Earlier text: Conference AddressPrinceville, Ill.
By C. H. Bliss
AFTER closing our labors with the tent, Sept. 29, in Annapolis, I commenced lectures in a school-house near Bro. Hiestand’s, in Crawford Co. I remained about five weeks, giving in all about thirty lectures. Bro. Hiestand aided some. Two families, formerly members of the Dunkard church, commenced keeping the Sabbath. Sabbath evening, Nov. 16, commenced meetings in the Christian church at Jeffersonville, Wayne Co. Found a pleasant home at sister Brockway’s. Held meetings between two and three weeks. Failing to raise much of an interest, I closed, and commenced lectures in Johnsonville. Found a good home at Dr. Atteberry’s, who, with his wife, had embraced the truth by reading, having, however, previously heard Eld. Wm. Cottrell, which had awakened an interest in them to learn more about these truths. Here I found considerable prejudice, yet a few became interested. I remained in this place and the surrounding country during the winter, laboring as the way opened. Ten signed the covenant. Several new ones commenced keeping the Sabbath. Organized S. S. to the amount of $66.04 per year. Some of these brethren had embraced the truth by reading tracts circulated by sister Brockway. The brethren in this county are quite scattered, yet will try and sustain Sabbath meetings as often as practicable. Seven or eight desire baptism. April 4, I visited Clark Center church, in quarterly meeting. This church now numbers thirty-four. It has been growing in strength and in numbers, eighteen having been added since its organization, most of whom were baptized by Bro. Colcord. DISCUSSION ON THE SABBATH QUESTION
BETWEEN ELD. J. H. WAGGONER, S. D. ADVENTIST, AND ELD. PETER VOGEL, DISCIPLE. “Do the Scriptures teach that the first day of the week is to be sacredly observed by Christians?” ELD. VOGEL affirms; ELD. WAGGONER denies. The former propositions related to the Sabbath, the seventh day of the week; this concerns the first. I have shown, at least to my own satisfaction, that the Sabbath is abolished, and am now to prove that the first day has claims upon us, in a religious way, different from, and high above, that of other days. This simple matter of fact is to be determined by Biblical evidence. I do not claim that the first day is to be sacredly kept, in virtue of the fourth commandment of the decalogue, nor that there is a “change” of the seventh into the first, but that we have a new day, and for a new reason. Nor am I to occupy myself with inquiries whether the first day of the week is binding upon worldlings, but simply whether Christians—those who accept Christ in a practical way, as by faith and obedience—are to keep this day. Here I wish to adopt my brother’s language: “It will be well to consider what is the nature of the evidence required to sustain the proposition. For as all have, to some extent, already formed opinions on the subject, some may be satisfied with less proof than ought by right to be given; while others may ask more, and of a different kind, than the circumstances justly demand.” In my first paper on this discussion, I have given “five different ways of ascertaining Bible teachings,” and have shown that any one of these, excepting an “inference less than probable,” is of sufficient force to form a basis for faith and action. If, therefore, I could only produce a “probable inference,” the present proposition would be affirmatively answered. And if I should rise higher in the scale of proof—as I confidently expect to do—my position will be overwhelmingly strong. The weight of proof to be given will be greatly enhanced, when we consider what “the circumstances justly demand.” No dispensations could differ more widely than do the Mosaic and the Christian. They are contrasted by such terms as “law” and “grace” (Rom. 6:14), “letter” and “spirit” (Rom. 7:6; 2 Cor. 3:6), “bondage” and “liberty” (Gal. 5:1). The old dispensation is called “letter,” because every requirement and prohibition was written out in letters, i. e., fully expressed; the new is called “spirit,” because the spirit or principles which might be framed into express laws, are, as much as possible, given to us without an encasing letter. In other words, God has disclosed to us certain general principles to which we are to refer our actions, to know whether they will be approved or disapproved. I should like to develop this subject, at length, but on account of limited space, will content myself with the brief unfoldings already made in former propositions. I must, however, assure my brother that this is not “inner-lightism,” which he rightfully abhors, but Heaven-ordained New-Testamentism. Such being the nature of the Christian dispensation, we rightfully expect that even such cases as cannot be reached by general principles, but where more specific legislation is needed—as in positive institutions—there is as little of the legislative style as possible. Take, for example, the Lord’s supper. So far as the existence of the institution is concerned, we have express statements; but so far as the frequency of its observance is concerned, we are wholly left to inference—to approved precedent. Yet not only has the church for centuries confidently interpreted these precedents to be of weekly obligation, but I hazard nothing in saying that nearly all the most eminent Bible students are a unit on this question. Let me quote a few of them:— “At least every Lord’s day.”