the church." (Id.) They further speak of it as "a change for which there is no scriptural authority," and say that Protestants do not find for their practice in this respect any "permission clearly laid down in the sacred volume." (Doctrinal Catechism). They call it a change "that cannot be evidently proved from any text of Scripture." (Robt. Manning). And they even go so far as to say that it is "against the plain letter of the Bible."
Thus the Catholic claims no apostolic authority for the change, except what rests upon tradition; but the Protestant does not admit tradition as of any authority in matters of faith; therefore the Catholic reference to apostolic authority for the change of the Sabbath is not of such a kind as Protestants can endorse at all.
All Protestants are ready to admit that purgatory, prayers for the dead, and invocation of the saints, are Catholic doctrines, and rest upon the authority of the Catholic church; yet that church claims apostolic authority in these matters, even more distinctly than for the change of the Sabbath; not written out, to be sure, in the New Testament, but resting on tradition; and they throw it into the face of all Protestants, that if they could produce no better proof for these doctrines, than Protestants can produce for first-day observance, then might Protestants indeed have good cause to laugh them to scorn.
This brings to us the second stage of the answer to the question whether the Catholic appeal to apostolic authority for Sunday-keeping invalidates our claim that it is a Romish institution. The fact already established that they have no apostolic authority except what rests upon tradition, destroys it for all Protestants. But there is something more. When we search for the so-called Christian Sabbath, as a historical fact, where do we find it? In the apostles' days? No. In the age immediately following? No. It is not till we come down well into the centuries, to that period which developed in its strength the great apostasy, that we find it taking its place authoritatively in the church; and then we find Sylvester, one in that line of the bishops of Rome now called popes, formally giving to Sunday the imposing title of "Lord's Day," and enforcing it by the unrepealed law of Constantine which, before his conversion to Christianity, he enacted in behalf of Sunday as a heathen festival. This is the time, and these are the circumstances under which, Sunday-keeping first appears in fact, as a Christian institution of binding obligation. Every one will acknowledge that it is just to attribute the origin of any institution to that people among whom, and by whose instrumentality, it first appears. But the Catholics say Sunday is of apostolic authority. What of that? So they say of all their errors and corruptions. But when we search the apostolic writings, and do not find them, oh! they tell us, they rest on tradition. And Sunday-keeping rests right there too. Are not all these things then of Roman Catholic origin? and do not all who receive them take them from that church?
To illustrate: Suppose any church of the present day, the Methodist for instance, should succeed in introducing and establishing some new practice. Suppose they should say then that it was not their own, but was introduced by the apostles. Would it make any difference what they should claim in regard to its apostolic origin, if we could not find it there? None at all. Every one would say that such institution was wholly a Methodist concern; and this would be a correct decision. Just so with the Sunday-Sabbath. Facts, applied according to the same principle, show it to be wholly a Romish institution. U. S.
BRIEF PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
THE END OF LABOR AND TOIL.
SOMETIMES it seems that this will never come. Yet, all the time it is approaching as with swiftness almost inconceivable. It is not only sure to come, but it is certain to come in a brief period. Time flies swiftly. The Judgment is hastening. Ere long, the work will close up forever. It is no time to stand idle in the vineyard. It is an act of folly to sit down and complain of our toil. Work while the day lasts. The night cometh in which no man can work. Rest will come soon enough, and will never end. Courage in the Lord. Our toil shall end. Yet let it last as long as our Master wills. It is his to assign our work and fix its duration. It is ours to do the work well. The reward is infinite, and the time of its bestowal will not delay. God forbid that we murmur.
CHRIST FORMED WITHIN.
Christ is formed within when the Holy Spirit has wrought in us all the excellent graces of his character. Our evil natures being put away by genuine conversion, and every wrong being taken from us by the successive steps or acts of conversion, in their place the excellent graces of the Spirit of God one by one are formed in us. These make us like Christ. When the whole work is wrought in us, we are then wholly like him. And those who in character are thus like him, shall certainly be with him in due season. And thus being received into his presence, we shall bear his image in our outward being, as well as in our inner man. For Christ, beholding in us his own character, shall give us his own immortal life.
DO NOT MURMUR.
It is all wicked and inexcusable to murmur against God. 1. Because God has the right to chasten us, and because our sins richly deserve and even demand such chastening. 2. Because in all our afflictions God designs our good. He is at work for our salvation. It is then foolish and ungrateful in us to utter one word of complaint. Certainly God is good, and every feeling of our hearts should be mingled with deep gratitude to him for his infinite goodness. Let us forever desist from complaints and murmurings. It is all wicked and unjust and ungrateful.
