Earlier text: The Medo-Persian EmpireNOTES ON THE INTERNATIONAL LESSON.
By Alonzo T. Jones
SYRIA lay to the north of Palestine. It was bounded on the east by the Euphrates and the Desert of Palmyre; on the west by the Mediterranean Sea, Phoenicia, and Cilicia; and on the north by Cappadocia. It was about the size of Scotland. Haran, the place where Abraham stopped on his way to Canaan, was in Syria. Haran was the city of Nahor; Nahor was Bethuel's father; "Bethuel the Syrian" was Rebecca's and Laban's father; Isaac married Rebecca, the daughter of Bethuel the Syrian, the sister to Laban the Syrian; and when Jacob, Rebecca's son, fled from the fury of Esau, his mother told him "Flee thou to Laban my brother to Haran." "And Jacob fled into the country of Syria." Gen. 11 : 31; 22 : 20-23; 27 : 43; 24 : 2-5; Hos. 12 : 12. AFTER Israel had come into the land of Canaan, among the idols that they served, were the gods of Syria. Judges 10 : 6. David defeated the Syrians of Damascus, slaying 22,000 of them, and put garrisons in Syria of Damascus, and the Syrians became servants to David. 2 Sam. 8 : 5, 6. When Absalom had killed his brother Amnon, he fled to Geshur in Syria and stayed there three years. 2 Sam. 13 : 38; 15 : 8. Solomon brought horses and chariots out of Egypt for the kings of Syria. 1 Kings 10 : 29. Asa, of Judah, sent a present of silver and gold by which he induced the king of Syria to break his league with Baasha of Israel, and to help Asa. 1 Kings 15 : 16-22. Elijah was directed to anoint Hazael king over Syria. 1 Kings 19 : 15. Benhadad, king of Syria, came up with thirty-two kings and besieged Samaria. But two hundred and thirty-two princes of the provinces led a sortie out of Samaria, and the Syrians fled, and Benhadad escaped on a horse. The next year he came again, and the children of Israel went against the Syrians, and pitched before them "like two little flocks of kids; but the Syrians filled the country." The battle was joined and of the Syrians 100,000 footmen fell in the battle. Benhadad first fled to Aphek, and then surrendered to the king of Israel. 1 Kings 20. Three years afterward there was war again with Syria in which Ahab, of Israel, was killed. 1 Kings 22. The next mention of Syria is, two years afterward, in our lesson. Naaman was captain of the host of the king of Syria, "a great man with his master, and honorable, also a mighty man in valor; but he was a leper." 2 Kings 5 : 1. "AND the Syrians had gone out by companies, and had brought away captive out of the land of Israel a little maid; and she waited on Naaman's wife. And she said unto her mistress, Would God my lord were with the prophet that is in Samaria! for he would recover him of his leprosy. And one went in, and told his lord, saying, Thus and thus said the maid that is of the land of Israel. And the king of Syria said, Go to, go, and I will send a letter unto the king of Israel. And he departed, and took with him ten talents of silver, and six thousand pieces of gold, and ten changes of raiment. And he brought the letter to the king of Israel, saying, Now when this letter is come unto thee, behold, I have therewith sent Naaman my servant to thee, that thou mayest recover him of his leprosy." "So NAAMAN came with his horses and with his chariot, and stood at the door of the house of Elisha. And Elisha sent a messenger unto him, saying, Go and wash in Jordan seven times, and thy flesh shall come again to thee, and thou shalt be clean. But Naaman was wroth, and went away, and said, Behold, I thought, He will surely come out to me, and stand, and call on the name of the Lord his God, and strike his hand over the place, and recover the leper. Are not Abana and Pharpar, rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel? may I not wash in them, and be clean? So he turned and went away in a rage." NAAMAN had his own ideas of how things should be done, and if he could not have it that way, he would not have it done at all. He was not the last person of that kind. Many people present their petition to the Lord, and they have their minds all made up about how it will be answered, and then if they do not