Review and Herald, Vol. 22, No. 17.
The Mark of the Beast, and Seal of the Living GodPage 1
Earlier text: The Mark of the Beast, and Seal of the Living GodLessons for Bible Students.
Nebuchadnezzar's Great Image—Dan. ii.
(PROPHECY OF DANIEL, PP. 7-14.) 1. WHAT is the date of the Roman empire in prophecy? [Ans. B. C. 161, because then it became connected with the people of God, by the famous league with the Jews.] 2. How long did it last? [Ans. 644 years, till its full division into ten kingdoms, A. D. 488.] 3. In this prophecy of earthly kingdoms, it is said that the God of Heaven shall set up a kingdom; in the days of what kings or kingdoms, is this to be accomplished? 4. Is this to be an earthly, or Heavenly and immortal kingdom? 5. In regard to this fifth kingdom, how many general views are there? 6. What is the first of these? 7. Is there any Bible for this view? 8. What is the other view? 9. What does the stone do to this image? 10. Does the stone become a great mountain before earthly governments are broken and cease to exist? 11. If the "kingdom of grace" was set up in the days of Christ, could there have been any kingdom of grace before that time? 12. If not, what has become of Enoch, Noah, Lot, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses and the prophets? 13. This fifth kingdom, whatever it is, is represented by the stone, and is set up when the stone smites the image; but does the stone smite the image on the head—Babylon? 14. Does it smite it on the breast and arms—Medo-Persia? 15. Does it smite it on the division representing Grecia? 16. Does it smite it on the legs—Rome Pagan? 17. Should it not have done so, if this kingdom was set up at Christ's first advent, as Pagan Rome was then the ruling empire? 18. Where then does the stone smite the image? 19. Could it smite the feet before they were in existence? 20. How long after Christ's crucifixion was it, before the feet were fully formed? 21. Could the fifth kingdom therefore have been set up previous to the year A. D. 493? 22. What did the Lord teach his followers to pray in reference to this kingdom? 23. What does this prove? 24. What did the mother of Zebedee's children desire of our Lord? 25. What, then, did she understand concerning the kingdom? 26. Was it future when our Lord ate the last passover? 28. Did Christ set up this kingdom before his ascension? 29. What scripture shows that he did not? and how? 31. What question does this scripture settle? 32. When will the saints put on immortality? 33. What is addressed to Christians in Acts xiv, 22, and what is proved by it? 34. Is the kingdom a matter of promise? 35. To whom is it promised? 36. What word of encouragement is made to the "little flock"? 37. What was the transfiguration designed to show? 38. In that scene, how did Christ appear? 39. How was the glory of the Father manifested? 40. Of what were Moses and Elias representatives? 41. Of what was this scene a demonstration, according to 2 Pet. i, 16-18? [See page 11, last part of first paragraph.] 42. What objection is urged against the view here presented? 43. To whom was this spoken? 44. Did our Lord mean to say that the kingdom of God was within the Pharisees? 45. What does he say of them? 46. Why did Christ speak to the people the parable found in Luke xix, 11, and onward? 47. What does he teach in that parable? 48. What then shall we understand our Saviour to teach in Luke xvii, 21? 49. Does the phrase, kingdom of heaven, always refer to the future, immortal kingdom? 50. In such cases, how must it be understood? 51. To do this what will be necessary? 52. In what passage is this phrase applied to those who hear and believe the gospel? 53. What fact shows that the kingdom entire is not referred to here? 54. In what passage does the phrase kingdom of Heaven refer to Christ alone? 55. In what passage does the same expression refer to the principles of the kingdom only? 56. Christ preached the kingdom of Heaven at hand, Matt. iv, 17, Mark i, 15: what do the words, at hand, signify in these passages? 57. In what sense was the Kingdom of Heaven then at hand? 59. Did Paul use the same original word for at hand, that Christ did when preaching the kingdom at hand? 60. What does the word used by Paul signify? 61. Harmonize the teachings of Christ and Paul on this subject? 62. What is the great inquiry that should be made at the present time? 63. Are we in the kingdom of Babylon? 64. In the Persian empire? 65. In the kingdom of Grecia? 66. In Rome in its undivided state? 68. How long since these divisions came up, which constitute the feet and toes? 69. Where does the stone strike the image? 71. What takes place when the stone smites the image? 72. What is therefore the next great event before us? SABBATH, Sept. 19, was a good day for the church at Battle Creek. Eld. John Byington was here, having recently returned from his Northern tour, and by special request spoke to the assembled congregation. There were an unusual number in, and remarkable freedom characterized the meeting. The subject chosen was from the latter part of the 21st of Luke, and had a cheering effect upon us all. After an hour's discourse, many of the brethren and sisters came forward with ready testimonies, and as they sung and exhorted, the place truly seemed heavenly. As nearly all observed, it was "a good day for Zion," and we take delight in speaking of it to those who love this Advent hope. Tent Meeting in Orwell, Ohio.
