Earlier text: The Empire of GreciaTake Nothing for Granted.
A MASSACHUSETTS Sunday-school teacher was talking with her scholars about one of our Lord's miracles of healing, and she said that Jesus was now just as ready to make our souls whole and sound, as he was in olden time to make men's bodies whole. After pressing this point, she asked that any who thought that their souls were in no need of cure would raise their hands. Up went several hands. At this she asked what they understood by having their souls cured. Promptly there came back the answer from a bright little boy: "You mean when the bottom of our feet don't ache." An odd conception that, but one which, while it remained, was a hopeless barrier to making the truth clear concerning spiritual wholeness. A gentleman told me that, when he was a lad, he went to his Christian employer and sought counsel under his burden of conscious sin. "Your only hope," was the reply, "is in accepting Jesus Christ as the propitiation for your sins." What "propitiation" meant, that teacher did not make clear; nor did the scholar know for himself; and so, for a time, it barred the way of salvation, instead of pointing it out. In view of one's constant liability to use words which his hearers do not understand, or which for the time being they misapprehend, a teacher has the responsibility and the duty of being always careful to make clear to his scholars the truths he would teach them. And in this effort a teacher may not rest satisfied with the mere declaration of the truth, in words that seem to himself explicit and plain; nor can he be sure that he has made the truth clear, just because his scholars re-state to him in the same words the truth he has declared to them. Telling a thing is not in itself teaching that thing; nor is hearing a recitation, teaching the thing recited. The words which the teacher employs in the telling, may be words which the scholar does not understand; or, again, the scholar may misapprehend the point and the purport of the teacher's statements, even while he knows the meaning of the several words employed. If this be the case as the scholar hears the words, it is in no way changed by the scholar's repeating the words back again just as he heard them. You send a message in cipher, by telegraph. The operator at the other end of the line "repeats" back that message just as he received it, in order to show that it was sent correctly. But neither the receiving of these words nor the repeating them, by that operator, gives him any idea of their true meaning; for they are in cipher. A great deal of the ordinary class-teaching in Sunday-school is in cipher; a cipher of which the key has never been given to the scholars.—Teaching and Teachers. THE wearing of costly array is directly opposite to the being adorned with good works. Nothing can be more evident than this; for the more you lay out on your own apparel, the less you have left to clothe the naked, to feed the hungry, to lodge the strangers, to relieve those that are sick and in prison, to lessen the numberless afflictions to which we are exposed in this vale of tears. And here is no room for evasion, "I may be as humble in cloth of gold as in sackcloth." If you could be as humble when you chose costly as when you chose plain apparel (which I flatly deny); yet you could not be as beneficent, as plenteous in good works. Every shilling which you save from your own apparel, you may expend in clothing the naked, and relieving the various necessities of the poor, whom "ye have always with you." Therefore, every shilling which you needlessly spend on your own apparel is, in effect, stolen from God and the poor! And of how many precious opportunities of doing good have you defrauded yourself! How often have you disabled yourself from doing good, by purchasing what you did not want! For what end did you buy these ornaments? To please God? No; but to please your own fancy, or to gain the admiration and applause of those that were no wiser than yourself. How much good might you have done with that money? And what an irreparable loss you have sustained by not doing it, if it be true that the day is at hand, when "every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labor."—Wesley. If men would learn to attend to their own business, and let other people's affairs which do not concern them alone, it would be much better for them, and for the peace of the community. But there are a great many persons who are constantly sticking their noses into other people's matters, prying and spying into things that do not concern them, and as a consequence they often get themselves and others into trouble. They are very officious, will come without being sent for, and stay without being invited. They will question you like a confessor, and give their opinions like an expounder. Like a man starting a dry pump, they will pour something in, in hope of getting a good deal out. Beware of such folks; they are neither true nor trusty. They would betray their own mother's son. The less you have to do with them the better. Do not stand on ceremony with them. Cut their acquaintance at once.—Sel. Religious Ranting.
By Editor
PERHAPS on no subject is there so much nonsense spoken, under a great show of wisdom, as on religion. Bible truth is rendered ridiculous by those who profess to teach it. In the eyes of intelligent skeptics the whole matter is made to appear like a senseless jargon, and the truth suffers, wounded by its professed friends. At one of our camp-meetings a publication was scattered broadcast, the writer of which had persuaded himself to believe that he had put a quietus on the doctrine of life only in Christ, as held by Adventists. The following paragraph presents a fair specimen of his reasoning:— "Some of them insist that death (a ceasing to exist, as they call it), is the only wages of sin; nevertheless all may read the solemn truth foretold, that after death there shall be the judgment! If death were the only wages of sin, Christ the Saviour need not to have been a divine eternal person. Nay more, there was no need that a God of love should send his dear Son to be the Saviour of the world, for any one might pay those wages (death) for himself, the wicked man as well as the godly man; even the infamous Nero, who lived and died in his sins, after having been brought into existence again, because he died (and ceased to exist, as they call it), would have as good a title to God's heavenly paradise as would Abraham, who was justified by faith before God, and was called the friend of God." The writer seems never to have learned that there is a second death awaiting the unrighteous after their resurrection. And how any one, with a Bible in his hand, dare even to intimate that death is not the wages of sin, we are at a loss to see. "The wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Rom. 6:23. "The soul that sinneth, it shall die." Eze. 18:4. But most strange of all is the idea of the writer that, if the doctrine that death is the wages of sin be true, then there was no need that Christ should die, for each one could save himself! "Even the infamous Nero, who lived and died in his sins, after having been brought into existence again," etc. Now the apostles "preached through Jesus the resurrection from the dead." Acts 4:2. And Christ died and rose again that he might be Lord both of the dead and living. Rom. 14:9. Christ is that seed of the woman, without whom there would be no future life nor future judgment. On what principle, then, or by what means, would this writer have Nero "brought into existence again" if Christ had not died? Does he hold that Nero could have resurrected himself? If he could, then he could have saved himself. There is no truth made more plain in the Scriptures than this, that life and death are altogether in the power of Christ, and that life is given to the penitent, or innocent, while death is visited upon the impenitent, or unrighteous. But life and death, as a final reward and punishment, are not the present life "which we now live in the flesh," and the present death which all die in common, but eternal life and the second death. But whether present or future, temporal or eternal, they are life and death still. They are realities, not myths. Will somebody explain to us why it is that the idea of receiving immortality through Christ is so repugnant to some people? Immortality is the dearest of all things to them, provided it is conceded that they have it in themselves. But they cannot bear to be dependent upon Christ for it! Now to us the value of immortality is enhanced by the thought that Christ died to redeem us from death, and to purchase immortality for us. And the Scriptures reveal the truth that "Christ is our life," and that he has "brought life and immortality to light through the gospel." And the paragraph quoted above is a specimen of the methods to which men will resort when they attempt to rob Christ of the honor of being the sole giver of eternal life. God has given a very solemn warning against a denial of the truth on this subject. "He that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son." 1 John 5:10, 11. And as Jesus is the sole author of a future life, so is the resurrection of the dead the sole means of conferring or of receiving a future life. "If the dead rise not, let us eat and drink; for to-morrow we die." 1 Cor. 15:32. In this same chapter the apostle argues this idea at length. "For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised; and if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable." 1 Cor. 15:16-19. If the dead rise not, then is our hope confined to this life; then they which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished—they have no future life; then is your faith vain; then is not Christ risen; then is the preaching of the gospel but false witness for God. Yet very many who profess to preach the gospel make the resurrection a nullity; some by denying it altogether, as the Sadducees did, and some by overshadowing it with "another gospel," which gives life and immortality to all, irrespective of character, or of faith in Christ. It is sad to think to what extent "Jesus and the resurrection" are being denied, even by those professing to hold evangelical faith; how tenaciously men will cling to unscriptural error, if it is a popular one, and cast aside a plain Bible truth if it is not in favor with the world. Question on Church Order.
By Editor
THE following letter came to us from a distant State. We believe it may prove of interest to many:— "I have been much pleased with your articles on the organization and discipline of the church. But there is one thing that you have not brought out yet; I ask some information on the point, upon which we have had some trouble. About five years ago, two men requested baptism at camp-meeting, and it was thought they intended to join the church on their return home; but they did not. One of them moved to — [another State], and is not a very good representative of the cause. At our last camp-meeting, three young ladies were baptized, and on coming home they also refused to connect themselves with the church. We had quite a discussion on the matter at quarterly meeting; but they did not join, nor did they give any reason for their refusal. What shall or what can be done in such cases? Will you give us some information how to deal with such cases?" We think we can give information suitable to the subject, but not such as will help in "such cases." 1. We may not have mentioned just such circumstances, but we did explicitly lay down principles which, if regarded, will prevent all trouble of this kind. In No. 15 of our articles on "The Church," will be found the following paragraph:— "An individual is not a member by a vote of the church, without baptism; neither is he a member by baptism, without a vote of the church. And to baptize a person with the understanding that he shall be voted into the church at some future time, is irregular. Baptism being an initiatory rite, must be under the control of that authority which accepts and rejects members, and not under the control of a minister, the pastor, or the officers of the church. The church alone can authorize the elder or pastor to administer baptism." 2. We have also called attention to Paul's declaration that ministers are "the messengers of the churches." 2 Cor. 8:23. When a minister connects himself with a church or Conference, he places himself under obligation to conform to the rules of that church or Conference. But if he does not wish to conform to such rules—if he covets a larger liberty than they allow—it is evidently his privilege to separate himself from that body, and go where he can find the liberty he covets. We are supposing that the customs of such church are not contrary to the teachings of the Scriptures. And if he is the messenger of the church, then it is his duty to accept the counsel of the church. There is no such thing as "an independent man" in the church of Christ. Not that one should be lord over another, but that all should "be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility." 1 Peter 5:5. This saves the minister from having to act solely on his own responsibility, and from moving according to his own unassisted judgment. And whenever we find an individual who feels restive under such Scriptural restraint, he is sure to be one who needs restraining. The man of broad mind, and large views, and extensive Christian experience, will rejoice at the privilege of counseling with his brethren. 3. As a minister cannot receive members into the church, that being an act of the church itself, of course he can have no authority to administer that rite which inducts members into the church—baptism—except that which is conferred by the church. Hence, if he administers baptism to any person expecting him to unite with a certain church, without consulting that church, his action is clearly irregular. And we have before remarked that we know of no such order as baptizing a person who has not avowed his intention to become a member of a church in such action. The only apparent exception to the rule which calls for the action of the church before baptism is administered, is in the case of organizing new churches. And this exception is only apparent. As was remarked on that subject, they who have perfect confidence in each other should become the nucleus of the brotherhood; and, of course, the consent of these should be obtained before any are baptized. The practice, common with some, of baptizing all applicants without regard to the contemplated organization, is fraught with mischievous results. We do not know why a minister should not be as careful whom he baptizes before church organization in a given place as he is afterward. Much reproach has been brought upon the cause in many places by ill-advised action in this respect. Some denominations never organize or constitute a church except a council of brethren or representatives of other churches be called. We must commend their prudence; and though it might seem to work against the progress of the cause in some cases, we can call to mind many instances where much confusion and reproach might have been averted by such precaution. 4. We have now gone somewhat beyond the question, but not beyond the subject to which the question relates. And our reply to the last query, namely, What can be done in such a case, is, that nothing can be done. An error thus committed can never be remedied. It is impossible to compel a person to unite with a church, but it is possible to require that a person who desires baptism shall receive the rite as initiatory to church membership. If baptism be administered without regard to church membership, the church is thereafter powerless to act. She has been robbed of her prerogative, if the individual so baptized chooses to assert his independence in the matter. But to so assert his independence of the will of the church is contrary to the gospel plan; it is contrary to the direct injunctions of the Scriptures. And any person thus acting shows a great lack of that617spirit of humility which the gospel requires; he shows his utter disregard of the order which the gospel establishes; and therefore he plainly shows that he is altogether unfit to receive baptism. Instead of benefiting such by complying with their request to be baptized, they are deeply injured; perhaps irretrievably injured by being settled down into a deception. The conclusion of the whole matter is this: let no one receive baptism unless it be administered according to the express will of the church; let no request for baptism be accepted unless it come in the form of a request for church membership. By following this rule, all trouble on the subject must be averted. "Can ye not discern the signs of the times?" Tributes to the Bible.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
QUITE frequently we receive articles which contain quotations from some eminent man, perhaps an infidel, who has been compelled to testify to the simplicity and beautiful consistency of the Bible, and of the Christian religion. At almost regular intervals we see such tributes in certain religious journals, prominent among these tributes being Napoleon Bonaparte's testimony concerning our Lord, which he gave while on the island of St. Helena. Perhaps some of our readers may have noted the absence of such quotations from the columns of the SIGNS. There is a reason why they do not appear. That is, we do not believe that the Bible stands in any need of such tributes, or that it gains anything from them. Says Paul, "And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better." Heb. 7:7. Therefore for men to give their solemn indorsement of the Bible and of Jesus Christ, is a reversal of the correct order of things. Especially is this so when those men are, or have been as long as they had opportunity, notoriously wicked men. If the Bible commends a man, it is the highest honor that can be given to human kind; it is more than all else in the world, and all that any man needs. To have any man commend the Bible, adds not one whit to its authenticity or force; and to quote such commendations seems to us to be ridiculous. Further than this, we do not believe that the Bible needs to be "defended." Even if it did need to be defended, who shall defend it? Is it not rather turning things around to speak of a man defending the Bible? May it not be truly said of the Bible: "For thou hast been a strength to the poor, a strength to the needy in distress, a refuge from the storm, a shadow from the heat, when the blast of the terrible ones is as a storm against the wall"? Is it proper to speak of defending that from which we derive our sustenance, and upon which we depend for our lives? The Bible is abundantly able to defend itself. We may expound it, and draw from its depths the wonderful truths which alone are capable of overthrowing error, but that is simply letting the Bible speak for itself. All the arguments that can be drawn from outside sources to meet the assaults of skepticism, are worthless when compared with a plain statement of some Bible doctrine. When the most profound arguments in proof of the divine origin of the Bible have utterly failed to convert an infidel from the error of his ways, a clear exposition of the prophecies, and of the teaching of the Bible on the nature of man, the fate of the wicked, and the reward of the righteous, have often proved successful. And we will here say that if this latter method will not cause an infidel to see the folly of his position, no other method need be tried. Said Jesus: "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." That is all. "Preach the word." Let the light from the sacred word shine forth in all its clearness, and the word which is "quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow," will surely convict every soul that is not hopelessly entangled in the snares of Satan. That word carries with it its own defense; it bears the indorsement of Heaven. To those who will not accept it entirely, there is but one alternative. "What is the chaff to the wheat? saith the Lord. Is not my word like as a fire? saith the Lord; and like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces?" Jer. 23:28, 29. E. J. W. How Readest Thou?
By Alonzo T. Jones
SOME one, presumably its editor, has sent us a number of papers bearing the title, The Spirit of the Word, and in the first number we have an explanation of the title, as follows:— "By the Spirit of the word I mean its real and intended meaning, in contradistinction to its apparent and surface meaning, or the 'letter.' It is a common mistake among Christians to suppose the Bible is written in very plain and simple language, and that the correct meaning is that which lies upon the surface—the most obvious and apparent sense. If I err not, the truth is just the opposite of this. The Bible often means something very different from what it says. . . . It may sound strange and erroneous, to some, to hear any one say that the Bible does not mean what it says. But if you will read this paper month after month, I think I can show you that I do not make the statement unwarrantably." From what we have read of the paper, we think the last statement to be correct. We believe that the person who should read that paper "month after month" would not only believe that the Bible does not mean what it says, but would also believe that there is nothing that means what it says. But we can prove, by sound logic, and upon his own principles, that the Bible does mean what it says. See: He says that the Bible means "just the opposite" of what it says. So he must mean "just the opposite" of what he says. Therefore, by his own principles, the Bible means just what it says. Because when he says that the Bible means just the opposite of what it says, he means just the opposite of what he says; and the opposite of what he says is, that the Bible means just what it says. We suppose, however, that this editor will hardly admit our deduction; yet we cannot see how he can reasonably object to it, for surely we have just as much right to hold that his words mean the opposite of what they say, as he has to say that the Bible means just the opposite of what it says. And if he, or any other, objects, then we should like him to explain to us by what right it is that he applies to the word of God a false rule that may not be applied to his own words. But this person is not the only one who holds to this system of interpreting the word of God. True, all such do not state the case so boldly, but they act firmly upon the principles which this writer has plainly stated. When the Lord says, "The soul that sinneth it shall die" (Eze. 18:4), he is made to mean that it shall live to all eternity. When the Lord says, "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God" (Ex. 20:10), he is made to mean that that is the Jewish Sabbath; that it is the first day of the week; that it is the seventh part of time, etc., etc., in fact he is made to mean just anything at all but what he says. When the Lord says, "The gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord" (Rom. 6:23), he is made to mean that eternal life is the common lot of all men. When the Lord says, "He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life" (1 John 5:12), he is made to mean that every man has life whether he has the Son of God or not. This is nowadays the prevalent mode of reading the word of God. It is read in the reverse of what it really says, and so every man is left "to do that which is right in his own eyes." The Saviour once asked a lawyer these two questions: "What is written in the law? how readest thou?" Luke 10:26. These questions are as appropriate to-day as they were the day they were first uttered. "What is written in the word? how readest thou?" If the Lord wanted to tell the people of this world that the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord, how would it be possible for him to do it more plainly than he has done it? If he wanted to tell the people that the soul that sinneth it shall die, how could he do it in any other words than those in which he has told them? If he wanted to tell men that his own618gift to men is eternal life through Jesus Christ; and that those who have Christ have life, and those who have not Christ have not life; how would it be possible for him to tell them that in words more plain than those in which he has told just that thing? "How readest thou?" Do you read the word as it is, or do you read it the reverse of what it is? And if you read it, and seek to obey it, in the reverse of what it says, why should not the Lord reward you in the reverse of the hopes which you build upon your reverse reading? "What is written in the law? how readest thou?" A. T. J. One Cause of Unbelief.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
A LONG letter has just been received at this office, from a man in the State of New York. We have not read the letter, and do not know that we shall find time to read it before the holiday vacation, but we have read a part of the first page. We gather from what we have read, that the writer has some views on the Bible which differ from those of his brethren. Now we do not wish to discourage investigation, or to shut out new light, yet we consider ourselves justified in condemning this writer's views without reading them. Perhaps if we quote a part only of what we have read, the reader will not charge us with making a hasty decision. Here it is:— "I will first try and tell you the reason why I have not exactly agreed with the church; I shall by the Lord's help try to tell the truth. 1. Because most of them, and especially the rulers, have, as I have thought, slighted me," etc. We have no need to read further. We have heard his story dozens of times. "My brethren have slighted me, therefore I cannot agree with them in points of faith." We meet a man whom we used to know as a brother, and learn that he has left the church, and renounced his profession. What is the reason? "Well, Brother — did not use me well, and the rest of them got to thinking that they were better than I; so I left." Brother A or Elder B has slighted me, therefore I do not believe that "the seventh day is the Sabbath." I think my brethren feel above me, therefore it is evident to my mind that the Bible is not true. Is not that profound logic? Yet it is the only basis there is for a large portion of the turning away from the faith. The first case of an apostasy for such a cause was that of Satan. He felt slighted, and therefore he would not accept the fundamental truth that God is Supreme Governor. And whenever we hear people preface their objections with the statement, "I have been slighted," we naturally think that they are actuated by some of the same spirit which caused the great rebellion in Heaven. Such persons have cause to tremble lest their case become as hopeless as that of the first grumbler. When people begin to imagine that they are slighted, and are not rated according to their abilities, they may be sure that they are thinking of themselves more highly than they ought to think. Their brethren, no doubt, have not changed their behavior toward them, and rate them at their true worth. It is very seldom that a man's opinion of himself is more correct than that of all his brethren. But whether the slight be real or fancied, it is certainly the lamest excuse for unbelief that was ever invented; and when any man wants us to give a hearing to his new ideas, he must not make, as a cause for holding them, the statement that he has been slighted by the church. E. J. W. Modern Heathenism in Hawaii
A missionary to the Sandwich Islands says that "going back to ancient heathenism is not the danger to which the Hawaiians of to-day are exposed, the danger rather being that they will drop into modern heathenism, and become what the slums of our cities are,—permanently sensual, vicious, and criminal." The Missionary.
By Stephen N. Haskell
SABBATH, July 1, was an encouraging day to the Australian Mission. We met at 10 A. M. for Sabbath-school. In the school there are twelve persons, arranged in four classes. The lessons were recited as usual, some time being spent in discussing certain points that were suggested by the scriptures referred to in the lesson. We had had a very interesting Bible-reading two nights before at the house of a man who received, months ago, one copy of the SIGNS from one of our brethren in San Francisco. He read but one article, and that was on the punishment of the wicked. This did not meet his mind, and therefore he cast the paper aside. But it left its impression on his mind. The brother who sent it from America of course never heard from the letter that he sent with the paper; but, having the gentleman's address, Brother Israel called on him, and in course of time Bible-readings were held at his house. He became interested, and the truth affected him as it did Andrew when he spent a day with the Saviour. As Andrew became interested for his brother, Simon Peter, and searched him out and brought him to the Saviour, so this individual brought his brother. And as Philip was affected, so was this man's brother affected—he went and brought his cousin. See John 1. There were some religious meetings held, which they attended. The Wednesday night previous there was a discourse given on the Third Angel's Message, and the Sabbath was spoken of in a forcible manner. It was the first that either of them had heard on that subject. We had entertained the hope that they, or at least the one that had received the SIGNS, might erelong take a stand on the truth of the Sabbath. After we had gone through with our lessons in the Sabbath-school, the brother who had received the paper from America, came in, and told us that himself, brother, and cousin had met the night before, and with the aid of a tract that was handed to them on the night of the meeting, they had investigated the Sabbath question to see what they would do about keeping it. The conclusion they came to was, that it was Bible doctrine, and if they continued to walk in the light, and have the favor of God, they must keep it; consequently they had decided to do so. He further stated that their wives were that forenoon investigating the subject, and would probably decide what they would do; and that if they decided to take the stand with them, they would be at the meeting in the afternoon. The result was that at the hour of three his brother came with the two women, and together we had a season of rejoicing in God. Thus the heads of two families and an unmarried cousin have decided to keep the Sabbath of the Lord. These are the first-fruits of the Australian Mission. We felt thankful to God for this encouragement. We had no fatted calf to kill, but tears of joy were shed notwithstanding. And we know that our friends in America will rejoice with us. One of these friends was a member of a Lutheran Church, and the other of a Baptist Church. They held positions of trust, and did not take their stand without well weighing the matter, and knowing what it would probably cost them. But they felt that they could not disobey God when the light came to them, even if it cost them friends, position, and all. There are others of whom we have strong hopes that they will soon take their stand with us. Our mission here is attracting the attention of many. The influence of the Bible-readings is beginning to be felt. Our Sabbath-school hereafter will have quite an addition. We hope that our friends in America will not cease to pray that the efforts here will still be blessed of God. We believe they will thus remember us. The Bible-readings seem to take well with the people. There is no prejudice against them, and they are something new. The remark was made by one who embraced the truth, that he liked the way we did it. Said he, "You let the people read it out of their own Bibles before they know what is coming, and if they believe the Bible, they must obey." There is a power that goes with the truth that affects hearts. The sending of papers to this country by the missionary workers has been a great help to the work here. It gives an excuse to get at the families. There is not as great freedom at first with English people as with Americans; yet when they are once approached, and an acquaintance is formed, there are no warmer-hearted people in the world; and we believe that it will be so in reference to their sustaining the cause with their means. We say to our friends in America, Do not be discouraged in sending papers to this country, or any other place, even if you do not hear favorable reports. It is God's means of getting the truth before thousands. And there are many that will never hear of the truth in any other way. Living preachers will never find their way to all that will be represented in the kingdom of God. We say, therefore, "Work on, and work ever." While on the island of Tasmania, I found a number that had been reading the SIGNS, who, while I was there, subscribed for it for one year. One gentleman told me, as soon as I introduced myself, that he had received the paper, and then after he had received one letter the paper stopped. This he regretted, for he liked the paper very much, and he should have sent his subscription if he had known how much to send. Here there are many who know nothing about dollars and cents; they never hear them mentioned. It is all pounds, shillings, and pence with them. Another person, who is a merchant, told me that he had received the paper from America, and he could not think how it could be that any person so far off was sending it to him. And while that was being pondered over in his mind, he received a letter from a little girl, who wrote that she was but thirteen years old, and had sent him the paper. This only increased his surprise. When I explained to him our plan of working, and how he probably came to receive the paper, he became deeply interested, and said that such efforts should receive the co-operation of every Christian. He not only subscribed for the paper, but proposed to act as agent to obtain subscribers for us. We also found another gentleman who had received the SIGNS OF THE TIMES and had paid his subscription for the papers that he had received, sending it to America, requesting that no more papers be sent him, as he did not agree with what he supposed they taught on the destiny of the wicked. We spent about four hours in conversation with him and in reading the Scriptures. He finally acknowledged that we must be correct in our position, as the Scriptures teach their final destruction. He also became much interested in other points of truth. There are many other interesting cases that might be mentioned, showing the influence of the missionary work. The example of the children in the missionary work will have an influence that the Judgment alone will reveal. Said our Saviour, "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in Heaven." While the custom of the world is as it is, there is no one thing that will have a more favorable effect on certain minds than to learn that children are engaged in the missionary work. The effect that it has on the children themselves is still more beneficial. While the mind is young and tender, if it be educated to feel an interest in the salvation of souls, it is an education that is worth more than everything else in this world. It moulds the mind, and forms a character which God will accept in the day of Judgment. When every other kind of education may fail, the knowledge of God, and a love for those for whom Christ died, will bear fruit, and practically exist through eternity. Those who are thus educating their children will realize its value when all earthly interests have failed. The Judgment is just before us, and we cannot afford to have our children cut down in the seven last plagues. For their souls' sake, and for our interest in them, we should seek to turn their minds in a channel that will lead them to think, and to feel the importance of the work that brought Christ from glory to this world to die. This will connect them with Heaven. It will bind them to the great white throne. Their interests will be there. As a little boy once said to me when he brought me some money for the missionary cause, "I want that you should buy tracts with this, so that I can see some souls saved in Heaven through my help when I get there." He had been taught to believe that if he co-operated with the Saviour in the salvation of souls, he would see them in the kingdom of God, and would know that his sacrifices had contributed to their salvation. We say to all, Do not be discouraged in the missionary work; the great reckoning day is just before us, and then God will reward every man as his works shall be. "For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labor of love." May the Lord especially bless all those who feel an interest in the missionary work. Our feelings while here are especially drawn out after those that feel an interest in the mission in the Australian colonies. Not because souls here are any more precious than anywhere else, but because there is a field here that has been so long neglected in the past, and because it is a field that has such fair prospects of good being accomplished, if the proper efforts are put forth soon. The Lord is certainly with his truth, and is preparing hearts for its reception everywhere. It becomes us to act well our part in this great work, and do that which we do soon, for the night cometh when no man can work. We are of good courage in the Lord.