Review and Herald, Vol. 22, No. 9. (7/28/1863)

Review and Herald

Jul 28, 1863

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jul 28, 1863

Clergymen vs. Narcotics.

By H. S. Rumsey

BY H. S. RUMSEY.

"Whether ye eat or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do it all to the glory of God."

How sad the thought, some clergymen Think it too hard a trial To live as by the Saviour taught, A life of self-denial! Yet no GOOD thing doth he withhold, Only the soul-debasing, That which doth health and life destroy, God's lineaments effacing.

Their conduct gives the lie unto The holy truths they teach, For as they daily walk our streets With a cigar they preach. They make a cesspool of their mouths, Go drooling all the day: Tobacco truly they enthrone, And this their god obey.

Their bodies should a temple meet Be for the good and pure; Instead of this much filthiness They cause them to endure. They cannot soar to Pisgah's top, Till they are stimulated, Tobacco, some exhilarant They use, and are elated.

Without their usual stimulant, They have the "blues," the horrors, They feel unsocial and morose, Their minds are filled with terrors. And yet God's blessing they will crave Upon a life so vile; And while they trample on His laws, Expect that Heaven will smile.

In doing good our Saviour passed His useful life away, But these their brain in nicotin Are steeping day by day. Tobacco wakens into life A thirst for alcohol; The plant of Java, China's leaf, For stronger portions call.

When their example we pursue, And premature decay, To assuage the grief of those who mourn, These ministers will say— "Our God hath given, and he will take The ones he loves away." Oh! shame upon these false, blind guides, They lead us to the grave; With such examples for our youths, They sink 'neath ruin's wave.

Sad! many who profess to love The high, the holy way, Defile the temple of the Lord With stimulants each day. And when they thus disease their nerves, Like harp with jarring strings, This human instrument divine With horrid discord rings.

And many a pang unfelt before, Courses each nerve along, The world without, within, is dark, And ev'ry thing goes wrong. Oh! brothers, spurn this vilest weed, Which always leads to evil, Which dwarfs, debases, blacks the soul, And gives it to the devil.

Why Prayer is not Heard.

By Nevins

THERE are some who are not at all interested in this inquiry. They offer no prayer. There is in their case nothing to be heard. They are content with the things which are to be had without asking. Such are in a bad way, and I suspect they sometimes themselves think so. That dependent creatures should habitually and devoutly acknowledge their dependence before God; and that needy creatures, whose necessities return every day, and indeed recur with every moment, should ask God to supply them, is too reasonable a thing for men to neglect it, and yet be at perfect peace with themselves.

But to pass from those who never make the experiment of prayer, we observe that some pray without any expectation or care to be heard. To obtain is not their object. Their end is accomplished in asking. They hear and judge that prayer is a duty owed to God. They therefore pray, that they may discharge this duty; and having prayed, and so done their duty, they are satisfied. Of course such persons obtain nothing. Why should they? If a child of yours should come and ask you for any thing from a mere sense of duty, you would say, "Very well, you have done your duty, go;" but you would not give him the thing. He did not ask it with any wish to get it. He does not feel his want of it. He meant only to do his duty in asking. It makes very little difference with such what is the matter of their prayer—what petitions they offer. Any thing that is of the nature of supplication will do. It is true, they generally pray for the right things, because the prayers they have heard and read petitioned for such, and they fall naturally into that style of prayer. Ask such persons if their prayers are heard, and you astonish them. That is what they never looked for. They never asked any thing with the hope of receiving it—never prayed from a sense of want. I have sometimes thought, how many would never pray, if prayer was not a duty. They never pray except when urged to it by conscience. As a privilege, they set no value on it. Now the truth is, when a man is really engaged in prayer, he altogether forgets that it is a duty. He feels that he wants something which God alone can give, and therefore goes and asks it; and feeling that he wants it very much, he is in earnest, asks and asks again, and waits and pleads for it, till he gets it. Does any one suppose that the publican smote on his breast, and cried, "God be merciful to me a sinner," from a sense of duty, and not rather from a conviction of sin, and a deep feeling of his need of mercy? And yet how many ask for mercy from a mere sense of duty. They have their reward, but they do not obtain mercy.

