Earlier text: THE ONE HOPE;Brother Anderson,
By Thos. K. Beecher
[WE are decidedly opposed to that style of so-called “Literature” which aims to murder the English language, and experiments to see how far it can diverge from the line of correct spelling and good taste. Whenever we find a good sentiment, as we sometimes do, disguised under outlandish style and abominably bad spelling, we translate it into as good English as possible before using it. But the following, recorded by T. K. Beecher, is natural and unaffected, and must reach the heart of all who can appreciate unlettered simplicity united with fervent Christian love. It is, in truth, a powerful argument in favor of the Christian religion; for what else could so inspire the heart, and raise it from the very depths of its ignorance to the moral sublimity which characterizes this unstudied speech. May we all learn its lesson.—Ed. Rev.] I was to preach for Bro. Anderson. He was a good pastor. Almost the last time I saw him, he had just called upon a lamb of his flock to ask after her spiritual welfare, and fifty cents toward his salary. He had left his tub and brushes at the foot of the hill, and he resumed them when he had made his call; for, like the great apostle, he used to labor, working with his own hands. For years I had met him, but had not known him; he was silent and constrained. He never seemed to know, much less resent, the caste prejudice that weighs so heavily on his race. All this was long ago. He has preached his last sermon, and is, I doubt not, restfully awaiting the resurrection of the just. Punctual to the hour, Bro. Anderson came rolling across the street and up to the door, and we went in together. After the usual songs and prayers, I took for my text Paul’s counsel to the Corinthians as to their disorderly meetings and meaningless noises. The sermon was in the main a reading of the fourteenth chapter of Paul’s first letter, with comments and applications interspersed. I spoke for half an hour, and while showing consideration for the noisy ways of my audience, exhorted them to cultivate intelligence as well as passion. “When you feel the glory of God in you, let it out of course. Shout glory, clap your hands, and all that. But stop now and let some wise elder stand up and tell what it all means. Men and boys hang round your windows, and laugh at you and religion, because they don’t understand you. Some men have religion all in the head—clear, sharp, dry and dead; others, all in the heart. They feel it in their bones. Now I want you to have religion in your heads and hearts. Let all things be done decently and in order.” I was very well satisfied with my effort at that time—it seemed a success. As I sat down, Bro. Anderson got up and stood on the pulpit step to give out a hymn— “Let saints below in concert sing.” I am not certain that he could read; for he stood, book in hand, and seemingly from memory gave the number of the hymn, and repeated the first two stanzas with deep and growing feeling. Of the third, he read three lines: One army ob de livin’ God
To his comman’ we bow;
Part of ’e hos(t) ’av cross’er flood,
An’ part—— Here he stopped, and after swallowing one or two chokes, went on to say: “I love brudder Beecher. I love to hear him preach dis afternoon. He’s told us a good many things. He’s our good fren. An’ he sez, sez he, dat some folks goes up to glory noisy ’n shouting, an’ some goes still-like ’z if they’s ’shame of wot’s in ’em. An’ he sez we’d better be more like de still kind, an’ white folks more like us. An’ den I thinks ’taint much ’count no way, wedder we goes up still-like or shouting, ’cause Heaven’s a mighty big place, brudders; an’ wen we all goes marchin’ up to see de Lord, an’ I’s so full ob de lub and de joy and de glory dat I mus’ clap my han’s an’ shout, de good Lord’s got some place whar we won’t ’sturb nobody, and we kin shout—Glory! Glory! Bless de Lord! I’m safe, I’m safe in de glory at las’! I tell you, brudders an’ sisters, dat Heaven’s a mighty big place, an’ dar’s room for brudder Beecher an’ us too.” Dat’s so! Bless de Lord! Amen! Glory! (from the people). “An’ brudder Beecher sez dat ’tis’n de folks as makes mos’ noise dat does the mos’ work. He says the injins on the railroad only puff—puff—puff—reg’lar breathin’ like, wen dey’s at work a haulin’ de big loads, and dat de bells and dat de whistles don’ do no work; dey only make a noise. Guess dat’s so. I don’ know ’bout injins much, and I don’ know wedder I’s a puff—puff injin, or wedder I blows de whistle an’ rings de bell. I feels like bofe (with a chuckle) sometimes! An’ I tell you what, wen de fire is a burnin’, an’ I gets