Earlier text: “Evolution” and EvolutionSowing for Reaping.
By F. Storer Clark
One wrote of a great general’s plan, “It was a bold one, full of danger in case of defeat, but he intended to conquer.” Doubtless the expectation of success is a great element in securing it. The great Master, wishing his workers to have every helpful motive to patient, persevering work, has given them abundant encouragement in the promises of his word. St. Paul’s words are, “Be ye steadfast, unmovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labor is not in vain in the Lord.” Thus too he says earlier in the same epistle, “He that ploweth ought to plow in hope, and he that thresheth to thresh in hope of partaking.” (Revised version.) It is to be feared, however, that many workers are not thus hopeful; they expect scarcely any results to flow from their labors, at all events, not for a long time to come. They sow, but seem to have no thoughts of reaping. Perhaps it was not so when they first took up their work. Maybe they then rushed forward to it eagerly, expecting at once to grasp the prize, but hope deferred soon made the heart sick. They are tempted to give up the work in despair or disgust, because the results they expected are not apparent at once. The one hundred and twenty-sixth psalm seems to refer to a similar case. When the children of the captivity heard of the promised return to their sacred land, the idea was at first so overwhelming in its joyousness that it seemed like a dream—“Our mouth was filled with laughter, and our tongue with singing.” But soon they realized that the desired end was yet remote and the way difficult. Great hardships and grievous toils had first to be encountered. There were to be bitter tears before abiding joys. When they were losing heart, God seems to say, “Comfort ye, comfort ye, my people.” “They that sow in tears shall reap in joy. He that goeth forth and weepeth, bearing precious seed, shall doubtless come again with rejoicing, bringing his sheaves with him.” This is God’s rule in nature as in grace. Present self-sacrifice leads to future benefits. God would also thus encourage the Christian workers who are seeking to bring pilgrims to the promised land. They must not lose heart, for their efforts would be paralyzed. God would have their hearts steeped in hope. They must be “looking unto Jesus who, for the joy that was set before him, endured the cross, despising the shame.” “It is the way the Master went;
Should not the servant tread it still?” The promise is, “In due season we shall reap, if we faint not.” It is for the Master, not for us, to judge when the season is due. When the disciples could not cure the lad with the unclean spirit they came to Jesus apart, and said, “Why could not we cast him out?” If workers who bemoan the lack of success did so, they would soon hear the reply, “Because of your little faith;” little faith being a road to failure as well as no faith. With full faith in the Master, his promises, his resources, his Spirit, the blessed results must be secured. The worker may toil assured of success. Yea, too, abundant success. He carried forth a few seeds; he will bring home sheaves. And joyous success, for he shall “reap with joy;” he “shall bring his sheaves rejoicing.” He will share his Master’s joy, who, as the faithful Shepherd, brings back “the sheep on his shoulders rejoicing,” for of him it has been said in prophecy, “He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied.”—F. Storer Clark, M. A., in Church-Worker. The young assistant editor of one of the most important magazines in New York is also the teacher of a class of little ragamuffins in a mission Sunday-school. These children are allowed to bring a penny each on Sunday, for the help of other children still worse off than themselves. Mind, they are allowed, as a privilege—not required, or even expected. It is set before them as an honor to help in the good work; and many of them bring their penny regularly—others when it is convenient—others seldom; but there is scarcely one so poor as not sometime to produce it. Among the class is one little mite, perhaps six years old, who always comes well-patched and clean, yet whose whole aspect shows her to be one of the very poorest of the poor. She is not a pretty child. Life has been hard on her, and pinched her little face, and made sharp angles where there ought to be soft outlines and dimples; but she has bright, eager eyes, and she never loses a word the teacher says to her, and he feels that she is one of his most hopeful scholars. One Sunday of winter, when the times were very hard, he heard a small voice at his elbow: “Please, sir, here's four pennies, for this Sunday, and three more Sundays.” “Why do you bring them all at once, Molly?” the teacher asked, with curious interest. “Because, please, father is out of work, and he said there might not be any pennies if I did not take them now,” and the thin little brown hand slipped into his a brown paper parcel in which the four pennies were carefully wrapped. So the good work was not to suffer, however hungry the child's mouth might be before the month was over. The teacher wondered how many of the rich men, playing with fortunes as a child plays with toys, would remember, before making some desperate throw, to provide for the charities they were wont to help, lest there should not be any money in the weeks to come.—Youth’s Companion. Nothing Worth Having Is Obtained Without Sacrifice
By Sel.
