A rather refined and sanctimonious-looking gentleman, on a late Sabbath afternoon, alighted from his “wheel” while I was sitting on my front porch. As he approached, I discovered that, for the time being at least, he was an agent; for he carried a recently invented lamp. Accosting me in the most affable manner, he proceeded to canvass me. I of course told him that I could not purchase the article at that time; but he, agent-like, paid no attention to that; for I had not yet given him the principal reason why I could not consider his proposition, namely, that it was the Sabbath day. He talked on until he began to see that he was wasting time and breath; then he handed me a slip of paper of visiting-card size, on one side of which was his name and address, while on the other side were printed passages of Scripture. Looking for a moment at these, I said, “You are a preacher, I presume, or at least a missionary.”
“Yes,” he replied; “I am generally engaged in the Lord’s work. Just now I have a wife and young child, and I have to do secular work; but as soon as the child is old enough, I expect to take up the Lord’s work again.”
One of the scriptures printed on the slip was, “Be ye also ready;” so I asked him if he was familiar with Adventist literature.
“Yes, somewhat,” he replied; “but—well, it doesn’t do one any harm, I guess; but I have very little use for it. I sometimes tell people I am a Seven-days Adventist; I keep every day.”6
In the foregoing and following I give the conversation substantially as it occurred. As my friend seemed to be of the “Holiness” persuasion, I shall designate his part by H and mine by A.
A. But God has made a plain distinction; He has called the seventh day holy—His holy day.
H. The law—Sabbath and all—was made for the carnal man. A spiritual man has no use for it. God didn’t rest because He needed to; neither does the spiritual man need the Sabbath. As God rested from His works, or ceased from them, so we who have entered into God’s rest cease from our own works.
A. But when a man ceases from his own works, must he begin to disobey God? Paul says, “The law is spiritual;” that “it is holy, and just, and good.” Don’t you think that a spiritual, holy law is good enough for a spiritual man? It seems to me we would have use for such a law, if we were really spiritual. Paul says, “I delight in the law of God after the inward man.”
H. Yes; but I follow Christ. You never read that He ever regarded the Sabbath after His thirty years of carnal (?) life.
A. Yes, sir. We have, besides His own declarations on the subject, at least one instance of His plainly regarding it; you remember how, after returning to Jerusalem from one of His missionary journeys, He rested over the Sabbath at the home of Mary and Martha, at Bethany, just outside of Jerusalem; and then, on Sunday morning, He made His triumphal entry into the city—a thing He would not do on the Sabbath. And what does He say prophetically in the fortieth psalm?—“Lo, I come; in the volume of the book it is written of Me, I delight to do Thy will, O My God; yea, Thy law is within My heart.” You see both Paul and Jesus had the law within their hearts, and hence it was their delight to keep it, and they were certainly spiritual.
H. Well, I must be going; if I get to talking religion, I shall never sell any lamps.
A. When you are engaged in the Lord’s work, what do you teach?
H. O, I take my discourses from the teachings of Christ—chiefly from the Sermon on the Mount.
A. Yes? then do you remember one statement made by Christ in that sermon: “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil”?
H. That is true; He came to fulfil, or to fill full, and so the Christian is free from the law.
A. But to fulfil, does not mean to abrogate. James says, “If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, . . . ye do well.” My fulfilling, or obeying, it certainly does not release my neighbor, neither does Christ’s obedience release any of us.
H. Well, we can not keep the Sabbath anyway. To keep the Sabbath you could not gather any sticks for your fire on that day.
A. You don’t find any such restriction in the Decalogue; that is the ceremonial law.
H. What is the difference? they are all one law.
A. One difference is that the Decalogue was placed inside the ark, while the other was placed outside; and there are at least nineteen other Scriptural distinctions.
H. Well, if you keep the Sabbath, you can not even hitch up your horse to go to church; for doesn’t the fourth commandment say that your servants, your cattle, etc., must keep it as well as yourself? And I haven’t seen an Adventist yet that wouldn’t hitch up his horse to go to church.
A. But is going to church “thy work” or the Lord’s? I think it is plainly the Lord’s work, whether you go by team or on foot.
