Two views are held by different classes of theologians on the subject of reconciliation: One, that reconciliation is on the part of man only; the other, that reconciliation is mutual—that God is reconciled to man as well as man to God. It very frequently happens that controversy arises between men from a misapprehension of each other's meaning, and this is doubtless much the case on this subject. If it be shown that reconciliation must be on the part of an enemy or of the offending party only, then the first-named view is correct. But if by reconciliation is also meant that the justice of God must be appeased in behalf of the offender, the last view is the true one. Our inquiry must then be, Which is the scriptural view?
And first, it is necessary to notice the erroneous methods of expression which lead to misapprehension, whereby controversy on the subject is prolonged. Says Dr. Barnes:—
“Reconciliation is a fact produced between God and man by the atonement. God becomes the friend of the pardoned sinner.” —Atonement, p. 268.
This is equivalent to saying that God is not the friend, but the enemy, of the sinner before he is pardoned. But how, then, is pardon effected? The Saviour said that “God so loved the world as to give his only begotten Son.” Did he, as our enemy, love us? as our enemy, give his Son to die for us? was he, as our enemy, in Christ, reconciling us to himself? and does he, as our enemy, pardon us? and does he only become our friend after he has pardoned us? Now as Dr. Barnes was what is termed a “representative man,” it would be natural for any one, on reading such remarks from him, to judge that the doctrine itself was absurd.
While it is true that God loved the world and gave his Son to die for the world, it is equally true, and very evident, that the death of Christ does not take anything from our actual guilt. We are as deserving of punishment as if he had never died. And, if we are not reconciled to God, if we do not so accept the offering of Christ as to appropriate it as our own, and to cease our violations of the divine law, that offering avails nothing for us. The justice of God stands arrayed against us as really as if his Son had never died. His death is an offering to the divine law—a vindication of the integrity and justice of the divine government, but not so as to make our pardon inconsistent with free grace. Says Andrew Fuller, the eminent Baptist author:—
“Free grace, according to Paul, requires a propitiation, even the shedding of the Saviour’s blood, as a medium through which it may be honorably communicated.”
And again, speaking of sacrifices for sin, he says:—
“All agree in the idea of the displeasure of the Deity being appeasable by an innocent victim being sacrificed in the place of the guilty.”
This must be the correct idea. The justice or displeasure of the Deity is rendered appeasable by the sacrifice, but is really appeased by the mediation of our High Priest. And the Scriptures represent this as a reconciliation of God to man, as is said in Eze. 16:62, 63: “And I will establish my covenant with thee; and thou shalt know that I am the Lord; that thou mayest remember, and be confounded, and never open thy mouth any more because of thy shame, when I am pacified toward thee for all that thou hast done, saith the Lord God.”
The same word is here used in Eze. 16:36, that is frequently rendered reconciliation in the Old Testament. This seems to be decisive on this point.
That there is a difference of position of the parties must be admitted. Man is a rebel, an enemy; God, though he loves man in his ruined condition, is a just Governor. His love can certainly go no farther, and grant no more, than justice can permit. Justice must be appeased, or pacified; and while the offering makes it possible to pardon consistent with justice, it leaves us guilty, worthy of the condemnation under which we rest. So far as the law is concerned, a full vindication of its justice is found in the death of Christ; so far as the sinner is concerned, personally, he rests under condemnation still, until the mediation of Christ brings him into such harmonious relations with the divine government that it will not endanger its principles, nor reflect dishonor upon the Governor, to freely forgive him and take him back into his favor.