de steam up, don’t dribe no cattle on de track; de injin’s comin’! Cl’ar de track!” (This with a voice that shook the little house, and a “magnetism” that thrilled and fixed me. Of course his hearers were by this time swaying, shouting, and amen-ing splendidly.) “An’ de boys an’ gals, an’ de clarks an’ young lawyers, dey come up yar watch-night, an’ dey peek in de windows an’ stan’ round de doors; and dey laff an’ make fun of lig’n’! an’ brudder Beecher sez, Why don’t we stop de noise now’n den, an’ go out an’ tell ’em ’bout it—’splain it to ’em. An’ I members wot de Bible says ’bout the outer darkness, and de weepin’ an’ de wailin’ an’ de gnashin’ ob teeth. An’—if dese boys an’ gals stan’ dar outside a laffin’, bymby dey’ll com’ to de wailin’ an’ de weepin’ fus dey know. An’ den wen dey stan’ roun’ de great temple of de Lord an’ see de glory shinin’ out, an’ de harpers harpin’, an’ all de music, an’ de elders bowin’, an’ all de shoutin’ like many waters, an’ all de saints a singin’, Glory to de Lam! ’spose God’ll say, Stop that noise dar! Gabriel! You Gabriel! go out an’ ’splain?” “Yes, I see dem stan’ las’ winter roun’ de doors an’ under de windows an’ laff; an’ dey peep in and laff.” An’ I remember wot I saw last summer ’mong de bees. Some ob de hives was nice an’ clean an’ still, like ’spectable meetin’s; and de odders was a bustin’ wid honey; and de bees kep’ a goin’ an’ a comin’ in de clover; an’ dey jes kep’ on a fillin’ up de hive till de honey was a flowin’ like de lan’ of Canaan. An’ I saw all roun’ de hives was de ants an’ worms, an’ de great drones, an’ black bugs, an’ dey kep’ on de outside. Dey wa’n’ bees. Dey couldn’t make de honey for darselves. Dey couldn’t fly to de clover an’ de honeysuckle. Dey juss hung roun’ de bustin’ hive an’ liv’ on de drippin’s.” “An’ de boys an’ gals come up yar an’ hang roun. Jes come in an’ we’ll show you how de gospel bees do! Come in, an’ we’ll lead you to the clover! Come in, an’ we’ll make your wings grow! Come in! won’t ye? Well den, poor things, let ’em stan’ roun’ de outside an’ have the drippin’s! We’s got honey in dis hive.” Raising the hymn-book, and with tender voice, he took up the stanza just where he had left it— “Part of ’e hos’ av cross’er flood,
And part are crossin’ now.” “Sing, brudders!” said he; and to his “lining out” they sang the whole hymn as only such as they can sing. All this was ten or twelve years ago. I remember that while he was speaking, my sermon seemed to shrink and fade. And now as I recall the scene, and recall his words but in part, I am feeling the power of his truth—Heaven’s a mighty big place. The Father’s house hath many homes and places prepared for many. Was he dreaming of these as he went about our streets with tub and brushes to whiten and sweeten the homes of men? Did he wear his rags contentedly, mindful of his robes shining and exceeding white as snow? In that day when those are last that shall be first, few will look down to find BROTHER ANDERSON.—Thos. K. Beecher. During the religious revival of 1857-8, a circle of ministers were discussing the peculiar features of that awakening. One of these ministers, a distinguished professor in a theological seminary, had just come from a large meeting in one of the churches. He gave his views respecting the phase of Christian experience which he had observed there, and concluded his remarks with these words: “If I am not mistaken, the pastors of the churches will soon have to dig down and put spiles under a good deal of this religion.” However we may explain it, that remarkable awakening was characterized more by breadth than depth. It was wonderful to see such multitudes drawn together in religious meetings held on week-days and at all hours. It was amazing how well-nigh universal was the attention to religion. Great numbers became members of the church. All denominations received a large accession of numerical strength. But it was no less observable that the average type of experience lacked some of the characteristics which are generally looked for. There was less than usual of deep and pungent conviction of sin—less of that profound solemnity which was seen in the revivals of 1831—less despondency, fewer groans and tears. All was jubilant, and it seemed as if we had come upon a new dispensation of grace which almost left the cross out of discipleship. The last few years of our church life have borne the same marks. It may be idle to attempt explanation. The pulpit has remitted its terrors very considerably. Persuasion has largely supplanted the earlier form of preaching to alarm the conscience. The typical text has been, “Whosoever will, let him come.” “Flee