THE California Christian Advocate has noticed our queries, and answered them in part. We promised to republish them with its replies if it would reply to them. We more than fulfill our promise, as the reader will see in the course of this article.
"1. Do Sunday-keepers keep 'exactly the same time' from the Atlantic to the Pacific?"
"No. They never pretended to do so."
Neither did Seventh-day Adventists ever pretend to do so. It was a side issue raised by our opponents, and a very foolish one at that. To expose its folly we asked these questions.
"2. Do you ask that a legal enactment shall compel all the people, all over the land, to keep exactly the same time for Sunday?"
"Nobody ever asked anything of the kind."
"3. Can the Sunday—exactly the same day—be kept by all people from New York to San Francisco, and they not keep exactly the same time?"
"Sunday is kept by Christians according to the well-known necessities of the case."
Very nicely done, Mr. Editor! Now will you please to inform us what you mean by that answer. We pronounce it just no answer at all—merely an evasion. In regard to the seventh day we answer the same question without casting any obscurity over it. Why will not the Advocate do the same for Sunday? What are the possible "necessities of the case" which this question involves? Are they of such a nature that the keeping of the same day is left a matter of doubt?151
"4. If Sunday can be universally kept without keeping exactly the same time, cannot the seventh day be kept also without keeping exactly the same time?"
"Each can be kept with equal certainty, but you teach that God set apart twenty-four hours of a fixed period, and that it is a great sin not to keep this time."
If it were not for the obscurity in the third reply we should take the word "certainty" in its full extent, and accept his admission that the day may be kept to a certainty. But with the apparent evasion in the preceding reply we have a right to believe that "equal certainty" is a certainty of degrees, or admitting of an if. That is to say, if one is certain the other is equally certain. His ambiguous "necessities of the case" leaves the whole question a matter of doubt.
As to a "fixed period," we believe that God sanctified or set apart the seventh day; that the seventh day, the same as the other days, is twenty-four hours in length. But the editor of the Advocate has been trying to make his readers believe that we held to "the same identical time" all round the world, or that we thought the seventh day commenced all round the world at the same time, and ended all round the world at the same time. What we complained of was that he persistently harped upon it when he knew that we distinctly denied it. Our questions were asked for the purpose of bringing him to state before his readers that the seventh day stood, in that respect, as does the first day. In the writings of a Sabbath-keeper some years ago we saw the idea quaintly expressed, that
> "— he is but a dunce
> Who thinks the Sabbath comes all round at once."
Both seventh day and Sunday are of the same length—twenty-four hours. Now if the editor means that we teach that God sanctified the seventh day; that the seventh day is twenty-four hours in length; that its commencement and close are definitely marked; that in any locality we are to keep it when it commences in that locality, but that it does not commence in all places at the same time; if that is what he means, we accept it as our faith. And he must accept exactly the same thing if he argues in favor of the first day of the week. But if he means that we teach that a fixed period of twenty-four hours is to be kept for the Sabbath at the same time all round the world, without any regard to the rising and setting of the sun, then we call upon him to give us the reason of his declaration. The truth is that he knows that such is not our belief, and he knew it all the time when he was throwing dust in the eyes of his readers about "the same identical time." There is not a man of ordinary intelligence in the United States who thinks, or ever thought, that we believed any such absurdity; for all who ever heard of us know that we teach that the Sabbath commences at the setting of the sun. Will the editor now innocently aver that he thought we believed the sun set all round the world at the same time? That would be the "necessity of the case" in his "identical same-time" theory. But another question remains.
"5. And finally. Does the pretended 'exactly-the-same-time' argument involve any difficulty in keeping the Sabbath which is not involved in keeping Sunday?"
This is not squarely answered. But he defines his position, if anyone can be said to have a position who leaves everything indefinite as he does. The following are his remarks on this question:—
"The Signs of the Times demands that all men shall keep the last day of the week as it was originally given. Christians generally believe that God's commandment required that a seventh part of time should be given to rest and to his service, without specifically setting apart definite hours. We believe that any sacred keeping of the seventh part of time would be acceptable to service to God. The Signs of the Times makes a hobby of keeping its own time, and tries to build up a system on this special doctrine. If any class of people, by any means, find themselves keeping for the Sabbath any seventh division of time, whether it would be Saturday, Sunday, Monday, or Friday, whether from sundown to sundown, from midnight to midnight, from sunrise to sunrise, or from noon until noon, such service would be, we believe, in perfect accordance with the law of God."
