Do They Show It to Be the Sabbath? — Able Testimony on the Question
Last week Elder Porter examined six of the eight New Testament texts that speak of the first day of the week, commonly called Sunday. This week he considers the remaining two, and draws his conclusions as to the transfer of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week. His article this week is well worth a careful reading, even if you did not get to read the one last week. And all who read what he had to say last week, will be anxious to read what is said this week. EDITOR.
THE seventh reference is in Acts 20:7: “And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.” This record merely informs us of a meeting held for religious service on250the first day of the week. There is no reference to a repeal or revision of the Sabbath statute. Hence this text is not evidence of a revision of the Sabbath statute.
Eighty-Four Against One
On the contrary, in Acts 13:14, 42-44; 16:13; 17:1, 2; 18:1-4, 11, we have the record of eighty-four Sabbath meetings held on the seventh day of the week. Paul’s example stands eighty-four to one in favor of the seventh day of the week as the day of worship in the Christian dispensation. Besides, in these eighty-four instances, the day upon which the religious meetings were held is declared to be the Sabbath, while in Acts 20:7 no such intimation is made in regard to the first day of the week.
Paul does not leave us in doubt as to his custom in the matter of the day upon which he held Sabbath meetings. He declares plainly that it was his “manner,” or regular practice, to hold them on the Sabbath day: “And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three Sabbath days reasoned with them out of the Scriptures.” Acts 17:2.
Sunday a Business Day at Corinth
The eighth and last text in which the “first day of the week” is found is 1 Cor. 16:2: “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.” Here, as usual, we find no change or repeal of the Sabbath statute. Not a word is said about the Sabbath. In fact, the text plainly teaches that the first day of the week was a day for performing common business. It was not a meeting day at all.
Paul instructs that each, on the first day of the week, begin the common labor of the week by casting up his accounts, and ascertaining how much he had been prospered the previous week. This is evident from the fact that they were to give as they had been prospered. There is not the slightest reference to the Sabbath day, in this passage.
Not a Public Collection
To show that the expression, “Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store,” does not refer to the taking of a collection in a public meeting, the following renderings of the text are given:
Greenfield, in his lexicon, translates the Greek term, “With one’s self, that is, at home.” Robinson gives it, “By or with one’s self, at his own house — at home.” Three French translations, those of Martin, Osterwald, and De Sacy, give it, “At his own house; at home.” The German of Luther reads, “By himself; at home.” Justin Edwards says of it: “Lay by him in store; at home. That there be no gatherings; that their gifts might be ready when the apostle should come.”
From these high authorities, it is evident that it was not the intent of this passage to suggest a public meeting on the first day of the week. On the contrary, they declare it was the intention that common labor should be performed at home.
What the Apostles Did on Sunday
This agrees with the manner in which Paul regarded the first day of the week, as recorded in Acts 20:7. While he preached on that first day of the week, he directed the disciples to go by boat around the peninsula from Troas to Assos, a distance of forty-seven miles. When the morning of that first day of the week came, Paul walked across the country nineteen and a half miles to meet the disciples at Assos, to go with them to Jerusalem. This shows that he regarded the day as a working day.
This is in harmony with what other disciples had done on the first day of the week, when they came to the grave of Christ to anoint His body for burial,—work which they refused to do on the Sabbath. Luke 23:56; 24:1.
Paul declares that he kept back nothing that was profitable to the church. Acts 20:20. In verse 27 he said, “I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.” But not once in all his writings did he declare a first-day-of-the-week Sabbath or Lord’s day.
Christ’s Method of Recording the Introduction of New Institutions
In the articles last week and this, we have examined every text in which the term “first day of the week” is mentioned in the New Testament. There is not the slightest intimation, in any of them, of a revision or repeal of the Sabbath statute, or a change of the day.
In Matt. 26:26-28, Christ gives a full record of the institution of the Lord’s Supper. In 1 Cor. 11:23-26, Paul confirms the record.
John gives a full record of the introduction of the ordinance of humility, or feet washing. John 13:1-17. Matthew gives a record of Christ’s baptism. Matt. 3:13-15. But where is the record of the introduction of the first day of the week as the Sabbath or Lord’s day? No such record can be found, for the reason that no such thing ever occurred. The original Sabbath statute still stands, as it has never been repealed or abrogated. It was Christ’s custom to observe the seventh day as the Sabbath. Luke 4:16.