from the wrath to come” has been little used. Heaven has been portrayed in every form of fascination. Few ministers have thought it best to speak much of hell. The technical difficulties of religious experience have been reduced to their minimum. Subjective religion has given place to the objective. Experience has been pretty much dispensed with, while the convert has been satisfied to begin some active service of doing good. Meanwhile the regimen of Christian life has been made easier from year to year. The old ideas of consistency have been much relinquished. The line of separation between the church and the world has been erased. It would be difficult to say now-a-days what, if any, pleasures the Christian is bound to relinquish for the sake of Christ. Things for which people were put under discipline some years ago are now practiced by members of the best standing in our best churches. We have certainly drifted very far away from the religious ideas and experiences which prevailed in the days of Payson, and Nettleton, and Spencer. The offense of the cross has ceased. Gratification is largely the inspiration of our present work, in pulpit and in pew. Nothing is so much deprecated as a somber and too serious putting of religion to the young. How to please, how to win, how to leave out the cross, is more and more the study in many, perhaps in most, quarters. Now it is idle to attempt the analysis of invisible forces which elude our scrutiny. It was unwise to set ourselves against the inevitable. By all means we should avoid the spirit of moroseness and narrow devotion to the past. We should purge ourselves of bigotry. We must keep abreast with the age, and mingle our service and sympathy with the throbbing present. But there is no reason that we should delude ourselves as to the type of our current Christianity. We have gained immensely in breadth, but we have correspondingly lost in depth. The young Christian of to-day, wearying himself in every kind of worldly pleasure, is certainly in unfavorable contrast to the cross-bearing and scrupulous convert of former days. We are losing Abraham’s faith and sacrifice and power of intercession; and are taking on Lot’s dubious type of godliness in the plains of Sodom. Something is wrong. We are not sure that we can say what it is. The foundations of Christian experience and example are certainly settling. The walls of our modern Zion show many ominous cracks. We have reason to fear that the bottom courses do not stand as they ought. Will some one tell us what will become of our building if repairs are neglected? or how we can get spiles under our settling walls? How can we make our religious structure equal to the weight it must carry before we reach the top stone?—Presbyterian. The Declaration of Independence says “all men are created equal,” and the Hebrews appear to be trying to test the matter. While so much ado is being made about Sabbath desecration and disturbing worshiping congregations, the following is pointed. A Chicago paper says it “purports to be a petition of the Jewish congregations in the city, asking that they may be protected from disturbance during the hours of worship on their Sabbath.” It appears to us highly probable that it is not genuine, but that it was gotten up only to set somebody thinking. It will soon be seen, however, that minorities have no rights which majorities are bound to respect in the United States. “The disturbance and interruption of our worship being, under the laws of this State, a crime against public morality, and your Honors being intrusted with the care for the public morality of this city, it becomes your duty to see to the execution of this law as well as any other touching offenses against public morality. The profane swearing, vulgar language, and disorderly conduct on the public streets and thoroughfares during our service hours grievously interrupt and disturb our worshiping congregations, and the sales of all kinds of articles by our business houses in this city tend to attract large crowds, carrying away their purchases by means of hacks, wagons, drays, carriages, and other vehicles, even express companies aiding them,—all within one mile from our worshiping congregations, to our great annoyance and disturbance,—so crimes against the public morality are committed without molestation or hindrance, even under the eyes and with the connivance of the authorities. It may be said that in a good many cases the disturbance is only imaginary, but we, the pious people and not the disturbers, are the judges of what disturbs our devotions and meditations. The very name by which we call them, to wit, disturbers