Earlier text: SAUL'S PERSECUTION OF DAVIDA SATANIC WONDER.
By Augusta Moore
Forty years ago, Spiritualism, in its modern phrase, was just beginning to attract the attention of people in this country by means of the "Rochester knockings." To-day there are, according to the estimate of the Banner of Light, "one hundred and twenty-two papers and periodicals published, specially devoted to Spiritualism, and probably more than twice that number which favor it, and occasionally place in their columns evidences of its truth. Of the former, twenty-four are published in this country, and ninety-eight in foreign countries." Luxuriantly the weeds of error grow, but "what shall the harvest be?" And yet how little notice is taken of this Satanic delusion by those whose duty it is to watch on all sides constantly against the wolves that devour the sheep, and faithfully and most earnestly to warn those who are in danger. "Better let it all alone. There's nothing to it but humbug. People will grow sick of it all the sooner if let alone," has been the argument. Will they? Does the above statement look like it? And how can any close student of the Bible honestly say, "There's only humbug to it"? Does not the Bible say distinctly that in the last days people shall be beguiled by doctrines of devils; that spirits of devils shall go forth into all the earth? Did they not enter into men when our Lord was on earth? Why not now? That there is something more than humbug in Spiritualism hundreds of people know. To these it is in vain to cry, "Humbug! delusion!" They will but despise your words. What if there are impostors among them, caught now and then at playing spirit? Are there not such in the churches? There are multitudes who are not impostures—multitudes who have reason enough to be convinced that they do communicate with spirits out of the flesh. They as much believe that they both see and hear them as you believe that you see spirits in the body. It is altogether likely that they speak the truth when they tell their experience. Is it not the most aggravating impudence to look in the face one whose word you would take on any other subject, while he tells you earnestly that he has seen and talked with his dead parent or sister, and tell him by word or manner that you don't believe him? For one, I am not up to that, or down to it—as you like it; and I am not sorry. Yet I do not believe that what they see is what they suppose; but (and here is where the deception and "humbug" come in) spirits of devils personating angels of light. The "men of standing and science" who have from time to time promulgated their opinions regarding Spiritualism, say it can all be accounted for on natural principles; but not one of them has touched bottom in the matter; not one of them knows what one should know of Spiritualism in order to a true and sufficient judgment thereof.—Augusta Moore, in New York Evangelist. CONDITION OF CHRISTIAN MISSIONS.
By Rev. A. T. Pierson
AMID all our congratulations we must not forget our humiliation, for while completing the first century of modern missions, it is only the first. The evangelistic activity of the first centuries gave place to secularism and selfishness. A thousand years of the Dark Ages succeeded, during which Christianity scarcely survived. The Lutheran Reformation revived apostolic doctrine, but did not revive apostolic activity and evangelism. The church had to wait three centuries more before she recognized her duty and debt to a lost world. And even now the bulk of Christian disciples do not feel their individual responsibility for the lost. We do work by proxy. We erect great societies and boards, and by them girdle the world with a net-work of missionary organizations, and content ourselves with trifling gifts and sending forth some 5,000 or 6,000 men and women, while the converts from heathenism furnish five or six times as many workers as all Christendom! We give ten millions of dollars a year to foreign missions, while in London alone enough wealth is buried in ornaments, jewelry, and silver plate to carry the gospel around the world in ten years.—Rev. A. T. Pierson. CHINESE RENDERING OF "AMEN."
"My heart wishes it to be exactly so," is the Chinese rendering of "Amen." The value of this definition is that it is not a mere lip repetition of this blessed old Hebrew word, but a whole-souled, whole-hearted desire for the triumph of that which is good. Is there not danger that our "Amens" shall become a mere head and lip indorsement of the truth, while the heart is not in it? Let us be sure that in everything excellent that is presented to us, we can say of a verity, "Amen, my heart wishes it to be exactly so."—Herald of Holiness. Lessons from Delays and Disappointments
DELAYS teach patience, care teaches faith, and disappointment is a special message to summon our thoughts to Heaven. If, when they all come, we would not seek to run away from them, but to learn God's lesson in them, we should soon leave off calling them trying.—Selected. Great Evil, Not Great Man
"A MAN may work a great evil, and yet himself not be a great man." THE APOSTLES AND THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK.
