Your ShelfYour Projects

Review and Herald, Vol. 37, No. 10.

S. D. Adventists and Their Critics

Review and Herald

Feb 21, 1871

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Feb 21, 1871

S. D. Adventists and Their Critics.

By Joseph Harvey Waggoner

BY ELD. J. H. WAGGONER.
(Concluded.)

MARK OF THE BEAST—CONTINUED.

But let us examine the first “law,” “constitution,” or “public authority,” for Sunday-keeping. Campbell says it was given by Constantine. Dr. Heylyn says no such law existed for a hundred years after Tertullian’s time, who died in A. D. 216. Therefore it is evident that Dr. Heylyn referred to this same law of Constantine, which was made in 321, and was as follows:
“Let all the judges and town people, and the occupation of all trades, rest on the venerable day of the sun; but let those who are situated in the country, freely and at full liberty attend to the business of agriculture; because it often happens that no other day is so fit for sowing corn and planting vines; lest the critical moment being let slip, men should lose the commodities granted by Heaven.”
All authorities point to this as the first law for resting on first-day; but notice that this was limited to the town’s people, and it was then only regarded as the venerable day of the sun—sun’s day, or Sunday—not as a Christian institution, or as the Sabbath. To take this heathen festival of the sun and make a Sabbath or Christian festival of it, was an after work, accomplished by the church of Rome, or beast power. And I would invite Eld. Wellcome, or any other who pretends to take the mask off from our position, to examine this subject till he at least knows what our position is—till he discerns between a heathen festival and a church ordinance. We have evidence that the sixth and first days were early regarded as peculiar days, because of the crucifixion and the resurrection; but neither of them was regarded as the Sabbath. Constantine’s decree attached no peculiarity of the Sabbath to first-day, or day of the sun; it did not affect to degrade the Sabbath and exalt the first day to its place. This was the work of the Romish Church. And this is what constitutes the Sunday a rival, or counterfeit, of the Lord’s Sabbath, or sign. This is what must make it the mark of the beast. Any other festival or canon of the Catholic Church cannot be that mark or sign; because no other stands as a rival to the Lord’s sign; and this rivalry or counterfeit character did not exist till after the rise of papacy, and only by its authority. Surely the subject is plain enough for any who wish to have any position on it.
There is one more feature of the prophecy to which I wish to call your attention. The mark of the beast is first presented in its enforcement by the two-horned beast, of Rev. 13. Verse 12 says he “causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.” They that dwell in the earth may follow the papal power in many respects. But how is it that the earth itself is caused to worship the beast? Evidently in that it must not be tilled or cultivated on the Romish festival of Sunday. In this and this only is the prophecy fulfilled. Let this fact be carefully noted, and duly weighed in this connection.
Now I have presented to you evidence.
  1. That the Third Angel’s Message of Rev. 14:9–12, is present truth;
  2. That the special danger just before the Lord comes is in having the mark of the beast;
  3. That the present test duty is the commandments of God, in order that God’s sign or seal may be upon us;
  4. That the sign or seal of the living God, the creator of Heaven and earth, is his Sabbath;
  5. That the Sunday-sabbath is a creature of the papal power, and offered by it as a sign of its power;
  6. And that it is a counterfeit of God’s sign, and is the mark or sign of the beast referred to in the Third Angel’s Message.
Here is a plain, direct chain of testimony, leading to a plain conclusion and solution of this important subject. You object to it. Will you be so kind as to give us a better? Will you take the same facts of Revelation, in which every Adventist who examines them must feel interested, and tell us what they mean, and to what conclusion they tend? In the fear of God we have examined this subject; with the near coming of the Lord before our eyes we have adopted our faith; and if we are wrong, pray help us. But remember that to close your eyes against the facts, the reasons, the arguments, which we present, and cry, “Fanaticism,” will never give you the truth, nor correct our errors, if we are in error.
They who so persistently denounce others as hypocrites, ought to be able to present a clear record on their own part. As we are constantly assailed in the most unmeasured terms by the writers and preachers connected with the World’s Crisis, we think it no more than simple justice to give a short chapter in their own history, from which the reader can judge whether the cry of hypocrites is raised because they occupy a moral position higher than ours, or whether it arises from prejudice and ill-will and a want of the spirit and principles of Christianity.
In the Crisis of Feb. 14, 1866, appeared the following remarks by Eld. T. M. Preble:—
“My discussion with Eld. M. E. Cornell on the Sabbath question, has led me to delay the publication of my book on this subject, until I could enjoy the benefit of the criticism of the opposition against my views, as would be brought out in that debate in P., and also by the report as given by the opposition through their paper. As this report was concluded last week, I am now prepared to say that my opponents have failed to meet my arguments in favor of a change of days for the Sabbath, from the seventh to the first day of the week.
“I am highly pleased with the results of this discussion. Those who heard it, and have read the report as given in the opposition paper, will be compelled, we think, to say that the description of the debate as given through their paper is not the fairest thing in the world. But all things, thus far, only encourage me to publish my promised work on the Sabbath question, as soon as circumstances will admit.