H. Well, I must go [starting off]. Whenever you need a good lamp, call on me.
A. “Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet.”
H. (Smiling) Well, good day.
A. (Smiling) Good day.
And I suppose my preacher-agent friend departed pitying me for my carnality, as I might pity him for his blindness. A. L. A.
An Allegory
By Geo. E. Price
HESPERIA, OR THE LAND OF THE WEST.—NO. 1.
An Allegory.
There was once a king who had vast estates in the West. Now these estates were wilderness land; they were not inhabited.
But the people of the East were at war with the Great King, and they oppressed His people very sore. And when they cried unto the King for help, by reason of their hard bondage, the Great King sent them a proclamation, saying, “Arise ye, My people, and flee unto My land in the West, where none shall molest or make you afraid, and where ye may worship and serve Me as I have commanded.” Then many of His people obeyed the words of their King; and they arose, and after sailing across the great seas, they came to the land of the West and dwelt there; and they called the name thereof Hesperia.
Now the beginning of their trouble with the people of the East was on this wise. The people of the East were rebels against the Great King, they served Him not. And they had many princes over them who ruled with great power. But the chief of them all was Diabolus, prince of Babylon; for he was mightier than all the other kings of the East, and he made war on some of them and subdued their cities.
Now Diabolus was a very subtle prince, and he ruled only as the governor of the land under the Great King. “For,” said he, “all the people of the world do know that the Great King is the rightful ruler, and is not dead, neither does He sleep. And if I say that the kingdom is mine alone, no one will believe me; for many of the people have been personal friends of the Great King in the time past. But if I shall say that the Great King has appointed me to rule in His stead, then will they all honor me, and I shall become great, and shall rule over them all. For all people do know that for these many years the Great King has not visited this land, neither has He sent us any messages or laws, and the old laws are fast fading from the people’s minds. So, lest the people forget the Great King and renounce His authority, I shall have myself proclaimed as His governor, and then all the people will serve and obey me.”
So his servants proclaimed him, and the people shouted and said, “Long live Prince Diabolus.”
But when he was established on the throne, he became a very wicked king. For he put forth laws of his own which were contrary to the King’s laws, and made the people obey them under pain of death.
Now the King’s laws had been published in a Great Book which the Great King had caused to be written and scattered over the land, that His people might know the law; and in it He had promised long life and many blessings and honors to all His obedient people. But Diabolus said, “How shall we know what the law means? Must there not be some one to interpret it for us?” So the people received the explanations and amendments which he offered them as indeed the very laws of the Great King.
But it soon came to pass that the wise people began to say that the new laws did not make the people happy and contented as the old laws had done. “For the old laws,” said they, “not only taught what was right to be done, but gave power to those who wished to obey, to do what was commanded, and they were all reasonable and just laws, and were based on the ancient constitution of the country, and were exactly suited to our situation and our needs.”
But the laws of Diabolus were very different. For there was no necessity for fresh laws, save that Diabolus wished to make the people forget the Great King and His former rule. So his laws were all directed to substituting something in place of what the Great King had commanded, and to turning the hearts of the people away from Him. So he changed the day of public worship from the seventh day, on which the Great King had been crowned, to the first day, which was the day that he had devised in his own heart. And he also added many more days of his own, and ceremonies and rites which every one must learn from him and his prophets.
Moreover, he told the people, saying, “The old laws are hard and grievous; now therefore I will give you laws which are better.” Also, if any transgressed, instead of the former restitution and amendment of life, he only paid a certain fine into the prince’s treasury, or engaged to do a certain amount of work under the direction of his servants the priests.
So it came to pass that the people of the East forgot the Great King and His laws, and they served Diabolus, prince of Babylon, and obeyed his laws.
Now the sons of the prophets, who dwelt in Montibus, had copies of the Great Book. Many also of the priests of Diabolus had the Great Book. And the sons of the prophets said one to another, “What is this? for the Great King hath never given the government of this land into the hand of Diabolus.” They said, moreover, “What shall we do? Shall we even obey this Prince Diabolus instead of the Great King?”