WHAT SHALL WE DO TO BE SAVED?
By John Nevins Andrews
Two things must be effected for us: 1. We must have our sins removed from us. 2. We must have all the graces of the Holy Spirit perfected in our characters. This two-fold work is of infinite consequence to us. We cannot dispense with it if we hope for everlasting life. We cannot enter the kingdom of God till we have been effectually cleansed from our sins. We cannot enter it without also partaking of the divine nature, so that we shall be completely the subjects of the grace of God. This great work of the Holy Spirit is also our own work. We cannot accomplish it without the aid of the Lord. But he will not do this work without our active co-operation. The work is not wrought in a moment. We add to our graces by being brought into those circumstances which make them a necessity on our part to withstand the power of the devil! If we do then reach out after help from God it will certainly be granted. And the very things in which we are most lacking will be the ones wherein we shall be compelled to seek after God in agonizing prayer. We shall thus grow strong in the very things in which we are weakest and most deficient.
Our sins must be all repented of and pardoned. Our lives must show the genuineness of our repentance. In truth, it will be our work for all our future lives to show that we are changed in principle and in conduct. This work of putting away sin and of establishing in ourselves the excellent graces of the Spirit of God is wrought by the gracious help of the Lord, and by our active co-operation with him. Thus uniting our free will to God's free grace, we carry the work to perfection. It is time that we were in earnest in this business. We can never be saved till this work is fully wrought in our own souls. Let us be diligent in its accomplishment, if we would be found of him in peace. J. N. A.
THE PROMISE OF HIS COMING.
By E. J. Waggoner
BY E. J. WAGGONER.
IN the second epistle of Peter, the third chapter, and the third and fourth verses, we find the following statement: "Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, and saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation." From this, we indirectly learn two things: First, that in the last days there will be some who are teaching that the Lord is coming; for if no one were asserting that there is a promise to that effect, there would be no reason for the inquiry as to where that promise may be found. And, second, we learn that there is such a promise, and that those who teach it are correct, for they who question it are "scoffers" who walk after their own lusts.
The question in itself is a perfectly legitimate one, if it is asked from a sincere desire to know the truth. It is only when asked by those who are "willingly ignorant," that there is in it the element of mockery. For the benefit of the first class, a Scriptural answer to the question will be given.
The question "Will Christ come?" does not admit of argument. The answer is given in the Bible in plain and unequivocal language. Admit the Bible to be the inspired word of God, and the question is at once answered in the affirmative. In this article, therefore, little more can be done than to cite the reader to a few of the passages which positively affirm that Christ is coming again to this earth. Those passages only will be quoted which state the simple fact. Other questions, as to the time, manner, object, etc., of his coming will be considered hereafter.
Perhaps the oldest direct testimony concerning Christ's second advent is found in the 14th verse of Jude. "And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints." This testimony, although second-hand may not be impeached, for it is from one who "walked with God," and is vouched for by "the servant of Jesus Christ."
Another testimony is found in Numbers, the 24th chapter, and 17th verse. It may be objected that Balaam was a wicked man, and, therefore, not entitled to credit; but we must remember that at this time he was under the influence of the Spirit of God, and unable to say anything except as God permitted him. Speaking of what shall happen "in the latter days," he says: "I shall see him, but not now; I shall behold him, but not nigh; there shall come a Star out of Jacob, and a Scepter shall rise out of Israel, and shall smite the corners of Moab, and destroy all the children of Sheth." The language used, as well as the context, shows that Christ is referred to; and it is his second coming that is spoken of for it is then that Christ's enemies are to be destroyed. See 2 Thess. 1:7-9; 2:8.
But we have still more positive testimony in the Old Testament. Job, in the midst of his affliction, comforted himself in the following manner: "Oh, that my words were now written! oh, that they were printed in a book! that they were graven with an iron pen and lead in the rock forever! For I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth; and though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God; whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me." Job. 19:23-27. This language is very positive; and Job shows his sense of its importance by wishing it to be preserved by all the means of writing then known.
Passing to the Psalms we read the testimony of David. That David was inspired of God, we learn from 2 Sam. 23:2: "The Spirit of the Lord spake by me, and his word was in my tongue." He says: "Our God shall come, and shall not keep silence: a fire shall devour before him, and it shall be very tempestuous round about him." Ps. 50:3. Again "Let the heavens rejoice, and let the earth be glad; let the sea roar, and the fulness thereof. Let the field be joyful and all that is therein; then shall all the trees of the wood rejoice before the Lord; for he cometh, for he cometh to judge the earth." Ps. 96:11-13.