CHALLENGE.

“In the REVIEW AND HERALD, of Jan. 30, 1866, in referring to J. N. Andrews’ History of the Sabbath, the writer says:
“‘The door is now open for them to test this matter, if they dare step in and risk their cause in fair, open encounter.’
“To this challenge I reply that I am ready, and ‘dare step in and risk’ an ‘open encounter’ with any man in their ranks qualified to defend ‘their cause,’ in testing the merits of J. N. Andrews’ History, or any other point connected with their theory of the seventh-day Sabbath, either in oral or written discussion, as soon as arrangements can be agreed upon.
“Will they ‘dare’ do it? Will they ‘risk their cause’ in this manner? We shall see. They may try to shield themselves from this issue, by saying they will not debate this question with me, unless the World’s Crisis will also publish the discussion. But I am disposed to ‘dare’ them to ‘risk their cause’ in an ‘open encounter’ through the columns of this paper. But it is quite doubtful whether they will ‘dare’ to run such a ‘risk’ as this. But we shall see what we shall see.” “T. M. PREBLE. “East Weare, N. H., Feb. 5, 1866.”
Immediately upon the receipt of this challenge, steps were taken to have it promptly met, and the following response appeared in the REVIEW AND HERALD of Feb. 27, 1866:—
“Acting for the other members of the Gen. Conf. Committee, we would designate Eld. J. N. Andrews, as the one to conduct this discussion in behalf of Seventh-day Adventists. And he is hereby instructed to make such arrangements with Eld. P. and the Crisis, as shall bring the matter to an early issue. “U. SMITH, “G. W. AMADON, “J. M. ALDRICH.”
On receipt of this notice of the committee, Eld. Andrews addressed the following letter of acceptance to the editor of the Crisis:
“Brother Grant: I accept the proposition of Eld. T. M. Preble, in the Crisis of Feb. 14, for a discussion of the Sabbath question through the columns of the Crisis and of the ADVENT REVIEW. He proposes to discuss the merits of J. N. Andrews’ History, or any other point connected with their theory of the seventh-day Sabbath. In accordance with this offer, I name two points for discussion:
“1. The Biblical argument for the observance of the seventh day. “2. The historical argument relating to the seventh and first days of the week, and involving the merits of J. N. Andrews’ History of the Sabbath.
“Upon the publication of this acceptance in the Crisis, I will open the discussion of the first point. J. N. ANDREWS. “Norridgewock, Me., March 5, 1866.”
The challenge of Eld. Preble was made in such a bold, defiant manner, that we could not doubt but that a discussion would result. But instead, the following note from the editor of the Crisis was received by Eld. Andrews:—
“Boston, Mass., March 15, 1866. “Brother Andrews: Your note of the 5th inst. was put into my hands to-day. “Our regulations will not allow a discussion in the Crisis. I have sent your proposition to Bro. Preble. Your brother in Christ. “MILES GRANT.”
To this, Eld. Andrews returned the following answer:—
“Norridgewock, Me., March 19, 1866. “Brother Grant: Yours of the 15th inst. has just come to hand. I learn with surprise and regret that your ‘regulations will not allow a discussion in the Crisis.’ Your regulations did allow the publication of a challenge in the Crisis of Feb. 14, for a discussion of the Sabbath question, ‘through the columns’ of that paper. The proposition was clothed in very defiant language; and being admitted into the Crisis by its editor, it did necessarily open that paper to the discussion of this subject. In accepting Eld. P.’s proposition, thus indorsed by yourself, I did not act upon my own responsibility. I was duly designated by those who have charge of the Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association, to conduct this discussion on behalf of the observers of the seventh day. In shutting the columns of the Crisis without one word of explanation, you certainly do us great injustice. I think it would have been no more than just, that you should have inserted my brief letter of acceptance, accompanied by such remarks as you deemed proper. My regret would have been no less that the discussion could not be had; but I should have felt that you had not been guilty of injustice. We stand before the world ‘dared’ to risk an encounter through the columns of the Crisis, and yet not allowed even to accept such a challenge through its columns.
“You say you have sent my letter to Eld. P. With Eld. P. privately, I have nothing to do. An oral discussion is of very little consequence. I have other and more important duties to perform. But a written discussion that should bring the subject before the whole body of Adventists, I would deem really important. In good faith I accepted the proposition for such a discussion. If this cannot take place, the fault is certainly not on the side of Seventh-day Adventists. Will you not do us the justice to make a fair statement of the fact that we did accept the proposition of Eld. P., for a discussion through the columns of the Crisis, and of the ADVENT REVIEW? “Yours in Christ, “J. N. ANDREWS.”
No notice whatever was taken of this just and candid appeal; but ministers of that party continue to boast of their victories over these ignorant Seventh-day Adventists! Witness this article of Hiram Munger.
But it is not with individuals we have to do in this matter. The World’s Crisis is the organ of that body. Those who devise and carry out its “regulations,” are guilty of spreading abroad and perpetuating the false report that we dare not meet them in open discussion. We appeal to the candid everywhere. Does it become such a people to persistently brand us as a body of hypocrites? Could they present facts like these against us, we would bow our heads to the charge, and remain silent.
Again I say, We have made no assault upon them. Whatever we have said is strictly in self-defense. It is quite contrary to our feelings to enter into controversies of a personal nature. We prefer to rest our cause on the merits of its own just principles, and labor to extend a knowledge of the truth of God’s word, and so prepare ourselves and others for the coming of the Lord.
When we deviate from this course, it shall be only to repel the unjust attacks of those who first boast of their own strength, and then, hiding behind their “regulations,” deal in calumny and vituperation, instead of openly meeting our arguments.