receive it that way, they do not recognize that the Lord has answered their prayer at all. And there is often actual harm done by would-be revivalists in giving instruction, especially in regard to conversion. Many are brought to see their great need of salvation, of conversion, and honestly and earnestly inquire the way; and then the revivalist will perhaps undertake to tell them how they may know when they are converted, when they are accepted of God. They are told that they will feel a certain way, that they must obtain a certain kind of feeling, etc., etc., and the poor souls are left to look and long and wait for that particular feeling, so they are set to follow a will-o'-the-wisp instead of the word of God. THIS is all wrong. No man can tell another how that other will feel when he is converted. More: no converted person can make an unconverted person to understand how he himself felt when he was converted. The conversion of a soul is by the power of God through his Holy Spirit, and it "passeth all understanding." The converted soul understands it, in a measure, but he cannot make another to understand it in any measure, and for any one to undertake to tell the seeker for salvation just how he will feel, or just what to expect, is only to mislead, and perhaps plunge into despair a soul for whom Christ died. WHAT then shall we tell the seeker to do? Tell him what Christ tells to all. Tell him "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you. For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children; how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him." Luke 11 : 9-13. Tell the people that, and it will be all right, because it is the word of Him who saves sinners. We may tell also that we know that it is true, because we asked of him the Holy Spirit and he gave it; we sought the Lord, and we did find him; we knocked and he did open unto us; and we know it. Tell this, and when they seek him they will find him; and then they will know it, and not till then can they know it. Oh, never set a human example before a soul seeking salvation. Point him to Christ. There he is. He waits to be gracious. Seek, and ye shall find him, and then, oh the peace, the joy in the Holy Ghost, none can know but him who receives it. "When thou saidst, Seek ye my face; my heart said unto thee, Thy face, Lord, will I seek." Thank Heaven for the religion of Christ—a religion that converts the soul. NAAMAN "turned and went away in a rage. And his servants came near, and spake unto him, and said, My father, if the prophet had bid thee do some great thing, wouldest thou not have done it? how much rather then, when he saith to thee, Wash, and be clean." How reasonable! And Naaman was won by it. Would that all men were as ready to act upon the suggestion as was Naaman the Syrian. If men were bidden do some great thing by which the terrible leprosy of sin might be taken away, would they not do it? How much more then when a Fountain is open to all for sin and uncleanness, free to all, and He says, "Wash, and be clean." "THEN went he down, and dipped himself seven times in Jordan, according to the saying of the man of God; and his flesh came again like unto the flesh of a little child, and he was clean." But until he had dipped himself the seventh time, he was not clean. If he had gone away after the sixth time, he would still have been a leper as before. This is the very lesson that is taught by the Saviour in that place where he tells us to seek and we shall find. Luke 11 : 5-9. It is earnestness, importunity. Not that he would teach that the Lord is hard to be entreated, but that we should be importunate, even as Jacob of old, "I will not let thee go, except thou bless me." How much more when there is no place else to go. There was no water but that of Jordan to cleanse Naaman. There is no fountain but that of Calvary to cleanse the sinner. We "all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." Rom. 3 : 23; and we all must be cleansed by the precious blood of Christ. "What can wash away my stain?
Nothing but the blood of Jesus.
What can make me whole again?
Nothing but the blood of Jesus."