By J. H. Waggoner
WITH many misgivings I concluded to pitch the tent in Orwell. The way did not seem to be open in any other direction; yet there was so much feeling against the truth we teach, on account of those who had professed it, that I feared for the result. I say feeling, for I cannot call it prejudice, when I know there was so much reason for it. But the people soon understood our position. The congregations were larger throughout the meeting than we expected, and the interest increased to the very last. It commenced Aug. 21, and closed Sept. 6. When I arrived in Orwell, I133was worn down so that I could do nothing. After a few days of rest I commenced in the tent; and preaching without intermission soon brought me down again. Some of the time it was very cold; yet the people would come out and listen with interest. Seeing this I felt constrained to do all in my power to set the truth before them. Had I acted upon my own circumstances, or even the feelings of my friends, I should have closed several days sooner; but had I had some one with me to take part of the labor and burden upon them I should have been glad to remain two weeks longer. As it was I continued as long as I possibly could with profit to the cause. The interest seems very general. About fifteen informed me of their determination to keep the Sabbath. I could not take the steps that are often taken elsewhere to ascertain the number in a public manner, on account of the persistent obtrusiveness of some who had already brought the cause to shame: who profess to keep the Sabbath in the love of God, yet show an utter disregard for the principles of Christianity, and do not scruple to persecute and oppress "the fatherless and the widow in their affliction." I feel to praise God that their influence was checked even beyond my anticipations. My last experience there was, to me, the most gratifying. Sr. Chaffee has been faithful to the truth under the most adverse circumstances, her only company in the faith being Sr. Swan, whose companion used us as kindly as an own brother could, and no Bro. in the truth ever took more pains to aid us and to help on the meetings. Yet he did not yield himself to the truth till the evening before I left, when after, conversation, as we bowed before the Lord he joined us in prayer, and gave himself to the service of God in obedience to his word. Some from the adjoining town were constant attendants, and the way is now open for labor there, as urgent requests were made in almost every direction for meetings to be held. I hope and trust that in the providence of our Lord these requests may be soon complied with. Although it seems almost useless for any person of feeble health to undertake to run a tent alone, yet I feel greatly encouraged with the results of this meeting, and am no less determined than ever to resume my labors as soon as my health will permit. What Outsiders Think of It.