“AFTER MANY DAYS.”

“Bread cast upon the waters may be found after many days.”
AYE, “after many days,” No matter when or where, The bread thus cast, the seed thus sown, Shall spring up fresh and fair.
Cast it around thy home, Be sure ’tis not in vain, Though thou mayst never see That scattered bread again.
Though “after many days,” The bread shall still be found, And what thy love hath cast, Shall clothe the barren ground.
And when the golden gates Shall open to receive Some whom perchance thou didst In doubt and trembling leave,
Then, “after many days,” How shalt thy heart rebound, When harps of gold shall hail The bread forever found.

Who Changed the Law of God?

By R. F. Cottrell

About 555 years before Christ, it was revealed to Daniel the prophet, that the great antichristian power, the abomination of desolation, should think to change times and laws. Dan. 7:25. That power was not fully developed till 538 years after Christ, being 1093 years after the prophecy was given.
The laws mentioned must be the laws of God; but the changing of them was to be a distinguishing mark of that power; and the changing of human laws would not distinguish that power from any other government under heaven. And it must be the moral law, the ten commandments; for the ceremonial law was nailed to the cross 500 years before this antichristian power was matured.
To predict that this apostate, antichristian power should think to change the moral law of God, is as much as to tell us that that law is unchangeable; a fact of which no intelligent reader of the word of the unchangeable God should need to be informed. In fact, the prophecy of this attempted change is a pledge that the law should not be changed before the rise of that power.
Now, if the papal power has not meddled with these laws of God to change them, we cannot prove that it is the power alluded to in the prophecy; for if it cannot be proved that it has fulfilled each characteristic specification given, it is not the predicted power; neither can it be shown that the prophecy has been fulfilled at all; for no other power has fulfilled it; and in this case the prophecy has failed, or otherwise the power must yet arise to fulfill it.
Again, if that power has attempted to change the law of God, and this took place 500 years after Jesus Christ had changed it; since he has left no record of the change or changes made by him, it is utterly impossible for us at this time to distinguish the work of Christ from that of Antichrist. Christ does not work in partnership with Antichrist; who then made the change? Who changed the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week? Was it He of whom it was foretold that he should “magnify the law and make it honorable”? or he of whom it was said that he should “think to change times and laws”? Let each answer for himself.
“Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law.” —CHRIST.
“Q. How prove you that the church hath power to command feasts and holy days?” “A. By the very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday.” “Had she not such power, . . . she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday, the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday, the seventh day, a change for which there is no scriptural authority.”—Roman Catholic Catechisms.
These witnesses agree with each other, and each is in perfect harmony with the prophecy. Who, then, changed the law? Christ, or Antichrist? The unprejudiced believer in the Bible as a divine revelation can give but one answer to this question. Having the evidence before him, he cannot charge upon Jesus Christ the work of Antichrist. R. F. COTTRELL.

