Earlier text: PRAYING FOR HOLINESSORIGIN OF SUNDAY OBSERVANCE.
By J. H. W.
I WILL draw this subject to a close by giving a summary of the historical points compiled from a recently written history:— "The Sunday is not mentioned by this name in the Old Testament, neither has the day under the name of the first day of the week in that book received any prominent place; and it was not appointed a rest day at all through any law before the year A. D. 321. The old name of the day, which was afterward christened, is the day of the sun; yet this name does not originate from the creation of the sun, since the sun was made on the fourth day of creation. "At the dawn of creation it introduces the week, but the account does not give it any higher rank than the other days. . . . Our Sunday meets us from the very beginning as a common day. With the last day of the week, the seventh, it is somewhat different. Of this it is said with emphasis: 'And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it; because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.' "The day of our Lord's resurrection is indeed a commemorative day, which will never be forgotten or passed by in his church, but from this—as one may think—it does not follow that we should give up the Sabbath, which God himself has ordained, and plainly pointed out at creation, nor that we should move it unto any other day of the week, because that day is a commemorative day. To do this we need just as plain a commandment of God declaring that the first day [that is, the original Sabbath] is repealed. But where do we find such a commandment? It is true that no such a commandment is found. "In the laws of the State we afterward find the prohibition against Sunday work further and further extended, and the people threatened with more and more punishment if they disregard it. Besides the giving of laws, we also find a new theological doctrine concerning Sunday: that Sunday-keeping is founded on the Sabbath-keeping which God ordained through Moses. Yet this doctrine does not seem through all the sixth century to have become a definite dogma in the church. "If we try now to collect that which may be learned from history concerning Sunday and the development of Sunday-keeping, then the sum is this: Neither the apostles nor the first Christians nor the ancient councils have marked the Sunday with the name and mark of the Sabbath, but the church and scholastic doctors of the Middle Ages have done this. "1. That Sunday is not the Sabbath of the Old Testament, and that this is not the common belief in the Christian church; but it is rather a mistaken idea, that the Sabbath should be changed from the seventh to the first day of the week.
"2. That keeping Sunday with rest from labor and divine worship, has not by the most renowned ancient Fathers been founded on the Sabbath of the Old Testament, neither reference to the Sabbath of the Old Testament entered into the confession of the church before the sixth century after Christ.
"3. That this doctrine first arose in the Papal Church,—that Sunday-keeping is commanded in the third commandment, and that the essential and prominent part of this commandment is a decree from God, to wit, to keep a holy day once a week." Some may question the correctness of the statement here made, that the doctrine that the fourth commandment requires a seventh part of time, and is so far moral, and not the particular day, which was ceremonial, had its origin in the Catholic Church. Coleman says that Dr. Bound was the first to promulgate this doctrine, in a book published in 1595. But Coleman was certainly incorrect in this, for the same doctrine was taught by Thomas Aquinas more than three centuries before Dr. Bound, and Dr. Heylyn attributed it to the schoolmen of the Middle Ages. It is found distinctly stated in the Catholic catechism entitled, "Abridgment of Christian Doctrine." There is no room for just doubt that they who argue thus—and the majority of Protestant Sunday-keepers do so argue—are following the lead of the Papal doctors. When this writer says that the Sunday is not the Sabbath of the Old Testament, he means that it is not required by or does not grow out of the Sabbath commandment in the Old Testament. From the decided tone and substance of the above extracts, it may be thought that I have now entered upon a new line, and given the conclusion and the summary of some advocate of the seventh-day Sabbath. But not so. The expression "our Sunday," shows its origin. This is copied from a work, "History of Sunday," by Rev. A. Grimlund, lately a Lutheran Bishop of Norway. And the work itself was written to counteract the influence of Sabbath teachers, and to vindicate the action of the church in retaining a practice so well established by custom. Why, then, if such was his object, did he give such an overwhelming testimony against the Sunday, and so strongly vindicate the Sabbath? In return, I ask, How can anyone give a