Review and Herald, Vol. 78, No. 42. (10/15/1901)

Review and Herald

Oct 15, 1901

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Oct 15, 1901

AGAIN CRUCIFIED.

By Lowell

Said Christ our Lord, “I will go and see How the men, my brethren, believe in me.” He passed not again through the gate of birth, But made himself known to the children of earth.

Then said the chief priests, and rulers, and kings, “Behold, now, the Giver of all good things: Go to, let us welcome with pomp and state Him who alone is mighty and great.”

With carpets of gold the ground they spread Wherever the Son of man should tread, And in palace chambers lofty and rare They lodged Him and served Him with kingly fare.

Great organs surged through arches dim Their jubilant floods in praise of Him; And in church, and palace, and judgment hall, He saw His image high over all.

But still, wherever His steps they led, The Lord in sorrow bent down His head; And from under the heavy foundation stones, The Son of Mary heard bitter groans.

“Have ye founded your thrones and altars, then, On the bodies and souls of living men? And think ye that building shall endure, Which shelters the noble and crushes the poor?

“With gates of silver and bars of gold Ye have fenced my sheep from their Father’s fold; I have heard the dropping of their tears In heaven these eighteen hundred years.”

“O Lord and Master, not ours the guilt, We build but as our fathers built; Behold thine images, how they stand, Sovereign and sole, through all our land.

“Our task is hard—with sword and flame To hold thine earth forever the same, And with sharp crooks of steel to keep Still, as thou leftest them, thy sheep.”

Then Christ sought out an artisan, A low-browed, stunted, haggard man, And a motherless girl, whose fingers thin Pushed from her faintly want and sin.

These set He in the midst of them, And as they drew back their garment hem, For fear of defilement, “Lo, here,” said He, “The images ye have made of me!”

—Lowell.

GOD'S HELPING HAND.

By Ellen G. White

MRS. E. G. WHITE.

By the great law of God, man is bound up with his fellow man. To the answer given by the lawyer, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbor as thyself,” Christ said, “Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.”

In these few words are laid down the terms of eternal life. True godliness is measured by the work done. Profession is nothing; position is nothing; a character like the character of Christ is the evidence we are to bear that God has sent His Son into the world. Those who profess to be Christians, yet do not act as Christ would were He in their place, greatly injure the cause of God. They misrepresent their Saviour, and are standing under false colors.

He in whose heart Christ abides shows forth to the world Christ’s love for humanity. He is God’s helping hand. The glow of spiritual health thrills his whole being as he receives from the Saviour grace to give to others. This is true missionary work. Its performance heals the wounds inflicted upon disordered human nature by the one who was once a covering cherub, but who through self-exaltation lost his high and holy estate, and took up a warfare against God and man. By his subtlety he led human beings into the pit of degradation, and it cost the life of the Son of man to redeem them. Christ gave His life to save every sinner. He is the light and life of men. He came as a mighty physician, a great medical missionary, to heal the wounds that sin had made in the human family. His mighty healing power sends a glow of spiritual health into the soul.

Pure and undefiled religion is not a sentiment, but the doing of works of mercy and love. This religion is necessary to health and happiness. It enters the polluted soul-temple, and with a scourge drives out the sinful intruders. Taking the throne, it consecrates all by its presence, illuminating the heart with the bright beams of the Sun of Righteousness. It opens the windows of the soul heavenward, letting in the sunshine of God’s love. With it comes serenity and composure. Physical, mental, and moral strength increase, because the atmosphere of heaven, as a living, active agency, fills the soul. Christ is formed within, the hope of glory.

God calls upon us to show, by the exercise of true piety, that we are under divine enlightenment. When those connected with the service of God center their hopes on Jesus, a change will be seen in their deportment. Supreme love for God and unselfish love for their fellow men will place them on vantage ground.

The gospel is good tidings of great joy. Its promises bring light to the soul and shine forth to the world. Therefore Christ says to those who have received the gospel, “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.”

Again: He illustrates the living reality of a Christian life by the saving properties of salt. “Ye are the salt of the earth,” He says; “but if the salt have lost his savor, wherewith shall it be salted?” Solemn question! If the saving principles of truth are not exemplified by professing Christians, what benefit does the world derive from their lives? When salt has lost its savor, “it is thenceforth good for nothing; but to be cast out, and to be trodden underfoot of men.” When Christians do not reveal Christ, of what value are they? Are they not like savorless salt, “good for nothing”? But when they reveal in their lives the saving principles of the truth, poor, sin-hardened souls are not left to perish in corruption. Good works are seen; for the living principles of righteousness cannot be hidden. The gospel acted is like salt which contains all its savor. It is powerful in the saving of souls.