IN an article in these columns week before last, it was clearly shown that the seventh day is the true and abiding Sabbath of the Scriptures; nevertheless, the existence of Sunday-keeping in the church, and the persistent claim which is made by many that the apostles sacredly observed Sunday, seem to demand a brief examination of the passages which mention that day, since if there were any sacredness attached to the day, it would there be at least intimated. The argument must, as a matter of course, be negative. Our task is not very great, for the first day of the week is mentioned only eight times in the New Testament, and six of these instances of its occurrence have reference to a single first day,—the day on which Christ rose from the tomb. These six texts are Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:2, 9; Luke 24:1; John 20:1, 19. They read, in order, as follows:— "In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulcher." Matt. 28:1. "And when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had brought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him. And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulcher at the rising of the sun." Mark 16:1, 2. "Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils." Mark 16:9. "Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulcher, bringing the spices which they had prepared." Luke 24:1. "The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulcher, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulcher." John 20:1. "Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and said unto them, Peace be unto you." John 20:19. In none of these texts is there the least hint that the day was sacred, or was henceforth to be considered so. They simply state that Jesus met with certain of his disciples on the day of his resurrection. Those incidents are mentioned to show that Christ did really rise from the dead the third day as he had said. That he should show himself at once to his disciples, was the most natural thing in the world, in order to relieve their sorrow. The meeting referred to in John 20:19 was not a religious meeting, not a gathering for prayer, or to celebrate the resurrection, but simply such a meeting as Jesus had with Mary in the garden, with the other women, and with Peter, being one of the "many infallible proofs" of his resurrection. That this is so is evident from the fact that the eleven had one common abode (Acts 1:13), and that just before Jesus came into the room where they were, the two disciples to whom Jesus appeared "as they walked, and went into the country" had returned and told the eleven that Jesus was risen, but their story was not believed. Mark 16:12, 13. Moreover, when Jesus himself appeared unto them, they were sitting at meat, and he "upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen." Mark 16:14. They could not have celebrated his resurrection when they did not believe that he had risen. A comparison of Acts 1:13 with Mark 16:14, and Luke 24:36-43, is sufficient to show that when Jesus met with his disciples on the evening of the day of his resurrection, they were simply eating their supper at home and did not believe that he had risen. When Jesus met with them he did not tell them that thenceforth they must observe the first day of the week in honor of his resurrection, nor did he pronounce any blessing on that day. In short, he made no reference whatever to the day. To the disciples he gave the salutation of peace, saying, "Peace be unto you," and he breathed on them, and said, "Receive ye the Holy Ghost;" but that affected the disciples, and not the day. Thus we see that in connection with the resurrection of Jesus there is not the remotest hint of Sunday sacredness. The next reference to the first day of the week is in Acts 20:7, and there we find that a meeting was held on that day. And here one thing may be noted, namely, that this is the only direct mention in the New Testament of a religious meeting on the first day of the week. If there were the record of fifty meetings on that day, however, that would not in the least affect its standing, for meetings were held every day in the week. The New Testament contains an account of many meetings held on the Sabbath, but that is no reason why the Sabbath should be kept. The Sabbath stands on a different foundation than that, even the unchanging word of God. But what of this one meeting on the first day of the week. We note first that it was in the night, for "there were many lights in the upper chamber, where they were gathered together" (verse 8); and Paul preached until midnight (verse 7), and then, after a brief intermission, until break of day, when he departed. Verse 11. But every day, according to the Bible method of reckoning time, ends at the setting of the sun. (See Gen. 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31; Lev. 23:32; Mark 1:32.) Therefore since this meeting at Troas was in the dark part of the first day of the week, it could not have been at the close of that day, but must have been at the beginning, corresponding to what is popularly designated as "Saturday night." Now note what immediately followed that Saturday night meeting. As soon as it was break of day, on Sunday morning, Paul's companions went to the ship, and resumed their journey to Jerusalem, while Paul himself chose to walk across the country and join the ship's company at Assos. The distance from Troas to Assos was about sixty miles by water, but only about nineteen by land, so that Paul could easily reach that place before the ship did. That this trip was taken on the first day of the week is so evident that few, if any, commentators suggest any different view. The Scriptures need no indorsement from men; but it may help some minds to know that this view of the text is not a peculiar one. "Conybeare and Howson's Life of Paul" says of this trip of Paul's:— "Strength and peace were surely sought and obtained by the apostle from the Redeemer as he pursued his lonely road that Sunday afternoon in spring among the oak woods and the streams of Ida."