GETTING ON TOO FAST

A pious old slave had a wicked master. This master had much confidence, however, in the slave's piety. He believed he was a Christian. Sometimes the master would be serious and thoughtful about religion. One day he came to the old slave, with the New Testament in his hand, and asked if he would explain a passage to him. The slave was willing to try, and asked what it was.
“It is here in Romans,” said the master.
“Have you done all that it tells you to do in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John?” inquired the slave, seriously fixing his eye upon his master's.
“No; I haven't,” said he.
“Then you're getting on too fast, too fast, master. Go back to the beginning of the book, do all that it tells you till you get to Romans, and you will understand it easy enough then; for the book says, ‘If a man will do My will, he shall know of the doctrine.’”

Jesus Only.

By T. L. Cuyler

It is very probable that Christ’s transfiguration took place upon Mount Hermon. The outlook from that summit carried the eye from Lebanon, with its diadem of glittering ice, southward to the silvery mirror of Gennesaret; but it was not that vision of natural beauty that the disciples looked at chiefly; they saw “Jesus only.” Two illustrious prophets, Moses and Elijah, had just made their miraculous appearance on the top of the mount; but neither of these mighty men appeared any longer to the disciples’ view; they “saw no man save Jesus only.”
In this expression we find the clue to the power of apostolic preaching. That solitary figure on the mount became the central figure to the eyes and hearts of the apostles. One person occupied their thoughts; one person filled all their most effective discourses. It was no such benevolent charlatan as poor Renan has lately attempted to portray; it was the omnipotent and holy Son of God. They saw in him “God manifest in the flesh;” they saw in him an infinite Redeemer, a divine model, an ever-living intercessor and friend. And they saw no one save Jesus only. Paul gave utterance to the heart of the whole apostolic brotherhood when he said, “I determined to know nothing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.” Has not this been the key-note to the best sermons of the best ministers ever since? Is not that the most powerful sermon that is the most luminous with Christ? Depend upon it that the pulpit, the Sabbath-school, and the volume, which God honors with the richest success, are those which present “no man save Jesus only.”
Here, too, is a clue to the best method of dealing with awakened and inquiring hearts. We are too prone to send the unconverted to a prayer meeting, or to reading good books, or to listening to some popular Boanerges. The experiences of many a troubled inquirer have been somewhat like those of the woman to whom a faithful minister once said:
“Have you been in the habit of attending church?”
“Yes, I have been to every church in town; but the little comfort I get soon goes away again, and leaves me as bad as before.”
“Do you read the Bible at home?”
“Sir, I am always reading the Bible; sometimes I get a little comfort; but it soon leaves me as wretched as ever.”
“Have you prayed for peace?”
“Oh! sir, I am praying all the day long; sometimes I get a little peace after praying; but I soon lose it. I am a miserable woman.”
“Now, madam, when you went to church, or prayed, or read your Bible, did you rely on these means to give you comfort?”
“I think I did.”
“To whom did you pray?”
“To God, sir; to whom else should I pray?”
“Now read this verse, ‘Come unto me, and I will give you rest.’ Jesus said this. Have you gone to Jesus for rest?”
The lady looked amazed, and tears welled up into her eyes. Light burst in upon her heart, like unto the light that flooded Mount Hermon on the transfiguration morn. Everything else that she had been looking at—church, Bible, mercy-seat, and minister—all disappeared, and to her wondering, believing eyes there remained no man save Jesus only. She was liberated from years of bondage on the spot. The scales fell from her eyes, and the spiritual fetters from her soul. Jesus only could do that work of deliverance; but he did not do it until she looked to him alone.
This incident—which has been given at length in one of the American Tract Society’s narratives—reached us during the first years of our ministry. With this “open secret” in our hand, we approached the first Roman Catholic that ever attended upon our preaching. He had turned his troubled eye for a long time to the holy virgin, and to sainted martyrs in the calendar. He had often been to a priest; never to a Saviour. We set before him Jesus only. He looked up and saw the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world. “My Romish mother,” said he to us, “would burn up my Bible if she knew I had one in my house.” But she could not burn out the blessed Jesus from his emancipated and happy heart.
Next we took this simple revelation to a poor invalid of threescore and ten. His sight was failing, and the vision of his mind was as blurred and dim as the vision of his body. We set before him, in our poor way, Jesus only. The old man could hardly see the little grandchild who read aloud to him. But he could see Jesus with the eye of faith. The patriarch who had hardened under seventy years of sin, became a little child. The skepticism of a lifetime vanished when the Holy Spirit revealed to his searching, yearning look the divine form of a Saviour crucified.
We never forgot these lessons learned in our ministerial boyhood. From that time to this, we have found that the only sure way of bringing light and peace to anxious inquirers is to direct them away from themselves—away from ritualities and stereotyped forms—away from agencies of every kind—away from everything save Jesus only. John the Baptist held the essence of the gospel on his tongue when he cried out, “Behold the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sin of the world.” My anxious friend, be assured that you never will find pardon for the past, and hope for the future; you never will know how to live, or be prepared to die, until you look to Jesus only.
Here is a hint for desponding Christians. You are harassed with doubts. Without are fightings, and within are fears. Why? Because you have tried to live on frames and feelings, and they ebb and flow like the sea-tide. You have rested on past experiences, and not on a present Saviour. You have looked at yourself too much, and not to him who is made to you righteousness and full redemption. Do you long for light, peace, strength, assurance, joy? Then do your duty, and look to Jesus only.
When the godly minded Oliphant was on his dying bed, they read to him that beautiful passage in the seventh chapter of Revelation, “And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes.” (It is the passage which poor Burns could never read with a dry eye.) The old man exclaimed, “Perhaps that is so. The Bible tells me that there is no weeping in Heaven; but I know I shall cry the first time I see my Saviour!” He was right. The first object that would enchain his view on entering the gates of glory, would not be the jewelled walls, or the shining ranks of the seraphim. It would not be the parent who bore him, or the pastor who taught him the way of life. But amid the myriad glories, the thousand wonders, of that wonderful world of light and joy, the believer’s eye, in its first enrapturing vision, shall “see no man save JESUS ONLY.”—T. L. Cuyler.

