Earlier text: The End of the WorldA COPY of a petition has come to our hands, which is sent out with the signature of the “P. G. W. C. T.” of California, and which concerns the Sunday Law. It professes to be in the interest of temperance; but, while we are known to be amongst the most radical of temperance people, this petition was not sent to us by those who originated it, or those who are circulating it so extensively. It was sent to us by a personal friend. It reads as follows:— "To the Honorable the Governor and Legislature of California:—
We, the undersigned, citizens of the State of California, respectfully petition,—
First.—For the non-repeal of the Sunday Law and the law forbidding the sale of intoxicating liquors to minors and common drunkards.
Second.—For the enactment of a law whereby the qualified voters of every voting precinct, town, city, and county, by a majority vote, may determine whether the sale of intoxicating liquors shall be prohibited within their respective limits.
Third.—For the submission to the people of an amendment to the Constitution forever prohibiting the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors in California." We have heard the story of a lawyer who proceeded to account for the absence of his witness in the following manner: "May it please the Court, I have four reasons to offer for his absence. First, he is dead. Secondly—." Here the Court interposed and excused him from offering the others. With the thought of this in our mind we are led to inquire: If they want an effective temperance law, why not take the third point in this petition and work to that? If carried out it will prove the death of the liquor traffic, and what more can the temperance people ask? We will sign such a petition, and work to the utmost of our ability for its success. We could not work up much enthusiasm on the second point; not because we object to it in principle, but because it would never effect the object we desire. We have been outspoken in favor of prohibition for thirty-five years. We publicly took that ground while it was yet very unpopular with temperance people. We occupy that ground still, and can give a reason for so doing. The Sunday Law is worth but little as a temperance law, because it does not limit the supply, and may be so easily evaded. Those who wish to do so, can procure all they desire for that day on any other day, and to this they would resort if the law were actually enforced. But there is an explanation which goes with the petition, which we must examine. Among the reasons offered why this petition should be granted is the following:—
"The Sunday REST is a decree of Nature and of Nature's God." This we deny in both its parts. If they will prove to us that it is truth, we shall show ourselves among the most zealous of their co-workers. So far as Nature's decree is concerned it respects only our physical systems, and the wants of our physical frames are served by a Tuesday rest, or a Wednesday rest, or any-other-day rest, just as well as by a Sunday rest. Our bodies need rest—sufficient rest. But nature does not indicate on what day it shall be taken. For thirty years we have taken regularly a Saturday rest, and we ask our friends to show wherein this is not as well for our physical system as a "Sunday rest." The "P. G. W. C. T." of California possesses a mind greatly lacking in the power of discrimination if he really believes the statement which he has here made, that Nature has decreed the "Sunday rest" for man. It is about as highly absurd as anything to which the mind of man can reach. The decrees of Nature's God stand upon a different basis. We can learn the decrees or laws of Nature only by observation and experience; they are not written. To the contrary, the decrees of God, so far as they relate to our action, are all written. Unlike the laws of Nature, they bear directly on our moral and spiritual natures. The decrees or commandments of God are so broad as to reach "every work" and "every secret thing;" Eccl. 12:13, 14. His word or law "is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart;" Heb. 4:12. By his holy Scriptures the man of God is "thoroughly furnished unto all good works;" 2 Tim. 3:15-17. In many scriptures we are forbidden to add anything to, or take anything from, his word. "The law and the testimony," Isa. 8:20, are the sole rule and guide of our lives. But in the holy Scriptures, which furnish us to all good works, and which give us the rule by which we shall be judged, God has never given any decree, law, precept, or counsel, for the keeping of a "Sunday rest." If it exists, why do not our friends produce it? Why do they evade the issue by covering the Sunday question under that of temperance, instead of letting it stand on its own merits? If it is a decree of God, why do its friends dodge behind the plea of "a police regulation," instead of bringing forward that decree and enforcing it by such an indisputable authority? Why not appeal to the consciences of all who love God's law, instead of appealing to the lower motive of patriotism for obedience to an "American" institution? As God did not ordain a "Sunday rest," so he did not decree an indefinite rest, to be taken whensoever man may choose. Yet this is the position now taken by learned "Doctors of Divinity," and then, as if to show conclusively that their "divinity" is in pressing need of "doctors," they proceed to argue that this indefinite day must necessarily fall on Sunday, the first day of the week! Dr. Benson's book is a specimen of this kind of logic.355We think we fully appreciate the intention of the Good Templars in their work. They intend to serve the cause of temperance. We honor them in this. But we have read in the Scriptures that "if a man strive for masteries, yet is he not crowned, except he strive lawfully." As God will not be worshiped by a false zeal, a zeal "not according to knowledge," but requires to be worshiped in spirit and in truth (and his word is truth), we must not only do that thing which is right in itself, but we must do it in a right manner. We invite the Good Templars to take more broad and just views of this matter. There are important principles involved which they are entirely overlooking. A true temperance platform will not trespass upon any one's religious rights—religious rights which are based on the plain reading of the word of God. But the indiscriminate enforcement of Sunday does this. And all know—none can be blind to the fact—that the present law of California no more forbids the sale of whisky on Sunday than it does the carrying on of the best and most useful business which any man can follow. It is in no way worthy to be called a temperance law. It is a "Sunday Law," and that only. As such we shall oppose it; not by force or resistance, but by meeting it with the law of God, which says: "Six days shalt thou labor and do all thy work; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work." The Two Laws.