—Wm. King, Archbishop of Dublin. “Constantly administered every Lord’s day.”—Dr. Scott. “The Lord’s supper was observed by the first Christians, every Lord’s day, nor will this be denied by any man who has candidly investigated the subject. Weekly communion did not die with the apostles and their contemporaries.”—Dr. Mason. “It is well known that the primitive Christians administered the Eucharist every Lord’s day.”—Doddridge. “In primitive times, it was the custom of many churches to receive the Lord’s supper every Lord’s day.”—Matthew Henry. “It is well known [that the Lord’s supper] was observed by the primitive churches every Lord’s day.”—Dr. J. M. Cramp, Pres. Arcadia College. “Every first day of the week.”—Alexander Carson. I might swell this list by such names as Adam Clarke, John Wesley, and John Calvin. The interested reader may see this subject fully discussed, and these quotations at length, in The Christian System, by A. Campbell, published by Bosworth, Chase, & Hall, of Cincinnati, O. As with the Lord’s supper, so with the Lord’s day. As an institution, it has express recognition; but as to the frequency of observing it—whether annually, monthly, or weekly, and on what day of the week—we have inference and approved precedent. There is another reason besides that of the genius of the Christian dispensation for finding the frequency of observing these institutions left to precedent and inference, rather than to precept. That portion of the New Testament—Acts and the Epistles—which appertains more especially to the new dispensation, is of such a cast as to make this course normal. Thus, Acts is rather a history of what the people did, under apostolic guidance, than a digest of what they were to do, and the epistles more a correction of errors and abuses, than books of precepts. With these preliminaries, I proceed more directly to the work before me. I shall attempt to prove, I. That prophecy predicts a sacred day for this dispensation. II. That the New-Testament scriptures speak of and recognize such a day, as actually existing. III. That this day is a new institution, peculiar to the Christian dispensation. IV. That this day recurs weekly, and upon the first day of the week. V. That the first day of the week is peculiarly appropriate, and the fittest of the seven, for this purpose. I will at once proceed to show, I. That prophecy predicts a sacred day in this dispensation. Under the second proposition, I have shown Isa. 56:1–8, to be applicable to, and spoken of, the new dispensation. It speaks of a “Sabbath” in this dispensation, for the keeping of which there shall be a blessing upon the people: “For thus saith the Lord unto the eunuchs that keep my Sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant; even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls, a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters; I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off. Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the Lord, to serve him, and to love the name of the Lord, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the Sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant; even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt-offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.” Verses 4–7. We have seen that the Sabbath is abolished, hence we know that this prophecy is not to be construed in its most literal sense, and yet, of course, as nearly literal as possible. Were it not for the fact that we know, from other scriptures, that there are now no more “burnt-offerings,” “sacrifices,” and “altars,” we would confidently expect them from this prediction. Clearly, then, by “burnt-offerings,” “sacrifices,” and “altars,” the prophet meant to describe that in the new dispensation, which sustains to it a similar relation that these things did to the old. The resemblance between the thing named and the thing meant, is somewhat like the likeness in our Saviour’s parables. It is an illustrative use of words—the unknown being introduced and described by means of the known. In many instances, this is a necessary license; for if this course had not been permissible, many things concerning the new dispensation, the prophets could not have foretold without giving a full exposition of it. So vivid and impressive is such a figure of speech, that we use it in common intercourse. On visiting a foreign nation, for example, and seeing them celebrate their national anniversary, it would be quite within the bounds of propriety to write to our friends at home, “To-day is this nation’s Fourth of July.” Their anniversary and ours may differ in as many respects as the first day and the Sabbath, yet this will not forbid the use of the figure which clothes the one in the drapery of the other. Indeed, without a difference, a figure would be impossible. So in prose it is a pregnant metaphor to call the “Lord’s day,” Sabbath, as when Christ called Herod a fox; and in poetry, it is the beautiful language of passion. II. The New-Testament scriptures recognize the existence of a sacred day in this dispensation.