Some prayers proceed from a conviction of want, while there is no sense of want. The persons judge that they need the things they ask for, but they do not feel their need of them. Now, prayers, which come from no deeper source than the understanding, are not heard. They must come from the heart. True prayer always originates in the heart. It is the heart's sincere desire. Or, as another has well described it, "It is a sense of want, seeking relief from God."

But there may be a sense of want, and yet no real desire for that which is adapted to the supply of the want. In that case the prayer, not being sustained by a corresponding desire in the heart, is not heard. There is a conflict here. The lips pray one thing and the heart another. The request is perhaps to be delivered from all sin, but the desire is to be delivered from all but one or two favorite sins. Now it would be strange if God should grant a man's request to the disregard of his desire—that he should attend to the lips rather than the heart, and answer the prayer according to its terms rather than its meaning.

But sometimes the desire for the thing requested is real, while the mischief is, it is not paramount—it is not supreme. This is a common case. The prayer expresses what is desired, but not what is desired on the whole. Many really wish to be religious, and they pray that they may be so, but they do not on the whole desire it. They have a strange wish to be something else which is incompatible with their being religious. Again, some sincerely desire the progress of the Gospel, but they desire still more to take their ease, or to keep their money. Perhaps some of this description attend the Monthly Concert. But desire may be sincere and supreme, and yet not intense. Effectual prayer is the expression of intense desire. The examples of successful prayer recorded in the Bible evince this. The woman of Canaan sincerely, supremely, and intensely desired what she asked. Such was the character of Jacob's desire for a blessing, and of the publican's for mercy. Where the desire of spiritual blessings is not very strong, it shows that these blessings are not suitably estimated.

A great deal depends on having a petition properly presented. It is all-important to get it into the right hands. A petition frequently fails through inattention to this. If the proper person had been engaged to present and urge it, it would have been granted. This holds true of suits to the throne of heavenly grace. We must ask in the name of Christ. We must put our petitions into his hands, and engage the great Advocate to present and urge them. Him the Father always hears. Even the prayers of the saints need an incense to be offered along with them to render them acceptable.

To present a petition is one thing. To prosecute a suit is another. Most prayer answers to the former. But successful prayer corresponds to the latter. The children of this world are in this respect wise in their generation. When they have a petition to carry, they go with it to the seat of government, and having conveyed it by the proper channel to the power which is to decide upon it, they anxiously await the decision, in the meantime securing all the influence they can, and doing every thing possible to ensure a favorable result. So should the children of light do. But frequently they just lodge their petitions in the court of heaven, and there they let it lie. They do not press their suit. They do not employ other means of furthering it, beyond the simple presenting of it. They do not await the decision on it. The whole of prayer

does not consist in taking hold of God. The main matter is holding on. How many are induced, by the slightest appearance of repulse, to let go, as Jacob did not! I have been struck with the manner in which petitions are usually concluded: "And your petitioners will ever pray." So "men ought always to pray, (to God,) and never faint." Payson says: "The promise of God is not to the act, but to the habit of prayer."

Sometimes prayer is not heard, because not offered in faith. "He that cometh to God must believe." Yea, he must "Ask in faith, nothing wavering."

Sometimes it is for want of a concomitant submission to the will of God. He who said, "let this cup pass from me," added, "nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt."

Often prayer fails because the direction to pray everywhere is neglected. The petition proceeds from the closet, but is not also offered in the family, in the social meeting, and in the solemn assembly. Sometimes a specific direction is given concerning something to be done in connection with prayer, which being neglected, the prayer by itself is unavailing. Thus, in order that we may not enter into temptation, we are commanded to "watch and pray." Vain is prayer to secure against temptation, if vigilance be omitted.