When we consider that the sacrifice is the means whereby the atonement is made, we can readily understand how hilasmos is used in 1 John 2:2, defined by Liddell and Scott, a means of appeasing. Jesus Christ is the propitiation—the means of appeasing divine justice, for all. It is by means of his intercession, his pleading his blood, that probation is given and mercy offered to the whole world. As to the meaning of the term, we are not199entirely confined to lexicons while the work is so minutely described as is that of the atonement in Lev. 16. Says David, “Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity.” Ps. 32:1, 2. This blessing does not come upon all, but it is placed within the reach of all by the death of Christ. And whose sins will be covered? Evidently theirs who have confessed and forsaken their sins, or who have been reconciled to God. This is exactly the order of the work described by Peter in Acts 3:19. “Repent ye, therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.” This blotting out is by the blood which the High Priest brings into the sanctuary to cleanse it from sin. We cannot, for a moment, suppose that the sin of any one will be blotted out or covered, who still maintains his opposition and enmity to God; but he who confesses and forsakes shall find mercy; that is, he who is reconciled shall have his sins forgiven and blotted out. It may be said in truth that reconciliation supposes an atonement to be made; for we are reconciled by the blood of the cross, which was shed for the express purpose of making atonement in the heavenly sanctuary. But when we learn, as we do from the Scriptures, that the atonement is a distinct, specific work of the High Priest, and the last work in his priesthood, both the distinction and order here claimed are obvious.
This idea that the atonement is the last work of the High Priest is an important one, and deserves a careful examination. And this is an additional proof that it is subsequent to reconciliation.
In Dan. 8:14, a question is asked concerning the time of the vision recorded in that chapter; the answer is, “Unto two thousand and three hundred days, then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.” We have seen by Lev. 16, that the cleansing of the sanctuary and making the atonement mean precisely the same thing; for the atonement was made by the High Priest sprinkling the blood upon the mercy-seat and altar, and cleansing them from the sins of the people. Hence, this expression of Dan. 8:14, is equivalent to saying, “Unto two thousand three hundred days, then shall the atonement be made.”
Thus we see there was an appointed time for making the atonement. This is in conformity to the type, where the tenth day of the seventh month was set apart to that work. While this text stands as a part of that “scripture” which is “profitable for instruction,” it is both interesting and profitable to inquire where these two thousand and three hundred days terminate; but to understand this we must trace the connection between chapters 8 and 9 of Daniel; for chapter 9 is in part explanatory of chapter 8, the explanation of the time (2300 days) being given in the latter, not in the former. The following points, if examined with care, will make this clear to every one. (1.) Gabriel was commanded to make Daniel understand the vision. (2.) He explained in chapter 8 the symbols of the kingdoms represented therein. (3.) He did not explain the time of verse 14. (4.) Daniel said he did not understand the vision, which, of course, refers to that part not explained—the time. (5.) In chapter 9, Gabriel said he had come to give him understanding, and commanded him to “consider the vision.” (6.) No vision had been mentioned since chapter 8, which shows that Gabriel had reference to the same vision which he was commanded to make him understand in that chapter. (7.) In chapter 9, he commenced instructing Daniel on time, the only thing in the “vision” not hitherto explained. (8.) He said seventy weeks are determined (Heb., literally cut off) upon thy people. (9.) The seventy weeks commence with the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem, B. C. 457. See Ezra 7. (10.) The seventy weeks are evidently “cut off” from the 2300 days; the only period given in the vision. Therefore the time of the going forth of the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem must be the commencement of the 2300 days. And if the seventy weeks are not cut off from the 2300 days, that is, if the seventy weeks do not mark the commencement of those days, then no explanation of the days was given, and Gabriel never did what he was commanded to do.
But such a supposition will not be urged. Therefore, we must admit that in Dan. 9 we have a clue to the 2300 days of Dan. 8, and to understand the seventy weeks of Dan. 9, is also to understand the 2300 days of Dan. 8, the two periods commencing together. As the Messiah was to be cut off, and cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease in the midst of the last week of the seventy, which was in A. D. 31, and the time that the apostles turned to the Gentiles marks the close of that period, which was in A. D. 34, it is easy to see that the 2300 days would extend 1810 years beyond that time, or to A. D. 1844. And as the angel said the sanctuary should be cleansed at the end of that period, this must refer, not to the typical sanctuary which was destroyed by the Romans in A. D. 70, but to the antitypical “sanctuary and true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.” Heb. 8:1, 2.