Christ inculcated the value of obedience, saying, “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven; but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” Is it not best for us to keep the commandments, so that through us God can reveal His power? If all God’s people were obeying His law, they would indeed be lights in the world.

God’s promises to the obedient gladden the humble, contrite soul. The life of the true Christian is radiant with the bright beams of the Sun of Righteousness. If men and women would act as the Lord’s helping hand, doing deeds of love and kindness, uplifting the oppressed, rescuing those ready to perish, the glory of the Lord would be their rearward. Then they would not send thousands of miles to learn from human beings their duty. They would call, and the Lord would answer, “Here am I.” They would turn to the One close beside them, the One who has given them the promise, “Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.”

Look, thirsty, bewildered souls! Can ye not see the fountain of life, opened for the weary, wayworn traveler? Can ye not hear the voice of Mercy as she beckons to you, saying, “‘Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters; ‘whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely’”? The waters of this fountain contain medicinal properties which will heal both spiritual and physical infirmities. Drink deep from the fountain opened for Judah and Jerusalem. Then you can take the refreshing cup to parched, fainting souls.

Christ said of His work, “The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me; because the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; He hath sent me to bind up the broken-hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all

that mourn.” Notice, you are not to comfort only the few whom you are inclined to regard with favor, but all that mourn, all who apply to you for help and relief; and more, you are to search for the needy. Job says, “The cause which I knew not I searched out.” He did not wait to be urged, and then turn away, saying, “I will not help him.”

“To appoint unto them that mourn in Zion, to give unto them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness; that they might be called trees of righteousness, the planting of the Lord, that He might be glorified.”

Wake up, wake up, my brethren and sisters. You must do the work that Christ did when He was upon this earth. Remember that you may act as God’s helping hand in opening the prison doors to those that are bound. Wonderful is the work that God desires to accomplish through His servants, that His name may constantly be glorified. He is waiting to work through His people. Those who are willing to be used will obtain a rich experience, an experience full of the glory of God.

Of those who act as His helping hand the Lord says, “Ye shall be named the Priests of the Lord; men shall call you the Ministers of our God: ye shall eat the riches of the Gentiles, and in their glory shall ye boast yourselves. For your shame ye shall have double; and for confusion they shall rejoice in their portion: therefore in their land they shall possess the double; everlasting joy shall be unto them. For I the Lord love judgment, I hate robbery for burnt offering; and I will direct their work in truth, and I will make an everlasting covenant with them. And their seed shall be known among the Gentiles, and their offspring among all the people: all that see them shall acknowledge them, that they are the seed which the Lord hath blessed.” “And the Gentiles shall see thy righteousness, and all kings thy glory: and thou shalt be called by a new name, which the mouth of the Lord shall name. Thou shalt also be a crown of glory in the hand of the Lord, and a royal diadem in the hand of thy God.”

Shall we not try to crowd all the goodness and love and compassion possible into our lives?

THE SABBATH QUESTION.

By J. E. PIERCE

The Chicago American of August 6.

W. R. Hearst, Editor Chicago American.

DEAR SIR: Permit me to express my opinion that your claim that the question involved in the observation of Sunday is not merely a religious question, that it is chiefly a useful question, is unwarranted by facts.

Go with me, if you please, to the very foundation, and you will find not Sunday, but the seventh day divinely set apart as a day of rest. Thus you will see that a day has already been chosen, sanctified and blest by the Creator at the very beginning and not left to the ideas and notions of fallible man, for him to quarrel over, and for the majority to endeavor by force and persecution to compel the minority to accept. I think the Creator settled the question on the point which you claim; that is, that “one day in the week all men and all animals should rest.”

In Deut. 5:12-14 He speaks as follows, “Keep the Sabbath day to sanctify it, as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee. 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, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; that thy manservant and thy maidservant may rest as well as thou.” There could be no plainer language on that point.

