It is a standing declaration of opponents of prohibitory laws, that they do not prohibit. The query may well be raised, Would these opposers think more of prohibitory laws if they did prohibit? No, they would not. If they do not prohibit, if they are ineffectual, why is it that liquor-dealers prefer a high-license law to a prohibitory law? It cannot be that they would rather than not pay money into the treasury, for there is more defrauding the revenue done by the liquor interest than by all others.
It is a mere evasion, and a very weak one too, to affirm that liquor is sold in those States where prohibitory laws are in force. Our laws against murder are prohibitory, yet murders are constantly committed, and the majority of the murderers escape punishment. Would a "high license" of murder be more effectual?
Why is it that a brigand in some countries is to this day more of a hero than a criminal? It is because at some time the rulers received a percentage of the ill-gotten gains of the brigands, and it was known that it was little use to try to bring the marauder to justice, as some means would be devised to enable him to escape. The practice took character from that fact, and a successful, bold freebooter was regarded as valiant and enterprising. Government protection will, in time, make almost anything respectable in the eyes of the majority. But it is bad policy for a Government to sanction, uphold, or license anything that is only an evil and a curse to society.
But prohibitory laws do prohibit. In those States where they have been tried they have been as effectual as any other laws for the suppression of crime. We have been much interested in a report of observations in Maine by D. R. Locke, well known as the author of the "Nasby letters." Few will dare to deny the statements of Mr. Locke; he is reliable. He is not a citizen of Maine, but closely observed when he was there. He says:—
"An Irish woman known to her countrymen as a dealer in liquors, has a room in the rear of her miserable dwelling fitted up something like a bar. She has one bottle of whisky, and a few bottles of rum in sight, but over them she has a weight suspended by a string, and under, a tub filled with water, in which kerosene oil has been poured. The beer is kept in a water sprinkler.
"She is ready for the officers. They can only approach by the front door, and when they appear she darts into the back room, cuts the string, the weight descends and smashes the bottles into the tub of watered kerosene, to destroy the smell of the whisky; the sprinkling can of beer is overset on the floor, and the evidence is destroyed.
"They search the house for liquor and sometimes find it. One man had dug through his cellar wall, and made an opening sufficient to hold a small stock. The door to this opening was a huge double affair, filled with sand, so that tapping the wall would not betray the fact that there was an opening, and the door itself was painted so close an imitation of stone as to make detection almost impossible. It would not have been discovered but for the man who painted it. He babbled in his drink. He took too much of the stuff which his genius had concealed, and betrayed the concealment. Thus evil is made to work good.
"Another woman had her cellar paved with flat stones, and under one particular stone the earth had been removed sufficiently to hold a large stock of the stuff.
"Other methods of concealment are employed. One woman has it hidden in privies, another under beds, others in stables, and in every place inaccessible to the lynx-eyed officers of the law.
"One woman carried a flat bottle in her stocking, from which she supplied her customers, and the officers who got upon her track had an amusing time of it to make the seizure. She professed her innocence of the charge, and was anxious to accompany him to the station, but first she would retire into the next room to change her dress. To this the officer consented, only he would go with her. She wanted an opportunity to get rid of the fatal bottle—it was her second offense, and the penalty this time would be six months in jail. That failing, she insisted upon several changes of location, the point being to get away from him till she could break the bottle. The officer was inflexible. Like Ruth, where she went he would go also. Finally she dropped the bottle and went. 'She languished six months in jail and her business was closed up.
"Another woman carried two flat bottles under her skirts, at her hips, and it required the services of two women employed in the department to bring the bottles to the light of day, in the police station.
"When her customers called for their drinks, she would hoist her dress and produce the bottles. Where twenty cents was involved she had no special delicacy. There isn't any delicacy in rum, either in buyer or seller. It is demoralizing all the way through."
Now if the opposers of prohibition will point out some place under license laws, even under "high-license" laws, where those who wish to deal in liquors have to resort to such miserable methods as are here described, we will confess that there is more virtue in license than we have ever yet believed. Can they do it? If such were the result of license laws they would oppose them as vigorously as they now oppose prohibitory laws.