Some are ready to object to this view, that the heavenly sanctuary where our High Priest officiates cannot need cleansing—that there is nothing impure in Heaven. The zeal of such to vindicate the honor of heavenly things is parallel with that of Peter, who rebuked the Lord for speaking of his ignominious death: he thought a victor’s crown only was becoming his Master. But God has a plan appointed, and the death of his Son was in that plan; and the mistaken zeal of his servants must not be suffered to interfere with it. In that plan is also the atonement which God’s now exalted Son as priest makes in the sanctuary in Heaven; and it has been sufficiently shown that the atonement is made by cleansing the sanctuary. That this expression of the angel refers to the heavenly, and not to the earthly, sanctuary, may be proved by several considerations.
1. The sanctuary was not cleansed from any impurity of its own, nor from any defilement from use, as ordinary habitations are cleansed, but from sin. Therefore it was cleansed by blood. By referring further to Lev. 16, it will be seen, and will be noticed hereafter, that the design was to take away the sins from the presence of God, and remove them from the throne of judgment. But Paul declares in Heb. 10:4, that “it is not possible for the blood of bulls and of goats to take away sin;” but that was all the blood the priests had to offer in the worldly sanctuary; therefore, as that blood would not remove sin, it follows that the earthly sanctuary was never cleansed at all, except in figure, and never could have been had it remained and the priests still officiated therein till the end of the 2300 days. Nevertheless, the necessity existed; for the people were actual sinners, and needed to have their sins remitted or blotted out.
2. The sanctuary, as before noticed, was defiled by the sins of the people, though the people never came in contact with it. The high priest stood as their representative; he bore their judgment. Ex. 28:30. And as he alone went into the most holy place, it follows that it was defiled by his bearing their sins. Now it is plainly stated that Christ bears our sins—they were laid upon him—he is our representative before his Father. And it seems evident that one of the following positions is true: That Christ has taken the sins of his people, or his people have their sins yet upon them. I think it will be admitted that the former is true; that as the representative and substitute of his saints, he takes their sins. But if he takes them, where does he take them? Certainly where he is. Now it is by virtue of his priesthood that he bears the judgment of the people; but his priesthood is in the heavenly sanctuary. There, according to the type, is where our sins are taken. As a priest he could take them nowhere else.
3. That the heavenly sanctuary is cleansed, is proved by direct declarations of the New Testament. Paul, in writing to the Hebrews respecting the types and their fulfillment in the priesthood of the Son of God, says, “It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the Heavens should be purified with these [i. e., with the blood of calves and goats]; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.” Heb. 9:23. Accordingly he says that Christ entered into the holy places, into Heaven itself, “by his own blood.” Verse 12. This is the better sacrifice, or blood, by which the heavenly things are purified or cleansed.
J. H. Waggoner.
“ROCK OF AGES.”
“Rock of Ages, cleft for me,”
Thoughtlessly the maiden sung;
Fell the words unconsciously
From her girlish tongue;
Sang as little children sing;
Sang as sing the birds in June;
Fell the words like light leaves down
On the current of the tune—
“Rock of Ages, cleft for me,
Let me hide myself in thee.”
“Let me hide myself in thee,”
Felt her soul no need to hide;
Sweet, the song as song could be—
And she had no thought beside;
All the words unheedingly
Fell from lips untouched by care,
Dreaming not that each might be
On some other lips a prayer—
“Rock of Ages, cleft for me,
Let me hide myself in thee.”
“Rock of Ages, cleft for me”—
’T was a woman sung them now,
Sang them slow and wearily—
Wan hand on her aching brow,
Rose the song as storm-tossed bird
Beats with weary wing the air,
Every note with sorrow stirred—
Every syllable a prayer—
“Rock of Ages, cleft for me,
Let me hide myself in thee.”
“Rock of Ages, cleft for me”—
Lips grown aged sang the hymn
Trustingly and tenderly—
Voice grown weak and eyes grown dim,
“Let me hide myself in thee,”
Trembling through the voice and low,
Ran the sweet strain peacefully,
Like a river in its flow,
Sung as only they can sing
Who behold the promised rest—
“Rock of Ages, cleft for me,
Let me hide myself in thee.”
