With respect to the Sabbath, the religious world may be divided into three classes :—
Those who retain the ancient seventh-day Sabbath.
Those who observe the first-day Sabbath.
Those who deny the existence of any Sabbath.
Those who compose this class are unanimous in the view that the Sunday festival was established by the church; and they all agree in making it their day of worship, but not for the same reason; for, while one part of them devoutly accept the institution as the Lord's day on the authority of the church, the other part make it their day for worship simply because it is the most convenient day.
It is inevitable that controversy should exist between these parties. Their first appeal is to the Bible, and this should decide the case; for it reveals man's whole duty. But there is an appeal by the second party, and sometimes by the third, to another authority, the early fathers of the church, for the decision of the question.
The controversy stands thus : The second and third parties agree with the first that God did anciently require the observance of the seventh day; but both deny the doctrine of the first, that he still requires men to hallow that day; the second asserting that he has changed the Sabbath to the first day of the week; and the third declaring that he has totally abolished the institution itself.
The first class plant themselves upon the plain letter of the law of God, and adduce those scriptures which teach the perpetuity and immutability of the moral law, and which show that the new covenant does not abrogate that law, but puts it into the heart of every Christian.
The second class attempt to prove the change of the Sabbath by quoting those texts which mention the first day of the week, and also those which are said to refer to it. The first day is, on such authority, called by this party the Christian Sabbath, and the fourth commandment is used by them to enforce this new Sabbath.
The third class adduce those texts which assert the dissolution of the old covenant; and those which teach the abolition of the ceremonial law with all its distinction of days, as new moons, feast days, and annual sabbaths; and also those texts which declare that men cannot be justified by that law which condemns sin; and from all these contend that the law and the Sabbath are both abolished.
But the first class answer to the second that the texts which they bring forward do not meet the case, inasmuch as they say nothing respecting the change of the Sabbath; and that it is not honest to use the fourth commandment to enforce the observance of a day not therein commanded. And the third class assent to this answer as truthful and just.
To the position of the third class, the first make this answer : That the old covenant was made between God and his people concerning his law; (Such is the exact nature of the covenant mentioned in Ex. 24 : 8; and Paul, in Heb. 9 : 18–20, quotes this passage, calling the covenant therein mentioned “the first testament,” or covenant.) that it ceased because the people failed in its conditions, the keeping of the commandments; that the new covenant does not abrogate the law of God, but secures obedience to it by putting it into the heart of every Christian; that there are two systems of law, one being made up of typical and ceremonial precepts, and the other consisting of moral principles only; that those texts which speak of the abrogation of the handwriting of ordinances, and of the distinction in meats, drinks, and days, pertain alone to this shadowy system, and never to the moral law which contains the Sabbath of the Lord; and that it is not the fault of the law, but of sinners, that they are condemned by it; and that justification being attained only by the sacrifice of Christ as a sin-offering, is in itself a most powerful attestation to the perpetuity, immutability, and perfection, of that law which reveals sin. And to this answer the second class heartily assent.
But the second class have something further to say. The Bible, indeed, fails to assert the change of the Sabbath, but these persons have something else to offer, in their estimation, equally as good as the Scriptures. The early Fathers of the church, who conversed with the apostles, or who conversed with some who had conversed with them, and those who followed for several generations, are by this class presented as authority, and their testimony is used to establish the so-called Christian Sabbath on a firm basis. And this is what they assert respecting the Fathers : That they distinctly teach the change of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week, and that the first day is by divine authority the Christian Sabbath.
But the third class squarely deny this statement, and affirm that the Fathers held the Sabbath as an institution made for the Jews when they came out of Egypt, and that Christ abolished it at his death. They also assert that the Fathers held the first day, not as a Sabbath in which men must not labor lest they break a divine precept, but as an ecclesiastical institution, which they called the Lord's day, and which was the proper day for religious assemblies because custom and tradition thus concurred. And so the third class answer the second by an explicit denial of its alleged facts. They also aim a blow at the first by the assertion that the early Fathers taught the no-Sabbath doctrine, which must therefore be acknowledged as the real doctrine of the New Testament.
And now the first class respond to these conflicting statements of the second and the third. And here is their response :—
1. That our duty respecting the Sabbath, and respecting every other thing, can be learned only from the Scriptures.
2. That the first three hundred years after the apostles nearly accomplished the complete development of the great apostasy, which had commenced even in Paul's time; and this age of apostatizing cannot be good authority for making changes in the law of God.
