California by John Norton Loughborough

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · May 9, 1871

California.

By John Norton Loughborough

My last report was dated March 23. I had held nineteen meetings in Dunham’s District. Have since held eighteen meetings there, making in all thirty-seven meetings. Three of these were Sabbath meetings. Half a dozen or more have commenced to obey the truth already. The brethren and sisters from Bloomfield have met with them for the three Sabbaths, which has given interest to the meeting.

We pray that God may give grace to others at Dunham District, who are convinced of the truth, that they also may move out to obey the Lord.

Since my last report I have also attended a very interesting quarterly meeting at Santa Rosa, spoke once at Healdsburg, and once in Green Valley. By the earnest request of Bro. Magoon of Sebastopol, who has recently renounced infidelity and commenced to obey the truth, I concluded to hold some meetings in Sebastopol, holding part of the time there, and part at Dunham’s District, as the places are only eight miles apart. This I agreed to do, if he could get a house for the meetings. The Presbyterians excused the matter about their house, that it could not be decided until after the Presbytery met the first week in May. The Methodist elder said we could have their house “with pleasure.” So we announced by hand-bills to commence in their house, the evening of April 13. The appointments were for the evenings of the 13th and 14th and two on Sunday, the 15th, not interfering, however, with other appointments in the place. When I had given one discourse on the authenticity and genuineness of the Scriptures, a request was passed in from the elder that I give out no more appointments after filling what I had made, as he had “taken too much responsibility on himself in letting me have the house.” He wished to refer the matter to the trustees.

I gave a second discourse on the integrity and credibility of the Scriptures, and thus closed the occupancy of their house. Bro. Magoon then tried for another place; but all that seemed to open was a dance hall which we could have free (except expense of lights), when there was no opportunity to let it for theaters, shows, &c. We gave lectures on the evenings of April 18, 19, and 20, and after our Sabbath meeting the 22nd, at Dunhams, we returned to speak again in the evening; but, lo! the hall was let that evening for a theater, and as there was no other place open, our meeting had to stop and wait for a theater.

I once knew a case where a self-styled minister had a prayer-meeting adjourned one evening, that some of his friends who were with him might have the privilege of a dance that evening; but this is a little different case. It was his own “Liberty hall” in that case, but in this, religious prejudices had led men to shut up houses made to worship God in, against us who would not for a right arm declare a doctrine contrary to the Bible if we knew it. But here is the sentence in the case which one passed on it, and which, we presume, is passed in the minds of the candid on such proceedings: “Teachers of the Bible are shut out of places professedly erected to worship God in, and thereby compelled, for want of a place of meeting, to wait for a theater, and that too, in a civilized town where the two meeting houses stood vacant at the time.” Being informed the next morning that their houses could not be opened for the promulgation of such doctrines as Adventists preach, the friend above referred to, expressed his mind in one word,—“BIGOTRY!”

In all candor, and humility, we say, If we are not teaching the Bible, let them take their Bibles and show it to us. We still expect to have a few meetings in the hall at Sebastopol, as well as at Dunham’s, before the State meeting, and the elder of the Methodists has also agreed to present us the claims of Sunday-keeping next Sunday evening. This suits us much better than for them to shut the doors and be silent too. If the Lord will, we hear and review. Hope his subject will be presented as agreed, and not like his neighbor on another occasion, a few months since—change his subject announced, after his congregation was together, because an Advent preacher was there.

Last evening I spoke to a good audience in Bloomfield. My subject, by request, was the sonship of Christ in opposition to the trinity. In the day time, the Presbyterian church had been dedicated by a San Francisco man, who told them, among other things, that “all things are in readiness for the coming of Christ.” “Some,” said he, “are looking for the personal coming of Christ; but he is not coming personally, it is only the coming of his Spirit, that is all that is necessary to renovate the whole world. Some looked upon the Catholic church as corrupt; but let the Spirit of God be given to her, and she would be a pure church.” In a discourse by the same man, a week ago, he was speaking against the doctrine of the destruction of the wicked, as held by Adventists, and presenting what he called arguments for the immortality of the soul. One of his chief props was the aspirations of men, and their desire for life. He said: “I heard, not long since, a prominent lawyer in San Francisco make this remark, and he expressed the sentiment of the majority of mankind; that he would rather wring his hands in hell for the ceaseless ages of eternity than to be thus destroyed.” This did not tally well with a discourse from the same desk, not long since, when the minister said the preaching of destruction took away the incentive for sinners to repent. “So they wrap it up.”

J. N. LOUGHBOROUGH.

Bloomfield, Cal., April 24, 1871.