COMING to chapter 5 we have to leave the ground devoted to law, concerning the Sabbath, and enter a field of pure conjecture. Not a fact is stated, which can be proved to be a fact, to justify the conclusions arrived at by the Doctor. Almost his entire argument from the gospels is found in the following paragraph:—
" 'On the first day of the week' the risen Lord appeared, first to the women, and next to them the disciples; and then to the two brothers who were on their way to Emmaus, explaining to them the Scriptures which foretold the crucifixion, causing their hearts to burn within them. The last interview of that momentous day is recorded by John 20:19-22: 'Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus, and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. And when he had so said, he showed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord. Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost.' Four times on that glorious day did Jesus appear to his beloved disciples, imparting to them the Holy Ghost—a fresh anointing for the work of the ministry to which they had been called."
But what relation has all this to Sabbath sanctification and Sabbath obligation! Dr. Miller well said that "Historic mention is not legal obligation." Duty, as regards institutions, must be expressed, not implied or inferred. This is the great error of the Roman Church, followed in some important particulars by many Protestants. Tradition and inference are exalted to occupy the place of express revelation and injunction. The Doctor has given some of the testimony of the gospels concerning the facts of Christ's appearing to them on that first day of the week; but not enough to give a correct idea of the truth in the case. It sometimes results in great injury to the truth and the reader to suppress a material part of the evidence in question. Let us hear the testimony of Mark:—
"Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils. And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept. And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not." Chap. 16:9-11.
Then up to the time when Mary returned from the sepulchre and told them that she had seen Jesus, they did not believe in his resurrection; nor did they yet believe when she told them. Now we quote verses 12, 13:—
"After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country. And they went and told it unto the residue; neither believed they them."
Concerning these two who went into the country, Luke in chap. 24 speaks more at length. They went to Emmaus, where Jesus was made known unto them when the day was nearly spent. They hastily returned to Jerusalem, and went where the eleven were together, and told them that they had seen the Lord at Emmaus. But their testimony in favor of his resurrection had no more effect upon their minds than that of Mary before. "Neither believed they them." Now we are coming to the very close of that first day, which the advocates of Sunday are wont to apostrophize as a day of gladness to the disciples because of the resurrection of the Lord. But Mark says that Mary went unto them "as they mourned and wept." Her words did not abate their mourning and weeping, for they did not believe her. All this talk about their rejoicing on that first day because of his resurrection is vapid and deceptive. There is no truth in it, though many church writers have freely indulged in it. It is the best they have to offer in favor of the day. And even to the very close of that day they remained incredulous. When the two returned from Emmaus, they not only did not believe, but still refused to believe he was risen.
Mark as well as John speaks of the Saviour coming into their midst as they were together at the close of that first day. His words are as follows:—
"Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen." Mark 16:14.
John says he pronounced a benediction upon them. Mark shows that he further upbraided them because they did not believe the testimony of those who had seen him and thus knew that he was risen. Justin Edwards, in his Sabbath Manual, says, on this circumstance:—
"On that first day he not only met with his disciples—a thing which we have no account of his doing, after his resurrection, on the seventh day—but he blessed them in their meeting, saying, 'Peace be unto you.' evidently approving of what they were doing."
But they were not assembled in a "meeting," as he would be glad to make his reader believe. The Comprehensive Commentary says: "He appeared to them as they sat at meat, which gave him an opportunity to eat and drink with them, for their full satisfaction;" that is, that they might at last be fully convinced of his resurrection. Dr. Barnes, on Mark 16:14, says: "The word meat here means food or meals; as they were reclining at their meal." Thus is seen, that not only is there no evidence that they were convened in a meeting at the time of that first appearance of Jesus in their midst after his resurrection, but the evidence is positive that they were not;—it was the occasion of an evening meal. In Acts 1:13 we are informed that they all abode in one place, so they were at their own home, partaking of a meal when Jesus appeared, instead of being convened in a meeting for worship. Instead of celebrating his resurrection with songs of joy, "they mourned and wept," not believing he was risen. And instead of Jesus speaking approvingly of their assembling to rejoice over his resurrection, he upbraided them because they did not believe he was risen. Behold what a flimsy foundation on which to build a warrant or a divine sanction for Sunday observance.