“Rock of Ages, cleft for me”—
Sung above a coffin lid;
Underneath, all restfully,
All life’s joys and sorrows hid,
Nevermore, O storm-tossed soul!
Nevermore from wind or tide,
Nevermore from billow’s roll,
Wilt thou need thyself to hide.
Could the sightless, sunken eyes,
Closed beneath the soft gray hair;
Could the mute and stiffened lips
Move again in pleading prayer,
Still, aye, still the words would be,
“Let me hide myself in thee.”
St. Anne, Illinois.
By D. T. Bourdeau
PROGRESS OF THE WORK AMONG THE FRENCH.
Have held two Sabbath meetings here. We held our first Sabbath meeting two weeks sooner than we usually do. But the Lord was with us. Three took a firm stand on the commandments. Last Sabbath, six spoke, expressing their determination to obey the truth. There are others keeping the Sabbath, and still others are convinced, but are waiting to hear a discussion, which commences to-morrow night, if the man who challenged me will adopt such regulations as are in harmony with the rules of discussion. In the meanwhile, I am reviewing opposition discourses on the Sabbath question, which deal quite largely in stories of ascension robes, and other remarks which are designed to answer for argument. But all are not disposed to receive them as such. Yesterday (Sunday) morning, at the close of their first meeting, I politely handed a notice respecting a reply to an opposition discourse which had just been given; but an elder sternly refused to read it, and answered roughly, though I said not a word. Last night the preacher approved this elder’s course, insinuating that, though he had not advised the elder, the people should not give the least countenance to our work. He indefinitely announced the discussion. After the benediction, I asked the privilege of saying one word, as I was concerned in the discussion. I was pointed to the door by an elder.
The French are proverbial for their politeness, but I confess I could not discern much in the treatment I received. What some here would regard as politeness on my part, would be for me and my people to be blackened by slanderous reports, and for the views I represent to be lowered in the dust, and I not have the privilege of a reply before those who have heard us opposed.
D. T. BOURDEAU.
May 25, 1874.
Fremont, Wis.
By C. W. Olds
MAY 1, I returned to this place. Bro. Sanborn had appointed to meet me here. Of the thirty-four that signed a covenant to keep the commandments of God, we found nearly all firm, and growing in the knowledge of the truth.
We commenced our meetings Sabbath evening. On Sunday twelve willing souls were buried by baptism in the likeness of Christ’s death, in Wolf River. A large assembly of people stood on the bank to witness the solemn ceremony.
Bro. S. stayed five days, and then started for other fields of labor, leaving me to follow up the work here, and labor in other places as the way may open.
The next first-day commenced meetings at Little River. Have held seven meetings with increasing interest. Attended the Sabbath meetings at Fremont last Sabbath. Nine more went forward in baptism. Some new ones are receiving the truth.
The meeting-house that we held our meetings in last winter is now closed against us, and the brethren have hired a hall where they now hold their meetings. On the Sabbath, they have a prayer and social meeting, Sabbath-school, and Bible-class, and on Wednesday evening a prayer-meeting. They have organized Systematic Benevolence and are now making arrangements to build a meeting-house.
I still feel a degree of courage to labor on and help to warn the world of the day of God. I think I feel my need of help from the Lord. May I be so humble that the Lord may guide me in wisdom.
C. W. OLDS.
LIVE FOR GOD.
LIVE, live for God,
And toil a world to save!
Live, live for God,
Nor heed the coming grave!
The time, the place, the way,
He knows them all:
Do well thy work to-day,
And wait his call.
Purgatory and Masses.
By John Norton Loughborough
(Concluded.)
As stated in a previous article, it was Pope Gregory I., A. D. 590, who first discovered the doctrine of purgatory, which has been such a source of revenue to popish priests. It seems to me that the apostles, if on earth, would say as Peter did of old to Simon, “Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money,” Acts 8:20, and that they would cry aloud in the ears of these pardon venders the words of the Lord by Isaiah, “Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price.” Isa. 55:1. No wonder that Luther said of purgatory and its kindred doctrines that they “were invented by Antichrist for the purpose of making the pope’s pot boil.”