The West Virginia Irrepressible said of a prohibitory law: "We are willing to give it a trial if it does not more than half prohibit." So will say every true temperance man. If it does not more than half prohibit, it will then be worth much more than a license law. High license is a sham, of which reasonable men will soon tire, because the supply will still be equal to the demand. A small increase in the price of drinks will compensate the dealer; and at old prices they who pay high license can well afford it, because it will be more of a monopoly when the poor dealers are closed out.
Reforms must be progressive or they cease to be reforms. We have seen the time in the temperance movement when a proposal of prohibitory laws could not have obtained a hearing anywhere. But to-day we believe that prohibition is the only true temperance platform. All other expedients have proved inefficient. It is a good work to reclaim drunkards; but it is far better to save our young men from becoming drunkards. EDITOR.
No Middle Ground on Alcohol
By Lever
The tendency is to draw the lines closer and closer between temperance and drink. The day was when advocates of moderation might have been listened to with respect, but the more the question is agitated the more hideous does the monster alcohol appear, and people must divide into two classes—its friends and its foes. There can be no middle ground. He that is not for it is against it.—Lever.
Tobacco a Tax on the Soil
By Editor
A LEADING daily paper says: "The tax on tobacco is a discriminating one against a particular branch of agricultural production, and might better be removed or made merely nominal." Tobacco itself is a very heavy tax upon the soil which produces it, as also upon the victims of its use and their offspring, and ought therefore to be assessed heavy damages.
Profiting by Others’ Experience
The wise profit by the experience of others.
Will the Lord Himself Return?
By Editor
MANY people really suppose that our interest in the doctrine of the second advent is unnecessarily great, and that by making it so prominent in our faith and work we are needlessly building up a barrier between ourselves and other denominations. The following query has lain some time in our drawer; and for different reasons we have neglected to answer it. But it is deserving of an answer, and we now proceed to give it:—
"Why does it require a separate denomination to advocate Christ's second coming? I supposed all denominations believed that, and preached it. Is it not so? Yours truly, L. L. K."
In answering this question we propose to show that "all denominations" do not believe it and preach it, as it is taught in the plain letter of the Scriptures; that they have invented a substitute for it, which they even acknowledge is a substitute; that the doctrine of the coming of Christ is a great practical doctrine, second in importance to scarcely any in the Bible; and, that we are taught to expect it, because we may and ought to know when it is near.
I. That it is not generally accepted as an article of Christian belief is sufficiently shown in the fact that the doctrine is treated so scornfully by the great majority of professors of religion. A mere reference to the second coming of Christ in a "union meeting" has been known to promptly call out a rebuke from the leaders of the meeting. On almost every other point the veriest "crank" could air his vagaries without any fear of reproof. The Adventists (or the "advents," as they are improperly and contemptuously called) are scarcely recognized as Christian believers by many professors, and this without any regard to other points of faith which they may hold. There is prevailing and increasing a strong feeling of opposition to the subject of the return of our absent Lord; not so much on the part of the worldlings who do not regard him as their Lord, as on the part of church members, who claim him as their Lord, and profess to love him. Truly they say in their hearts, "My Lord delayeth his coming." Matt. 24:45-51.
We have now before us the report of a "Tri-Annual Meeting" of an "Association of Congregational Churches," as published in a paper of that denomination. The opening sermon was on the "Second Coming of Christ." The report says: "The argument was a bold, original elucidation of the spiritual sense of Scripture touching the whole subject of the second advent and the general judgment."
It is no secret that "the spiritual sense of Scripture" is the popular sense, if there is indeed any such sense in it. The expression is made to signify something different from the literal or obvious sense. The literal must be the true sense; just such a sense as would be determined by the definitions of the words used. When we depart from this we cast ourselves upon a trackless sea without a compass; it is to give loose reign to fancy, and to make the revelation of the divine will subservient to the caprices of its self-constituted censors.
On the subject of the advent the sermon says:—
"I hold that the second coming of Christ, always spoken of by himself and the apostles as a near event, refers to his return to them in the Spirit; that it was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost, immediately after his ascension."
