THE last paragraph of the letter upon which we commented last week reads as follows:—
"If infidels care nothing for Sunday, how can you make them respect Saturday? Why not change their hearts instead of their calendar?"
We will notice the last question first. That such a question could be asked, is evidence of the almost entire absence of thought concerning the subject of the Sabbath. How the questioner could have obtained the idea that anybody wants to change the calendar, is beyond all comprehension. It is certain that we do not desire any such thing. We are satisfied with the calendar that we have. With Bishop Haven, we believe that our week corresponds to the Hebrew week,—the genuine week,—and that "the Jewish Sabbath," as he termed Saturday, is the true seventh day, the one which God blessed and sanctified. All the change we desire, is a change in men's hearts, a change which will be indicated by their changed practices. Keeping the calendar that they have, we want them to rest upon the day which God appointed, instead of on one of which he spoke nothing; to obey the word of the Lord, instead of their own inclinations. If we were in the habit of going to San Francisco every Wednesday, and should change our custom and afterward go on Tuesday, would we thereby change the calendar, or the reckoning of days? Of course not. Why cannot people reason as intelligently in regard to moral duties as they do concerning ordinary, temporal affairs?
The first question in the paragraph above quoted indicates another erroneous idea that has obtained considerable currency. It is imagined that if people lose their confidence in the Sunday institution they will pay no regard to any day; and from this point people jump to the conclusion that we do wrong in exposing the fraud by which Sunday is made to appear to be the Sabbath. We shall see how much truth there is in these conclusions.
"If infidels care nothing for Sunday, how can you make them respect Saturday?" In turn, we would ask, If people do not lose their respect for Sunday as a sacred institution, how can they be made to respect the Sabbath of the Lord? Said the Saviour, "Ye cannot serve God and Mammon;" "no man can serve two masters." So no man can regard the Sabbath as holy to the Lord, and at the same time give equal homage to Sunday. To answer more directly, we say that we could get them to respect the Sabbath, by inducing them to respect its Author. Let their hearts be changed, so that they will reverence God and his word, and the work is already done. If people really have reverence for God's word (not merely such portions as suit their fancy, but the whole of it), they will reverence the fourth commandment; and if they respect the fourth commandment, they must necessarily keep the seventh day,—Saturday,—as is therein enjoined.
As a matter of fact there are thousands who now respect God's holy Sabbath, who have not the slightest regard for Sunday; and the number of such persons is being increased every day. We readily grant that the great majority of people cannot be induced to respect the Sabbath; but shall we for this reason cease to work for those who will accept the truth? Because we cannot rescue the inmates of a burning building, shall we make no effort to save any?
And now we would like to ask our friend a question. If a man is an infidel, what difference will it make whether he respects Sunday or not? Will the respect that he may have for Sunday atone for his unbelief? Perhaps there are not many who would answer this question in the affirmative, and yet it is the position that thousands of professed Christians really hold. There is a society called the "National Reform Association," which puts a premium on just such religion as that. To have Sunday kept strictly is really the one great point for which they labor. Says its organ, concerning some officials who traveled on Sunday, "Not one of those men is fit to hold office in the nation." It would introduce a new kind of civil service reform, and make one's zeal for the Sunday, and his strictness in observing it, the test of his fitness for office. Now when that party gets strong enough to dictate to the nation, how long will it be before every politician, whether infidel or Jew, will be a strict Sunday-keeper? Not long; and by the National Reform Association this will be counted to them for righteousness. Yet these same people charge Adventists with having no religion but the Sabbath.