Yes, we do believe it is right to keep the day "as it was given;" without any human amendments or inventions to evade the precept of the Creator. But if we keep the day "as it was originally given," where is the authority for your indefinite seventh-part-of-time Sabbath? Who gave that? Will you point us to the precept which justifies your action? The Advocate says we make a hobby of keeping our "own time," and yet confesses that what we claim is the keeping of the seventh day of the week as it was originally given! "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work." Can the editor of the Advocate understand that?
It is said that variety is pleasing; and in the above extract there is a spice of it. It has been so long the custom to read, "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Jews," that it is refreshing to hear a D. D. now declare it is our own time.
And we thought by what the Advocate once said about Sunday and the "very foundations of our holy religion," that it really believed the modern fable that the first day of the week is a sacred day. But, lo! we now find that either, "Saturday, Sunday, Monday or Friday" would answer equally well, and each be equally in "accordance with the law of God." That is to say that God equally blessed and sanctified the seventh, the first, the second, and the sixth days of the week! From being too severe the Doctor has become too clever. "Who hath required this at your hands?"
He then proceeds to ask us a few questions, which we are much pleased to answer, but must reserve the answers for our next paper.
The Two Covenants.
By John Nevins Andrews
(Continued.)
LET us now consider the excellence of the new covenant, and learn wherein it is a better covenant than the one which it supersedes. Here are the terms of this covenant: "But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel: After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord; for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord; for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more." Jer. 31 : 33, 34.
Certainly, this is "the better covenant," and these are the "better promises." Let us enumerate them. 1. "I will put my LAW in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts." 2. "I will be their God, and they shall be my people." 3. "They shall teach no more every man his neighbor; . . . for they shall all know me." 4. "I will forgive their iniquity." 5. "I will remember their sin no more."
This is a very remarkable list of new-covenant blessings. First and foremost in this enumeration, stands a promise concerning the law of God. Surely, this is worthy of our notice. But what is this promise respecting the law? Is it, "I will abolish my law?" No. Is it, "I will change my law?" No. Is it, "I will supersede my law by a better code?" By no means. It is very different indeed from such declarations as these. This is the promise: "I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts." He will make his law a part of their very being. He will establish it in their affections; he will engrave it upon the table of their hearts. This is wonderful indeed. The law of God is still uppermost in the mind of its Author. The first covenant required obedience to the law of God, but failed to secure it. The second covenant insures obedience by making the law a part of the very nature of those with whom the covenant is made. God does not leave his law till he has accomplished that which he has spoken, the raising up of a people who shall obey him from their hearts. The first covenant was made concerning the law of God. In a still higher sense this is true of the second. The great work of the new covenant is to take away the carnal mind, which is enmity against the law of God, so that the righteousness of the law may be fulfilled in those who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. Rom. 8 : 1-7.
But how is it that the second covenant is so much more efficacious than the first in securing obedience to the law of God? The answer is found in the difference between Sinai and Calvary. At Sinai the law of God entered in terrible majesty, but the hard heart of sinful man is incapable of submitting to the law of God. The carnal mind is not subject to the law of God, and, indeed, cannot be. At Calvary enters, not the law of God, but the Lamb of God, as our great sin-offering. Not the condemning law, but the sin-atoning sacrifice, is the central object upon the hill of Calvary. And yet the law was present there to strike the Son of God with the sword of divine justice. Gal. 3 : 13. How astonishing the events of Calvary! The new covenant is given to us in the blood of Christ. We have pardon through his blood: With his stripes we are healed. Mercy and truth meet together in the sacrifice made for us by the Son of God.
The new covenant proposes to save those who have broken the law of God. It is able to forgive their sin, the transgression of the law, and not only to pardon them for violating the law of God, but to put that law in their hearts so that it shall be their very nature to obey it. This is what the Bible means by conversion. Rom. 7 : 7-25; 8 : 1-9; Acts 3 : 19. But the Mediator of the covenant can thus give life to the guilty, only by the sacrifice of his life. We have life from his death. We have pardon from his blood. We have grace from the fountain of his grace. The new covenant is a sys152tem of salvation wherein God is shown to be just, even in the very act of justifying the sinner, and wherein the law is shown to be established even by the doctrine of justification by faith. Rom. 3 : 24-26, 31.