3. That only a small proportion of the ministers and teachers of this period have transmitted any writings to our time; and these are generally fragments of the original works, and they have come down to us mainly through the hands of the Romanists, who have never
331scrupled to destroy or to corrupt that which witnesses against themselves, whenever it has been in their power to do it.
4. But inasmuch as these two classes, viz., those who maintain the first-day Sabbath, and those who deny the existence of any Sabbath, both appeal to these Fathers for testimony with which to sustain themselves, and to put down the first class, viz., those who hallow the ancient Sabbath, it becomes necessary that the exact truth respecting the writings of that age, which now exist, should be shown. There is but one method of doing this which will effectually end the controversy. This is to give every one of their testimonies concerning the Sabbath and first-day in their own words. In doing this the following facts will appear :—
1. That in some important particulars there is a marked disagreement on this subject among them. For while some teach that the Sabbath originated at creation, and should be hallowed even now, others assert that it began with the fall of the manna, and ended with the death of Christ. And while one class represent Christ as a violator of the Sabbath, another class represent him as sacredly hallowing it, and a third class declare that he certainly did violate it, and that he certainly never did, but always observed it! Some of them also affirm that the Sabbath was abolished, and in other places positively affirm that it is perpetuated, and made more sacred than it formerly was. Moreover, some assert that the ten commandments are absolutely abolished, whilst others declare that they are perpetuated, and are the tests of Christian character in this dispensation. Some call the day of Christ's resurrection the first day of the week; others call it the day of the sun, and the eighth day; and a larger number call it the Lord's day, but there are no examples of this application till the close of the second century. Some enjoin the observance of both the Sabbath and the first day, while others treat the seventh day as despicable.
2. But in several things of great importance there is perfect unity of sentiment. They always distinguish between the Sabbath and the first day of the week. The change of the Sabbath from the seventh day to the first is never mentioned in a single instance. They never term the first day the Christian Sabbath, nor do they treat it as a Sabbath of any kind. Nor is there a single declaration in any of them that labor on the first day of the week is sinful; the utmost that can be found being one or two vague expressions which do not necessarily have any such sense.
3. Many of the Fathers call the first day of the week the Lord's day. But none of them claim for it any Scriptural authority, and some expressly state that it has none whatever, but rests solely upon custom and tradition.
4. But the writings of the Fathers furnish positive proof that the Sabbath was observed in the Christian church down to the time when they wrote, and by no inconsiderable part of that body. For some of them expressly enjoined its observance, and even some of those who held that it was abolished, speak of Christians who observed it, whom they would consent to fellowship if they would not make it a test.
5. And now mark the work of apostasy : This work never begins by thrusting out God's institutions, but always by bringing in those of men and at first only asking that they may be tolerated, while yet the ones ordained of God are sacredly observed. This, in time, being effected, the next effort is to make them equal with the divine. When this has been accomplished, the third stage of the process is to honor them above those divinely commanded; and this is speedily succeeded by the fourth, in which the divine institution is thrust out with contempt, and the whole ground given to its human rival.
6. Before the first three centuries had expired, apostasy concerning the Sabbath had, with many of the Fathers, advanced to the third stage, and with a considerable number had already entered upon the fourth. For those Fathers who hallow the Sabbath do generally associate with it the festival called by them the Lord's day. And though they speak of the Sabbath as a divine institution, and never speak thus of the so-called Lord's day, they do, nevertheless, give the greater honor to this human festival. So far had the apostasy progressed before the end of the third century, that only one thing more was needed to accomplish the work as far as the Sabbath was concerned, and this was to discard it, and to honor the Sunday festival alone. Some of the Fathers had already gone thus far; and the work became general within five centuries after Christ. J. N. A.
Switzerland.
By Stephen Nelson Haskell
WEDNESDAY, June 21, in company with Bro. Ertzenberger, we left Bâle to visit the friends in Switzerland. We called on those living in Bienne, Lacoudre, Cormondreche, Auvernier, Courterlary, Chaux de fonds, holding meetings in the two last-mentioned places. The distance was about one hundred and seventy-five miles. We spent the Sabbath in Chaux de fonds. The above-mentioned places, where most of our brethren in Switzerland live, were represented at this meeting, also Eplatures and Locle. It was a much larger gathering than had been expected.332Our interviews with the brethren at their homes were pleasant, and we trust profitable. The feelings of gratitude manifested by many, for the goodness of God in giving them the truth, was heart cheering. Toward the friends in America, they also manifested great warmth of feeling, on account of their having sent Bro. Andrews to them.