As Christ represented the Father to the world, so the Spirit represents Christ to the church during his absence. But Christ was not the Father, and the Spirit was not Christ. He said if he went away he would pray the Father and he would send them another Comforter, even the Spirit of truth. But the coming of the Spirit was not the coming of Christ; it was not the fulfillment of his promise to come again and take them to himself, to the mansions which he has gone to prepare. Of this we shall offer abundant proof. Here we will mention but this one fact, which is, however, decisive on the point, namely: most of the scriptures which speak of the second coming, as a matter of hope, were written after the day of Pentecost; after the descent of the Spirit.
In connection with the "spiritual sense" of the Scriptures in regard to the advent, it is necessary to notice the position of the sermon on the Judgment and the resurrection. It says:—
"The end of the world and the day of judgment, for each individual soul, is the day of the death of the body; that the judgment is a perpetual fact, and that many thousands, small and great, appear before God every day. "The resurrection is typical of the life of the soul; that the figure of a spiritual body teaches, not the resurrection of the material body, but the immortality of the soul."
These declarations are necessarily attendant upon the spiritual theory of the advent; for it would be utterly inconsistent to have a figurative advent, and a literal resurrection and judgment day, seeing that the latter depend entirely upon the former. The above view is doubtless now held by the great majority of the churches. It is openly avowed by such influential journals as the Christian Union, as we have noticed in its answers to questions on these subjects.
Bishop Merrill, of the M. E. Church, published a book on the "Second Coming of Christ," in which he earnestly contends for the literal construction of those scriptures which speak of the advent, the resurrection, the judgment, the punishment of the wicked, and the conflagration of the earth. In regard to the last two items, if to no others, he certainly comes in conflict with the prevailing belief in his own church. At the last General Conference of the M. E. Church, an inquirer found very few who would avow faith in the literal interpretation of the Bible concerning the punishment of the wicked; though the literal was almost the only view held in that church half a century ago. The difference between the preaching, in that and other churches, on this subject, at the present time and a half century ago, is not, as has been asserted, a mere accommodation to the feelings of "ears polite," but it is the result of a tendency to drift away from the old-time landmarks. The Disciplines and Confessions or Creeds have greatly changed, but they have not changed as fast as the faith and the feelings of both the pulpits and the pews have changed.
Bishop Merrill characterizes the view taken in the sermon to which we have referred, and which we say is now, or is fast becoming, the popular view, as Universalism. He says:—
"This is the form of Universalism that is now proposing to lead the Christian world into light! It has no place for a Second Advent, as it denies the resurrection of the body and a future judgment. It finds only the 'figurative' coming, and places it at the destruction of Jerusalem."
It is just as easy to harmonize the declarations of the New Testament with the theory that the advent took place at the destruction of Jerusalem, as on the day of Pentecost, as we shall show when we examine the texts. The Bishop's argument on these several points, against this "bold, original elucidation of the spiritual sense of Scripture teaching the whole subject of the second advent and the general judgment" is masterly, and, it seems to us, ought to settle these questions. Of this we are so confident that we do not believe that any one of the spiritualizers would care to undertake to review him.
In an Editorial Note in the Old Testament Student, on the "Jewish Theories of Messianic Interpretation," are found the following words:—
"A recent writer enumerates four distinct theories advanced by theologians of different schools, in accordance with which these portions are interpreted. . . . (4) A fourth theory is denominated the No-Person theory, in accordance with which the Messiah is supposed to be an age of prosperity, and, in no sense, personal."
We are not informed as to the time when this "No-Person theory" arose amongst the Jews. But we cannot believe it was an early period, for of the many references to Messiah in the New Testament we can find no trace of such a theory. "What think you of the Christ? [the Messiah.] Whose son is he? They say unto him, The son of David." Matt. 22:42. "For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord." Luke 2:11. "Come, see a man which told me all things that ever I did. Is not this the Christ?" John 4:29. "Do the rulers know indeed that this is the very Christ?" John 7:26. Christ in Greek is the equivalent of the Messiah, from the Hebrew.
The reader can at once see that according to this "No-Person theory," Jesus of Nazareth was not the Messiah at all—he could not be. And the exact counterpart of this theory is found in the "No-Person theory" of the second advent! And we claim, and who can gainsay it? that there is no greater violence done to the prophecies in applying the "No-Person theory" to the first advent, than is done in applying it to the second advent.
