Earlier text: Things Miscalled AmusementsReligious Instruction at Home.
A RECENT writer offers the following suggestion to parents:— “We must not forget the importance of striving to cultivate a frank confidence and sympathy in the relations of home. It has seemed to me, in many cases to which I have given some study, that the great privileges and opportunities which parents enjoy, are often destroyed by their allowing great walls of spiritual distance and alienation to rise between themselves and their children. It is sad to see the children of a family growing up into manhood and womanhood, and we often see them, having as little acknowledged communion of religious life with their parents as if they were a parcel of bears’ cubs; never hearing from father or mother a simple, earnest avowal of religious faith, much less the simplest words of worship; trained by their parents’ reserve to keep in their own bosoms whatever religious emotion the Spirit of God may have quickened there; and finding the first sympathy and mutual confession which will fan the faint sparks of worship and consecration on their hearts’ altars into a blazing flame—finding this, for the first time, after they have gone from their childhood’s home. While I appreciate the power of a religious atmosphere and of religious observances in Christian nurture, it seems to me that this habitual religious confidence is the most efficient and indispensable. Gain the perfect trust and affection of your child, in the early years when it looks to you with such religious awe as you look to God, and, when the quiet home is its only temple, opens its heart to yours in the deepest religious confession, and keeps it open through the changing years, and you can accomplish everything with that child for nurture and blessing. No Aladdin’s wonderful lamp, no magician’s potent wand, could be more sovereign in controlling the spirits of the vast deep, and in working miracles of beauty and majesty, than can the simple power of your hold upon the child’s love and confidence become, in controlling its most turbulent passions and building up in its soul the loveliness and grandeur of Christly character.”—Sel. Effects of Spiritualism.
By MRS. M. C. TRUESDAIL
READING Dr. Gridley’s description, in a late REVIEW, of how spirits treated an old man of sixty years, in Massachusetts, reminded me of an old lady about the same age, that I met recently. Noticing a peculiar expression of her eyes, I hastened to call her attention to my book which I was selling, when she replied, “No, I thank you,” then closing her eyes very tightly, after first removing her pipe, “you call again some time. I am tormented to death just now with evil spirits, I can’t live much longer either, in this way; I can’t sleep nights with their dreadful howlings. They are the spirits of Indians, and you know what unearthly noises they make; they are howling all about the house nights, and have been for several weeks.” Opening her eyes again, she inquired, “You understand what I mean, don’t you? You’ve heard of spiritualism?” I replied I had heard it spoken about, and that I was afraid of such evil spirits. She answered, “This is its worst feature. I knew this was coming; good spirits revealed it to me before it happened, and they promised me I should not be tormented again after I get through with this spell.” I inquired, Can you trust them? “Of course I can,” she said with considerable spirit, and tightening her eyes again, she continued her remarks in such a loud, screechy tone, that I tremblingly wished myself out of the house. “You come again,” she repeated, “and I’ll tell you your whole history; I ain’t permitted to do it while these evil spirits are around.” I felt very glad of this and was preparing to leave, when she urged me to listen to the bright side of spiritualism, and the beautiful music she had listened to from her dead husband, playing upon a harp at the same time, and the great discoveries that had been revealed to her in the science of astronomy, &c., &c. When she opened her tightly shut eyes, she discovered, too, that I had hold of the knob of the door ready to leave, as soon as politeness would permit. How thankful I felt, when darkness enshrouded the earth, that I could lie down and sleep, and not be tormented like this poor woman with the spirits of devils. In the twenty-sixth chapter of Leviticus, God promised Israel that if they walked in his statutes, and kept his commandments, they should lie down and none should make them afraid; but if they despised his statutes, and broke his covenant, he would appoint terror over them and send faintness into their hearts, so that the sound of a shaken leaf should chase them. I am told, by a near neighbor to this lady, that her husband died about two years ago, willing all his property to a young girl in this place, and the property cannot be disposed of to aid his