Earlier text: The Time of Rewards and PunishmentConfusion on the Prophetic Periods.
WHEN the plain path of truth is left, it is no wonder that men should be ready to enter into any by-path upon which they may chance to stumble. When they turn their backs to the light, it is no wonder that they should grope their way along like blind men. When they let go the anchor, it is no wonder that they should drift in every direction on the trackless ocean. Such seems to be the position of many professed Adventists respecting the prophetic periods, especially the 2300 days. The great anchor on this period is the position established by Adventists in 1844, that the period is 2300 years in length, commenced B. C. 457, and ended in 1844. The evidence which goes to establish this, compared with that for any other position, has been admitted by one of our ablest opponents, to be like the sun compared with a rush light. But here is the great dilemma under which they labor. Adhering with what seems to us like a blind tenacity to the view that the Lord must come at the end of the 2300 days, as the Lord has not yet come, it must somehow be made to appear that the 2300 days have not yet ended. So anything that seems to afford proof in this direction, even if no more than a "rush light," is eagerly received. The latest effort to "prolong the days" that has come under our notice, is the claim put forth by W. H. Hacking, in the Millennial Harbinger of December 16, 1863, that it should read 2400 days instead of 2300 days. Concerning the commencement of this period he says: "We must therefore date the commencement of the vision as far back as B. C. 536, or else have no vision of the ram with two horns." Another little piece of numerical legerdemain is visible in his efforts to make the period, with this starting point, extend to 1866, thus: "B. C. 536 is only 535 whole years; so 1866 only makes the cardinal number 1865, added together make 2400." This speaks for itself. As to his commencement, however, we inquire, Does not the ram with two horns represent the Medo-Persian empire during its whole existence? The two horns do not represent Cyrus and Darius personally, but the two elements of the nation, Medes and Persians. Hence there is no cause for going back to the first, second or third year of the existence of that empire for the commencement of the prophetic period which covers this field of vision; and, indeed, the prophet guards us against this misapprehension, by introducing the ram in the height of his power, and pushing his conquests westward, northward and southward. But we wish to inquire more especially concerning the reading of 2400 instead of 2300 days. He offers no other authority for this than the Septuagint. That the Septuagint reads thus, we do not deny. But, to say nothing of his unfortunate attempt at quoting the Greek, in which, in a quotation of twelve words, there are no less than seven glaring errors, we are prepared to show that this reading is simply a misprint which has crept into the common edition of the Septuagint in this country. The Septuagint is a translation from the original Hebrew into Greek. Our common English version is a translation from the same Hebrew into English. One translation reads 2400, the other 2300. It will be at once seen that this difference in the translations can be authoritatively settled by simply appealing to the original from which they were both taken; and it is a fact that all the Hebrew manuscripts read 2300, not 2400. This is alone sufficient to convict the Septuagint of error here. But we have still more definite testimony. The whole question is well set forth in the following from Litch's Prophetic Exposition, vol. i, pp. 115, 116: It has been sometimes urged, as a reason why we cannot depend on the calculation of this period, that there are various readings, and it is uncertain which is the correct one. The reading of all the Hebrew manuscripts is 2300. The Septuagint, or Greek version, is 2400. The Latin of Jerome, 2200. The Hebrew copies being the eldest, and all the copies agreeing in the reading, it is but a reasonable conclusion that it is the correct reading. As for the reading of Jerome, there are few who place any confidence in it. On the reading of the Septuagint, I beg leave to introduce the following extract from "Begg's Connected View," p. 3: "It is in mercy to His people, although it will end to the condemnation of the wicked, that God has given such clear and determinate intimation of the 'things that are to come hereafter;' and any attempt to throw unnecessary doubt upon the certainty of the 'times' revealed, calls for severe reprehension. To this charge there is reason to fear the Examinator of Mr. Irving's Opinions, in the Edinburgh Christian Instructor for 1828, (p. 476,) has exposed himself, when, in order to strengthen his argument for the impossibility of determining the commencement of 'the mighty year of God's glory,' he fixes upon the misprint of one of the dates in our version of the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament. 'In regard to the long period of Daniel,' there is, in reality, no reason for its being 'disputed, whether we should read, with the Hebrew, 2300, or with the Septuagint, 2400 years.' Although all our common editions of the Septuagint have this typographical error, being printed from an edition into which it had crept, yet the manuscript in the Vatican, from which that very edition was printed, has 2300, and not 2400. And of all the principal standard editions of the Septuagint, that alone from which ours are taken has this error. Let not, then, the carelessness of men be charged upon the Most High, nor the errors of copyists on the Spirit of inspiration. For a full statement on this subject, see 'The Scheme of Prophetic Arrangement of the Rev. Edward Irving and Mr. Frere critically examined by William Cunninghame, Esq., of Lainshaw." Thus, in addition to the fact that all the Hebrew manuscripts read 2300, we have the still more decisive fact that the very manuscript in the Vatican from which the common edition of the Septuagint was printed, reads 2300 instead of 2400, as printed in that edition. Hence that reading is a mere typographical error, a misprint; and on this foundation our friend would fain erect a theory. We cannot, therefore, allow him the benefit of that extra hundred years, with which he would be glad to stretch out the 2300 days. He must fall back within the original limits; and when he has puzzled his brain sufficiently in trying to make an application, we hope he will deign, before abandoning it entirely, to examine it in the light of the sanctuary, which is the true, as it is the only, key to the solution of this question. "They Stagger, but not with Strong Drink."