We can reduce all the false theories respecting Christ to these three: 1. That Christ was to come to set up the throne of David, and to reign as his Son, but not to suffer and to die. This was the belief of most of the Jews when Jesus was born. 2. That Christ was to suffer and die, but not to sit upon the throne of his father David. This is the popular or "orthodox" view at the present time; for orthodoxy is but another name for popularity, in common speech. 3. That Christ was not and is not to appear on earth at all in person; that the "Messiah" did not refer to any individual who was to suffer and die, or to reign on David's throne; but, it signified a dispensation of prosperity, of grace, or great spiritual blessings. This is the united faith of those Jews who hold to the "No-Person theory," and of professed Christians who hold to the "spiritual sense" of the second advent. And between these theories the Bible is robbed of its glory; the Son of God is a myth; and man has in fact no Redeemer.
In closing this paper, and this part of the argument, we must give some evidence on the second point.
II. To prove that the churches have accepted a substitute for the second advent, is really to give further proof that they have no true faith in the advent.
In the New York Independent of March 6, 1884, is a Sunday-school Lesson Notes on 1 Thess. 4:13-5:8. This scripture lesson brings out remarks on the advent. After saying that "the great use of the doctrine of our Lord's coming is for comfort," the writer remarks:—
"For all practical purposes of comfort the doctrine of the blessed immortality of the righteous, the immortality of the soul, takes the place for us of any doubtful doctrine of our Lord's second coming. At our death the Lord comes for us. That is what we are to wait and watch for. The dead are already passed into glory. They do not wait for the trump for their judgment and blessedness."
There is no paper in the country conducted with more ability than the Independent; perhaps no one of wider influence. And this testimony of a185substitute for the advent "for all practical purposes of comfort" and blessing, is as explicit as could be desired. Also in the Christian Union of the same date, under the head of "Home Talks about the Word—the Coming of the Lord," the writer fancies "a dear mother who went away to the South, or to Colorado, or California," for her health, and, when letters came saying she was better, the writer says:—
"Every day you could say to yourself, 'Some day she will come back, and not be sick any more, and we shall be so happy together again.' You would try to do just what would please her, to work and study, and think of her wishes in everything. And if, some day, a message came to take you to the pleasant summer land where your mother was, why, that would be even better than having her come back. That is the way we are to think of our friends who have fallen asleep, and of the Lord Jesus himself, our best friend."
Some better hope is held out than that of Jesus coming again. But we say in regard to both these extracts, that the substitute proposed is entirely unauthorized by the Scriptures. The word of the Lord never offers comfort in consideration of the immortality of the soul. If it did the wicked could take that comfort to themselves, for if the righteous are immortal by nature, so are the wicked.
Next week we will speak further upon this substitute, and show by the plain reading of the Scriptures that there cannot be any substitute for the coming of the Lord. That nothing whatever can be of equal importance; that the promised glorification of the saints cannot be fulfilled without it
Nehemiah's Regard for Sunday.
By Uriah Smith
IN a "Picture Lesson Paper," issued by the great Methodist publishers, Nelson & Philips, New York, and Hitchcock & Walden, Cincinnati, we find the following instance of unaccountable thoughtlessness or unpardonable dishonesty.
One page of said paper is called the "Berean Leaflet." It is devoted to studies in the "Old Testament." Its title is, "The Keeping of the Sabbath; or, the Holy Day." Its "golden text" is, "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Ex. 20:8." It has a picture of Nehemiah standing up and protesting against the course of those who are bearing wheat, grapes, and oil into Jerusalem on the Sabbath day.
After presenting these texts and facts, which belong186to the true Sabbath and to that alone, the paper launches out in behalf of the pagan and papal Sunday in the following style:—
"1. Which day of the week is called God's day?—Sunday.
"2. What is it for?—For rest and worship.
"3. Rest from what?—From labor.
"4. Whom are we to worship?—God.
"5. What is the fourth commandment?—'Remember the Sabbath day,' etc.
"6. What is said about work?—Thou shalt do no work.
"7. Who came to Jerusalem?—Nehemiah.
"8. What did he find?—People working on Sunday.
"9. What law were they breaking?—God's law.
"10. What did Nehemiah tell them?—That they were doing wrong.
"11. What did he do?—Stopped it.