A frequent charge against Seventh-day Adventists is that they destroy people's confidence in the Sunday sabbath, and do not succeed in persuading them to keep Saturday. It is claimed that these people are left in a worse condition than they were before, and that therefore the work of Seventh-day Adventists is wholly bad. The charge is not true. As we before stated, the number of Sabbath-keepers is being daily increased; and these accessions come from the ranks of infidelity as well as from those who have always revered the Bible, and who have walked in all the light that they had. But not all that hear the truth obey. Now are these in a worse condition than before? Undoubtedly, a man cannot reject light with impunity. The preaching of Christ, while it won some, hardened others. He himself said, "If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin; but now they have no cloak for their sin." John 15:22. Will our friends charge Christ with doing a bad work because he left some people worse than they were before?
And yet, in the particular case under consideration, we doubt if persons are made any worse by57losing faith in the supposed sacredness of Sunday, even if they do not accept the true Sabbath. Is one error better than another? We know that it is a grievous sin for a man to refuse to regard any day as holy, when the Lord has said, "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy;" but is that man disobeying God any more than the one who not only deliberately refuses to obey the command of the Lord, but who shows his contempt for that command by doing something exactly the opposite? We would not wish to occupy the position of either one. Here is a father who has two sons. One of them hears his father's wishes and commands, and then invariably goes contrary to them, and the other refuses to do anything; would you say that the first is better than the second? Would you not rather say that both are bad and deserving of punishment?
Take the first commandment. Our friends can use their reason in regard to this commandment, because their own interests are not directly affected by it. But there are millions who now practice the grossest forms of idolatry. Now it is a fact that thousands who hear the teaching of the missionaries, never accept it. Take the Japanese, for instance. As a nation they are idolaters. Much missionary work has been done among them, and now Christianity is tolerated in Japan. There are many Japanese Christians, many native Japanese who are preaching the gospel to their fellow-men. But we now find that of educated Japanese the great majority are infidels. This is a noted fact. They look on the worship of God and the worship of idols with equal disdain. Why is this? They have been led to see something of the foolishness of worshiping gods of wood or bronze, and have gone to the other extreme, believing in nothing. Shall we call back the missionaries from Japan? Shall we conclude that they are doing a bad work? Will our opposers say that it would be better to let all the Japanese remain heathen than to convert a few at the expense of making the rest infidels? Is it better to worship a log of wood than to worship nothing? To all of these questions we think we hear an emphatic, No. Better that a few be saved than that all perish.
We would that all could see this matter in its true light. We have known people who acknowledged that Saturday—the seventh day—is the only true Sabbath, but who thought that they could appease the wrath of God against their disobedience, by keeping Sunday very strictly. How deceitful is sin! It blinds men so that they call evil good, and good evil. May the Lord enable our brother and many others who are in a like position, to realize that obedience is what is required, and that all stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry.
E. J. W.
The Literal and Spiritual Meaning of Language.
By Editor
IT has become quite common in these days to say that the language of Scripture has two meanings, or a double meaning, a literal and a spiritual. So common has it become that the statement is put forth with the utmost confidence, as if the saying were an axiom—so evident as to require no proof. But it is more nearly a self-evident absurdity than a self-evident truth.
Language is used literally and figuratively, but it cannot therefore be said that language has a literal and figurative meaning. The figurative use must conform to the literal signification, otherwise we could no more judge of the correctness of the figure than if the terms used had no meaning. We have lexicons to define terms, and a word may have several meanings, yet any one is as literal as any of the others; that is, it has only literal meanings. No man would ever attempt to convey the idea of a figure which was the opposite of the idea conveyed by the literal meaning of the words employed. Or should it be attempted it could not succeed; and we could only catch his idea by a change of the language. Figures must be expressed by terms that are understood.
What, then, shall we say of the spiritual meaning of words? It is either identical with the literal meaning, or it is not. If it is identical with the literal meaning, there is then no such distinction in reality. But if it is not identical with the literal meaning, how is it to be determined? There could be but one way to determine it; we should have a spiritual dictionary to give us the true spiritual definitions, otherwise we should be under the necessity of guessing at the meaning, which is rather a poor method to settle disputes about language! But who ever heard a person claim a spiritual meaning for language that had anything but guess-work in his effort? Were any two persons ever known to agree in regard to the spiritual meaning of terms? If such a distinction exists, would it not be well to establish a spiritual school and employ a professor of spiritual language to give instruction, so that somebody may become qualified to read the Bible understandingly?