A. T. J. Divorce and Marriage.
By Editor
THIS subject is continually coming up among our churches, and we are glad of it. We wish that it might be agitated until the public mind should become enlightened upon it, and the public conscience aroused in regard to abuses which are prevalent. But, while the great majority are lax in their views, willing to leave the whole subject where civil Government places it, a few are unnecessarily rigid or ultra, going entirely beyond the teachings of our Saviour. Several times we have answered questions on this subject, and the request to notice it again comes from a church where it is now being agitated. The following question was asked:— "Is divorce allowed under the present dispensation for any cause?" It certainly is. We do not see how anything could be more plain than the words of the Saviour on this subject. "Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery." This exception is so explicitly made as to render it certain beyond all doubt that one, and only one, cause can justify a divorce. It is not surprising that queries on the subject are continually rising, considering how easily divorces may be obtained under our State laws for almost every reason imaginable. We think these lax laws are largely responsible for the demoralization of the public mind on this subject. It is a lamentable fact that the marriage tie has a very slight hold upon the hearts and consciences of the mass of the people. Statistics have been given which show that the number of divorces is on the increase throughout the country. The New England States are becoming sadly at fault in this matter. Reason teaches and observation proves that where divorces may be obtained for so many and such slight reasons, the marriage tie will be little respected, and marriage will be contracted without much consideration of the sacred nature of the obligation. That obligation which may be so easily thrown off will be thoughtlessly taken up. We do not believe that the Catholics are right in making marriage a sacrament of the church, and the bond indissoluble from any cause. Marriage is an original ordinance, the same as the Sabbath, instituted in Eden while man was yet innocent. Neither of them is peculiar to Christianity; neither belongs to the church. It is a sacred institution, and by all it should be regarded and respected as such. While we think the position or theory of the Catholics is faulty, we can but regret that Protestants are setting a bad example by sanctioning the practice of putting away "for every cause." Another question grows out of this: If a man puts away his wife for the cause specified by the Saviour, is he permitted to marry again? The Saviour's words touch this point also. "Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery." We do not see how any one can deny the conclusion that, for that one cause, a man may put away his wife and marry another. But other questions have arisen, and have greatly troubled some. The following statement sent to us shows the nature of a difficulty which is often presented to our brethren:— "It sometimes occurs that a person accepts present truth, who has been separated from one married companion and married again, or perhaps is married to one who has been divorced. I wish to know what is duty in such cases." Our answer to this, given some time since, we will repeat, as it will show the position we have occupied on the subject, and we have no other light to give. We believe the following will stand the test of the closest criticism:— "They who have been divorced for any cause allowable in the State in which they live, and marry again, are legally married; and if such second marriage took place before they came to the knowledge of the present truth, we are to suppose that they acted according to the best light they had, and we receive them without further question. To decide otherwise would most often result in rejecting those who had acted both legally and conscientiously, or cause them to break up legal relations, to the injury of individuals and society. We have never advised, nor shall we ever advise, any to take such a course. Where the action is legal, we cannot go back of the time of their receiving the light of present truth. "After people come to the knowledge of the truth, they may justly be held to conform to the precepts of Christianity in all matters. Our State laws are similar to those rules which were allowed because of the hardness of the hearts of the people, but which the Saviour disallowed. He said: 'Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery.' This language is too plain to admit of any difference of opinion, and we could not conscientiously do less than to expect all Christians to regard this as the rule of their action. If fornication or adultery is the ground of the divorce, we believe, on the Saviour's authority, that the innocent party is left as free as if separated by death, and of course may marry again. But this privilege should be denied to the guilty party; otherwise a premium is placed upon crime, as a means of throwing off moral and legal obligations and forming new alliances. "Another question has been asked: If one party knows, or has sufficient reason to believe, that the other has committed adultery, and obtains a divorce on some other ground, not wishing to name that cause in the application, has the party who obtained such divorce a right to marry? We must confine our answer to that question to our own action. We could not conscientiously solemnize marriage under such circumstances because the crime is not in proof. The parties stand before the world on the evidence given in court, and if adultery is not given as the ground for obtaining the divorce, we dare not act on any supposition that such ground exists. This is the course we have marked out for ourselves, and to go beyond this would be to open the door for any number of evasions of the Saviour's rule of conduct. "We feel a strong assurance that our position is correct on every point here noticed. We have answered questions on this subject before, but perhaps not so definitely in some respects as in this case. We must also express our deep regret that we have not a well-considered United States law on the subject of divorce. State laws are no better than a farce, for if one State provides some just limitation, it is neutralized by the law of a neighboring State, and taken together, they are as loose as the veriest libertine could ask. Christians should not be satisfied to stand legally justified by such laws; they must see to it that they are morally justified on Scripture ground." Whom Shall We Obey?