NOTHING worth having is obtained without a sacrifice by somebody. Whether this be a law or not it is a fact. It is equally true that a struggle is required to obtain anything good. The men who succeed best are active, patient, persevering, and thoughtful.—Sel. Conduct in the House of God
“THESE things write I unto thee, . . . that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God.” Two Great Compromises.
By Editor
IN regard to the increasing power of the papacy, facts are constantly coming to our notice; and we turn slightly aside from the course we intended to pursue in this number to notice in general the position which the system of Catholicism now occupies, or is assuming, as contrasted with the position which it formerly occupied in the eyes of Protestants. In the Presbyterian General Assembly in Cincinnati, May 25, 1885, a resolution by Judge Drake was under consideration. The resolution denied the validity of the baptism of the Catholic Church. “Dr. W. C. Alexander, professor in the Theological Seminary at San Francisco, spoke in opposition to the resolution.” He said: “This resolution denies the validity of baptism administered to millions of persons who have come into the Protestant church from the Roman Catholic Church, and have never received any other baptism.” This alleged reason touches no principle; it only looks to the bearing which the resolution would have upon their past action, without showing that their action was consistent or proper. The report says:— “Dr. Schaff offered a substitute to the resolution to the effect that the Roman Catholic Church, though corrupt and teaching many unscriptural doctrines, yet retaining the holy Scriptures and ancient creeds, with all the fundamental truths of Christianity, is still a branch of the visible church of Christ, and, therefore, the sacrament of baptism administered by that church with the right to baptize is a true and valid Christian baptism, which cannot and ought not to be repeated. Dr. Schaff spoke in favor of his substitute, by showing from the history of the church that baptism administered in the name of the trinity, with proper intention, regardless of the character of the one administering it, had always been considered valid.” The report of May 26 says: “Judge Drake’s resolution on Romish baptism was overwhelmingly defeated.” The Christian at Work heartily espouses the cause of Romanism, saying:— “To say that a child baptized in infancy by a pious Roman Catholic priest doing the Lord’s work in his own humble way—there are plenty of them, brethren!—to say that such a child must be baptized over again at the point of Presbyterian digitals is, in our view, a reversion to Anabaptism.” In one sense they are consistent in this position. They have derived their baptism, not only in its administration from the Romish Church, but in its doctrine both as to form and subjects, from tradition handed down mostly by the Catholics. If they deny the validity of the Romish ordinances and creeds, they deny their own standing. They well understand that they have very much at stake in this direction. Dr. Schaff might have gone even farther than he did; he might have said in truth that some of “the Fathers” held that baptism was valid and purifying without regard to the character of the baptizer or the intention of the baptized! And this view has its literal succession in all churches which baptize infants, for in such baptism the recipient has no intention at all. A faith more in conformity with the Bible would lead to a conclusion differing from that arrived at in the General Assembly. Thus far they are consistent, but as professed Protestants they are not consistent. They are fallen from the grace of true Protestant faith. The Presbyterians may be more conservative than most other denominations, but their old standards do not justify their high encomiums of the Romish church. Thus, Dr. Scott says:— “The ‘man of sin’ does not mean a single person, but a succession of men, impious in themselves; and conducting the same wicked design of corrupting Christianity, in doctrine, worship, and practice; establishing an intolerable tyranny on religious pretences; and using all kinds of seduction, iniquity, and cruel persecution to induce mankind to adopt the antichristian system. This ‘man of sin’ would be ‘the son of perdition,’ a genuine descendant of Judas, the apostle and traitor, who sold his Lord for money, and betrayed him with a kiss; a peculiar factor and agent of Satan, in destroying the souls of men; and finally sinking himself into perdition as his inheritance (Notes, Rev. 17:7-14). It is manifest that no succession of men have yet appeared on earth to whom this description fully accords, except that of the Roman pontiffs, as in succession the visible head of the popish church. This deceiver would ‘oppose and exalt himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped,’ either by Christians or pagans; thus the Roman pontiffs have opposed the truths, commandments, and disciples of Christ, in every age and by every means: they have opposed the prophetical office of Christ, by teaching human inventions, his priestly office, by the doctrine of human merits and created intercessors; and his kingly office, by changing and dispensing with his laws.”—Scott, on 2 Thess. 