A Ray of Light from the Past.

THE theologians who insist that our Government rests upon an implied assumption or recognition of the divine authority of the Christian religion, and who seek to make that recognition palpable by an amendment to the Constitution, will find a hard nut to crack in the following provision of the treaty of Tripoli, made under the administration of Washington in 1796, when the fundamental principles of the Government and the ideas and purposes of its founders were yet fresh in the minds of the people:—
“As the Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity of Mussulmen (Mussulmans); and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mohammedan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”
To this declaration, which bears the stamp of the Senate’s approval, is appended the name of George Washington, who, though himself a Christian, held that his religious faith entitled him to no privileges as a citizen that were not common to all others, of whatever religious belief. The declaration, moreover, for aught that appears, received the assent of the whole American people, as embodying an essential and fundamental principle of the Government. It would seem to have been well understood at that day that, while the Government was Christian in spirit, in that it recognized and proposed to vindicate and maintain the equal rights of men as set forth in the New Testament, it was at the same time not Christian in any theological or dogmatical sense, nor as conferring any special rights or privileges upon Christians as such. The more the subject is agitated, the clearer will this historic fact become, and the more ready will all good citizens be to acquiesce in a principle which cannot be discarded without leading us directly and inevitably back to a union of Church and State.
The Government of the United States, while it neither makes nor exacts any religious profession, is yet Christian in spirit in proportion as it seeks to “establish justice,” to “promote the general welfare,” and to “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity;” and it is needless that it should be Christian in any other sense. Nay, to make it Christian in a dogmatic and exclusive sense would be to open the door to assumptions and practices incompatible with the growth of humanity and the equal rights of the people, and injurious, if not fatal, to the church itself.
Let those who imagine that a nation can be made Christian by incorporating the letter of a Christian creed into its Constitution, remember the lessons of history. The worst despotisms that have ever cursed the world were administered in the name, and by the assumed authority, of God. Even the rebels of our Southern States, when they “seceded” from the Union, incorporated into their new Constitution, framed for the sustenance and perpetuation of slavery, the most solemn professions of reverence for God and allegiance to his laws. They ostentatiously challenged the attention of the world on this very ground, boasting that their Constitution was more religious than that framed by Washington and Franklin and Jefferson; but no solemnity of profession, no ardor of boasting, could avail to hide the atheism implied in the profane and audacious attempt to keep a race forever in bondage. Let us not, in the very hour of our rejoicing over the downfall of the civil authority of the church in the Roman States, countenance the attempt to remove the barriers erected by our fathers against a union of Church and State in this Republic.— Tribune.