So they refused to obey the new laws, and attempted to bring back the old laws again. But Prince Diabolus gathered his armies and made war against them, and slew very many of them. And the rest, in terror of their lives, fled everywhere; but as they went, they taught the people saying that the Great King had never appointed Diabolus to rule the land or to enact new laws. And it came to pass after the war had lasted many years, that very many of the people believed the sons of the prophets; and Diabolus, seeing the people turning against him, was forced to let them alone.
Now it came to pass in those days that there was a man of the sons of the prophets whose name was Justus, and he dwelt by the seashore.
The same was a good and upright man, one who obeyed the King’s laws as far as he knew. And the people of the seacoast and the islands gave heed unto him; for he taught them concerning the laws of the Great King. Howbeit, he did not teach them all of the law; for they still worshiped as they had been accustomed on the day that Diabolus had appointed.
Now Justus said unto himself: “Behold, now the Great King does not come Himself, neither has He sent His Son, the Prince Imperial, to take charge of His people and to rule the land as He has promised. And Prince Diabolus is strong and has great armies. Now, therefore, we will covenant together against him; and we will appoint captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, and we will rule this country in the name of the Great King. And we will subdue all the land; and when the Prince Imperial shall come, behold, all the land will be subdued before Him, and will be ready to welcome Him; and He will even make us rulers under Him, for that we have accomplished this great work in His name.”
Tracadie, N. B. GEO. E. PRICE.
(To be continued.)
A Lay Discursus on the Soul
By J.A.L. Derby
BY PROF. J.A.L. DERBY
THE NECESSITY OF A REVELATION.
Matter—Science.
The exceeding difficulty of getting a strictly unbiased summary of the scientific conclusions concerning Mind, or Soul, may be illustrated by a sentence from the works of Prof. Ladd, of Yale; which, however, with some modification, will answer:—
As to the first and last things of the mind—its origin and destiny, its mortality or corruption—Physiological Psychology finds itself unable to pronounce.—Phys. Psy., p. 687.
The only trouble with this statement is that it is worded in such a way as to convey the impression that the soul is immortal and that nothing is known to the contrary. By the insertion of the words “immortality or incorruption” after the word “corruption,” with the addition of a strong presumption against its immortality (since we know absolutely nothing of mind separate from matter), we shall have a sufficiently accurate summary of the conclusions not only of physiological psychology, but of science in general.
Mind—Metaphysics.
It is worthy of note how anxious defenders of natural immortality are, when they find the current of science dead against them, to throw discussion of the subject into the realm of logic, talk, mist, apparently with the despairing hope that some expert juggler with dialectics may conjure up a phantom soul from the fog of an argument. Thus the author above quoted adds,—“It [physiological psychology] entrusts the full consideration of these questions . . . to rational psychology, to ethics, to metaphysics, and to theology.”
But in regard to the first three of these studies the learned professor seems to have allowed his drowning fright to grasp at a straw. Theology, dealing as it does with a revelation, belongs to a different class from the others, which are simply products of the human mind, and must fail to give certainty of knowledge beyond that obtainable by physical science. This is well stated by Prof. R. M. Wenley of the University of Michigan in another connection. He says:—
No basis can be found for the idea that philosophy has means of access to special knowledge denied to science; that one can afford to neglect science in favor of rational forms; that the conclusions of physics, chemistry, and biology are subject to revision at a higher [human] tribunal; or that the work of science is a monstrous delusion. On the contrary, there is every reason for insisting that science and philosophy are intertwined inextricably. . . . Both are upon the same closed universe. . . . Their disciplines alike end in approximation and hypothesis.
Hence as rational psychology, ethics, and metaphysics are simply human products, worked up from materials lying altogether within the knowable limits of a “closed universe;” and when science, using these same materials, says that nothing can be affirmed with reference to the immortality of the soul, it is a strange species of logic that could make the above-named branches of knowledge prove diametrically the opposite!
When the phoenix rises from the ashes of its progenitors; when the Wandering Jew is captured and exhibited in the pulpits of the land as a proof of immortality; when a living Mahatma from the sacred fastnesses of Tibet is wafted on the subtle substance of thought across lands and seas, as witches ride astraddle of their mystic broomsticks; when the Missing Link hob-nobs about our streets in an automobile; then, perhaps, we shall begin to hope that philosophers may find the long-sought stone which will enable them to transmute the cold steel of science into a golden demonstration of inherent immortality.