2. This estimate of the papal church, drawn directly from the description of the Scripture, is widely different from that of Dr. Schaff and the Presbyterian Church at large of the present time. Is the baptism of a blasphemous, God-defying, and Christ-denying power, and “antichristian system,” valid? And Dr. Scott gives the same idea of the papacy in Revelation, applying the blasphemous beast of chapters 13 and 17 to the papacy. If this application is correct, then so far from the Romish church being the veritable church of Christ, or an important part of it, her head and ruling prince is “the son of perdition,” and the system itself, rather the body or power itself, is to go into perdition—the lake of fire and brimstone! And with this agree the words of Dr. Barnes. He comments at length on Dan. 7:25, referring it to the papacy, and says:— “It would be arrogant and proud, ‘speaking great words against the Most High.’ No Protestant [italics his own] will doubt that this is true of the papacy; no one acquainted with history will presume to call it in question. The arrogant pretensions of the papacy have been manifested in all the history of that power, and no one can doubt that its assumptions have been, by fair construction, a ‘speaking of great words against God.’” Dr. Barnes also applies to the succession of the popes the title in 2 Thess. 2: “the man of sin.” This does not refer to any particular “man” as both Scott and Barnes say, but to the succession as head over an “antichristian system.” The title, “man of sin,” would certainly forbid the idea that the system represented thereby is the church of Jesus Christ, having the genuine faith and ordinances, as Dr. Schaff says. On this title Dr. Barnes says:— “To no succession of men who have ever lived could the appellative ‘the man of sin,’ be applied with so much propriety as to this succession. Yet they claim to have been the true successors of the apostles, and there are Protestants that deem it of essential importance to be able to show that they have derived the true ‘succession’ through such men.” Yes, the Presbyterian General Assembly “deem it of essential importance to be able to show that they have derived the true [baptismal] succession through such men,” and through such an “antichristian system.” Dr. Barnes makes the same application of the symbols of the Revelation, which also fixes to the papal power the title of “the son of perdition.” We think the point is clear; no further proof is needed, that the Protestant faith is dying out of the Protestant church; that there is a turning back toward the papacy, and the line dividing between Protestants and Catholics is fast being obliterated. But, as we remarked, all the change is on the part of the Protestants; the Catholics are making no change at all. They deny that the Protestant churches are churches in any proper sense, but only sects or heretics, whom they over and over again say they would not tolerate if they had the power in their hands. In the United States the papacy is recognized as a power, both spiritual and political. And it alone, of all churches, occupies this position. Its representatives alone are accorded special honors as representatives of a church. It alone stands separate and distinct from all other churches; claiming affinity with none; recognizing none as its associates. That it is a political power in fact if not in open profession is shown in that, for years, political parties have taken positions which were well understood to be “bids for the Catholic vote.” Who ever heard of their bidding for the Methodist vote, or the Baptist vote, or the Presbyterian vote? Such an idea never entered the heads of politicians. But they are careful to angle for “the Catholic vote.” Why is this? It is because it is tacitly acknowledged that the Catholic Church is a political power, planning shrewdly and working unitedly for the accomplishment of its purpose. It knows how to bide its time; but it knows also how to take advantage of every opportunity which others so heedlessly are opening before it. It also even now demands privileges and favors of our Government which other churches do not presume to ask. At first glance it may be supposed that all this has nothing to do with a “compromise” with this power in Europe. But it is a sign not to be lightly overlooked. We believe that we stated a simple truth when we said that, for years past, Protestantism has existed in greater purity in the United States than in any other land in the world. England comes next, and her tendency to Ritualism too plainly shows what may and what may not be expected there. If, in the strongholds of Protestantism, there is such a voluntary yielding of the landmarks in favor of the papacy, and in a time of peace, when there is no pressure—no emergency—to require it, what must we expect of those nations whose people are ranged from nominally Protestant to intensely Catholic? Everything looks toward a fulfillment of Rev. 17 and 18, in the kings of the earth giving their power to the beast, and the antichristian “woman” boasting that she is no longer a widow and shall see no sorrow; that her trials are past, and her triumph at last complete. But alas for her boasting; her plagues shall come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire; for