By Editor
UNDER this figure, Isa. xxix, 9, the Lord through the prophet speaks of those who turn their backs upon the truth, and shut their eyes and ears to the declarations of his word. The recreancy and frivolous excuses of their position, he sets forth in the following language: "And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee; and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed; and the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee; and he saith, I am not learned." Verses 11, 12. If this language applies to those who never have come to a knowledge of the truth at all, who can fathom the severity with which it scathes those who, having once received this knowledge, acquainted themselves with the theory, and professed the spirit of the truth, at last turn their backs upon some of its fundamental principles? Judge, then, of our surprise, when we read not long since in the World's Crisis, from the pen of one who stands high with many as a leader and instructor of the people, an argument to prove that the prophetic periods of Daniel are literal days, not years—an argument which we can regard no less than a deliberate attempt to raze to its very foundation, one of the main pillars of the Advent faith. The writer closes his article with the following language: "Waiving for the present the further discussion of this subject, I frankly confess that I am not competent to give much instruction on the point; and only hope that those who do profess to expound the prophetic periods may be, as they certainly ought to be, a great deal better informed than I am concerning them. These times are in the Bible; but some of men's expositions of them are not in the Bible, and are never likely to be. 'The wise shall understand;' but a great many who have thought themselves 'wise,' have proved that they were wise above what was written, if not 'wise in their own conceits.'—W. L. M." It may do, even on a subject so plain as this, to talk flippantly to the venerable names who have from past ages believed in the year-day theory, about being wise in their own conceits, unless the person should thereby happen to prove himself to be in that unenviable state; for the fancy is very apt to seize one, in the condition spoken of by the prophet, that everybody else is staggering, and he is the only sober one in all the crowd. Even Prof. Bush, who never believed the Advent doctrine, wrote to Wm. Miller as follows: "I do not conceive your errors on the subject of chronology to be at all of a serious nature, or in fact to be very wide of the truth. In taking a day as the prophetic time for a year, I believe you are sustained by the soundest exegesis, as well as fortified by the high names of Mede, Sir Isaac Newton, Bishop Newton, Faber, Scott, Keith, and a host of others, who have long since come to substantially your conclusions on this head."—Time of the End, p. 46. A few weeks after the publication of the article above referred to, we were glad to see a writer in the same paper come to the rescue of the great truth, which was well nigh betrayed in the house of its friends. Looking upon this as a good exposition of the true theory, we lay it before the reader: "With all the light there is at the present time upon the prophecies of Daniel and John, to me it is a little surprising that any student of prophecy should still insist that the prophetic periods of Daniel are literal days, and a good deal surprising that any looking for the return of Christ to earth, should favor the literal-day theory. With me it is no small matter connected with my faith in the soon coming of Jesus, whether the days of Daniel are literal or symbolical days. I believe unhesitatingly that the 'time, and times, and the dividing of time,' the 2300 days, 'time, times and a half,' 1290 and 1335 days of Daniel vii, viii, and xii, are symbols, each day standing for a year; and I think I can give a reason for my hope upon this point. I believe these days are year-days. "1. Because they are connected with symbolic prophecy. In Ezekiel iv, symbolical time is used in connection with a prophecy illustrated by symbols. But you may say that God expressly said, 'I have appointed thee a day for year,' and has not said so in Daniel. In reply I would say, that in John's Revelation also he has given us symbolical time in some ten places, and has not once in either of these told us that each day stands for a year. Perhaps the reason why it is not given in Daniel as well as in Ezekiel, may be found in Dan. xii, 4. Yet it may be said that the days of Dan. xii are not connected with symbolical prophecy, and consequently that argument would prove the 1290 and 1335 days to be literal days, even if the others are year-days. If you will carefully compare the visions of chaps. x, xi, and xii, with the preceding visions, you will see at once that Daniel's last vision is but an explanation of the other vision, which he could not understand; also, what the 1290 days are; consequently if one is