—Chap. 20, paragraph 11. So far, then, as the example of the apostles goes, Sunday is to be used in secular employment. One more text completes the list of references to the first day. It is 1 Cor. 16:2, and, together with the preceding verse, reads as follows:— "Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come." A literal rendering of this would be, "Let each one of you lay by himself at home, treasuring up in store, as God hath prospered him," and that Paul's injunction has reference to private stores and not to public collections is evident from the language, as well as from what the apostle wrote in his second epistle, in which he says: "I thought it necessary to exhort the brethren, that they would go before unto you, and make up beforehand your bounty, whereof ye had notice before, that the same might be ready, as a matter of bounty, and not as of covetousness." 2 Cor. 9:5. But if their offerings had been cast into the collection box, and so kept all together in the treasury of the church, there would have been no need of sending the brethren ahead to make up beforehand their bounty. These are all the texts that speak of the first day of the week, and not one of them intimates that it was in any sense a sacred day. Indeed, at the time the New Testament was written, no one in the world had ever heard of "the day of the sun" being kept as a sacred day. The heathen observed it only as a wild festival day. But throughout the New Testament the seventh day of the week is called the Sabbath—the same title that is given to it in the commandment. This is not because the New Testament writers were Jews, for they did not write as Jews, but as men inspired by the Holy Spirit. They were Christians, writing, under guidance of the Spirit of God, for the comfort, encouragement, and instruction of Christians until the end of time. If the seventh day were not the Sabbath for Christians and for all men, then the Holy Spirit would not have given it that name. But the truth is, as shown before, that the seventh day is the Sabbath—made so by the unchangeable act of the Creator—and no other day can ever be the Sabbath. And so we see that Dr. Scott and the Christian at Work told the exact truth when they said that we must go to later than apostolic times to find Sunday observance, and that it came in gradually and silently. But for everything that came into the church, after the days of Christ, the church is indebted to paganism. THERE are but two classes of church officers named in the Scriptures, namely, bishops and deacons; for that the terms elder and bishop refer to the same officer is evident. In his letter to Titus, Paul says: "For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldst set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee; if any be blameless, . . . for a bishop must be blameless." Titus 1:5-7. In his first letter to Timothy, in giving directions in regard to church officers, he names only bishops and deacons. 1 Tim. 3. In the address to the church at Philippi, we read, "Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons." Phil. 1:1. As Paul was on his way to Jerusalem, it is said, "And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church." But when Paul addressed them he said, "Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers" (bishops, Revised Version, Greek, episkopous, bishops). Peter uses the two words in the same way to designate the same officer: "The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, . . . feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight [Greek, episkopountes, bishopric] thereof, not by constraint but willingly." 1 Peter 5:1, 2. Says Mosheim of the church in the beginning:—
"The rulers of the church were called either presbyters [elders] or bishops—titles which, in the New Testament, are undoubtedly applied to the same order of men."—Church History, cent. 1, part. 2, chap. 2, sec. 8. Says Neander:—
"That the name episkopoi, or bishops, was altogether synonymous with that of presbyters [elders], is clearly evident from those passages of Scripture where both appellations are used interchangeably. Acts 20:17 with 28; Titus 1:5, 7; and from those where the office of deacon is named immediately after that of bishop, so that between these two church offices there could not still be a third intervening one. Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:1, 8. This interchange in the use of the two appellations shows that they were perfectly identical."—Church History, vol. 1, p. 184, Torrey's edition, 1856. But, it may be asked, why are there two titles for the same officer? The following from Schaff will explain:—
"BISHOPS or PRESBYTERS.—These two terms denote in the New Testament the same office; the first signifying its duties, the second its dignity."—Church History, vol. 1, sec. 42. The term presbyter, or elder, is a continuation of the Hebrew usage, while that of episkopos, or bishop, is adapted from the Greek. Of presbyter Mosheim says:—
"The word presbyter, or elder, is taken from the Jewish institution, and signifies rather the venerable prudence and wisdom of old age, than age itself."—Church History, Id., note. And of both the terms elder and bishop Neander says:—