We experience much less difficulty in speaking through an interpreter than we had anticipated. Especially was this so on the Sabbath. The Spirit of God seemed to rest upon us, and the moistened eye showed that hearts felt. We were drawn out in an unusual manner for the people. Although not able to understand their testimonies in the social meetings, we felt that the Spirit of God witnessed to much that was said.
Just before the close of the meeting I noticed that some one was passing round a paper in which much interest was taken. I afterward learned that the friends were signing a resolution, pledging themselves to go from house to house, for the purpose of securing one thousand readers for Les Signes des Temps. They also pledged money sufficient to pay for the same, one year. I had not suggested anything of this kind, but had tried to impress upon their minds the importance of possessing that spirit which led Christ to die for a fallen race.
Several men and women walked five miles to attend this meeting. At its close all present entered into a solemn covenant to commence anew to serve God. They also stated freely that while they had tried to seek God they had not viewed things as they now did, and it was their intention to commence the work anew. Our sympathies were much drawn out for them, and we hope and trust that good will result from our visit. We shall remember it with much pleasure. S. N. HASKELL.
We Fly Away.
By Uriah Smith
Ps. 90:10: "The days of our years are threescore years and ten; and if by reason of strength they be four-score years, yet is their strength labor and sorrow; for it is soon cut off and we fly away."
ON the authority of this text it is claimed that something flies away when our strength is cut off in death; that that something is the immortal soul, and that if it flies away, it is therefore conscious; and if it thus survives the stroke of death, it is therefore immortal; rather a numerous array of conclusions, and rather weighty ones, to be drawn from the three words, "we fly away." Let us look at David's argument. The reason given why our strength is labor and sorrow, is because it is soon cut off and we fly away. If, now, our flying away means the going away of a conscious soul, into Heaven, for instance, if we are righteous, his argument stands thus: "Yet is their strength labor and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we go to Heaven." Singular reasoning, this! But his argument is all consistent if by flying away he means that we go into the grave, where Solomon assures us that there is no work, wisdom, knowledge, or device. Let us not abuse the psalmist's reasoning.
The text plainly tells what flies away; namely, we fly away. We is a personal pronoun and includes the whole person. According to Buck's assertion that man is composed of two essential elements, soul and body, the man is not complete without them both; and the pronoun, we, could not be used to express either of them separately. The text does not intimate any separation; it does not say that the soul flies away, or the spirit flies away; but we, in our undivided personality, fly away. What place does the body, an essential part of the we, fly? To the grave, and there only.
This is confirmed by Eccl. 9:3: "The heart of the sons of men is full of evil; and madness is in their hearts while they live, and after that they go to the dead." Had this text read, "And after that they go away," it would have been exactly parallel to Ps. 90:10; for no essential difference can be claimed between going and flying. But here it is expressly told where we go: we go to the grave. What is omitted in Ps. 90:10, is here supplied.
We may also add that the Hebrew word gooph, rendered "fly away," signifies, according to Gesenius, "First, to cover, spec. with wings, feathers, as birds cover their young. Second, to fly, properly of birds. Third, to cover, wrap in darkness. Fourth, to overcome with darkness, to faint, to faint away."
The idea is plainly this: Though our days be fourscore years, yet is their strength labor and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we sink away, go to the grave, and are wrapped in the darkness of death. Viewed thus, David's language is consistent, and his reasoning harmonious; but his language we pervert and his logic we destroy, the moment we try to make his words prove the separation from the body, of a conscious soul at death. U. S.
The Missionary.
By Stephen Nelson Haskell
Shall the Missionary Work be Encouraged?
ELD. S. N. HASKELL.
The circumstances under which our people labor in Europe are entirely different from what they are in America. In saying this we only repeat what has often been said by others. The people in England, however, are more accessible than in the countries on the opposite side of the English Channel. In many places in England, the two extremes, the upper and lower classes of society, meet. In such places it is very difficult to accomplish much. In other portions of the country the customs of the people are more broken by those of other nationalities who come to live, or to do business, and these localities are the most favorable for labor.