poor wife in her nearly destitute condition, and her neighbors are becoming tired of helping her, and have reported her case to the town. Her husband died a spiritualist. Another circumstance horrible to relate, came under my observation while visiting in Warren, Ill., about two months since, resulting in the death of the individual, with whom I was acquainted. He had been an infidel for years, until the death of his second wife occurred. A spiritualist near him having communications professing to come through her spirit, he was led on, step after step, through the same course, till he was persuaded to marry a young girl, a communication purporting to come from his wife’s spirit, saying that she was the one chosen by her to fill her place. He sold his valuable farm after their marriage and moved to the far West, where, in less than one year, she received still another revelation, from the same spirit, that she must unite herself to another man, who was Christ, and she was christess; and after repeating over a ceremony of her own, they claimed themselves married. Turning her husband out of doors, he was told to go back to Illinois and form a colony of free lovers, &c. He came back with less than one dollar to pay his expenses, a generous public aiding him till he reached his mother’s house. His efforts proving futile in forming the above colony, he was directed by the spirits to abstain entirely from food; that he needed all these trials through which he had passed, to fit him for greater usefulness; that he was chosen to occupy a brilliant position, to teach great and important truths to mankind. After a fast of fifteen days he was directed to be baptized. Not a minister in the place could be persuaded to do this, and he was taken into the country, where a Methodist deacon, out of sympathy, consented, thinking he would afterward take nourishment. After the twentieth day he was unable to leave his bed, when my brother-in-law notified the town authorities; a nurse was provided, and when he was forced to take nourishment, he became very angry with his relatives, not permitting them to enter his room. And thus he died the twenty-fifth day of his fast, a mere skeleton. Previous to his death he stated that he would go into a trance, and wished to be kept six days. Four days proving that the trance was a permanent one, an appropriate sermon was preached by a Baptist elder selected for the occasion, when he was borne to the silent grave, a victim of modern spiritualism. The brother that went to recover his property, found that the wife and her lover had left for parts unknown, taking with them all disposable property. This circumstance occasioned great excitement; hundreds came to view the trance corpse. “Not a spiritualist,” I was told by his mother, “showed his head.” They were waiting, I presume, to commune with his departed spirit. Oh! what a delusion; and has not the foundation of this belief been held forth by the Orthodox churches for centuries? Quite recently four young children were deprived of their dear mother. When twilight approached, and they missed her gentle caresses, one younger girl inquired, “why they laid mamma in the cold ground,” when the reply came from the next older, “Mamma is not in the ground, she has gone to yon beautiful Heaven;” when a still younger repeated, pointing with his little finger, “Mamma way up in e sky.” Innocent childhood is thus taught to repeat errors of heathen origin, thus fostering spiritualism. And these errors are re-echoed from the spirits of demons, purporting to be the spirits of loved ones. And ere long popular theology will seek a quiet repose beneath its green branches, the tree of its own planting. As Bro. Cornell remarked; “we should not be presumptuous, lest we be left to sink under the power that is to ‘deceive if possible the very elect.’” Nothing can save us from its snares, unless we are clothed with the whole armor of truth. The humble may find shelter here, and thus be hid in the secret of his pavilion. I want to be found among the humble followers of Jesus. Rev. Hugh Stowell Brown says that there are three things that a young man wants to begin the world with; sound health, sound sense, and a sound character. He adds: “I do not pity you because you have no money; you must go and make it. Don’t say you cannot. If you say this, then away with you to the union workhouse; you are not the man to fight the battle of life. I don’t pity you because you have no friends to patronize you. Patronage! be your own patron! Friendless as you seem, you have three very powerful friends—your health, your intelligence, and your character; and as long as you keep on good terms with these, you are all right—you may—you must—succeed.” Spirituality of Mind as the Minister's Main Qualification
I SEE that spirituality of mind is the main qualification for the minister. What Language Did our Lord Use?