The Situation in France.

A DARKER situation or prospect than that of unhappy France it would be hard to imagine. As her misfortunes from without culminate in utter prostration and the threat of heavy conditions of peace, her internal malady of feverish folly seems reaching its hight. Gambetta's course is showing him utterly unworthy of a leader's position in such a crisis. On the one hand, he still continues his exhortations to a continued resistance, which would now be simple madness. At the same time he proves false to all true Republicanism, by attempting to exclude from the Constituent Assembly the officials of the late empire and the representatives of the house of Orleans. Such an attempt to constrain the popular will is an act of gross usurpation, and more than confirms all the suspicions aroused by the previous refusal of the Provisional Government to submit their authority to a popular verdict. It is to be hoped, and we think may safely be assumed, that the action of Favre and his supporters, or if necessary, the interposition of the Germans, will secure to the people the right to elect whatever representatives they may wish. There ought to be at least the guarantee which a perfectly free election implies, that the government to be set up shall have a stable foundation.
What form that government will assume it seems impossible now to conjecture. Nor can we look with special hope or sympathy upon any of the rival elements. The empire sapped the moral tone and physical strength of the nation, and snapped like a rotten reed in the hour of trial; and to restore this worn out and discarded thing, would seem like accepting all the suffering and disgrace of the past as a benefit, and placing its most prominent author where he could repeat the mischief at his leisure. A “Republic” does not sound so well as it did before the foremost “Republican” leaders showed themselves as greedy to snatch and retain power as any Napoleon or Bourbon. “Constitutional monarchy,” of which an Orleans prince would be the representative, really demands as much as does a Republic the qualities of self-control and wisdom in the people. Indeed, such a time as this brings to the surface the great truth too often overlooked, that no form of government has any saving power, apart from the character of the people themselves. In the degraded peasantry and inflammable city population of France there seems to be no decent material on which to base a popular government. Crises like the present have often brought forward strong men capable of governing those who could not govern themselves. But the man for the hour has not appeared in France. We look with anxiety to the new Constituent Assembly, earnestly hoping that the great emergency may develop there a patriotism and moderation which will secure to the distracted country some opportunity to build herself up from within on a surer foundation than heretofore.
We have no comment to make on the rumored terms proposed by the Germans, because only rumors vouch for them. As reported, they could only be construed as a thorough and effective scheme for so crushing France under territorial weakness and enormous debt as to absolutely forbid aggressive war for a long series of years. Whatever worldly wisdom there might be in such a course, its moral aspect as dealing most unmercifully with a nation already overwhelmed by disaster, would, we think, occasion general and strong disapprobation. We do not believe that such extreme measures will be brought forward; but it is hardly to be expected that Germany will not push her hard-won advantage with a heavy hand.—Christian Union.

Slaughter by the Innocents.

The example of those charming little boys in Massachusetts who lately vindicated their youthful rights and gave such eminent promise of an illustrious manhood by stoning their teacher to death, has not been lost on their compeers. So far as we have learned, no punishment has yet been inflicted for this breach of scholarly decorum, and so an additional reason is furnished why these “village heroes who with dauntless breast, the little tyrant of their fields withstood,” should become patterns for independent infancy throughout the country. Childish morality is, after all, singularly like that of grown-up people, and teaches them to be good only so long as it pays better than to be bad. Stoning one's teacher is such an uncommonly jolly “lark,” that, since it can be done with impunity, we are only surprised to find it has not been more extensively indulged in.
But this abstinence is only comparative. To do them justice, the rising generation have not shown themselves unworthy of the leadership of their Massachusetts champions. More than one teacher has been made sensible, in most unpleasant fashion, that the day of their destiny is over. The latest incident of the sort that has transpired occurred in this city. A chivalric youth aged ten, a pupil in one of our grammar schools, was subjected by his teacher—a woman, be it understood—to the insult of a public rebuke in class. His fiery spirit chafed under this reproach from one of an inferior sex, and he resolved on vengeance. Summoning various of his trusty adherents, he waylaid the tyrant on her way home, and laid her low—another David contending against the Philistine—with a sling-shot. Having achieved this gallant exploit, the young hero fled. We have not heard that he has been arrested. Perhaps his father is a politician; the weapon of his choice, and his dexterity in using it, would seem to imply it. At any rate, the evil genius of the desk and blackboard has again been signally discomfited, and another bright example given to aspiring youth.
How long this revolutionary state of affairs will continue, or to what lengths it may go, we dare not conjecture. A general concerted massacre of teachers, a juvenile St. Bartholomew of the school-room, would not surpass one's estimate of the capabilities of the boy of the period. Evidently the old adage about “teaching the young idea how to shoot” is rapidly assuming a new and ominous significance; and the time seems to be coming when the post of teacher will require the same amount and quality of courage as the editorship of a Southern newspaper in old fire-eating days. Sooner or later, of course, retaliatory measures will be adopted by the sufferers, and we shall have class exercises diversified by exchange of pistol shots, and class discipline enforced with bowie-knife and billy. Was not Herod, perhaps, calumniated?—N. Y. Times.