The English people are liberal with respect to aiding missionary enterprises, as is fully proved by their history, as well as by our experience since coming to Europe. On the Continent it is far more difficult to reach people by public labor than in England. Switzerland is divided up into cantons, each one having laws of its own. These laws conflict materially with the work of the colporteur. He must procure an expensive license, or conform to other requirements which greatly hinder the work. In France there are laws which forbid the sale of religious reading matter unless it is sanctioned by the authorities, and these authorities are influenced largely by the established church. Assemblies of more than twenty persons are not permitted unless it be in a public place. All public buildings suitable for meeting purposes are also under the control of the same church.
Thus it is with all the nations of Europe, while at the same time they profess to give great freedom of religious sentiment. It would seem that the laws and customs of these countries were arranged to prevent, if possible, any great public effort in behalf of present truth. But notwithstanding all this, we have evidence that God has some who fear him in every nation, kindred, tongue, and people, and from among these the solemn truths of the third angel's message will gather a people, and prepare them to meet the Lord.
In England and some other countries, tent meetings and street preaching are allowed, and to every nation the mails will carry denominational publications, providing they do not take sides in political questions. Upon this point there is a national jealousy. Expressions which would pass unnoticed in America, would be counted treason in some countries. But our work is not a political one. Our message does not ignore any system of government, but it advocates those principles which, if received, will make better men and women under any government. It is the good news of salvation from sin through the efficacy of our Lord Jesus Christ. This, all civilized nations profess to accept. They are called Christian nations. They profess to take the Bible as their only infallible rule of moral action. The laws of nations are supposed to be founded on the principles taught in the Scriptures, and since God has a people to be gathered from all nations he has something to do with law-makers, and rulers. See the apostle Paul's argument in Romans 13.
The press, and our missionary effort as it has been adopted in America, are emphatically the right arm of our strength in the promulgation of the present truth in Europe. Like the leaves of autumn, our tracts and papers freighted with precious truth should be scattered everywhere.
He who reasons that the ministry will largely accomplish God's work in the closing scene of this world's history, independent of missionary effort, does not reason wisely. Such persons are too narrow in their views, and too exclusive in their mode of operation. The ministry is ordained of God to accomplish an important part in his work, but every one should be encouraged to contribute in some manner to the advancement of God's truth on the earth. The first impulse of every soul that has been converted to God, is to tell others what God has done for him, and to impart to others the precious light which he has received. To encourage this spirit by presenting some plan of action before the individual, is building up the cause of God in the earth.
All religious denominations have encouraged this spirit in their early history. This is what has given them success. But the sacrifice required in such a work is not in harmony with the natural heart. The practice of self-denial will never be popular in a world of selfishness, and so there will ever be with every denomination, a tendency to formalism as soon as it has members sufficient to command respect. But the old-fashioned religion, with old-fashioned principles of self-denial and sacrifice, such as were illustrated in the days of the first advent of our Lord Jesus Christ, are what will finally triumph. It is this that the people of God so much need.
Stayton, Oregon.
By Charles L. Boyd; E. W. Barnes
We pitched the tent at this place and commenced meetings last Friday evening. Circumstances seemed very unfavorable. Haying, harvesting, and blackberry picking are demanding attention.333Notwithstanding all, we have commenced with a fair attendance of intelligent and attentive listeners.
We ask the prayers of all who have access to the throne of heavenly grace, that the Master will direct in sowing the seed, and that subjects may here be gathered out for the fifth and everlasting kingdom.
Chas. L. Boyd,
E. W. Barnes.
Stayton, Oregon, July 16, 1882.
Worse Than Useless Education.
By Sidney Brownsberger
WHILE we allow that there are defects in all systems of education, yet efforts are not considered useless, however imperfect they may be, whose tendency is to arouse the mind to a healthful activity, to give it real practical knowledge, or to imbue it with a power of self-reliance and original thought. But school methods that stupefy the intellectual faculties, that do not give to the pupil the ability to make a practical use of what he has studied, and that accustom the mind to a slavish dependence upon rules and text-books, we may well conclude, are worse than useless in their effect upon the mind.