By John Nevins Andrews
At Mount Sinai, as we have seen, God proclaimed the moral law, speaking it with his own voice, and writing it with his own finger. By his direction, the two tables on which the law was written were placed in the ark of the covenant, which was made on purpose to receive it. Ex. 25:10-22; Deut. 10:1-5. And this ark, containing the law of God, was placed in the second apartment of the earthly sanctuary —the most holy place. Ex. 40; Heb. 9. The top of the ark was called the mercy-seat, because that man who had broken the law contained in the ark beneath the mercy-seat could find pardon by the sprinkling of the blood of atonement upon this place. The whole system of ceremonial law was ordained to enable man to approach again to this broken law, and to typify the restitution of the pardoned to their inheritance, and the destruction of the impenitent. The law within the ark was that which demanded an atonement; the ceremonial law, which ordained the Levitical priesthood and the sacrifices for sin, was that which taught men how the atonement could be made. The broken law was beneath the mercy-seat; the blood of sin-offering was sprinkled upon the top, and its pardon was extended to the penitent sinner. There was actual sin, and hence a real law which man had broken; but there was not a real atonement, and hence the need of the great antitype of the Levitical sacrifices. The real atonement, when it is made, must relate to the law respecting which an atonement had been shadowed forth. In other words, the shadowy atonement related to that law which was shut up in the ark, indicating that a real atonement was demanded by the law. It is necessary that the law which demands atonement, in order that its transgressor may be spared, should itself be perfect, else the fault would, in part, at least, rest on the Lawgiver, and not wholly with the sinner. Hence, the atonement, when made, does not take away the broken law, for that is perfect; but it is expressly designed to take away the guilt of the transgressor. In the New Testament we find the great antitype of all the offerings and sacrifices —the real atonement—as contrasted with the Levitical one. The death of our Lord Jesus Christ, as the great sacrifice for sin, was the antitype of all the Levitical sacrifices. The priesthood of our Lord Jesus Christ in the heavenly sanctuary is the great antitype of the Levitical priesthood. Heb. 8. The heavenly sanctuary itself is the great original after which the earthly one was patterned. Heb. 9:23; Ex. 25:6, 9. And the ark of God's testament in the temple in Heaven, Rev. 11:19, contains the great original of this law. And thus we see under the new dispensation a real atonement, instead of a shadowy one; a High Priest who needs not to offer for himself; a sacrifice which can avail before God; and that law, which was broken by man, magnified and made honorable at the same time that God pardons the penitent sinner. We shall find the New Testament to abound with references to the essential difference between these two codes, and that the distinction in the New Testament is made as clear and obvious as it is made by the facts already noticed in the Old Testament. Thus the one code is termed "the law of a carnal commandment," Heb. 7:16; and of the other, it is affirmed, "We know that the law is spiritual." Rom. 7:14. The one code is termed "the handwriting of ordinances," "which was contrary to us," and which was nailed to the cross and taken out of the way, Col. 2:14; the other code is "the royal law," which James affirms that it is a sin to transgress. Chap. 2:8-12. The first is a code of which "there was made of necessity a change," Heb. 7:12; the second is that law of which Christ says, "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled." Matt. 5:18. The one law was a "shadow of good things to come," Heb. 10:1, and was only imposed "until the time of reformation," Heb. 9:10; but the other was a moral code, of which it is said by John, "Whosoever committeth sin, transgresseth also the law; for sin is the transgression of the law." 1 John 3:4. The one is a yoke we are not able to bear, Acts 15:10; the other is that "law of liberty" by which we shall be judged. James 2:8-12. The one is that law which Christ abolished in his flesh, Eph. 2:15; the other is that law which he did not come to destroy. Matt. 5:17. The one is that law which he took out of the way at his death, Col. 2:14; the other is that law which he came to magnify and make honorable. Isa. 42:21. The one was a law which was disannulled "for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof," Heb. 7:18; the other is a law respecting which he inquires, "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid; yea; we establish the law." Rom. 3:31. The one is that law which the middle wall of partition between Jews and Gentiles, Eph. 2:14; the other is that law, the work of which even the Gentiles are said to have written in their hearts, Rom. 2:12-15, and to which all mankind are amenable. Rom. 3:19. The one is the law of commandments contained in ordinances, Eph. 2:15; the other law is the commandments of God, which is the whole duty of man to keep, Eccl. 12:13, which are brought to view by the third angel, Rev. 14:12, which the