symbolical time, the other must be. "2d. Because the 'time, and times, and the dividing of time,' (chap. vii,) 'time, times, and a half,' (chap. viii,) apply to the same events that 'a time, and times, and half a time' of Rev. xii, 14, the 1290 days of Rev. xi, 3; Rev. xii, 6, and the 'forty and two months, of Rev. xii, 2, and Rev. xii, 5, apply to. And no critical expositor will for one moment attempt to make the long persecution of the martyr church by the seven-headed and ten-horned beast, to be but 1290 literal days, when it was that number of years. "3d. Because the time connected with the last vision is declared to be 'long,' which was not long if37three years and a half were its length; certainly not long in comparison with the vision of chap. ix, which vision was not even called long, though it was seventy weeks of years; and of the last vision it is said, 'And the thing was true, but the time appointed was long.' Dan. x, 1. "4th. Because not one of these four periods given in Dan., vii, viii, and xii, can in any way be made to fit the events to which they are applied by Maitland, Stuart, or any other literal-day expositors. This class of expositors endeavor to make the 2300 days cover the whole time from Antiochus Epiphanes, when invading Judah and taking Jerusalem, b. c., 170, that is, year of the Greeks 143, (see 1 Maccabees i, 20,) to the year of the Greeks 148, when the Jews overcame the invaders, gained possession of their city again, and restored their daily worship in the temple. Jerusalem was at this time in possession of Antiochus but five full years, while in 2300 days there are six years, three months, and twenty days. That is as near as they come in their calculation of the 2300 days. And if they extend the time to the death of Antiochus, then they cannot make six full years. And if they commence these days from b. c. 174, (as some do) when Antiochus caused Onias, the high priest of Jerusalem, to be deposed, then they have nine years before Antiochus' idol worship is overthrown in Jerusalem, which would be nearly three years too much for their argument. "With regard to the 1260, or 1290 days, a period of about three years and a half, they apply this time to the whole length of time that Antiochus caused swine's flesh to be offered upon the altar, of the Jewish sanctuary, which is called by the book of Maccabees, 'the abomination of desolation.' But unhappily for this exposition of the days, neither 1260 nor 1290 days will measure this pollution of the sanctuary. Just three years and ten days at most is all that can be made out for that abomination. See Josephus' Antiquities, book 12, chap. 5, secs. 3, 4; also 1 Maccabees 1, for the commencement of these days. 'Now the fifteenth day of the month Casleu, in the hundred forty and fifth year, they set up the abomination of desolation upon the altar, and built idol altars throughout the cities of Judea on every side.' 1 Maccabees i, 54. 'Now the five and twentieth day of the month they did sacrifice upon the altar of God.' 1 Maccabees i, 59. 'The same writer, speaking of the overthrow of this abomination, says, 'Now on the five and twentieth day of the ninth month, which is called the month of Casleu, in the hundred forty and eighth year, they rose up betimes in the morning and offered sacrifices according to the law upon the new altar of burnt-offerings which they had made. Look at what time and what day the heathen had profaned it; even in that it was dedicated with songs, and citherns, and harps, and cymbals. Then all the people fell upon their faces, worshiping and praising the God of Heaven, who had given them good success.' 1 Maccabees iv, 52-55. "How then can the figures of Daniel be made to agree with this idol pollution of the Jewish sanctuary? The 1335 days, being forty-five days more than 1290, are extended by the literal-day theorists to the death of Antiochus. In this, too, they are equally wide from the truth, for the sanctuary was cleansed on the twenty-fifth of the ninth month, which would be ninety-five days before the end of that year; and the death of Antiochus did not take place until some time in the next year. For proof of this: 'So king Antiochus died there in the hundred forty and ninth year.' 1 Maccabees vi, 16. Consequently, none of the four periods can in any way be made to apply to Antiochus Epiphanes' abominating the Jewish sanctuary. "5th. Because our Lord, in Matt. xxiv, 15, makes 'the abomination of desolation' to be yet in the future from his time, and so it could not have been fulfilled two hundred years before he uttered his great prophecy of Matt. xxiv, as literal-day theorists necessarily make it to have been, if their exposition is correct. Then, to use the language of a great man in the Christian church, I would say, 'If the old established principle of the year-day theory is wrong, not only has the Christian world been led astray for ages, by a mere ignis fatuus of false hermeneutics; but the church is at once cut loose from every