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
WE have received the following from a subscriber in Ohio:— "I have been a reader of your paper since last spring, and am much interested in the reading of it. I am of your belief in regard to the Sabbath, but am at a loss to know what to do. The commandment says Sabbath, and our civil law is very strict on Sunday observance. Paul says, 'Servants, obey your masters,' 'Obey those that have the rule over you,' 'Obey the magistrates,' and many other passages teach us the same thing. If we disobey the law, we disobey the Testament; if we do that, we disobey God. Give me light." This we can easily do. Once Peter and John were brought before the magistrates, and were commanded with threatenings not to speak any more in the name of Jesus. Without the least hesitation they replied: "Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard." Acts 4:19, 20. This refusal to obey the command of the magistrates was no idle boast, for when the two apostles were liberated, they went to preaching the same as before. Then the whole company of apostles were arrested and thrown into jail. When they were brought before the rulers, and reminded of the prohibition that had been laid on them, Peter, and all the other apostles answered boldly, "We ought to obey God rather than men." Acts 5:29. It is the duty of every man to live a quiet, peaceable life. We are to submit to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake (1 Pet. 2:13), and to be subject for conscience sake (Rom. 13:5). But it would be impossible for a man to break the law of God for the Lord's sake, or to disobey God for conscience sake. Therefore the sacred writers evidently mean that we are to obey men when civil laws do not interfere with the law of God. We are to be subject to the "higher powers," but there is no earthly power equal to God. He is the Most High. We say emphatically, that when human laws directly conflict with the law of God, those human laws must be broken. And the man who thus breaks human law, in order that he may keep God's law, will have a conscience void of offense both toward God and toward man.553 This is one of the first principles of human law. Blackstone in his commentary says that if a law of man is in direct opposition to the law of God, we are in duty bound to break that law. Earthly rulers derive their power from God, therefore they have no power to contravene his will. The three Hebrew children in the court of King Nebuchadnezzar, refused to obey the monarch's unqualified demand for every one to bow before the image which he had set up. Dan. 3. The fact that their refusal would subject them to serious "inconvenience," did not affect them in the least. They boldly told the king that they would not disobey God in order to please him, took the consequences, and by their sturdy faithfulness gained a place in the inspired roll of honor (Heb. 11) as those who through faith "quenched the violence of fire." They did not know, however, that they would be thus delivered, but that made no difference. Daniel, also, the only man of whom it is recorded that the Lord sent him a message telling him that he was "greatly beloved," had a similar experience. He was a faithful servant of the king, leaving no duty unperformed, yet when a decree was issued interfering with his duty to God, he paid no attention to it. In his forced disregard of the edict, he honored the king with all the respect possible, but much as he honored the king, he honored God more. Who does not know that these faithful men, who dared to obey God in spite of the laws and threats of kings, were more faithful in the service of the rulers than were any of the troop of time-serving politicians who professed great respect for the laws of men, while they despised the authority of God? It is more difficult for people to reason correctly in regard to the Sabbath than about almost anything else. Christians who applaud Daniel and his companions for their course, are afraid to keep the Sabbath of the Lord, lest they should offend man. Suppose the Government should pass a law making it obligatory on men to blaspheme the name of God; would the brother feel that he is in duty bound to swear? Suppose a law should be passed commanding men to steal, would the brother's conscience compel him to steal? If adultery were made legal, and severe penalties were pronounced against those who should refuse to engage in it, would he feel it to be his plain duty to violate the seventh commandment? Of course he would not. Well, the third, seventh, and eighth commandments are on the same foundation as the fourth. God says: "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work." No man, nor set of men, nor entire nation, has any right to pass a law conflicting with that. They have no right to say that any individual shall not keep that day, or to attempt to compel him to refrain from working on any other day; for the commandment which sets apart the seventh day for rest, also sets apart the other six days for work. If the civil law says, You must keep Sunday instead of the Sabbath, it is not only my privilege, but it is my duty to break that law. Under whatever circumstances we are placed, we must remember that "we ought to obey God rather than men." That sentence settles the whole matter. So far as this special case is concerned, we would say that we have many hundred brethren in Ohio, and none of them have as yet found any serious difficulty in keeping the Sabbath. Should they be brought to the issue where they must decide between God's law and a conflicting civil law, we trust that they would have no hesitancy in deciding what to do. A Native Pastor’s Sacrifice
CONVERTS from among the heathen, especially in their native country, are usually thorough converts. An exchange says: "A Ningpo native pastor has recently gone to Nankin to undertake a sort of pioneer work. He has left a salary of nine dollars per month to accept one of six, because he thought that he was more needed at Nankin." Did Elijah Die?
By A. T. J.