remnant of the seed of the woman were keeping when the dragon made war upon them, Rev. 12:17, and which will insure, to those who observe them, access to the tree of life. Rev. 22:14. Surely, these two codes should not be confounded. The one was magnified, made honorable, established, and is holy, just, spiritual, good, royal; the other was carnal, shadowy, burdensome, and abolished, broken down, taken out of the way, nailed to the cross, changed, and disannulled, on account of the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. That the ten commandments are a perfect code of themselves, appears from several facts: 1. God spake them with his own voice, and it is said, "He added no more," Deut. 5:22, as evincing that he had given a complete code. 2. He wrote them alone on two tables with his own finger, another incidental proof that this was a complete moral code. 3. He caused these alone to be placed under the mercy-seat, an evident proof that this was the code that made an atonement necessary. 4. He expressly calls what he thus wrote on the tables of stone, a law and commandments. Ex. 24:12. The precepts of this law are variously interspersed through the books of Moses, and mingled with the precepts of the ceremonial law. And the sum of the first table is given in Deut. 6:5; and that of the second, Lev. 19:18; but there is only one place in which the moral law is drawn out in particulars, and given by itself with no ceremonial law mixed with it, and that is in the ten commandments. An examination of the royal law in James 2, and of the handwriting of ordinances in Col. 2 will further illustrate this subject; the one is in force in every respect, while the other is abolished. "If ye fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, ye do well; but if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors. For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty." James 2:8-12. 1. The law here brought to view is an unabolished law; for it convinces of sin men who transgress it. 2. It is an Old-Testament law —it is taken from the Scriptures. 3. The second division of the law is quoted, because he was reproving sin committed toward our fellow-men; and hence he takes the second of the two great commandments, the sum of the second table, Matt. 22:36, 40; Rom. 13:9, and cites his illustration from the second table of stone. 4. His language shows that the ten commandments are the precepts of the royal law; for he cites them in illustrating the statement that he who violates one precept becomes guilty of all. This is a most solemn warning against the violation of any one of the ten commandments. 5. He testifies that whoever violates one of the precepts of this code becomes guilty of breaking the whole code. 6. And, last of all, he testifies that this law of liberty shall be the rule in the Judgment. The unabolished law of James is therefore that code which God gave in person, and wrote with his own finger. "Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailed it to his cross." "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days, which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ." Col. 2:14, 16, 17. If this handwriting of ordinances is the same as the royal law of James, then Paul and James directly contradict each other. But they wrote by inspiration, and each wrote the truth of God. We have seen that James' unabolished law refers directly to the ten commandments. Hence it is certain that the law which Paul shows to be abolished, does not refer to that which was written with the finger of God. It is to be noticed that the code which is done away is a shadow extending only to the death of Christ. But we have already seen that the law shut up in the ark was not a shadow, but the very code that made it necessary that the Saviour should die. Not one of the things abolished in this chapter can be claimed as referring to the ten commandments, except the term sabbaths; for the term holy day is, literally, feast day (Gr. heortes), and there were three feasts appointed by God in each year. Ex. 23:14. The term sabbath is plural in the original. To refer this to the Sabbath of the fourth commandment is to make Paul contradict James. What are the facts in the case? 1. The ceremonial law did ordain at least four annual sabbaths; viz., the 1st, 10th, 15th, and 23d days of the seventh month. These were besides the Sabbath of the Lord, and were associated with the new moons and feast days. Lev. 23:23-39. These exactly answer Paul's language. Hence it is not necessary to make Paul contradict James. 2. But the Sabbath of the Lord was "set apart to a holy use" (this being the literal meaning of sanctify) in Eden. It was "made for man" before he had fallen. Hence it is not one of the things against him and contrary to him, taken out of the way at Christ's death. 3. It was not a shadow pointing forward to the death of Christ; for it was ordained before the fall. On the contrary, it stands as a memorial pointing backward to creation, and not as a shadow pointing forward to redemption. It is plain, therefore, that the abrogation of the handwriting of ordinances leaves in full force every precept of the royal law, and also that the law of shadows pointing forward to the death of Christ must expire when that event should occur. But the moral law was that which caused the Saviour to lay down his life for us. And its sacredness may be judged by the fact that God gave his only Son to take its curse upon himself, and to die for our transgressions. Mr. Armstrong Again.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