If the Sabbath were an institution of which man was the originator, your claim that the majority should rule would be in order; but as the matter of Sabbath observance is a matter of conscience; and no majority has any right to force the minority to yield under the circumstances. If this is chiefly a useful question, why is it that all the religious organizations are laboring so earnestly for Sunday laws, and the voice of the masses who are not interested in matters religious is unheard on the subject? The Sunday question ever has been and ever will be a “chiefly religious question.” The Fathers of the Church declared that “whatsoever ceremonies it was the custom to observe on the seventh day we have transferred to the first day of the week.”

I trust that you will publish this article, and let the readers of the Chicago American hear another side of this much-vexing “Sabbath-observance question.” J. E. PIERCE. 148 West Madison St., Chicago.

JEZEBEL

By William Covert

ELDER WM. COVERT.

From the court of heaven the Son of God sent word to the Church of Thyatira, containing both commendation and reproof. Thyatira stands in the middle of the seven churches addressed through the book of Revelation. Its history parallels in time much of the papal work. It came in contact with the papacy at many points, and needed carefully to guard against its intrigues.

The first reproof which the heavenly message gives against this Church accuses it of permitting Jezebel to teach, and through her teachings to seduce the Lord’s servants. Rev. 2:20.

The mighty contest of those dark days tells, among many other things, of how the truth has been prevented from doing its proper work because of the influence of Jesuitical schools. These schools, though in the Christian age, are the counterpart of what the schools established by Jezebel were to Israel in the days of Ahab and Jezebel.

The woman Jezebel could have done but little by her personal work in turning Israel out of the paths of truth. It was her Zidonian schools which brought the evil thing. She caused the sons of the prophets, the Lord’s select teachers for Israel, to be murdered, and in their stead installed the priests of Baal and the prophets, or teachers, of the Ashera. In this manner she succeeded in turning a large majority of Israel into the way of idolatry.

Jezebel was not a passive person, but a zealous defender of the pagan worship in which she had been brought up. Her father, Ethbaal, was king of the Zidonians. His name signifies that the family were Baal zealots. Baal was everywhere among the heathen worshiped as the chief god of the sun. Not only did the Zidonians worship Baal the sun-god, but they worshiped Ashtaroth, the goddess of the moon. From the service rendered the chief gods was produced a whole community of lesser gods; and priests were consecrated to them for the purpose of directing the ceremonies and propagating the doctrines of the demons represented by these idols. At the time Elijah called Ahab to an account before heaven because of Baal worship, there were four hundred and fifty of Baal’s prophets, and four hundred prophets of the Ashera—the smaller idols, or gods of less note than Baal—doing idolatrous service in Israel.

Baal worship was, in its beginning, intended as a means of communication with the first deified man. It was taught that this man, though dead, was, through his departed spirit, dispensing blessings after his death. The other idols were dedicated objects through which the supposed spirits of other heroes were pacified and worshiped.

The whole system was but an ancient form of spiritualism. It is most likely that it was believed as fully then as spiritualism is now believed by its devotees.

Those priests of Baal, and of the other heroes, the whole eight hundred and fifty, were not lazy fellows, doing nothing but feeding at the king’s court. Instead of this, they were sent through all Israel to teach the people, and to propagate their heathen religion. These were distributed in the kingdom to suit the mind of Jezebel, who ruled over Israel through Ahab and the priests; for it is said, when Elijah asked Ahab to call these priests together, “Ahab sent unto all the children of Israel, and gathered the prophets together unto Mt. Carmel.” 1 Kings 18:20.

Those prophets were supported in their work at government expense; therefore it was said that they “did eat at Jezebel’s table.” But Jezebel’s table was spread wherever her heathen teachers were required to work. This is the manner in which that woman Jezebel taught in Israel. Omri, the father of Ahab, bought the site from Shemer, and built the city of Samaria, and Ahab built a house for Baal in the city, and reared up an altar for Baal in the house which he built. He then certainly worshiped Baal in that house, and offered sacrifices to Baal on the altar which he erected there. He also erected idols in Samaria for the other gods, and it is said, “He did very abominably in following idols, according to all things as did the Amorites, whom the Lord cast out before the children of Israel.” He did worse than all the kings which were before him, “whom Jezebel his wife stirred up.” 1 Kings 21:25, 26.

The kings in Israel, who had preceded Ahab, from Jeroboam down, did nothing to encourage the schools of the prophets. But Ahab did far worse than they all. He married a woman whom he suffered to teach, and who caused the most revolting idolatry to be practiced as the religion of the state. But, not stopping with this wickedness, she went so far as to kill the Lord’s prophets and teachers, and overthrow their altars. This she did so fully that Elijah supposed himself to be the only one left in all the realm who had not worshiped Baal. This is what Jezebel in her day did to hinder the cause of truth.

