The Seventh-day Adventists are a benevolent people. There are several reasons why their liberalities abound.
1. They conscientiously adhere to unpopular truth for the truth's sake. Their highest interest on earth is its advancement, hence their liberality to sustain the different enterprises to advance the cause of truth.
2. They take the Bible as it reads, and tremble at its pointed testimony, and feel under the most sacred obligation to obey those injunctions relative to sustaining those who labor in word and doctrine.
3. Their faith and hope strikes at the root of earthly prospects, weans them from the things of this world, loosens their grasp of worldly treasures, thus enabling them to open wide the hand of benevolence.
Our active ministers are well sustained. Some, of little experience in this cause, have been injured by the liberalities of our people. And besides sustaining some half dozen Tents in the field, and all our active preachers well, and some who have done nothing for the cause, the Seventh-day Adventists have raised for their Publishing Association the past year the handsome sum of Seven Thousand Dollars.
When we compare the condition of the S. D. A. Publishing Association with that of other small associations of the kind, we see abundant cause of gratitude to God and to his faithful people.
Before us is the Advent Herald with its blank appeal, headed, "We leave a blank space here, which it is desirable to see filled with names and amounts, of pledges of annual payments." In connection with this singularly embarrassing blank (about five inches of white paper in one column, which has appeared for two months or more,) there is a call for yearly donations to the amount of five or six hundred dollars, which sum it is said is necessary, added to their receipts from subscribers to sustain the Herald. This branch of the Advent people have able ministers, and wealth, and their paper is conducted with ability. It has taken in many respects, a straightforward, consistent course, well calculated to secure the confidence and patronage of those who go as far as it goes, and no farther. But strange to record, its yearly donations have not yet reached the sum of one hundred dollars! Certainly, the blank appeal, and all connected therewith, gives one the impression that the Herald is "on its last legs."
The "World's Crisis," has been appealing to its numerous subscribers and friends, since last October, in behalf of "The Tract Fund of the Christian Publishing Association," and the amount of donations up to this time is only about five hundred dollars. The Bible Examiner has gone down, and the Millennial Harbinger, and Sabbath Recorder struggle hard for a mere existence. We do not exult over their adversity. In their success, in extending the doctrine of the second advent, immortality alone through Christ at his second coming, and the Sabbath, we see, to a certain extent, our own. These in many instances prepare the way for the third message. We mourn, rather, that they do not keep pace with the fulfillment of prophecy, and God's opening providence, so as to give to the household meat in due season, that they may witness prosperity in all their borders.
Systematic benevolence has saved us from a dead halt as to the progress of the cause. The lack of system among our people, and the pressure of the hard times, were drying up their benevolence, and some of our preachers began to look around for hand labor to support their families. Systematic benevolence has enabled us to push forward still more extensive operations, notwithstanding the hard times.
But there is to us a painful side to this question. Satan will if possible, turn the benevolence of God's people to a bad account. And as we have borne a pointed testimony on the subject of benevolence, so has Mrs. W. we feel it our duty to speak out plainly in regard to those unworthy persons who would take advantage of our testimony. Some go through this country as peddlers, sharing the benevolence of the brethren, and think it a sufficient reason for such conduct, because they profess to keep the Sabbath. Others pass around in the shape of loafers. They seem to have no definite object, only to be well entertained, and accomplish nothing in particular, only the wearing out of their welcome as they move from place to place. There are others who have not the least claim on the benevolence of the brethren, who will recklessly start off, bag and baggage, and perhaps with horses and cattle in midwinter, and throw themselves on some church, where they know they will be dependent on them. And some of our preachers of little experience and judgment, instead of reproving such a course, will rather encourage, or at least excuse such moves in their relatives. We have recently received from Deerfield and Cleveland, Minn., a most heart-sickening report of such recklessness. Such movements often disgust sensible men and drive them from the Sabbath.