By John Nevins Andrews
Although the Old Testament was written in Hebrew with the exception of portions of Ezra, Jeremiah, and Daniel, which were written in Chaldaic, and although the New Testament was written in Greek, the language spoken by our Lord to the people of his time was neither Hebrew nor Greek. The Hebrew language ceased to be the language of the common people in the Jewish nation during the seventy years’ captivity in Babylon. There they adopted the language of the Chaldeans, their conquerors, giving it of course a Hebraic cast. The Chaldaic or Aramic language which indeed was much like the Hebrew, being thus adopted was as a matter of course retained during the five hundred years that elapsed before the Son of God began his work among men. In this time, however, the language underwent changes, and became so far different from the original Chaldaic that it is called the Syro-chaldaic language. This was perhaps as nearly like the Chaldaic as the English language of to-day is like that spoken by our ancestors five hundred years since. The Syriac was used in our Lord’s time by the people of quite an extensive region. The Jews of that time spoke a language compounded of Chaldaic and Syriac. This was the language of our Lord’s discourses. We might reasonably infer this from the fact that it was the language of the common people. But we know it to be the case because the very expressions used by him are in many cases preserved. It is true that this language is termed in the New Testament the Hebrew tongue. But this is not because that it is the original, pure Hebrew, but because it was the language of the Hebrew people of that time, and because it resembled that tongue. It was in this modern kind of Hebrew that our Lord’s inscription was written upon his cross; and it was in this that Paul addressed the people from the castle stairs. Luke 23:38; Acts 22:2. The evangelists, though writing in Greek, frequently desire to preserve the exact expressions used by our Lord. So they introduce the very words of that language in which our Lord spoke, and then they interpret them. Thus he says to the daughter of the ruler of the synagogue, “Talitha cumi,” which signifies, “Damsel, arise.” Mark 5:41. This explains why the evangelists occasionally give our Lord’s exact words and then interpret them. We have in these words in 1 Cor. 16:22 an instance of the use of the Syro-chaldaic language by the New Testament writers. Maran-atha is a term of that language signifying, “The Lord cometh.” It seems to have been introduced by Paul, though writing in Greek, for the purpose of emphasis. Anathema is Greek, signifying accursed. The sentence, therefore, amounts to this: “If any man love not our Lord Jesus Christ let him be accursed at the coming of the Lord.” “When James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me,” etc. Gal. 2:9. “Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.” 1 Cor. 1:12. This is a name given by our Lord himself to Simon. It is a word signifying in the language then used by the Hebrew people, a stone. It is therefore exactly equivalent to his more common Greek surname Peter. John 1:42. WHAT DOES SIMON BAR-JONA SIGNIFY?
This is the designation of Peter used by our Lord in responding to his noble confession of faith recorded in Matt. 16:16, 17. Bar is a Syriac word signifying son. The expression is therefore in meaning simply this: Simon son of Jonas. J. N. A. Relations of Sabbath-Keeping with Sunday-Keeping Denominations.
THE following excellent remarks we copy from the Sabbath Recorder of Aug. 3, being part of an essay read before the S. D. B. Eastern Association, by Eld. James Summerbell. That our natural tendency is to extremes either side of the truth, none can deny. We are apt either to lack in courtesy or to compromise the truth, and while courtesy is commanded in the Scriptures, it becomes something else and deserves a harsher appellation when we please men to the extent of dishonoring God’s law. That law is a sacred trust committed to us in the midst of widespread worldliness in religion, and if we prove recreant to this trust, God will chose others in our place, and others will take our crowns. May the Lord strengthen us to the work assigned us in these last days. J. H. W. Seeing they are so many, and so wealthy, and so learned and devoted, what a pity it is they are on no better terms with God’s law, and that they do not seem to understand that “this is the love of God that we do his commandments.” That we should love them, and they us, is an ostensible duty. Denominational boundaries cannot limit the divine command to “love one another.” This paramount requirement neglected, renders the most perfect obedience to all the rest as “sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal.” In our Christian experience, we are so nearly alike that only a line divides us and keeps us apart; but it as effectually divides us as though it were the circle of the earth’s broad orbit. That line, so decisive in its character, is God’s holy law, by which is the knowledge of sin. On the hither and thither sides of it stand confronting each other, loyalty and disloyalty. The nearness of these opposing forces but makes their impending conflict the more certain and imminent. There is no discharge in this warfare. The long, arduous contest must continue, till it is forever settled whether man can have the power to alter or abrogate the law of God. This is the question between us; and only God, by his chosen instrumentalities, will settle it. Treaties, compromises, and temporizing, are good for nothing. To many, not comprehending the magnitude of the issue before us, as involving the authority and majesty of God, this appears overdrawn. There is, in the denominations around us, so much that is really commendable in other things, that they would overlook this, or at least extenuate it. They seem to forget the rich youth who eagerly ran to Christ, and having, as he supposed, done all that man could, asked for another good thing to do. Jesus loved him, but sent him sorrowing away, because he lacked one thing. It was a very fine point, but our Saviour made it. “Obedience is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.” They who can do so much, can, if they will, do this. Many of the denominations, in their church institutions and privileges, are very attractive. Numbers, wealth, and zeal in their work, make them so. They look with unfeigned wonder at our exclusiveness in restricting the privileges of the communion to those “who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus,” and generously set us an example, by making their table free. But why should they not? If we do as we profess, what law of God do we break? What command do we set aside? If we accept their invitation, is it not all the same as though we invited them to our table, and said to them, “You disregard the law of God, and we think you wrong, and would not venture to do it ourselves; but after all it is no matter; you are all right.” When once we reach this point, the transition is easy; yea, it is a logical consequence. If they are all right, then, just as far as we differ from them we are wrong, and we should at once unite with them. A compromising, trimming, half-and-half policy, is always sure to miss what it is fishing for, and gains the contempt of all honorable men. Christ's Power to Take his Life Again.