chronological mooring, and set adrift in the open sea, without the vestige of a beacon lighthouse or star by which to determine bearings or distances from the desired millennial haven to which she has hoped she was tending.'" The following paragraphs we take from the Voice of the Prophets. They well express the views and feelings of those who still desire to adhere to the ancient landmarks: "The year-day theory of interpreting the prophetic periods is vital to the position of all classes of Adventists, whether they are looking definitely or proximately for their fulfillment in the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. It is the great principle assailed by all opponents, infidel, semi-infidel, futurist, and preterist. It is the first on which brethren become involved in doubt under the trials which they encounter from without and within. "We stake all that is involved in our hope, on the scriptural integrity of that great principle. It is to us what the 'scale' on which the chart for the use of the mariner is constructed—usually that of an 'inch to a mile,'—and by which he navigates with safety through all his dangers, on all his voyages, all over the world. Without that 'scale,' his chart to him would be a useless thing. And in the hour of the greatest danger it would be worse than useless—it would be a mockery and an aggravation. "The true meaning of the prophetic times has a close and vital connection with the general exposition of the sacred visions. It has been the general impression of the best Protestant interpreters, for near three centuries, that a prophetic day signifies a natural year, and that all the other periods are to be expounded by the same rule." To the Committee Appointed to Extend the Circulation of the Review.
By E. S. Walker
THE time has expired in which in Review Vol. xxii, 23, we requested the committee to report; but by the terms of the appointment none were to be discharged until the object of the appointment was accomplished. For the benefit of those who may not have read the article containing the appointment, and for those who may have forgotten, we will give a brief statement of the object, conditions and duties, of the committee. The object of the appointment of a committe was to increase the circulation of the Review from 2800 to 5000. The committee is composed of each subscriber of the Review and every Sabbath-keeper, each to act independent of the other, and each to consider the responsibility of raising the requisite number devolving upon his or her personal efforts—every member of the committee to report within one month, and none of the committee to be discharged until the requisite number of subscribers is made up. It will readily be seen that if all the members of the committee had been faithful to the trust committed to their care, we should not now be under the necessity of making another appeal; but such has not been the case. A few have been faithful to the talent committed to their trust, and have gained other subscribers, some one, some two, and some five, and one good brother even sent in eight subscribers at one time. To these we would say, Well done. The number has not yet been made up, but we are not discouraged. We still have hopes of seeing our expectations realized. Although a large majority of the committee have not responded, we still have faith in their integrity. Knowing the besetments of human nature, we are prepared to make every allowance, believing that all that will be necessary to have them discharge their duty will be to occasionally "stir up their pure minds by way of remembrance." Some no doubt will require more "stirring" than others, but by a due exercise of the graces of patience and perseverance we expect to succeed. Why should we not expect to see our hopes realized? We certainly are not asking anything unreasonable nor improbable—nothing unreasonable when we only ask each one of our subscribers to use their influence or their means to procure one subscriber—nor anything improbable when we expect our list can be increased to 5000 subscribers in a short time. In view of these facts we propose to extend the time until the close of this volume, during which time we trust that every member of the committee who has not already done so, will at least obtain one subscriber, and as many more as they can—peradventure others may not be so fortunate or faithful, and you may by this means help supply their lack. Again, let us urge upon you the necessity of each one feeling the responsibility of raising the number resting upon them: and let each one be determined that there shall be no failure on their part. 1. Get what brethren or sisters you can to take the paper at full price. 2. Try to induce honest inquirers after truth to take it for investigation. 3. If you fail in both these classes, there is still one thing you can do. You can take it and pay for it yourself for relatives and friends. E. S. WALKER, Sec'y. S. D. A. P. Association. Are the Dead Conscious? No. 1.