The Day Was Not Transferred
Dr. Edward T. Hiscox, author of “The Baptist Manual,” used in all the Baptist churches, has examined the evidence in support of the change of the Sabbath, from the standpoint of a scholarly clergyman who observes the first day of the week. His words follow:
“There was and is a commandment to keep holy the Sabbath day, but that Sabbath day was not Sunday. It will be said, however, and with some show of triumph, that the Sabbath was transferred from the seventh to the first day of the week, with all its duties, privileges, and sanctions. Earnestly desiring information on this subject, which I have studied for many years, I ask, Where can the record of such a transaction be found?—Not in the New Testament, absolutely not. There is no Scriptural evidence of the change of the Sabbath institution from the seventh to the first day of the week. I wish to say that this Sabbath question, in this aspect of it, is the gravest and most perplexing question connected with Christian institutions which at present claims attention from Christian people; and the only reason that it is not a more disturbing element in Christian thought and in religious discussions, is because the Christian world has settled down content on the conviction that somehow a transference has taken place at the beginning of Christian history.”
An Unaccountable Silence
“To me it seems unaccountable that Jesus, during three years’ intercourse with His disciples, often conversing with them upon the Sabbath question, discussing it in some of its various aspects, freeing it from its false glosses, never alluded to any transference of the day; also, that during forty days of His resurrection life, no such thing was intimated. Nor, so far as we know, did the Spirit, which was given to bring to their remembrance all things whatsoever that He had said unto them, deal with this question. Nor yet did the inspired apostles, in preaching the gospel, founding churches, counseling and instructing those founded, discuss or approach this subject.
“Of course, I quite well know that Sunday did come into use in early Christian history as a religious day, as we learn from the Christian fathers and other sources. But what a pity that it comes branded with the mark of paganism, and christened with the name of the sun god, when adopted and sanctioned by the papal apostasy, and bequeathed as a sacred legacy to Protestantism!”—A paper read at the Chautauqua Assembly, New York, by Dr. Edward T. Hiscox, author of “The Baptist Manual.”
The Sabbath in the Law
In the very bosom of that wonderful, holy, unchangeable moral code, Jehovah placed the law: “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work.” In “The Lord’s Day the Test of the Ages” there is found this striking passage:
“Note again the position of the Sabbath commandment in the law. It is not at the beginning or at the close. Were it at the beginning, it might be declared to be no part of the law. Were it at the close, it might be declared to have been added. But divine wisdom placed it in the very heart of the moral law, so that three immutable precepts guarding man’s duty to God must be passed over on the one hand, and six immutable precepts guarding man’s duty to his fellow, crushed out on the other hand, before the impregnable fortress of the Sabbath can be reached in order to attack it. But not one of these massive walls which surround it can be successfully assaulted. The Sabbath law is a part of the Decalogue, and no sophistry can evade it.”
In view of the truth set forth in the preceding paragraphs, we may read, as a suitable conclusion, the words of the Rev. George Elliott in his “Abiding Sabbath”: “Long should pause251the erring hand of man, before it dares to chip away with the chisel of human reasoning one single word graven on the enduring tables by the hand of the infinite God. . . . Is the eternal tablet of His law to be defaced by the creature’s hand? He who proposes such an act should fortify himself by reasons as holy as God and as mighty as His power.” R. C. P.
WAR AGAINST THE LAMB OF GOD
By M. C. W.
The Climax of Apostasy as Seen by the Prophet — It Comes Suddenly— Bitter Persecution Is the Result
Our last study was that of the seventh head, constituted of two primarily discordant elements, namely, ten democratic states of Europe, confederating together, represented by the crownless horns, and the restoration of the papacy, or in other words, the recrudescence of the beast under the fifth head, the beast that John saw during the “wilderness” period of the Christian age.
We wish to say more about the prophecy, to make plain, if we read it aright, that the ten socialistic powers will exalt the papacy as a means of purchasing the support of the adherents of that system. They do this to make more secure their own tenure of power. Nevertheless it is a surrender to the harlot Babylon, whose rule thus becomes world-wide, over “peoples and multitudes, and nations and tongues.” Her errors have saturated the world; her allurements have blinded the nations; she has made all the earth drunken with the wine of her spiritual fornication.
Doubtless all these motives and elements will find place, as they do in all political schemes; and all the world will yield, either in conviction or in fear, to the great apostasy, or in lack of conviction, for purely politic and selfish reasons. It matters not, if the end be accomplished.