Under ordinary circumstances it is safe to judge methods and systems by the results they produce. During the past ten years I have had occasion to examine young men and women, many of whom had been teaching in our common district schools, to determine their attainments, for the purpose of classification in college. These came from a wide field of over twenty States, and therefore afforded an excellent opportunity to judge of the effects of the average school training. With a few notable exceptions—perhaps one in fifty or seventy-five—I found sad deficiencies in their previous education. While in the case of a few of these it was evident that some good work had been done, with the large majority it was equally evident that their former training had been a detriment to them. They had passed over much ground, but had reaped but little benefit from their study.
Many of those who had been through Arithmetic could not work simple examples selected from almost any part of the book without consulting the "rule." Some others could perform the work, but could assign no other reason for the operation than that "the book said so." They were lamentably defective in reasoning powers and in judgment. Some knew how to perform operations, but could not obtain the correct result because of inaccuracy. That these defects were due rather to neglect of training than natural mental deficiencies, was abundantly proved by their subsequent work in the college. Many of them became logical reasoners and accurate accountants. In their former training they had acquired little that was of practical benefit to them. It would have been better had they never received any instruction in some of the branches which they had pursued. It required a greater effort to recover them from their slavish dependence upon text-books, than would have been necessary to give them a thorough knowledge of those branches. One of the first duties of the teacher is to inform the pupil how to study, and to give him a correct idea of what constitutes a perfect lesson.
A correct knowledge of these two points furnishes the key note to the pupil's success. With this knowledge well established and adhered to, he cannot fail to have a correct idea of the principles of true education, nor can his work fail to be thorough and complete.
I have found so many who seem to regard school work as a pleasant pastime, rather than an important business to be performed with earnestness and vigor. Thousands of our young people leave school with the shiftless habits they acquired there, which in after life prove disastrous to them. Our youth must be trained to prompt business habits in the school-room or they will never possess them at all.
S. BROWNSBERGER.
THE LIFE.
Not faith, nor lengthened creeds, alone,
Can make our lives with halo shine;
These oft become the stumbling stone,
While we forget Christ's life divine.
Progress in San Francisco
By M. C. Israel
San Francisco, California.
WE are glad to be able to report progress in the work here, both in the church and the tent-meetings.
Ten have been added to the Sabbath-school, and four have already joined the church, since the tent labor commenced. Yesterday (Sabbath), was a day that will be remembered by quite a number of the church, as a bright spot in their Christian experience. Elder Van Horn gave a pointed and practical discourse from John 16:33. He made direct appeals to the members of the church whether they were now occupying such a position that the Father and the Son could abide with them, as promised in John 14:23, and if we in our Christian experience had the witness of the Spirit of God that this was so? At the close of the sermon it was evident that the Spirit of God had accompanied the word spoken, and that it rested upon quite a number of those who responded to the questions asked in the sermon. It was a good day for the church, and we could say from our hearts, "It is good for us to be here."
Since the tent was moved to the corner of Jones and Eddy Streets, the meetings have increased in interest and in the numbers attending. Eld. Van Horn spoke to large audiences Thursday and Friday evenings, on the United States in Prophecy and Spiritualism. Sister White spoke last evening on the subject, The Holy Spirit, its Power and Work. The best of attention was given. She speaks again this (Sunday) afternoon; subject, The Sufferings of Christ.
Next Sabbath is appointed by the church as a day of fasting and prayer, that the Lord will bless its efforts in trying to attain that position where he can work in it and through it, to build up the cause here, and bring souls to a knowledge of the truth during the tent-meeting that is now in progress.
M. C. ISRAEL.
July 23, 1882.
Ukiah and Willits, Cal.
By J. D. Rice, E. A. Briggs, L. A. Scott
WE closed our meetings in Ukiah the 16th inst. Nineteen have covenanted to keep all the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. Others are keeping the Lord's Sabbath, whom we expect will unite fully with us before long. Quite a general interest has been awakened. Some opposition also as might be expected. Many express themselves convinced of the truthfulness of these things, but seem not to realize the importance of acting up to their convictions. We baptized four Sabbath, July 8; and others expect to fulfill this ordinance soon. We leave the little company quite hopefully. Some of us expect to meet with them every Sabbath for a few weeks at least, to assist in their Sabbath-school, etc.
We are now at Willits, a small town in Little Lake Valley, about twenty-two miles north of Ukiah. Have secured a very desirable location, and are all ready to begin meetings to-night. The people are quite friendly, and seem anxious to hear. We hope for much good to come from this effort. Pray for us.