genuine history of Sunday and do otherwise? All honest historians—and of such I take Rev. Grimlund to be one—are compelled by the facts of the Bible and of history to defend the Sabbath and to condemn the Sunday. Their theological opinions and associations may lead in another direction; their choice might be of another conclusion; but that other conclusion they can never reach by any fair treatment of the Bible and of history. In their cases we are reminded of the prophecy of Balaam. He started out to serve the king of Moab, and to curse Israel; but the Spirit of God turned it into a blessing. Balaam, though his heart was not in union with the message of the Lord, was not yet entirely left of the Lord to follow his own way. And so of these: they are not in sympathy with the commandment of God; they start out to serve the Sunday; but the truth of God turns their witness into a vindication of the Sabbath. And I here state it as my firm conviction, that when an individual who has ever been instructed in the truth on this subject, can no longer find evidence in the Bible to support the Sabbath of the Lord, and can find evidence in history to uphold Sunday, it is because the Spirit of the Lord, the Spirit of truth, has left him to his own way, to walk in the way of his own heart's devisings. I will here answer a question that has been proposed. It is said, the Reformers, represented in the Augsburg Confession, and other authors quoted, were no-Sabbath men; they held that the Sabbath was entirely abrogated, and that it has no divine substitute in the gospel. In giving their testimony, do you not bind yourself to accept their conclusion, and to reject the Sabbath altogether? Or, why accept them in statement and deny their conclusion? In answering this, I can but express my surprise that105the questioners do not perceive any difference between an historical statement of fact, and a theological opinion. In accepting the history of Neander, I do not thereby bind myself to accept his theology. The Reformers were all raised in the bosom of the Catholic Church. They were piously trained from infancy to regard the seventh day as a Jewish Sabbath, and to call the Sunday the Lord's day. Now, as to whether the Saviour abolished the ten commandments, and with them the Sabbath, is a theological question; it is only a matter of Scripture interpretation. In that we think the Reformers retained a grievous error of their early training; but that does not invalidate their testimony in regard to a matter of fact with which they were well acquainted. In closing these remarks, I wish to say to the reader that I have quoted very little from history that has not already been quoted by the advocates of the Sabbath; while I have left unnoticed a vast amount of historical testimony that is well known to the readers, of the writings of the Seventh-day Adventists and the Seventh-day Baptists. When a man says that the Sabbatarians, in searching two hundred years, have not been able to find an item of proof that the Papacy changed the Sabbath, much of the reflection was intended to fall on the Seventh-day Baptists; for they, and not the Adventists, have been advocating the Sabbath for two hundred years. But if such an one has any knowledge of the authors and the literature of the Seventh-day Baptists (and if he has not, he is without excuse), he knows that his assertion does great injustice to that denomination. Amongst their authors are numbered men eminent for ability, for education, and for deep research, not to speak of their evident piety and conscientious regard for the truth of God's word. They have laid before the world a large amount of rich instruction from the Bible and from history on this important subject. I have avoided complicating my argument by noticing minor or incidental points. All minor points and objections can be easily met, but it has been my object to keep the main issue in view. It is, in every sense, a main issue. We do indeed so consider it. And with the clear evidence before us that the Papacy did change the Sabbath, and the fact that the Sunday institution will in every feature meet the description of such an institution in Rev. 13:11-17, and that no other will, we are constrained to believe—we cannot avoid it—that the Sunday Sabbath is the burden of the awful warning found in Rev. 14:9-11. This is an issue that everyone will have to meet. It cannot always be turned aside with empty assertions. In the providence of God it is going to every nation. And men can do nothing against it. Let men oppose as they may, God's counsel will stand; his law will be vindicated; it will be victorious; the call of the prophetic word will be heeded, and a company will take their stand on "the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus," who will be permitted to rejoice when the Son of man appears on the great white cloud to reap the harvest of the earth. Rev. 14:12-16. J. H. W. WOMAN'S POSITION IN THE CHURCH.