What then?
“Is this the whole sad story of creation,
Told by its breathing myriads o’er and o’—,
One glimpse of day, then black annihilation,
A sunlit passage to a sunless shore?”
To this mournful appeal no answer can be given—the aching heart must ever throb in dumb and fearful uncertainty—unless a revelation shall come from without this “closed universe.”
[“The Meaning of Soul in Scripture Revelation” is the next article, No. 7 in the series.]
Marks of the True Church
MAN must be “born from above” before he becomes a child of God, before he is a member of Christ’s body, or church, before he is a branch of the True Vine, before he bears fruit to God’s glory. If this be not the case as respects the individual, he is not a member of the church of God. If this be not the case as respects a church, it is not the church of God. Lineage, priesthood, ritual, form, ceremonies, are all nothing apart from God. The indwelling Word, Christ dwelling within the individual soul by faith, the fruits of righteousness manifest in the life, obedience to all God’s commandments as given in God’s Word, the fruits of the Spirit,—love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, meekness, temperance,—these are God’s indications of the true church, the body of Christ. And, praise God, this blessed relation is open to every one.—Apples of Gold Library.
God in the Darkness
It was immediately after receiving the most blessed and comprehensive promise that God ever made, that “an horror of great darkness” fell upon Abraham. Such an experience is not uncommon, and we should not be disheartened by it. Instead of regarding the enshrouding darkness as evidence that we have forfeited the favor of God, we should consider that the promise and the communion which preceded it were for the purpose of strengthening us for the trial. Remember also that God was in the darkness with Abraham, and in the midst of it the promise was repeated. The darkness hides not from Him; but the night shines even as the day; the darkness and the light are both alike to Him.—London Present Truth.
Selfishness and Christian Service
“SELFISH saints are impossible. The very words are self-contradictory. To become a Christian is to repudiate selfishness and to undertake to follow the example of Him who pleased not Himself. The service of Christ is incompatible with the service of self. Selfishness is the opposite of spirituality.”
WHO NEEDED THE RECONCILIATION?
By S.
There is, perhaps, no more unjust accusation ever made against our Father in heaven than that professedly religious declaration that “Christ was crucified to reconcile His Father to us.” It is not true—it can not be. He who knows the Word knows that this doctrine is not taught therein; and he who knows the Father by living, personal experience, knows that it could not be true of Him, the God of love.
When man sinned in Eden, and fled to hide from God’s presence, he was simply fleeing from life to the endless silence of an eternal tomb. If God had needed to be reconciled, He would simply have allowed man to continue to flee from His presence and go down into a never-opening grave. The race would have stopped right there, and the history of Adam would have ended with his sin, his career been closed, the experiment finished, and everlasting silence settled down over the purposed habitation of man.
Satan in the beginning taught the innocent pair that God was unjust in withholding even one tree of that glorious garden from the use of man. His deception succeeded, man sinned, fled from God’s presence, and, as a race, has been fleeing ever since. Now he comes with the second accusation against the Most High, that God must needs be reconciled, appeased, like the gods of the heathen; and that by the sacrifice of His own Son. Christ was not sacrificed for that purpose. But if Satan can make men believe He was, he has accomplished a master stroke in his war of the ages against the kingdom of Christ; and if he can induce religious teachers to teach that doctrine, then is his success so much the more complete, his charge against God so much the more convincing. Accusing God of injustice in the beginning, and then making it appear that God must be reconciled, Satan attempts to shut the door of salvation in the face of man. He succeeds in the case of those who believe his sophistries. But let us see what is the teaching of Inspiration in reference to reconciliation.
God has never been the enemy of man. His own declaration is, “I have loved thee with an everlasting love; therefore with loving-kindness have I drawn thee.” Jer. 31:3. He says of Himself, “I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth; . . . wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye.” Eze. 18:32. “The mercy of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting.” Ps. 103:17. “The Lord is good; for His mercy endureth forever.” Jer. 33:11. “God so loved the world, that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” John 3:16.
It has always been man’s sin that has put a cloud between him and his Maker. It is not that God has withdrawn Himself from the sinner; but, as in Eden of old, when man has sinned he has hid himself. “Your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid His face from you.” Isa. 59:2.