By Roswell F. Cottrell
The idea that the dead are in a state of consciousness, has obtained to a considerable extent in the world, by some means; and it is a matter of interest to ascertain its origin. If it is from Heaven, doubtless it is taught in the revelation which God has given us—the holy Scriptures. And if others, our teachers, have found it there, we can do the same, and not take it at second hand. But if the doctrine is not in the Bible, those who have confidence in its teachings, as a full and perfect revelation from God, will come to the conclusion that God is not its author; and as, at the present day, a system of the most abominable infidelity rests wholly upon this for its foundation, it becomes every person to inquire seriously and earnestly, in the light of the Scriptures, whether God or the great adversary is the author and finisher of this faith. The Bible nowhere asserts that man has knowledge in death; but it does declare the contrary in the most positive and unequivocal manner. It is true there are passages from which inferences are drawn that the soul is immortal, and that man is conscious in death; but these inferences are not necessary. There is no passage of scripture but is susceptible of being understood in such a manner, without wresting the text, as perfectly to harmonize with the positive declaration that "the dead know not anything." Those who advocate man's natural immortality and the consequent consciousness in death, argue in a circle. Certain passages, they think, prove their views, because the soul is immortal, and therefore cannot die. And the best reason that they have for thinking the soul immortal, and the best proofs that they can bring to support it, are these same passages—passages which are just as easily understood in harmony with the opposite view. To their mind, these passages teach man's consciousness in death, because the soul is immortal; and the soul is immortal, because these very passages teach it. It will not be denied that the doctrine of man's continued consciousness in death, that is, that the real man does not die at all, is a very ancient doctrine. Ancient pagan philosophers held it, and the heathen, as far back as the days of Moses, worshiped dead men as their gods. In Num. xxv we read, "And Israel abode in Shittim, and the people began to commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab. And they called the people unto the sacrifices of their gods; and the people did eat, and bowed down to their gods. And Israel joined himself unto Baal-peor; and the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel." The Psalmist, in reference to the same thing, says, "They joined themselves also unto Baal-peor, and ate the sacrifices of the dead." Ps. cvi, 28. It is a well-known fact that pagan nations have been in the habit of deifying the dead. They have held that their dead heroes were not dead, but had gone to be with the gods, and were themselves the objects of worship. Now, since it is a fact that men do, as it appears to all our senses and natural faculties, die, the same as the brute creation, how came this idea among the heathen, that men do not die, but are ushered into a higher life at death? The idea is either true or false, and must have been derived from God, the great fountain of truth, or from the father of lies. Which38is it? The idea could not have been derived from the Bible, for, as we have seen, it was in the world before even the books of Moses were written. Still I think that its origin is revealed in the Bible. When God inspired Moses to write his word, he took him back to the beginning, and there revealed to him two grand assertions which were made to our first parents soon after they were created, which directly contradict each other; consequently one of them was false. It was the first lie ever spoken to our race, and its author was the father of lies. God had said to them concerning the tree of knowledge, "In the day that thou eatest thereof, dying thou shalt surely die." But the serpent said unto the woman, "Ye shall not surely die;" but in case they disobeyed God, said he, "Ye shall be as gods." And although death did follow man's transgression, yet Satan was not long in persuading those who rejected the knowledge of God, that his lie was still the truth—that instead of the real man dying, he only entered upon a higher life, and thus reaped a real benefit from the change—became as gods, and the proper object of worship. And if we trace the results of this down to the present day, men are not wanting who boldly and blasphemously assert that the serpent told the truth, and that "God lied." This is no "stale joke," as characterized by a certain Professor recently. I am not joking, my dear readers, when I utter my most solemn and decided conviction before God, that Satan's lie, uttered to our parents in Eden, is the true and only origin of the doctrine of the immortality of the soul, and the consequent consciousness in death. Dr. A. Clarke, in his comment upon the language of the serpent to Eve, says, "The tempter through the nachash, insinuates the impossibility of her dying, as if he had said, God has created thee immortal, thy death is therefore impossible; and God knows this, for as thou livest by the tree of life, so shalt thou get increase of wisdom by the tree of knowledge." Then the first doctrine which the great tempter ever preached in the world, was immortality in sin, or natural, unconditional immortality. Is it strange that the seducing spirits of these last days should teach the same? Says Paul, "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils." Macknight has it, "doctrines concerning demons," and Wakefield, "doctrines about dead men." It is a heathen notion that demons are disembodied human spirits—spirits of dead men. The Bible view is that they are the "angels who kept not their first estate." We read of the "Devil and his angels." The true Christian would be slow to believe that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and all the holy prophets and saints of old, were the demons that took possession of, and tormented, men in the days of our Saviour, and that were cast out by him. Yet if the heathen notion is true, they are all demons; and if we take anything upon their authority, to be consistent we must take the whole. It is far better to accept of the revelation that God has given us. Report from Bro. Ingraham.