By George C. Tenney
A CORRESPONDENT raises again the familiar question of woman's relations to the church in the light of 1 Cor. 14:34, 35 and 1 Tim. 2:11, 12, and gives a little more force to the inquiry, perhaps, by adding, "Does Paul mean that we are to take no part in praising God?" The Bible, like any other book of precept, must be interpreted according to its evident meaning, and in harmony with the fundamental principles which it teaches. Passages more local or individual in their application must not be understood as opposing an evident principle of the Scriptures. One of the evident principles of the gospel is the elevation of all mankind to an equal standing and to equal privileges, and hence, to an equal accountability in the sight of God. In this the religion of the Bible stands vastly pre-eminent to all others. And under its influence alone has woman been elevated from a position of slavery to a rightful equality with man, and in some respects to a higher, a more sacred place. We cannot therefore think that the great apostle of this religion would teach anything to the contrary, nor does he. Doubtless there were evils of a peculiar nature in the church at Corinth, which 1 Cor. 14:34, 35 was designed to correct. And as Timothy, in his labor with the churches, would be likely to meet such evils, he was instructed in the proper way to treat them when they might appear. But when we come to consider the question of how Paul regarded the relation of woman to the church, and the work of the gospel, we come to another subject. Upon this point attention may be called to the following texts of Scripture: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." Gal. 3:28. "And on the Sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made; and we sat down, and spake unto the women which resorted thither." Acts 16:13. "And I entreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which labored with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellow-laborers, whose names are in the book of life." Phil. 4:3. "Nevertheless, neither is the man without the woman, neither is the woman without the man, in the Lord." "Every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered," etc. 1 Cor. 11:11, 5. Many scriptures might be adduced to show the important part woman has had in the work of God in Bible times, and to which she was called by the providence and Spirit of God; but it is not the purpose of this article to enter into this subject except to show that in the great work which has been done for womankind by the gospel of Christ, whose work it has ever been "to loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke," the apostle Paul has given the full measure of his potent influence. LESSON 8.—SABBATH, FEBRUARY 25. 1. WHERE did Abraham live when the Lord first appeared to him?
"And he said, Men, brethren, and fathers, hearken: The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Charran." Acts 7:2. 2. What did the Lord say to him?
"And said unto him, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and come into the land which I shall show thee." Verse 3. 3. What promise did the Lord then make to him?
"Now the Lord had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will show thee; and I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing; and I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee; and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed." Gen. 12:1-3. 4. What did Abraham then do?
"Then came he out of the land of the Chaldeans, and dwelt in Charran; and from thence, when his father was dead, he removed him into this land, wherein ye now dwell." Acts 7:4. 5. How old was he when he went to the land of Canaan?
"So Abram departed, as the Lord had spoken unto him; and Lot went with him; and Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran. And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother's son, and all their substance that they had gathered, and the souls that they had gotten in Haran; and they went forth to go into the land of Canaan; and into the land of Canaan they came." Gen. 12:4, 5. 7. In thus going from his home, what did he manifest?
"By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went." Heb. 11:8. 8. What promise did the Lord afterward make him?
"And the Lord said unto Abram, after that Lot was separated from him, Lift up now thine eyes, and look from the place where thou art northward, and southward, and eastward, and westward; for all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed forever." Gen. 13:14, 15. 9. To whom besides himself was the promise made? Verse 15. 10. How numerous did the Lord say that his seed should be?
"And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth; so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered." Verse 16. 11. Had Abraham any children at this time?
"And Abram said, Lord God, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless, and the steward of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus?" Gen. 15:2. 12. What did the Lord again say as to the number of his posterity?
"And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them; and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be." Verse 5. 13. How did Abraham regard the word of the Lord?
"And he believed in the Lord." Verse 6, first clause. 14. How did God regard Abraham's faith?
"And he counted it to him for righteousness." Verse 6, last clause. 15. What is meant by faith being counted for righteousness?—The forgiveness of sins. See Rom. 4:5-8. 16. Through whom were the promises confirmed to Abraham?
"And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect." Gal. 3:17. 17. And who are the promised seed?
"And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." Verse 29. 18. What is the inheritance of which they, with him, are heirs?