"12. What is wrong-doing?—Sin.
"13. To what does it lead?—Suffering.
"14. What is the only safe way?—To keep God's word."
In the foregoing quotation we have put two of the answers in italics. In the original all the answers are in bold-face type, which makes them more prominent still.
Now if the writer of the questions and answers given above had any knowledge whatever of his subject he knew that Sunday is never called "God's day" in all the Bible. He knew that the Sabbath day of the fourth commandment is not Sunday, and that the fourth commandment has nothing to do with Sunday as a day of rest, and cannot be made to sustain it, till it is changed so as to read "first day" instead of "seventh day." And he knew that Nehemiah cared nothing about people working on Sunday. He worked himself that day. It was the sin of working on the Sabbath, against which he protested.
This is just parallel to a statement by Dr. Justin Edwards. In his "Sabbath Manual," page 216, respecting Pompey, he says:—
"Pompey the Roman general, . . . when besieging Jerusalem, would not attack them on the Sabbath; but spent the day in constructing his works, and preparing to attack them on Monday." Thus he would have us think that Sunday was the Sabbath in the time of Pompey, 63 years before Christ.
Is it possible that men can be educated into such ignorance of God's word? And what do theologians think to accomplish by such reckless statements? Do they not know that even the dullest scholars will in time discover the fraud, and then a reaction is sure to follow?
We see plainly enough that the assertions which these men make are just the evidence that Sunday needs. That is, if Sunday is to be sustained as the Sabbath, it must be called somewhere in the Bible, God's day; there must be some law for it; and it must appear that some honor has been paid to it by those who have been commissioned of God to write his word. But none of these proofs exist in reference to Sunday; and to pretend they do, is both a futile attempt, and a confession of weakness.
U. S.
The Proof in the Text.
By Editor
BIBLE-READINGS are both interesting and profitable, but we have always insisted that great care should be exercised in their preparation. The Bible is the word of God from Heaven to man; and according to its value as the word of God, so great is the danger of perverting or misapplying it. And constant study and care are necessary to guard against a misuse of this message to fallen man. Its truths are a connected whole, and no one point of doctrine can be turned aside from its true meaning without doing violence to other points, or to the system. To illustrate our meaning we give two instances. From a Bible-reading which we lately saw we take the following:—
A little study of the context must satisfy any one that there is no manner of reference to "all the dead" in this text. The apostle says that "we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord, shall not prevent [precede, go before, or be glorified before] them which are asleep." For when the trump of God sounds, "the dead in Christ shall rise first; then"—what? the other dead rise afterward? No; we shall be caught up together with them. They shall rise—not before somebody else is raised,—but before we are glorified; then they and we shall all be glorified together. It is true that the righteous dead will rise before the wicked dead. Other scriptures plainly teach it, but 1 Thess. 4 does not. The whole argument is to show to the brethren that the dead are suffering no loss in sleeping, as the living, when Christ comes, will have no precedence over them. And neither party will be glorified before Christ comes.
Another erroneous reference has been made to 2 Peter 3:8, to prove that "the day of the Lord" is one thousand years in length. God has eternity at his command, and though he does not fulfill his promise immediately, he is not slack, for it is equally sure whether he fulfills it to-day or a thousand years hence. This is all that this verse proves. But the length of "the day of the Lord" is only determined by the events which transpire in it. Indeed, its length cannot be determined, for the destruction of the wicked, and the conflagration of the earth, take place in the day of the Lord, but after the thousand years of Rev. 20. We say the length of that day cannot be determined, because we have no revelation concerning the length of the "little season" of Rev. 20:3, or of the time occupied by the final deceptions of Satan, the destruction of the wicked, and the restitution of the earth.
It may be asked, Is the difference a material one? Or, Is it practically of any importance to be correct on this point? It is. He who admits that "the day of the Lord" is one thousand years in length has given himself over to the will of the teachers of the "Age to Come." It is easy to prove that they are wrong, but we must have the truth in order to prove it. A minister who should teach that the day of the Lord is one thousand years in length would be lamentably weak if he should fall into the hands of a preacher of the Age to Come. Brethren, study your subjects. Rightly divide the word of truth.