From some observation on this subject we think the following may be adopted as the first and chief rule of spiritual grammar. The spiritual meaning of words is the opposite of the literal. This may not be of universal application, but is doubtless more nearly universal than any other. The next in importance will be the following: The spiritual meaning must always be taken in preference to the literal. The conclusion from the above is easily arrived at, but, in the absence of a lexicon, grammar, or any other spiritual standard literature, the following will probably be the wisest and safest course to pursue to arrive at the spiritual meaning of language, to wit, when you read the Bible believe it means anything except what it says!
Now we do not pretend to have settled this question very definitely (and who can?); but where we have erred, we are ready to be corrected. Will some one of that faith be so kind as to point out the errors in the above rules, or give us better ones? As there are many who set up that claim, and some of them are eminent men, no doubt, correct and definite information may be obtained on this subject.
Try It at Home.
By Editor
WE frequently see parents try to control their children and keep them within reasonable bounds in meeting, and make an entire failure. Every such effort and failure is a great annoyance to the congregation, and a cause of mortification to the parents. And in all such instances the children plainly show that they are not accustomed to respect the wishes or the authority of the parents. In every such case the parents are making a great, and, it is to be feared, fatal mistake. If children are not trained to obedience at home, they will not obey in meeting. But if they are trained to proper obedience at home, they will show it in their proper deportment at meeting, and by their regard for the word of the parent everywhere. It will not do to excuse it by saying we live in a bad age, etc. That would only prove that you must put forth greater effort to control them. But we fear that some of our people are especially remiss in their duty in this respect.
Because we are subjected to the inconvenience of holding our meetings in school-houses, and very often in private houses, many lose that feeling of reverence that they formerly had when going to the well-furnished meeting-house, and the children very soon feel the influence of it. We regret to say we have sometimes preached where it was extremely difficult to be heard, on account of the noise of the children; and the great effort to keep them quiet, put forth by the mortified parents, only added to the confusion. It is of no use to try—it cannot be done. If you have no discipline at home, you cannot make them obey you in meeting.
Many seem to think it makes no matter how their children act at home. They can bear it, and there is nobody but themselves to be disturbed by them. But the welfare of the children depends on their training; and many little ones grow up as rebellious in spirit as Satan could desire to see them. Shame and ruin are ahead, and now is the time to avert them. Prov. 22:6; 29:15.
The California Sunday Law Again.
By Alonzo T. Jones
IN the Signs of January 1, was printed a note concerning the movement, set afloat in the Oakland churches by Dr. McLean, of the First Congregational Church, Oakland, to secure a re-enactment of the Sunday law, that was repealed two years ago; and it was stated that “Dr. McLean was appointed to read a paper at the next meeting of the Congregational Club, on ‘How to Get a Suitable Sunday Law.’”