MR. ARMSTRONG's Sunday book has already received, in the SIGNS and elsewhere, all the notice which its merits deserve, and possibly more; but there are in it certain demerits that have not been publicly noticed. These are noticed now, not because there is any argument in them, or because there is much danger that anybody will be led astray by them, but because the book is pretentiously called, “A Refutation of Sabbatarianism.” It may open the eyes of some to the comparative merits of the Sabbath and the Sunday, when they see to what lengths the advocates of the latter institution are driven to find something to say against the Sabbath. This book, it must be remembered, is indorsed by the Methodist denomination. A few passages only will be noticed. On page 75 we read as follows:— “Not long ago, wishing to test the love of truth in a leading Sabbatarian debater, by letter I asked the following question: Suppose Congress should pass a law changing the secular weekly cycle, and making it commence on Monday instead of Sunday, what effect would it have on your people? Would you keep the seventh day? (Sunday.) After much evasion he absolutely refused to answer. I fear he loved his Sabbath hobby more than he loved truth.” I fear that this last remark is applicable to Mr. Armstrong himself. No Sabbatarian would have the least hesitation in answering such a question. The prompt answer would be: The action of Congress would not affect the matter in the least. We should keep the Sabbath just as we now do. The Sabbath was instituted by God, the creator of heaven and earth, and not by act of Congress. The Sabbath commandment is part of the law of God, and beyond the jurisdiction of earthly powers. No one would pretend that Congress has any right to tamper with any law of the Czar of Russia; much less has it any right to modify in any manner the law of God. Armstrong himself, although arguing for the observance of any day that follows six consecutive days of labor, says that “the sacred cycle would not be affected by anything that rulers would do.” To this we agree. Again, on page 108 we find the following:— “I doubt whether Sabbatarians would conform to the seventh356day where [ever] they went. In the latter part of the last century France became infidel, Christianity was proscribed, and the priests murdered and banished. The weekly cycle of seven days ceased, and in its place appeared decades of days. Had there been Sabbatarians there, what would they have done? Would they have kept the seventh day? They could have done this, but it would only have come once in ten days,[!] and the commandment would have had to be altered. We could not say, ‘six days shalt thou labor and do all thy work.’ This historical fact should open the eyes of these people, and heal the schism in the church. True, in France, hid from public view, in garrets and secret places, there was another seventh day that still existed —there was still a week including labor and rest, but this week was our sacred cycle, beginning with Monday's labor, and ending with Sunday's rest. One of these seventh days must have been adopted by Sabbatarians. To accept the first would have abrogated the Sabbath, to accept the second would have been keeping Sunday.” We have quoted the entire paragraph, in order not to convey any wrong impression. Truly such astounding logic should entitle the author to add D. D. to his name. See Isa. 56:10. “The weekly cycle of seven days ceased, and in its place appeared decades of days.” Mr. A. has evidently learned a new way of counting. He can count ten without finding seven. If the tenth day could be identified, there would be no trouble in finding the seventh. If anybody had attempted to keep the seventh day “it would only have come once in ten days!” There were some, however, who kept a seventh day, but they had to do it on the first day! So here we have no seventh day at all, and yet two seventh days, one on the first day, and the other on the tenth day! No comments are needed. Such argument (?) is worse than puerile. Mr. Armstrong says: “We could not say, ‘Six days shalt thou labor and do all thy work.’” Why not? As a matter of fact, it was said during all that period. The action of infidel France could not abolish the law of God, any more than it could keep the earth from performing its daily revolutions. Both of these things would have had to be done, in order to make Mr. A's words true. Again on page 110 we read:— “There are also countries where there is no seventh day. Dr. Hull tells us that China is one of these. What is to be done there?” What is to be done? Why, keep Sunday, of course. You can always find Sunday whether the seventh day comes once in ten days or not at all. No seventh day in China! This is news indeed. Does the cycle contain only six days? If so, seven of these cycles would make six cycles of seven days each. Or does not the sun rise and set in China, making one long day? What