But it is said: “Socialism will never do this. She is an inveterate foe of Roman Catholicism.” But socialism looks for certain triumph by any means that assure it. The papacy is looking for triumph also. Socialism feeds on the discontent of the masses. The papacy is strong in their superstitious fears, and numbers, as does socialism, adherents by hundreds of millions. The politic thing to do is to unite. Socialism, for the support of the papacy, will, as did Justinian in 533, make the pope “head over all the holy churches,” and the “one and only corrector of heretics.”
The papacy promises the socialistic régime stability and peace, and the blessing and prosperity of God. The union will be consummated, and mystical Babylon will sing, “I sit a queen, and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow.” Rev. 18:7. Now she sits a widow, deprived of the civil power of force; then she will rejoice in the restoration of the unholy alliance. This socialistic régime is represented in Dan. 2:33, 41-43, by the clay of the man image, the rule of the people.
IMPROBABLE, YET CERTAIN
Is such a union, such a restoration of the papacy, probable? The prophecy intimates that to earthly reason it will seem improbable; for it comes as a surprise to the world. “And his death stroke was healed: and the whole earth wondered after the beast; . . . and they worshiped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? and who is able to make war with him?” Rev. 13:3, 4. As the confederated powers of earth are united in this sudden action, as the two-horned beast power—the false prophet—the United States, is itself, in its own territory, working for laws which will render homage to the beast (Rev. 13:12-17), who is there, in the world view, that could oppose such a combination as this?
AN EXCEPTION
But there is one class and only one who will not “wonder” or “worship.” Thus speaks the prophet: “And they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, they whose name hath not been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast, how that he was, and is not, and shall be present!” Rev. 17:8, A. R. V., margin.
The exception to the wonderers and worshipers, therefore, is those whose names are written in heaven, whose citizenship is there, who are converted not to man, but to God, whose hope is in the heavenly Zion, not the earthly Babylon, who “keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.”
Of these confederated states it is said, “These shall war against the Lamb.” Rev. 17:14. Yet that is what the beast system has ever done in all its various phases since it was inaugurated by Babylon. In its deceptive and delusive schemes of salvation, the heads, each and severally, have warred against the Lamb, in whose sacrifice, truth, and life alone is salvation. The last head will be no exception. It is the beast still, though in a different form.
Tyrannizing over the human is war against the Lamb, who died to set men free. Persecution of God’s children is war against the Lamb; for He identifies Himself with every believing, suffering soul. Professing loyalty to Christianity, sitting in the church as the vicar of Christ, is naught—nay, more, it is blasphemy—when the principles, the life, are against the life and principles of the Lamb.
God’s faithful ones have warned the world against all the unholy principles that have made the beast and its image. They have warned against the mark of the beast, the pseudo-sabbath, the badge of power. They have faithfully told the world that homage to the beast and his image, and the reception of his mark, call it what we may, religion or patriotism, or both, is rebellion against God, treason to His government, and at the peril of their souls they cannot yield to it; that their robes may be free of the blood of their fellow men, they must warn against the whole great world conspiracy to dethrone God and degrade His law. And in all this, they stand with the Lamb of God, the Lion of the tribe of Judah.
What then? — Then from the “beast” government of the Eastern Hemisphere and the “image” of the Western, there shall come the world-wide statute, or law, demanding homage or worship and enforcing the mark of the beast. Efforts for that are now world-wide, and they will increase as the prestige of the restored apostasy increases. Local legislation will become more general, till at last the world-wide Sunday law will be passed, and the nations will forever separate themselves from God. There comes the restoration of the beast under the fifth head before the two-horned beast makes the image; for it is an image to the beast under the head which had the wound by the sword and did live. Rev. 13:12, 14.
NOT ALL AT ONCE
It seems reasonable to believe that some mild form of that law will enter with the healing of the deadly wound, the restored papacy, the head of all religion and corrector of heretics, the civil power her agent to enforce her dogmas and decrees. Turning from God, they are blinded, and so reveal their character. “For God did put in their hearts to do His mind; and to come to one mind, and to give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God should be accomplished.” Rev. 17:17. Blinded because they “believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” 2 Thess. 2:11, 12.
The accomplishment of the word of God would seem to be the finishing of His great threefold gospel message of appeal, command, protest, and warning to the world, outlined in Rev. 14:6-11 and Rev. 18:1-5.
That message is the preaching of “the everlasting gospel,” with the threefold emphasis: “Fear God,” “give Him glory,” and “worship Him that made the heaven and the earth.” The power of God is set over against the fables of evolution, the fear of God is set above the fear of men or of combinations of men, and the call is to worship the Creator—hence Re-creator and Redeemer—who alone has power to save through righteousness; and the emblem, the memorial sign of His power, is the Sabbath of Jehovah, the true Lord’s day, made and observed by Jesus Christ.