Prayer is sometimes ineffectual, because too general. When we ask many things, it commonly indicates that we are not in earnest for any thing. The heart is incapable of being at the same time the subject of many intense desires. The memorials of the children of this world are specific. They are rarely encumbered with more than one petition. Does any one suppose that when prayer was made of the church for Peter, being in prison, they prayed for everybody and everything first, and only brought in Peter's case at the close?

Petitions have usually numerous signatures. So should there be union in prayer among Christians. Social supplication has particular value in the estimation of God. Special promises are made to it. Need I say that allowed sin vitiates prayer? "If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me."

There is a regard to the promises which ought to be had in prayer. Moreover, confession of sin out of a broken heart, and gratitude for good received, should accompany it. And there is a "praying in the Holy Ghost," which we should aim to understand and realize.

At an earlier stage of these remarks I might have observed that some prayer is not heard, because it is said rather than prayed. Now, prayer ought to be prayed. The closet is not the place for recitation. What more common than this expression: "I must say my prayers?" Must you indeed? Is this the way you speak of it? Is it a task to which you are going reluctantly to apply yourself? and say your prayers too? How this contrasts with the cheerful purpose of the Psalmist, "My voice shalt thou hear in the morning, O Lord; in the morning will I direct my prayer unto thee, and will look up."

Perhaps one brings his gift to the altar, and forgets that his brother has aught against him; or remembering it, does not go first and seek reconciliation with him, but proceeds to offer his gift, and that is the reason it is not accepted.

Many a Christian hinders his prayers by indulging in that species of unbelief, which surmises that what he asks is too great a thing for God to bestow on one so unworthy as he is. He forgets that the greatest, aye the greatest gift, has already been conferred in God's own Son, and the foundation therein laid for the argument, "how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?" God having begun his bounty in such a style of magnificence, consistency requires him now to go on, and do the greatest possible thing for the recipients of his Son.—Nevins.

The World in Miniature.

We live in troubled times. In all parts of the world society is perturbed, uneasy, revolutionary. The slumbering fires of human passions, like volcanic forces, are upheaving and modifying politics, philosophy, social order and theology. Systems, and habits of thought and belief, that have commanded the veneration of ages, are visibly tottering upon their foundations. Society seems unwilling to tabernacle longer in ancient forms. The old is rejected; the new pursued with avidity. And everywhere the tide of human affairs seems run wild, reckless, tumultuary.

Nations are convulsed. Governments are suffering modifications from social and political revolutions. There are visible all over the world uprisings of the people against established institutions. Japan shows signs of agitation. China still suffers from a chronic revolution of years' standing. India is uneasy beneath British rule. Turkey, even in the decrepitudes of old age, is subject to local agitations and upheavals. Greece is making and unmaking kings. Italy yet rocks above the decaying fires of revolution. Austria's energies continue to be taxed with the question of Hungary and its uprisings. And Russia is grappling afresh at the throat of downtrodden, but liberty-loving Poland. The United States are upheaved by a rebellion exceeding in magnitude anything made known in history. Mexico has exchanged civil commotions and dissensions for foreign invasion. And the governments and nations of Central and South America continue to suffer from chronic feud and insurrections. Such a picture of the world shows that we have fallen upon a revolutionary era. Nearly all peoples appear uneasy and wishful of change. Some are impelled to their insurrectionary movements by the progress of the age. This is true of Poland, Italy, Hungary, Greece and perhaps of China and Japan. Some others may justly be regarded as reactions against the progress of the age. Such is emphatically true of the rebellion in America. Its leaders were not driven into movement by oppression, or a restriction of their rights. They originated it in the interest of slavery. If they should succeed it would throw the nation back along eighty years of progress. But their success in such a case is impossible. Art, science, philosophy, have all felt the touch of change and improvement. The best test of their ingenuity is visible in the labor-saving machinery with which they are filling and transforming the world. This is the true philosopher's stone, fruitlessly sought after for ages, but brought to light by the inventions and discoveries of modern times. Its touch transmutes into gold the crudest substance. Science has entered upon her true mission in creating such labor-saving machinery.