Of that next meeting we have quite a full report in the San Francisco Chronicle of January 6, and knowing that all our readers are interested in this subject, we insert the report, with some comments of our own. The Chronicle says:—
“At the meeting of the Ministerial Union yesterday morning, Rev. Dr. McLean presented the subject of a Sunday law, and desired to have an expression of opinion on the part of the members of the union, as to the feasibility of attempting to secure the re-enactment of the late Sunday law of the Penal Code, or one similar to it. He said he appeared as chairman of a committee, appointed by the Pastors’ Union of Oakland, to confer with the Ministerial Union and take such action in the matter as might be thought advisable. The four other members of the committee were present and would speak for themselves. For himself he would say that while he felt deeply the necessity of a law for the protection of Sunday from desecration, he had serious and increasing fears that such was the present condition of political parties, and such the state of public opinion on the subject, that any effort made at this time to secure the passage of such a law as was needed would prove fruitless. But this was certain, at least, that the subject ought to be presented by the pastors in their pulpits, and the public conscience brought up to that point where such a law could be enacted and enforced. The other members of the committee expressed their views, most of them in favor of immediate and vigorous action for the re-enactment of the Sunday law, and hopeful of its success. Several members of the union followed with brief remarks, chiefly in favor of entering upon an immediate agitation of the subject, looking to the enactment of a penal Sunday law by this Legislature, and, on motion, a committee of five was appointed, from as many different denominations, to act at once in the matter, preparing petitions to send through the State, and also a draft of such a law as is desired. This committee is composed of Rev. Dr. McLean (Congregational), Rev. Dr. M. M. Gibson (Presbyterian), Rev. Dr. Sinex (Methodist), Rev. Dr. Gray (Baptist), and Rev. Mr. Githens (Episcopal).”
In the Pacific, and the California Christian Advocate, appears what we suppose to be an address of the Ministerial Union, to which is appended a resolution that was adopted at the aforementioned meeting. The address says:—
“The friends of the Christian Sabbath are deeply pained in witnessing the high-handed and defiant desecration of all that is sacred and righteous in this holy day. . . . It is hostile to our religion. We cannot shut our eyes to this evil without incurring a fearful responsibility. It is time for action. We hope therefore that the following resolution will receive the prompt and hearty indorsement of the brethren throughout the State:—
“Resolved, That the Ministerial Union of San Francisco, hereby requests each Preachers’ Meeting, or Association of Ministers, in the State, to unite in agitating the subject of securing some proper legislation in favor of a judicious Sunday law; and that the pulpits of the State are requested to present this subject on (or as near as possible to) the last Sunday in January.”
But the most interesting part of the proceedings in that day’s meetings, is contained in the rest of the report as given in the Chronicle:—
“In the afternoon the Congregational Club held its usual monthly meeting. The discussion turned on the same general subject, but took a theological turn, the principal point being the ground upon which Sunday observance should be based. Rev. Mr. Macy, of the Green Street church, opened the proceedings with a paper in which he based the observance of Sunday strictly on Scripture authority, treating it as the legitimate successor of the Sabbath and made binding by the fourth commandment.”
It seems that the case stands thus: The Pastors’ Union is composed of all the pastors of Oakland; the Ministerial Union is composed of all the pastors of San Francisco; and the Congregational Club is composed of the Congregational ministers of both Oakland and San Francisco, but who, at the same time, are members of the Pastors’ or Ministerial Union as the case may be. Now in the forenoon of January 5 these ministers all meet together in behalf of their respective Unions, and are “deeply pained at the desecration of all that is sacred and righteous in this holy day” (Sunday), and all favor “immediate and vigorous action for the re-enactment of a penal Sunday law.” Then in the afternoon of the same day, they meet and discuss the question. Why should Sunday be observed at all? They first decide to compel everybody to do a certain thing, and then ask why it should be done.
But that is not the worst; they cannot agree among themselves as to why Sunday should be kept. Rev. Mr. Macy, who opened the discussion, makes Sunday “binding by the fourth commandment.” As the fourth commandment says plainly, “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God.” It must be that Mr. Macy holds that the commandment to keep the seventh day can be obeyed by keeping the first day. Then let us carry the principle a little further. Suppose he, with others, succeeds in obtaining the enactment of a law in the State of California, which will command all to “keep the first day of the week, commonly called Sunday;” will he allow that we can obey that law by keeping the seventh day? If not, why not? If by keeping the seventh day we could not obey the law of California which enjoined the observance of the first day, how can he, by keeping the first day, obey the law of God which enjoins the observance of the seventh day? And why will men persist in presenting to the court of the Most High and against the law of God, a plea that would not be admitted in the court of a justice of the peace, against the law of California? We are not surprised at all at the remark that follows: “Several of the clergy who followed differed with him widely.” It is difficult to conceive how anybody could agree with him, who was able, and had any disposition to reason.