Some preachers who have recently come in amongst us, who know nothing by experience of the work in which they profess to be engaged, and whose heaviest burden seems to be how they can be supported, by their indolence, or their injudicious movements, drive more men off from the Sabbath, than they ever get on. And it is our sad experience that nothing will sooner hurt such men than for the brethren by their benevolence to free them from all care and responsibility in regard to support. Those preachers among us whose labors have amounted to any definite sum have felt their way along, and, to a great extent, have borne their own weight, till they have established a reputation among our people as successful and judicious laborers. It is painful to write these things. But as we have taken the responsibility to push forward systematic benevolence, it is our duty to watch the result, and reprove a reckless expenditure of what is conscientiously put into the treasury of the Lord. Some will bear a pointed testimony in regard to this or that, and advise this or that course, without proper caution, or reference to the results, and appear to feel no responsibility in the matter ever afterwards. We repudiate such a course as unworthy any man who professes to "watch for souls as they that must give account." Our people have great confidence in their preachers, or, at least, should be able to safely confide in them. Their testimony has a decided influence upon them, hence our preachers should take a blameless course, and be exceedingly cautious in giving advice, especially outside of their calling.
Systematic benevolence with our people is a thrifty and tender plant. All our preachers should be guardians of it. Its definite object is the advancement of the third message. If our preachers appropriate it to other objects, they will discourage the brethren, and the system will go down. That tithe of all our increase, conscientiously and systematically cast into the treasury of the Lord, is a sacred trust. It is holy unto the Lord. Take care, then, friends, how you appropriate it. It is a most solemn duty of our brethren to know how their money is to be appropriated before handing it out; whether to meet immediate wants of preachers to enable them to bear the message, to spread abroad the truth; or whether to build houses, and improve lands, help unbelieving children, or to feed and clothe the indolent. We expect censure from a certain class for our plain remarks. What use to be always firing, and never hitting? The fluttering of the bird is the best proof that the shot has hit. We have been charged with selfish purposes in systematic benevolence. Facts for our friends may be proper. We pay more than thirty dollars annually into the B. C. treasury, from which we have never received a penny, and receive from other churches when laboring with them only to meet traveling expenses. All surplus has gone either into the missionary fund, or the Publishing Association. If any person, who shall read this, can point to one instance where we have been personally benefited by systematic benevolence, if they will write out the facts, we will give them in the Review. If they cannot, then let the mouth of him who "loveth and maketh a lie," be stopped.
Our efficient men, who have given their whole being to the cause, should be fully sustained, and every proper means should be used to encourage suitable men to enter the field; but in our opinion it is time that we as a people should cease paying a high price for untried men. There are those among us, some who have formerly been preachers, who could be efficient laborers could they enter the field with consecration and faith, who seem to be waiting for the church to set them free from worldly care, and send them out. But such can be of no real service to the cause until they feel "that woe is unto me if I preach not the gospel," and, under a deep sense of their duty to, and undying love for, their fellow men, they move out trusting in God. When they do their duty, and show themselves approved unto God, they will find their faithful brethren ready, to joyfully supply all their temporal wants.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS.
By Uriah Smith
LORD JESUS, RECEIVE MY SPIRIT.
Acts vii, 59. "And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." My query is, Who said, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit; Stephen, or they that stoned him?
E. Styles.
Answer. Stephen. The Greek language is much more definite in its construction than the English. In our version, the participle, calling, so far as the grammatical construction is concerned, might relate to either, they, or Stephen; but the Greek is liable to no such uncertainty, as will be readily understood from the following facts: The case and number of nouns are determined by difference in termination. The word, Stephen, is in the accusative case and singular number. The word, they, is in the nominative case and plural number. Participles must be put in the same case and number as the words to which they relate. If then the participle, calling, relates to those who stoned Stephen, it must be in the nominative case and plural number; if it relates to Stephen, it must be in the accusative case and singular number. It is in the accusative case and singular number, and hence cannot refer to the word, they, but to Stephen. It is certain, then, that Stephen used this language, if we can rely on the integrity of the Greek text. But if any should claim that, as a matter of fact, those who stoned Stephen used the same language, I could see no objection to that, as it would be very natural to suppose that in their rage against the holy man, they would repeat in mockery the language by which he expressed his blessed hope. This language of Stephen does not in the least conflict with the testimony of Scripture in other places that the dead are unconscious. The Saviour, when expiring upon the cross, used similar language. Luke xxiii, 46. The word rendered spirit is pneuma, and means life. And when the Lord Jesus receives the lives of his martyrs as Stephen prayed that his might be received, their lives are then, as expressed by Paul in Col. iii, 3, 4, hid with Christ in God; and when Christ who is their life shall appear, then they also will appear with him in glory.