Theology is subjected to new and severe tests. The form of controversy between belief and skepticism through which our fathers passed related to the harmony subsisting between science and revelation. And efforts at its revival continue to be made in our day by adepts in science who would rejoice to bring into disrepute the teachings of Moses and Jesus. About twenty-two years ago, at Abbeville in France, flint implements were found associated with the remains of mammals, that were supposed to belong to a very remote geological period—as far back, at least, as 30,000 years. Subsequent researches have discovered these flint implements at other places in the valley of the Somme, as at Amiens, St. Acheul and Menchecourt. They were made, it was presumed, by man. And hence it was concluded that man must have lived for at least 30,000 years upon the earth. On the strength of such testimony we were required to surrender our faith in Moses and the Bible. But in the meantime geologists began to differ among themselves in regard to these flints and their associated mammal remains. Some were skeptical, and denied that there was any evidence furnished by these flints that man had a higher antiquity upon the earth than is allowed him in the commonly received chronology. Till they settle the controversy among themselves the Christian world need give itself no uneasiness about the authority of Moses and the Bible.

But the controversy between theology and skepticism has assumed a new form. The opponents of the Bible dignify their views with the lofty name of the "higher criticism." This "higher criticism" began in Germany, and has prevailed there for years. It has now passed into England, and is threading its way into the channels of thought. It is a novel idea, too, that Christianity is now invaded from within—by its avowed friends. Former attacks were from without—from acknowledged foes. But such men as Bishop Colenso, of the English Established Church, are now engaged in leading the new onslaught upon the Bible and revealed religion.

The food furnished by the English market is but a rehash of the biblical criticism found in Paine's Age of Reason, and more elaborately found in the works of the later German Neologists. Most of these have been refuted. Some of them show but moderate sagacity on the part of men with pretensions to the "higher criticism." And some of them discuss actually knotty points in Scripture, which were known to theologians from the earliest Christian ages. All of them, however, admit of explanation consistent with the Divine originality of the Bible. The world is changing its base. It is not what it was, and never will be again. Its transitions are affected by storm as well as calm. Our days have fallen upon an era of convulsion. Dissolution and reconstruction are the order of things. What befits us is to act well our part upon the stage of strife. The Gospel minister cannot certainly be excused, if he shall consent to be an inefficient workman in this era threatening to be so stormy to religious belief. He should familiarize himself with the latest phase of the controversy conducted by skepticism, that he may be prepared with intelligent and sufficient safeguards for the faith of his people.

Feet Washing.

By Wiley Jones

“If ye love me, keep my commandments.”—John xiv, 15.