If we place the blessings of the new covenant in chronological order, they will stand thus: 1. The forgiveness of sins. 2. The writing of the law in the heart: 3. The blotting out of sins so that they shall be remembered no more. 4. God fully unites himself to his people, thenceforward forever to be their God, and they to be his people. 5. All shall know the Lord; from the least to the greatest.
But the forgiveness of sins is upon condition of repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. Acts 20 : 21. Repentance involves (1) Godly sorrow for sin; (2) Confession of sin; (3) Reparation of wrong acts when it is in our power to make it. (4) Change of conduct, so that we cease to transgress, and henceforward obey. And faith in our Lord Jesus Christ views him, (1) As our great sin-offering, and accepts his blood as our only ground of pardon; (2) As our great High Priest to plead our cause when we come to God for mercy and grace; (3) And finally views his life as the perfect example of that obedience which the law of God requires, and the perfect model after which we must pattern.
The writing of the law of God upon the heart is not the work of a moment. When God begins the work of conversion, the first act is to forgive the sins of the past. The next is to write his law in the heart. When this work is fully wrought in men, then they are, in the highest sense, Christians; for they are like Christ. He had the law of God in his heart. Ps. 40 : 8. Then they love God with all the heart, and their neighbor as themselves. Then, also, they observe in truth the precepts of the law written upon their hearts, not less than upon the tables of stone. The whole gospel dispensation is devoted to the work of writing the law upon the hearts of the people of God, even as the whole period of probation with each individual is devoted to this work in each individual case. Our first ideas of God's law are at best but poor. As the Spirit of God enlightens our minds, we have clearer conceptions of the character of the law; and as the work of conversion progresses, these elevated principles become established in our character. Whenever the minister of Christ opens to our minds new and clearer views of the principles of right and causes us to see, as never before, the extent of God's demands upon in his law, then the Spirit of God, if we will co-operate, writes these principles in our hearts. And so the work progresses till the law of God is fully written in our hearts; in other words, till our characters are perfected in virtue.
But human probation does not last forever. The great work of our Lord in saving his people from their sins (Matt. 1 : 21), is brought to a final conclusion when all their sins are blotted out. Acts 3 : 19-21. Then the book of God's remembrance will be as clean from the record of his people's sins as though that record had never been entered therein. Their raiment having been washed in Jesus' blood, so that one stain of guilt remains upon them, last of all, the record of that guilt is removed from the book, and its pages are left as pure as their character has been rendered by the cleansing blood of Christ. And thus it is that the promise of the new covenant, "I will remember their sin no more," has its perfect accomplishment. The record of their sins is washed out by the blood of Christ, and then God himself promises that he will remember their sins no more. The probation of the people of God ends in the perfect recovery of their lost innocence, never again, thank God !, to be lost by them. J. N. A.
Salvation Army Missionary Dress
"Major" Tucker, of the Salvation Army, and a fellow soldier in India, have adopted the fakir dress, for the purpose of gaining the attention of the natives. The Hindoos have a superstitious reverence for the fakirs, the ascetic and penniless "saints" who traverse the country; and it is thought that by means of this dress a class may be reached which is almost beyond the ordinary missionary effort.
Theology Run Wild.
By Editor
A WRITER in a paper "east of the Rockies," which paper claims to be "a religious journal;" gives his opinion thus on the subject of the necessity and the relations of baptism:—
"I understand that we are called to a repentance for Adam's sin, as well as for the violations of moral laws we have committed, as we are baptized for the dead, in and with Christ, thus putting off the sin of Adam (mortality), in hope of eternal life in Christ. Then we are not called to repentance and baptism for the remission of sins in the flesh, although we may never have committed sin, as was the case with Christ? 'Shall we sin that grace may abound? God forb'd,' says Paul. If each person has only to repent and be baptized for the sins he has committed, then they who have not committed sin, have nothing to repent of, or be baptized for. As all are expressly commanded to repent and be baptized, then we must all sin, or act a false part; such sinning we already see is not allowed."