"For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith." Rom. 4:13. In the promises to Abraham we have an instance of the necessity of the New Testament as a commentary on the Old Testament. The casual reader would hardly draw from those promises, that the whole world was to be the inheritance of Abraham, yet Paul tells us (Rom. 4:13) that they included nothing less than that. Still, a careful student should see that the promises, "In thee shall all families of the earth be blessed," and, "I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth," could not be fulfilled except in the possession of the whole earth by his seed. "ABRAHAM believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness." What was involved in this? Nothing less than the forgiveness of sins,—the imputing of righteousness without works. Paul, after stating10that Abraham's faith was counted to him for righteousness, says that David describes the blessedness of the man unto whom God imputes righteousness without works, but solely on account of faith, in the following words: "Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin." Rom. 4:7, 8. This counting a man righteous without works is the stumbling-stone over which so many fall. Some say that it is impossible, while others go to the other extreme and say that it at once and forever releases the believer from all obligation to make any effort. But it is done, and it does not release the individual from obligation to put forth continual effort. How else can a man gain acceptance with God? He cannot do good deeds to make up for his past sins, for it is impossible for him to do more than his duty at any one time. Besides, an evil deed cannot be canceled by a good one. If he gets rid of the sins that he has committed, they must be taken away as an act of free grace on the part of God. Faith is the condition on which they will be removed. Take Abraham as an example. The Lord made a promise to him, that would have staggered most men, it was so great, so incomprehensible. But Abraham "staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God," and was fully persuaded that what he had promised he was able also to perform; "and therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness." Rom. 4:20-22. The Lord made a great promise; Abraham said, I believe; and the Lord, in return for that simple faith, declared his sins forgiven. Thenceforward Abraham lived by faith, and thus it could be said by the Lord, "Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws." Gen. 26:5. He could not have done this without faith, for without faith it is impossible to please God. Heb. 11:6. In what did Abraham have faith? In just the same thing that we are required to have faith if we would obtain the forgiveness of sins and eternal life,—that is, in the death and resurrection of Christ. Paul says that the promise to Abraham was confirmed in Christ. Gal. 3:17. Therefore Abraham's faith was of the same nature that ours must be. He believed in Christ, "whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God." Rom. 3:25. No one can possibly have more perfect or more intelligent faith than Abraham had, for he is "the father of all them that believe." "Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it [righteousness] was imputed to him; but for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; who was delivered for our offenses, and was raised again for our justification." Rom. 4:23-25. But why is it that this faith does not tend to presumption, and to looseness of life? The reason is this: The possession of such faith as Abraham had, indicates humility, and submission to the will of God. Faith and humility are co-existent. Neither can exist without the other. "Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him; but the just shall live by his faith." Hab. 2:4. The man who will implicitly trust God's word, even against his own judgment, shows that he believes that God knows more than he does; he has put himself into God's hands, to be guided as God shall think best. Then of course as long as he retains that faith, he will gladly do the will of God. Thus true faith always leads to obedience. Abraham's faith was shown to be perfect by his works. NOTES ON THE INTERNATIONAL LESSON.
By W.
CHRIST'S LAST JOURNEY TO JERUSALEM.
(March 4.—Matt. 20:17-29.)