Shall we understand Eph. v, 27, to say that Jesus is to present to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle, &c.?
J. G. Wood.
Ans. The word rendered, present, is paristeemi, which is defined as follows: "To place near or at hand; i. e., have in readiness; provide; to present, offer, i. e., cause to be present," &c., Greenfield. "To cause to stand near, to place near by."—Robinson. "To place near by, or beside; to bring to one's side, make one's own."—Liddell & Scott.
The meaning of the passage in the light of these definitions seems to be this: that Christ will place beside, or near by, himself a glorious church, &c. I consider it a parallel to Christ's language in John xiv, 3: "If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you unto myself, that where I am there ye may be also."
THE SABBATH.
Is it true that the words the Sabbath, as found in the writings of Moses, might with equal propriety be rendered a Sabbath? This question, with the one published from me on Matt. xxviii, 1, in No. 9, present173volume, is suggested by reading a Sabbath Manual which is quite popular in my neighborhood, and which conveys the above idea.
T. K. Henry.
Ans. It is not. The testimony of the Scriptures relative to the Sabbath, in Hebrew, Greek, and English, is as definite as it is possible for language to express. We all know how definite the testimony of our English version is, relative to this subject; and we may just assured that the translators understood the laws of language sufficiently well not to have expressed it in this definite manner, if the original had not been equally definite. Mr. Wm. B. Taylor, in a discussion upon the Sabbath question with J. N. Brown, D. D., thus comments upon the Hebrew of the fourth commandment: "The command is not to keep a seventh proportion of our time, but to remember the Sabbath-DAY, which is yom ha-shibingi, day the seventh, the day in which God rested; the only day that can be the Sabbath of the Lord thy God, as the Bible tells not that he even kept any other Sabbath. The fourth commandment is not general in description: it is as specific as language can make it. It designates a particular day by its proper name, and by the only name it had. 'Day ha-shibingi is the Sabbath.' Frequently as the Sabbath law is repeated, in no single instance does it describe a seventh portion of time, or even a Sabbath-day as its object: day the seventh is its inexorable demand."
The Septuagint, a translation of the Old Testament from the original Hebrew into Greek, made by seventy-two learned Jews, six from each tribe, about 285 years before Christ, is probably the best expression of the sense of the original Hebrew that has ever been given. It was highly esteemed in the time of Christ, most of the quotations which he and the apostles made from the Old Testament, being taken from this version. A literal translation of the fourth commandment as found in this book, would read as follows:
"Remember the day of the Sabbath to hallow it. Six days you shall labor and perform all your works; but the day the seventh is the Sabbath to the Lord your God: you shall not do in it any work, you nor your son, nor your daughter, your servant, nor your maid-servant, your ox, nor beast of burden, nor any of your cattle, nor the stranger sojourning with you. For in six days the Lord made the heaven, and the earth, and the sea, and all the things in them, and rested on the day the seventh; for which reason the Lord spake well of the day the seventh, and consecrated it."
It is easy to see, therefore, that nothing can be further from the truth than to represent the testimony of the word of God respecting the Sabbath, as in any degree indefinite; and no one will do it, unless to serve some unworthy purpose.
THE TWO LAWS, AND TWO COVENANTS.
By Moses Hull
BY MOSES HULL.
(Continued.)
There were two laws in the former dispensation, one of which was a ministration of the other, and was of no utility until the other had been transgressed. The Jews sustained a similar relation to the ten commandments that we do; and to the ceremonial law, that we do to the gospel. In fact, the ordinances of the Jewish church pointed forward to a sacrifice for sin (transgression of a previously-existing law) as the ordinances of the Christian church point back to the same sacrifice: the law of ten commandments being the same in both dispensations.