By William S. Ingraham
BRO. WHITE: As I have not reported myself of late, it may be duty to acquaint our brethren with my labors since conference. I have made two visits to Darlington; found most of the brethren striving for the kingdom. Two of them were drafted, brethren Armitage and Albert Hardy. They paid $300.00 and were cleared. From this place I went to Fayette, where we held our last tent meeting. Found the Freewill Baptists were making a division in their church by closing their meeting-house against us. I designed to follow up the interest we left when we closed our tent labor, but we are cut off for the present, there being no house for meetings. I attended the quarterly meetings at McConnell's Grove and Monroe. At these meetings I did not enjoy as much liberty as on some former occasions, but our communion seasons will long be remembered by those present. At McConnell's Grove our elder (Bro. Brown) was confined at home and could not meet with us at our usual place of worship, consequently we had the communion at his house. In answer to prayer Bro. B. was much blessed. His distress, caused by rheumatism, was removed, and he was able to take part with us. At Monroe we had a melting time. There were brethren present from Avon, McConnell's Grove and Darlington. Our quarterly meetings should be well attended by all that can consistently reach them. It is my opinion if we should have our communion seasons in the evening, and by ourselves, away from the world, it would be better. This institution belongs to the church of God. I have preached some in new places. I have given several lectures in the town of Jordan. Here I was assailed in the most abrupt manner by one Dr. Cox, once a Protestant Methodist preacher, but now a Spiritualist lecturer. The doctor and his party have been successful in throwing confusion into nearly all the meetings that have been held by different ones for a long time. They had enjoyed the privilege of speaking in every meeting, and to be cut off from this privilege was more than they could bear. They said it was a free country and they could not submit to the gag law. I told them I was a man of order, and they could not speak on my time or responsibility; but if they wanted to discuss the subject of Spiritualism, I would meet them. A question was proposed, moderators chosen and rules adopted, and the debate began, which lasted one week. The doctor grew more and more nervous to the close. The last evening of our debate, when I was criticizing some of his foolish positions, and especially his remarks on Eccl. ix, 3-5, and the rich man and Lazarus, he could govern himself no longer, but jumped from his seat, shook his fist in my face and called me a liar. With patience I bore it, but met his arguments without fear. His position in regard to the rich man and Lazarus was nothing new. But his having said the spirit of man was a part of God, involved him in difficulty when he came to the parable; for he said it was the spirit of the rich man that went to hell. My reply was as follows: If the spirit of man is a part of God, and the spirit of the rich man was in hell, we must conclude that God was presented in hell; and, second, as there was an impassable gulf between him and Abraham, it would subject the divine being to eternal damnation. Now doctor, exert your skill in getting God out of hell across the impassable gulf into the seventh sphere. This point will bear with equal weight against some religious bodies. The M. E. Hymn Book says the soul is God's immortal breath. The doctor made such a failure in the estimation of the audience, that when he entered upon his last speech there were so many raps on the house and in the house he was obliged to sit down. These raps were not from the dead but from the living. Another gentleman took his place and made many remarks that had no bearing on the question. I replied and the debate closed, much in our favor. The people are anxious to hear on the different points of our faith. I shall accommodate them as soon as I can. It will not be possible for me to travel much this winter. My wife's health is very poor, and she is away from home for the purpose of being benefited by cold water treatment. I shall travel all I can, and labor as much as I can to spread the truth. In Ohio.