In view, then, of God’s “everlasting love” toward man, of His ever-enduring mercy, and the fact that man has hid from God and not God from man, with whom is the reconciliation necessary? What was the purpose of Christ’s ministry? what the purpose of His life and sacrifice upon the earth? Let us answer in the language of the Scripture: “But all things are of God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ, and gave unto us the ministry of reconciliation; to wit, that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself, not reckoning unto them their trespasses, and having committed unto us the word of reconciliation.” 2 Cor. 5:18, 19. Thus has the Word made plain that it is man who must be reconciled to God; not God who must be reconciled to man. God never has been unreconciled. His arms have ever been stretched out toward the erring race, and are stretched out still. Christ’s work in the earth was “to reconcile all things unto Himself.” “And you . . . hath He reconciled in the body of His flesh through death.” Col. 1:20–22. We are told in Rom. 5:10 that “we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son.” So the plea of God’s representative in the land of the unreconciled is: “We pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.” 2 Cor. 5:20. The ministry of Christ, the ministry of those who are Christ’s, is “the ministry of reconciliation,” the reconciliation of an unreconciled world to the great God whose love is everlasting, whose mission is ever drawing, whose kindness never faileth, and whose arms will continue to be stretched out to the human race as long as there is hope of saving a single soul.
Christ did not die to appease the wrath of God, to reconcile God; but that He might ransom out of the enemy’s land those who had forfeited their heritage, bartered their soul, and fled from the face of God—that He might turn them, win them, and bring them back with Him, the fruits of His ministry of reconciliation.
S.
NOXIOUS PLANTS.
The Lord never planted a tare. “An enemy hath done this.” In the beginning God made everything good. He has not made any new thing since then. He made man good. All the men, of every grade, or race, or color, have sprung from that one man. The evil that is in them is the result of sin and consequent degeneracy. God never made a bad man, nor a bad anything else. Nor is He in a bad man, or a bad anything else. “What concord hath Christ with Belial?” He is in believers by His Spirit, and in them only. He “worketh in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure” (Phil. 2:13); but if that purpose be rejected, He will not remain.
In the beginning God made good plants and trees, but the curse came upon the earth and everything in it because of sin. So just as man became corrupt and degenerated, so did the plants. God said to Adam, “Cursed is the ground for thy sake.” He withdrew His blessing, and that weakened the fruitfulness of the earth, its power to produce good; then it naturally produced evil plants. Not that God made it do so; for He simply took away in great measure its power to produce good. Man would have to labor and cultivate the earth, and battle with the noxious plants, in order to produce good fruits. Of the earth the Lord said, “Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee.” He did not say, I will make it bring forth thorns and thistles. He simply told Adam that it would do so. And this is what we see everywhere; the thorns and thistles do not have to be planted and cultivated. In the seasons of drought, when the wheat and barley and oats die, various kinds of weeds will grow luxuriantly. And often it will be a new species of weed unknown in that field before.
There were no new animals created after the fall, but the animal creation degenerated. Some became wild and vicious, and by unnatural intermingling there were produced mongrels of ungainly form and repugnant disposition. Other creatures degenerated into loathsome and poisonous reptiles. So also the earth brought forth the thorns and briers, the poisonous plants and noxious weeds. These also mix and cross, producing new species and varieties of troublesome and harmful plants. True, the earth brings forth good classes of fruit in a wild state, but these are improved by cultivation, and the best cultivated fruits deteriorate when cultivation is neglected.
Another thing to be noted is, that the edible grains and fruits never get a hold in the earth and grow luxuriantly and produce bountifully by accident. But the weeds come altogether spontaneously: seldom, if ever, by the design of man, excepting it be intentionally for mischief, as figuratively implied in the parable of the wheat and tares. The migration of weeds is accomplished in various ways,—by winds and waves, by beasts and birds, and by various vehicles. An article in Ainslee’s Magazine illustrates the spread and persistent growth of these results of the curse as follows:—
Railways are highways no less for the progressive weed than for man. Seeds drop from cars and from the clothes of passengers all along the line. The most prolific weeds, particularly the Russian thistle, have been introduced at widely separated points throughout the United States almost simultaneously by this means. They come in straw used for packing, and in grain not perfectly cleaned. The country towns that receive the freight are breeding places, and the men who handle it are carriers. The weeds get everywhere, because the seeds survive long, and are equipped to cling and travel. By centuries of struggle they have acquired the ability to adapt themselves to almost any quality of soil or to any kind of atmosphere. They earn their right to live by the most hardy efforts. No plant of culture could ever endure the knocks which they receive and survive. Heat, cold, drought, frost, soggy rains, unnatural soils, all afflict the traveling seed by turns. Yet it will face the situation, dig deep, reach high, even change its diet and its very nature before it will give up the struggle.