The Support of the poor.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
THERE are many Christians who use their tithe as a sort of charity fund, from which they make all their gifts and offerings, of whatever kind. But the Bible recognizes no such plan as this. The poor are to be supported, but not with the Lord's tithe. In ancient times the following was one provision made for the poor: "And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not wholly reap the corners of thy field, neither shalt thou gather the gleanings of thy harvest. And thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather every grape of thy vineyard; thou shalt leave them for the poor and stranger; I am the Lord your God." Lev. 19:9, 10. See also 23:22; Deut. 24:19-21.
Some may argue from Deut. 26:12, 13 that the tithe was to be used for the support of the poor, but in this text we see not only the careful provision made for the poor, but the sacredness with which the Lord's tithe was devoted to the one object for which it was designed. We quote the text: "When thou hast made an end of tithing all the tithes of thine increase the third year, which is the year of tithing, and hast given it unto the Levite, the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow, that they may eat within thy gate and be filled; then thou shalt say before the Lord thy God, I have brought away the hallowed things out of mine house, and also have given them unto the Levite, and unto the stranger, to the fatherless, and to the widow, according to all thy commandments which thou hast commanded me; I have not transgressed thy commandments, neither have I forgotten them." The command here referred to is found in Deut. 14:22-29, where, in addition to the requirement to give to the stranger, the fatherless, etc., this statement is made: "And thou shalt eat before the Lord thy God, in the place which he shall choose to place his name there, the tithe of thy corn, of thy wine, and of thine oil, and the firstlings of thy herds and thy flocks."
Now when we read in Num. 18:21, "Behold, I have given the children of Levi all the tenth in Israel for an inheritance, for their service which they serve, even the service of the tabernacle of the congregation," we are forced to the conclusion that the tithe spoken of in Deut. 14 and 26 is not the same as that which was devoted to the Levites on account of their service in the sanctuary, for the stranger could not by any possibility be counted as one of the Levites. We can harmonize the two scriptures only on the ground that the tithe which the people themselves, together with "the Levite, the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow," were to eat, was a second tithe taken after the tithe for the Levites had been given them. This view of the question is taken by all commentators of whom we have any knowledge. And there are some who claim that every third year a third tithe was collected. We quote a few testimonies:—
"Another important privilege enjoyed by the poor was, what were called second tithes and second first-lings. Besides the tenth received by the Levites, the Israelites were obliged to set apart another tenth of their garden and field produce; and in like manner of their cattle, a second set of offerings, for the purpose of presenting as thank offerings at the high festivals. Of these thank offerings only certain fat pieces were consumed on the altar; the remainder, after deducting the priests' portion, was appropriated to the sacrifice feasts, to which the Israelites were bound to invite the stranger, the widow, and the orphan." Horne's Introduction, Vol. 2, Part II, chap. viii.
"Besides the first-fruits, the Jews also paid tithes or tenths of all they possessed. Num. 18:21. They were in general collected of all the produce of the earth (Lev. 27:30; Deut. 14:22, 23; Neh. 13:5, 10), but chiefly of corn, wine, and oil, and were rendered every year except the sabbatical year. When these tithes were paid, the owner of the fruits further gave another tenth part, which was carried up to Jerusalem, and eaten in the temple at offering feasts, as a sign of rejoicing and gratitude to God. These are called second tithes."—Ib., Vol. 2, Part III, chap. iii.
"Every year a tithe was paid to the Levites; and besides that a second tithe, which was carried to Jerusalem and eaten there; and every third year it was eaten at home, in their towns and cities in the country instead of it, with the Levite, poor, and stranger, and was called the poor's tithe."—Dr. John Gill, on Deut. 26:12. He gives other testimony to the same effect, in his comments on the succeeding verses, and on Deut. 14:23-28, and Lev. 27:30.
"Let there be taken out of your fruits a tenth besides what you have allotted to give to the priests and Levites. This you may indeed sell in the country, but it is to be used in those feasts and sacrifices that are to be celebrated in the holy city."
"Besides those two tithes which I have already said you are to pay every year, the one for the Levites, the other for the festivals, you are to bring every third year a tithe to be distributed to those that want; to women also that are widows, and to children that are orphans."—Josephus' Ant., Book IV., chap. 8, sec. 8 and 22.