Among other commandments our blessed Redeemer said, “Ye also ought to wash one another's feet.” John xiii, 14. Can language be plainer; if Moses had given a command so plain, would not the Jews have kept it? Shall we, then, hold in less reverence the commands of Jesus than the Jews did those of Moses? Nay, for “He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses,” and there is a “much sorer punishment” for those who despise the law of Christ. Heb. x, 28. If he who broke one of the “least commandments” of Moses shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven, will there be much honor for him who breaks one, even admitting it to be the least, of the commandments of Christ, and shall teach men so? Matt. v, 19. Indeed, what shall we think of those in this generation who profess to feed the flock of God, and yet do not treat with as much reverence the sacred commands of Jesus as Joshua did the law of Moses? Of Joshua's faithfulness here is an evidence, “He read all the words of the law, the blessings and cursings, according to all that is written in the law. There was not a word of all that Moses commanded, which Joshua read not before all the congregation of Israel.” Josh. viii, 34, 35. Now Joshua was Moses' minister, Josh. i, 1, and faithful to his charge, and if any one would aspire to be “a faithful minister of Christ,” Col. i, 7, ought he not to urge upon his hearers all the words of the law of Christ, the blessings and cursings, according to all that is written in that law, omitting not a word of all that Christ has commanded? Then in the elite company with Paul he might like an echo take up the words of that apostle and say, “I have kept back nothing that was profitable unto you. I am pure from the blood of all men. For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.” Acts xx, 20, 26, 27. There are few such faithful ones nowadays, for since the decease of Paul and his fellow-laborers, “grievous wolves” have entered in, not sparing the flock, and so far from endeavoring to root up every plant which our heavenly Father has not planted, they endeavor to root up every plant which he hath planted. But all their worship is in vain, while they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, and denounce as heresies the commandments of God. Matt. xv, 9, 13. Let us beware then of being misled by them, for since the Bereans were commended for searching the scriptures daily to see whether what the apostles declared was true, we may well feel it incumbent upon us to bring the teachings of modern times to the same sovereign test. When modern “Doctors” clad in soft raiment and standing in their gorgeous temples tell us, that “Feet-washing is by no means an ordinance of religion, but merely an ancient oriental custom,” we may by searching see that even in the days of Moses it was a religious ordinance. Ex. xxx, 21. And that so far as custom is concerned,

the eating of supper was an ancient oriental custom also, and yet the Master institutes a special supper. So feet washing being a custom he nevertheless institutes a special act of the kind, and commands his disciples to observe it, saying, “I have given you an example that ye should do as I have done to you.” It is worthy of note that our Lord, unlike the Scribes and Pharisees, (who were accustomed to bind heavy burdens, and grievous to be borne, and to lay them on men's shoulders, while they themselves were not willing to move them with one of their little fingers, Matt. xxiii, 4,) does not require of us any harder thing than to follow his example. And what a high privilege that we may “follow his steps,” that we may “suffer with him,” and “reign with him!”

Eating a meal at home does not obviate the necessity of eating the supper instituted on this occasion; for we are commanded, 1 Cor. xi, 34, to first eat at home for the satisfaction of hunger; nor does washing the feet at home for the sake of cleanliness remove the necessity of doing so congregationally in obedience to the divine command.

From the foregoing considerations I conclude, that the feet-washing alluded to in John xiii, is vastly more than “merely an ancient oriental custom.” Nor can the observance of it be called “a voluntary humility,” or “will worship,” since the word voluntary (from the Latin voluntas, the will,) means what is done from one's own will, and not from any divine command; and also since the original word rendered “will-worship,” (Ἐθελοθρησκεία,), is defined by the Greek lexicon in these words—“will or voluntary worship, i. e., invented by men, supererogation.”

It will not suffice to object that the direct command occurs “only once” since a number of prophecies, as Mic. v, 2, occurring “only once,” have nevertheless been most minutely fulfilled. Thus too the exact formula for baptism, Matt. xxviii, 19, though to the best of my knowledge it occurs “only once,” is almost universally admitted to be the only proper one. But what shall we think of that person who can profess reverence for the word of God, and yet raise an objection of this kind?

But some one hints that “feet-washing is indecorous.” Not more so than circumcision, or than some pronounce Christian immersion to be. Where there is first a willingness of mind there can be found a way to do all of our duties “decently and in order.” Moreover, this objection is after the manner of the Pharisees, who affected being very nice, and in order to excuse themselves from obedience, accused John the Baptist of having a devil, and our Lord of being “a gluttonous man, and a winebibber.” Luke vii, 34. Away then with such an objection—the offspring rather of a rebellious heart than a commendable modesty.

Another thinks “It was not intended for modern times.” And why not as much for modern times as anything else on record? Does not the Master say, “I have given you an example that ye should do as I have done to you.” This being commanded them and they being commanded to teach “All whatsoever was commanded them to others,” Matt. xxviii, 19, 20, how could they fulfill the terms of the commission without teaching it to their contemporaries, and through them to us?