It is doubtless true that there are a great many Christians who occupy the ground upon which we stand, never having had any compunctions of conscience for Adam's sin, never felt called upon to repent because Adam sinned (though we have often regretted it), and were not baptized on account of Adam's sin. All in a remarkable dilemma, according to this writer, as they may have been baptized to no purpose! However, we think that class of persons "who have not committed sin," is so very small that none need to trouble themselves to find a method of relief from the dilemma.
In a paper of still greater pretensions, and from a writer somewhat better known, we copy the following:—
"If none are able to pluck Christ's sheep out of his hands, will his sheep be able to do it? Jesus said to the Father, 'Thine they were, and thou gavest them me.' Can sheep get out of their hands and turn themselves into goats? 'Yes,' says one, 'if they want to make the change, they can.' But will they make the effort? Will they want to get away from the Shepherd and the flock? Is it in the nature of a sheep to changed into a goat? Sheep may be scattered and lost, but they don't turn into goats."
We answer, No; it is not in the nature of a sheep to be changed into a goat. Nor is it in the nature of a goat to be changed into a sheep; nor is it in the nature of the root of a pippin tree to send its sap through a crab-apple graft so that the crab tree graft shall bear pippins. But Paul says that grafting in the gospel of Christ is "contrary to nature;" the good root gives its quality to the graft, so that the branch which is wild by nature bears good fruit—the same as the stock.
If all are by nature the "children of wrath," as Paul says they are, then all in their natural state may be represented by the term goats. If ever they shall be sheep—followers of Christ—they must be changed into sheep, unnatural as the process may appear. And to change back to goats again would be a change neither greater nor more unnatural than that.
We consider it the height of folly to take the figures of the gospel and try to find an analogy in all points to the things represented. If Christ represents his people by the term sheep, it is not necessary that they must the nature of sheep be like sheep in every respect. It is not in the nature of a rock to possess the power of locomotion. Now because Christ is called a rock are we to judge that he is inert? We do not wonder that infidels consider the gospel "foolishness" when it is so grossly misrepresented by its professed advocates.
Missionary Work.
By Stephen Nelson Haskell
BY ELD. S. N. HASKELL.
WHAT is it to possess a missionary spirit? and what is it to perform missionary labor? These questions are of vital importance to the members of the Tract and Missionary Societies. To hear some talk of missionary work, one might infer that it was all comprehended in going to some far-off land and laboring among the heathen, or in sending a few periodicals to some remote region; while others think if they go from house to house and promiscuously leave tracts, they have done a great work. The devil would be pleased with any idea that would put far from us that daily, self-denying, wearing labor, which has an immediate effect upon the salvation of those with whom we daily associate.
The natural heart is inclined to evade anything that requires a crucifixion of itself, and reaches out for some high-sounding work. There are thousands of imaginary missionaries; they are found throughout all the country. There are some among Seventh-day Adventists, who are like some would-be ministers that have failed in every other calling, and that have the reputation of being shiftless among those who know them best, and, as a last resort, have a call to preach.
I have seen some so burdened with missionary work that they thought they never could be free until their whole time was devoted to traveling as colporteurs, or something of that kind; but their past life was such that those who were best acquainted with them had but little or no confidence in them. They could have no influence for good over those in their immediate neighborhood. The church where they live, if there any, would wither and die under their influence; and it would be a relief to it were they to leave it.
Such men are mistaken in their calling. The mother that can so bind her household to her own heart, and by a living connection with Heaven connect them to the Lamb of God with grace divine, possesses a true missionary spirit. It is this spirit alone which can benefit our fellow-men. That brother whose influence has encouraged his brethren, helped the desponding, reclaimed the backslidden, visited and relieved the distressed and afflicted, can be safely encouraged to extend his influence in other communities and fields. "He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much." The same spirit that actuated him at home, at his own fireside, in his church, will actuate him abroad.