Closely connected with their doctrine of purgatory is that of the mass. The papist calls it, “The holy sacrifice of the mass.” Weninger says:—
“Ques. Which is the sacrifice of the new law by which all former sacrifices were fulfilled and replaced?”
“Ans. The oblation which Jesus Christ made of himself to his eternal Father on the cross.
“Q. How is this sacrifice constantly repeated and offered throughout the world?”
“A. By the sacrifice of Jesus Christ in the blessed sacrament.
“Q. How is this sacrifice called?”
“A. The holy sacrifice of the mass.
“Q. What is the holy sacrifice of the mass?”
“A. It is the perpetual and unbloody sacrifice of the new law, in which Jesus Christ offers himself, under the forms and appearances of bread and wine, to his Heavenly Father.
“Q. Is the holy sacrifice of the mass the same as the sacrifice of the cross?”
“A. It is; because the same Jesus, who offered himself for us on the cross, offers himself in the mass.
“Q. What is the difference between the two?”
“A. The sacrifice of the cross was bloody, while the sacrifice of the mass is unbloody.”
In Hughes’ Catechism, we read:—
“Q. What is the mass?”
“A. The mass is the unbloody sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ.
“Q. Why do you say that Christ is immolated in the mass? Does Christ die again?”
“A. Christ dies no more, but as the sacred species are consecrated separately, they represent on the altar that state of division which constitutes death; we offer, in the mass, the death on Calvary to the most holy Trinity, as an act of entire obedience and holiest worship.”
We will quote the words of Gavazzi on this continual sacrifice, “According to the Council of Trent, the mass is the continuation of the sacrifice on Calvary. Continuation! there was no need of any. Was this sacrifice of Christ incomplete, insufficient? Did it lack any condition needful to its mighty end? No! Why then this sacrifice of the altar? By Christ’s death was destroyed our fault; what need of more? It is an insult to Christ to pretend a continuation of this sacrifice, made once and forever.”
“Saint Paul says, without the sprinkling of blood there is no remission. The Council of Trent declares the mass to be an expiatory sacrifice; the profession of the church of Rome is that the mass is unbloody, without the shedding of blood. But, according to St. Paul, there is no remission without effusion of blood; therefore the mass is no sacrifice.”
Of the use of the mass, Weninger says that children should “continue to assist them (their parents) after their death, by the sacrifice of the mass offered up for them, and by other good works.”
Papists claim that “every mass delivereth one soul out of purgatory.” On this Tyndale says if it is true that every mass delivers one soul from purgatory, surely purgatory ought to be scoured ere this, with so many masses as Rome says.
Of the assistance obtained by masses Gavazzi says, “How are masses for the relief of suffering souls procured—by what means, and in what proportion? By money, and in proportion to the amount of money. In proportion to the alms, the mass, it is said, has more efficacy; not that the mass can increase or decrease in its intrinsic merit, but because God regards the money given, and in proportion grants more suffrages to the souls in torment.”
I suppose my readers are aware that all the words of the service of the mass are in Latin. Why is this? Hear Weninger:—
“Q. Why is mass said in Latin?”
“A. 1. In order to express more clearly at this, the most sacred action of our religion, the unity of the church throughout the world, and its connection with its head. 2. In order to raise the dignity of the sacrifice, by the use of a language which is not subject to change.”
Challoner, after giving reasons for saying mass in Latin, similar to Weninger’s, says, “It is unnecessary to understand what we are saying, if our hearts are only sincere.”
Brock, in his reply to Damen, the Jesuit, speaks of the Latin mass as follows: “Originally the service of the church in many parts of Western Europe was in Latin—but why? Because it was generally understood. When the Romans became masters of Western Europe they imposed their language on their subjects. Hence the common tongue of Western Europe was Latin. But to retain the use of Latin now in any portion of the service of the church, when to the mass of the people it is an unknown tongue, is to defeat the object for which it was originally introduced. It was introduced because the people understood it. Why then retain it now that the people do not understand it? To do so is plainly contrary to Holy Scripture, which pointedly condemns prayers in the church in an unknown tongue. It is plainly contrary also to the custom of the primitive church. One passage from Origen is so decisive that it may suffice. ‘The Greeks,’ he says, ‘used Greek in their prayers, the Romans, Latin, and so every one in his own language prays to God, and gives thanks as he is able, and the God of all languages hears them that pray in all dialects’ even as if all spake with but one voice.”