of our worship, is already conclusive upon them. Our houses of worship being mostly centrally located on the South Side, and our service hours being from 9 A. M. to 12 on Saturday, we claim that whoever should, during said hours, attempt to sell any article within the following territorial limits: From the river dividing the North and South Sides of the city to Twenty-second street (inclusive), and from the lake shore to Halsted street (inclusive), or commit any of the other acts declared crimes against public morality, should be immediately arrested and dealt with according to law.” Life is short and art is long. In the secular sphere it is conceded that the powerful minds are those who rigorously confine themselves to one department of thought. Newton cultivated thought and neglected literature. Kant wrought in the quicksilver mines of metaphysics for fifty years; and was happy in one work. These men made epochs, because they did not career over the whole encyclopædia. And the same is true in the sphere of religion. The giants in theology have dared to let many books go unread, that they might be profoundly versed in Revelation. And the mighty men in practical religion, the reformers, the missionaries, the preachers, have found in the distinctively evangelical elements of Christianity, and their application to the individual soul, enough, and more than enough, to employ all their powers and enthusiasm.—Dr. Shedd’s Homiletics. Temperance Orator's Reply on Grain and Distilling
An eloquent temperance orator was recently interrupted in the midst of an earnest address by the interrogatory, “What shall we do with all the grain that is now required for distilling?” “Feed the drunkard’s wife and children with it. They have gone hungry long enough,” was the ready reply. Testimony of the Fathers.
By John Nevins Andrews
This father was born “somewhere between A. D. 120 and A. D. 140.” He was “bishop of Lyons in France during the latter quarter of the second century,” being ordained to that office “probably about A. D. 177.” His work Against Heresies was written “between A. D. 182 and A. D. 188.” First-day writers assert that Irenæus “says that the Lord’s day was the Christian Sabbath.” They profess to quote from him these words: “On the Lord’s day every one of us Christians keeps the Sabbath, meditating on the law and rejoicing in the works of God.” No such language is found in any of the writings of this father. We will quote his entire testimony respecting the Sabbath and first-day, and the reader can judge. He speaks of Christ’s observance of the Sabbath, and shows that he did not violate the day. Thus he says:— “It is clear, therefore, that he loosed and vivified those who believe in him as Abraham did, doing nothing contrary to the law when he healed upon the Sabbath day. For the law did not prohibit men from being healed upon the Sabbaths; [on the contrary] it even circumcised them upon that day, and gave command that the offices should be performed by the priests for the people; yea, it did not disallow the healing of even dumb animals. Both at Siloam and on frequent subsequent occasions, did he perform cures upon the Sabbath; and for this reason many used to resort to him on the Sabbath days. For the law commanded them to abstain from every servile work, that is, from all grasping after wealth which is procured by trading and by other worldly business; but it exhorted them to attend to the exercises of the soul, which consist in reflection, and to addresses of a beneficial kind for their neighbor’s benefit. And therefore the Lord reproved those who unjustly blamed him for having healed upon the Sabbath days. For he did not make void, but fulfilled the law, by performing the offices of the high priest, propitiating God for men, and cleansing the lepers, healing the sick, and himself suffering death, that exiled man might go forth from condemnation, and might return without fear to his own inheritance. And again, the law did not forbid those who were hungry on the Sabbath to take food lying ready at hand: it did, however, forbid them to reap and to gather into the barn.”—Against Heresies, b. iv. chap. viii. sects. 2, 3. The case of the priests on the Sabbath he thus presents:— “And the priests in the temple profaned the Sabbath, and were blameless. Wherefore, then, were they blameless? Because when in the temple they were not engaged in secular affairs, but in the service of the Lord, fulfilling the law, but not going beyond it, as that man did, who of his own accord carried dry wood into the camp of God, and was justly stoned to death.” Book iv. chap. viii. sect. 3. Of the necessity of keeping the ten commandments, he speaks thus:— “Now, that the law did beforehand teach mankind the necessity of following Christ, he does himself make manifest, when he replied as follows to him who asked him what he should do that he might inherit eternal life: ‘If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.’ But upon the other asking, ‘Which?’ again the Lord replied: ‘Do not commit adultery, do not kill, do not steal, do not bear false witness, honor father and mother, and thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself,’—setting as an ascending series before those who wished to follow him, the precepts of the law, as the entrance into life; and what he then said to one, he said to all. But when the former said, ‘All these have I done’ (and most likely he had not kept them, for in that case the Lord would not have said to him, ‘Keep the commandments’), the Lord, exposing his covetousness, said to him, ‘If thou wilt be perfect, go, sell all that thou hast, and distribute to the poor; and come follow me,’ promising to those who would act thus, the portion belonging to the apostles. . . . But he taught that they should obey the commandments which God enjoined from the beginning, and do away with their former covetousness by good works, and follow after Christ.” Book iv. chap. xii. sect. 5. Irenæus certainly teaches a very different doctrine from that of Justin Martyr concerning the commandments. He believed that men must keep the commandments, in order to enter eternal life. He says further:— “And [we must] not only abstain from evil deeds, but even from the desires after them. Now he did not teach us these things as being opposed to the law, but as fulfilling the law, and implanting in us the varied righteousness of the law. That would have been contrary to the law, if he had commanded his disciples to do anything which the law had prohibited.” Book iv. chap. xiii. sect. 1. He also makes the observance of the decalogue the test of true piety. Thus he says:— “They (the Jews) had therefore a law, a course of discipline, and a prophecy of future things. For God at the first, indeed, warning them by means of natural precepts, which from the beginning he had implanted in mankind, that is, by means of the decalogue (which, if any one does not observe, he has no salvation), did then demand nothing more of them.” Book iv. chap. xv. sect. 1. The precepts of the decalogue he rightly terms “natural precepts,” that is, precepts which constitute “the work of the law” written by nature in the hearts of all men, but marred by the presence of the carnal mind or law of sin in the members. That this law of God pertains alike to Jews and to Gentiles, he thus affirms:— “Inasmuch, then, as all natural precepts are common to us and to them (the Jews), they had in them, indeed, the beginning and origin; but in us they have received growth and completion.” Book iv. chap. xiii. sect. 4. It is certain that Irenæus held the decalogue to be now binding on all men: for he says of it in the quotation above, “Which if any one does not observe, he has no salvation.” But, though not consistent with his statement respecting the decalogue as the law of nature, he classes the Sabbath with circumcision, when speaking of it as a sign between God and Israel, and says, “The Sabbaths taught that we should continue day by day in God’s service.” Moreover the Sabbath of God, that is, the kingdom, was, as it were, indicated by created things; in which [kingdom], the man who shall have persevered in serving God shall, in a state of rest, partake of God’s table.” He says also of Abraham that he was “without observance of Sabbaths.” Book iv. chap. xvi. sects. 1, 2. But in the same chapter he again asserts the perpetuity and authority of the decalogue in these words:— “Preparing man for this life, the Lord himself did speak in his own person to all alike the words of the decalogue; and therefore, in like manner, do they remain permanently with us, receiving, by means of his advent in the flesh, extension and increase, but not abrogation.” Section 4. This statement establishes the authority of each of the ten commandments in the gospel dispensation. Yet Irenæus seems to have regarded the fourth commandment as only a typical precept, and not of perpetual obligation like the others. Irenæus regarded the Sabbath as something which pointed forward to the kingdom of God. Yet in stating this doctrine, he actually indicates the origin of the Sabbath at creation, though, as we have seen, elsewhere asserting that it was not kept by Abraham. Thus, in speaking of the reward to be given the righteous, he says:— “These are [to take