Now there is in the Christian age a Jezebel who teaches; and the Church of Thyatira is blamed because she suffers this Jezebel to teach. But how is Thyatira to be blamed?—Evidently the Church is blamed because she suffered Jezebel to teach her precious charge, when the Church of God should have done the teaching herself. This is a matter that cannot be avoided. It is quite evident that the Lord does not ask the Church to interfere with the schools of the world or hinder them in their work. Nor does the Lord wish His people to tear down the schools taught by the various religions in the world. But the Lord does hold His people responsible for the education of their own children and people.

It is suffering paganism to be taught to the Lord’s servants that He complains of. The teaching seduces them and leads them to corruption. The people of the Lord are responsible because they allow it to be done. Now the Lord does not want His people to do without schools, but they must do their own teaching. In their teaching they must not suffer the deadly influences of paganism to creep into their class work or textbooks. Had the Lord’s people always stood firm upon the principles of education, idolatry could never have gained a foothold in the Church, nor in any other place. Had Protestantism from the days of the Reformation heeded the Thyatiran message, which warns against the teaching of Jezebel, then would she have prepared the world for the coming of the Lord.

Should not the Church of Laodicea avoid the mistake made by the Thyatirans? Should they not now recognize the work of Elijah for this time, and join with him as he labors among the Laodiceans? Elijah is yet opposing the work of Jezebel.

It is to the Laodiceans that Elijah now comes with his message which is to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the hearts of the children to the fathers. When Elijah was here in person, his greatest work was that of overthrowing Jezebel and her system of teaching, and in their stead to reinstall the Lord’s prophets in their school work. He is now to do the same good work among the Laodiceans.

It was after his forty-two months of hiding in the wilderness that he came forth to meet Ahab at Mt. Carmel. A little later he regathered courage, and came forth to victory more complete. He then set about the reorganization of the schools in Israel. When this was done, the Lord translated him to heaven. The challenge that Elijah made to the people was, “How long halt ye between two opinions? if the Lord be God, follow Him: but if Baal, then follow him.” I Kings 18:21. Is not the same question to the point to-day? Ahab to-day—the tool of Jezebel—says, “Follow her, Jezebel, to whom I am married.” The Lord says, “Follow me.” Whom shall we follow, Jezebel, and worship Baal, or the Elijah message, and worship God?

CANON WILBERFORCE ON VIVISECTION.

The correspondence which follows arose from the annual meeting and proceedings of the Victoria Street Society, London, and was reported in the Zoophilist at the time:—

THE LETTER TO CANON WILBERFORCE.

40 WIMPOLE STREET, W., June 23, 1892.

SIR: In the Times of to-day appears an account of the annual meeting of the Society for the Protection of Animals from Vivisection. It is there stated that in moving the adoption of the report, you characterized vivisectors as “inhuman devils.” If this be a correct version of the words you employed, you have placed yourself under an obligation either to substantiate or to withdraw and apologize for this expression.

By vivisectors can only be meant the class of physiological investigators engaged in experimentation upon animals. These investigators are convinced of the necessity of experimentation, not only for the advancement of medical science, but for elucidation of the phenomena of nature upon which human progress depends. In this conviction, physiologists are supported by the highest intellects of the world, including, with scarcely an exception, the great mass of scientific experts who are alone fully qualified to form a correct judgment in such a matter.

The cultivation of science, as it is pursued by the physiological investigator, demands the utmost devotion and willingness to endure self-sacrifice. The one aim must be to elicit truth for truth’s sake; such labor is very seldom in any worldly sense remunerative, and rarely gains either applause or popularity. Those who have the privilege of the friendship of practical physiologists, and are best able to estimate their individual worth, must feel deep indignation to find men among the select few in modern society that lead, in every sense of the word, noble lives, stigmatized in the terms you are stated to have employed. Those terms are uncharitable, unjust, and libelous. Their spirit is entirely opposed to the teaching of Christianity, and of that Church in which you hold so distinguished a position.

I am, Sir, yours faithfully,

HENRY SEWILL.

THE REPLY.

DEANERY, SOUTHAMPTON, June 27, 1892.