By Uriah Smith
“THEREFORE doth my Father love me because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.” These are the words of Christ as recorded in John 10:17, 18. They are often quoted to prove that the dead are conscious, and have power, in that state, to put into operation the various faculties of body and mind; for how, it is asked, could Christ take his life again after he had laid it down, if he was not conscious, and was not capable of exercising his powers the same as before? And so, assuming that Christ was conscious in death, an argument is drawn therefrom to prove the consciousness of all the dead. At first sight this seems very plausible; and the passage has appeared to not a few a difficult one to explain. In seeking for its correct meaning, two questions present themselves for solution: What is the import of the expressions, to lay down life, and to take it again? and as used by our Saviour, to what point in his life did these expressions apply? He had power to lay down his life. What is to be understood by his laying down his life? And when he had laid it down, what was his condition? Is the laying down of life, anything less than putting it off? Is it not to be divested of it entirely? When Christ had laid down his life, was not his life entirely put off? To say, as some do, that only the human body of Christ died, while the real Saviour, the divine part, survived, leaves us with only a human sacrifice. No, Christ provided in his own person a divine offering; and when he had laid down his life, what was his condition? It was certainly one without life. But how do we determine when and where there is life? We determine it by its manifestations, consciousness, volition, action. Wherever we see these, we say at once that there is life; and wherever life is wanting, these cannot be manifested. Did Christ manifest these when in death? Then it would inevitably follow that he had not laid down his life, for these are the things by which it is shown that life exists. But he did lay down his life, or give himself a ransom for many, and was brought into that condition which must result in which there is an absence of all consciousness, volition, and action. How then, it will be asked, did he have power to take his life again? This brings us to the second question; namely, To what time did this expression apply? Did it apply to the time when Christ was dead? Did he say, I have power to lay down my life, and after I have laid it down, then I have power to take it again? Did he not say, I have [now] power to lay down my life, and to take it again? Did not the power inhere in him as he then stood speaking to the people, and not as he would be when dead? This we apprehend to be the meaning of his words. But how could he have power to take his life again, before he had laid it down? If he had not the power then, he could not have it at any time afterward; or, in other words, he must have possessed it then, as much as at any subsequent time. If he had it not then, but was to have it after he had died, he doubtless would have framed his language to convey such an idea; thus, I have power to lay down my life, and after I have laid it down, I shall have power, or power will be given me, to take it again. Instead of this, he puts it all in the present tense: I have power now, both to lay it down and take it again. But the secret of this power is given us in the last sentence of the verse: “This commandment have I received of my Father.” He could lay down his life, and the Father had given him assurance that if he did so, he would bring him again from the dead. This power was given him of his Father, and rested in the assurance of his word. So when Christ died, he commended his spirit into the hands of his Father; and when the proper time came, the Father, according to his foreordained purpose, brought him again from the dead. Heb. 13:20; also Acts 2:24; 3:15; 4:10, &c. The text under consideration therefore furnishes no proof that Christ was conscious in death, and hence destroys all the argument based on such a supposition for the consciousness of any others. U. S. Information Wanted.
By J. H. W.