The Voice of the French People.

The election for a National Assembly which has taken place in France in the course of the present week will rank among the most important elections of the present century. It will have to decide two most momentous questions: first, whether the conditions of peace which are demanded by Germany shall be adopted; and, secondly, what form of government the country shall adopt after the conclusion of peace.
If it were possible to convey to the French voters an accurate account of what the statesmen, the generals, the press, and the educated people of all foreign countries, think of their present situation and of their prospects, they would see that, according to the almost unanimous opinion of the civilized world, further resistance to the German army is utterly hopeless; and that France would do well to make peace on the easiest conditions she can obtain; but that peace should be made at all events. The Provisional Government has of late made the most desperate efforts to establish communication with the large force which was shut up in Paris. All the available men were massed in three armies—that of the Loire, that of the North, and that of the East. These armies simultaneously attacked that portion of the enemy's army which was not engaged in the siege of Paris with the impetuosity of despair, knowing well that if they failed, Paris would fall, and that none of them would ever have an equal chance to strike a decisive blow for the deliverance of France. The tragic result of this last effort is well known: each of the three armies has suffered a crushing defeat; one of them, the Army of the East, under General Bourbaki, has been annihilated; Paris has fallen, and with it an army of nearly 200,000 men, with several thousand cannon, has been captured. Nearly one half of the entire German army has thus become free for other operations, and can be hurled upon the shattered and demoralized remnants of the armies of the Loire and the North. The latter army, if hostilities should be resumed must, without fail, be annihilated within a few days; for it is cut off from the remainder of France, and as the German army of Paris is separated from it by only a very short distance, it would be at once overwhelmed and overpowered.
Thus, nothing but the Army of the Loire, and what new forces the Government may be able to raise, would be left. The inferiority of these forces to the German army is too vast to consider it possible that the speedy occupation of all France by the Germans could be much longer delayed. A refusal of the National Assembly to conclude peace could, therefore, only add to the profound misery into which the country has been plunged, and entail on it new losses and severer conditions of peace. We hope, therefore, in union with all those who sympathize with the misfortunes of France, that the majority of the coming National Assembly may consist of moderate and considerate men, who, laying aside the traditional pride and ambition of this great nation, will show an earnest desire to conclude peace.
The conclusion of peace is all the more necessary, because the conflict between the three great parties into which the French people are divided will again make itself felt. The country has for several months been controlled by a Provisional Government, which has not only not proceeded from a popular election, but which has studiously avoided an appeal to the universal suffrage of the people. From what has become known about the disposition of the French people, it is extremely doubtful whether the acts of the Provisional Government, and, in particular, of that portion of it which is represented by M. Gambetta, are approved by a majority of the French people.
Thus far, the adherents both of the Bonapartes and of the Orleans family have had no opportunity to show their strength. They would not fail to strain every nerve to secure the greatest possible number of their adherents in the National Assembly. Thus there will be in the Assembly a race of three parties for the helm of the Government, and whichever party may find itself in the ascendancy will have before it not only the task of making peace with the Germans, but of keeping down the other parties, and of preventing a revolution, into which Frenchmen are always ready to embark.
The difficulties which beset the National Assembly are immense. We sincerely hope that the people may choose as their representatives the best men of the country, and the combined wisdom of the nation may find the way that leads back out of this present chaos into a happier period of its history.—Methodist.

The Fire on One’s Own Hearth

The fire should burn brightest on one's own hearth.
Continue reading: The Shortness and Great Value of Time