THE New York Herald, in a notice of the recent Sabbath Convention at Saratoga, says: "The canting hypocrites of that day [say two hundred years ago] failed, as their descendants and imitators of this day fail, to see the gross inconsistency of their denouncing and reviling as papistical the canons of the early church, and yet insisting on the observance of a day for which there is no other authority than such canons. There is just the same moral constraint to recognize the change of the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday as there is to abstain from the use of meat on Fridays—neither more nor less. The only authority for either is that of some religious caucus, or convention, or council, which the fanatics of Cromwell's day, and the Sabbatarian delegates at Saratoga, would alike revile and scoff at." From the above it appears that the great truth that Sunday is only a human institution, is beginning to make itself felt with intelligent minds, that are not stereotyped in their theology, or imbedded hand and foot in cast iron creeds. A company of men were upon a Railroad track upon which a locomotive was running. They were unable to get off the track, and of course in danger of destruction. But a friend interposed for their safety. The question arose, How did he save them? which A. and B. answered differently. A. said he stopped the locomotive. B. said, Not so; he took them off the track. Let us hear their reasons for their different conclusions. A. said they could not get off the track, which was admitted. He said also that the person interposing was able to save them, which was also admitted. Hence, he concluded the locomotive must have been stopped. And many said this conclusion was reasonable. But B. denied this conclusion, and offered the following proofs of his position. 1. All who were saved were afterward found off the track; which proves that the interposing friend could take them off, though they of themselves, were unable to get off. 2. The person so interposing was actually run over by the locomotive in his efforts to save others. 3. Those who rejected his aid, and who refused with his help to leave the track, were run over by the locomotive after his efforts for them had ceased, which could not have been the case if he had stopped it. These proofs of B. were not denied. He further argued that he could admit A's. proofs, as they did not conflict with his (B's.) position. But as B's. proofs were destructive of A's. conclusion, reason requires A. to deny the proofs of B., (which he did not), or to renounce his conclusion as erroneous. As there seems to be some doubt as to this matter still, I request that the proofs be examined and the question be answered. Did he stop the locomotive, or take them off the track? N. B. This question is open to all antinomians.
J. H. W. The Cause in Southern Iowa.
By Isaac Sanborn
As it may be interesting to the readers of the Review to know how the cause is prospering in Southern Iowa, I can assure all, that the churches I have visited are making decided efforts to rise and come to the unity of the faith; and God is blessing them, and adding to their numbers. I have been astonished as I have traveled through this field of labor to find the churches, many of them, so far behind the body of Sabbath-keepers in many respects. But now I know that if they will be faithful in keeping the covenants they have made with God, he will bless them and bring them through to the kingdom. God has greatly blessed me with freedom in presenting the truth, through which Jesus prayed they might be sanctified: and I have rejoiced as I have seen the sanctifying power of truth taking effect in the hearts of his people. May God continue to bless and sanctify them wholly, that we may at last meet in his everlasting kingdom. I commence meetings this evening in the court-house in Washington, and continue over Sabbath and first-day. Washington, Iowa, Sept. 11, 1863. Is the Doctrine of the Destruction of the Finally Impenitent Licentious in its Tendency?
By B. F. Snook
THE advocates of the doctrine of endless misery, in their great zeal to destroy the truth, in the absence of better argument, urge that the doctrine of the destruction of the wicked is licentious in its tendency; that it tends to make men indifferent about the future, and hence they sin without restraint. In reply to this we give the following: 1. Does the Bible teach that the wicked will be destroyed? It does, in language so clear and plain that no other meaning can be attached to it. "The Lord preserveth all them that love him; but all the wicked will he destroy." Ps. cxlv, 20. "Behold the day cometh that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch. And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet, in the day that I shall do this, saith the Lord of hosts." Mal. iv, 1-3. "But he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire." Matt. iii, 12. "If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered, and men gather them and cast them into the fire and they are burned." John xv, 6. "The Lord shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and the glory of his power, when