“Rev. Professor Mooar, of Oakland, said he did not rest the observance of Sunday on any positive command. The observance was a voluntary tribute on the part of Christians to Jesus and his resurrection. If there had been a transfer of Sabbath obligation from the seventh day to the first, it would have been so stated, plainly, somewhere in the New Testament. Rev. John Kimball agreed with Dr. Mooar, and so did Rev. Dr. Sexton, of London, England, a visitor to the Club.”
And so do we. It is the absolute truth that Sunday observance rests on no command of Scripture. It is a “voluntary tribute” on the part of men which makes void the commandment of God, and against which we are directly warned by the word of God. “Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility . . . after the commandments and doctrines of men, which things indeed have a show of wisdom in will-worship.” Col. 2: 18–23. That is exactly what it is, voluntary humility, and will-worship, self-chosen worship (Conybeare and Howson), and through it, thousands will be beguiled (deluded, deceived, cheated) of their reward.58
But in the service of God there is no room for any such worship. Christ said: “When ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say . . . we have done that which was our duty to do.” Luke 17: 10. “Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man.” Eccl. 12: 13. No man can do more than his duty. But all that is our duty, God has commanded. Therefore, nothing can be duty toward God, that has not been commanded by God. These men say plainly (and truly) “there is no command for the observance” of Sunday. Therefore it follows that when they demand the power to compel all to keep Sunday, they seek to compel all to do what is not their duty to do. And thus they usurp the authority, and transcend the power, of God.
Rev. Dr. Sexton, of London, said further:—
"It is an historical fact that the early Christians were wont to go from their Sunday meetings to their ordinary labors. Rev. Joseph Rowell said he agreed with Dr. Mooar, and thought that Justin Edwards, in his 'Sabbath Manual,' had unconsciously misquoted the Christian Fathers on this point."
These too are solid truths. It is a fact that the early Christians went to their ordinary labors on Sunday (Acts 20:13-15); and whether "unconsciously" or consciously, it is a fact that Justin Edwards in his "Sabbath Manual" does misquote the Fathers on the Sunday question. These points are not new to us; they have been familiar to Seventh-day Adventists for years, but we are glad to see the truth of our positions admitted by Sunday advocates themselves.
"Rev. Professor Dwinelle took a different view, and said the observance of one day in seven was a cosmic law and of imperative obligation."
But if it be simply an indefinite "one day in seven," that is enjoined in the commandment, it was so established by the Lord himself, and what right have the preachers of California to go beyond the Lord, and make the day definite? If the Lord has not fixed the day, what right have they to fix it?
In view of the positions taken in this discussion, we would ask, Where is there anything "sacred," or "righteous," or "holy" about the Sunday at the desecration of which these gentlemen are so "deeply pained"? Dr. Macy reads a paper in which a position is taken which, if correct, would show that the day is sacred, that it is holy. But immediately he is followed by a half-dozen, or more, men, all of whom disguise the truth of his position, and assert that there is "no positive command" for its observance, that it is "a voluntary tribute on the part of Christians," etc.; all of which shows decidedly that the observance and obligation of the day are only of human origin and authority, and that therefore the day lacks every element of sacredness, of righteousness, or of holiness. And these men in thus asserting and maintaining the human origin and obligation of the Sunday institution, in that assert that theirs is a "self-chosen" worship. If they would stop there, if they would content themselves with their "self-chosen worship," and allow others equal liberty of choice, we could have no cause of complaint; but when they go beyond this and seek by penal law to compel everybody else to do as they choose, then we solemnly protest, and much more when they would compel us to do this in positive disregard of the plain commandment of the Lord himself, spoken with his own voice, and written with his own hand.