EDITOR REVIEW: I want to know who “Sel.” is, I see a good many pieces signed Sel. Please inform through the REVIEW, and oblige. S. P. K. ANSWER:—From the inquiries frequently made on this subject we have thought it might be spelled with a double l (Sell), but it is generally understood to be an abbreviation of the word selected. To this point we wish to speak. Objections have sometimes been offered against putting selections in the REVIEW. It being the only paper advocating the truths of the third angel’s message, and comparatively small in size, it is urged that it should be entirely made up of original articles specially relating to our faith. This suggestion seems good, but a statement of the situation may help some. Bro. Smith has been some time in the East; Bro. White has attended the Western Camp-meetings; and the faithful sisters who had charge of the editor’s room, who acted as editors or assistant editors of the REVIEW, Reformer, Instructor, as well as proof readers, &c., had far more on their hands than they could attend to. When I commenced labor in the editor’s room, I found the table literally loaded with papers, mostly manuscripts. These must be in some manner disposed of to get even writing room on the table. A small part was assigned a place for present use; another somewhat larger part was laid aside for future examination; but the greater part was thrown into the waste box. This has given me the opportunity of taking the range of the writings of our people, such as is seldom offered, and I find that a large part of the manuscripts sent into the Office is made up of rhyme (very little poetry) and moral and religious essays; and of this mass the smaller part can go in the REVIEW. We yield to the injunction so often advertised, “Get the best!” and if we must use religious essays, which have no reference to the present truth, we esteem it a duty to take the best we can find, whether original or selected. Our best writers and most earnest thinkers have little time for essaying. Important questions are always occupying their minds and pens. And aside from our doctrinal writings we have few, if any, among us who can produce religious articles equal to those of T. L. Cuyler, and others from whom we take selections. We do not believe it is wrong to insert selections in the REVIEW. We want devotional and practical articles, as well as doctrinal, and sometimes we find excellent articles of this kind among our selections. We want also a variety. We make no complaint against our correspondents, but urge them rather to persevere. We cannot publish all we receive, but would rather have a large variety from which to select, though it involves some labor, than to be shut up to the necessity of taking whatever comes to hand for want of variety. Many, no doubt, have been benefited by studying and writing out the result of their investigations, though it was never published. But we cannot recommend our brethren and sisters to make much outlay of time, in these days of haste, in writing poetry! There are a few whose efforts in that line we are glad to receive; but as a general thing we think it a waste of time. Poor poetry goes into the waste box with a more vigorous fling than anything else. What we need, most of all to make a good paper, is more devotion breathed into and through our original articles. Many a manuscript, quite well written, but in the true pharisaic style, without a breath of spiritual emotion in it all, as hollow as a school-boy’s declamation, goes into the waste box; while the almost illegible scrawl of him or her who knows not how to finish their sentences well, nor to follow any rules of grammar is gladly used, if it breathes a spirit of true devotion, and gives evidence that its writer has a deep, living experience in the things of God’s Spirit, or is earnestly inquiring the way to Zion. J. H. W. Be Frank, True, and Free of Affectation
Be always frank and true; spurn every sort of affectation and disguise. Have the courage to confess your ignorance. Confide your faults and foibles to but few. Is Everything Right?
By J. H. W.
We see that the editors of the Crucible are quite excited over our recent exposures of some of the boastful assumptions of spiritualists. It will be remembered that we quoted from their own writings to sustain our charges that spiritualism is “evil, and only evil,” that it tends to vice by upholding and encouraging sin. Our only severity was that of truth. But the editors are terribly stirred up. They try to be witty, and succeed in saying many bitter things, and utter some “undeveloped truth,” (according to Davis’ theory.) Davis says that to blame a person for anything he does is evidence of an undeveloped mind; and according to that, the editors of the Crucible have room to progress considerably yet. I have always urged that they never fully believed their own theory that “whatever is, is right,” and now they are proving that I was right. They teach that opposites are equally true, and that virtue and vice are both useful; but they cannot act in harmony with such a belief, especially when an Adventist crosses their track. I was going to write above—they teach that virtue and vice are equally useful—but I could not, as they exalt vice above virtue. Dr. Child in a book recommended by the editor of the Crucible, says:— “Ere long man will come to see that all sin is for his spiritual good. Holiness lays up treasures on earth. Sin destroys earthly treasures, and causes them to be laid up in Heaven.”
Christ and the People, pp. 32, 33. In another book, “Better views of Living,” p. 128, the same author says:— “The divine use of the ten commandments is in their violation, not in their observance.”