WE have long been perfectly assured, and it has been often shown in these columns, that the doctrine of the immortality of the soul turns into utter confusion and nonsense the whole scheme of divine revelation as contained in the Bible. If, however, there had been in our minds the least doubt that such is the truth, such lingering doubt would have been entirely and effectually removed by what has lately come under our notice. Our readers will recollect that the International Sunday-school Lesson for September 6, 1885, was on the translation of Elijah. During the past week, the religious papers containing notes on this lesson have reached us from different parts of the country, and it is in these "notes," and "observations," and "practical suggestions," etc., etc., that we find, most aptly and fully illustrated, the havoc that is made with Scripture, reason, and common sense, by the doctrine of the immortality of the soul. We propose to lay before our readers some of the effusions that have actually been set forth as worthy of being taught in the Sunday-schools of our country. "And it came to pass, as they [Elijah and Elisha] still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both assunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into Heaven." There is a narrative so simple that a child can understand it, and an event transcendently sublime. And yet upon such a subject the writer of the "notes" in the Pacific gets off the following:— "A sudden departure from this world is often considered a misfortune, and a stroke of lightning a token of divine displeasure. But, if we are ready, as Elijah was, we may accept it as a token of divine love that the manner of our removal is quick and painless." Does this writer mean to convey the idea that Elijah was struck with lightning? If not, does he mean to say that, if a man were struck with lightning, it would be the same to him as was translation to Elijah? Again, is a "sudden departure from this world" by death, whether it be by a stroke of lightning or otherwise, equivalent to the departure of Elijah from this world? If so, why should it be considered "a misfortune"? Was it "a misfortune" to Elijah that he should make the "sudden departure" that he did? Well, if he was struck with lightning, doubtless it was; but if as the word of God says, Elijah went up by a whirlwind into Heaven, then it was certainly everything but a misfortune. But the writer of the Pacific is not by any means alone. Here is one in the Christian Union writing "Home Talks about the Word," on this same subject:— "Paul says Elijah was a man of like passions with ourselves. Every child of God goes to Heaven just as much alive as Elijah did. The body is not you; you live in it, and you keep on living without it." We would suggest that if this writer would study the word of God more and the doctrine of the immortality of the soul less, she would not have quoted Paul as saying that Elijah was a man of like passions with ourselves. This simply in passing. But now to our subject. If it be true that, "Every child of God goes to Heaven just as much alive as Elijah did," how is it that nobody does it, nor ever has done it since Elijah did it? If, "Every child of God goes to Heaven just as much alive as Elijah did," then how is it that every child of God, as well as everybody else, dies? Is it the same thing to die that it is to be translated? Here we set together two passages of Scripture:—- "And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into Heaven." 2 Kings 2:11.
- "And Elisha died, and they buried him." 2 Kings 13:20.
Now we ask: Do these two passages mean the same thing? Did Elisha go to Heaven just as much alive, as Elijah did? If language is of any use at all; if the power of reason, or of comprehension, be of any worth whatever; then it is impossible to hold both these scriptures as meaning the same thing—one just as much as the other. It is equally impossible to believe that these words of the Lord, and those quoted from the Christian Union, can both be the truth. And as the word of God is the truth, we know by that, that this from the Union is not the truth. There is another statement in the same paper to which we would call attention, this by Dr. Lyman Abbott, in which it is implied, if not definitely stated, that this narrative is not a part of the Bible. He says:— "If any one doubts or denies the truth of the story, it is not worth while to argue with him. The translation of Elijah was a sign to Elisha. The sight was vouchsafed to him. He learned its lesson. That is enough. . . . It is not right to treat as a rejecter of Christian truth one whose philosophic tendencies make him skeptical respecting such an event as this. The translation of Elijah is a flower embroidered on the edge of the garment; it is no part of the woof." We can but wonder how Dr. Abbott knows that the "translation of Elijah is no part of the woof" of the garment of Christian truth. Is it not a part of the word of God? Was it not written for our learning? Is it not profitable? By what right does Dr. Abbott take upon himself to decide how much of the word of God is a part of the "woof," and how much is not? And if "it is not right to treat as a rejecter of Christian truth one whose philosophic tendencies make him skeptical respecting such an event as this," then is it right "to treat as a rejecter of Christian truth one whose philosophic tendencies make him skeptical respecting such an event as"554 the resurrection of Christ. If "philosophic tendencies" will justify skepticism respecting this event or this part of the word of God, why will they not justify it respecting any or all other events or any other part, or even all of that word? Next we have the New York Observer. One of the practical suggestions drawn from Elijah's translation is this:— "The dead do not slumber in the grave. God's own go straight to the heavenly place. Elijah went up thither, not to sleep, but to live and serve and rejoice. So do dying saints now pass at once to glory 'in paradise.'" Let us give a scriptural analysis of this.
