Your ShelfYour Projects

REPORT FROM CALIFORNIA

8%

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Aug 10, 1869

FromReview and Herald, Vol. 34, No. 7.

Read the full edition

REPORT FROM CALIFORNIA.

By John Norton Loughborough

Our meetings still continue in Healdsburg, with increasing interest. Last Sabbath six new ones arose to keep the Sabbath. Others have since decided. We expect to hold on at least a fortnight longer. Ministers have opposed in private, as usual, and there is now a prospect of a more public effort. At Santa Rosa, three opposition sermons have been given. Two on the Sabbath question, and one on Spiritual Gifts; which have served to raise the interest higher, and to bring some others to a decision, as we have replied to each of the discourses.
The first discourse was by Eld. Jenks, Episcopalian, from Petaluma, taking the ground of the change of the Sabbath. He put but little force in the texts usually quoted for Sunday-keeping, having previously read “History of the Sabbath.” He said that probably Christ met many times with his disciples during the forty days before his ascension; but the fact that the two cases in John xx, of his meeting on the first day of the week, the day of his resurrection, and “after eight days,” the next first day, only being recorded of his meeting with them, showed that the evangelists designed to mark, in their record, the first day of the week. The Elder forgot John xxi, 1–4, where Christ met with them the “third time” after his resurrection, on a fishing day.
He admitted, on Acts xx, that Paul traveled on the first day of the week, but said that ships were scarce; that there was no evidence that they had control of the ship; they had to sail when the ship went, if it was on the first day. Verses 13 and 16 show positively that Paul had the control of the ship, so as to say where it should stop, &c.
He claimed that the council of Nice fixed the matter of Sunday-keeping, and it was “morally impossible for that council to err in their decisions.” That we hadno right to reject their decisions; “It was the voice of the church,” and the Scriptures commanded us to “hear the church.” As he was about closing, he bethought himself, I suppose, that some might wish Bible authority. He said the early church were so well instructed in the matter of the change of the Sabbath, that it was not necessary for the New-Testament writers to say anything on the subject. The whole effort had a tendency to show the people that what we had preached was true; that Sunday-keeping rested upon the authority of the church.
Eld. Hallam, Disciple minister, gave the second discourse on the Sabbath question, taking the no-law and Sabbath-abolished position. Nothing especially new was elicited by him till after he had, as he supposed, got the seventh-day Sabbath killed, when he undertook a contrast between the seventh and the first day. The new point was, that while the seventh day was the day in which creation was completed, the first day was the one on which the great work of creation was commenced.
The discourse on the gifts was also by Eld. Hallam. He contended that miraculous gifts were confined to the apostles, and those on whom they laid their hands, and that those on whom hands were laid could not confer it upon others, so that when the apostles, and those they laid their hands on, were dead, the gifts must necessarily cease. Said that history showed that the gifts ceased at the beginning of the second century; but he quoted no history to prove it. We claimed that the Bible showed that the church, during this dispensation, was to have the promise of the Spirit, and that the gifts were only different manifestations of that Spirit, and were not limited by human power; that the church who should be waiting for the coming of Christ, should “come behind in no gift.” 1 Cor. i. Quoted thirteen authors to show that the gifts continued in the second, third, and to some extent, in the fourth century, until apostasy corrupted the church; and that in the reformation, in the days of Luther, Wesley, &c., God again manifested his power.
The interest is better at Santa Rosa than when the tent left. The Piner school-house he closed against us. The Monroe school-house was closed; then opened by a vote of the majority of the district, and we held two meetings in it, when two of the trustees took upon themselves the authority to close the house again. Last Sabbath the Santa Rosa church met with us here, and expect to do the same next Sabbath.
It seems to be a matter of necessity to build a meeting-house at Santa Rosa. About $1100 are already pledged toward it. We think this can readily be increased to $1500, which will buy a lot 80 by 100 feet, and enclose and temporarily seat a house 32x60. In this climate a house is quite comfortable for a time without plastering. They are frequently used two or three years before plastering, and “re-opening.”
The interest increases daily in this State. We see not much before us but work, and thank God that some success follows our work. Every effort of opposition stirs up interest somewhere. The article Bro. B. mentioned in the Advocate against us, fell into the hands of an Adventist at Virginia City, Nevada. We received a letter from him last night, telling us how he found out there were Adventists in the State, requesting us to send him books to read. Bro. Kellogg is trying to so shape his affairs as to take hold with us in speaking the truth.
Brethren, still pray that God may bless the work here, and give the truth success over all opposition.
J. N. LOUGHBOROUGH.
Healdsburg, Cal., July 22, 1869.