It appears, therefore, that what causes these reverent gentlemen to be so "deeply pained" is that they can't have their own way; and so they labor and long for a "penal law," by the vigorous enforcement of which they can compel all people to comply with their wishes. And we have no doubt that they will be "deeply pained" until this is accomplished. Others have had a like painful experience. Paul III was "deeply pained" that any would not submit to the church, and so he established the inquisition. Torquemada was "deeply pained" that there should be any Jews in Spain, so he must have an edict issued banishing every Jew and Jewess, man, woman, and child, unless they would become papists. Innocent III, was "deeply pained" that in Languedoc and Provence there was a "high-handed and defiant desecration of all that was sacred and righteous in the holy" church, and so the Albigenses were extirpated. Innocent VIII, and his successors for four hundred years were all "deeply pained" that in the valleys of Piedmont there was a people whose practices were "hostile to their religion," and so against the Waldenses there was kept up a perpetual crusade. But why specify? The history of the papal church is simply a series of just such "deeply painful" experiences as these Oakland and San Francisco pastors and their co-laborers in the United States now have. And in every instance relief was sought in the same way that these seek it, namely, by the power of penal statutes of the civil law. Question: In what single thing do Protestants now protest against the work of the papal church? ALONZO T. JONES.
The Starting Point of Christianity
IN the Independent of Dec. 25, 1884, Dr. T. L. Cuyler utters the following fundamental truth of the gospel, which is too often forgotten or ignored by religious teachers. If it were indelibly impressed on the heart of every theological student, it would result in many more real conversions. It is in itself a summary of the gospel,—“repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.”—
“The starting-point of all genuine Christianity is a right view, a scriptural view of sin. Here lies the dividing line between true and false theologies. If sin is a light, venial thing, then no atonement is necessary, and the cross of Christ becomes a superfluous tragedy; it is a pathetic incident, but not a redeeming sacrifice of the God-man for human guilt. We have no doubt that the secret cause of the indifference of most impenitent persons is that they do not think sin worth punishing, or believe that God will punish it tremendously in the next world. It is indisputably true that he, or she, who does not feel sin, will never feel the need of a Saviour, any more than the person who does not feel sick will ever send for a physician. Nor can any one who does not thoroughly hate sin ever love and adore the Redeemer who died for him.”
Christmas and New Year's at South Lancaster, Mass.
By Stephen Nelson Haskell
It is perfectly proper to use the enemies artillery in the service of the Lord, provided in so doing we do not lower the Lord's standard. Notwithstanding some of our best tunes were composed by unprincipled men, they are sung all over the land by the most devout. It is utterly impossible to tell the exact day of Christ's birth. Upon this point the Bible is silent. The most prominent authors do not agree respecting the origin of celebrating that event on the 25th of December. The custom, however, of making presents at this time, has existed for many years, and there can be nothing harmful in it provided the mind is turned in the proper channel. In the South Lancaster Academy many of the students had shown a degree of interest in the school, and faithfulness in the labor department, deserving of some expression of appreciation. It was therefore thought proper to have a Christmas tree, upon which parents, and those connected with the school, should place such articles as would be of practical benefit to the students. Accordingly one was prepared without their knowledge. Quite a number of Bibles, about twenty-five volumes of "Spirit of Prophecy," "History of the Waldenses," also clothing, and other useful articles, were placed upon the tree. The students, not knowing of the tree, had obtained some worthy presents for their teachers. Proper remarks were made, directing the mind from the common custom of giving useless presents, to that which would be beneficial and lasting in its influence. We think the occasion was not only pleasant but profitable.
The foreign missions were not forgotten. Another tree was prepared at New Year's, which bore a different kind of fruit, namely, money for the support of the foreign missions. The different missions were spoken of, and those who gave had the privilege of giving to the mission which they preferred. Some gave to missions in general.