But the record further informs us that all this took place—not upon the Sabbath, nor even upon a Sabbath, but—when the Sabbath was past. Before any of these things transpired upon the first day of the week, they "rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment." God's commandment did not require the observance of the first day of the week; hence, on that day they came to the sepulchre to perform those rites which they would not do on the seventh day, out of regard for the statute of Jehovah. If the same respect and reverence were paid to the authority of God's commandment in these days, we should not have to contest this question. It is because the commandment of God is made void by tradition, Matt. 15, that we have to meet these false reasonings in favor of Sunday.
As is the custom, the Doctor finds another Sunday meeting in John 20:26. But how a man can make out that "after eight days" from the very close of one first day will fall on the next first day, we cannot imagine. From the closing day of one week to the closing day of another, is always called seven days, in the Scriptures. It would not be the eighth day,—much less after eight days. Matthew and Mark, when speaking of the relation of one certain event to another, said it was after six days. Matt. 17:1; Mark 9:2. Luke, speaking of the same, said it was about eight days after. Luke 9:28. What proof, then, have our first-day friends that that day was Sunday? Just none at all. And if it were Sunday it affords no evidence, that it was a sanctified day—a day to be thenceforth observed.
On the Pentecost he lays much stress, as follows:—
"The most notable event in the record, bearing on this question, was the Pentecost. This also occurred on the first day of the week, See Lev. 23:15, 16."
It is worthy of note how freely the advocates of Sunday make strong assertions without attempting to prove them. First, the Pentecost has no possible bearing on this question; the Lord has not required to celebrate the Pentecost weekly. The very name forbids the idea. It was a yearly festival. But, our friends say, it fell on the first day of the week, and we commemorate the event which transpired on that day by observing the first day of the week! What a flimsy pretext. If it were to be observed thereafter we think the record would at least have stated that it was the first day of the week. But was it?
It must be remembered that Pentecost means "the fiftieth,"—"the day of Pentecost" is "the fiftieth day." Of course it stands related to some day preceding it by fifty days. As to the order of this relation there is universal agreement. The Bible Dictionary of the American Tract Society says: "A feast celebrated the fiftieth day after the sixteenth day of Nisan." Dr. Clarke says it was "the fiftieth day, reckoned from the first day of unleavened bread, i. e., on the morrow after the paschal lamb was offered." This first day of unleavened bread was the fifteenth day of the month; see Lev. 23:6. Kitto says it was "seven weeks from the sixteenth day of Nisan." Smith's Dictionary of the Bible says: "The fiftieth from the second day of the feast of unleavened bread. . . . It fell in due course on the sixth day of Sivan." On this point there is no dissent.295
Now every one must see at a glance that a day which was reckoned from the sixteenth day of any month, or which falls on the sixth day of any month, cannot be related to any particular day of the week. It would fall on the first day of the week just as often as the fourth of July falls on Sunday. It was marked and celebrated as "the fiftieth" from the Passover, not as a day or any day of the week. It was a yearly and not a weekly festival.
Thus it is placed entirely outside of weekly observances, and proved to have no bearing whatever on weekly Sabbath observance. But we will further examine to see whether this particular fiftieth day, of Acts 2:1, was on the first day of the week. On this point we have some interesting evidences to offer. The Christian Statesman, in a discussion of the Sabbath question with Eld. W. H. Littlejohn, made the following concession on this Pentecost:—
"A number of eminent authorities, chief among whom is the chronologist, Wieseler, compute it to have been on the seventh day."
Dean Alford, in his "New Testament for English Readers," says:—
"The question on which day of the week this day of Pentecost fell is beset with the difficulties attending our Lord's last supper. It appears probable, however, that it was on the Sabbath," that is, on Saturday.