he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe." 2 Thess. i, 7-9. These testimonies can never be made to teach anything but the final destruction of the wicked, though they be ever so much perverted and misconstrued. Therefore the objection falls upon the Bible, and hence, on this supposition, it is guilty of teaching a doctrine that encourages sin. 2. We will in the next place show that this is a false and slanderous charge, having its foundation in base and wicked hearts. If the objector can show that the believers of this doctrine are less faithful, less prayerful and generous, than those are who believe the endless misery doctrine, then he will make an important point. But this he never can do. Great and numerous facts are against him. The world, mostly, believe, or profess to believe, in the endless "miserable" theory. Then the world as such (if there is any virtue in the awful doctrine) should be all Christians, and very devoted and prayerful. While on the other hand, the few who disbelieve that view, and believe in the destruction of the wicked, should be the only class of wicked and profligate sinners in the land, and the only convicts in the State prisons. Is such the case? Facts show that just the reverse is truth. The believers of the Bible doctrine on this subject will compare well with any other people, for morality and uprightness. The theology of the State prisons is generally that of the popular theory. Hear the following truthful statements taken from the History of Windsor Prison, Vt. "It has been very often said that the convicts of State prisons, are either Atheists, Deists, or Universalists, than which however, nothing can be farther from the truth. I have known as many as five hundred while they were in confinement, and I have always made it a practice to learn the religious opinions of all with whom I have conversed, and what I am going to write may be depended upon as the actual result of my personal inquiries. Those whom I have known, have been educated in the doctrine of the endless punishment school, and in but few cases have departed from these doctrines. I have only two Atheists, not one Deist, and but one Universalist. The doctrine of endless punishment, is strongly and broadly speaking, the orthodoxy of State prisoners. I am confident of the truth of this statement, and I make it, not by way of slur, or insinuation against any sect of Christians, but as a fact which all denominations may use, as they may have occasion. Very many of the convicts, have been members of churches; and a few of them have been preachers." This testimony is very candid and should have due weight. The conclusion is, therefore, that the tendency to licentiousness is wholly on the side of the objector. The orthodox hell is indispensable to their theology. But on this part of the subject, they are far behind their brethren in China. Dr. Morrison a Missionary to China, says, "Among the Chinese the fear of death is distressing. Their imagination has invented no fewer than ten hells. One is stuck full of knives, another is an iron boiler full of scalding water; in another the punishment consists in pulling out the tongue; another is full of poisonous serpents; in another, the victim is drawn into pieces; another is a hell of blackness and darkness. You may hear them praying, 'May I not fall into the hell of swords, of serpents, of boiling water, &c.' We would recommend our orthodox friends to go to China, and get the rest of their theology, that they may have a perfect system, and be prepared to reform men at a rapid rate, for if there is reforming power in one hell, there certainly is much more power in ten hells." The history of China, and our own country, shows that no one is any better for believing the popular theory on this question. During the "Dark Ages," the endless misery theory reigned without opposition. Why was there then, so much blood shed? and why did not they have a fair heaven upon earth, if this is such a sanctifying doctrine? Those men who serve God through fear of such an end, are not capable of yielding an acceptable service to him, for it is his goodness, and not an endless hell that leads to repentance. B. F. SNOOK. The Atonement—Part II.
By J. H. W.
Our present relation to the law is easily ascertained. Though we rest under a perpetual and everlasting obligation to obey the law of the Most High; we have not fulfilled our obligation. On this point the scriptures are very explicit. Rom. iii, 9–23 contains sufficient evidence. Jews and Gentiles are on a level—all have sinned and come short of the glory of God; there is none that doeth good; no not one. The law stops every mouth, and proves all guilty, and subject to the judgment of God. What is the penalty for sin? I have remarked that government is a system of laws maintained. This is a simple definition that all can understand; and that it is truthful is evident from this, that a government cannot exist without law, and if the law is not maintained the result is anarchy and the subversion of government. It is for this reason that a law without a penalty is a nullity. All the force and sanction of law is its penalty, and whenever the law is violated justice requires the