place] in the times of the kingdom, that is, upon the seventh day, which has been sanctified, in which God rested from all the works which he created, which is the true Sabbath of the righteous, in which they shall not be engaged in any earthly occupation; but shall have a table at hand prepared for them by God, supplying them with all sorts of dishes.” Book v. chap. xxxiii. sect. 2. And he elsewhere says: “In as many days as this world was made, in so many thousand years shall it be concluded. . . . For the day of the Lord is as a thousand years: and in six days created things were completed: it is evident, therefore, that they will come to an end at the sixth thousand year.” Book v. chap. xxviii. sect. 3. Though Irenæus is made by first-day writers to bear a very explicit testimony that Sunday is the Christian Sabbath, the following, which constitutes the seventh fragment of what is called the “Lost Writings of Irenæus,” is the only instance which I have found in a careful search through all his works in which he even mentions the first day. Here is the entire first-day testimony of this father:— “This [custom], of not bending the knee upon Sunday, is a symbol of the resurrection, through which we have been set free, by the grace of Christ, from sins, and from death, which has been put to death under him. Now this custom took its rise from apostolic times, as the blessed Irenæus, the martyr and bishop of Lyons, declares in his treatise On Easter, in which he makes mention of Pentecost also; upon which [feast] we do not bend the knee, because it is of equal significance with the Lord’s day, for the reason already alleged concerning it.” Section 4. This is something very remarkable. It is not what Irenæus said after all, but is what an unknown writer, in a work entitled Quæs. et Resp. ad Orthod., says of him. And all that this writer says of Irenæus is that he declares the custom of not kneeling upon Sunday “took its rise from apostolic times”! It does not even appear that Irenæus even used the term Lord’s day as a title for the first day of the week. Its use in the present quotation is by the unknown writer to whom we are indebted for the statement here given respecting Irenæus. And this writer, whoever he be, is of the opinion that the Pentecost is of equal consequence with the so-called Lord’s day! And well may he so judge, inasmuch as both of these Catholic festivals are only established by the authority of the church. The testimony of Irenæus in behalf of Sunday does therefore amount simply to this: That the resurrection is to be commemorated by “not bending the knee upon Sunday”! The fiftieth fragment of the “Lost Writings of Irenæus” is derived from the Nitrian Collection of Syriac MSS. It relates to the resurrection of the dead. In a note appended to it, the Syriac editor says of Irenæus that he “wrote to an Alexandrian to the effect that it is right, with respect to the feast of the resurrection, that we should celebrate it upon the first day of the week.” No extant writing of Irenæus contains this statement, but it is likely that the Syriac editor possessed some portion of his works now lost. And here again it is worthy of notice that we have from Irenæus only the plain name of “first day of the week.” As to the manner of celebrating it, the only thing which he sets forth is “not bending the knee upon Sunday.” In the thirty-eighth fragment of his “Lost Writings” he quotes Col. 2:16, but whether with reference to the seventh day, or merely respecting the ceremonial sabbaths, his comments do not determine. We have now given every statement of Irenæus which bears upon the Sabbath and the Sunday. It is manifest that the advocates of first-day sacredness have made Irenæus testify in its behalf to suit themselves. He alludes to the first day of the week once or twice, but never uses for it the title of Lord’s day or Christian Sabbath, and the only thing which he mentions as entering into the celebration of the festival was that Christians should not kneel in prayer on that day! By first-day writers, Irenæus is made to bear an explicit testimony that Sunday is the Lord’s day and the Christian Sabbath! And to give great weight to this alleged fact, they say that he was the disciple of Polycarp, who was the disciple of John: and whereas John speaks of the Lord’s day, Irenæus, who must have known what he meant by the term, says that the Lord’s day is the first day of the week! But Polycarp, in his epistle, does not even mention the first day of the week, and Irenæus, in his extended writings, mentions it only twice, and that in “lost fragments” preserved at second hand, and in neither instance does