Christ exemplified the true missionary spirit. It was not a step to exultation that brought him to this earth, but humility. "He humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross," and "made himself of no reputation." The great apostle to the Gentiles, in speaking of himself and his former position and advantages, says, "But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ, yea, doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Jesus Christ my Lord; for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ." He further states, "I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some." Paul did not feel that others were under obligation to him, but that he was a "debtor to the Greek, and to the barbarian; both to the wise, and to the unwise." His personal interest was lost in laboring for the salvation of those for whom Christ died.
The true missionary spirit does not seek for display, but to quietly labor for others. It will covet wearing labor, if by it others can be benefited. It burns upon the altar of the human heart, and those who are nearest related will feel most of its sacred flame.
The tract work should be carried out with this missionary spirit. Without this it becomes a form. It will show itself in a thousand ways, reaching out beyond its own limits, while the work in its own immediate vicinity is sadly neglected. Our tract workers should commence at home, and the influence should extend out as the ripple around a stone thrown into the smooth surface of water. If our home influence is not productive of good, it is safe to conclude that something is wrong in us.
A large field is open before us. Our cities should be canvassed, and reading matter judiciously distributed. Seaport cities present additional advantages. No vessel should leave our ports without a supply of our reading matter. It is surprising to see the eagerness with which seamen often take our publications. When out at sea, hundreds and perhaps thousands of miles from home, sailors are not very particular if the paper is not the latest issue. Many a wayward son has been reclaimed by reading under such circumstances.
I love the missionary cause, and am thankful that our influence is as extensively felt as it is by efforts with our reading matter. But we must possess a home missionary spirit if we would have the prospering hand of God with us. We should study the different avenues for the truth within our individual influence. Public effort without personal, practical experience, will always be defective, and in the end will cause more harm than good. "He that goeth forth and weepeth, bearing precious seed, shall doubtless come again with rejoicing, bringing his sheaves with him."
Acceptable Service.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
It will scarcely be questioned by anyone that labor to be accepted by the Lord must be done well. Negligence and carelessness will not receive his sanction. He requires the best that we can do. In ancient times the offerings for sacrifice were to be of the best of the flock. None other would be accepted. We read in Lev. 22:20, "But whatsoever hath a blemish, that shall ye not offer; it shall not be acceptable for you." God does not change; a lame offering will not be received now any more than it would then.
There is the utmost reason in this. God has a right to our best talent—our best efforts. Besides, the quality of work done, and the manner of doing it, show the motive which prompts the deed. If our heart is in any work, we will do our best. If we have a friend whom we love devotedly, we select the choicest gifts to bestow upon him. We would not think of giving him something poor and worthless. So with the service which we offer to God. If it is marked by slackness and negligence, it shows that our heart is not deeply engaged in the work; that we are not actuated by perfect love to God, and to his service. By such work we virtually say that we do not think God's cause is worthy of our best efforts. We dishonor God by so doing.
This is forcibly brought out in Mal. 1:6-10: "A son honoreth his father, and a servant his master; if then I be a father, where is mine honor? and if I be a master, where is my fear? saith the Lord of hosts unto you, O priests, that despise my name. And ye say, Wherein have we despised thy name? Ye offer polluted bread upon mine altar; and ye say, Wherein have we polluted thee? In that ye say, The table of the Lord is contemptible. And if ye offer the blind for sacrifice, is it not evil? and if ye offer the lame and sick, is it not evil? offer it now unto thy governor; will he be pleased with thee, or accept thy person? saith the Lord of hosts. . . Who is there even among you that would shut the doors for naught? neither do ye kindle fire on mine altar for naught. I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord of hosts, neither will I accept an offering at your hand."
By the above scripture we learn that it is not enough that we simply work in the cause of God; our work must be the offering of love, and must be done well. A strong comparison is drawn. We would not think of making a slight offering to the governor; how then can we expect God to be pleased with it? We are too apt to bring the Lord's work down to our own level, instead of being elevated by it to its own level. We cannot regard anything connected with the cause of God too highly. It is all sacred, even beyond our powers of comprehension.153
It is a great privilege to be permitted to assist in the Lord's work. We should not engage in it with the idea that we are conferring a favor, or that God stands in need of our service, but that we need the work. If we take hold of it with the right motive, and in the proper manner, it will educate us. It will draw us out of ourselves, and break down our natural selfishness. It is just what we need. It is an absolute necessity for us to work in the missionary cause. Selfishness is the prevailing sin of the age, the root of all sin; and the least taint of it will shut us out of Heaven. The missionary work is the Lord's work, and if we engage in it we must seek strength from him; we must follow closely the divine Pattern. His great love, if shed abroad in our hearts, will beget in us a love for others; and his great sacrifice will make what we are pleased to call our sacrifices seem very small. And so by doing his work and beholding him, we finally become changed into his likeness, and are fitted for his presence. Surely the missionary work is a glorious work. Who is there that does not want a share in it?