strong is the Lord God who judgeth her. Rev. 18:8. WHAT? The Bible. Infidels used to attack the Bible, but they did so by pointing out something that had the appearance of weakness or error. It is easy for any man to find what appears to him to be folly or error in a book of which he is entirely ignorant. The following we find in a recent paper:— “In a place of public resort, a skeptic was haranguing a crowd of young men, and was denouncing the Scriptures. A plain-looking old man who was standing by, seizing an opportunity to reply, said:— “See here, boys, here is a man reviling the book which contains the ten commandments, the Lord’s prayer, and the parable of the prodigal son.” “The infidel was staggered by the simple statement, and the crowd dispersed.” This fairly represents the past; even infidels were ashamed to revile the Bible when reminded that it contained the ten commandments, the Lord’s prayer,361 and the story of the prodigal son. But now it is different. The Bible is attacked by professed Christians, and, as might be expected of traitors to the cause they profess to serve, they attack its strongholds, even the points before which infidels stop their railing, ashamed of their irreverence. Suppose the scene above described were now passing before us, and the “staggered” infidel was leaving the field. Then up steps Mr. Woodward, of the M. E. Church, and with a bland smile says:— “Gentlemen, let me read to you a page from my justly celebrated work entitled ‘A check on Adventism.’ In this you will find the most convincing proof that the ten commandments were given only to the Jews, and that our blessed Saviour set us free from that antiquated code. To be sure he ‘reinstated’ some parts of it, but as a code, as a whole, it has no place in this dispensation.” And Dr. Stratton, the urbane president of the “University of the Pacific,” comes forward and assures the company that Mr. Woodward’s arguments are “timely” and “cogent;” that they are well calculated to correct the “whimsey” of those who teach that the decalogue, just as Jehovah spoke it on Mount Sinai, is binding on us. And the editor of the California Christian Advocate sedately assures the company that they will find that Mr. Woodward’s pamphlet is “good reading;” he cheerfully recommends it to them for their consideration. And now comes Dr. Nisbet, of the Baptist Church, and expresses his astonishment that any one should recommend a book on the ground of its containing the ten commandments. “I have sufficiently shown,” says he, “in a little book that I have published, that as a document the ten commandments were ‘Jewish and temporary. When the Jewish covenant passed away, there passed away this ten word summary of it.’” Dr. Frost says he has read Dr. Nisbet’s work “with profit and delight.” He appeals to the company in its behalf as “lovers of clear views and sound doctrine.” And Professor Le Conte, of the University of California, assures the company that he has found Dr. Nisbet’s book “very interesting and profitable. It is clear, strong, conclusive.” Now all this is a great relief to our infidel friend, who was so “staggered” with the accusation that he was opposing the book that contained the ten commandments. Yet there was the Lord’s prayer! While he is pondering over this, a learned minister approaches, and says:— “Gentlemen, permit me to recommend to you this volume written by Alexander Campbell, one of the most learned men of the present century. His views are indorsed by thousands and thousands of Christians. In truth he has been the instrument of restoring ‘primitive Christianity,’ which had so long been lost to view. He abundantly proves that the kingdom of Christ was set up on the day of Pentecost, after his resurrection, as, indeed, most denominations acknowledge, and that there is no propriety in our using the Lord’s prayer. It was quite suitable to be used before the kingdom of Christ had come, but not since that time.” He triumphantly looked round upon the company, with the remark that he would debate the question with any one who denied his proposition. No one dissented. It is now the infidel’s opportunity. “Gentlemen,” says he, “your remarks are indeed ‘timely’ for me. They appear to be ‘cogent,’ clear, ‘forcible,’ and I accept them with great pleasure. I was, indeed, staggered before the accusation of having opposed the ten commandments and the Lord’s prayer. I know that all classes have recognized these as both fundamental and faultless. And in truth I was never able to discover anything assailable in them. But now that you have so satisfactorily disposed of them, I think I can manage the prodigal son and the rest of the old book. True, there are many other confessedly good things in the Bible; but none coming so directly from the highest authority and taking hold so strongly of the life of all, and the worship of Christians. If these are so easily set aside, why not the rest? Permit me to thank you for your timely assistance; for the relief that you bring to me in my emergency. And now,” continued he, turning to his reprover, “what have you to say to this? How will you answer these gentlemen?” Alas, he is the “staggered” one now. Groaning in spirit he murmured: “If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?” Ps. 11:3. “How Readest Thou?”