In closing this article I will quote from Kirwan on the subject of the mass: “What does it mean? I could not tell, though for years a regular attendant upon it. Why does the priest dress so? What book does he read from, when carried now to his right, and now to his left? What mean those candles burning at noonday? Why do I say my prayers in Latin, which I understand not? Should I not know what I am saying when addressing my Maker? Why bow down and strike my breast when the little bell rings? What does it all mean? The darkness of Egypt rested upon these questions. I thus reasoned with myself: God is a spiritual and intelligent being, and he requires an intelligent worship. What worship I render him in the mass, I know not.”
“And you know, sir, that with all devotion and honesty a Catholic may wait on your masses until his locks are as white as your surplice, and then pass into eternity without one single spiritual idea upon the subject of religion; resolving it all into external observances.
“The whole ceremony of your mass is yet more unmeaning to me. Often as I have witnessed it, I never gleaned one intelligent idea from it—nor does one out of one million of your people. . . . ‘In the mass,’ says Dr. England, ‘Christ is the victim; he is produced by the consecration, which, by the power of God, and the institution of the Redeemer, and the act of the priest, place the body and blood of Christ, under the appearance of bread and wine, upon the altar; then the priest makes an oblation of this victim to the Eternal Father on behalf of the people, and the victim undergoes a destructive change, showing forth the death of the Redeemer, and making commemoration thereof, by the exhibition of the apparent separation of the body from the blood; the former being under the appearance of bread, and the latter under the appearance of wine, and by the consumption of both by the priest.’
“This is, on the whole, the clearest account of the mass that I have ever seen from the pen of a priest; and yet what mind can understand it? Sir, do you understand it? Christ produced from some bread and wine by a priest—this produced Christ is laid upon the altar by a priest—an oblation of this produced Christ undergoes a destructive change in the act of oblation—this oblation of the produced Christ is offered for the people—and then this produced, offered Christ, and after he has undergone a destructive change, is eaten by the priest! Sir, all this is as unmeaning to me as the leaves which the fabled sybil scattered on the winds. And this unmeaning mass, a greater mass of absurdity than ever heathen ingenuity or depravity invented, is the chief source of edification to the nine-tenths of the papal world! If it were merely unmeaning, without being blasphemous and wicked, I could extend to it some toleration.
“And the absurdity of the whole thing is increased to intensity by the fact that the pantomime is performed in Latin! Pray, sir, how many of your worshipers at St. Patricks understand English, not to say Latin?”
J. N. Loughborough.
Obituary Notices.
“Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth.”
Died, at Lapeer, Mich., March 17, 1874, Bro. John Beerman, aged 29 years. Bro. Beerman gave his heart to God during his sickness. Strong evidences appeared that the offering was accepted. His disease was consumption, lingering and painful. Yet he bore all with Christian fortitude and resignation. He rests in hope. Words of comfort from 1 Cor. 15: 58. May God comfort the widow and fatherless children. D. H. Lamson.
Died, at Memphis, Mich., May 15, 1874, of heart disease, Bro. John Wakeling, aged 56. Bro. Wakeling was born in England. He embraced the truth under the labors of Elds. Cornell and Lawrence about ten years since, during the tent-meeting at Memphis. No relatives were near to attend the funeral. The church, however, and many friends, mourn. He longed for rest, and we laid him by the side of his wife and a much-loved daughter. D. H. Lamson.
Died, at Marion, Iowa, May 17, 1874, Bro. John Porter, of typhoid fever, aged twenty-one years, ten months, and seventeen days. Although his loss will be deeply felt by his parents and friends, yet we all feel that he is laid away in hope of coming up in the first resurrection with all the faithful.