This also illustrates the origin and growth of the weeds of error in the “vineyard of the Lord.” God never planted them. They are simply perversions of truth sown by the enemy of souls, sown to destroy the precious fruit of the Spirit. If allowed to remain, they will grow without special cultivation. If there be merely a neglect to cultivate the ground about the seeds of truth which have been sown there, the noxious weeds of temptation and false doctrine will soon master the situation and take possession of the field. There is need not only for a continual sowing of good seed—morning and evening—but there is need of continual watering and cultivating, and watchfulness against the enemy. “The sluggard will not plow by reason of the cold; therefore shall he beg in harvest, and have nothing.”
DOES THE LORD WANT A BROKEN PEOPLE?
By G.
THIS question was asked just at the close of a review lesson in the Sabbath-school in this city on a recent Sabbath. There was not time to answer it as its importance deserved, and no doubt others besides the Oakland school have raised the same query when reading Matt. 21:44: “And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken; but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.” This Stone is Christ, “the stone which the builders rejected,” and which “is become the head of the corner.” No, the Lord does not want a broken people. His people are designed to be parts of the building of which He is the “precious corner-stone,” a “tried stone,” a “sure foundation.” This building is to be “fitly framed together,” a process that would be impossible with broken stones. There were no broken stones in the temple built in Jerusalem; they were all hewn and dressed ready to fit together before they were brought to the place. “There was neither hammer nor ax nor any tool of iron heard in the house, while it was in building.” The completed building of which Christ is the corner-stone will be the consummated work of redemption, when every thing will be restored to perfect holiness. It is the natural man, the carnal heart, that must be broken. If it be not broken by a voluntary falling on Christ by faith, and a confession and forsaking of sin, there will necessarily be a forcible breaking when He comes in glory. But when the sinner voluntarily falls on Christ and is broken, he is not left in that condition. “A broken and a contrite heart, O God, Thou wilt not despise.” Ps. 51:17. Christ Himself died of a broken heart. But David also says, “The Lord is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart, and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit.” That is, He makes them whole. His mission as Redeemer is to “bind up the broken-hearted,” and present them “perfect in Christ Jesus,” and “faultless before the presence of His glory.” G.
Question Corner
From time to time we will reply under this head, if deemed advisable, to such candid inquiries as may be sent us. Correspondents wishing a reply to their questions must give their full name and address, not for publication unless they wish, but as an evidence of good faith on their part, and to give us opportunity to reply by letter if deemed best. It is always well to inclose stamp. Let the questions be short and pointed, and such as may be answered in limited space. The questions will be numbered continuously.
1217.—The Sabbath in Alaska.
* Can a man observe the seventh-day Sabbath in Alaska, in countries that are farther north? Some persons say that it is impossible. G. T.
There are Sabbath-keepers in Alaska, in Finland, in Iceland, in northern Norway and Sweden; and so far as we know they have no trouble, any more than the Sunday-keeper has. In any place on earth fit for a man to live, he can keep God’s commandments.
A NOVEL PROPOSITION.
By G.
THAT “the end justifies the means” is a recognized doctrine of the Roman Church, and an instance of its indorsement is found in a letter to the Catholic Mirror from a missionary priest in Ecuador, South America. He writes of the Gayapas Indians, a tribe of fine physical appearance, but very degraded habits, and seemingly impervious to civilization. He says the children are “comely to an interesting degree,” but their intelligence “is soon vitiated by the atrocious teachings of their parents, who early addict them to drinking brandy and smoking tobacco.” But the remedy suggested by the correspondent is striking. He says:—
It has often occurred to me that it would give me great pleasure to kidnap four or five of these young Indians, and have them sent to the College of the Propaganda Fide in Rome, for I am certain that they would hold their own among the various types at that institution gathered from all parts of the world. Last year a proposition was actually made to the government to seize by force some of these promising youths in order to try what civilization might do for them. A few agents of the police tried to entice them from their surroundings, but the plan failed utterly. If I possessed the necessary pecuniary means, I am certain that I could succeed in this enterprise.
