Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Apr 27, 1869
PARADISE.
By John Nevins Andrews
BY ELD. J. N. ANDREWS.
TEXT.—Luke xxiii, 42, 43: “And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise.”
2 Cor. xii, 3, 4: “And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) how that he was caught up into Paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.”
Rev. ii, 7: “He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the Paradise of God.”
(Concluded.)
BUT we are enabled to determine with certainty that our Lord did not enter Paradise by dying. Death was the gate to hades. The resurrection was the promised “path of life” to Paradise. Ps. xvi, 11. He did not enter both places at the same time. His ascent was after his descent. It was the same person that did both. Paul’s testimony is exceedingly explicit. Our Lord exactly corroborates this testimony where he said he had not yet ascended. Peter unites with Jesus and with Paul, when he represents the resurrection, as calling the soul of Christ, not from Paradise, but from hades.
But was not the thief admitted into Paradise the day of the crucifixion? So it is generally understood. Yet he was not to be there till Christ was there himself. He prayed to be remembered, when Christ should come into, or rather in [Gr. en] his kingdom. And our Lord’s promise related to himself as well as to the thief, “To-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise.” But we have the direct testimony, 1. Of Christ himself, 2. Of Peter, 3. Of Paul, that he was not in Paradise, till he had first spent a period of time in hades. In other words, the testimony of these important witnesses shows that our Lord must be raised from the dead before he could pass from hades to Paradise. It is certain that the thief could not get there before our Lord himself.
The difficulty in reconciling our Lord’s promise to the thief with his own declaration concerning himself, made three days later, lies in the use of the word “to-day.” Did our Lord promise to take the penitent thief on the very day of the crucifixion, to the place where the tree of life grows (compare Rev. ii, 7, and xxii, 14), a place which contains also the river of life and the throne of God, and then three days afterward tell Mary that he had not yet been to the house of his Father? Was our Lord in his dying agonies unaware that his soul must be poured out unto death, and made an offering for sin? Isa. liii. Had he forgotten the fact? or had he never known it? or was it an unlooked-for occurrence that his soul was to remain in hades till his resurrection? Did our Lord think when dying that he could go to hades and Paradise at the same time? If Paul, in Eph. iv, wrote by the Spirit of inspiration it is certain that Christ did not do these two things at one and the same time. For he descended first, and ascended afterward; and the same one that went down is the identical one that afterward went up. And let no one say that Peter and Paul are quoted to contradict the words of Christ. This is not the case by any means. And moreover Christ directly sustains the statements of these two apostles. Three days after his crucifixion he testifies that he had not yet ascended to his Father. So Paul certainly had it right that he descended before he ascended. And Peter who is only commenting on the words of David, or rather, of the Holy Spirit through David, utters the exact truth when he says that the resurrection brought our Lord from hades, i. e., from the dead. See Eph. i, 20; Heb. xiii, 20.
Our Lord did not contradict in his declaration to Mary, what he had promised to the thief; nor do the apostles while exactly sustaining his words in the one case, contradict them in the other. We only seek to harmonize all the testimony. And lest the careless reader should suppose that all the difficulty is found on the side of those who deny that death is the door to Paradise, it may be well to state the difficulty on both sides.
1. Our difficulty lies in reconciling the “to-day” of the promise with his own testimony the third day afterward, that this promise was then unfulfilled. Also in reconciling it with the statement of Peter, that his soul was in hades till his resurrection. Also in reconciling it with the statement of Paul, that he descended before he ascended, and that the one who descended and the one who ascended are identical. 2. But those who hold death as the gate to endless joys, have quite as difficult a task to accomplish. They insist that the word, “to-day,” makes it certain that Christ and the thief were in Paradise the very day of the crucifixion. It is, therefore, for them to reconcile this with his words spoken the third day afterward, that he had not yet been with his Father. And also to show how his soul could be in hades and Paradise at the same time. And still further, to meet Paul’s statement, that he did not ascend till after he had descended; and that the two successive acts were performed by the same person.