infliction of the penalty. Therefore if we understand the penalty of the law,—the nature of the infliction to be visited upon the sinner or violator of God’s law, we shall of course understand what justice demands for our redemption. I have considered that justice can only be satisfied by the infliction of the penalty, either upon the offender or upon a voluntary substitute. I cannot reconcile with justice, nor with Scripture, the idea so often advanced, that Christ did not suffer the same penalty that the sinner was subject to. If the law itself be strictly just, the penalty of the law neither more nor less, will answer the demands of justice. Many systems of theology have had this error incorporated into them to avoid other apparent difficulties; but to me it is evidence of defects in the systems that demand a conclusion at variance with reason, with justice, and with Scripture. Dr. Barnes in his work on the atonement says: “It will be impossible for a substitute to endure the same sufferings which the sinner himself will endure in the future world for his sin. There are sufferings caused by sin which belong only to the consciousness of guilt, and these sufferings cannot be transferred to another. The sin itself cannot be transferred; and, as it is impossible to detach the suffering from the consciousness of guilt, it follows that a substitute cannot endure the same kind of sufferings which the sinner would himself endure. Remorse of conscience, for example,—one of the keenest sources of suffering to the guilty, and which will be a most fearful part of the penalty of the law in the future world,—cannot be transferred.” p. 228. And again; “Remorse of conscience is manifestly a part of the penalty of the law; that is, it is a portion of what the law inflicts as expressing the sense which the lawgiver entertains of the value of the law and of the evil of its violation.” p. 235. I am fully convinced of the correctness of the positions taken in my remarks on the reasonableness of the atonement, though the above from Dr. Barnes conflicts with them. I am led to the belief that his position is not taken because it is strictly reasonable or scriptural, but because his theory of theology would not admit of any other view. I say this with great respect to him; but there are many differences among theological writers which can be attributed to no other cause. Remorse of conscience is no part of the penalty of the law. That view, which is indeed the corner stone of Universalism, is as contrary to reason as to scripture, and grows out of the error before noticed of making no distinction between the penalty of the law134and mere consequences. The penalty is a judicial infliction, prescribed by the statute, administered by authority, and its infliction must be subsequent to the judgment. Consequences are various according to circumstances, and not according to desert, and may flow immediately out of the action without any relation to the penalty. The wicked all suffer more or less remorse in this present state, but the Bible informs us that they are reserved “unto the day of judgment to be punished.” 2 Pet. ii, 9. There are two kinds of sorrow for sin: a “godly sorrow,” and a “sorrow of the world.” 2 Cor. viii, 10. The first is that of the penitent, sorrowing that he has violated a holy law and grieved a holy God. The other is that of the worldling, sorry that he is detected in crime, or in danger of punishment. No one doubts that the sorrow of the God-fearing penitent is deepest; that his remorse is the keenest. Yet the nearer he is to God, the finer his sensibilities, and the deeper his hatred of sin, the stronger will be his remorse for his sin. Therefore if this be part of the penalty of the law, it is evident that this part is inflicted more severely on the penitent than on the impenitent and incorrigible. Again, Paul speaks of those whose conscience is seared with a hot iron; 1 Tim. iv, 2. That is, they run to such lengths in sin that their sensibilities are blunted, and they feel little or no remorse of conscience. Now both reason and revelation teach us that the punishment must be proportioned to the guilt; but if remorse of conscience be a penalty, it is executed by inverse proportion; that is, the punishment decreases according to the increase of crime. But we are led to inquire, Where did Dr. Barnes (or any other person) learn that remorse of conscience is a part of the penalty of the law? As it is the duty and sole prerogative of the governor to reveal his law, so he alone can define the penalty. This he has done in his word, “The wages of sin is death.” Any effort to evade this plain truth, or to make it anything but a plain truth, involves difficulties and contradictions. For it will not obviate the difficulty to spiritualize the term death, so as to make it embrace remorse of conscience; for if that be included in death, whatever will remove the remorse will remove so much of the penalty, or of death, and bring a proportionate degree of life. But sin does this, as the apostle shows; therefore, according to that theory, sin removes a portion of its own penalty; which is absurd. Dr. Barnes asserts that Christ did not suffer the penalty of the law, but something substituted for the penalty. There is no cause for such a declaration, except it be found, as before said, in his theory. In the teachings of the Bible there is no uncertainty in this matter. They plainly inform us that “the wages of sin is death;” and that “Christ died for our sins.” Rom. vi, 23. 