THE other accounts of the events recorded in this lesson are found in Mark 10:32-45 and Luke 18:31-34. Luke does not record the request for the two sons of Zebedee. As they were going up to Jerusalem, where Jesus was to be offered as a sacrifice for sinners, he tried to prepare the minds of his disciples for the terrible trial before them; but they could not comprehend his words. Jesus told them everything that should take place,—that he should be betrayed into the hands of the chief priests and scribes, who would condemn him to death, and then deliver him to the Gentiles, who in turn would mock him, and scourge him, and spit upon him, and finally put him to death by crucifying him, and that on the third day he should rise again. But although he told them only what had been written by the prophets, "they understood none of these things; and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken." Luke 18:34. It was not until all these things had been accomplished, and Christ had "expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself," that they could understand. So difficult is it for preconceived opinions to give way for truth. "And the third day he shall rise again." More needless controversies have been waged over the length of time that Christ lay in the grave, than over almost any other Scripture event. In answer to the request of the scribes and Pharisees for a sign, Jesus had said that no sign should be given them but the sign of the prophet Jonah: "For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly, so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." Matt. 12:40. Taking their stand on this text, some will claim that it wasn't fulfilled, because from Friday, when Jesus was crucified, till Sunday morning when he rose again, was not three days and three nights; while others claim that he must have been in the grave seventy-two hours, and that therefore he must have been crucified earlier in the week than Friday. Neither position is correct. THE simple fact of the matter is that Christ was crucified on Friday, the preparation day, the day before the Sabbath, and that he rose very early in the morning of the first day of the week, and still he was in the heart of the earth three days and three nights, in the sense in which Christ spoke those words. Christ said that he should be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights; he also said that he should be crucified, and "the third day should rise again." Therefore we must conclude that these two expressions mean the same thing. When the two disciples on the way to Emmaus recounted the betrayal and crucifixion of Christ, they said: "To-day is the third day since these things were done." Luke 24:21. That the expressions three days and three nights, and the third day, were used interchangeably with reference to the same period of time, is proved by a passage in the book of Esther. When Esther had decided to go in before the king, she sent to Mordecai, saying: "Go, gather together all the Jews that are present in Shushan, and fast ye for me, and neither eat nor drink three days, night or day; I also and my maidens will fast likewise; and so will I go in unto the king." Esther 4:16. And the record says that "on the third day" Esther put on her royal apparel, and stood in the inner court of the king's house, etc. Esther 5:1. THE blindness of the disciples, and their slowness to believe that Christ did not intend to establish an earthly monarchy at that time, are shown by the fact that immediately after Christ had told them of his soon-coming sufferings, the mother of James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to Jesus, saying, "Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on the right hand, and the other on the left, in thy kingdom." Matt. 20:21. Mark says that James and John made this request (Mark 10:35-37); but from Matthew's account we are to understand that they made the request through their mother. IN this request we have an exhibition of pride and ambition for position. It was this same spirit that caused the fall of Satan in Heaven. Isa. 14:12-14. The same ambition instilled by him into the heart of Eve, resulted in the fall of our first parents. When Satan said to Eve, "In the day that ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be like God," she took of the fruit. It is evident, therefore, that such a spirit must be entirely banished from the hearts of those who will share the kingdom of Heaven. If places in that kingdom were distributed as they are in earthly kingdoms, confusion and ruin would ensue. JESUS did not say whether James and John should or should not occupy the places which they desired; but he showed them what they must pass through. "Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be bap107tized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able." Bold language this. They were bold because they were ignorant. They had no idea of what Christ was about to endure. If they had realized it, they would probably have been less confident; for we find that when they were brought face to face with the sufferings of Christ they forsook him and fled. Yet afterwards they did drink of the same cup, and were made partakers of his sufferings, even as Christ foretold. What made this change? Simply this: They had learned of Christ. They had learned that Christ's kingdom was not temporal, but eternal, and that the way to it lay through tribulation. IN Matt. 20:23 the translators have made an unnecessary insertion. They have supplied the words, "it shall be given to them," in the sentence: "But to sit on my right hand, and on my left is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father." It seems that a plain translation of the Greek, without supplying anything, would be much better. Then it would read thus: "To sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but for whom it is prepared of my Father." That is, he could give it to none, except to those for whom it was prepared, and that meant those who were prepared for it, through self-denial and suffering. WHEN the ten heard the request that James and John had made "they were moved with indignation against the two brethren." This would indicate that they had the same spirit that the two brethren had. They wanted to occupy as high places as there were, and they were indignant to think that these two had been trying to get ahead of them. James and John would have made admirable politicians, with the same spirit that they then had; they would not lose any opportunity to advance their own interests. "But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you; but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; and whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant; even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many." Matt. 20:25-28. Here we have the road to true honor and greatness laid out before us. Paul taught the same thing when he said: "Be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love; in honor preferring one another." Rom. 12:10. And again when he wrote: "Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves." Phil. 2:3. THE wisdom of this world would call that foolishness; but the wisdom of this world would therein exhibit its own foolishness. Actually, the plan laid down by Jesus and Paul would, if carried out, result in the greatest possible good for all men. As it is now, each man looks out for himself, and for nobody but himself. In order for a man to build himself up, it is often necessary for him to pull somebody else down; and thus the whole world is peopled with Ishmaelites. Now in such a case it is evident that a man can get no more than his own strength or wisdom will bring him, and often not so much as that, since others may prevail against him. But where the divine rule is followed, everybody gets far more than he could if each one were looking out simply for himself. If there are a hundred men in a community, and each one esteems every other one better than himself, and seeks the honor of others, each man will have the strength of a hundred put forth in his behalf. Each one forgetting himself, would find his interests advanced far more than they could be if he had devoted his entire attention to himself. So it appears that the manner of life necessary to fit one for Heaven, is really the best for men's temporal welfare, if they would but follow it. For "godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come." 1 Tim. 4:8. The Missionary.