We come now to the New Testament, and we shall see that the testimony is even more positive. Paul's words in Heb. 9:27, 28 are very explicit: "And as it is appointed unto man once to die, but after that the Judgment; so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation." There is nothing figurative or uncertain about these words. They are a plain declaration of fact. Either Christ will come the second time, or else Paul is an unreliable witness. The latter, no Christian will admit.
Again Paul writes: "For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the arch-angel, and with the trump of God." Could language be made plainer than this? This is a statement of what shall actually occur. No more definite language can be found in the Bible. It will not do to evade this testimony by saying that Paul did not understand what he wrote. There is not the slightest evidence that he did not fully comprehend the force of every line that he wrote; but even allowing that he did not, the Holy Spirit, which inspired him, certainly did understand what he wrote, and had an object in giving it.
Although no clearer evidence can be given than that quoted above, yet the words which come to us direct from the lips of our Lord himself, have a peculiar force. In Matt. 16:27 he says: "For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works." The twenty-fourth chapter of Matthew is devoted entirely to a description of his coming, but as we are now giving direct answers to the question "Will he come?" we pass this by for the present. The same subject, however, is carried on in the twenty-fifth chapter, and in the 31st verse Christ says: "When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory." He here speaks of his coming as a settled fact, so that his words amount to a positive statement.
In John 14:1-3, we have a statement by our Lord, which, if such a thing is possible, is even stronger than any of the foregoing. As Jesus was about to leave this earth, he comforted his sorrowing disciples with the following words: "Let not your heart be troubled; ye believe in God, believe also in me. In my Father's house are many mansions; if it were not so I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself, that where I am, there ye may be also." The point of comfort in the above is the promise that he would come again. The disciples were sorrowing because he had said he was going away. He says, Be not troubled; I will come again. He did not deceive them with a false hope; he will certainly come again. His word is pledged to this and it cannot fail.
These are only a few of the many passages which teach that Christ will come again, but they are sufficient. They are so simple that a child can understand them. No other meaning can possibly attach to them than that Christ is coming the second time to this earth. The Bible abounds with testimony to the same effect. And yet there are people who profess to believe the Bible, who say that the second coming of Christ is a non-essential doctrine. If it is not essential, why is it given so large a place in the Bible?
The Missionary.
By John Norton Loughborough
DARLASTON AND MANCHESTER, ENGLAND.
My last was written at Darlaston. I had appointments each evening from October 9 to 16, but on account of business, other meetings, and one market night in which the citizens obtain most of their supplies for the week, few attended our meetings. On the 13th and 14th there was a very terrific gale, making it unsafe for people to leave their houses, as slate and tiles from the roofs, and bricks from chimneys, were hurled fiercely by the wind. The gale did a great amount of damage both by land and sea. In the mining and manufacturing district, smoke stacks and tall brick chimneys were thrown down killing a number of men. The Register of British shipwrecks records the loss of ninety vessels (valued with their cargoes at $35,000,000), during the gale. Of these vessels eight were steamers. The reporter of the Register says that during the year ending October 14, 1,454 vessels have been wrecked, being 417 more than during the same period of the previous year. He also says that for the twenty-six years that the Register has been kept, 51,841 wrecks have occurred in the waters surrounding these islands, and 18,550 lives lost thereby.
On the second Sunday of my stay at Darlaston, in the forenoon, I attended service with the Primitive Methodists, and at 2.30 P. M., by invitation I addressed their Sunday-school of over 600 scholars and teachers, giving them a description of Chinese idol worship, as I witnessed it in their temples in San Francisco, California, seeking to impress their minds with gratitude which should fill our hearts in that we have a knowledge of the true God, his worship, and the way of salvation.
In the evening I gave another discourse in the hall. As revival services were soon to be commenced by the Primitives, and as I had other engagements, I closed the meetings for the present, having formed acquaintance with many whom we hope to meet again at some future day.
On Monday, Oct. 17, I went to Manchester. In the evening I attended the anniversary meeting of the “British Anti-Tobacco and Anti-Narcotic League,” of which I am a member. The meeting was well attended. With others I had an opportunity of speaking of the evils of tobacco-using. The increased interest in the meeting and the reports, indicate progress in the work.