It is with reference to this that Paul says [2 Cor. iii, 7-11], "But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not steadfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away: how shall not the ministration of the Spirit be rather glorious. For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. For even that which was made glorious, had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth. For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious."
Those who believe in the abolition of the ten commandments, use this text as an argument to prove it. We consider it a decisive argument against them.
1. There was no ministration written and engraven on tables of stone. But as the penalty of death was attached to the violation of each of the ten commandments, they could be termed, "death;" and the law which executed the penalty for violating them, could be termed the "ministration of death, written and engraven on stones:" it being "death," and not the ministration which was written on the tables of stone.
2. Other expressions not only show that it was the ministration which was done away, but they positively forbid the idea of the ten commandments' being done away. Verse 7 says, "The children of Israel could not steadfastly behold the face of Moses, for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away." And verse 13 says, "And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face that the children of Israel could not look to the end of that which is abolished."
Mark! that which was covered with a vail is that which should be abolished. But the vail was not over the tables of stone, but on the face of Moses. Moses, at this time, was the only minister, and as all the ministration came through him, all the glory of it could be represented as hid behind the vail which covered his face. Moses held the tables in his hand; hence they were not covered with the vail. The children of Israel could look at them, but they could not look at that which was to be abolished; namely, the glory, representing that ministration. This argument we regard as invulnerable.
3. Verse 11 says: "For if that which was done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious." In the former dispensation there were (1.) The law, or ten commandments, and (2.) Its ministration, or the ceremonial law. In the foregoing, Paul teaches that one was done away, and that the other remains. This being true, we are compelled to take the position that the ten commandments are done away and the ceremonial law remains, or that the ceremonial law is done away and the ten commandments remain.
Again Paul says, "The law was added because of transgression, until the seed should come to whom the promises were made." Gal. iii, 19.
This added law could not have been the ten commandments. 1. The ten commandments were not added because of the transgression of some other law; but the ceremonial law was added because of the transgression of the ten commandments. For proof of this see Jer. vii, 21-23. Here God says, "Put your burnt-offerings to your sacrifices, and eat your flesh; for I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt-offerings and sacrifices; but this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God and ye shall be my people; and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well unto you. But they hearkened not, nor inclined their ear, but walked in the counsels and in the imaginations of their evil heart, and went away backward and not forward."
Here we learn that ceremonies were not required of them until they had refused to obey the voice of God. The voice of God is the ten commandments. Proof, Deut. v, 22. That the ten commandments were what the children of Israel refused to obey, is evident from verse 9, where he says, "Will ye steal, murder, and commit adultery, and swear falsely, and burn incense unto Baal, and walk after other gods whom ye know not?"
This testimony is greatly strengthened by the testimony of Neh. ix, 13, 14. "Thou camest down also upon mount Sinai and spakest with them from heaven, and gavest them right judgments and true laws, good statutes and commandments: and madest known unto them thy holy Sabbath, and commandedst them precepts, statutes, and laws, by the hand of Moses thy servant."
Here, in addition to the "true laws" which God spake on mount Sinai, he has given laws and statutes by the hand of Moses. Now which of the two is the "added" law? I leave the candid to answer.
But was it added because of transgression? I think it was. God says [Eze. xx, 24, 25], "Because they had not executed my judgments, but had despised my statutes, and had polluted my Sabbaths, and their eyes were after their fathers' idols, wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live." What can be plainer? He names the commandments which they have transgressed, which has made it necessary to add the other law.
But it is objected that the added law is one which "polluted them in their own gifts." In this the objector errs; for God says, "And I polluted them in their own gifts." Here the polluting was done in addition to the adding of the law.
2. It was added "until the seed should come," only. But the ten commandments last till heaven and earth pass away. Matt. v, 17-19. The law which offered sacrifices did last until the seed came, or until Jesus proved himself to be the true Messiah, by being put to death "in the midst of the week." Dan. ix, 27. There "the sacrifice and oblation should cease." There the typical offerings were swallowed up in their antitype; and the law which offered them ceased.