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
THERE has been of late quite an interest raised over the question in a recent Sabbath-school lesson, as to how old Abram was when his father died. Several letters have been written about it. We will therefore quote a portion of one letter from a brother who requests an answer through the SIGNS, and the answer to it will serve for all. He says:— “The idea was conveyed in the Sabbath-school lesson in the SIGNS, a few weeks ago, that Abram was seventy-five years old when his father died, and the subject was brought up in the school at —, which caused some comment. “As well as I remember, the SIGNS stated plainly that he was that age at the death of his father, and suppose the conclusion was gotten at in this way. In the last verse of Gen. 11 we have an account of the death of Terah, Abram’s father, and the 12th chapter begins with what the Lord had told Abram in regard to leaving his father’s house, etc., and says: ‘So Abram departed as the Lord had spoken unto him; and Lot went with him; and Abram was seventy-five years old when he departed out of Haran,’ and as his father had died before he departed, he must have been seventy-five when his father died.” The brother has the idea exactly, and when we had read his words we wondered that there could be any question in his mind. But the next few words of his letter show the cause of his difficulty. He continues:— “But right here is where I think the mistake is. The Bible does not say that Terah died before Abram left Haran, but, on the other hand, conveys the idea very strongly that he did not. It is true that the last verse of chapter 11 gives an account of the death of Terah, and the first verse of chapter 12 gives an account of what the Lord told Abram about leaving his country, but it does not say that it was after his father’s death that he told him this, or that he did not leave before his father’s death.” And right here is where we would place several exclamation marks. It is strange that the brother should have forgotten or overlooked Acts 7:2-4, which was referred to in the same lesson, and which reads thus:— “Men, brethren, and fathers, hearken: The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Charran [Haran], and said unto him, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and come into the land which I shall show thee. Then came he out of the land of the Chaldeans, and dwelt in Charran; and from thence, when his father was dead, he removed him into this land wherein ye now dwell.” The question, then, is reduced to this simple proposition: Since Abram left Haran when his father died (Acts 7:2-4), and he was seventy-five years old when he left Haran (Gen. 12:4), how old was he when his father died? No great mathematical skill is required to solve this problem. This was about the order in which it was stated in the Sabbath-school lesson, if we remember correctly. We apprehend that the question concerning Abram’s age at the death of his father, was raised in order to see if those studying the lessons were in the habit of comparing scripture with scripture, and noting the bearing of one upon the other. It seems that in this case many did not do so. What has thrown so many off the track is this: They read in Gen. 11:26, “And Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran.” And in Gen. 11:32 they read: “And the days of Terah were two hundred and five years; and Terah died in Haran.” Putting these two together, they say, “Why, of course Abram was 135 years old when his father died. Thus they ignore the plain and positive statements of Gen. 12:4 and Acts 7:4, by which we must be guided. The record does not say that Abram was born when his father was seventy years old. There are two statements in Gen. 11:26; one is that Terah lived seventy years without children, and the other is that he begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran. We are not to suppose that these three sons were all born at the same time, any more than we are to suppose when we read (Gen. 5:7), ‘And Seth lived after he begat Enos eight hundred and seven years, and begat sons and daughters,’ that all his sons and daughters were born at one time. Neither is it necessary to suppose that Abram was the first-born. The youngest son, if he was the most noted, is very often named first. Thus, ‘Ephraim and Manasseh’ is the order in which Joseph’s sons are usually named, although Ephraim was the younger. See Gen. 41:51, 52; 48:17-20. For another illustration, see Gen. 5:32: “And Noah was five hundred years old; and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth.” The casual reader might suppose that these sons were all born to Noah at one time, and he would certainly suppose that Shem was the eldest, and Japheth the youngest. But by comparing Gen. 9:22-24 with Gen. 10:21, we learn that Japheth was the eldest son, and Ham the youngest, and that therefore Shem was Noah’s second son. He is mentioned first, because he is most worthy of note, as being the ancestor of Abraham. So it is in Gen. 11:26. Terah was seventy years old when the first of his sons was born; but this was not Abram, since he was not born until his father was 135 years old. (Compare the age of Abram at his father’s death, with Gen. 11:32.) He is, however, named first, because he was the only one of note among the sons of Terah. We have not devoted so much space to this question because we thought it a matter of great importance that all should know just how old Abraham was at his father’s death, but to show the necessity of careful thought in studying the Scriptures. All the facts of any case do not always appear in a single passage, and different ones must be compared. One thing must always be borne in mind: Whenever a thing is plainly stated in any text or must necessarily be concluded from a comparison of two or more positive statements, no seeming contradiction based on an inference, can be entertained. Incomplete statements, or inferences, must always be interpreted in harmony with positive declarations. By so doing we shall find perfect harmony in the Bible. E. J. W. Political “Christian Ideals.”