E. J. W.
Limp Christians
The Rev. C. H. Spurgeon in a sermon on "Limp Christians," says: "We may live to see men calling themselves Christians and differing in no single item from Mohammedans; in fact, even now there are religionists among us who are not so near the truth as the followers of the false prophet. Oak has given place to willow; everybody has grown limp. Out of the generality of limpness has come an admiration of it. A man cannot speak a plain word without being accused of bitterness, and if he denounces error he is narrow-minded; for all must join the Universal Admiration Company or be placed under ban and be howled down."—Ex.
Envy’s Worst Constructions
An evil mind will be sure to put the worst construction on another's actions. Who can stand before envy?
“There Are Other Things.”
By W. N. Glenn
BY W. N. GLENN.
I HAVE met many evasive replies when endeavoring to urge duties inseparably connected with present truth, but none so completely discouraging as this: “Well, I believe there are other things to be done as well as that.” This kind of reply shows at once that the one making it is determined not to yield to a known duty. And it carries with it the unwarranted insinuation that I am making a hobby of the matter urged, to the utter disregard of other equally plain and important duties.
I spoke to one about attending meetings. After several quibbles, the last plea was resorted to: “Well, I don’t believe it’s all in going to meeting; I know people who go to about all the meetings, yet they do many inconsistent things. I believe there are other things to be done besides going to meeting.” Here was the intimation that I considered going to meeting the whole duty of the Christian; yet the individual knew better—the reply was a mere subterfuge.
The matter of baptism and church membership was urged upon one who had known for a long time that such a course was duty, and had often acknowledged it. But procrastination had at last brought him to the point where he could say: “Yes it is all very well if one can live it out; but I don’t believe it’s all in being a church member. There are other duties besides being baptized and joining the church. I don’t believe in hypocrisy; when I become a church member I mean to be one in earnest.” Now the innuendo attached to this evasion is plain, and he knew it to be unjust. The case is a discouraging one.
I conversed with a near friend upon the subject of the fourth commandment. She took refuge in the “last ditch” and met me with this weapon: “I don’t believe in talking all the time about the Sabbath; I believe the other commandments are just as important as the fourth. There are other things to be done besides keeping the Sabbath; if I do what is right I won’t be condemned for trying to make an honest living.” All this, and more of a like strain, was put forth as an argument against the duty of keeping the Sabbath; yet there is not a word or expression that I do not myself indorse, although there is in it the silently implied charge that my position is altogether antagonistic to this wholesome doctrine.
I may speak of the soon coming of the Lord and the preparation for it, and one who is not with us in faith yet, calls me “brother,” will say: “We do not know when the Lord will come; ‘of that day and hour knoweth no man.’ I don’t believe in setting times for the Lord to come. We may die any day, and I think if we are prepared to die we will be all right when the Lord comes. There are other things more important than talking about the Lord’s coming.”
And so we may go on from one Bible topic to another, and we will find those professing to be earnest and sincere who will evade almost every obligation on the plea that there are other duties of equal importance. I always feel disheartened over one who has wandered into this dangerous snare. It is a pit that is generally entered with open eyes, and from which it is hard to induce one to even try to escape; so smoothly delusive is the entrance that the victim walks boldly in, feeling that he is treading the safest possible path. He cannot be convinced of error; simply because he will not. I repeat it, such cases are always disheartening to me.
Temperance.
The American Saloon.
Not long since we discussed briefly the character and effects of the American saloon. We recognized the fact that the American saloon is an important factor in American civilization, and that no man or class of men could be found who would defend the American saloon on its merits, and closed by asking the question, "What shall we do with the American saloon?"