the writer evidently means is that the Chinese pay no attention to any rest day, but work on all days. “What is to be done there?” Why, keep the Sabbath the same as anywhere else. The Israelites kept the Sabbath, when they were surrounded by heathen; why can it not be done now? It is done. There are many Sabbath-keepers in China, who find no difficulty in keeping the Sabbath “according to the commandment.” Using Mr. Armstrong's form of expression, we might say: “There are also countries where there is no God. China is one of these.” That is, not only in China, but in India and Africa, the true God is unknown. But, as is not the case with the Sabbath, they have a substitute. “What is to be done there?” Shall all the missionaries who go there fall down and worship gods of wood and stone? Would Mr. A. counsel the Methodist missionaries to do so? Does he believe that they do? Of course not. They go there to carry the knowledge of the true God. And although the Chinese pay no regard to any day as a day of rest and worship, these missionaries have no trouble in keeping Sunday, neither have seventh-day missionaries any trouble in keeping the Sabbath. But it would be a waste of time to dwell longer on such absurdities. It is true that “great men are not always wise,” but it is not possible that Mr. Armstrong is so ignorant as to believe that there is any sense or argument in such passages as we have quoted. He could not even hope to mislead anybody by them, except as he confused them by darkening counsel, “by words without knowledge.” We leave the book alone as being a wall feebly daubed with such exceedingly untempered mortar that it will fall of itself. Eze. 13. E. J. W. Indepen(t)ce.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
It makes little difference nowadays whether a practice can be defended by the Scriptures or not. If the Bible supports a doctrine or custom, it is still popular to quote it, but modern religionists are not troubled one whit if the Bible does not agree with them. They can get along without it. The following, from the Independent, is a case in point:— "A correspondent asks an opinion as to the validity of the arguments advanced in favor of infant baptism. This is our view of the case: No authority for any rite or ordinance can, in the nature of the case, have final, irrepealable authority. The form is the servant of the principle; the letter, of the spirit. You may prove what you will about a rite, and it can yet be discarded when circumstances make it advisable. Prove, if you will, that Jesus Christ when on earth commanded any ordinances in the most express terms, as he did baptism and the Lord's Supper, and yet they may both be discarded, and should be, by the private judgment of the believer, or by vote of the church or of a denomination, or by concurrent voice of Christendom, if it should ever appear that these ordinances, in the nature of them, minister to disunity, instead of unity, to formalism, instead of piety." The question, "What think ye of Christ?" might very pertinently be put to the Independent. Does it believe in Christ at all? Not if it really believes the statement quoted above. Christ prayed that his followers might be one even as he and the Father were one. Since this was his desire, he certainly would not teach his disciples to do anything that would tend to disunity. But he did, as the Independent admits, command baptism and the Lord's Supper in the most express terms. Still that paper says there is danger that they may tend to disunity. If this is not impeaching the wisdom of Christ, what would be? Again it says: "The important point is that we should do what in this nineteenth century is best for the spiritual condition of the church." Very good; so say we; but who shall decide what is best for the spiritual condition of the church? Christ himself has given us directions, both personally and through the prophets and apostles, but the Independent decides that those directions are not of universal application; that Christ had not sufficient foresight to know what men in this age would need; that it rests with each individual to decide what is best for himself. Thus it puts Christ on a level with men, limiting his work to the short time which he spent on this earth. The Bible used to be considered the rule of life, but now we are told that we need not follow its teachings when it is not best! That is, everybody can do as he pleases. Surely no worldling, however profligate, would object to such a religion as this. If the millennium is to consist in the fact that all men will be brought into the church, then it cannot be far distant, for such teaching as the above is becoming decidedly popular in the church, as it always has been outside. "A wonderful and horrible thing is committed in the land; the prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means; and my people love to have it so." Jer. 5:30, 31. E. J. W. No Excess in Charity
By Upham
BACON’S “Essay on Goodness” contained the following noteworthy words: “The desire of power in excess caused the angels to fall; the desire of knowledge in excess caused man to fall; but in charity there is no excess, neither can angel or man come in danger by it.” California Tract and Missionary Society.