On the 17th I attended the anniversary meetings of the “United Kingdom Temperance Alliance,” of which I am also a member. This organization (not a secret society) having as its object the securing of laws for the suppression of the liquor traffic, has been in existence since June 1, 1853. Of its encouragement at the present time, the executive, in their report read before the general council, Oct. 18, say, “At the close of their year of office, a year of more than usual anxiety, your committee can very gladly recognize and gratefully record indubitable and pleasing signs of the advancing power and the broadening sweep of the great temperance reformation in this the jubilee epoch of its history in the United Kingdom.”
The greatest source of joy to this vast gathering of five or six thousand, addressed by eight members of Parliament and others, was this: Whereas in 1875 there was a majority of 285 in the House of Commons against the suppressing of the liquor traffic by law, in the last session of Parliament there was a majority of forty-two in favor of such action being taken, and in addition to this our worthy Premier, Hon. W. E. Gladstone, has given plain intimation that in the next session a bill shall be introduced before the House of Commons for Local Option legislation. In the midst of the meeting a letter was read from Hon. Herbert Gladstone, junior member of Parliament. Speaking of other matters to come before Parliament, he closed his letter by urging the “Alliance” to make their voice “heard above all the rest.” It seems quite certain now that the Local Option law will be passed, then will come the agitation among the people when every man who occupies a house in Britain can speak, by his vote, and say whether he wants liquor sold in his town or not.
October 19, I attended the annual meeting of the English Vegetarian Society, of which I have the honor to be a member. By the previous request of the executive I gave an address setting forth the Health and Temperance movement in the United States, and as representative of that body, extended its fraternal greeting to the Vegetarian Society. The substance of this address I send to the Review, and a more full report of the meeting will appear in the Good Health Journal.
During my stay in Manchester I formed many acquaintances with those who are zealously working for reform in habits of eating and drinking. I was most kindly entertained at the home of Frank Spence, Esq., Hon. Sec. of the Anti-Narcotic League. As he had spent four years in California, and was immersed in San Francisco bay, it made our interview doubly interesting.
Oct. 31, 1881. J. N. LOUGHBOROUGH.
THE TWO BRANDS.
By R. N.
If you will allow me I will tell you what happened to me the first morning after we (Fanny and I) were married and began to keep house. We were not blessed with a great deal of this world's goods and had no servants. I rose early to make the fire, and raking open the ashes, found just one brand alive.
"It won't burn alone," thought I, and I broke it in two, laid the parts together to produce a blaze, and soon there was a glowing fire. "Just so it will be with wife and me about religion," thought I. Wife was a whole-hearted Christian, a member of the church, but timid and retiring. I once thought I had a hope, but I never professed Christ, and the hope I once cherished was about dead. I didn't know whether I was a Christian or not. I couldn't eat my breakfast for thinking, and wife said:—
"What ails you Richard? Isn't the breakfast cooked to suit you?"
"The cooking's all right," said I, "but I'll tell you what isn't. We didn't have family prayers last night or this morning. Now, if I never get into the kingdom I don't want to keep you out of the highest seat you can have. I found out this morning, kindling the fire, that one brand would not burn alone. So bring out that Bible, laid away so choice in the parlor, and keep it right here on the shelf. I'll read it aloud, morning and evening, and kneel down and hear you pray for yourself and me."
Wife came and put her arm around me and tried to coax me to do the praying, saying she was afraid she couldn't. I would not and so she did, and we were both in tears before she got through. I could not stand out against those prayers. The Spirit kept knocking, knocking at my heart's door and I had to open it. When we knelt together I began at last to pray for myself, first silently and then aloud. Then I went to the prayer-meeting and asked Christians to pray for me; then I prayed for myself there, and soon after I confessed Christ before men by uniting with the church.
Wife and I have been trying ever since to serve God together. I don't see how I ever could have got on alone, and wife says she is sure she couldn't.
I have thanked God ever since for sending his Spirit to set me thinking about the brands that morning when I made the fire.—R. N., in Christian at Work.
HOW TO LOOK AT THINGS.
By G. F. Pentecost
I WENT to see a lady once who was in deep trouble and in great darkness on account of the great afflictions which had come to her from the hand of the Lord. She had fallen into deep melancholy. When I went in she was working on a bit of embroidery, and as I talked with her, she dropped it wrong side up, and there it lay, a mass of crude work, tangled, everything seeming out of order.