SIR: The quotation from the Times to which you refer, consisting of two words only, is obviously a most unfair report of an entire speech. I did not say, in that indiscriminate manner, that ALL persons who practiced vivisection were “inhuman devils.” I am aware that many apparently succeed in escaping moral contamination from the atrocious deeds they do in the name of science, and I am prepared to take your word for it that persons capable of inflicting excruciating tortures upon helpless animals live in other respects “noble lives.” I did say, and I emphatically reiterate it, that persons who were capable of doing certain deeds, which I enumerated, such, for example, as leaving a dog crucified to a torture-trough, kept alive by artificial respiration, in agony unspeakable, throughout the long hours of the night, and sometimes from a Saturday to a Monday, while they themselves retire to the rest and comfort of their own homes, hoping to find their subject alive for further experimentation upon their return to the laboratory, were acting as “inhuman devils.” I do not stand alone in the opinion. The Rev. Dr. Haughton (Question 1888, Royal Commission, 1876) said: “I would shrink with horror from accustoming large classes of young men to the sight of animals under vivisection. . . . Science would gain nothing, and the world would have let loose upon it a set of young devils.”

You say that the spirit of my statement is “entirely opposed to the teaching of Christianity,” etc. I reply that the so-called “cultivation of science,” as it is practiced by the physiological investigators, “is entirely opposed to the teaching of Christianity,” is based upon the rankest materialism, and appeals to the lowest instincts of man; and as to “the Church in which I hold a position,” etc., I thank God that some of its eminent representatives have organized within it a league for the “total abolition of the practice of vivisection.” And the Bishop of Manchester, himself no tyro in science, preaching on behalf of this league, exposes himself to your “deep indignation;” for he, too, stigmatizes vivisectors as men “who use God’s dumb creatures as the subject of tortures which could only be called diabolical, and who gain their knowledge by the degradation of their moral character,” and with these sentiments I cordially agree.

Our contention is that the public has been blinded by scientific dust thrown into its eyes, and that multitudes are wholly unaware of the unspeakable and fiendish cruelties that are perpetrated in the name of science.

The public is taught to believe that vivisections are rare, that animals subjected to them are under anæsthetics, and that the discoveries made by the process are of infinite value. The public has not realized that three thousand doctors signed a memorial declaring that an important series of experiments could not be carried through while animals are under anæsthetics, that the arch-vivisector, Schiff, has been honest enough to say, “It is nothing but hypocrisy to wish to impose on one’s self and others the belief that the curarized animal does not feel pain.” There is employed to a great extent in vivisection the drug curare, which paralyzes motion, while sensibility acutely remains. According to Claude Bernard, who was named the “Prince of Vivisectors,” the curarized animals undergo atrocious suffering without being able to cry out or move a muscle.

Let us glance at some of the so-called “experiments,” and judge whether men endowed with ordinary sensibilities and imaginations could perform them without temporarily transforming themselves into “inhuman devils.” . . . They include baking, freezing, burning, pouring boiling oil on living animals, saturating them with inflammable oil and setting them on fire, starving to death, skinning alive, cutting off the breasts while giving milk, gouging out the eyes, larding the feet with nails, forcing broken glass into ears, intestines, and muscles, making incisions in the skull and twisting about a bent needle in the brain, etc., etc. (vide The Nine Circles, Swan, Sonnenschein & Co., Paternoster Square, in which chapter and verse are given for every experiment described, and a careful perusal of which will provide abundant justification for the expression of which you complain).

One of those “practical physiologists,” whom you estimate so highly, desired recently to ascertain whether it was impossible to pour molten lead into a man’s ear when drunk without causing him to shriek. For this purpose he procured several dogs, and the report says “he administered an anæsthetic composed of a solution of chloral and morphine to reduce the dog to the supposed condition of a drunken man. In spite of this precaution it appears that when the molten metal penetrated the ear of one of the animals, accompanied by a frizzling sound, the wretched beast struggled violently, and its howls were so dreadful that even the garçons du laboratoire, accustomed as they are to painful spectacles, were strongly affected.”

The second dog, though similarly anæsthetized, was so horribly tortured that it actually burst the thongs that bound it to the torture-trough.