Prof. Hackett, in a Commentary on the Original Text, said:—
"It is generally supposed that this Pentecost, signalized by the descent of the Holy Spirit, fell on the Jewish Sabbath, our Saturday."
It is not "generally supposed" so by the mass of the people who depend for their information on the pulpits, or on such light theological literature as this book of Dr. Benson; the general belief that it was the Sabbath, and not the first day is by scholars who have closely examined the subject. And it is no credit to preachers and writers that they teach the people a different view from that held by the body of authorities.
Dr. Barnes says:—
"If the views of the Pharisees were followed, and the Lord Jesus had with them kept the Passover on Thursday, as many have supposed, then the day of Pentecost would have occurred on the Jewish Sabbath, our Saturday. Kuinoel, Lightfoot. It is impossible to determine the truth on this subject, nor is it of much importance."
If Dr. Benson is right, that it has "a bearing" on the observance of the day as a Sabbath, it is of immense importance. But we agree with Dr. Barnes; it is of no importance, because the Lord never indicated any duty in regard to the day. There is no significance whatever as to the day on which the Holy Spirit was poured out, and therefore the record left it entirely unrecognized.
Ripley, in his Notes, also says, "It cannot be satisfactorily decided."
Smith's Bible Dictionary says it is a point disputed, but favors the view that it was the Sabbath.
Jennings, in Jewish Antiquities, says:—
"Since Christ eat his last Passover on the same day with the rest of the Jews, as we have already proved, namely, on the fourteenth of Nisan, which was Thursday, the next day, on which he was crucified, must be the feast of unleavened bread; therefore the sixteenth day, the Saturday, was the first day of the seven weeks betwixt that and the Pentecost; consequently the fiftieth day, or the morrow after the seventh Sabbath or week, which was the day of Pentecost, must fall on the Saturday, or the Jewish Sabbath."
Olshausen in his Commentary, says:—
"Now, since, according to the accounts given regarding the time of the feast, the Passover, in the year of our Lord's death, fell so that the first of the feast fell from Thursday evening at six o'clock till Friday evening at the same hour, it follows of course that it was from Friday evening at six o'clock that the fifty days began to be counted. The fiftieth day fell, therefore, it appears, upon Saturday."
We will now present a fact on this subject which is not generally considered. Chambers' Cyclopedia, article Pentecost, says:—
"From early times, Pentecost has been regarded as one of the great festivals of the Christian year, and it was chosen as one of the times for the solemn administration of baptism; and the English name of the festival, Whit-Sunday, is derived from the white robes in which the newly-baptized were clad."
But Whit-Sunday comes only once a year. This points us to the fact that the Pentecost was long commemorated in the Christian church as a yearly festival, not as a weekly celebration. And, also, it was not observed on Sunday. The Romans first began to observe the Passover on Sunday instead of the divinely appointed day, which the eastern churches considered irregular. Victor, bishop of Rome, in the year 196, took upon him to impose the Roman custom upon all the churches, that is, to compel them to observe the Passover on Sunday. Dowling calls this the "earliest instance of Romish assumption." But Victor did not succeed in his effort; the eastern churches replied to him that "they would by no means depart, in this matter, from the custom handed down to them by their ancestors." It was not until the Council of Nice that a successful effort was made to make the Romish custom universal.
Of course the day of celebrating the Pentecost depends on the time of celebrating the Passover. By fixing the first on a particular day of the week, the second was also fixed to a day of the week. So, in time, both the Passover and Pentecost were observed on Sunday, and when the Sunday became more popular the descent of the Spirit on the fiftieth day from the first day of the Passover feast was urged as a reason for observing every first day! How different, as a foundation for duty, from "the law and the testimony."