By U. C. Conf. Committee
PROGRESS IN THE UPPER COLUMBIA CONFERENCE.
THINKING that a brief statement of the condition and progress of the work in our part of the field may be of interest to your readers, we send you the following:— The reports concerning the week of prayer from different localities are so brief that we cannot give descriptions which we are sure would be specially interesting. The appointment was received with favor, and its importance recognized. It was observed by nearly all our churches and companies, and proved a season of profit and spiritual growth. We feel thankful to be able to report the present condition and future prospects of the cause in the Conference, as encouraging in different directions. Two camp-meetings have been held,—one at Milton, Or., which was reported, the other in Idaho. This last was for the special benefit of those who could not attend our annual meeting. It was the first privilege of the kind that most of them had enjoyed, and their faithfulness in attending and in sustaining the meeting was rewarded by the blessing of the Lord in a marked degree. About eighty persons have accepted the truth since the beginning of the Conference year, and calls for labor are more than can be responded to. One church has been organized, others have had additions, and several companies have been brought out which await organization. The missionary spirit seems active as evidenced by the work being done by the local societies. A liberal amount of money has been subscribed for a reserve and mission fund, and steps have been taken to secure a lot and erect a church in Spokane Falls, and to continue the mission there. Canvassing has not kept pace with other branches because of peculiarities of the field, which presents special difficulties. Plans are now being laid which it is hoped will bring up this branch of the work. A special degree of interest is manifest in Sabbath-schools. Four new schools have been added to the list, with a membership of nearly one hundred. The temperance work is making some headway. Our school at Milton is the center of much interest. A society has been regularly incorporated, a substantial school building erected at a cost of about fourteen hundred dollars. This is paid for, and means provided to build a boarding-house as soon as circumstances will permit. The school is under the management and instruction of Elder G. W. Colcord and wife, assisted by two under teachers. The number of pupils enrolled is seventy-five. All instruction and discipline seem thorough, and there is a commendable degree of application and interest noticeable on the part of students. The reputation of the school is such that it is being patronized by those not of our faith. The credit for this enterprise is mainly due to the energy and zeal of the Milton church. While we have some difficulties to meet peculiar to this field, and others common to all, we feel to "thank God and take courage."
U. C. CONF. COMMITTEE. HARRISBURG, OREGON.
By H. W. Reed
LAST November I was called to Harrisburg to attend the funeral of Sister Brand. There being some interest to hear I remained thirty-one days and preached thirty times. January 5, in company with Elder S. Fulton, I returned and stayed four days. Seven were baptized and nine united with the church.
H. W. REED. The Nature of True Conviction
THAT only is worthy of the name of conviction which is translatable into words and, still farther, into deeds. He who is convinced is conquered, swayed, ruled, by his conviction. Mere opinion, mere sentiment, mere aspiration, is therefore not conviction; for while we hold sentiments and aspirations, convictions hold us. No one can be said to have (or to be held by) a conviction, until he has expressed that conviction, at least to himself, in words or in actions. "I hardly know where I stand," said a young man who had drifted from his religious moorings. He only realized that he stood nowhere, when he attempted to show that he stood somewhere. If you would know how vague are your beliefs, how few your convictions, how unstable your footing, how fruitless your life,—try to speak your convictions, to yourself at least, even if you do not speak them out to others. If you find then that you have really anything to say, you will know that you have something to do.—Selected.