The second part of that message is, “Babylon the great is fallen,” and is reaching rapidly the awful condition of Rev. 18:1-5; and the cry sounds forth to all the world from heaven through God’s messengers, “Come out of her, My people. . . . For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities.” It is the judgment of Babylon, which the angel showed in the beginning. Rev. 17:1.
The last part of that message is a fearful protest and warning against the worship of the beast (obedience to his mandate) or his image (this country apostate), or the reception of his mark (the badge of his assumed authority, the counterfeit Sunday-sabbath), with the authority of man, apostate man, behind it. Fearful is the penalty for those who reject the message. But of those who accept it, it is written, “Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.” Rev. 14:12.252
The very warning, in connection with chapter 13, shows that there will be attempted world-wide enforcement of the mark of the beast. Men must bow to this assumed authority. Of course, this will not be enforced as against the Lamb, but professedly, ostensibly, for Him. Then will be fulfilled Christ’s own words to His disciples, “Whosoever killeth you shall think that he offereth service unto God.” And He gives us the reason: “And these things will they do, because they have not known the Father, nor Me.” John 16:2, 3. Persecution for religion’s sake is ever a mark of apostasy. Further, the persecution ever arises over something which God has never made a test. It is almost invariably over tradition, not over the word of God. But in essential things not even Christ presumed to condemn. Surely obedience to Christ is essential, but He said, “If any man hear My sayings, and keep them not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.” John 12:47. Those are the principles of Christ. The opposite of those principles, it need not be said, is antichristian.
But the world will again, under the instruction of apostasy, commit itself to the principles of intolerance of religious opinions. Dissenters to state-fostered religion will be punished as heretics. Persecution will again become popular. M. C. W.
(“A False Peace” is the subject of our next article in this series.)
Question Corner
By Milton C. Wilcox
Conducted by MILTON C. WILCOX
Mountain View, California
NOTE.—This department is for the purpose of helping Bible students. Answers must of necessity be brief, often only suggestive, never exhaustive, never infallible only as they agree with the infallible Word. Such questions only will be answered as seem to the editors to minister to the mission of the paper. Questions of the same import can not be answered repeatedly in the same volume. Name and address must be given, not for publication, but as evidence of good faith and to insure reply by letter if thought best. It is well always to inclose stamp, not stamped envelope, unless answer is desired by letter alone.
112—“SEASON” AND “TIME”
Please explain Dan. 7:11, 12, particularly the expression “season” and “time.” C. S.
Dan. 7:11 refers to the judgment of God which falls upon the beast because of his blasphemous words. The prophet sees that from the time the beast utters its blasphemous words, its fate is determined; and as he still beholds, the beast is destroyed, “given to the burning flame.” He then refers to the beasts that preceded this last beast. They did not meet the same end that the last beast met. Their lives were prolonged. There was a process of blending from one into the other. Babylon was not immediately overthrown. Medo-Persia was not; Grecia was not. They were set aside by a gradual process; but in the case of the last beast of apostasy, the end comes at once, right at the very acme of its triumph. The marginal reading of verse 12, you will see, is, “A prolonging in life was given them.” This gives the idea of the “season” and the “time.” It does not mean a particular, definite period.
113—ANCESTRY OF CHRIST
If it was Joseph who was of the lineage of David, how was Christ of David’s seed according to the flesh? B. H. P.
Matthew and Luke give two different lines of ancestry for our Lord. That of Matthew is His royal descent, down through David, and consequently through Joseph. His legal father—Jesus inheriting the kingdom from him because he was His legal father. The kingdom belonged to Him, therefore, according to law. But Luke gives our Lord’s human descent from Adam down through David’s seed to Mary. Joseph is mentioned because all the reckoning is through the male; but there seems to be no question at all but that Heli was the father of Mary, and legally the father of Joseph, because Joseph was Mary’s husband. Therefore the lineage of Matthew traces our Lord back to David, and through David to Abraham, the father of the faithful. But Luke traces His lineage back through Heli to Adam himself. Therefore legally Jesus was a Son of David and heir to the kingdom, and literally He was the Son of David according to the flesh.
114—ARE THE PATRIARCHS LIVING?
Are Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob now living? Matt. 22:32. B. H. P.