1 Cor. xv, 3. As sin is the transgression of the law, death, the wages of sin, is its penalty; and as Christ died for our sin, the penalty was laid upon him for our sake. Now that “Christ died” is not only plainly declared in the scriptures, but it is a fundamental truth in the gospel system; for it is easy to show that, if Christ did not die, there can be no atonement and no redemption. It appears evident then that those who assert that Christ did not suffer the penalty of the law, do not so assert because the fact is not revealed in the Bible; but as before intimated, because of certain difficulties supposed to lie in the way of that fact. These difficulties are concerning the nature of the penalty, death. It is assumed that death, the penalty of transgression, is three-fold in its nature consisting of temporal, spiritual, and eternal death. If this assumption were true, I should at once give up the atonement as a thing impossible. Yet it has been advanced by men of eminence, and incorporated into works recognized as standard. Let us examine it. 1. The death of man is temporal only by reason of a resurrection. But the resurrection belongs to the work of Christ, and as his work was not necessary or a subject of promise till after the transgression, it can not have any place in the announcement of the penalty. When death was threatened to Adam it was not said that he should die temporally, spiritually, and eternally; nor that he should die a first or second death; nor the death that never dies; but that he should surely die. It was death; simply death. Had not a promise been given afterward, of “the seed” to bruise the serpent’s head, it would necessarily have been eternal death. But Christ introducing a resurrection for Adam and his race, causes it to be temporal. But since that time this death, temporal, has not been the penalty for personal transgression. This is evident for two reasons: (1.) Infants die who never have transgressed; and (2.) In the judgment we stand to answer for our deeds, and the second death is inflicted for personal sin. But on those who are holy “the second death hath no power;” the penalty does not reach them. So it appears that the death we now die is occasioned by Adam’s transgression, and is rendered temporal by the second Adam; and comes indiscriminately upon all classes and ages, thus precluding the idea that it is now a penalty except as connected with that first transgression, in which we are involved only by representation. 2. Spiritual death cannot be a penalty at all. A penalty is an infliction to meet the ends of justice. But spiritual death is a state of sin, or absence of holiness; and to say that God inflicts unholiness upon man is not only absurd but monstrous. That is confounding the crime with its punishment. God does not make man wicked or sinful as an infliction; but man makes himself wicked by his own actions, and God punishes him with death for his wickedness. Again, there will be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust; for as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. Now if the penalty upon Adam included spiritual death, the resurrection through the second Adam would be to spiritual life, or holiness; and if all were restored to spiritual life through Christ, there would be none to fall under the second death; for it falls not on the “blessed and holy.” 3. The wages of sin is death; and as the death of Adam became temporal by reason of a resurrection, so we may say that the infliction for personal sins, the second death, is eternal because no resurrection will succeed it. Thus it appears plain that from the beginning death was the penalty of the law of God, circumstances determining the duration of it. This view, which is in strict harmony with the Bible, really removes all difficulty in regard to Christ having suffered the penalty due to sin. But another difficulty is presented to us by giving an extraordinary definition to death; it is said to mean eternal misery. But on examination of this, the difficulty will be entirely on the side of those who present it. Though I am free to confess that if the definition is correct, there is an insurmountable difficulty, involving the whole doctrine of the atonement, and making it utterly impossible for God to be just, and also the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus. First, I say then that if the signification of death is “eternal misery,” Christ never died at all; and then all the scriptures that say he died are untrue; and thus the atonement would be proved impossible, and further consideration of it would be useless. But admitting the scripture testimony that the wages of sin is death, and that Christ died for sin, and we have the scriptural view of the term death, utterly forbidding such an unnatural and forced construction of a plain declaration. Second, If the