These are far more formidable difficulties to solve than lie in our way from our Lord’s use of “to-day.” Our friends on the other side seem to think the difficulty all rests upon us for disposal. The truth is, the real difficulty is with them, and they cannot give any reasonable solution of it. Many of them appear to think there are no difficulties in the case for them to solve. But others have attempted the solution of the difficulty. That is to say, they have tried to show that the words of Christ to Mary, and the words of Peter respecting his abode in hades, and of Paul respecting his ascent after his descent, are capable of being reconciled with his actual entrance into Paradise at death. And here is their solution:
Christ did not ascend to his Father, indeed, during the three days that he was dead; but this is perfectly consistent with his being in Paradise during that entire period; for Paradise is a part of hades. And therefore the statement of Peter and of David which represents him as brought forth, by the resurrection, from the place called hades, is readily reconciled with the idea of his being brought from Paradise, seeing that Paradise is the blissful part of hades. And so, also, is it easy to reconcile all this with Paul’s statement, that he ascended after he had first descended into the lower parts of the earth. For Paradise is in hades, and hades is in the nether parts of the earth.
But what a reconciliation is this! It is simply shifting the difficulty, and moving it ahead. Now we have Paradise in the depths of the earth. Christ could go to Paradise by descending. His soul could go to Paradise and to hades at the same time, seeing Paradise is itself in hades.
But Paradise has the tree of life in it. Rev. ii, 7. Then we have this remarkable fact that the tree of life is now situated in the interior of our earth! But we have another fact to consider. The river of life flows at the foot of the tree of life. Rev. xxii, 1, 2. So we learn further that the river of life is a subterranean stream, situated somewhere in the dark bosom of our earth! But this river that flows beneath the branches of the tree of life, issues out of the throne of God. So, then, the throne of God is found to be in the interior of the earth! And our Lord did not need to ascend to his Father; the throne of God could be reached by descending. But what gross absurdities are these! One falsehood creates the necessity for another, but there is no way out of difficulty by adopting false positions to explain others that are also false. To take this course is to involve the one who does it in still greater trouble.138
The Paradise of the book of Revelation is identical with, or included in, the New Jerusalem. Rev. ii, 7, compared with xxii, 1–5, 14. The Paradise of Paul is in the third Heaven. 2 Cor. xii, 1–4. But the third Heaven is not in the nether parts of the earth. Nor is the New Jerusalem, with its infinite glory, situated in the heart of the earth. If it were thus situated, then John wonderfully misrepresented the truth when he said that he saw it descending from God out of Heaven. He should have represented it ascending out of the earth, as he did the two-horned beast.
The idea that the Paradise of John and of Paul is in hades, is so palpably absurd that it is hardly conceivable that any one can contend for it. But they may assert that by Paradise our Lord did not mean the same place that Paul and John designated by that term. It is, indeed, an unreasonable assumption that Christ’s Paradise is a different place from the Paradise of John and of Paul. But let us see if this helps the case. This other Paradise then is, no doubt, situated in hades. And by disconnecting it from the New Jerusalem the great absurdity of locating the tree of life in the depths of the earth is avoided.
This Paradise, then, is in hades. Let us grant it. Now, what kind of place is hades? The wisest man that ever lived has given us a very definite idea of its real condition in the following words: “There is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave [Heb. sheol; Gr. hades] whither thou goest.” Eccl. ix, 10. This is the hades in which our friends are determined that the Paradise of our Lord shall be located. If they strongly insist upon it, we will gratify them. It is a place of utter silence, and one in which no knowledge exists. This is the land of the dead. If it gratifies any one to call it, or a part of it, Paradise, they can do so. But it is a land where there is no consciousness of joy, nor mental action of any kind.