The text does not say it. The scripture declares: “I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.” That is, they live in God’s purpose, but they live only as the verses before indicate—by the resurrection of the dead. That resurrection has not yet taken place, but in the purpose of God it exists; and as the purpose of God is infinite, it will be carried out. Therefore God counts them as still living. See the parallel passage in Mark 12:26, 27: “And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err.” Our Lord uses this very fact to prove that there will be a resurrection of the dead. Now if they were already living without a resurrection, it would make our Lord’s argument foolish. Of course it is not that. It proves just what Jesus designed to prove, that the dead would be raised. See also Luke 20:37, 38: “Now that the dead are raised, even Moses showed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. For He is not a God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto Him.” In other words, because God is eternal and all-powerful, He “quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.” Rom. 4:17.
Kindly explain Eze. 39:9, 10. When is the time mentioned here? And do not Gog and Magog represent Russia? And in the twelfth verse, when are those seven months? The whole chapter is a mystery to us. A READER.
There are other questioners on the same passage. We answer them all under this head.
First of all, let us say that Ezekiel 38 and 39 are conditional prophecies. Some would include with these Ezekiel 36 and onward to the close of the book. This is certainly true of Ezekiel 40-48.
By conditional prophecies we mean that the fulfillment of these prophecies is based on conditions. These conditions are stated in Jer. 18:7-10:
“At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it; if that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them. And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it; if it do evil in My sight, that it obey not My voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.”
Secondly, at the time of Ezekiel’s prophecy, Israel were scattered. In a short time God was to gather them home to their own land. If they had complied fully with His conditions, He would have restored them in a measure far exceeding any prosperity or power they had dreamed of. The thirty-sixth chapter tells us that He would have forgiven their sins, given them new hearts, built up all their waste cities, and they would have been a “holy flock,” as the flock of Jerusalem in her solemn feasts. They should know that He is Jehovah. He would have restored them, and perhaps Israel who were sleeping, as intimated in the figure of the resurrection, in chapter 37, in which figure the dry bones that God clothed with flesh and placed life within are said to be the whole house of Israel. He would have scattered Israel and Judah, and joined them together in one nation, and the seed of David would have ruled over them. The nations north of them—the Scythian nations, spoken of as Gog and Magog—would have been destroyed before them, and there would have been built the wonderful sanctuary in which they would have rendered the blessed worship described in Ezekiel 40-48. God’s glory would have rested upon that city as never before, and the name of it would have been, from that day forward, “Jehovah-shammah,” meaning “Jehovah is there.” See Eze. 48:35, margin.
But Israel failed. They did not comply with the conditions. Consequently there was only the feeblest form of fulfillment of the promises of God. A few of them were gathered back to the Holy Land—less than fifty thousand. The temple was built, but was not at all equal in glory to the temple built by Solomon. Instead of their northern foes being destroyed, they persecuted the children of Israel—preeminently so under Antiochus IV; and finally the people of God fell under the power of the Romans, and continued thus until the nation was destroyed.
Thirdly. Now there are promises in these scriptures that will be fulfilled toward the true Israel of God, but not in this setting. It seems to us impossible that there can be any literal fulfillment of Ezekiel 38 and 39 in the last days. (a) Because the prophecy itself demands that the land of Israel, spoken of as “the mountains of Israel,” shall be inhabited by a people whom God calls His—a people gathered out from all the nations of the world. But the land of Palestine is not inhabited by any such people at the present time. There are Jews there, but they are few in number, and the land is controlled by the Turk. (b) These people shall dwell safely, all of them, in villages without walls; and while in these days we do not have walled towns, certainly it cannot be said that the people are “dwelling safely.” (c) They are represented as having property and cattle and goods, but Palestine is the poorest of all lands. (d) It is this wealth which arouses the cupidity of the northern powers. That is why these combined powers are said to think “an evil thought,” that they will sweep down upon that land of peace and plenty, and take great spoil; but there is no such wealth to tempt them in these days.
These things forbid that the prophecy shall be literally fulfilled in the last days. Then, too, we could mention another point. The powers that would have swept down upon Israel if God had given Israel the prosperity He desired to give them, would have had wooden weapons, shields and bucklers, and hand staves and spears, and these could have been used for fuel by the children of Israel. But the armies of to-day are not equipped with weapons of that kind.
On the other hand, there are certain things mentioned—the plagues, the pestilence, the hailstones, fire and brimstone, which God will pour out upon the wicked who come against His own people. But for the setting of these judgments we shall look not to Ezekiel 38 and 39, but to Revelation 16-19.