Again, could any one but an “inhuman devil” perform the following? “At the late Medical Congress, held in Berlin, a Chicago professor performed before the assembled doctors some experiments upon a dog. A French journal in describing it says that the professor roared out, ‘Hand me over that dog.’ The unfortunate animal was brought into the room carefully muzzled, and with its legs tied down. The professor then proceeded to pump the poor beast full of sulphuretted hydrogen gas. ‘Now, gentlemen,’ he shouted, ‘the gas will issue from his mouth in a stream, and I will set fire to it.’ A lighted match was set to the dog’s mouth with no result; a second, a whole box full, and nothing came out of it but burning the hair on the dog’s jaws.’

“Then came the second part of the experiment. ‘Now, gentlemen,’ said the professor, ‘you will see the effect when the gas has been pumped into the bowels when they have been wounded.’ He then produced a loaded revolver and fired a bullet into the wretched animal’s abdomen. The dog yelled piteously, and the bleeding creature was subjected to a repetition of the gas injection. The rest of the story was too horrible to tell even in the pages of an English medical journal.”—Letter in Philadelphia Ledger, Dec. 16, 1890.

The list of Dr. Brown-Séquard’s and M. Chauveau’s experiments on the spinal marrow is too terrible to describe in extenso. The following will serve as a sample:—

“To ascertain the excitability of the spinal marrow and the convulsions and pain caused by that excitability. The studies were made chiefly on horses and asses which, he says, ‘lend themselves marvelously thereto by the large volume of spinal marrow.’ M. Chauveau accordingly ‘consecrated eighty subjects to his purpose.’ ‘The animal,’ he says, ‘is fixed on a table. An incision is made in its back, of from thirty to thirty-five centimeters; the vertebræ are opened with the help of a chisel, mallet, and pincers, and the spinal marrow is exposed.’”

Several experiments similar to the foregoing are described. In some the spinal marrow was burnt through with red-hot wire. The electrical stimulation was increased. The spinal marrow tetanized (i. e. convulsed) during three minutes. The vagus several times stimulated. The operations on the rabbit extended over eleven days. The wound in the back had suppurated, and the stimulation of the exposed nerves was added to by electrodes being fastened to each hind leg, causing tetanus (i. e. convulsions) of the back extremities.—Pflüger’s Archives, 1888, pages 303 et seq.

Again: “Fifty-one dogs had portions of the brain hemisphere washed out of the head, which had been pierced in several places. This was repeated four times, the mutilated creatures and their behavior having been studied for months. Most of the animals died at last of inflammation of the brain.”—Page 415. “Interesting experiment” on a delicately formed little bitch. Left side

of brain extracted; wire pincers on the hind feet. Doleful whining; the little animal began again to howl piteously; soon afterward foamed at the mouth (page 417). The same dog last operated upon on the 17th of October; since then blind; died on November 10. “The dissected brain resembles a lately hoed potato field (page 418). Little bitch last operated upon on the 26th of May, and made nearly blind; died on the 27th of July.”

Do you imagine that I should consider myself under an obligation to apologize for stigmatizing the dastardly perpetrator of the following abomination an “inhuman devil”?

Professor Goltz says that it was “marvelous and astonishing” to find that a dog that had served for some seven experiments, and whose hind quarters were completely paralyzed, and whose spinal marrow had been destroyed, the animal suffering besides from fatal peritonitis, was still capable of maternal feelings for its young. “She unceasingly licked the living and the dead puppy with the same tenderness as an uninjured dog might do.”—Pflüger’s Archives, Vol. IX, page 564.

I contend that the language does not exist in which it would be possible to be “uncharitable, unjust, and libelous,” in speaking of such “a labor to elicit truth for truth’s sake.”

For Paul Bert’s reports of his disgusting experiments of amputating the breasts of a goat and other animals, see Comptes de la Société de Biologie (Paris, 1883, page 193).

“I wrote,” he says, “to communicate to the society the results that I have obtained by the ablation of mammæ in animals.” Dogs and rabbits with their six or eight mammæ are unable to survive these “experiments.”

I certainly do not envy you “the privilege of the friendship of practical physiologists,” such as these.

Perhaps you will say that these experiments were performed by foreigners, and not by the “select few in modern society that lead, in every sense of the word, noble lives.” Then let me refer you to the report of the Royal Humane Society, 1865, pages 31-66, for an English experiment, which is only one out of thousands:—

“Experiment 19. A terrier was deprived of air by plunging its head into liquid plaster of Paris: respiratory efforts commenced at one minute thirty-five seconds, and ceased at four minutes, the heart beating till five minutes. On examining the lungs the white plaster was found throughout the bronchial tubes.” Seventy-six of these experiments were made.—Report of the Royal Humane Society, 1865, pages 31-66.