It is not the Paradise that meets our heart’s desire. It is a very good place in which to sleep in Jesus, but the resurrection therefrom shall open to the saints the gates of that Paradise where Paul heard the unspeakable words of joy. So our friends on the other side can only maintain their position by burying the New Jerusalem in the depths of the earth, or by accepting as Paradise a part of that land where no consciousness of any kind exists. The first position is not to be seriously maintained. The second position differs from us in this only, that it applies the term Paradise to that which we designate as the place of the silent dead.
If, therefore, Paradise is located in the third Heaven, and is the same as, or a part of, the New Jerusalem, it is absolutely certain that Christ did not enter it till after his resurrection. But if Paradise is a part of hades, then it follows, 1. That it is in the interior of our earth. 2. That it is a place where neither thought nor consciousness exists. In either case our friends on the other side make an utter failure. For to place Paradise where God is, makes it certain that Jesus did not enter it till after his interview with Mary. But to locate it in hades is to make it a place of utter unconsciousness.
But Paradise is in the third Heaven and either embraces the throne of God, or is in close proximity to it. It is a place of infinite joy. Such is the plain testimony of the texts already quoted.
The term Paradise is taken up in the New Testament as though it were well understood by its readers. One fact will help us to better appreciate the case. The apostles and their hearers used as their common copy of the Old Testament not the original Hebrew, but a translation of that original into Greek made at Alexandria in Egypt in the third century before Christ. It is called the Septuagint because represented to have been translated by seventy elders of the Jews.
Now the word Paradise was a familiar word to the readers of this version of the Old Testament. Wherever the garden of Eden is mentioned in this version it is always called Paradise. It seems that the New Testament writers speak of the Paradise of God as though well understood by their readers. The garden in which our first parents were placed did have the tree of life. That garden and that tree remained upon our earth for a time, and were guarded from man’s approach by the flaming sword of the cherubim. Inasmuch as this had the tree of life, and bore the name of Paradise in the copy of the Old Testament most familiarly read in apostolic times, and inasmuch, also, as Paradise and the tree of life are not now on the earth, but are both said to be in the third Heaven, it seems certain that the garden of God with the tree of life have been removed from our earth, probably at the time of the flood, and translated to the Heaven above. And so when the New Jerusalem comes down from God out of Heaven it will contain the original Paradise of our first parents, and with that, no doubt, such addition as our Lord makes in preparing the place to receive the whole family of the redeemed. John xiv, 1–3.
Question: Paradise, then, once belonged to the human family. They lost it by sin. Gen. iii. Sin gave existence to death. Rom. v, 12. Now how can death be that which introduces us into Paradise, when death comes from sin, and sin caused our expulsion therefrom? How can death be the door of entrance for the penitent thief when death is the child of sin? How can death be the last enemy if it ushers the people of God into Paradise, and the resurrection which is the hope of the church, calls them out of Paradise?
But what are we to do with the “to-day” of the promise? We have seen what our friends who think the sleep of the dead a great heresy, are able to do with it. If they place Paradise in hades beneath, they locate it in a land of unconsciousness. If they locate it in Heaven above, they have the positive testimony of the Bible to show that Jesus did not enter it till he was raised from the dead. Indeed, David, 1000 years after his death, had not entered it, for the good reason that he was still asleep. Acts ii, 34; xiii, 36. If we cannot solve the difficulty in this text, we certainly cannot make a worse failure than our friends on the other side. They claim that to give proper weight to the “to-day” of the promise, Christ and the thief must each have entered Paradise the day that the promise was made. Yet to maintain this view, they involved themselves in the contradiction of the plainest facts. This of itself is a sufficient demonstration that the truth is not found on that side. We freely admit that the word “to-day” seems most naturally to qualify the time of entering Paradise rather than to emphasize the time of the utterance, but we cannot so use this one word as to involve our Lord in a self-contradiction. The following propositions may be considered as offering a more just and reasonable view of the subject than is presented by the other side:
1. The adverb, “to-day,” properly relates to the time of the utterance, and not to the time of its fulfilment.
To this it is objected that the punctuation forbids such an interpretation; and also that there was no need of using the “to-day” to qualify the time of the utterance. But the punctuation is of comparatively recent origin, and not, therefore, entitled to any decisive weight in settling the interpretation of this text. And that it is proper to thus use the adverb, the circumstances strongly indicate. Jesus was dying as a malefactor. He could, with the utmost propriety, emphasize the time of the promise, so utterly unlike the coming glory was his complete humiliation and abasement. That it is sometimes the wisdom of God to thus emphasize the time of the utterance rather than the time of the accomplishment, is evident from Zech. ix, 12: “Turn you to the strong hold, ye prisoners of hope; EVER TO-DAY DO I DECLARE that I will render double unto thee.” This interpretation of the passage involves no absurdity, and does not cause one part of the record to clash with another.
2. But when an event becomes a certainty on any day, it is sometimes spoken of as though occurring on that day, when really deferred to some time in the future. Solomon made a statute in the case of Shimei that well illustrates this point. 1 Kings ii, 37: “For it shall be, that on the day thou goest out, and passest over the brook Kidron, thou shalt know for certain that thou shalt surely die.” Some time after this, two of Shimei’s servants fled to Gath. He pursued them thither, and brought them back. Quite a number of days thus elapsed before Shimei was called to account. Then Solomon repeated to him the law in these words: “Did I not make thee to swear by the Lord, and protested unto thee, saying, Know for a certain, on the day thou goest out, and walkest abroad any whither, that thou shalt surely die?” Verse 42. The law did not mean that he should surely die the day that he committed the transgression, though it would seem most natural to imply this. Evidently it did mean just this: that the very day that he should commit the act, his death should be made certain and inevitable.
And may not this be precisely the meaning of the threatening to Adam: “In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” Gen. ii, 17. This is the very form of expression used in the law of Solomon, respecting Shimei. Now when the Judge passes sentence upon Adam, it is this very law which he is carrying into execution. It is evident that the Judge, who was also the author of the law, did not understand it as requiring the infliction of the penalty, or rather its complete execution, that day on which he sinned. But this thing he did understand, that the act, that day committed, rendered it inevitable that Adam must die. So he pronounces the sentence, “Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.” Gen. iii, 19. There can be no question that the sentence of the Judge inflicted exactly the penalty of the law. But Adam did not turn to dust the day that he sinned. It would seem to us most natural to say that Adam was to die the very day that he sinned. But this puts the law at variance with the sentence of the Judge. But to understand the law as implying this, that the death of Adam was made certain in the very day of his transgression, gives us a reasonable and common-sense view of the law, and one which exactly tallies with the sentence of the Judge.
Now in the case of the penitent thief, who certainly made humble confession of his sins, and acknowledged the Son of God in his deepest humiliation, when shamefully mocked by his enemies, and deserted by the most of his disciples, there was the strictest propriety in our Lord’s pronouncing it a fixed fact, determined by the act of that day, that he should be with him in Paradise. It seems to my mind strictly analogous to the interpretation placed by the Judge upon his own law, “In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”
3. But we have in the words of Moses a remarkable parallel to the words of our Lord. “Verily I say unto thee, To-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise.” Thus we read, Deut. ix, 1, “Hear, O Israel: Thou art to pass over Jordan this day, to go in to possess nations greater and mightier than thyself.” It is true that in the one case the term used in our English version is “to-day,” and in the other it is “this day.” But there is really no difference in their meaning, and what is more, the word sēmeron (semeron), rendered “to-day” in our Lord’s promise to the thief is the very word used for “this day” in the Septuagint, i. e., the Greek Old Testament. So the words of Moses are a fair parallel to the words of Christ.