1. That there is a day set apart for religious exercises, seems at least a probable inference from Heb. 10:25, where Paul insists on “not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is.” This recognizes a set day for gathering together in order to worship; for without such a day, one member could not know when the others meet; nor could he be accused of neglect for not meeting with them. But whether this day is divinely appointed, or only of human selection, is not so clear; yet the probability seems to me to greatly preponderate in favor of divine appointment, since without instruction on this point, man’s proneness to neglect stated public worship would often work to his spiritual detriment; especially would this be the case with “babes” in Christ. Nor would neglect be deserving of such severe rebukes, were the appointment merely human. 2. The two following passages are more decisive: (1.) “And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow.” Acts 20:7. (2.) “Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him.” 1 Cor. 16:2. Under another head, I shall look more narrowly into the teachings of these passages. For the present, I would only call attention to the fact that here are two stated acts of worship performed on a given day, making the day sacred to these acts. 3. The fact that there is a sacred day in this dispensation, is placed beyond all reasonable controversy by the apostle John. He says, “I was in the spirit on the Lord’s day.” Rev. 1:10. Clear as this passage is in asserting that a day in this dispensation belongs to the Lord, in an especial sense, there are those who would force other constructions upon it; namely, that the Lord’s day denotes (1) the gospel dispensation, or (2) the day of Judgment. But neither of these positions can be true. The first would make John seriously tell his contemporaries that the vision which he had on Patmos took place in the Christian dispensation, when every one knew that it could not possibly have been at any other time. Equally incongruous would be the second, for it would date the seven epistles in the day of Judgment, and on the isle of Patmos. Besides, the particular expression here used in the Greek (the kuriakee heemera, the Lordic day) is not only never applied to the Judgment day, but is also wholly inappropriate for such a use. This the reader will see when we come to look more narrowly into the expression. Moreover, the phrase, “in the Spirit” (en Pneumati), denotes being inspired, or under the Spirit, as His influence. Comp. Matt. 22:43. John says, in effect, “I was inspired, or under the influence of the Spirit, on the Lord’s day,” making “on the Lord’s day,” designative of fixed and mutually known time when. Unquestionably, then, the word, “day,” is here used literally, and John declares that there is a day, in this dispensation, pre-eminently the Lord’s. Or, more strictly speaking, he dates his epistles to the seven churches on a day recognized by all Christians as especially the Lord’s. Over this fact, Eld. W. and I will have no dispute, for he has already admitted all that I here claim. I have written for the benefit of another class, to whom I also wish to carry conviction. The fact that this day is declared to be the Lord’s, proclaims also its nature with reference to man’s relation to his divine Head. In other words, it does not mean that the Lord does not possess the other days, from which this one stands apart—for all days are the Lord’s, in that sense—but that man is to regard the day as holy to the Lord. It is a sacred institution. III. The “Lord’s day” is a new institution, peculiar to the present dispensation.
1. It cannot be otherwise, for we have seen that the Sabbath, together with all other Jewish days, is abolished. 2. This will further appear from the fact, to be hereafter proved, that the Lord’s day falls on the first day of the week. It was an essential part of the Sabbath that it be kept on the seventh day of the week, and from evening to evening. Ex. 20:10; Lev. 23:32. Had it been even transferred from the seventh to the first day, that very transfer would have made it a new institution; it would have been183eliminating an old element, and substituting a new one. 3. The Greek expression, rendered “Lord’s day,” is not composed of two nouns, but of an adjective and a noun, and would be more accurately expressed by Lordean or Lordic day. The adjective, kuriakee, (Lordic or Lordean), was “formed by the apostles themselves.” (Winer, N. T. Gram., p. 236.) To the same effect testify Liddell and Scott. Of the mode of dealing with words in their Lexicon, they say: “We have always sought to give the earliest authority for its use, first. Then, if no change was introduced by later writers, we have left it with that early authority alone.” (Pref. p. xx.) When we turn to the word, kuriakos, they give as their “first” citation, and, therefore, as its “earliest authority,” the New Testament. The question now arises, Why form a new word to express a sacred institution, if the institution itself be not new? Winer says, “Entirely new words and phrases were constructed, mainly by composition, and, for the most part, to meet some sensible want.” (Gram., p. 25.) What conceivable “sensible want,” respecting the Sabbath, did the Old Testament leave unexpressed? Clearly, this new “want” arose with a new institution. This position receives additional strength from the fact that the only other New-Testament use of kuriakos, is found in 1 Cor. 11:20, designating “the Lord’s supper,” which is certainly a new institution. 