We are not at all surprised that spiritualists feel abused and slandered when their writings are quoted! But we are astonished that they cannot or will not see that the wrong is in their own teachings, and not in the persons who quote them and expose their immoral tendency. The Eloquence of Saying Only What Is Necessary
TRUE eloquence consists in saying all that is necessary, and nothing but what is necessary. Division Over Truth Versus Union in Error
By D. T. Bourdeau
The Bible teaches that it is wrong to cause divisions that are contrary to sound doctrine. Rom. 16:17, etc. Pride, selfishness, and envy, are generally the basis of such divisions; and woe unto those who promote them. They are guilty of opposing God and his truth, and offending those who love God and follow the truth. Union is pleasing to God if based on truth; but God hates that union which is founded on error, and formed in opposition to, and at the sacrifice of, the truth. It would be very desirable for all to unite on right. This would meet the mind of God, good men, and angels. But it is better to separate from wrong by standing for the right, than to have all unite on error. Hence it is that the Prince of peace could say, “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth; I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.” Matt. 10: 34-38. The Saviour wanted to unite all on his teachings; but he knew that the carnal heart would not receive them, and that the masses would oppose the truth and its adherents, and this would bring division. But in this case who are responsible for the division? Those who stand for the right and advance in the light of God’s truth, desiring to have all go with them? or those who fall back on dignity, oppose the truth, and persecute those who vindicate it, and cry division? We are sometimes accused of breaking up churches, forming another sect, and thus adding to the divisions already existing, by preaching the coming of the Lord and a preparation to meet him. But we do not wish to divide up churches and form a sect. We want all churches to unite on the great truths of Christ’s second coming. If they should do this, their differences would melt away like wax in the sun. The Advent doctrine came to the churches about thirty years ago to unite them and remove all their errors and unpleasant divisions; but as bodies they would not be healed. But this glorious doctrine did unite in sentiment and the sweetest bonds of Christian love those who received it, and what it did for this company it might have accomplished for all professed Christians. The doctrine of Christ’s coming is not a denominational doctrine. It is world-wide in its application. Christ is coming to all, and all should prepare to meet him. As we preach this doctrine in different places, we generally call on preachers as soon as we can, treating them as brethren, and inviting them to unite with us in the great work of reform. We prefer to be agreed; and in most of places one church might suffice to accommodate all. But if it was not sufficient, we might all unite as brethren, and enlarge the most convenient house or build a new one, and worship together, and devote all other houses of worship to other purposes. But generally speaking this cannot be done. The truth is opposed, creeds, churches, and other gods are worshiped, and those who take hold of the truth are thrust with side and shoulder, and made to feel the power of oppression; and to enjoy liberty of conscience, they are under the painful necessity of placing themselves outside of the pale of the church where they can walk in the light that shines on their pathway. And now we ask, Upon whom rests the blame of division? How far would Christ, the early Christians, and the reformers have gone in the work of reform if they had halted at the cry of division? Let it first be shown that we cause division contrary to sound doctrine, and then we will acknowledge that we are engaged in an evil work. The Iowa Tent.