It is easy to prove that Israel did not pass over Jordan that day on which Moses addressed them. For it was at least several days after this before Moses died. And after his death the people mourned for him thirty days. Then after quite a number of days, sufficient for Joshua to assume command, and to send over the spies, and to receive their report, the people crossed the Jordan. It is likely that two months elapsed after Moses said, “Thou art to pass over Jordan this day,” before they actually passed it. See Deut. xxxiv; Josh. i, 2. The proof is palpable that Israel did not pass over Jordan on the day that Moses made this promise, and it is equally evident that Moses did not expect them to pass over it on that day. But the proof that Christ did not enter Paradise the day of his death is equally explicit, and direct. Our friends who regard death as the door of Paradise, think us almost infidels because in view of this direct and palpable evidence that Christ did not enter Paradise by dying, we take our stand that the “to-day” of the promise to the thief cannot be interpreted as they interpret it. Yet here is a parallel from the words of Moses which they are compelled to treat precisely as we do the words to the thief.
But what is the proper explanation of these words of Moses? Two facts may be adduced as shedding139light upon this expression of Moses. 1. It had become a certainty that the people he had so long led should actually pass over the Jordan. 2. This was to take place in a very short time. These two facts which may be expressed in one sentence, “It is this day a certainty that thou shalt pass over the Jordan, and that in a short time,” form the justification of Moses in the use of this language. And so of our Lord’s words to the thief. It was by the act of the thief under such extraordinary circumstances, rendered certain that day, that he should have part with Christ in Paradise. And may I not add that when on the third day afterward Christ left hades, and many saints arose with him, this penitent man was numbered with them, and so formed one of that throng that ascended with our triumphant Lord? See Matt. xxvii, 52, 53; Rom. viii, 29; Eph. iv, 8, margin. Such to my mind is the proper interpretation of these various texts. I submit to candid, thoughtful students of the Bible whether this is not a reasonable explanation of these words of our Lord to the dying penitent.
The Paradise of God shall in due time receive all the saints. Our Lord has gone thither before them as the forerunner. He is preparing the place for his people. When he has prepared the place for their reception, and when they have accomplished their preparation for the place, he shall return to take them thither. With him they shall ascend to the house of his Father. John xiii, 36; xiv, 1–3. Within the gates of the New Jerusalem they shall find the tree of life in the Paradise of God. Rev. ii, 7; xxii, 1–5, 14. Here in the third Heaven where Paul heard the unspeakable words of joy, shall they behold the city prepared for Abraham and his seed, and each shall find a mansion prepared expressly for himself. Here with their own eyes shall they behold the things which God hath prepared for those that love him. Here shall they eat of the tree of life, and drink of the river that issues out of the throne of God. Here they shall eat the marriage supper. Here they shall sit with Christ on thrones of judgment during the thousand years. And when the New Jerusalem shall take its place as the metropolis of the glorified new earth, they shall take the kingdom under the whole heaven as their own inheritance, and from Sabbath to Sabbath shall congregate from the face of the whole earth to celebrate, in Paradise, the praise of their Creator.
A LITTLE WHILE.
What is this that he saith, A little while? John xvi, 18.
Oh! for the peace that floweth as a river,
Making life's desert places bloom and smile;
Oh! for the faith to grasp Heaven's bright forever,
Amid the shadows of earth's little while!
A little while, for patient vigil-keeping,
To face the stern, to wrestle with the strong;
A little while, to sow the seeds with weeping,
Then bind the sheaves, and sing the harvest song.
A little while, to wear the weeds of sadness,
To pace—with weary step through miry ways;
Then to pour forth the fragrant oil of gladness,
And clasp the girdle round the robe of praise.
A little while, midst shadow and illusion,
To strive by faith, love's mysteries to spell;
Then read each dark enigma's bright solution,
Then hail sight's verdict, He doeth all things well.
A little while, the earthen pitcher taking
To way-side brooks, from far-off mountains fed;
Then the cool lip its thirst forever slaking
Beside the fullness of the Fountain Head.
A little while to keep the oil from failing,
A little while, faith's flickering lamp to trim;
And then, the Bridegroom's coming footsteps hailing,
To haste to meet him with the bridal hymn.
And He who is himself the gift and giver,
The future glory and the present smile,
With the bright promise of the glad forever
Will light the shadows of the little while.