J. D. Rice, E. A. Briggs, L. A. Scott.
Friday, July 21, 1882.
Temperance.
By G. D. Ballou
A Temperance Talk.
BY ELD. G. D. BALLOU.
God created man to be a self-governing being. He did not design that his appetites and passions should govern him, but that they should be subservient to his higher powers. Man was not designed to be merely an animal. He has an animal nature, but it was given to serve his intellectual and spiritual powers.
Certain terms are used to designate self-control when exercised with regard to different elements of the animal nature. When a man controls his tendencies to selfishness and greed so that he deals justly with his fellows, we term that trait of character "honesty." When it is the baser passions that are subdued and controlled, we use the term "chastity," to designate that trait. When the temper is controlled, we call that "patience." So when the appetite is brought in subjection to the higher powers, the proper term to designate this kind of self-control is "temperance."
Let temperance, then, be defined as the proper use of those articles of food and drink which God designed that man should use. No one can deny that the Creator designed certain kinds of food for animals and other certain kinds for man. Gen. 1: 29, 30; 2: 8, 9. At the same time he made it possible for animals as well as man to subsist with some inconvenience upon food which he had not especially adapted to their needs. The evidence of the scripture to which we have referred points clearly that grains and fruits were the appointed food of man in Eden. And the example of God's dealing with Israel in the wilderness, and the case of Daniel and other Scripture characters shows conclusively that a plain unstimulating diet is best for man. Any deviation from the right use of proper foods and drinks is a violation of nature's law of diet, and constitutes an act of intemperance.
Intemperance, as defined, is first an improper use of proper food and drink, as gluttony, caused by eating too frequently, too many kinds, or too much at a time.
Second it is any use whatever of those things which God did not design man should use as food and drink.
Beside the moral weakness and degradation resulting from the useless gratification of appetite, there are certain physical effects to which we shall especially devote our attention. We speak first of the immediate effects upon the nervous system, afterwards of the permanent effects upon the alimentary canal and consequently upon the appetite.
For every act of intemperance there is always one or two immediate results: either stupor and depression, or stimulation and nervous excitement. In cases of gluttony, stupor, depression, and mental and physical inactivity follow. Coffee, tobacco, and opium also stupefy and deaden, only in more remarkable degree. But there is a second immediate effect which is just as sure to follow; as the stupor and depression begin to wear off, there comes a corresponding period of nervous excitement. Fretfulness and irritability are quite likely to be manifested during this period.
In the use of tea, and alcohol in all its forms, the immediate effect is a peculiar kind of nervous excitement called stimulation, which is also followed by a corresponding degree of depression of both mind and body. So we see that both depression and nervous excitement are sure to follow every act of intemperance. And these results are caused by a disturbed condition of the circulation, and this disturbance in the circulation is on account of the presence of unnecessary or poisonous substances in the alimentary canal. When proper food is taken at a proper time and improper quantity, the blood begins to fill the arteries and veins of the stomach so as to supply the waste, occasioned by the muscular action during digestion.
The temperature of the stomach rises perceptibly, hence the thirst which frequently follows an hour after eating, which is called the fever of digestion. In cases of over-eating, or eating a great mixture of food, it is quite easy to see how the increased and prolonged rush of blood to the stomach might easily draw the blood away from the brain, and thus occasion the depression to which we have referred. A similar but more intense symptom results from the energy of the effort which nature makes to expel such poisons as tobacco and opium.
But with alcohol the case at first seems to be quite the reverse. Although its presence causes a powerful determination of blood to the stomach, yet it seems at the onset to sting the nerves of the stomach with such violence, as to rouse every nerve in the body to activity. In other words it stimulates; but very soon if the poison continue to be poured into the vital domain, the nerves become paralyzed and the brain inactive, and the man is dead drunk, but yet the work of nature to expel the alcohol goes on through the skin, lungs, and kidneys. Alcohol is absorbed directly into the blood and thence poured out of the system, in the quickest possible manner. But it is not so with tobacco; nature being unable to expel it quickly, it remains in the blood and is distributed to every part of the body until the man is pickled through and through. Take the tobacco user and make him quit it for a week, and then put him in a hot bath, or pack so as to sweat him thoroughly, your room will smell much like a cigar manufactory. When first used, alcohol is expelled from the system in only a few hours by the violence of nature's efforts, and as people usually judge from immediate appearance, it is generally supposed that alcohol is much worse than tobacco. The effects of either are bad enough, but if the veil could be lifted and men could see the rotting, deadening, paralyzing influences of tobacco on the liver, brain, and nerves, there would be a change in public sentiment, and men would no longer preach temperance with a quid of tobacco in their mouths.