A third objector says, “It is only an ‘ought’ and therefore we are at liberty to do it or not as we feel disposed.” Let us then find instances of the use of this word, and see if it will bear such a construction. In Matt. xxiii, 23, there is a woe denounced against the Scribes and Pharisees for not doing what they ought to have done. In Acts xvii, 29, the apostle says, “We ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven with art or man's device.” Will any one have the hardihood to say that a Christian is at liberty to think this or not, just as he may feel disposed? In truth a merely “ought” from the lips of our divine Master, should be emphatic to Christians.

“But after all,” it is urged, “we can only class it among good works.” Well, what if this assertion be even so; is it not written that our Saviour “gave himself for us that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works?” Titus ii, 14.

In the investigation of this subject I have endeavored to be brief, and to use none but a “Thus it is written” style of argument, not calling in the aid of ecclesiastical history; which the reader is requested to consult. “If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them.” See Psa. cxix, 6; Deut. v, 29; Rev. xxii, 14.

WILEY JONES.

Norfolk, Va.

Gospel Banner.

Trust in God.

“Casting all your care upon Him; for He careth for you.” 1 Pet. v, 7.

Few things are more calculated to prevent us from serving God effectually than carking care. Yet, there is much in the world that is fitted to beget such a feeling in the mind of the Christian. The corruption of his own heart is often a source of unhappiness to him; and even if, by the grace of God, all his inward foes are not only subdued, but are utterly driven out of his bosom, there is still enough to weigh down his soul. And the temporal circumstances of the child of God are often such as to beget anxiety. His home is often the abode of poverty. Frequently he watches day after day at the couch of a loved one, and sees the light go out from eyes that have beamed softly upon him. Or he has stood by the lifeless form of the companion of his childhood, or followed to the grave her who had been the “angel of his household.” Under such circumstances we are in danger of being swallowed up with over much sorrow. But the text recommends a better course of action, namely, casting our care upon God.

The text does not recommend a trust in God that allows its possessor to neglect any duty. Many live as though they supposed they had nothing to do in regard to their salvation. They act as though they expected to be wafted to heaven without exercising any watchfulness in avoiding the dangers that beset the voyager upon the sea of life. Such carelessness as this has no warrant from the Scriptures; but they every where teach the necessity of watchfulness. They represent the Christian as a warrior. If the soldier fails to be on his guard he is likely to be surprised by his foes and to suffer loss. Is the careless professor likely to “fight the good fight of faith?” We will never wear the victor’s crown until we have fought many battles. But after we have discharged our duty, let us then leave the result with God. We are to rely unfalteringly upon his promises, even when to the eye of reason all appears dark and hopeless. The man of strong faith is careful for nothing. Though his bark is out upon the stormy sea, and the clouds gather darkly around him, he does not despond, for faith shows him Christ standing at the helm.

Many are the reasons why the Christian should cast his care upon God; but the one given in our text, that, “he careth for him,” is sufficient. There is a heartless philosophy in the world that seeks to rob man of the watch-care of God. It asks scoffingly whether the Sovereign of a million worlds will condescend to take any notice of so insignificant a creature as man. But it has never yet been proven that man holds an inferior place in the scale of being; and whatever false philosophy may teach, the believer in revelation knows that God watches over the interests of his children with the greatest care. The infidel may tell us that— “To him, no high, no low, no great, no small, He fills, he bounds, connects, and equals all.

He sees with equal eye, as God of all, A hero perish, or a sparrow fall; Atoms, or systems, into ruin hurled, And now a bubble burst, and now a world.”

But Christ said to his disciples, “Ye are of more value than many sparrows.” As long as it is admitted that “God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son to die, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life,” it will be impossible to deny that he takes a deep interest in the welfare of his children.