Here we have briefly given a series of facts—not mere assertions unsupported by evidence. Were it in the province of a newspaper article we could greatly enlarge on these facts, but our limits forbid. We think every reader must see that it is only sheer assumption that this day of Pentecost in Acts 2:1 has any bearing on the Sabbath question, or that from it can be drawn any fair argument in favor of the Sunday.
COVETOUSNESS.
By James White
THE sin of covetousness is forbidden by the tenth precept of the moral code. That precept, commencing with the words, “Thou shalt not covet,” was spoken by the voice of the Lord at Mount Sinai, and engraven in the tables of stone by his finger.
The New Testament classes the sin of covetousness with some of the higher crimes forbidden by the moral law. “Mortify, therefore, your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry; for which things’ sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience.” Col. 3:5, 6. Covetousness is an inordinate desire to obtain some supposed good.
But it is a great mistake to charge the sin of covetousness upon the wealthy man who has obtained his wealth in an honorable manner, and who, feeling his obligation to God, holds himself in readiness to bestow the goods intrusted to his care wherever Providence may indicate. Heaven does not regard such a one as guilty of the sin of covetousness.
This sin more frequently lies at the door of the poor, who yield to the inordinate desire of their selfish hearts for the good things in the possession of the more wealthy.
May God pity the worthy, suffering poor, and may their hearts ever be free from the guilty stain of covetousness. The Bible speaks of the poor in words of pity and tenderness, and promises blessings upon the heads of those who consider the poor to relieve them; and the blessed book of God is full of curses upon the heads of those who oppress the poor. But it is possible for those whose hearts deeply sympathize with the poor, to act toward them in a manner to lead them into the sin of covetousness.
We call in question this sounding of trumpets in publishing through our papers that we have raised funds for the support of the needy, thus calling the attention of the selfish eye of covetousness to such a fund. Several years since, we raised a benevolent fund, and made the whole matter public. The result was that appeals came in on this wise: One poor sister asked for a sewing-machine, arguing that with this benefit she could support herself. And others wanted sums, more or less, to start them in business; but in every such case where requests were granted, as the sequel proved, the money was nearly or quite thrown away.
The divine injunction to feed the hungry, and clothe the naked, does not mean to give them six months’ provision, and two suits in advance, lest they should want for food and clothing. Pay the laboring brother all he earns, and perhaps a little more, and after fully paying that poor washerwoman all she earns, make her a little present to carry home to her poor children. Feed the hungry with plain, healthful food, and clothe the naked with humble raiment, befitting their position and business. “As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith.” Gal. 6:10.
It is frequently the case that persons are thrown out of employment for keeping the Sabbath, and this proves a severe trial of their faith. Others are as severely tried in other ways. If these trials were not necessary, the Lord would not suffer them to come upon his people. Without these trials the church would be filled with unworthy members.
But it is sometimes the case that unworthy people throw themselves upon the market in this way. They will propose to keep the Sabbath, if some one will find them a good place among Sabbath-keepers. Such generally wish the very highest wages, and are ready to complain if they cannot have almost everything their own way. But, in nine cases out of ten, those who buy them away from the very trial they need, make a bad bargain financially, and hasten the ruin of those who refuse to stand the trial of their faith.
The words of the Lord by the prophet are to the point: “Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor that are cast out to thy house?” Isa. 58:7. Let all have a chance to be properly tried and tested. And when they have proved themselves true to God and his truth, even if their steadfastness results in being turned out of employment, or out of their homes, then it would be much safer to extend to them the helping hand.
J. W.
SYNOPSIS OF THE PRESENT TRUTH
By J. N. Andrews
NUMBER TWENTY-FOUR.
THE CLEANSING OF THE SANCTUARY (CONTINUED.)
Our opponents object to the idea of a work of cleansing to be performed in the heavenly sanctuary. What! say they, is there anything in Heaven that needs cleansing, anything there impure? And without further investigation they spurn the whole theory, on account of this, to them, unpardonable feature. But let us look at the idea, and meet it fairly. Was there not a work of cleansing to be performed in the earthly sanctuary? There was. Where was the necessity for this? Into the most holy place, for instance, no man entered, except the high priest, and he but once a year. Was there anything there physically impure? All are obliged to confess that there was not. And yet it had to be cleansed, the most holy, as well as the holy place.