REPORT FROM IOWA.
By George I. Butler
My last report closed with the meeting at Brighton, March 14. According to appointment, I met with the church at Knoxville, Sabbath morning, March 20. Quite a number met with us from Sandyville, and a few from other places. One brother came over fifty miles, from near Oceola, to have me come there and hold a few meetings, as some were interested. Two other friends came from Monroe, in an adjoining county, anxious for labor in their town. One of them, several years ago, when living in Wisconsin, accidentally picked up the tract, Scripture References, in the road. This led him to examine on the Life and Death question and others, till his mind became unsettled, and after much study he took his stand in the church to which he belonged against the immortality of the soul. This caused quite a disturbance. They tried to turn him out, but at last gave him a letter to get rid of him. Quite a number sympathized with him in his views, and altogether the case caused quite a sensation, and he, seeing my appointment in the REVIEW, which in the meantime he had begun to take, came down to get me to go there to preach, there being a general interest to hear on these subjects. This shows what a little tract, accidentally dropped, will do. It seems to be a promising opening for tent labor in the future. One of the most embarrassing questions I have to meet, from week to week, is the constant call for labor in all directions. Scarcely a week passes without one or more of these calls, and many of these seem good openings. I am very glad we are to have a new tent this spring, and hope it may be used where it will accomplish the most good. I will say to the scattered friends, we will do just the best we can to meet these calls. Be patient, your time will come by-and-by.
Our meetings in Knoxville were solemn, and heart-searching. I trust good was done by them. We re-organized S. B., and the brethren signed liberally on the tent.
Our meetings commenced in Sandyville the following Sabbath evening and continued through Monday, in all ten in number. I tried to bear a plain testimony in reference to some wrongs in this church. Our meetings were solemn, and there was some breaking down before the Lord. It seemed to me some were almost ready to be given up by the Lord to go their own way, and to take their fill of this poor world. I hope they will carry out the good resolutions they expressed in those meetings, and serve the Lord better than before. There is plenty of chance for improvement. On the whole, the meetings were much more encouraging to me than a year ago when I was with them. Bro. J. H. Morrison was elected and ordained elder. This church has passed through severe trials heretofore, lacking as it were a proper head, and being unfortunate enough to have some untamable spirits therein, the church was rent by sore trials. We hope now this state of things will not exist, and that God will give this dear brother wisdom to lead the church onward and upward to a nobler position in the Christian life. Systematic Benevolence was re-organized. They signed liberally on the tent enterprise, and about $150.00 were signed to aid a poor brother who was about starting for Kansas, because under the pressure of circumstances there seemed to be no chance for him there to get a little home for himself and family. The weakness of old age was already coming upon him, and it seemed almost like suicide to start out on the frontier and try to make a home for himself. The case seemed a very clear one. I have no doubt the spiritual death which seemed to be upon some of the members of this church will give place to life if they would become half as much interested in such cases as those as they have been in making what is called, “good trades,” but which will finally turn out to be very bad trades, if there is such a thing as a Judgment.
Three were baptized at this meeting. Several of the friends from Knoxville stayed through till the close of the meetings. The weather and going were not favorable to our meetings. There are a few young friends almost persuaded, apparently, to go with us. May God bless and help them to make a wise decision. Altogether, I trust, our meetings were profitable.