"In the Jewish synagogue, and in all sects that sprang out of Judaism, there existed a form of government . . . consisting of a council of elders, presbuteroi, who had the guidance of all affairs belonging to the common interest. To this form, Christianity, which unfolded itself out of Judaism, would most naturally attach itself. . . . The guidance of the communities was accordingly everywhere intrusted to a council of elders. It was not necessary that these should be the oldest in years, though some respect doubtless was had to age. But age here was a designation of worth. . . . The founding of communities among the pagans led to another name, more conformed to the Grecian mode of designating such relations. . . . This name was episkopoi [bishops], borrowed from the city form of government among the Greeks, and applied to the presiding officers of the Christian communities, as overseers of the whole, leaders of the community."—Church History, Id. Thus much for the titles of the officers of the church; now, how are they to be chosen? There is no proposition that can be made plainer than that among Christians there is no superiority of persons or rank. "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit." 1 Cor. 12:13. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." Gal. 3:28. "There is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free; but Christ is all, and in all." Col. 3:11. "If any man desire to be first, the same shall be last of all, and servant of all." Mark 9:35. "Be not ye called Rabbi [master]; for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. . . . But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted." Matt. 23:8-12. "Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves." Phil. 2:3. "All of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility; for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble." 1 Peter 5:5. "Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God." Eph. 2:19. "Ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should show forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light." 1 Peter 2:9. "Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, and hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion forever and ever." Rev. 1:5, 6. "As many as received him, them gave he power [right or privilege] to become the sons of God." John 1:12. Thus all are "sons of God;" all are "priests;" all are "fellow-citizens;" all are "brethren." Primarily, therefore, among Christians there is no superiority of dignity or of rank; but there is perfect and entire equality, each one possessing, in his own right, all the rights that belong to any or all others. It is as certainly true of the new creation in grace as of the old creation in nature, that "all men are created equal," and "are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights." But God is the God of order. He is not the author of confusion, either in nature or in grace. He is the author of government and order, both in nature and in grace; both in the world and in the church. He has established an organization,519 and an order of government, among Christians. This organization is the church; this order of government is that which is set forth in the Scriptures as the means of assuring to the church order, efficiency, and discipline. Organization is essential to the efficiency of any class of people with a common purpose. For whereas one in his individual capacity can chase only a thousand, two with a common purpose and with their efforts united can put ten thousand to flight. But, although it be true that each one possesses all the rights and privileges that belong to all, yet it is equally true that everyone cannot perform the duties and offices that are common to all, with equal profit to all. Therefore, by the united wisdom of all, those are chosen who possess most fully the qualifications by which they can perform the offices that are common to all, with the greatest benefit to all. We say that it is by the voice of all that these are to be chosen, because no one can exercise the offices that are common to all without the common consent. The following passage from Luther states the case exactly:— "It has been said that the Pope, the bishops, the priests, and all those who people convents, form the spiritual or ecclesiastical estate; and that princes, nobles, citizens, and peasants, form the secular or lay estate. This is a specious tale. But let no man be alarmed. All Christians belong to the spiritual estate; and the only difference between them is in the functions which they fulfill. We have all but one baptism, but one faith; and these constitute the spiritual man. We are all consecrated priests by baptism, as St. Peter says: 'You are a royal priesthood;' although all do not actually perform the offices of kings and priests, because no one can assume what is common to all without the common consent. But if this consecration of God did not belong to us, the unction of the Pope could not make a single priest. If ten brothers, the sons of one king, and possessing equal claims to his inheritance, should choose one of their number to administer for them, they would all be kings, and yet only one of them would be the administrator of their common power. So it is in the church. Were several pious laymen banished to a desert, and were they, from not having among them a priest consecrated by a bishop, to agree in selecting one of their number, whether married or not, he would be as truly a priest as if all the bishops in the world had consecrated him. . . . Hence it follows that laymen and priests, princes and bishops, or, as we have said, ecclesiastics and laics, have nothing to distinguish them but their functions. They have all the same condition, but they have not all the same work to perform."