Why was this? Because the sins of the people had been transferred to it, and from them it must be freed. The work of cleansing was not the removal of physical uncleanness, but simply a ceremony by which the sins of the people were removed and borne away forever. So in the antitype. There is nothing literally impure or unclean in the heavenly sanctuary; but the sins of those who have sought pardon through the merits of Jesus, have been transferred there, and all the cleansing it is to undergo, is the removal of these. Simply this, and nothing more. No mind need fail to understand, and none need revolt at such an idea. There is here not even a "gnat" of absurdity at which they can strain, much less a "camel" which with such hideous contortions they decline to swallow.
If anything more is needed to make this view agreeable to the intellectual palates of our opponents, we have it in the writings of Paul. He states in plain and unequivocal terms, that the heavenly sanctuary must be cleansed. Listen to his language. Heb. 9:21-24. "Morever he [Moses] sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry. [Refering to the ancient sanctuary and its service]. And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood there is no remission. It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these, [the blood of goats and calves, verse 19], but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these."
Nothing can be, we say it emphatically, nothing can be, plainer than this. The "tabernacle and vessels of the ministry," "patterns of things in the heavens," were cleansed with the blood of calves and goats. We have already noted its performance, through the ministry of the priesthood. It was necessary, says the Apostle, that it should be cleansed with these. Why? Because without the shedding of blood there is no remission. Remission, and not physical uncleanness, is the burden of the Apostle's argument. The sanctuary must be cleansed; the imputed guilt must be removed. He then goes on to argue that for the same reason, the heavenly things themselves, of which the earthly were a figure, must be cleansed or purified, but with better sacrifices than those of the type. What is this better sacrifice? The sacrifice of our Lord himself. Heb. 9:13, 14, 26. Why was a better sacrifice needed? Because the blood of bulls and goats could not take away sin; (chap. 10:4); but yet the law was satisfied with that service for the time being, in anticipation of the great and effectual sacrifice which was thus prefigured. The blood of this better sacrifice does take away sin. It is this blood that is ministered in the heavenly sanctuary in behalf of man, and by this at last that the heavenly holy places themselves are to be purified and cleansed.
And now why do not those who make such an ado about the idea of cleansing the heavenly sanctuary—why do they not repudiate this language of Paul's? Why do they not scout the book of Hebrews because Paul talks therein of heavenly things to be purified! Why do they not here exclaim: "Just as though there was anything in Heaven impure! Heavenly things to be cleansed! Nonsense?" But let it be understood that as often as they endeavor to throw contempt and ridicule upon the idea of the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary, they do virtually thus treat the language of the Apostle. And be it understood moreover, that in such cases the controversy is not between them and us, but between them and the apostle Paul. We take his language as it reads, and we believe it; for it is the word of God.