This missionary priest—an Italian, by the way—is very much in earnest concerning his proposition, and adds:—
“If my poor words are unable to inspire compassion for my poor children, the Gayapas, in this indifferent9country, I am not without hope that they will find an echo in the north among some good Catholics who have at heart the propagation of the faith.”
To say nothing of the results of such a ruse to the poor victims themselves, what would be the effect upon the parents and others in the tribe? Such schemes indicate to what length men will go in the name of religion, when they depart from the simplicity of Gospel persuasion, and resort to human devices for making nominal Christians of the heathen. The Master says, “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.” Kidnapping children can not be classed as a “good work.” Altho we would by no means discount the crying need for real Gospel effort to relieve these deluded Indians from their superstitious degradation, they would still need the Gospel if every one of them were brought under the influence of the Propaganda Fide in Rome.
G.
NATURE WORSHIP REVIVED.
By Editor
It is too sad to chronicle, and we therefore suppress the names of the persons mentioned and the church involved. It is reported in the Kansas City Journal of a congregation belonging to one of the leading Protestant, evangelical bodies in the world. It is not the desire of the SIGNS OF THE TIMES to seek out and expose the faults or backslidings of any person or denomination. It notes a very few of these things for three reasons—to show that they are not Christian tho practised by professed Christians, to warn against the evil, and to show the fulfilment of prophecy and the times in which we are privileged to live. These rapidly increasing dark spots of earth are cumulative evidence of the coming day.
The report above referred to is as follows, with personal references omitted:—
The young people of the North Greenfield, O.,— church gave a hugging social the other evening, and raised $75 toward paying off the church debt. Following were the rates charged: Girls under fifteen years of age, 15 cents for two minutes hug. Girls under twenty years, 50 cents. Twenty to twenty-five years, 75 cents. Another man's wife, $1. Old maid, 3 cents and no time limit. The girls of the congregation set another meeting for February 1st; but the older members say it must be called off, as the bounds of propriety have already been overstepped. The recent hugging match has widely advertised the affair, and the girls say that, if the one arranged for February 1st is given, they will pay off the entire debt. The social was more largely patronized by middle-aged and old men than by the young men.
It is horrible. The very thought of it is disgusting, monstrous. Among the old heathen cults beautiful women prostituted themselves at the shrines of Pan, Priapus, Adonis, Hermes, and other gods in the name of religion. The above does not go so far as that in overt act, but it is of the same spirit. Think of sweet, pure-minded young women and girls from twenty-five down to fifteen submitting themselves, nay, prostituting themselves to the amorous, lecherous hugs of libertines, ranging from the hot-blooded youth to the gray-haired debauchee, the wolf in sheep’s clothing. What could be thought of the fathers and mothers in a church, to say naught of its pastor, who would yield the flower of their womanhood to such degradation. Such darkness is only conceivable on the supposition that the church has turned from the light of the Word to walk in her own ways.
What will the harvest be to those who on this occasion took their first bold step in transgression, who may have yielded for the first time to the overpowering impulse of the baser passions? This first step may be the first yielding to the devil’s hypnotism. The gateway to virtue’s citadel is opened; the utter surrender is but a question of time. Such it may be to some. Others, would there were many, will find their whole nature revolt against its repetition. Let all such know that God is with them. Will this sad occurrence be the last? In the light of present tendencies we can hardly expect it. Well did the apostle say, ‘This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, . . . without natural affection, . . . incontinent, . . . lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof.’ 2 Tim. 3:1–5.
Such proceedings as those in North Greenfield may pay church debts, but it is at a fearful cost. Better a mortgage which would sink the church into the mold of the ages than that womanly modesty and virtue should be sacrificed to its removal.