“Angels shall guard thy sleeping dust,
And, as thy Saviour rose,
The grave again shall yield her trust
And end thy deep repose.”
A few remarks by the writer. D. T. Shireman.
Wisconsin Conference
Appointments.
And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of Heaven is at hand
** Services in Chicago, every Sabbath (seventh day), at 289 West Erie St. All Sabbath-keepers spending a Sabbath in Chicago are invited to attend.
Wisconsin Conference.
THE Wisconsin Conference will hold its next annual session in connection with the camp-meeting at Lodi, commencing June 18, 1874. Delegates should be on the ground the first day of the meeting. Come prepared to stay until the close. It will be necessary to have a fund to pay the expenses of the camp-meeting. The brethren are invited to send one dollar each, for this purpose, to the Conference treasurer, Wm. Kerr, Monroe, Green Co., Wis. Let all the friends of the cause make an especial effort to attend this meeting. Come up to this feast of the Lord the day previous, prepared to spend the entire time in seeking God.
Systematic Benevolence should be reorganized by each church and delegates elected, that there may be uniformity throughout the Conference.
P. S. THURSTON, E. O. HAMMOND, O. A. OLSON, } Executive Committee.
GENERAL quarterly meeting of the New England Tract Society at Amherst, N. H., June 20 & 21. It is necessary that the various directors in the Conference hold their meetings previous to this date, so a report may be sent to the secretary or carried to this meeting in season for a report to be read at this meeting from each district. Blank reports will be furnished to each member of the Tract Society that they may be properly filled out and returned. A general attendance is expected. The vice-president will attend the meeting.
S. N. HASKELL.
THE T. and M. Society of Wisconsin will hold its annual session in connection with the camp-meeting at Lodi. We hope the district secretaries will send their reports to Mattie Babcock, Monroe, Green Co., at least one week before the camp-meeting.
P. S. THURSTON, Pres. T. and M. Society.
QUARTERLY meeting and meeting of the T. and M. Society of Dist. No. 11, at Bunker Hill, Mich., June 13, 14.
HOLLIS CLARK, Clerk.
QUARTERLY meeting of the T. and M. Society of Dist. No. 2, at Wells, Minnesota, at Bro. Kelsey's house, June 13, 14. Dist. No. 3, at Hutchison, “ 13, 14. Dist. No. 1, at Medford, “ 26, 30. It is expected that the librarians in all our churches will be faithful to report in season to their secretary all that has been done in their churches.
HARRISON GRANT.
GENERAL quarterly meeting of the T. and M. Society of Minn., at Medford, in connection with the camp-meeting, June 26–30. As this will be our annual meeting I hope the brethren will come feeling the burden of the work. We find with the experience of the past year that our districts are too large and cover too much territory. Instead of three directors doing all the work in our Conference, we need six or seven districts. Come, brethren and sisters, let us work in earnest. The reward is just before us.
HARRISON GRANT.
QUARTERLY meeting of the T. and M. Society of District No. 7, Mich., at Ithaca, June 6 and 7. Church quarterly meeting at the same time. Hope all will come prepared to pledge, to pay pledges, and to report.
WM. S. NELSON, Director.
MONTHLY meeting for Cattaraugus Co., N. Y., will be held at Randolph, the third Sabbath and first-day in June, 20 and 21, 1874. We hope to see a general attendance. There will be teams at the station for any that may come on the cars.
S. THURSTON.
QUARTERLY meeting for Sand Prairie church, Wis., June 27 and 28, 1874. Sister churches invited.
THOS. DEMMON, Clerk.
Sin Does not Pay.
By Roswell Fenner Cottrell
Those who think it to their advantage to sin are deceived. Many think they will some day forsake their sins and turn to God; but they are not ready to do so at once, because they cannot afford to part with the pleasures of sin. They think they will be gainers to pursue a course of sin for a time, and afterward they purpose to secure eternal salvation. This is on account of the “deceitfulness of sin.” No one is a gainer by living in sin. It is always only a loss, and a fearful one too. Moses made a wise choice when he chose to suffer affliction with the people of God rather than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season. Sin never pays; and the person, young or old, who thinks it an advantage to continue in the ways of sin a little longer is under a sad deception.