There is another idea which may lie with weight in some minds against the existence of a Sanctuary in Heaven; and that is the fact, that Daniel speaks of its being trodden under foot. How, it has been asked, can a sanctuary in Heaven be trodden under foot? And it has been urged as one of the greatest recommendations of the view that the earth or land of Canaan is the sanctuary, that they are both eminently susceptible of being in that condition. We inquire, then, How much does the prophecy comprehend in the term, "to tread under foot?" Does it mean the literal treading under our feet, as we would tread a piece of land by walking on it? If so, the land of Canaan was, in a greater degree, trodden under foot in the days of its prosperity, than it has been since; for there were then more feet to tread upon it. So we see that the expression cannot be taken in, its most literal acceptation. But the same text (Dan. 8:13) speaks of treading the host (the worshipers connected with the sanctuary) under foot also. Does this mean that people would literally get them under their feet and stamp upon them? By no means. What then does the expression mean? We may define it, to oppress or perform any act prejudicial to the interests of another; and this definition the following quotations will sustain; 1. The same prophecy (Dan, 8) represents the little horn as casting the truth to the ground, and casting down the stars, and stamping upon them. We all know what this means; or if not, verse 24 of the same chapter furnishes an explanation; namely, "he shall destroy wonderfully the mighty and the holy people." 2. Paul shows us that wicked men, apostates, even tread "under foot" (this is his expression) the Son of God, who is minister296of the heavenly sanctuary. Heb. 10:29. They do it by setting him at nought, counting the blood of the covenant wherewith they were sanctified, an unholy thing, and doing despite unto the Spirit of grace. Why may not the heavenly sanctuary itself, in an equal sense, and in an equal degree, be trodden under foot also? There is nothing illogical or unscriptural in affirming it.
The agencies through which Satan has all along stood up against the worship of God are the daily, and transgression of desolation, which we have before shown to be Paganism and Papacy. He has done this by erecting rival sanctuaries to the sanctuary of Jehovah, and endeavoring to turn mankind away from the worship of the true God to the unsanctified rites of heathenism. For instance, in the days of Samuel and the judges, one of Satan's rival sanctuaries was the temple of Dagon where the Philistines worshiped. Jud. 16:23, 24. After Solomon had erected the glorious temple upon mount Moriah, Jeroboam erected a rival sanctuary at Bethel, and drew away ten of the twelve tribes to the worship of golden calves. 1 Kings 12:26-33. In the days of Nebuchadnezzar, the rival sanctuary of Satan was found in the temple of old Belus at Babylon; and great was his triumph when he was able to deposit the sacred vessels of Jehovah's tabernacle in the palace of his heathen deity. 2 Chron. 36:7. And still later, a sanctuary of the Devil turns up at Rome, under the name of the Pantheon, or "asylum of all the gods." Dan. 8:11.
And when the gospel dispensation was ushered in, when the shadow reached the substance, and the type gave place to the antitype, and the sanctuary in Heaven took the place of the tabernacle on earth, how did Satan change his mode of opposition? He baptized his heathen deities, and called them Christian. The Pantheon, or "asylum of all the gods," easily became the "sanctuary of all the saints;" and the statue of Jupiter, by an easy metamorphosis, became that of Peter. But more than this: he here set up a blasphemous being, a monster Man of Sin, who should exalt himself above all that is called God, and turn away mankind from the mediation of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary, by pretending to dispense those favors which are the prerogative of Deity alone. Thus the Papacy has trodden under foot the "host," the "church," the "holy city" above, and the heavenly sanctuary and its minister, by wearing out the saints of the Most High, turning men away from Jerusalem above, and lifting up its voice in blasphemy against God, his tabernacle, and them that dwell in Heaven.
We need not follow this objection further. It has already in the pursuit grown invisible to the naked eye. We therefore turn again to our subject, the cleansing of the sanctuary. The nature of this cleansing we now understand, and that it is accomplished by blood and not by fire. We understand also the ceremony by which it was performed, through a change in the ministration from the holy to the most holy place. We conclude, then, that at the end of the 2300 days, when it was said that the sanctuary should be cleansed, the ministration in Heaven was changed from the holy to the most holy place; in other words, that in 1844, yes, on the tenth day of the seventh month in the autumn of that year, according to the type, our great High Priest commenced the last act of his priestly ministration in the most holy place of the tabernacle above. Are there any to whom it seems presumption to pretend to understand what is being accomplished in Heaven? Of such then we would inquire, Have not the 2300 days ended? and was it not said that at their termination, the sanctuary should be cleansed? and are we not to reason concerning the sanctuary, from those objects and from that work, which the voice of inspiration declares to us, are the shadow which it cast on earth? Of what use is a type if we may not, from it, derive some knowledge respecting its antitype?
J. N. Andrews.
WORKERS.