he call it anything but plain “first day of the week”! And the only honor which he mentions as due this day is that the knee should not be bent upon it! And even this was not spoken of every Sunday in the year, but only of “Easter Sunday,” the anniversary of Christ’s resurrection! Here we might dismiss the case of Irenæus. But our first-day friends are determined at least to connect him with the use of Lord’s day as a name for Sunday. They, therefore, bring forward Eusebius, who wrote 150 years later than Irenæus, to prove that he did call Sunday by that name. Eusebius alludes to the controversy in the time of Irenæus, respecting the annual celebration of Christ’s resurrection in what was called the festival of the passover. He says (Eccl. Hist., b. v. chap. xxiii.) that the bishops of different countries, and Irenæus was of the number, decreed that the mystery of our Lord’s resurrection should be celebrated on no other day than the Lord’s day; and that on this day alone we should observe the close of the paschal fasts, and not on the fourteenth of the first month as practiced by the other party. And in the next chapter, Eusebius represents Irenæus as writing a letter to this effect to the Bishop of Rome. But observe, Eusebius does not quote the words of any of these bishops, but simply gives their decisions in his own language. There is therefore no proof that they used the term Lord’s day instead of first day of the week. But we have evidence that in the decision of this case which Irenæus sent forth, he used the term, “first day of the week.” For the introduction to the fiftieth fragment of his “Lost Writings,” already quoted, gives an ancient statement of his words in this decision, as plain “first day of the week.” It is Eusebius who gives us the term Lord’s day in recording what was said by these bishops concerning the first day of the week. In his time, A. D. 324, Lord’s day had become a common designation of Sunday. But it was not such in the time of Irenæus, A. D. 178. We have found no writer who flourished before him who applies it to Sunday; it is not so applied by Irenæus; and we shall find no decisive instance of such use till the close of the second century. J. N. A. The Michigan Camp-Meeting.
By George I. Butler
I do not design to write a lengthy report of this meeting, partly for lack of time, and partly because others will doubtless have something to say in reference to it. This was a large meeting, some sixty-six tents being erected in the large circle, and the congregation numbering many hundreds constantly. The ground was very pleasant, the weather good, and the people listened attentively. Testimony No. 23 was issued while the meeting was in progress, and added much to the solemn interest of the occasion. The preaching was in harmony with the sentiment of the testimony, and not calculated to make our people feel easy in their present condition, or to bring them into a feeling of self-complacency. The solemn truths of the message to the Laodiceans, the necessity of true penitence and confession of sin, the importance of a greater amount of the spirit of sacrifice, and the need of a broader, more comprehensive view of the extent and importance of our work, were the main features dwelt upon. The recent appeal of Bro. White to our people upon these points was backed up, and we are happy to say there was quite a satisfactory response, so far as means were concerned. Michigan, the great central State of our cause, showed herself in harmony with the work, and took hold nobly in our proposed school. Some $16,000 were pledged to that enterprise Sunday morning, in addition to nearly $5,000 raised before during the season past. There seems to be a fair prospect that the amount of Bro. White’s call for the school will be met the present season. There were good confessions made upon the ground by some, and there seemed to be a clearer understanding of the system and discipline necessary among us than heretofore existed. Twenty-five were baptized. Bro. Harmon Kenyon was set apart by the laying on of hands to the solemn work of the ministry. Those desiring to ascertain the workings of the Health Institute will consult the forthcoming report. They will see a gratifying evidence that that important institution has become self-sustaining under the present management, and its prospects for increased usefulness have never been so bright as now. When our people place it upon a proper basis, it must become, with God’s blessing, a power in the work of God. We looked forward almost with dread to this great meeting; but we feel, on the whole, well pleased with its results. Camp-Meeting in Maine.