There will doubtless be revolutions in the near future, which may include just such combined armies—and doubtless will—as are set forth in Ezekiel 38; and these armies may sweep down over lesser powers, and utterly destroy them, but they will not do it in the setting that is found in these prophecies. Therefore it seems to us that the heart that is seeking after truth would do well to look upon all of these prophecies in the last part of Ezekiel in the light of the fuller, clearer disclosures in the book of Revelation.
Training the Appetite of Children
By Lauretta Kress
The Results of Improper Feeding — Suggestions About Proper Nourishing
By Lauretta Kress, M. D.
IMPROPER feeding is the most active cause of infantile disease. A great deal of suffering and many premature deaths result from digestive derangements.
How many puny children, with shrunken, wasted frames, would quickly become happy, healthy, and well-nourished, if fed according to their requirements! There is rarely any lack of food, for mothers are only too willing to provide for their little ones. It is for want of food which they can digest and assimilate that so many suffer.
Regularity of Feeding
The pernicious habit of cramming something into the child's mouth every time it is opened, is responsible for endless mischief. Regularity is a necessity in infant feeding, and the frequency of the meals must be determined by the physical condition of the child.
Few children cry from hunger. Pain resulting from overfeeding is a much more likely cause; and a little warm water internally, or a warm application to the stomach externally, will usually give speedy relief. Whatever is done, more food must not be crowded into the stomach merely to hush the child's voice. Many a voice has been forever hushed in this way.
Natural Nourishment
The best food for babies is undoubtedly mothers' milk. Whenever possible, infants should be nursed for ten or twelve months. Children who have inherited good constitutions do not require more than five meals — four in the daytime, and one at night — in each twenty-four hours, except during the first two months of infant life. Between the fourth and the eighth month, the interval should be prolonged to five hours; and at the end of the first year, only three meals a day need be provided, the child being allowed to sleep soundly all night.
To break a child of night nursing, a little warm water may be administered in the bottle in place of the customary milk. The baby will drink freely and then drop off to sleep again.
Feeble or premature children must be fed rather more frequently than those of sounder constitutions, and they require extra care.
Comforters Condemned
Never allow an infant to sleep at the breast or with a feeding bottle in its mouth. Let it stop eating as soon as its hunger is appeased. Science rightly condemns the baby “comforters,” so commonly employed, because they cause a waste of saliva, and tend to cause posterior nasal growths. Nor is it advisable to give sugar teats or sweets to soothe a crying child. Some mothers administer sugar and water the first few days of life, but this is often responsible for disturbances. Herb teas are unnecessary and often harmful. Plain water is by far the best drink for young children.
Artificial Nourishment
When the mother is unable to suckle her child, so that artificial feeding becomes a necessity, cow's milk, properly sterilized and diluted, is the best substitute. Since it is difficult to keep the nipples and tubes of feeding bottles clean and free from germs, it is much better to teach the baby to eat from a spoon. Although more of the mother's time is taken up by this method, the results justify its expenditure.
At the third or fourth month, zwieback (twice baked bread) finely grated or powdered, or pulverized granose flakes, may be added to the milk. Both of these products are much more easily digested than the majority of so-called “infant foods.” The addition of something of this character prevents the formation of curds.
The present is an age of commercial fraud. Notwithstanding the stringent laws against food adulteration, this nefarious practice is on the increase. During the summer months, milk is very subject to the addition of flavoring matter and preservatives. Hand-fed infants, dependent as they are upon milk and milk preparations for subsistence, are the chief sufferers. Milk unpasteurized is quite unsafe, and should never be used.
The Weaning Process
The proper time for weaning is from the tenth to the twelfth month, the change of diet being made gradually. When the child reaches the age of nine months, commence to substitute occasionally simple soups, crushed granose or zwieback, and ripe or stewed fruits, for the regular meal. Adopting this plan, when the infant is twelve months old, nursing may altogether cease.
Very gradually additional articles may be introduced into the daily bill of fare; but meats, cheese, coarse vegetables, tea, coffee, condiments, spices, pastry, rich puddings, and all other substances difficult of digestion, must be studiously avoided.
Value of Ripe Fruit
Nearly all children crave fruit, and this is perfectly natural. Ripe fruit and all kinds of fruit juices may be provided abundantly, for they are well adapted to the digestive organs of the young. When fruits are eaten, milk should be temporarily discarded. The scraped pulp of raw apples or pears, ripe peaches, and in fact any of the semitropical fruit products, may be eaten at the regular mealtime; for the fruit furnishes just the material needed for the plump little bodies so characteristic of early childhood.