correct definition of death is eternal misery, the relative terms, first and second, as applied to death before and after the resurrection, are used absurdly. For how can there be a first and second eternal misery? Sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and death passed upon all men. But the very fact that man may be resurrected, released from death, as the Scriptures teach, clearly proves that the scripture use of the term death is entirely different from the “theological use,” as given above. And third, If death means eternal misery, then that is the penalty of the law; but as Christ did not suffer it, and as the redeemed will not suffer it, so it follows that justice is never vindicated by the infliction of the penalty, either upon them or a substitute: and thus justice is suspended, not satisfied; and Christ’s death (if it could with any reason be called so) is not truly vicarious. As I have before considered, justice demands the infliction of the penalty of a just law; and as God is unchangeable and infinitely just, the penalty will surely be inflicted upon the transgressor or his substitute. But the above view makes it impossible. According to that, mercy does not harmonize with justice, but supersedes it; and God’s justice is not manifest in justifying the believer. The sum of the matter is this: that if the penalty be eternal misery, then all that have sinned must suffer it, and be eternally miserable, or else the demands of the law are never honored. But the first would result in universal damnation, and the other would degrade the government of God, and contradict both reason and scripture. It was well said by that great Christian philosopher, John Locke, that “it seems a strange way of understanding law, which requires the plainest and most direct terms, that by death should be meant eternal life in misery.” Life and death are opposites; the first is promised to the justified, the second is threatened and inflicted upon the unjust. But life and misery are not opposites; misery is a condition of life. In anything but “theology” such a perversion of language would not be tolerated, as to make eternal misery and death, or even misery and death, synonymous. Were I to report that a man was dead because I knew him to be suffering in much misery, it would be looked upon as trifling—solemn mockery. With a cessation of life every condition of life must cease. A further examination of this subject might properly be introduced when we come to consider the consequences of rejecting or neglecting the salvation of Christ. For the present I pass it by, satisfied that the death of Christ clearly shows what is the penalty of the law. Note from Bro. Loughborough.
By John Norton Loughborough
OUR meeting here is still progressing with good interest. We have given already eighteen lectures. Our congregations, evenings through the week, have numbered six or seven hundred, and last Sunday evening we had 1200 present, some 300 more than could get into the tent. We have already sold about $33 worth of books. We shall continue here as long as the interest holds good. To Brethren in Minnesota.
DEAR BRETHREN AND SISTERS IN MINN.: We would call especial attention to the following from our constitution: "Art. II. Sec. 3. It shall be the duty of the Executive Committee to call on the churches and scattered brethren for means when needed, and disburse the same."
Minnesota is a good field for labor, and we need help. If our Gen. Conf. Committee see a commendable promptness in us, we shall certainly have help. According to the advice of Brn. Sanborn and Snook, we design making a request for missionary labor, but we wish to have our request accompanied with a liberal donation to the Gen. Conf. Missionary Fund. Our fund is ample for the support of the cause among us, for all have pledged nobly. The third quarter of the year closes with this month. Come, brethren, be prompt; the Lord loves the cheerful giver. We would also call attention to Art. III, Sects. 3 and 4, of our constitution: The different church treasurers will send the donation of their respective churches in a draft on New York, to our State treasurer, David Farnum, Deerfield, Steele Co., Minn. W. MORSE,
H. GRANT,
WM. MERRY. } Minn. Conf. Com. Quarterly Meeting in Ills.
By Charles G. Satterlee
BRO. WHITE: We have just closed our quarterly meeting of Sept. 5th and 6th. We had a refreshing time, and the Lord met with us by his Holy Spirit. We listened to a discourse by Bro. Blanchard after which we repaired to the water, and one united with us by baptism. We met again in the evening to celebrate the ordinances of the Lord's house. A sweet heavenly spirit rested upon us as we moved forward in the ordinance of feet washing, and while this was going on, spirited testimonies were given. The sweet melting Spirit of Jesus seemed to run from heart to heart. O worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness: fear before him, all the earth, say among the heathen that the Lord reigneth. The church in this place seems to be coming up on higher ground. We would be happy to meet with any of the preaching Brn. who may see fit to come this way. Yours in hope.
CHARLES G. SATTERLEE.