Again, Paul, in speaking of the same law, says, "It was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ." Gal. iii, 24. The ten commandments did not point to Christ. It is true they would teach a man that he was a sinner, but they pointed to no remedy; while the offerings of the ceremonial law did bring those who accepted of them, to Christ. Every offering pointed to Christ as being the only one through whom they could obtain remission, after having violated the law of God.
In Col. ii, 14-16, Paul speaks of Christ's having blotted out "the handwriting of ordinances" (the law which was added because of transgression—the schoolmaster that pointed to Christ), and adds, "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy-day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath-days, which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ." Here I think all must agree that it is the ceremonial law that contained the feast-days, new moons, and Sabbaths, which shadowed forth that which is of Christ; hence the ceremonial law is the schoolmaster. For further testimony upon this point see Heb. viii, 5; ix, 23; x, 1.
In the above scriptures you will learn that the law "which stood in meats, and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation," not only led those who followed it, to Christ, but to his ministration in the heavenly sanctuary.
3. "To bring us," is supplied in Gal. iii, 24. It is evident that there is an ellipsis here that must be supplied with some word, but I think the words "to point us to Christ," would be preferable. At least they would not be so liable to be misapprehended.
But if any doubts yet remain as to what law is the subject of the book of Galatians, they will be removed by reading some of the various places where the word law occurs. It is unnecessary for us to give all the places of the occurrence of the word. Let the reader examine them at his leisure.
1. Chap. ii, 14-16. "But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified."
Here174Paul informs us that Peter dissembled not in keeping the ten commandments, but in compelling the Gentiles to live as do the Jews, and then shows that we are not justified by the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ. Thus the contrast is drawn between a law by which the Jew expected justification or pardon for his sins, and the faith of Christ, by which God's people now obtain justification. The same contrast is drawn by the same apostle in Acts xiii, 38, 39: "Be it known unto you, therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins; and by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses." No one can read Gal. ii, 14-16 in the light of this latter text, without understanding that "the law of Moses," or the ceremonial law, is the one referred to here. The phrase "law of Moses," never refers to the ten commandments.
2. In Gal. iii, 10, we read: "For as many as are of the works of the law, are under the curse; for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things written in the book of THE LAW, to do them." If the ten commandments are the subject of remark here, then we should expect to find the writing referred to, in them; but it is not there; it is in Deut. xxvii, 26.
Again, the text should read, "Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things written on the tables of stone," if that is the law to which he refers. The words, "book of the law," render it certain that the ceremonial law is the one of which Paul speaks. There are no "curses" written in the ten commandments; but Paul makes the two following quotations from the law of which he is speaking: (1) "Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things written in the book of the law;" and (2) "Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree." This last quotation is taken from Deut. xxi, 23.
3. In Gal. iv, 21-26, Paul introduces an allegory in the following language: "Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bond-maid, the other by a free woman. But he who was of the bond-woman was born after the flesh, but he of the free woman was by promise, which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants, the one from Mount Sinai which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar; for this Agar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is and is in bondage with her children: but Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all."
Our antinomian friends suppose that this allegory teaches the abolition of the ten commandments; and if the ten commandments are the subject under consideration, I acknowledge myself unable to fairly meet their positions; for what he calls "the law" in verse 21, he calls "the covenant that gendereth to bondage" in verse 24. But I do not believe that there was one of the ten commandments in the old or new covenants. The ten commandments are "God's covenant," not made with any people, but obedience to which, was enjoined upon all. Rom. iii, 19. First and second are relative terms; so are old and new. The old covenant relates to the new, and the new to the old.
The ten commandments existed before the old covenant was made with the children of Israel, and will exist after the new has accomplished its work. That the ten commandments were a perfect covenant in and of themselves, we prove thus: "And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments." Ex. xxxiv, 28. "And he declared unto you his covenant which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments, and he wrote them upon two tables of stone." Deut. iv, 13.