We come now to speak of the effect of intemperance upon the appetite; and we lay down this rule that the use of anything which will produce an appetite for itself is an act of intemperance.
God gave man reason with which to govern his bodily powers, functions, and appetites. In the brute, unerring instinct is the guide. Animals under natural conditions, seldom touch a poisonous plant. But man has no such intuitive power. He must decide by his own knowledge of food and its effects what is best for him. Reason must govern. In the light of these facts, is our rule a good one? Ought the man to use an article of food or drink which will rouse an appetite that will in anywise endanger his power of self-control? Has a man any moral right to pamper and cultivate an appetite, until that appetite clamors for gratification? The man who does thus enslaves himself with a servitude akin only to the bondage of sin and death. Before going further let us inquire and see if our rule is a just one. Will alcohol in all its forms rouse an appetite for itself? No answer is needed. Why does the man seek it yet again? Only because the fiend of appetite has intrenched himself in the human citadel and is preparing to raze its foundations even with the dust.
If you could look into the stomach of the moderate drinker, you would clearly understand why he has an appetite for drink. Instead of the gentle, pale, rosy tint of its delicate linings, as seen in health, you would behold little veinlets of blood standing out over the entire surface, much worse than any blood-shot eye. If you could then behold the blotched and bloody coating of the inebriate's stomach you would understand better how it is that appetite gets such a powerful hold upon the poor sot.
We question further. Will the use of tobacco produce an appetite for itself? Ask that poor bondservant who says he would give a thousand dollars to be free. Hear him counsel the young man not to touch the vile weed, and you will begin to pity the poor tobacco devotee, as you have been wont to pity the slave of drink. You need not come near to see its physical effects upon his body, you can be fully assured as you smell him afar off that he is defiled, both soul and body.
What can be said of tea and coffee, are they so perfectly adapted for man's use that they do not rouse any unnatural appetites and produce conditions in the system that ought not to exist? Ask that woman who makes a breakfast on a piece of toast and two good strong cups of tea. Ask her again when she worries through a large washing on the stimulus drawn from the teapot. And as for coffee, how many there are to whom the days would bring only an unpleasantness, and whose very souls would be irritated and soured if they were not soothed morning by morning by the sedative influences of coffee. Tell me ye whose heads ache and whose thoughts wander and whose nerves are all unstrung when deprived of your favorite beverage, tell me, will these articles produce an appetite for themselves? And what right have you to stimulate or soothe your irritated nerves with such drink, more than the strong man has to stimulate with alcohol, or lose his troubles in a cloud of tobacco smoke, or dream his life away from the effects of opium? I need say nothing to sensible people of this last subtle curse that is by the advice of some physicians making such rapid conquest of its victims. It is enough that the "heathen Chinese" should revel in opium. The civilized, Christianized American surely ought to have more than enough in alcohol, tobacco, and tea and coffee to meet all the wants of his depraved appetite.
All these things rouse unnatural appetites and make slaves of those who use them. But will not good food rouse an appetite for itself? Who ever heard of a man producing such an appetite for bread by its long-continued use that nothing else would satisfy him? Who ever heard of a man getting such a craving for potato, that he had to carry a cold one around in his pocket, to occasionally appease his appetite? Is it not rather that our appetites for good food change frequently, and nature demands some other article of food to meet our physical wants? I am not sure but God designed this, so that the appetite would regulate and control itself, when only proper food is used.
Is it not, then, plain that the temperance question needs more attention? The temperance platform needs broadening, so as to teach people to control all unnatural and artificial appetites. The axe must be laid unto the root of the trees. The past three hundred years has deluged the earth with habits of intemperance. We hope to see the tide checked, at least, and if possible we want to see it stayed in every family in the land. To this end we ask, Are you indulging any unnecessary appetites? If so begin at once the work of reform in your own soul, and conquer by the help of God. And when you are clean, then you are prepared to assist others. Let the work begin in the hearts and homes of the people, and it will not then be long ere the grosser forms of intemperance may be banished from the land.