REPORT FOR QUARTER ENDING JUNE 30, 1882.
| Districts |
No. of Members |
No. Reports Returned |
No. of Members Added |
No. of Families Visited |
No. of Letters Written |
No. Signs taken in Clubs |
New Subscribers Obtained: Review |
New Subscribers Obtained: Signs |
New Subscribers Obtained: Good Health |
New Subscribers Obtained: Instructor |
New Subscribers Obtained: Other Periodicals |
|---|
| No. 1 |
94 |
42 |
|
29 |
77 |
188 |
|
|
|
|
|
| " 2 |
96 |
19 |
4 |
7 |
67 |
190 |
|
|
|
|
|
| " 3 |
69 |
26 |
1 |
13 |
45 |
126 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
| " 4 |
16 |
6 |
|
3 |
35 |
35 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
| " 5 |
95 |
32 |
|
31 |
166 |
195 |
3 |
|
|
1 |
|
| " 6 |
22 |
|
|
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
|
|
| " 7 |
110 |
22 |
|
111 |
329 |
508 |
7 |
|
|
|
|
| " 8 |
77 |
31 |
|
288 |
157 |
197 |
|
|
|
|
|
| " 9 |
19 |
|
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Ships. |
|
|
|
128 |
|
50 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Total.. |
598 |
178 |
5 |
610 |
876 |
1523 |
11 |
|
|
2 |
|
| Districts |
No. of Pages of Reading Matter Distributed |
Periodicals Distributed |
Annuals Sold and given away |
Donations to Tract Fund and Membership |
Cash Received: Sales |
Cash Received: Periodicals |
Cash Received: Total |
|---|
| No. 1.... |
9556 |
1789 |
21 |
$ 70 40 |
12 50 |
$109 50 |
$192 40 |
| " 2.... |
34390 |
948 |
13 |
162 25 |
29 70 |
83 40 |
275 35 |
| " 3.... |
3314 |
1347 |
|
25 40 |
13 90 |
30 50 |
69 80 |
| " 4.... |
2676 |
440 |
|
|
|
29 00 |
29 00 |
| " 5.... |
24307 |
1818 |
|
50 85 |
54 81 |
258 55 |
364 21 |
| " 6.... |
|
|
|
12 25 |
4 80 |
20 10 |
37 15 |
| " 7.... |
34504 |
4587 |
|
67 35 |
|
182 15 |
249 50 |
| " 8.... |
26910 |
1561 |
|
83 40 |
14 95 |
90 75 |
189 10 |
| " 9.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Ships.... |
49093 |
4924 |
|
20 00 |
|
|
20 00 |
| Total.... |
184750 |
17414 |
34 |
$491 90 |
$130 66 |
$803 95 |
1426 51 |
ALICE MORRISON
By Alice Morrison
THIS report is incomplete as no reports have been received from districts No. 6 and No. 9. Blanks were sent out in ample time for the quarterly meetings, and a report should have been returned from every district. The degree of faithfulness in reporting shows the interest taken in the missionary work; and from the reports we learn what is being done with publications and periodicals furnished to the societies. The number of Signs taken in clubs this quarter is 19,799. Of these, only 17,414 have been reported as distributed. The question arises, What becomes of those not reported? Are they left to waste? or if distributed, why not reported. The enemy with his host is working to win souls for destruction; and should we not be more earnest in the work of bringing them to Christ? Books and tracts to the amount of $225.39, and periodicals to the amount of $856.59 have been furnished to the societies; and the amount of cash received for the quarter is $1,426.51. The standing of the districts at present is as follows: District No 1 owes the State Society $31.58; District No. 2, $533.95; No. 3, $184.61; No. 4, $22.53; No. 5, $140.07; No. 6, $48.58; No. 7, $305.23; No. 8, $42.41; No. 9, $96.16. The most of the amounts due from the districts is counterbalanced by the stock of books on hand and the periodicals ordered that are to be paid for in installments. The Seaman's Mission has an indebtedness of $360.91. This branch of the work is very important, as our publications can thus be sent to every part of the civilized world. It is daily increasing in interest, as will be seen by reading the reports from Bro. Palmer, given in the Signs. More supplies are needed to meet the increasing demand for reading matter concerning our faith. Those who cannot engage personally in this work can give of their means with which to furnish reading matter, and thus help forward this important work. A letter from Marysville stated that they were forming a library, and that they would be gratified to have some of our publications in the same. According to this request, several of our standard works were furnished them. Signs and Good Health were also sent for a year. Santa Rosa Society have placed some of our publications in the public library of that place. Much good may be accomplished in this way, and we hope all the societies will follow this example. Beauty and Noble Purposes