By J. H. Waggoner
It was my earnest desire to return to Ohio at an earlier day; but my own health has not been good, and there has been more sickness in my family the past fall than in any season for several years. This has detained me. A few words about meetings in Michigan may not be out of place. The quarterly meeting at Matteson, was not largely attended. It was just at the season when Brn. did not feel willing to leave their labor to come a distance. But the result was good. New courage was given to some, to whom I pray the Lord to give abiding comfort. The meeting at Hillsdale, was a good one, for which the way had been prepared by the visit of Bro. and Sr. Byington. The cloud was moving off, and almost all were free. One dear brother whom Satan had bound down in discouragement had concluded to give up, but then resolved to throw off the chain, was baptized, and went free. The ordinances were attended on first-day evening. I hope the time will soon come when all will more highly prize the privileges of the ordinances of the Lord. I spent one Sabbath with the church at Salem, Ind. I was reminded at that meeting of the time spoken of by the prophet when 'the people had a mind to work.' How it cheers the heart of a minister to have all rise up at the close of a sermon and give a ready, cheerful testimony. The church at Salem have had 'the lot of the righteous'—some tribulation and persecutions; but he who numbers the hairs of our heads will never forsake those who trust in him. The monthly meeting at Colon, was truly refreshing. There also the ordinances were celebrated. These meetings more than all others, bind the hearts of the children of God together, and therefore should not be neglected. I mean the ordinance meetings. I fear too many have failed in this respect in times past. I pity those members who absent themselves on such occasions. I cannot afford to lose them. Three Sabbaths I spent at Battle Creek, and Sabbaths spent there are always profitable to me. The one at the time of the Association meeting; the one preceding; and again the 12th inst., which was the last I spent in Michigan. This last was a solemn day. Solemn to all because of the sad news just received of the bereavement of Bro. and Sr. White, and I may say of the church: for all who knew Henry, must feel his loss. Rarely do the Christian graces shine so brightly in the young. Would there were more of the youth like him! The most profitable of all my meetings were held with the church in Burlington. By the help of good brethren and sisters I have been trying to walk in the 'valley of humiliation;' and I trust, like Bunyan's Pilgrim, I shall have a pleasant walk if I succeed in finding good footing at the bottom of the valley. By my own experience and observation I have learned that all are apt to stumble more or less in going down, and few succeed in getting safely down alone. And it seems to be a peculiarity of that locality, that no one seems to feel the need of help there, though slipping at every step; and those who offer to help are considered meddlesome and obtrusive. And some, refusing aid from their fellow travelers, are so unfortunate as to receive a fatal fall before they reach the valley. Whether Pilgrim missed the sight, or whether Satan has erected it since, I know not; but I discovered the 'image of jealousy' over against the hill leading to the valley, and those who bow to it are sure to get bruised on the way, if they escape with life. But enough! Brethren, I am not dreaming at all. Every 'wayfaring man' can see these things. Had it not been for the request to preach a funeral sermon at Gilboa, I should have gone directly on to Ashtabula county. When I decided on the time to be at Gilboa, I was near the S. M. R. R. It was Dec. 6, and knowing that I could not get an appointment to them by the Review, for Dec. 10, I sent by letter. This would go to Toledo the 7th, to Ottawa the 8th, and to Gilboa the 10th; giving time to have the appointment given out the Sabbath previous, that was, the 12th. I encountered the storm and severe cold to meet the appointment, and arriving there found the letter safely laid up in the Gilboa post office: I think it creditable to all concerned that it was taken patiently. The appointed sermon was preached on the 20th, but many who desired to be present on the occasion could not be notified. May the Lord sustain the 'little flock' in Gilboa. Their number has decreased both by death and removals; I hope the 'things that remain' may not fail. Walking by sight, we shall find enough to discourage; walking by faith, there is full enough to encourage us. The 'far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory' eclipses then the things of earth, and shuts them out of view. 'Lord, increase our faith.' When last at Lovett's Grove, about eight months since, I made an appeal in behalf of the children. The church felt and responded to it; and the Lord blessed their efforts. I am invited to spend next Sabbath there, and baptize some. I expect then to proceed39immediately eastward. My address, for the present, will be Orwell, Ashtabula Co., Ohio.