'Well,' said I, 'what is this you are engaged at?' 'Oh,' she replied it's for a Christmas gift.' I said, 'I should not think you would waste your time on that. It looks tangled, without design or meaning,' and I went on abusing the combination of colors, and so on.
'Why, Mr. Pentecost,' she said, surprised at the sudden and abrupt change of the subject on which we had before been talking, and the persistency with which I had opposed her work—'why, Mr. Pentecost, you are looking at the wrong side. Turn it over.' Then I said, 'That's just what you are doing; you are looking at the wrong side of God's workings with you. Down here they seem tangled, but up there he is working from the right side.' Down here we are looking at the tangled side of God's providence; but he has a plan, here a stitch, there a movement of the shuttle, and in the end there is a beautiful work. Be not afraid, only believing. Believe him in the darkness; believe him in the mysteries. Let him that walketh in darkness, and seeth not the light, yet trust in the Lord.—G. F. Pentecost.
Christian Workers’ Diligence
Mr. Spurgeon says that “experimental religion is a bycicle; there can be no standing still; you must go on or come down.” Christian workers, your diligence must be unremitting.
Obstacles Become Stepping-Stones
The block of granite which was an obstacle in the pathway of the weak, becomes a stepping-stone in the pathway of the strong.
Serving the Lord
"Not slothful in business; fervent in spirit; serving the Lord."
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA.
By S. N. Haskell
WE met with the friends at Los Angeles, Sabbath and first-day, November 19, 20. They have a neat meeting-house capable of seating about two hundred and fifty. Their regular Sabbath-school attendance is about sixty. The anteroom and gallery make it very convenient for the different classes of the little ones; while the main body of the house is occupied by those attending the Bible class.
The Sabbath-school was quite interesting. All seemed anxious to make it so. At the close of the discourse Sabbath morning, we had a social meeting in which nearly all took a part.
Sunday afternoon we rode in search of water for baptism. As we rode up to the place previously used for that purpose, notwithstanding, there was sufficient to have dipped up half a pailful and poured upon an individual, or to have sprinkled a hundred, yet we could but think there was much force in John's baptizing in "Ænon near to Salim because there was much water there." However, water was found and Sister Smith was baptized.
To sustain the work here, it is necessary that labor be put forth in the surrounding country. There are small places where school-houses could be obtained, or a tent be pitched. If additions could thus be made it would give permanency to the work here. A good work has commenced and must not be left.
Many of our churches are weakened by the members moving away, and because proper efforts are not put forth to strengthen the things which remain, and secure additions to their numbers.
May God bless the few here and add to their numbers of such as will be an honor to the cause.
S. N. HASKELL.
MISSIONARY WORK.
By Editor
THE following letter has been received at this office. It explains itself, and will be read with interest. We do not know who sent the SIGNS, but the Oakland V. M. Society voted to send the paper and books to the Library of that League. We would suggest that the paper and the Discussion on the proposed Constitutional Amendment be placed in the library of each Liberal League in the country. We have known persons to call themselves infidels who were not so much infidels to the teachings of the Scriptures as to something presented to them in the current religion as the teachings of the Scriptures. "Sow thy seed. . . Ye know not whether shall prosper, either this or that."—ED. SIGNS.
"M——, Pa., Nov. 12, 1881.
"S. D. A. M. SOCIETY: Your literary organ, the SIGNS OF THE TIMES, has been coming to my address for some time. As you have been sending it as a missionary document, I have been placing it in the hands of the Liberal League, of which I am secretary.
"Most of us are entire unbelievers in the divinity of Christianity, but your paper has been attracting considerable attention as a novelty, until the two last numbers; they are considered good, and have received considerable approbation on account of the articles on the 'Change of the Sabbath' and 'The Mound Builders.'
"Several members have requested me to ask your society for the gift of books, containing your peculiar views, to our library.
"A member has clipped the article on the 'Mound Builders' and forwarded it to the Bureau of Ethnology at Washington, D. C.
"Should you deem it advisable to send us any of the publications of your church, they will be judiciously shelved with our other religious works kept for circulation. Very truly yours, "W. F. B."
IS THE MAINE LAW A FAILURE?