Here the ten commandments ARE A COVENANT, not a part of a covenant. Now if it be true that the ten commandments are the old covenant (and they are all of the covenant to which they belong), then they are gone; for the old covenant has given place to the new. But the truth is, the ten commandments are no part of the old covenant. The old covenant was the remedial scheme through which they approached God after having violated his law of ten commandments. The new covenant is the plan through which we approach God and obtain remission for our sins. When Paul wrote to the Galatians, the Jews expected justification, or remission, through the ceremonial law, or old covenant. They expected to go to old Jerusalem, into the old temple, and through the old priests offer the old sacrifices, and thus claim justification on the conditions of the old covenant. But Paul informs them that Jerusalem which is, is in bondage, hence could not give liberty to her children; that we must now approach the "building not made with hands," the new sanctuary in the New Jerusalem, "by a new and living way." A new victim has been offered, and a new Priest is officiating in the new temple, after a new order. In this consists the new covenant. As none of the ten commandments are in the old covenant, so none of them are in the new. But the old and new are both plans through which the violators of the ten commandments can obtain mercy.
4. Verse 21 gives us to understand that certain persons desired to be under the law. Certainly Paul does not intend to be understood that these persons desired to be condemned by the ten commandments. But if they constitute the law spoken of, this is his meaning. It is much more rational to suppose that they desired to obey the ceremonial law and thus be justified from their past transgressions of the ten commandments.
5. Gal. v, 1-4. "Stand fast, therefore, in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. Behold, I Paul, say unto you, If ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace."
Here Christ has freed them from something that Paul calls a yoke of bondage. As to what the yoke of bondage is may be seen by turning to Acts xv, where you will find that some of the Pharisees thought it was needful to "command the disciples to be circumcised and keep the law of Moses." See verse 5. But the disciples thought it was a yoke which neither we nor our fathers were able to bear. Verse 10. Again, Paul is opposing circumcision, a thing not commanded in the ten commandments. But it is commanded in the ceremonial law, although it was instituted before that law. Verse 3 says that "every man that is circumcised is a debtor to do the whole law." But surely circumcision does not make it necessary to obey the law of ten commandments, which are binding upon all, whether they are circumcised or not. See Rom. iii, 19; 1 Cor. vii, 19. Other arguments might be given upon this point, but this must suffice.
(To be Continued.)
SEVENTH-DAY BAPTIST STATISTICS.
By R. F. Cottrell
In the Recorder, the organ of the S. D. Baptists, of March 6, 1862, over the signature of A. H. Lewis, we have the following statistical information :
"The report of 1807 (see Seventh-day Baptist Manual) shows 1,648 as the number of communicants. Forty years later, 6,092 are reported, giving an average annual increase of 111. From 1830 to 1846, the last fifteen years of this period, an average gain of 175 is shown, while from 1846 to 1862, a gain of only about 35 is reported, showing a most sad decline in the ratio of our increase within the last fifteen years. The greatest number of additions in any one period during this time, was probably from 1855 to 1858, during which time the denominational gain was greater than the entire real gain since 1846, it being 626, or 208 annually. The fact just stated would seem to denote that this gain was more in numbers than in real godliness. A hasty growth which, 'when the sun was risen, withered away.' The history of the last three years fully corroborates this testimony, for with all the real strength which this rapid growth ought to have given us, we have as rapidly declined during an equal number of years since that time.
"A summary of the reports as published in the minutes of our last General Conference, gives the following : From 1858 to Sept., 1861, the gain in the Eastern Association was none; loss, 79. In the Central, gain, none; loss, 22. Western, gain, none; loss, 48. North-Western, gain, 6. Excess of denominational loss over gain, 143. Had the reports of all the churches in the North-Western Association been made entire, there is little doubt but in that, as in every other Association, the loss would have exceeded the gain. Thus our figures show a rapid decline in the ratio of our increase for fifteen or twenty years past, and a positive loss of nearly 150 within the last three years.