The Tuesday following, Bro. Hodges kindly took me to the vicinity of Oceola, near forty miles. I held eight meetings in Bro. Neal’s neighborhood. I had never been in this part of the State before. I found there were a few Sabbath-keepers scattered around Oceola who need help. The truth was preached here some eight or nine years ago. Since that time they have had but little labor, and some of that not calculated to help them much. Some of those who have gone out from us, formerly lived in this section, and had an influence. When they left of course it was felt here. But in spite of these and other causes, a few have struggled along in poverty and opposition, and are really in advance, spiritually, of many who have all the privileges of attending meetings, and the society of those of like precious faith. God can make up for all these things and more, to all who will really put their trust in him. There is quite an interest among the neighbors and friends to hear. The weather some of the time was most unpropitious, and the mud perfectly awful, yet several times the school-house was full of interested listeners. One young man of standing and influence in the township, has recently commenced keeping the Sabbath with his wife. The friends are holding Sabbath-meetings of interest, and I feel sanguine that a small church can be organized there as soon as a course of lectures can be given. This must be done as soon as possible under the circumstances. I also hope that some of the lost sheep who have wandered from the truth may be persuaded to return. How much we need more laborers. Monday morning I came on my way to meet with Bro. Cornell, to labor with him at Talleyrand. I stopped at Brighton, and happened into the regular Tuesday evening prayer-meeting. I was glad to find so many out. Some twenty-five or thirty testimonies were given, and I learn there is generally a good attendance. This was encouraging to me.
I met with Bro. C. the following day, after quite a separation, and we had again the privilege of laboring together for a few days in the blessed cause of truth. He has been laboring hard this winter under many discouragements, in the vicinity of this place. This winter has been so warm and open in this part of the State as to be very unfavorable for meetings, breaking them up from time to time, as the roads were almost impassable; yet as the result of his labors, we organized a church of eighteen members which will, we expect, come into the Conference this spring. I was favorably impressed with the intelligence and heartiness of most of those who have joined, and expect some of them will go through. Bro. Cornell baptized ten. We held in all ten meetings with them. Partially organized S. B. Some $73.00 were subscribed. Some others are keeping the Sabbath who may hereafter join.
I was interested in the case of Bro. A. L. Curl, who has been preaching among the Baptists more or less for years, and principally supporting himself by his trade as a harness-maker. He came out under Bro. Cornell’s labors, and commenced keeping the Sabbath with his family. He had two appointments where he preached, Sundays. These, through the efforts of another Baptist minister, were immediately closed against him, cutting off the little means he received from them, and being a poor man, with rather feeble health, it placed him in rather an embarrassed condition. It was truly a sacrifice, and so far as this world was concerned things looked dark. We felt it a privilege to call the attention of the friends to his case. About $75.00 were raised for his benefit, wholly unexpected and unsolicited on his part. Bro. Curl seems strong in the truth as far as he has investigated, and we hope some way may be provided so that he can have more leisure to investigate; as it is, his whole time is necessarily occupied in providing for his family. We trust that this dear brother will never regret the step he has taken in identifying himself with an unpopular truth.
I feel an increasing desire to give what little influence, ability, and strength, I possess to the advancement of this cause, which I have no doubt is the cause of God.
GEO. I. BUTLER.
Brighton, Iowa, April 13, 1869.
AN ITEM.
By JOS. CLARKE.
If you are disposed to self-complacency, and wish to cure the malady, just call to mind the vilest sin of which you were ever guilty in your lifetime; keep this sin before your mind, in all its deformity, as you suppose it appears before God, for about one week. Think how it would appear to angels and good men. Toss the thought of this sin about in your mind. Imagine it were published everywhere. And you will find your pride give way to other thoughts. This will probably cure you of this disease for a month or two; at the end of which time, you may have to repeat the experiment. Do this conscientiously, and with the help of God, as often as self-complacency manifests itself in your mind, before it finds any vent in words, or acts; and be sure to ask pardon and favor of God. If the disease continues obstinate, call to mind two or three or more of the most hateful of your past sins. Continue this course, perseveringly, faithfully, and we assure you it will lower the crown of pride. At this time you can successfully seek the favor of God, and see to it, that your petitions ascend to him, that all these old sins may be pardoned, blotted out, forgiven, forgotten by him. At this particular time, seek for a new heart. Probably you may think your heart has been renewed; but perhaps it is not wholly so. Be sure you are converted to God. Keep at work; subdue pride, cultivate love, meekness, goodness; follow up the work daily, hourly, with determination and courage. You have not a moment to lose. JOS. CLARKE.