4. The meaning of kuriakos, whether the word itself be new or old, leads us to the same conclusion, provided it refers to Jesus as the Lord. And that Jesus is referred to, I shall presently show. Crosby says, Gram., § 315, note b, that the meaning of adjectives terminating in kos is, “relating to” that which is denoted by the stem, which, in the case in hand, is Kurios, Lord. If kurios refers to the personal appellation bestowed upon Jesus (Acts 2:36), then kuriakos signifies pertaining to Jesus as Lord, hence to his Lordship as having originated it. With this agree the Lexicons: “Kuriakos, of or pertaining to the Lord, i. e., the Messiah, the Lord’s. 1 Cor. 11:20; Rev. 1:10”—Greenfield. “Kuriakos, pertaining to the Lord, to the Lord Jesus Christ; e. g. kuriakon deipnon, the Lord’s supper, 1 Cor. 11:20; kuriakee heemera, the Lord’s day, Rev. 1:10.—Art. Thom. § 31. Clem. Alex. Strom. 7:10.”—Robinson. “Kuriakos, of, belonging to, concerning a lord or master; esp. belonging to the Lord (Christ): hence hee kuriakee, sub. heemera, the Lord’s day, dies dominica, N. T.: to kuriakon, the Lord’s house, Eccl., whence our kyrke, church.”—Liddell and Scott. These authors are quoted in full, and such testimony might be easily multiplied. There is no higher authority than Liddell and Scott. They declare the Lord’s day to be a day “concerning” or having respect to the Lord, “belonging to” him, and being “of” him. They leave us in no doubt as to the origin of the day. It is not a day transferred from one Lord to another, but, as Greenfield and Liddell and Scott unite in testifying, “of,” the Lord referred to in the passages where it occurs. WHY WE REJOICE.
By M. E. Piper
On! why do the children of light rejoice
At the signs of Christ’s appearing?
And why do the hill-tops answer back
The sound of their anthems cheering? And why do they love each other so?
And mingle their gladsome voices?
Now breathe their accents tender and low,
Then in shouts each heart rejoices. There’s a sad, solemn look upon every brow,
As if tears had bathed their faces;
But the glory of God that shines there now
Seems to come from heavenly places. But why have they left their companions and friends,
To meet the proud world’s scoffing?
This gloomy earth no attraction lends,
They heed not its jests and laughing. The brighter inheritance opens to view
Such scenes of enchanting splendor
As this earth’s allurements never can do,
And they view them with joy, and wonder. But though the road be thorny and rough,
Which leads to the heavenly mansions,
The price of Heaven will be cheap enough
To those whom their Lord shall ransom. Springport and Parma, Mich.
By A. S. Hutchins
The last Sabbath in April, I met with the new brethren and sisters, convened at the house of sister Landon, in Springport. Spoke once on the Sabbath, and once the following evening; after which, I spent nearly one hour answering questions and objections to our views on the soon coming of Jesus. Oh! that all could see the different chains of prophecy, explicit and harmonious, with the signs of the times, forcibly demonstrating the truth that the Son of man will quickly come; admonishing the church to be ready, and in their hearts respond, “Amen. Even so, come Lord Jesus.” Last Sabbath, agreeably to appointment, met with the brethren in monthly meeting at Parma. About thirty from several different towns were together. My remarks were of a practical nature; but they were well responded to. Acknowledgment of the importance of living in harmony with the truths presented was made by nearly every brother and sister present, well moistened with tears, by quite a number. If the good resolutions here made are reduced to practice, accompanied with the spirit of sacrifice and self-denial, a corresponding growth in grace will be experienced. Says Peter, “But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.” These words are especially addressed to those looking for the speedy coming of Christ. May they sink into our hearts and daily influence our lives. At this meeting, a sister of our afflicted sister Burwell, confessed that she believed our position on the Sabbath question to be scriptural, stating her resolution hereafter to observe the Sabbath of the fourth commandment. “Be of good courage, and he shall strengthen your heart, all ye that hope in God.” Shiawassee Co.