And they run a fearful risk; for the probabilities that they will finally be lost are rapidly increasing with every sinful indulgence, and also by every day's delay of so reasonable a requirement as repentance of those acts that caused the sufferings of the Son of God, and which are daily grieving him who showed such great love for us, and thus crucifying him afresh.
Oh! that all might see how exceedingly hateful sin is, and how perfectly deceptive. Those who view it as it is will flee from it as from a deadly viper. To dally with it and delay repentance and obedience is to grieve the Son of God, make light of his sufferings in our behalf, and to treasure up wrath against the day of wrath. The dreadful gulf that separates the sinner from God and Heaven is widening as long as he willingly remains in sin. Fellow-mortal, seek pardon and peace with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ, while he may be found. Soon it will be too late!
R. F. COTTRELL.
Western Camp-Meetings.
IOWA, at Newton, Jasper Co., June 4-9, "
ILLINOIS, at Sheridan, La Salle Co., June 11-16, "
WISCONSIN, at Lodi, Columbia Co., June 18-23, "
MINNESOTA, at Medford, June 25-30, "
What the Devil Has to Say about Christ’s Coming.
In a report of the sayings of the spirits as given in modern spiritualism, according to a recent exchange, the question is asked, “When may we look for Christ’s coming?” and the spirit answers as follows:—
“Behold, we answer, he is with you; and if you look for a personal Christ, that shall come surrounded by legions of angels, attended with glory and honor, such a belief will never ultimate into knowledge. It is but an ignis fatuus gathered from the marshes of your time. Oh, then, turn from within and find the Christ of to-day; look for him in the highway, and find him there—look for him among the lowly, and when the voice of mystery comes to you, do not say he is not there, but go forth to meet him.”
Sins of Parents Visited upon the Children.
By Merritt E. Cornell
WHEN men can find no more to say against the fourth commandment, they will sometimes assail the second. They cannot see how it is that the iniquity of the father is visited upon the children from generation to generation.
The following clipped from the New York Tribune may serve as an eye-opener to some of them. M. E. CORNELL.
BORN DRUNK.—Among the names registered at the Tombs was that of a youth about fifteen years of age, who had been arrested for drunkenness. But he was not drunk, nor had he been drinking. He was moreover, in good, sound health, but gave all the external indications of being intoxicated when arrested by a police officer. Upon protesting to the keeper of the Tombs that he was not intoxicated, it was revealed that the unfortunate youth had been born a natural drunkard, or rather, that he had always acted like such a thing. He said that although in good health, he had never been able to walk without staggering. His speech was not unlike that of persons in a decided state of intoxication; and when excited, would mutter and reel. The unfortunate youth was detained until the next day, and was not sent to the courts to be gazed at through judicial spectacles. A subsequent investigation of the case proved that the lad had been telling the truth about himself, but his condition revealed a demonstration of the natural law that the child is a fair copy of his parents. It appears that prior to marriage the father had been a secret, but confirmed, inebriate. Months passed away, when it was discovered that the child at three years of age acted strangely; and at the end of six months the unhappy woman fully realized all her forebodings. The effect produced upon the mother was not without its influence upon the father, however. Realizing, in the midst of tears of the bitterest anguish, the sin that had been visited upon the child, the man reformed. He has now several bright children, and most exemplary ones, too, they are. But the boy that was brought into the Tombs was not drunk, but had entailed upon him a life of misery, as it were a blasted destiny.
Germans of Toledo Oppose the Custom of Treating
The Germans of Toledo, at a recent meeting, passed the following resolution:—
“Resolved, That we look upon the originally American custom of ‘treating’ as great evil and one of the main causes of intemperance, and that we will oppose this abuse with word and act.”
This is a move in the right direction. We observe that an association has been formed in San Francisco, the members of which covenant to totally eschew the custom of treating. It is a custom entirely unknown in other countries, and is an important promoter of intemperance and excessive drinking.—Ohio Statesman.