—D'Aubigne's History of the Reformation, book 6, chap. 3. This is the genuine philosophy of the election and ordination of officers in the church. As all cannot exercise, with equal benefit to all, the functions that are common to all, by the common consent certain ones who are considered best qualified are chosen to exercise those functions, as the representatives of all. And by the laying on of hands, the powers of all, to the fulfillment of that office, are delegated to the ones chosen by common consent. So absolute is this principle that where men were already chosen and appointed by the Lord to the work of the ministry, they were not allowed to enter upon that work until the action of the church was taken in setting them apart with the common consent and delegation of powers. Paul when on the way to Damascus was apprehended by the Lord Jesus himself, and was then made a chosen vessel unto him, to bear his name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel. Acts 9:15. Yet it was several years after this when the following occurred: "There were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away." Acts 13:1-3. Thus, although Paul had already been chosen most miraculously to the work of the ministry, yet order and governmental authority in the church were of such importance that the Lord, who had already so miraculously chosen him, would not suffer him to go forth without the express consent of the church and his setting apart by the church in the laying on of hands. As the numbers in the church were generally too great to allow the hands of all to be conveniently laid on, it was done by those to whom the powers of the church had already been delegated. Thus Timothy was ordained "by the laying on of the hands of the presbytery," that is, by the laying on of the hands of the elders. 1 Tim. 4:14. And when Paul and Barnabas had been sent forth they "ordained them elders in every church." Acts 14:23. And Titus was appointed to ordain elders in every city. Titus 1:5. But the choice of the elders and deacons lies always with the brethren from among whom they are to be chosen; while the choosing of a minister for the work of the Lord at large lies with the Lord, and the choice sanctioned by the action of the church according to the order of God. THE "Trust" is now the favorite scheme by which the greedy increase their gains. There is the Whisky Trust, the Sugar Trust, the Coffee Trust, the Oil Trust, and Trusts of all kinds too numerous to mention. A "Trust" is formed by the leading dealers in a certain article of trade laying together all their interests in that line, making a combination so strong as to control the market, and then putting up the price to the highest possible point. If a dealer refuses to join the Trust and does not follow the rise in price which is laid upon the article by the Trust, then the Trust takes steps to compel him either to join the Trust or go out of the business. If the Trust cannot so fully control the market as to keep him from buying from anybody but them, at their own price, then they will run down the price so low that he cannot afford to sell at such a rate, and in one way or the other the object of the Trust is accomplished,—he is either forced into the Trust or out of the business,—and then the Trust, having the field entirely to itself, puts up the price to the highest possible point, clears immense sums, pays its trustees enormous salaries, and divides the profits amongst the managers of the combination, making them, many times, millionaires in a very few years. The Standard Oil Trust, for instance, has nine trustees, who are paid a salary of $25,000 a year, and divides among its managers profits amounting to millions every year. It will readily be seen that the word "Trust" is but another name for an organized monopoly, but with this characteristic: it is wholly irresponsible. A corporation, a railroad or steamboat line for instance, may secure a monopoly of the traffic in a certain locality, but, being a corporation, receiving its charter from the State, it is responsible to the State, and the State may put a check upon its exorbitant greed. But a Trust is not incorporated, is responsible to nobody but itself. The following from the Christian at Work fitly describes the Trust:— "What after all is a Trust? Well, for one thing it is neither a corporation nor a well-defined common-law Trust; it avoids the checks and safeguards which a wise public policy has thrown around corporate acts; its articles of agreement are secret and jealously guarded even from the investor himself; no charter nor statements need be filed for public inspection; no reports need be made or published; it may carry on any business it desires; the principles of ultra vires acts do not check it; no limit is placed by statute on its capital stock; no law prevents an increase or decrease of its Trust certificates; no qualifications are prescribed for its trustees; no tax is levied on its charter or franchises or capital stock; no limit is placed by the public on the power and discretion of its trustees; no publicity is given to its acts. It may move from State to State; it may evade taxation and defy the powers of courts; it wields vast sums of money secretly, instantaneously, and effectively to accomplish its nefarious ends; and it does all this not for the advancement of the community and the nation, but for the purposes of extortion and for the annihilation of independent firms. Such a trust is the Sugar Trust; such are the four great Oil Trusts,—such in short are almost all the Trusts." It is evident that, in its accepted sense, the "Trust" signifies a combination8 of an irresponsible monopoly to rob the consumer of the extra price which he can thus be forced to pay. This is the one extreme. There is another monopoly, although not called a Trust, at the other extreme, which is as irresponsible, and consequently as despotic, as any Trust in existence can be. Although not called a Trust, to all interests and purposes it is a Trust. Although, by those who compose it, it is not granted that it is a monopoly, yet a monopoly it is. Instead of calling this a Trust it is called a Union. Instead of a monopoly in certain lines of trade, it is a monopoly of labor. What we refer to is the trades-union. It is as really a Trust, and as certainly a monopoly, as any Trust or any monopoly that was ever formed. And, like any other monopoly, its greed grows by what it feeds upon. An instance in point (if any instance were needed to show what is palpable