That the American saloon has been arraigned before the bar of public opinion, charged with a long list of crimes—crimes the foulest and blackest of which the imagination can conceive—and that the case is now under serious consideration no candid person will deny. Already in two States of the Union the case has been submitted and the people have most emphatically declared the American saloon a criminal and an outlaw. In many other States the trial is well advanced. Arguments pro and con are being made and soon at the longest, we must say what we will do with the American saloon.
There are now two parties to this question. In the first place there are those who would leave the American saloon alone—allow it to do as much mischief as it pleases. We are glad to say that as we understand it, this class does not include a majority of the people. It does not include the philanthropists of the world, for no one who has the smallest regard for the well-being of the human family, can be indifferent to the evils which flow from the American saloon and consent to their continuance.
Those who favor an unrestrained liquor traffic are largely the men who are reaping some pecuniary advantage from that traffic. They are men who are willing to sacrifice the property, the health, and even the lives of those about them if they can only get personal gain in the operation. They are men who are governed more by greed than by a regard for the rights of others.
But even these men, as bad as they are, as unprincipled as every one knows them to be, do not attempt to defend the American saloon on its merits. They only apologize for its existence by raising some false issues concerning it or by urging in substance that it is such an outlaw that it cannot be controlled by law.
In the second place there are those who believe that the American saloon has no right to exist in civilized society. They affirm that the American saloon is an enemy to the best interests of the country; an enemy to the church, the Sabbath, the school and every other interest of the country; an enemy to every branch of business known to the business men of the nation. The saloons of Detroit take the money which legitimately belongs to the merchant and manufacturer. The saloons give no "value received" for this money, while the merchant and manufacturer would give in return, shoes for children that are now bare-footed, clothes for wives and children who are now suffering for lack of comfortable clothing; food for families that are now suffering because of the drunkenness and consequent degradation which these saloons carry into them.
The American saloon is a mortal enemy of everything that is good and a warm friend of everything that is bad. Where are there most poor people? Where there are most saloons. Where are there most murders committed? Where are there most saloons. Where do the largest per cent. of men become insane? Where there are most saloons. Where are the most men in prison? Where there are most saloons. Where are houses of ill-fame most numerous? Where are there most saloons. Where do lawsuits abound most? Where are there most saloons. Where is there the most ignorance? Where there are most saloons. Where can bad men easiest get into office? Where there are most saloons. Where do we find the largest number of children in the street-school taking lessons in vice? Where there are most saloons. Where can you find the most of bad and the least of good? Where there are most saloons.
In view of these considerations, a very large portion of the people are ready to admit that the saloon ought not to exist, but unfortunately there is a serious difference of opinion as to the best method to be pursued to annihilate the saloon, and this difference of opinion is alone responsible for the fact the American saloon has been permitted to live until the present time. A united effort on the part of all who believe that the world would be benefited by the annihilation of the saloon, would rid the world of this institution which is worse than pestilence, famine, and war combined, within less than one year. A part of those who believe, or claim to believe, that the American saloon ought not to be allowed to exist, tell us that it is impossible to annihilate it, at least suddenly. They say they want the saloon to die, but they cannot be persuaded that it can be killed. These men look upon the American saloon, and to them it is such a monster that they cannot be made to think that it is not master of the situation, and they therefore urge that it is not wise to attempt to kill it but only to control it. These men say, Throw around the American saloon the restraints of law; prohibit it from doing a part of the mischief which it is now doing; load it down with taxation; bind it with chains, but do not attempt to kill it.
This, to us, is a strange philosophy. We are entirely unable to understand how it is possible to so chain this monster as to deprive him of all power to do mischief, if it is impossible to kill him entirely. It seems to us a much easier job to kill than to cage a rattlesnake; a much easier and safer job to kill than to tame a mad dog.
If we can close the American saloon on Sunday, why can we not close it on every day of the week? Is it not fool-hardy to attempt to close it on Sunday and give it permission to remain open during the week? If we can prohibit the sale of liquor to minors, why can we not prohibit the sale of liquor to those who are not minors? If we can cut one inch from the end of a rattlesnake's tail, can we not with the same effort cut one inch from the other end of the villainous brute and thus forever put an end to his power to do mischief?
We most certainly believe that we can, and that the anathema maranatha of Jehovah will certainly rest upon us if we fail to do it.—The Lever.