1. "The dead do not slumber in the grave."
"And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake." Dan. 12:2. "Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep." "Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead." "Jesus . . . cometh to the grave," and "cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth." John 11:11, 14, 38, 43.
2. "God's own go straight to the heavenly place."
"I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after mine own heart." "Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulcher is with us unto this day. . . . For David is not ascended into the Heavens." Acts 13:22; 2:29, 34.
3. "Elijah went up thither, not to sleep, but to live and serve and rejoice. So do dying saints now pass at once to glory 'in paradise.'"
"The dead praise not the Lord, neither any that go down into silence." "For in death there is no remembrance of thee; in the grave who shall give thee thanks?" Ps. 115:17; 6:5. "Little children, yet a little while I am with you. Ye shall seek me; and as I said unto the Jews, Whither I go, ye cannot come; so now I say to you." "I go unto my Father." John 13:33; 14:12. Reader, which will you believe? the word of God, or the word of man? Will you believe a doctrine to be the truth that directly contradicts the word of God? The Sunday-School Times says:— "The miraculous translation of Elijah only sets before us in a visible appearance what takes place when every true child of God departs." And the New York Independent:— "Elijah's translation only slightly differs from that of every Christian. The important part is not that the body is taken up to Heaven, but that the soul is. And that is what we can all hope for." These quotations might be multiplied but we have not the space, nor, indeed, do we think it necessary. But from these no one can fail to see that there is an utter confusion of ideas, in regard to death and translation. From these extracts from the Sunday-school teaching, it is impossible to tell whether Elijah died, or whether all men are translated. Yes, more, from these it is impossible to tell whether Elijah himself died or whether he was translated. We have often wondered what that man could have been thinking about, who wrote in the margin of 2 Chron. 21:12, of a certain writing of Elijah's that it, "was writ before his death"! But since seeing the above extracts from these leading, evangelical (?) papers, we cannot see but that he was just as clear in his estimate as are these eminent theologians of our own day. And such confusion of ideas, and of plain Scriptures, is, in short, such unmitigated nonsense, taught in the Sunday-schools throughout our land, as being the veritable truth of God. And all this that the doctrine of the immortality of the soul may have free course to run and be glorified. That doctrine cannot be held in harmony with the Scripture; and, that it cannot, needs no better proof than is found in the extracts which we have given. It is a doctrine entirely foreign to the word, the work, and the purpose of God. We will present just one more extract—another from Dr. Abbott—and if anything could show a worse confusion of ideas, than the foregoing extracts display, this must be the thing that does it. It is as follows:— "What light, if any, does this incident throw on the question respecting the resurrection of the body?" Well, we should like to know. We wish the Doctor had answered his own question. We should exceedingly like to know what light could be thrown upon the resurrection of a dead man, by the fact that a living man went to Heaven! True, the Doctor says, "if any." Well, is there any? We believe the Bible. We believe that Elijah went up into Heaven; this too, with no hint of death. We believe also, according to the Bible, that when a man dies and goes to the grave (Eccl. 9:10; 2 Kings 22:20; 2 Chron. 34:28), it is just as far removed from any similarity to that which happened to Elijah, as anything can possibly be. One is life, and the other is death; Elijah went into Heaven, the person who dies goes into the grave. But if death and translation mean the same thing, if the experience of the man who dies is the same as that of the man who never dies, then language becomes useless, reason is made impotent, and the Bible a mass of meaningless phrases. Note.—These extracts can be found in the issue of August 27, 1885, of each of the respective papers, except the S. S. Times—in that the date is August 22. Oregon.