"Now, it is scarcely possible that such a decline in numbers could take place without a corresponding decrease of vital piety. Could the private heart-history of individuals and churches be read to-day, such would be its story, and in this decline we should find the cause of many of those unpleasant things which are among us. Necessarily our enterprises have gone down with our life and numbers. In the direction of missions, if I mistake not, one man in Kansas, with one in Wisconsin (local), and one in Pennsylvania, the last two being only partially supported by the Board, constitutes our home force. Favorable opportunities for building up societies, and establishing outposts, are lost. Men who would gladly hear the truth, go unwarned, scattered individuals and isolated families are left alone to battle with the tide, and go down, becoming an injury rather than a benefit to truth, because we have no shepherds to look after and defend, no vanguard to press the war into the camp of the enemy."
The writer commences his article with the text : "But can ye not discern the signs of the times?" Matt. xvi, 3. And it must be admitted that the facts contained in it are significant. I would not say anything invidious of this people. I am acquainted with many of them, and have been from my earliest recollections. Many of them are my personal friends. And I can say of them in general, as Paul said concerning his brethren the Israelites : "My heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved."
Neither would I boast; for boasting is excluded. We, as a people, have nothing of which to boast, but have much reason of humiliation before God. But we have a right to speak of what God has wrought. During the last few years, in which, according to the above statistics, the S. D. Baptists have been declining, the Lord has wrought more powerfully and effectually for the upbuilding of that truth which is the distinguishing feature of that denomination, than at any time since the dawn of the Reformation. He has raised a people to do and teach all his commandments, probably outnumbering greatly the S. D. Baptists, not from their ranks, with a very few exceptions, but from the quarries. They are to be found in various localities, from Maine to Minnesota and California, and some few on the east of the Atlantic. The Lord has established a printing-office, with a good power-press, and Sabbath-keepers to do the work, and provided the means for the accomplishing a great work, even the gathering together into unity the scattered members of Christ's body. God has raised up writers and preachers to advocate Bible truth, and the Sabbath is sustained by clear and forcible arguments, which Sabbath-keepers before had not dreamed of.
Brethren, S. D. Baptists, all of you that fear God, "Can ye not discern the signs of the times?" Can you not see that the hand of the Lord is with the S. D. Adventists? Can you not see that the Lord is at work for his truth, but that the work is taken out of your hands?—that the "kingdom is taken from you," and given to a people bringing forth the fruit thereof? Can you not see that the reason why you decrease, while the work of the Lord in favor of his down-trodden commandment increases, is, that we have truth respecting the faith of the gospel which you have not? Can you not see that we have present truth?—that the Lord is fulfilling prophecy, even the last prophetic warning, through the instrumentality of the Advent doctrine? Think of these things, brethren, and know that if you would have the blessing of God upon your labors, you must embrace the light that is now shining upon the prophetic word.
R. F. COTTRELL.
MEETINGS IN MICH.
By John Norton Loughborough
Since my last report I have held a two-days' meeting with the church in Hillsdale. On the second day of the meeting, first-day, Apr. 6, two were baptized. In the evening we had a refreshing season in attending to the ordinances of the Lord's house.
Sabbath, April 12, met with the few at Ransom. We had an excellent prayer and conference meeting on the Sabbath, and they expressed themselves as encouraged to press on. While in the place I gave two lectures and had a three-hours' public discussion one evening with Eld. Stout, Baptist minister, on the morality and perpetuity of the Sabbath institution.
As there was sickness with the only family I could stop with in Jefferson, it was decided to postpone lectures there for the present.
Monday, April 14, came on to Clinton, expecting to spend two or three days with the church there. But Brn. Seymour and Moore met us at the cars and informed us that the small pox was in their neighborhood, and it was not advisable for us to expose ourselves to it.175So we took the train again and came on to Jackson, where we had meeting with the church, Sabbath, April 19. Spoke twice on the work called in Rev. xi, I, measuring the people of God, which is not only done by the law of God, but by the manifestation of the Spirit of God in all its close teaching. There was one sister baptized between the discourses on Sabbath; and after the second discourse we celebrated the ordinances with the brethren. Arrived home in good health the afternoon of April 21.