The character of God is such, as to afford a firm foundation for trust in him. He cannot fail to supply the wants of his children on account of ignorance of those wants. The child may die for want of the comforts of life, which its earthly parent would rejoice to supply, was he not ignorant of its condition; but the eye of our heavenly Father is ever upon us—his ear is open to our faintest cry. How cheering to the humble Christian is the language of Christ, “Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.”

And his power is equal to his knowledge. Many an earthly parent has wept over the misery from which he was unable to shield his child. Often has the earthly monarch seen the happiness of his faithful subjects destroyed by a ruthless invader, whose progress he had not the power to stay; but no being in heaven or earth has the power to pluck his children out of the hand of God.

Shall he be cast down who has such a protector? Shall he repine over the petty sorrows of life, whose privilege it is, constantly to look up and say to God, “What time I am afraid I will trust in thee.” Shall he not rather rejoice in the fact that God has assured him that “his light afflictions, which are but for a moment, shall work out for him a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory.”—Sel.

Keep Your Teeth Clean.

THE almost universal complaint of decayed and decaying teeth among almost all classes, is indeed most deplorable. To know that our very bones should rot in our mouths in youth, and middle age, is, at least, a lamentable fact. Nor is this calamity confined to Americans; though it is said that American women more than any others, are unfortunate in this respect. But look in the mouth of the beef and plum-pudding-eating Englishman, the sturdy oat-meal-eating Scotchman, the potato-eating Irishman, the sausage-eating, tobacco-smoking, and beer-drinking German, the frog-eating, coffee and wine-drinking Frenchman; all have occasion for the services of a dentist.

It is said that the teeth of our native American Indians, including the Esquimaux, who live beyond the reach of whiskey and tobacco peddlers, are far better than those of their more civilized brethren.

The native African is said to be blessed with sound teeth, but, so far as our studies and observations extend, most, if not all civilized nations, are “rotting in the mouth.”

The old “remedy” of chewing and smoking tobacco, only aggravates the evil, so say all dentists, while the almost universal practice of medicine taking, hot tea drinking, eating hot food, including the flesh of animals, probably has something to do with this early decay of human teeth. Then, again, most people neglect to clean their teeth. Living upon unnatural condiments, pastry, confectionery, and drinking vile stuff—doctoring with vile drugs instead of pure water; the teeth become corrupt, and covered with foul tartar, and filled with rotten filth; then comes a sickening foul breath, so foul indeed, as to be almost past endurance, by another, whose breath, in turn, though of a different odor, may be no less impure. Now this nuisance may be lessened and abated, if not entirely removed. Let each and every person, old and young, make it an invariable rule to wash and clean their teeth at least once a day, though better still, after every meal. Let mothers see to it, that their own and their children’s teeth are properly washed. Begin now. If you have no teeth brush, get one the very first opportunity. You do not need either tooth powder, tooth paste, or powdered charcoal; a tumbler of clean [soft] water, in which to soak the brush a few moments before using, is all you need. To begin with, if your mouth should be very foul, use a little fine soap; but the frequent use of the brush with clean water, will render even soap unnecessary.

Religion and the Creator

By Daniel Webster

“RELIGION is the tie that connects man with his Creator, and holds him to his throne. If that tie is sundered or broken, he floats away a worthless atom in the universe, its proper attractions all gone, its destiny thwarted, and its whole future nothing but darkness, desolation and death.”—Daniel Webster.

The Bible

THE BIBLE—"Did ye ask me if I had a Bible?" said a poor old widow in London, "did ye ask if I had a Bible? Thank God, I have a Bible. What should I do without my Bible? It was the guide of my youth, and it is the staff of my age. It wounded me, and it healed me; it condemned me, and it acquitted me. It showed me I was a sinner, and it led me to the Saviour; it has given me comfort through life, and I trust it will give me hope in death."

Continue reading: The Sanctuary