By A. T. J.
THE Churchman in urging the need of “Christian ideals” in politics, says: “The law of sacrifice, which lies at the basis of Christianity, is the eternal law in politics also, and the truth announced by Christ is indelible, that he who would be chief must make himself a servant.” Oh, yes! And when the time comes that, to hold office in this Government, a man must accept the “Christian ideal” of the church, what masterly exemplars there will be of the law of sacrifice in politics! And how actively they will obey the truth, and make themselves servants that they may be chiefs! That is done in politics now and how much more then, when, by it, they can exemplify a “Christian ideal”! But when the law of sacrifice is followed for the sole purpose of getting into office, and when a man makes himself a servant for the express purpose of becoming chief, we have serious doubts of both the sacrifice and the servitude. Save Your Old Papers for Ship Missions.
By S. N. H.
THE importance of our ship work has never been over-estimated. The forcible figure that Inspiration uses to show that the angel's proclamation was to go by land and by sea, is found in the following words: “And he set his right foot on the sea, and his left foot on the earth.” This message does not cease until the warning of Rev. 14: 9-12 closes. God's providence brought before the mariners in the days of the apostles a knowledge of the gospel in various ways by the agencies he then used. There are many more traveling by sea at the present time than there were then. These men and women are to be warned of the approaching judgment, and of the day of God. Many who have become interested in present truth are instrumental in carrying the truth to many nations, and tongues, and people, where we have no other means whatever of reaching them. Some of these individuals are stewards of vessels, and those who do not feel that they can at present keep the Sabbath because of their situation, but believe it is truth. Believers who are observing the Sabbath are found in the interior of Africa, South America, British Guiana, and many other places that might be mentioned, where we cannot tell how they first obtained the reading matter. There is no nation but what has interested readers, who have received the publications that had been sent to some port by those who are interested in their distribution. Said one steward sailing from Boston, Mass., who has taken old periodicals by the half barrel to the West India Islands and other points: “I have taken my publications and distributed them among the people, until they would plead with tears in their eyes for more.” At some of these islands they would come to the ship and wait for publications. Having received them from the same vessel before, they eagerly expect it would bring them reading matter again. Shall we withhold our efforts in furthering the cause in this respect, as though it were a waste of means and labor? We know that such is not the feeling of any of our brethren and sisters throughout the country, but that with one universal testimony they would say, “Go forward.” Now if you do not use your own papers in the missionary work, which is far the better way, then we earnestly appeal to you to save all your old periodicals, and if you have no other use for them, send them to those parts of the country where there is a living tract society bordering upon the sea coast. They can use them in the ship missionary work. In this respect, New York City, the New England and the Pacific Conferences, have the advantage. Chicago and New Orleans furnish opportunities for sending the truth by sea. Every steamer on the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers should carry our periodicals, books, tracts, etc., for those interested to read. Now is the time to work. There will never be a more favorable opportunity than the present. Many publications can be sold to the officers and sailors; and there is scarcely a vessel that sails the ocean but would take an interest in placing our publications in different ports, if the matter were properly set before them. They363 should have an opportunity of doing this wherever the disposition is manifested. Many have embraced the Sabbath, some on the islands of the Pacific Ocean, and others in the Atlantic Ocean, by this means alone. To-day there is a company in British Guiana observing the Sabbath. The light was carried to them by a colporter from the West India Islands, who received the Sabbath by reading an old volume of the Review which was placed on board the ship at New Bedford, Mass., many years ago. It is the overruling providence of God that controls the work of sending the truth by land and sea. The truth and the work is God's, and he has said that “it shall go to every nation, and tongue, and people.” The honest in heart everywhere will be reached by the rays of light of present truth; and while God has in his providence brought into existence this means of carrying the truth to the most distant lands, and raised friends to assist in this work who are not of our faith, it would be a sin for us to neglect such openings as present themselves.