And the following: Dr. Angel Money reported a series of experiments in which he irritated the brains and intestines of a number of “anæsthetized, curarized animals” by electricity, sliced away their brains, and made “windows” in their bowels.—British Medical Journal, Aug. 4, 1883.

Dr. Bradford, of University College, London, has mutilated the kidneys of dogs. First, he removed a portion of one kidney, which operation must necessarily be of an exceedingly painful nature. At intervals varying from a fortnight to six weeks, the entire other kidney was also removed, thus leaving the animal with only a portion of kidney. After the second operation the animal became emaciated, and died at a period varying according to the remnant of kidney remaining. Sometimes the dogs lived a fortnight, sometimes six weeks.—Proceedings of Physiological Society, March 21, 1891.

The following quotation from Mr. R. T. Reed’s speech in the House of Commons, April 4, 1883, refers to English experiments: “I will take one instance from certain experiments performed by Professor Rutherford, and reported in the British Medical Journal. I refer to the series of experiments begun Dec. 14, 1878. These experiments were thirty-one in number; no doubt

there were hundreds of dogs sacrificed upon other series of experiments, but I now refer to one set, beginning, as I say, on the 14th of December, 1878. There were in this set thirty-one experiments, but no doubt many more than thirty-one dogs were sacrificed. All were performed on dogs, and the nature of them was this: The dogs were starved for many hours. They were then fastened down; the abdomen was cut open; the bile duct was dissected out and cut; a glass tube was tied into the bile duct and brought outside the body. The duct leading to the gall-bladder was then closed by a clamp, and various drugs were placed into the intestine at its upper part. The result of these experiments was simply nothing at all—I mean it led to no increase of knowledge whatever; and no one can be astonished at that, because these wretched beasts were placed in such circumstances—their condition was so abnormal—that the ordinary and universally recognized effect of well-known drugs was not produced. These experiments were performed without anæsthetics. The animals were experimented upon under the influence of a drug called curare.”

And now, sir, what “phenomena of nature upon which human progress depends” have been elucidated by these brutal and degrading tortures? What victory over disease can your “scientific experts,” who you say “are alone fully qualified to form a correct judgment in such a matter,” point to as the result of vivisection? Can they cure cancer, consumption, scrofula, lupus? Is it not a fact that the boasted discoveries of one year are the ludibrium of the next? In spite of the unspeakably cruel experiments of Professor Ferrier, your “scientific experts” do not even yet know the true function of the cerebellum, and the experiments of one physiologist are often pronounced by another to be utterly useless.

Harvey testified himself that the discovery of the circulation of the blood was due to anatomy, and not to vivisection. Some of the most skillful living operators have told me that their skill was attained by dissection of the cadaver, and not by vivisection. Sir Thomas Watson told me himself that it was constantly necessary to unlearn at the bedside the lessons taught in the laboratory. Majendie’s holocaust of victims resulted in disastrous failure when his conclusions were tested on the human body. What has humanity gained from the unparalleled cruelties of Koch, who is compelled to keep a special crematorium to dispose of the corpses of his victims? or from the so-called discoveries of Pasteur, who has apparently succeeded in producing a new form of disease, rabies paralysis? The report signed by Sir J. Paget, Sir J. Lister, Dr. Burdon Sanderson, and others, informs us that “under the intensive method deaths have occurred under conditions which have suggested that they were due to the inoculations rather than to infection from rabid animals.” At Milan three men died of rabies after treatment at the Instituto Robico, and the dog by which they were bitten was declared by Professor Pasteur himself not to have been rabid. Professor Peter says, “M. Pasteur does not cure rabies, he gives it.” And in the Times (Nov. 16, 1888) I read that “in the case of one man sent over to Paris from this country there is reason to believe that the hydrophobia from which he died was rather the result of his inoculation than of the original bite.”

You say “the investigators are convinced of the necessity of such experimentation.” I reply that an increasing number of intelligent Englishmen, undeterred by what has been well termed (I believe by the late Lord Shaftesbury) “the insolence of physiological science,” are convinced of the iniquity, the uselessness, and the peril to the human race of such experimentation, and they are determined to do their utmost to render the practice, in this country, at least, wholly illegal.

I am, sir, yours faithfully.

BASIL WILBERFORCE, Canon of Westminster.

Continue reading: OPINIONS OF NOTED PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS