During the period embraced in the record of the book of Acts, who were upon the stage of action?
What was the character of the church during this time?
When we leave the period embraced in the inspired history, does this state of things continue?
What did Paul forewarn the church should take place after his departure?
As grievous wolves were then to enter the church, are we authorized to receive the testimony of any man, merely because he lived in, or near, the days of the apostles?
In what texts is there an explicit prediction of a great apostasy in the church?
Upon what does the Romish church pride itself?
Can it find its origin in apostolic times?
But is its apostolic character admitted?
Can anything become good which was in itself evil at its origin?
What great falsehood illustrates this?
Can God accept fables in place of his truth?
Do the pages of ecclesiastical history show the fulfillment of the predictions of the New Testament respecting this great apostasy in the church?
When did the first simplicity of the church disappear? p. 197, top.
At what time was image-worship introduced into the church? p. 198, top.
What did Paul say of the mystery of iniquity in his day?
What shall be said of those who go to this period to correct their Bibles?
How does Bower say that we should treat tradition?
What is the only rule of faith and practice for Protestants?
How does Dr. Cumming speak of the fathers of the church?
What is said of those who were really fitted to be luminaries of the age in which they lived?
What was the character of those who occupied their time in preparing treatises?
What does Dr. Clarke say of the fathers?
Treating of them in his life, what language does he use?
What does E. Pagitt testify that the church of Rome has done to the fathers?
What instance can be given from the Bible to show the unreliable nature of tradition?
How many rules of faith embrace the whole Christian world?
What is the rule of the man of God?
What is the rule of the Romanist?
Can the first day Sabbath be sustained by the first of these rules?
What rule then do those adopt who advocate the sacredness of the first day of the week?
To adopt the first rule is to acknowledge what?
By adopting the second what do we acknowledge?
Can any argument or suggestion be offered in favor of Sunday which will not apply with equal force, and to its fullest extent to the other holy days appointed by the church of Rome?
THE FIRST WITNESSES FOR SUNDAY.
What does Mosheim state respecting the first century?
In contradiction of this what does Neander say?
In what century did Mosheim write?
In what century, Neander?
These writers are dependent upon the testimony of others to prove their statements; and what are the only documents to which they can refer?
What are the questions to be decided by this testimony?
As for the New Testament does that contain any appointment for Sunday worship?
Does the example of the church of Jerusalem contain anything of the kind?
Does the New Testament then support the statement of Mosheim?
What does the epistle of Barnabas say in behalf of first-day observance?
What eminent authors present unanswerable testimony that this epistle is a forgery? pp. 207-209.
What is the next document to be considered? p. 210.
What does Pliny say of the Christians in his province?
Is it certain, or can it be decided from the epistle, which day of the week this "stated day" was?
Does it, then, prove anything in behalf of Sunday-observance?
What is the next document that claims our attention? p. 211, bottom.
What is Ignatius represented as saying about the Sabbath and Lord's day?
What do first-day writers of high authority acknowledge in regard to these epistles of Ignatius?
Do those which some admit as possibly genuine, include this epistle to the Magnesians, from which the quotation for Sunday is made?
How happens it that this epistle speaks of a day at all?
What authors speak expressly of the doubtful character of these Ignatian epistles? pp. 212, 213.
What eminent author shows that the word day is inserted by fraud? p. 214, bottom.
Instead of "Lord's day," what should it read?
What eminent writers confirm this statement of Kitto's?
Give the sum of this argument?
Whose testimony then is correct, Mosheim's or Neander's?
“Lie not against the Truth.”
By Moses Hull
For a few weeks past these words have rested with weight upon my mind, and more than once have I asked myself the question, am I obeying this injunction? Am I living out the truth in all its principles? Or am I lying against it?
We stand out before the world as monuments—as specimens of what the truth can do for its adherents. The truth is sanctifying in its influences. The Saviour prayed, “Sanctify them through thy truth, thy word is truth.” Jno. xvii, 17. We, as a people, profess to have come out of Babylon, to have stepped out on the truth. We profess to know and practice more truth than do the churches around us. Now the question is, Does the truth which we have, that they have not, make us better than they?
To illustrate. If we have twice as much truth as the Methodists have, we should live that much nearer to God than they do. If we do not we are saying that that truth which we have, that they have not, is worth nothing, or, that naturally we are not so good as they, for it takes twice the amount of truth to keep us near to God, that it does to keep them.
A man has a horse which he thinks is a good one. So has B. But B. claims, that although his horse is in no better order, can travel no faster, or draw no heavier load than A.’s yet his horse is the best, because he eats twice the amount of oats daily that A.’s does. Reader which of the horses would you prefer? Would you not say that the one, that could be kept in the same condition, and do the same amount of work on the small amount of food, was the best horse!
Then how is it with S. D. Adventists who are feeding upon more than twice the amount of good wholesome Bible truth that others have? Should it not bring us that much nearer to God? And if it does not, is it not demonstrative evidence that we are that much harder to keep than others? Is there not at least some danger that while we are contemplating the beauty and harmony of the “present truth,” we shall in a measure forget the spiritual past, and say “I am rich and increased with goods and have need of nothing!” For myself I fear. Would that the Lord would roll upon us a solemn sense of our responsibility as the ones with whom the last solemn message of mercy is entrusted.
Our Saviour said, “Ye are the light of the world.” Matt. v, 14. It is impossible, that infidels should be convinced of the divinity of the Christian religion, by reading the Bible. They do not appreciate or believe13it. Hence, the Bible can only make an indirect impression upon them: that is, through the church.
But if the people of God are half-hearted, what is the impression made upon the minds of infidels? They conclude at once, that these are specimens of Bible believers—of what Christianity can do for those who adhere to it, and become disgusted with professed Christians, and think they are disgusted with the Bible. How often in my short experience have the lives of professed Christians been held up before me, and I have been tauntingly asked to point out the difference between the church and the world! Why is this? Does the Bible fail to make men better? or is it because men lie against the truth?
May we be found among those who are “sanctified through the truth,” that when our King comes and gathers his jewels, we may belong to that righteous nation, which have kept the truth, and have the privilege of entering in. Isa. xxvi, 3.
The Sabbath.
By Editor
QUESTION. Would it be right for a Sabbath-keeper to rent a house, or farm, or a mill to be used on the Sabbath?
ANSWER. It is a pleasure to notice these questions which arise from a conscientious desire to correctly observe the Sabbath.
The design of the fourth commandment is to secure to the people of God rest and freedom from worldly care upon the seventh day. Any arrangement of secular matters which would endanger the quiet of the Sabbath, and be liable to take the mind from sacred subjects, is not in harmony with the great object of the Sabbath. Hence all within our gates should yield to the claims of the Sabbath law.
With this view of the subject, we do not see how those who conscientiously reverence the Sabbath of the fourth commandment, can take those into their houses as boarders who labor on the seventh day. In most cases boarders coming in for their meals, would require that attention upon the Sabbath which would disturb the quiet upon that day which was designed to be secured to the people of God.
Again, if a brother rents a shop to a Sabbath-breaker which is on the same village or city lot on which he lives, he and his family may often have their minds called from the sacredness of the Sabbath by circumstances connected with the business of that shop. Hence all within his gates should rest. Or if he rents the home farm, or any part of it, to a Sabbath-breaker, those within his gates are liable to have their minds caught away from the heavenly to the earthly by the usual stir of ploughing and sowing, driving and carting, reaping and threshing. If a special contract be made not to have labor performed on the home premises on the seventh day, then in most cases Sabbath disturbances are prevented.
But suppose the home, or farm, or mill is not connected with the Sabbath-keeper's place of residence and he rents either for one year and puts it from his control, and is in no way disturbed by the labor that is done on the farm &c during that time we do not see that he violates the great principle of the Sabbatic institution.
"Turn Ye, Turn Ye"
By E. Goodrich
In mathematics we have points, lines, angles, courses and distances, all of which are used in surveying and navigation, and are necessary in order to determine the relative position of places. In morals and religion also, as well as in mathematics, the mind clearly recognizes the above primary principles. Every action has a point or place of beginning and a certain direction. The man who gets wrong, will if he continues, surely end wrong. And the necessity of turning is found in the fact that the right point or course has been left. The point where a treasure is lost or dropped is the place to find it. Wandering will not regain it.
Men seek to be happy. They want truth on their side; and they want to accomplish their designs. Yet to turn round and retrace their steps when going wrong or astray is a cross. And the doctrine of repentance, however crossing to the carnal mind, is a moral necessity growing out of the fact that "all we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way." We are wrong. We have left God and the truth. We have altogether become filthy. Now if we regain what has been lost, if we would know the truth and be free, we must turn back to God, to the place of beginning. Repentance is turning again to the right point, is giving up our wills for the will of God. Man rebelled in claiming that which belonged to God, in arrogating to himself that which God never gave but prohibited, in trying to exalt self in opposition to the law of God. The doctrine of repentance therefore says, Turn back; give up; yield. Yea every lesson of Christianity from A to Z, teaches to deny self and serve the Lord. If men will persist in straying away, and wandering without hope and without God in the world, why of course they can in spite of all the pleadings of mercy and the wooings of love and charity.
God loves man, yet he does not, neither can he, sufficiently to save him in his sin. Such would not benefit man. God does not grant pardon to the impenitent; that would do him no good. Angels rejoice over sinners that repent; and religion even in its most extended and benevolent form cannot rejoice in iniquity but in the truth. The fact is, man has sinned; hence the language, "Cease to do evil, learn to do well". Again, "Let the wicked forsake his way and the unrighteous man his thoughts, and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon."
Some there are who teach that the law of God was all abolished, nailed to the cross, taken out of the way. Such a sentiment is a monstrous absurdity alike dishonoring to God and false. What! Would God give his only begotten Son to redeem man from the curse of a broken law when the same blow that sacrificed his Son killed the law also!
Christ magnified the law and made it honorable by keeping it to the least and last jot and tittle, and by being made a curse for us, suffering the just for the unjust that he might bring us to God. Christ came expressly to seek and save that which was lost. He came to show men the way of life by turning them back to God and the truth.
It was the disobedience of one that brought misery and death into our world. It was sin, the transgression of just laws that insulted and offended God. And it is obedience, that renders him gracious toward man.
It was the sin of one man that shut us from the tree of life, and it is the obedience of another that opens the way of salvation to us. The law teaches us not to stray from God. The gospel finds us astray and seeks to turn us back to God. Does the gospel then make void the law? Certainly not.
Does it teach that we may continue in sin that the favor of God may abound? Assuredly this cannot be.
What then are we to do? Why repent! Turn back to God and live. We are to exercise repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Repentance toward God, because it is against him we have wickedly sinned, and faith in Jesus because he is the remedy that God has provided for us. Yea he is the life the truth and the way. Turn ye, turn ye, for why will ye die, oh ruined sinners.
E. Goodrich.
Edinboro, Pa.
The Moral System.
By James H. Waggoner
I now propose a question which the reckless and the heedless may pass by without particular notice; but the thinking and the candid will admit to be one of immense interest. Will these aspirations, this innate sense of justice, ever be gratified? That they are not, that they cannot be gratified in the present state, need not be argued. Is my moral nature, my sense of right and justice, satisfied to see virtue trodden under foot? to see the libertine mocking over the grave of blighted hopes and a broken heart? to see the priceless treasure of virtuous purity, around which cluster the fondest hopes of earth, sported with as a mere toy of little worth? to see honest toil sink unrequited, and hide itself in squalid poverty and a pauper's grave? to see the vain rolling in wealth accumulated by fraud and oppression? to see vice exalted to the pinnacle of fame? to hear the praises of him whose very presence is loathsome by reason of the filthiness of his iniquity? and when words fail to express the horrors of such and kindred evils, must I smile complacently and say, This is right; in this my soul delights? But this is but a mere glance at the facts as they exist, as they have existed, and are likely to exist in this present state. Is it possible that these aspirations, these discriminations of right and wrong, were placed within our breasts to be mocked—to look and long in vain? Is it possible that the Supreme One, who has so nicely arranged the material world, and subjected it to certain laws, has placed moral balances in our hands to no purpose? that we are to long for, but never see, a vindication of the great principles of justice? Is it not rather reasonable to conclude that he has a moral government, and that our moral sense is evidence that we are within the limits of a moral system? Are not our convictions of wrongs proofs to ourselves of our amenability to such a system?
The very fact that we discriminate between moral and natural laws, as I have shown that all men do, is a recognition of the fact that there is a moral government. Thus, to look above Nature—to acknowledge God as a moral Governor, is necessary, to be true to our own natures—to the convictions planted in every breast. In this great truth our aspirations find rest. Here our sense of justice takes refuge; for a government is a system of laws maintained, and the very idea of a moral government leads us to look forward to a vindication of the right principles or laws now trampled upon. Why should we pronounce upon the nature or demerit of human actions, if there is no accountability for those actions? Our feelings of responsibility (the movings of conscience) are but the expectation of a great assize, in or by which injustice, fraud, and every wrong, will be required, and down-trodden virtue and injured innocence be exalted and vindicated. This is, indeed, but a legitimate deduction from the propositions established, and in this we find a sure vindication of the divine government in regard to the anomalies of the present state.
We find some, even among those who acknowledge the existence of a supreme being, who deny the existence of moral wrong; but the reasonableness of their denial I cannot perceive. It is founded mostly on the alleged inability of man to act except in a given line.
But here again we find them false in their theory, and uniformly so. They will, as readily as others, sit in judgment upon, and condemn, the actions of their fellow-men. They will blame any for encroaching on their rights. But it were surely the hight of folly, the grossest injustice, to blame one for doing what he cannot avoid. And how unreasonable to think that God bestows a moral sense, and plants within us the monitor of conscience, to lead us to do right, and yet compels us to do wrong. We count the man immoral and degraded who disregards the distinctions of right and wrong; what then could we think of a God who would frame a system wherein these distinctions could not be preserved? And yet such is the case, if man has no freedom to act. We all acknowledge the difference between right and wrong, as principles; that it is right to regard our neighbor's life as property; and hence, he that disregards them does wrong. And all are conscious that the wrong we do is of ourselves; and no one ever seeks to throw it back to any other cause until his moral sense is perverted by selfishness and false reasoning.
Akin to the above position is the oft-repeated idea that God is so loving, so kind, that he will not mark to condemn our aberrations from duty. This is contrary to, and of course a denial of, the declarations of scripture. But let me ask the objector, laying the Bible aside. Where is your evidence that God so loves us? You surely do not learn from nature that love is the sole attribute of Deity. How came you by the idea that the Deity must possess love? Reflect on this. Whence do you derive your conceptions of love, and of its necessity in the divine character? Can you tell? Your only answer must be that they are intuitive; that you owe this conception to your own consciousness. You have, in a degree, an innate knowledge of the moral fitness of things; and according to this you clothe the Deity with such attributes as your moral sense determines to be fitting to him. But in the idea above advanced you are only partially true to your higher nature; partially just to your own consciousness, in awarding to Deity only love. For I affirm that our consciousness, our self-judgment of the moral fitness of things, gives us as definite and clear conceptions of justice as of love. All the propositions established in this argument tend to this point. We are apt to lose sight of justice, and to exalt love. This is quite natural with all who have any sense of wrong (and who has not?), for we feel the need of love or mercy, and are ever willing or anxious to screen ourselves from justice. But in this, as before remarked, we do violence to our moral sense, to gratify our selfish feelings. Can any one dispassionately reason and reflect on this subject, and accept the idea of a God of even partial justice? The idea is alike repugnant to reason and to reverence. God must be, strictly, infinitely just. I should choose to be annihilated rather than to possess immortal existence in a universe governed or controlled by a being of almighty power, but lacking justice.
But the thought is humiliating that a word of remark is necessary to prove to any that moral wrong exists. What! must I stop to reason with a man, a human being, with all his faculties in exercise, to prove to him that it is wrong to commit adultery, to murder, or to steal? To argue the question seems to insult the sense of mankind. The real question is how to dispose of the evil with which we meet; how to rescue criminals from the awful consequences of their violations of the law of Him who is infinitely just. I do not ask you to consider whether they might not be suffered to escape by suspending justice, or how they might stand before a being of partial justice; but how they are to stand when justice is maintained and vindicated on the scale of infinity. Let us consider the principles of government, and the means necessary (and possible) to restore the transgressor to favor.
I. SIN OUGHT TO BE PUNISHED.
In considering this I claim a clear distinction between mere consequences and penalties. I speak of14this because so many disregard it. The penalty gives force to the law, and without it law is a nullity. No matter what consequences may result from the violation of law, the criminal is not punished till the penalty is inflicted. We might find many cases in our courts where the accused has suffered consequences more severe than the punishment which the law inflicts; but the judge cannot regard these—his office is to see that the penalty prescribed by the law be inflicted. He who violates the law risks the penalty and the intermediate consequences. In behalf of the affirmation that the transgression of the law ought to be punished, I offer the following reasons:
1. It injures the subjects of the government. One great object of government is the good of the subjects. The imprisonment of the thief, the robber, the murderer, answers a double purpose, punishing the crimes, and preventing their further preying upon our property and our lives. The same law that restrains the evil-doer, secures the rights of the well-doer. Hence, every violation of the law of a government is an invasion of the rights of the subjects thereof. Its tendency will be more clearly seen if we imagine for a moment that the law be disregarded by not only one, but by many, or by all. Then all rights, all safeguards, would be trampled down, and the objects of government entirely defeated. This, of course, is the tendency of every transgression.
2. It brings contempt upon the government. At this time (1863) the force of this can be appreciated, while thousands are offering their lives to save our government from reproach. They well know that if the government cannot maintain respect, it cannot maintain its authority. Hence, all the evils referred to in the preceding reason are involved in this.
3. It insults and abuses the Creator and Governor. So blinding is the influence of sin that men despise the authority of God, and insult him daily, without any apparent compunction. All violations of law are insults to, and abuse of, authority. Every individual has rights in his own sphere, and there is no right more sacred than that of the Supreme authority to claim the respect and reverence of the subjects. And if the Governor be not respected, his government cannot be; and if that be not respected, of course the rights of the subjects under it will not be. Consider again, if this example was followed by all—by all the intelligences of the universe; if all the men on earth and all the angels in heaven should unite in abusing and insulting the God of heaven, his government would be turned into one vast field of anarchy, and individual rights would no longer be recognized. No one could consent that God should suffer such a state of things to continue without making an effort to reclaim the government, and to maintain and vindicate right laws. Of course all agree that sin ought to be punished.
II. CAN THE SINNER BE CLEARED?
This question is of the greatest importance, and I hope all will examine it with care. I think the sinner cannot possibly be cleared, unless one of the following things takes place:
1. The law be trampled upon with impunity. This, of course, should not be permitted, for reasons given above; and we may say, will not be permitted if the Executive has a proper sense of right and justice to himself and to his subjects, and requisite power to enforce his authority. But the divine attributes must be a sufficient guarantee to guard this point.
2. The law be abolished. But this would be an acknowledgment of weakness or error on the part of the government rather than evidence of wrong on the part of the transgressor. Or if the law was not acknowledged to be wrong, nor the government in error, the case would be equally bad, presenting the pitiable spectacle of a government abolishing a good law to accommodate a bad subject—one of rebellious tendencies. This would not be restraining sin; it would be rather favoring or licensing sin, and justifying the sinner in his evil course. And it would have a tendency to bring in all the evils of anarchy and ruin that we have considered as the unavoidable results of destroying governmental authority. Such libels I dare not throw on the government of God; and consider myself safe in declaring these suppositions inadmissible.
3. The Governor pardon. This is a prerogative that may, under proper restrictions and conditions, be safely exercised. Therefore we must accept this as the only alternative: as the only means whereby the sinner may escape from the punishment of his crimes.
By examining the foregoing points it will be perceived that the acts of abolishing the law, and pardoning the transgressor, cannot in any case be united. One would be a nullity if both were attempted. This will be further seen by answers to the following questions: What are the conditions under which pardon may be granted? and how will the government (which must ever be the first and chief concern) be affected thereby?
III. PARDON SUPPOSES OR RECOGNIZES
1. The guilt of the condemned. This is evident. To pardon an innocent man would be preposterous.
2. The power of the government. This is equally evident. To pardon is to remit a penalty which might be inflicted. It would be a mere farce to offer a pardon to those whom the government had no power to punish.
3. The justice of the law transgressed. This is nearly parallel with the first proposition, and like it, evident; for, to pronounce a man guilty is to say that he has done wrong. And if a violation of law be wrong, the law violated must be right. An unjust law is, in a moral view, a nullity. When a law is found to be unconstitutional, or a nullity, the prisoner under it is not pardoned; he is released from false imprisonment; and such release is of justice, not of mercy. But pardon is of favor. Thus it is clear that the justice of the law is acknowledged in the article of pardon. Now as pardon supposes the guilt of the prisoner, the power of the government, and the justice of the law, in all these it honors the government and vindicates its integrity.
But there are other principles involved. The act of pardon recognizes the claims of law, by recognizing its justice. Thus far it honors the government. But the question still remains, Are those claims satisfied as well as acknowledged? According to a plain truth before noticed, the sinner ought to be punished; justice imperatively demands it. How then can pardon be granted, and strict justice administered? In this case there will arise two conflicting interests; one of sympathy for the accused, leaning toward mercy; the other, strenuous for the integrity of the government, leaning toward justice. How can these principles be reconciled? Can both parties be satisfied? Here is a difficulty; and this will lead us to notice the conditions or restrictions under which pardon may be granted with safety. For an indiscriminate, unconditional pardon is dangerous to the government. Closely examining this subject we find
IV. WHAT THE GOVERNOR MUST DO IN GRANTING PARDON.
He must do one of the following things:
1. Disregard the strict claims of law and justice. But this, of course, is evil in its tendency, giving license to crime, and favoring lawlessness, rather than restraining it, which latter must remain the true object of government. This, indeed, is the very thing we have all the time been guarding against. We cannot admit this, it being dangerous to the government. Because if the claims of the law may be disregarded in one case, they may in many—they may in all; and then government is at an end. And if the executive sets the example of disregarding the claims of the law, it will show that he does not highly regard the strict claims of the law, and others may thereby be led to follow his example, or all may; and the result is the same—lawlessness and anarchy. And all this from following the example of him who occupies the throne of justice! The very thought is, in the highest degree, abhorrent. Only one way remains, that I can perceive, by which pardon may be granted without trampling on justice, and endangering the government: that is to
2. Make satisfaction to the law by voluntary substitution. If the substitution be voluntary, so that the substitute be satisfied, and the full penalty of the law be inflicted, so that the law and justice be satisfied, all must be satisfied—all conflicting interests and feelings must be reconciled. Let no one say, to oppose this, that such is not the case when pardon is granted in human governments; for these are imperfect, and instead of conforming strictly to justice, they can only hope to approximate it. The interests above referred to are never harmonized in human governments. In these, if the prisoner is punished less than the penalty indicated by the law, then the law is deprived just so much of its due. In such case justice is not reconciled or vindicated; it is suspended. All must see at a glance that the means herein proposed alone obviates all difficulties. Let us further examine its effects.
J. H. W.
(To be continued.)
ALIDA BROWN
By Alida Brown
From Sister Brown.
BRO. WHITE: I have often felt a desire to say a few words to the brethren and sisters through the Review, having so often been cheered by hearing from them.
When I read yours headed, The scattered flock, I determined to try to bear some humble part in the work. I love the Review. It is nearly all the preaching I have had for a long time. He that loved to go with me to the house of prayer is now resting in the silent grave, and I have to depend upon others.
Last Sabbath I had the privilege of meeting with the Brn. and Srs. at Princeville. It was truly a privilege to me. At the commencement of the meeting Bro. Blanchard made a few appropriate remarks, then gave the time to the Brn. and Sisters. The time was well15improved, and I believe all were blessed and strengthened.
To-day I met with them again and the Lord met with us by his Spirit. Every heart seemed to overflow with love.
I have had many trials and sorrows, but the Lord has not left me to bear them alone. He is my strength and my refuge, a present help in time of trouble, blessed be his holy name. I am striving to know and do my Master's will. Pray for me Brn. and Srs. that I may deal faithfully with the children committed to my care, that they may seek the Saviour in their youth and go with the remnant to Mount Zion.
Yours striving to overcome.
ALIDA BROWN
Akron, Ills.
Quarterly Meetings in Wisconsin.
By T. M. Steward
Bro. WHITE: We have just closed our quarterly meeting of the 16th and 17th. We had a refreshing time, if the testimonies of Brn. and Sisters can be relied upon. We were very much disappointed in not meeting Bro. Ingraham according to his appointment. But we had the presence of the great Shepherd. Jesus condescended to meet with us, and that to encourage and cheer us on in his cause. The cause is rising in this place. The Brn. begin to see the necessity of order, and they begin to take hold of it in earnest. May the Lord help us to right ourselves up and take our proper place in the church and in the cause.
At the close of our meeting, two were added to the church by baptism ; two others by vote, others intend to unite with us soon. The brethren here are willing to bear their proportion of the expense of runing the tent and the other expenses of the cause. May the Lord prosper them in so doing. We would be happy to meet with any of the preaching Brn. who may see fit to come this way.
Yours in hope of eternal life.
T. M. STEWARD.
Mauston, Wis.
Letters.
"Then they that feared the Lord, spake often one to another."
From Bro. Pennoyer.
BRO. WHITE: Being fully established that the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord, I feel it duty as well as a privilege to help sustain those who advocate such a doctrine. Brn. Cottrel and Andrews came here last winter and held forth some precious truths. Quite a number were moved, but few dare come out and confess it. The strong ties of sectarian influence seem to be quite sufficient to drown men in perdition.
The speedy return of our Lord and Saviour has been a most precious truth to me for about twenty years. I can say with my whole heart that I love it dearly. I can see at one glance that the prophecies of Daniel and John teach a great movement on the subject just prior to the event, so that both wise and foolish virgins will be fully manifest; that the good servant will be giving meat in due season, and the evil servant will dispute every inch of ground and instruct the people that the Lord delays his coming, but such teachers are as wells without water, clouds carried with a tempest, and such as are ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. But praise the Lord, what is darkness to some is a great light to others. Let us all be diligent that we may be found of him in peace.
Yours in love.
C. PENNOYER.
Lockport Niagara Co. N. Y.
Present Truth in Southern Minnesota
By E. W. Darling
From Bro. Darling.
BRO. WHITE: For the encouragement of the lonely ones I would say that after patient waiting, we now realize that which we hoped would come. We are privileged with hearing a course of lectures on present truth by Bro. Bostwick. This region is but thinly settled therefore the congregations are not large, but the interest is good, and though some seem to say, My farms my merchandise &c., yet these are those who are deeply interested and give every evidence of a determination to know and obey the truth. Meetings are held in two districts and there is a call from a third which will doubtless be answered in due time. I could name several places and communities where a hearing might be had. We think southern Minn. a favorable field for labor.
We listened to a discourse last evening on the two laws. It rejoiced us to have the law of God exalted to its true position. The testimony in its favor was plain and clear. O, God speed on thy message is the prayer of my heart.