By Prof. Upham
If man, or woman either, wishes to realize the full power of personal beauty, it must be by cherishing noble hopes and purposes, by having something to do and something to live for. This is what Chicago's mayor said, and what he forgot to say to the National Liquor Dealers and Brewers:— GENTLEMEN: I have been invited by the reception committee to appear on this platform, and welcome you to Chicago. I do so with pleasure, because I recognize you as representing one of the grandest interests of our country. Next to the farmer, you gentlemen, engaged in the manufacture and sale of beer and liquor, are the largest organization in America. Four hundred millions of dollars stand behind you, furnishing employment to men of all classes. He neglected, however, to state of how many millions it robbed the men, women, and children in the United States, and how many were rendered drunken, idle, and homeless to furnish those men employment. "I don't believe that it was the intention of the divine Creator to create what he believed to be good, and then have a few fanatics, who cannot take a liberty without being brutes, say to you, 'You sha'n't drink, and you sha'n't manufacture, because we can't smell the stuff without going into the gutter.'" He forgot to tell us which one of those distillers was recognized as "God's agent," as Guiteau would express it, or where the brewery is situated in which God creates the "stuff" that sends people "into the gutter." "In prohibitory Maine there is as much drinking as in free Illinois." This is the stereotyped phrase which, vehemently repeated, has nearly convinced these men that "a lie well stuck to is as good as the truth." The real truth is that Maine has only one dram-shop to every 860 inhabitants, while Illinois has one to every 300. That's why these men don't like prohibition. There are three counties in Maine where there is not a single open dram-shop, and in which the United States Internal Revenue officers with all their vigilance, have only been able to find fifty secret dealers—or one to every 2,000 inhabitants. Yet "there is as much drinking in prohibitory Maine as in free Illinois." Mayor Harrison ought to go to Maine in search of a Dutch lager beer picnic, and borrow a good microscope to assist in the search. "If I thought you were men banded together to make drunkards, to degrade mankind, I would be the last to welcome you; but I find that there is not a single article of food which does not contain alcohol." Mayor Harrison's brain, soaked with whisky "since a babe three hours old," could be pardoned for this round-about apology for the business of these brewers and distillers, as well as comparing himself to the great Leader of Christianity, as he welcomes these lowly publicans to the city of Chicago. He said, "Your faces show that you hate drunkards,"—but he did not tell why they should despise the article this "great industry" was manufacturing—and then rails out at the "fanatics" who hate the business. "Every man in America has a right to do as he pleases, so long as he doesn't hurt his neighbors. Does liquor hurt? I am a pretty respectable looking man, and I've been drinking ever since I took some liquor for the colic when I was three hours old." The testimony of Mayor Harrison's wife and children is not in yet. A man who has drank whisky since three hours old is not capable of telling whether liquor hurts or not, but five million women who live with these old soaks could tell whether "whisky hurts" or not.—Morning and Day of Reform.