By George I. Butler
This meeting was quite well attended by the brethren and sisters of Maine, and was, all things considered, a profitable one. The congregation was somewhat larger than it was last year. The crowd on Sunday was as large as almost any in any part of the country. Eld. Andrews attended this meeting with me and assisted in the labor, while Eld. Haskell went to New York city to assist in the matter of purchasing new presses for the Office. A certain degree of discouragement has seemed to rest upon the minds of the friends of the cause in Maine, because of past troubles, and because of the course of some who formerly labored in the employ of the Conference, not bearing the burdens they should have borne, and holding fast to the truth. But we think this meeting had the effect to encourage many who attended to a renewal of their efforts in the good work. There was a very solemn feeling and spirit manifested upon the ground and some good confessions made by those who had held back from their duty in the past. On Sabbath, many came forward for prayers and expressed a decided desire to draw nearer the Lord. Our meeting had to close somewhat earlier than in other places in order that we might make the trip from Maine to Michigan in season for that important gathering, and the people did not receive the profit they otherwise would on this account. There were no marked features of interest of special character occurring, yet the result was, on the whole, good for the cause in the State. Encouraging results were shown in the working of the tract and missionary society. We raised a fund of $200 to pay up past indebtedness and forward the operations of the society for the coming year. $700 were raised for the school. Quite a number of souls had been brought out upon the truth the past season by Brn. Blaisdell and Webber. There is great need of laborers in that State. Much good could be done were this want supplied. GEO. I. BUTLER. To the Tract and Missionary Societies in the West.
By Stephen N. Haskell
Last spring, we visited some of the western Conferences, and made an effort to assist the brethren in their tract and missionary work. While in these various States, the brethren took hold nobly to settle up the amounts of delinquency on our periodicals, which the various Conferences had previously voted to assume; also adopted such changes in their method of operation as bade fair to give the missionary society a new impetus. In every Conference where we held meetings there was money pledged, including what was paid, sufficient to settle their delinquency and have an amount to purchase tracts to commence operations with. Some of these States have moved forward, collected their pledges, and balanced their accounts. Michigan, which was owing about twelve hundred dollars after the discount made by the publishing association, is now paid. Minnesota was the first that settled their delinquency in connection with this labor. The other Conferences have done something toward it. Yet in the brief space of time we were West, we could do but little more than to help the brethren set the thing in motion. We now propose, if the brethren in these different Conferences desire it, after the close of the Illinois meeting, to go over this ground again. One meeting in Iowa, Oct. 9 to 13; Oct. 18, 19 and 25, 26, in Minnesota; November 1, 2 and 8, 9, in Wisconsin, then spend four weeks in Michigan, commencing Nov. 15, 16. The last meeting in each State should be a general quarterly meeting. Previous to that, each district should hold its quarterly meeting in season to report the same to the State quarterly meeting. This is necessary that we may learn what all parts of each Conference are doing, and thus be better able to assist the brethren and sisters in their efforts. In fact, if we cannot have a meeting of this kind, it would hardly be worth while to visit these different States so far as the tract and missionary work is concerned. We would suggest to the friends in Michigan that the district quarterly meetings commence with our first meeting in that State. So I shall be able to attend four district quarterly meetings, the last one to be in connection with the State meeting. In other parts of the State, the meetings will be held by the directors at the same time. We hope, with the blessing of God and the united co-operation of the friends of the cause, that each of these meetings will be a success. We shall have with us the Office account of the standing of the T. and M. Society in each Conference and their delinquent matter where it has not been fully settled; and earnestly hope that each Conference will be prepared to settle arrearages and enter upon the cash system.