to all) will show that the action of the Union is identical with that of the Trust: In the fishing season of 1888 the Fisherman's Union in the Columbia River formed a combination so strong that no outside fisherman was allowed to enter the Columbia to fish. Then, having secured control of the river, they forced up the price of fish so that each fisherman of the Union made from seven to ten dollars a day. The only difference between this and the Trust is in the amount secured to the parties interested in the monopoly. More than this, the trades-union not only assumes the monopoly of work within the trades, it monopolizes the trades themselves. This combination that is responsible to no law, presumes to make and enforce the law that nobody shall learn any trade without the consent of the Union; and that consent is granted only to a limited number. Under this "law" of the trades-union Trust a manufacturer cannot apprentice his own son, at his own trade, in his own shop, without the consent of the labor Trust. Not long since a young man wrote a letter to Mayor Hewitt, of New York City, asking to be directed to some place where he could learn some mechanical employment. He said that he had applied to more than fifty employers to be received as an apprentice, but could not find an entrance anywhere. The Mayor replied, regretting that he could not give him a favorable answer, and said:— "In this great city there ought to be abundant opportunity for every young man to learn a trade. Under the regulations adopted by the various trades-unions, the number of apprentices is limited, so that there is growing up in our midst a large number of young men who cannot find access to any mechanical employment. This is a lamentable state of affairs, because these young men are turned loose upon the streets, and grow up in habits of idleness, resulting in vice and crime. If this action of the trades societies in this matter really limited the competition for employment which they experience, it might be defended, at least upon selfish principles; but, inasmuch as foreign workmen are free to come to this country in unlimited numbers, the only effect of these regulations is to keep our own young men out of useful employment, which is freely open to those who are born and trained in foreign countries. The evil is of the most serious character, and I trust that this statement of it may lead to a reconsideration on the part of the various trades organizations who now restrict the right of employment without benefit to themselves, but to the great injury of the rising generation." We seriously doubt whether this statement, or any other, will ever lead to any such reconsideration as the Mayor suggests. Monopolies never voluntarily loose their grip. Only lately some boys in Chicago made application to the Police Court to be sent to the Industrial School, or House of Correction, that they might become sufficiently acquainted with some trade so as to enable them to follow some useful occupation. We are not informed whether their request was granted or not. But even if it were, we know that even this refuge is not long to be left them; for the despotism of the labor Trust is controlling the State, and is already declaring that the trades shall not be followed to any material extent even in penal institutions, but that all criminals shall be supported in idleness. In the month of last July, the Legislature of New York, at the instance of the "labor" agitators, enacted a law which provides that no manufacturing machinery shall be used in any of the penal institutions of that State; that hand-labor only shall be employed; that only such articles shall be made therein as can be used in the penal or public institutions of the State; and that none of the prison products shall be sold to the public. And why is this? Because, it is said, articles manufactured in prison by convict labor and sold outside, come into competition with articles manufactured outside by "free labor," thus lowering the prices of the outside articles, which tends to reduce wages and degrade "labor"! Is it necessary to point out to any man who thinks, the blind fallacy of such an argument? Do these men not know that if the State is not allowed to make the convicts support themselves, they will have to be supported by taxation? And if the manufacturer has to pay increased taxes, wages will be lowered accordingly. But the labor monopoly may say, We will not allow him to lower the wages. Very well, he will then add to the price of his goods the extra tax which he pays to support idle convicts, and when the laboring man buys any manufactured article he will pay the tax. And if the merchant or the grocer has to pay an increased tax for the support of convicts, he will add the amount to the price of his goods, and when the laboring man buys a piece of muslin, or a pound of coffee, he pays the tax which the State is compelled to levy to support the criminals, whom he himself has declared shall not be allowed to do enough to support themselves. The whole subject then resolves itself into this simple question: Shall the convicts be made to do enough work to clear the expense which they cause, or shall the laboring man support them in idleness so that the proper dignity of labor may be maintained? Thus the labor monopoly forces the youth into idleness, rather than to allow them to support themselves by honest trades. Through enforced idleness they are led into vice and crime, and by that into jails and penitentiaries: and even there the labor monopoly compels him to dwell in idleness. Therefore of all Trusts the labor Trust is the most heartless; of all monopolies the labor monopoly is the most wicked. To say that such organizations are in the interests of labor, is a perversion of language. Their principal effect, if not their direct aim, is solely to promote idleness, with its inevitable consequences—vice and crime.