The tree contained nine very appropriate mottoes, as follows: "Australia must have the truth;" "How shall they hear without a preacher;" "Honor the Lord with thy substance;" "I will pay Thee my vows which my lips have uttered;" "Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse;" "Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness;" "I will surely give the tenth unto Thee;" "The tenth is the Lord's." Around these mottoes were placed envelopes containing the money. The smallest amount in any envelope was the "boy's mite"—nine cents. The largest sum pledged was a thank offering of $50. The entire amount on the tree was between three and four hundred dollars, including over two hundred dollars for the Australian Mission, and about one hundred for other missions.
The circumstances of the students were not favorable to their giving large sums for missions, as some are working their own way, and others are here at the expense of their Conferences, or friends; yet they felt it a privilege to thus show an interest in the foreign missions. The amount placed upon the tree by the school was over one hundred dollars. All seemed happy in giving, and felt that the blessing of the Lord rested upon the effort. Considering the circumstances of those present, we could but feel thankful for the disposition manifested.
We can see no harm in this method of giving, although it might be said that the money could have been given without the tree. This is very true, but exercises of this kind can be made more attractive and impressive by the use of a tree, and we see no reason for objecting to it, while the exercises are so conducted as to lead the mind away from self, to God and his work.
S. N. HASKELL.
Australia Once More.
By George I. Butler
CONSIDERABLE has been said in reference to the mission to Australia. At the time of the General Conference it was the most interesting theme of discussion. An article was written by the writer some weeks ago relative to the importance of it, and last week Brother Haskell gave a very interesting account of that important continent, population, etc.
We have been watching with much interest to see if any of our wealthy brethren would respond to the suggestions which have been made relative to the Australian mission. As was stated recently, there are many persons among us worth from ten to one hundred and fifty thousand dollars. We have been watching to see if any of these were going to respond, and invest some of their earthly treasures in this mission. We wonder if these persons really desire to lay up treasure in Heaven, or do they desire to wait and see it burned in the flames of the last days, and very likely themselves with it. "Where your treasure is there will your heart be also," and where our hearts are, we may depend upon it we will go.
What a privilege we should suppose it would be for brethren of means to step into this opening, and become instrumental in starting this most important mission! Brethren, can't you do this? We are waiting anxiously for offers of means from one thousand up to ten thousand59dollars to establish this mission. Is it true that there are none among us who feel like sharing in the rich reward that will come to those who lift in the cause of God when the cause needs help? We shall see.—G. I. B., in Review and Herald.
A. T. J
By Alonzo Trévier Jones
NOTE.—Since the foregoing was put in type, we have received the Herald of Truth (Baptist), of January 15, in which we find the following from the editor, Dr. G. S. Abbott:—
"The Sabbath Question,' as discussed in the Congregational Club, of San Francisco, brought out many variant opinions, showing at least large freedom of thought. We expect to find that the discussion has furnished our Seventh-day Adventist friends a feast of lean, instead of fat things. It was that kind of a feast, in some respects, to us."
A. T. J
The Missionary.
By George I. Butler
The Establishment of a Mission in Wales.
It was decided by the General Conference Committee, at the close of the session of the late General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, to recommend that Elder A. A. John labor in Wales the coming year. All the friends of the cause will rejoice that the truth is extending to this portion of the British Empire, as well as to Scotland, Ireland, and England. We believe there are many honest souls in Wales, who will yet rejoice in the truth. Elder John has felt impressed to labor in that country; and we trust this move is in accordance with God's providence. Thus the truth is extending in all directions.
We invite any of the readers of the SIGNS, who may have friends in Wales, to correspond with Elder A. A. John, at 72 Heneage Street, Great Grimsby, England, and give him information, and letters of introduction to such persons. This will tend to bring the truth before them, and make a suitable opening for labor.
GEO. I. BUTLER,
Pres. Gen. Conf.
"I Have No Time."