THERE has been much controversy as to the success of the prohibitory liquor law which has been in operation in Maine for many years, and there may be occasion for believing that it has not been as complete as was expected; still the facts show that there has been a marvelous advance in the pine-tree State over any of her sisters in the Union. Whatever may be the shortcomings there, it is a great thing to be able to say, as Ex-Governor Dingley did last week, that prohibition has closed every distillery in the State; has reduced the dram shops from one to every 225 inhabitants in 1833, to less than one secret groggery to every 1,000; has made the sales of these secret shops less than one-fourth of what they would be under a license system; has reduced the consumption of liquor to $5 a person, while the average in the United States is $15; and has reduced the arrests for drunkenness, in cities where the law is enforced, to one-fourth the average of cities where the license system is in operation. While New York has one convict in State prison to every 1,400 inhabitants, and Massachusetts one to every 2,200, Maine has but one to every 3,000. Gov. Plaisted also, in a recent speech in which he expressed himself decidedly and emphatically in favor of prohibition, and, as Governor of Maine, in favor of the strict enforcement of the prohibition law, said, "Temperance has blessed our State; our citizens are intelligent, and the per cent. of illiteracy is so small, comparatively, that it speaks volumes for Maine and its citizens." With these marked results, material and moral, it is not strange that its public men of both parties believe in prohibiting the sale of liquor. It is strange that its example is not followed by the other States.—Christian Weekly.
FRESHWATER, CALIFORNIA.
By J. D. Rice
HELD a two weeks meeting at this place to try to gather in a few interested ones. The effort has been timely, though not quite so much has been accomplished as we had hoped for; but the end is not yet. We hope to gather more fruit from here for the Master by and by. One took a stand for the truth, and was baptized last Sunday. A general good impression seems to have been made, and the way is favorably opened for a good work at an early date.
Came to this place yesterday to look after the interests of the cause. Will probably remain in this neighborhood through the winter. Remember us in your prayers. J. D. RICE.
Lakeport, Cal., Nov. 25, 1881.
SALINAS, CALIFORNIA.
By A. D. Benton, Frank Lamb
LAST Sunday we held our first temperance meeting at Buena Vista school-house. One was added to the Teetotal Pledge, and four to the Anti-whisky Pledge. Quite an interest was manifested. We elected a leader and a secretary. We have reason to believe that the temperance work here will be a success.
A Vigilant Missionary society has also been started and $18.00 were subscribed. They send for twelve copies of the Signs now, and will swell the list as soon as possible. The people are poor, but anxious to do all they can. The Sabbath-school is well attended. Two more here request baptism.
Bro. Lamb is trying to start an interest at Castroville, two miles from here.
A. D. BENTON,
November 24, 1881. FRANK LAMB.
Temperance.
RUMSELLERS LICENSED-FOR WHAT?
Licensed to make the strong man weak;
Licensed to lay the wise man low;
Licensed, a wife's fond heart to break,
And make her children's tears to flow.
Licensed to do thy neighbor harm;
Licensed to kindle hate and strife;
Licensed to nerve the robber's arm.
Licensed to whet the murderer's knife.
Licensed, thy neighbor's purse to drain,
And rob him of his very last;
Licensed to heat his feverish brain,
Till madness crown thy work at last.
Licensed, like spider for a fly,
To spread thy nets for man, thy prey;
To mock his struggles! suck him dry;
Then cast the worthless hulk away.
Licensed, where peace and quiet dwell,
To bring disease, and want, and woe;
Licensed to make this world a hell;
And fit man for a hell below.
—New York Observer.
Minimizing Mourning and Drinking
The Christian at Work refers to a society started in London, for the purpose of doing away with the wearing of crape, etc., and of "generally minimizing mourning;" and aptly says that one of the best methods of minimizing mourning is to discourage whisky drinking.
A DRUNKARD'S BRAIN.
Hyrtl, by far the greatest anatomist of the age, used to say that he could distinguish in the darkest room by one stroke of the scalpel, the brain of the inebriate, from that of a person who lived soberly. Now and then he could congratulate his class upon the possession of a drunkard's brain, admirably fitted, from its hardness and more complete preservation, for the purpose of demonstration. When the anatomist wishes to preserve a human brain for any length of time, he effects that object by keeping that organ in a vessel of alcohol. From a soft, pulpy substance, it then becomes comparatively hard; but in the inebriate, anticipating the anatomist, the brain begins the indurating process before death—begins it while the brain remains the consecrated temple of the soul—while its delicate and gossamer-like tissues still throb with the pulse of heaven-born life. Strange infatuation, that thus desecrates the God-like! Terrible enchantment that dries up all the fountains of generous feelings, petrifies all the tender humanities and sweet charities of life, leaving only a brain of lead and a heart of stone! —Scientific American.