By Dudley Marvin Canright
We have this day taken down our tent, after a stay of five weeks. We have never enjoyed so fine weather during an entire meeting as here. Not one meeting has been broken up by rain. Most of the time the attendance has been good. The last week, however, it was small, till the last two days. Probably not less than a thousand people in all have heard us, more or less. Coming from all parts of the country, it has created an interest in every direction, to hear. Five villages within twelve miles of here are open for us, and we now intend to lecture in them as fast as we can. We consider them all good openings. Money is exceedingly scarce, so that we have sold but few books, and obtained but few subscribers for the REVIEW. Financially this is a poor section of the State for people to move to. Those who are well located north of here might better stay there. About thirty are now keeping the Sabbath here as the result of the meetings. So far as we can judge, most of these are substantial men and women who will be likely to hold on and honor the cause. As is usual, besides these, there is a large number who are nearly convinced and are friendly. We expect to gather in some of these yet, and shall probably lose some who have now started. We have obtained a good place for meetings, and one of us shall be here more or less to keep up the interest. We have never met with more determined opposition anywhere than here. All the ministers of the place have attended largely and taken advantage of the liberty which we usually give of asking questions and making remarks at the close of the meetings. They raised objections, argued their points, &c. By this means they succeeded to some extent in confusing the minds of the people; but more particularly in destroying the impression and solemnity of our discourses. We are satisfied that it is not wisdom to allow such things every night. The best way we think would be to appoint one evening in the week for the purpose of answering questions, objections, &c. Especially it is bad to have the impression obtained in the community that we are simply a contentious, debating class of people. Such a feeling never leads solid people to action. People may be convinced of the truth of our position, and even defend our side, yet unless a solemn sense of responsibility to God can be made to rest upon them they will never act. We are of the impression that we can improve in this matter. Eld. Cornell, disciple minister, came, and we discussed with him four days on the Sabbath and Law. We pressed him in every manner to maintain some proposition with regard to Sunday; but he would not do it. His position and arguments on the law are simply what we meet everywhere. He advanced nothing new, but manifested great caution in taking any position of his own whatever. We are sure that God helped us in defending his truth. The great mass of the people, except some radical members of his own church, unanimously agree that he utterly failed to meet our arguments. As soon as the debate closed, the opposition party staid away from our meetings mostly. Then all manner of slanders were most freely circulated against us, especial capital was made out of the visions, Systematic Benevolence, health reform, &c. In short, not a stone has been left unturned to oppose the truth. This has satisfied us of another thing; viz., that it is neither wisdom nor duty to hold a discussion in the midst of a course of lectures. We have tried this several times, and the same result always follows. It largely kills the interest of our meetings, from this reason: People think now we have heard both sides, and have heard all there is to it, and hence unless they are fully decided to obey the truth, they feel little interest to come afterwards; and farther, those who are opposed will not come to hear any farther after the debate is over. It makes no matter how thorough a victory you may gain, the result is the same with those who are not fully decided to obey; and again, before the people have heard our arguments in favor of the truth, an objector can bewilder them much easier than afterward. And farther still, when people are nearly convinced and are halting at the cross, if they can find even the slightest evidence in favor of their old position, or can even make themselves believe they are confused, and do not exactly know what truth is, they will settle down in their old practices, and very likely never obey the truth. We are satisfied that this is the case with some in this community. When we go into a town to preach the truth the community has heard all of their lives upon the other side. It is but justice that we should give our side for a few weeks, in order to have any show of equality. The ministers of the place have regular congregations, and houses in which to preach. If they wish to defend their side, let them do it there. Or, let them preach a sermon or two in our tent, and then we will reply. We believe this is a fair and proper course to take. After we have gotten our views fairly before the people, then at the close of the course of lectures, if they wish to debate the question, we are willing to do it. We think we shall take this position in the future. After long and prayerfully considering the matter we have moved our tent five miles to Decatur City, intending to stay only two weeks. This will leave us time to hold another thorough course of lectures. There are about a dozen Sabbath-keepers there now, and many others are nearly convinced. We hope to gather in enough more to form a little church. Leon, Iowa, Aug. 8, 1871. Report From Bro. Byington.
By J. Byington
SABBATH, June 3, I met with the church in Convis, and spoke on the important work of overcoming, and the great promise to such, that they should sit down with Christ on his throne. Rev. 3:21. There was a deep interest in the meeting. The 24th and 25th, I attended quarterly meeting at Alaiedon. The church here are maintaining their regular Sabbath meetings, Sabbath-school, and Bible-class; and are punctual in Systematic Benevolence. We had with them the ordinances. They feel the need of greater consecration. July 1 and 2, at Hillsdale. Our meetings were interesting. Some from without were with us on first-day. We had the ordinances which some thought was the best meeting they had had for years. The 29th and 30th I attended the quarterly meeting in Potterville. This was the first time I have met with them in their new meeting-house. Bro. Lamson assisted in the labor of the meeting. This church has very much increased in strength in two years past. There are two elders elected here designed to be ordained at their next quarterly meeting, to be held the last Sabbath in October. Previous to this they have only had monthly meetings on the Sabbath; they now have adopted quarterly meetings to hold two days. By request, Aug. 5 and 6, I was with the church in Bunkerhill. Four who have recently embraced the truth were baptized. May they watch and pray, and the Lord keep them from falling. Our meetings here were interesting; all seemed encouraged. J. BYINGTON.