By N. Y. Independent
THIS is one of the commonest excuses that is offered by a certain class of Christians who are conspicuous for not doing any personal work for the Lord. They are what Professor Drummond calls parasites in religion. They are attached to the church, and seem to draw what little life they have from the life of others. They are vigorous and enterprising in the management and conduct of their own affairs. Generally speaking, they are very successful men. They find time for business, if not for pleasure, but can find no time for their Master or his work. They are too tired when they come home from business or work in the close of the day to go to prayer-meeting. They are too absorbed in their own affairs to undertake any kind of work for God.
Now, to these, and all such, we would say, with all the emphasis we can put into our words: In the first place, no Christian has a right not to have time to serve the Lord in some way. Every Christian is entitled to some time from the "cares of this world, the deceitfulness of riches, the love of pleasure, and the lust of things." If he has not taken the time which is his, in right of being a child and servant of God, it is because these things have sprung up and choked the good seed which was sown in his heart at the time of his conversion, if, indeed, he was ever converted. In the second place, no Christian has a right to be so absorbed in private business or bound by secular work that he cannot respond to the daily call for service in the Master's vineyard or to special and longer calls.
We remember a young man from Connecticut who enlisted in the army in the early part of the war. He was a watchmaker by trade, and of a thrifty turn of mind. He packed a neat but ample kit of tools in his knapsack, proposing at odd times to turn an honest penny by mending such watches as might come to him for repairs. He soon found plenty of business. In a little while the watches of his comrades came in for repairs, to be cleaned and regulated. His tent soon presented the appearance of a thrifty and busy watchmaker's shop. Things went on in this way for some time, the officers excusing him first from daily guard duty, on the ground that he was useful in the especial line of private service which was engaging him. One day a large number of men was wanted for duty, and a double detail was ordered, and he was drawn for duty. When the sergeant called at his tent and ordered him to duty, he looked up with surprise, and some show of indignation, and said: "It is impossible for me to go on duty today. I have so many watches to repair."
Now, the truth is, that, in attending to his own private business, and in his eagerness to turn as many honest pennies as possible, he had entirely overlooked the fact that he was a soldier, and had no right to private business, certainly no right to refuse duty when called upon because he had watch repairing on hand.
So it is with many of the soldiers of the cross. They have enlisted in the army of the Lord, and have quickly found their way into camp among the army of occupation. Being of a thrifty turn of mind, they have turned their attention to their own business. This has presently become a settled and fixed habit with them, so much so that, in time of special need, when workers are called for, they say: "I must be excused. I have watches to mend." In a word, they have forgotten that they belong to the Lord for service. They are ready to receive their "rations" regularly, and confidently look for the final reward of the righteous; but, in the meantime, they are wholly given up to private business, and solemnly declare that it is not a lack of interest in the prosperity of the church or in the salvation of souls; but really they have no time to attend to such matters.
The church of God is waging the holy war against sin and sinners, with large odds against her, to-day, so far as human helpers and workers are concerned, and mainly because there are so few professed disciples who are ready and willing to "go forth to the work and the war of the Lord." We do not say that such will not be saved, but we feel warranted in saying that the promise of life and salvation to such is very scant, even on the widest interpretation of the word of mercy, and certainly, there will be no "Well done, good and faithful servant."
On the other hand, we fear that many such Christians will hear the word: "Thou wicked and slothful servant, take the talent which was his and give it to him who had five talents." Nay, the worst of the whole matter is that the most of these slothful servants who are "mending watches" on their own account, and wholly excusing themselves from doing their Lord's work, are those who have more than one talent, even two or three or five talents. If a man who had one talent lost it and his soul too, because he buried it in a napkin, what shall be the end of the professor to whom five talents were committed?
There be not a few who are accustomed to read the last verse of 1 Cor. 15, in this wise: "Be ye steadfast, unmovable, always avoiding the work of the Lord." How is it with our readers this week? Are you responding to the call of duty and conforming your business to the necessities of the kingdom?—N. Y. Independent.