By W. H. Haskins
Since our last report, I have been laboring mostly alone. Bro. Corliss returned to his home, leaving me to carry on the work as the Lord should direct. Meetings were regularly kept up until the roads were so bad we could not profitably continue them longer. My time was then employed in visiting and in private labor. I think it was profitably spent. A covenant was drawn up, and nine names were signed to it to keep all the commandments of God, showing that there are a few in Shiawassee who desire to be ready when the Lord shall come to make up his jewels. Seventeen subscribers were received for the REVIEW (trial). The people are pleased with it. May the Lord use it as an instrument to bring souls to a saving knowledge of the truth. April 5 and 6, met the church at Locke, in quarterly meeting. We had a refreshing, and, I trust, profitable, time. There was considerable feeling manifest on the part of the youth, and some older ones, who had grown cold, were reclaimed. Found the church in apparently good working order, striving for the kingdom. God grant that we may all be faithful a little longer, and receive a crown of life. Caldwell Co., Mo.
By H. M. Van Slyke
WITH gratitude to the General Conference for the labors bestowed upon us in Missouri, as well as to our Heavenly Father, who has put into the hearts of his servants a love for sinners, I would say that a little fruit of the labors of Brn. Rogers and Long yet remains. We meet together on the Sabbath, three and a half miles south-east of Hamilton, and though we seldom have more than five or six together, on account of being widely separated, yet the blessing of God and the unity of the Spirit is manifested, so that the truths of the third angel’s message seem to be taking deep root in honest hearts. May we all walk in the light. My REVIEWS are read and re-read by those who cannot yet take them. Past Experience.
By H. G. Buck
Many things in the past I think of with deep regret, and often ask myself the question, Can all my past faults be forgiven, and I finally be saved on Mount Zion? But when I read the notice of the death of Bro. Ezra Odell of Minnesota, my mind was carried back to some of my past experience, which I never can regret. Twenty-seven years ago last July, while in great distress of mind about my duty, I felt a strong impression to leave my work and go to the Odell school-house to start some meetings, and see if I could not settle my mind with regard to future duties. This school-house was sixteen miles north of Ogdensburgh, on the banks of the St. Lawrence river, in St. Lawrence Co., N. Y. Sister Lydia Mires (now Hilliard) was then living there, and a few other praying ones. After the notice had been given out for a meeting that night, I went into the woods, with a heavy burden on my mind. There I plead with the Lord that, if it was my duty to go and hold a meeting there, he would convert one soul or reclaim one backslider that night. The Spirit of the Lord was present with power at the beginning of the meeting, and when an invitation was given for any one who wanted religion to arise, the first one to comply was Ezra Odell. While the great tears rolled down his face, he said he was a poor backslider and wanted to come back to the Lord again. We continued the meetings three or four weeks, and some forty souls were persuaded to become reconciled to God. Now, Bro. Odell sleeps in Jesus, and I praise the Lord and will try to meet him “over on the other shore.” Mr. Talmage, when arguing for a free pew system, after describing the horrors of a shipwreck, people drowning, the launching of a life-boat, said: “Stop, you cannot get in here unless you pay! This seat in the middle of the boat is worth a dollar; this in the bow fifty cents; you may have that one in the stern for a quarter. If you cannot pay that, wait for the free life-boat, the mission chapel! That will be along after awhile.” The Love of God.
By Hannah More
THOUGH we cannot be always thinking of God, we may be always employed in his service. There must be intervals of our communion with him, but there must be no intermission of our attachment to him. The tender father, who labors for his children, does not always employ his thoughts about them; he cannot be always conversing with them, or concerning them, yet he is always engaged in promoting their interests. His affection for them is an inwoven principle, of which he gives the most unequivocal evidence, by the assiduousness of his application in their service. There is a striking analogy between the natural and spiritual life; the weakness and helplessness of the Christian resemble those of the infant; neither of them becomes strong, vigorous, and full grown at once, but through a long, and often painful, course. This keeps up a sense of dependence, and accustoms us to lean on the hand which fosters us. There is in both conditions an imperceptible chain of depending events, by which we are carried on insensibly to the vigor of maturity. The operation which is not always obvious is always progressive. By attempting to walk alone, we discover our weakness, the experience of that weakness humbles us, and every fall drives us back to the sustaining hand, whose assistance we vainly flattered ourselves we no longer needed.—Hannah More.