These testimonies, and others that might be given, together with the argument previously adduced, show conclusively that the Lord's tithe was not used for the poor; and since it was not used either for building or repairing houses of worship, it must have been solely for those who labored in connection with sacred things. Indeed, how could it be otherwise. We read, "The tithe is the Lord's." It was to be deposited in the Lord's treasury. Now if I owe a friend ten dollars, it will not do for me to give any part of it to a poor man, even though I know that my friend would use the money in the same way, if I were to pay it to him. It belongs to no one but to my friend, and it would be highly dishonest for me to get a reputation for liberality, by giving away that to which I have no right. No one can be charitable on another's money.
The Missionary.
By Dudley Marvin Canright
Missionary Work in California and Australia.
AT our State quarterly meeting at Healdsburg, several resolutions were adopted laying out missionary work for the future. Some steps have been taken toward carrying out these plans. A list of the libraries of the State has been obtained, and those which have not been fully supplied with the books recommended by the International Society, will be furnished. Quite a number have been visited with a view to furnishing these books, with the SIGNS OF THE TIMES and Good Health. The almost unanimous expression is that they will be thankfully received. We hope before our next meeting that this work will be completed.
Resolution No. 9 reads as follows:—
WHEREAS, The islands of the Pacific Ocean present a vast unoccupied field which must very soon receive the light of the Third Angel's Message;
Resolved, That we urge our tract and missionary workers to anticipate and prepare the way for the living messenger by a thorough and judicious canvass of these islands with the SIGNS OF THE TIMES.
In regard to this resolution, we have obtained a new directory of the city of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, and the adjacent cities and towns. Names have been selected, and already quite a large number of the SIGNS are on their way to that distant country. Twelve or fifteen of the libraries have been written to, and a descriptive circular of a dozen of our bound books, with copies of the SIGNS and Good Health, has been sent them, and these will be furnished if the librarians wish to receive them. Through the kindness of the Pacific Mail Steamship Company, we can send these books at a very low rate of freight, so we hope soon to be able to refer the readers of the SIGNS in Australia to libraries in their own towns, where they can have access to the following list of books: "History of the Sabbath," "Thoughts on Daniel and Revelation," "The Coming Conflict," "Life of Miller," "Life Sketches," "United States in Prophecy," "The Sanctuary," "Sketches from the Life of Paul," and three volumes of the "Great Controversy."
There is a vast field for missionary labor in Australia and New Zealand. The island of Australia is 2,400 miles in length east and west, and 1,371 miles north and south, and is divided into five colonies, as follows: Victoria, of which Melbourne is the capital, has a population of 860,067; New South Wales, of which Sidney is the capital, has a population of 739,385; South Australia, of which Adelaide is the capital, has a population of 267,573; Queensland, of which Brisbane is the capital, has a population of 226,077; and Western Australia, of which Perth is the capital, has a population of 29,019. Besides this are the islands of Tasmania, with a population of 114,762, and New Zealand, with a population of about 500,000.
The fine libraries to be found in every town of importance shows that they are a reading people, and no doubt there are thousands who would gladly accept the truths of the Third Angel's Message if they had an opportunity to read, or hear them explained. On account of expense of postage, we shall not be able to send as many papers and letters as we otherwise could. Postage on papers is two cents each, and twelve cents on each letter. Persons who wish to have a part in this work can be supplied with names by Miss Anna L. Ingels, Pacific Press, Oakland, Cal.; or if they wish to assist in paying postage, she will receive donations and see that they are properly applied. We hope at no distant day that missionaries may be sent, and a mission established in Australia.
M. C. ISRAEL.
Fresno, March 14, 1884.
Church Relations North and South
UPON church relations North and South the Louisville Christian Observer says: "Coldness and distance in our conduct brings dishonor on the cause of Christ. When the Southern men, who are most bitter in their expressions, want goods they buy of Northern mills; when they want magazines, they order from New York; in feeble health, they go to Waukesha or Northern watering places. They can mingle in business relations, in joint-stock companies, and in corporations, in social and political intercourse with men from the other section. But as soon as church courtesy and cordiality is proposed, they recoil."
Sowing and Reaping
"In the morning sow thy seed, and in the evening withhold not thy hand."