By G. R. Drew
I CANNOT understand why there are not more anxious inquirers to be co-workers with Jesus in the great work of saving souls. What higher honor can mortal man have than to work for Prince Immanuel? Every day of my life do I plead with God to arouse the Laodiceans to duty; they seem to forget that the dragon is wroth with the woman, and do not see the need of vigilance. One says I have no means, what can I do? Another says I have no time or ability. Oh, that they would inquire of God, that they would listen to his voice saying to them, Go labor in my vineyard; let all else be secondary. Those who make excuses do not realize that every day of our life brings us nearer the closing scenes of the judgment, when it will be seen that not the "hearers" but the "doers" will be justified. Oh how happy the people who shall hear the blessed words, "Well done, good and faithful servant, enter thou into the joy of thy Lord."
In our missionary labor I have never felt more sure that the Lord was leading than at the present time. I am extending my work of distributing Signs, Good Health, German, Danish, and Swedish papers, making an average of six hundred and sixty copies monthly. I have set apart one day in each week to the missionary work, and I long to be able to add one or two more. I pray God to help me to be faithful in doing all that I can to advance the truth.297
Last week our V. M. Society wrote sixty-three letters, and sent out to various parts of the world two hundred and thirty-six Signs and one hundred and twenty Good Health, besides Reviews, and other reading matter. The eye of the Lord runs to and fro to show himself strong in behalf of those whose hearts are perfect toward him. And he says his word shall not return unto him void.
I have received two very encouraging letters, one from England and one from Ireland. The last named one states that our papers and Good Health were read before their temperance society, numbering seventy members; and they were much pleased with the reading and have written for more. G. R. DREW.
SHALL WE VENTURE?
By Stephen Nelson Haskell
The work of the Lord is progressive. It explores new fields, plants the cross of Christ in regions of darkness, and scatters the rays of truth and light in those places where before they were unacquainted with the truth. The cause of God is a battle and a march. It gains new victories and carries the banner of truth into the ranks of the enemy. Formality takes its rise in cool reasoning. "We will go no farther than we can see; we will do nothing but what we can do without any great sacrifice or effort." Like the ten spies who brought back an evil report; while it may be they will acknowledge the land is good, and flowing with milk and honey, unbelief will have in it a consideration for a doubt. "Nevertheless, the people be strong that dwell in the land, and the cities are walled and very great." It looks upon the difficulties by the way; and as a result of these expressions of difficulties, reasonings, and questionings, doubts in the minds of others breed like the swarms of flies in Pharaoh's house. A murmuring is gotten up, and Israel falls because of their unbelief. "We be not able to go up against the people," cries unbelief, "for they are stronger than we." The voice of faith, and what many call venture, like Caleb, says, "Let us go up at once and possess it, for we are well able to overcome it. Their defence is departed from them and the Lord is with us."
In God's work will ever be present these two characters. On the one hand men who will reach forward and venture all they possess; their reputation, their influence, their means, and in some instances become poor, to carry the work forward; these men will have the privilege of seeing the work prosper. They will have their names immortalized in glory. There will also be those who will question, reason, and doubt, ever fearful of going too fast, always throwing discouragement into the camp of Israel. They will also have their reward. Anciently God's word to them was, "Surely they shall not see the land which I sware unto their fathers neither shall any of them that provoked me, see it."
It was so in Luther's time. "They will burn your body to ashes as they did with John Huss," said some to Luther when he was resolved to obey the summons to go to Worms. But his noble reply was, "Though they should kindle a fire the flames of which reached to Heaven, I would walk through it in the name of the Lord; I would appear before them; I would enter the jaws of this behemoth, and break his teeth, confessing the Lord Jesus Christ." Another said to him, "How can you hope to succeed?" "I trust in God Almighty, whose word and commandment I have before me." When he was about to enter the city where they chanted his funeral dirge, his old adviser and best friend became frightened and sent him word, "Do not enter Worms." But Luther, undismayed, turned his eyes upon the servant and said, "Go and tell your master, that even should their be as many devils in Worms as tiles on the house tops still I would enter it." Here was faith not only abstractly in God but in the work for that time. When our cause is good, and we have faith in it, it expands the heart and gives courage to those whose lives are devoted to its interests.
God will have men who will venture anything and everything to save souls, and carry forward his work on earth. Those who will not move until they can see every step of the way clearly before them will not be of advantage at this time to forward the truth of God. There must be workers now who will push ahead in the dark as well as in the light, and who will hold up bravely under discouragements and disappointed hopes, and work on with faith, with tears, and patient hope, sowing beside all waters, trusting the Lord to bring a glorious result. God calls for men of nerve, of hope, faith, and endurance, to work to the point. Onward and upward, is our motto. Forward, march, should be heard all along the line. God has spoken concerning his truth and work. Now is the time to lift as never before, God has gone before us. His providence leads the way and we should walk in it, and good will be the result.
S. N. HASKELL
DISTRIBUTION OF OUR PAPERS.
By Editor
IN a report a few weeks since Bro. Andrews speaks of the missionary work at Bale, Switzerland being carried forward with better success since adopting the plan of sending a letter of introduction with the first copy of each paper sent to an address, and with the fourth copy, an invitation to the receiver to subscribe for the journal. In a recent letter he says:
"So far as our work in the distribution of our paper is concerned we have great cause for encouragement. We have found how to reach the people, which has hitherto seemed impossible. We have money to pay the postage, and more keeps coming for that very purpose. And we have help from our young Swiss friends in writing the addresses, and we shall have as much as one person can do for three months, and perhaps longer. Then we get responses from such intelligent people that it is evident that we are reaching the better class of society."
SIGNS FOR ENGLAND.
By Editor
The following is part of a private letter, but we think it should be published, not doubting that the SIGNS needed in England will soon be furnished when the circumstances are known. The letter needs no further introduction—it speaks for itself:—
One year since we were receiving about 400 copies of the SIGNS OF THE TIMES weekly. Under difficulties we were learning how to use them to awaken an interest in the minds of the people; we had also much difficulty in getting them from America through the post. The new arrangement of bringing them from Battle Creek by express placed our transportation about 1/2 cent per paper. We are learning how to get hold of a better class of names—those who have investigative minds. The SIGNS has many interested readers in this kingdom, and some we know are keeping the Sabbath as the result of reading the paper; but now comes another difficulty, the clubs of SIGNS which our brethren in America so kindly paid for are fast running out, and we find the 400 papers suddenly reduced to about 50. Now what shall we do? Shall we stop this branch of the work or will our American brethren furnish us clubs again? We have received from those interested in this kingdom, subscriptions and donations nearly enough to meet the entire expense of our postage in this kingdom. Will brother Haskell and W. C. White agitate this matter and see what can be done. It certainly will not pay to send express packages once in two weeks with so few SIGNS in them.
We are preparing to pitch our tent, at Romsey, some 8 miles from Southampton, where quite an interest has been awakened by reading our books and the papers. We are only waiting for suitable weather. It is still cold with north winds. All well as usual, and busy, haste.
J. N. LOUGHBOROUGH.
Learning the Gospel at Jesus’ Feet
A PERSON can only make progress in the gospel as he learns it; and if he learns it at all, he must learn it at the feet of Jesus.
Do Not Grumble, but Conquer
A GREAT many men, whatever may have been their experience in life, are accustomed to complain of the usage they have received in the world. They fill the ears of those who have the misfortune to be their friends, with lamentations respecting their own troubles. But there is no man that is not born into a world of trouble; and no man has ever attained to anything like the full stature of manhood, who has not been ground, as it were, to powder, by the hardships which he has encountered in life. This is a world in which men are made, not by velvet, but by stone and iron handling! Therefore, do not grumble, but conquer your troubles.