By Charles L. Boyd
I HAVE just closed a short series of meetings on the Yaquina River, in Benton County. Through the influence of missionary labor by sending the SIGNS OF THE TIMES, and judicious correspondence, also by the emigration of some who were keeping the Sabbath, the way was paved for profitable meetings. A Sabbath-school of between fifteen and twenty members, a tract society of eight members, and a church of seven members, were organized. Others are keeping the Sabbath, whom we trust will soon be connected fully with the people of God. A club of the SIGNS was subscribed for to be used by the missionary society, and a club of Instructors for the Sabbath-school. I am now on my way to Coos County. Good hope and courage prevail throughout the Conference.
CHAS. L. BOYD. Vermont Camp-Meeting.
By Isaac D. Van Horn
IN the city of Burlington, on the east shore of Lake Champlain, and on a bluff at least one hundred feet above the waters of the lake, on the same ground that was occupied last year, this meeting was held. Besides the two large tents, there were thirty-nine family tents pitched, and not far from three hundred people encamped on the ground. The ministers from abroad attending the meeting were E. W. Farnsworth, from Iowa, D. A. Robinson, from Massachusetts, A. O. Burrill, from Maine, R. F. Barton, from Kansas, and the writer, from Michigan. After the first week, Elders Robinson and Burrill left for the Maine camp-meeting. The spiritual exercises were all good, and increased in interest to the close. The close, practical preaching relating to our specific work, had its designed effect on our brethren and sisters; and the doctrinal discourses given evenings and Sundays, told with good effect on the visiting people. We know of three who decided to keep the Sabbath, from what they heard on the ground. Many others in the town, who had become some interested through the influence of the mission work in this city, were almost persuaded to take their stand. This interest will be followed up. The efforts to arouse backsliders and sinners to a sense of their unsafe condition, brought good results. On the Sabbath as many as fifty responded to the call to come forward. On Monday a similar move was made, and it was ascertained that sixteen candidates were ready for baptism. The ordinance was administered to them in the clear waters of the lake.555 The business meetings in all branches of the cause were harmonious. The Conference proceedings were especially interesting. Brother Hutchins, who had served the Conference so faithfully, and for so long a time, on account of his advanced age and feeble health, decided to retire from the responsibility of being any longer president of the Conference. After much consultation and earnest prayer, the minds of all unanimously centered upon Brother I. E. Kimball, a young man of much promise, to fill his place. He was ordained to the gospel ministry in our closing meeting. A most fitting incident connected with this was that the retiring president of the Conference gave the charge to the one chosen to fill his place. All present were deeply affected, and many were moved to tears. The wants of the South Lancaster Academy, and the English and Australian Missions, were first faithfully set before a select committee, and then before the Conference. Professor Ramsey was here and did faithful work for the school. It was decided unanimously that the Vermont Conference raise, by taking stock, the sum of $3,000, and by donations $1,000 for the English mission, and $1,000 for the Australian mission. Pledges were taken on the ground to the amount of $1,350 for the school, and near $900 about equally divided on the missions. Thus Vermont, as she ever has done, comes up nobly to the work and shows her willingness to stand by the cause of truth to the end. She has a good working force now in her ministers, licentiates, and colporters. With the blessing of God, much will be accomplished in that Conference the coming year. I. D. VAN HORN. Portland, Maine, Aug. 27, 1885. Do Not Fail to Come.
By William Ings
OUR annual meeting is right upon us, and I trust that all that can possibly come will be there. We have a beautiful grove in which to hold the meeting, where we can be shielded from the hot rays of the sun. Stockton is quite a city, and the citizens have acted well their part in securing us the ground free of charge, and in return they expect to see a large representation of our people. There will be ample preparation made to accommodate all. Tents can be had at reasonable rates, all set up and ready to occupy. A provision stand will be on the ground, where everything necessary can be had. There will also be a restaurant to accommodate those who do not desire to cook for themselves. Fare is only twenty-five cents from San Francisco to Stockton by boat. Fare from Stockton to the ground is only five cents, and the same for each article of baggage. Hard times can therefore be no excuse for us to remain away. All will remember our last camp-meeting at Oakland, and the blessings received there. We should now expect greater blessings, for we are one year nearer our journey's end. The past year has been somewhat eventful. The Message has made great advancement. Several who were with us last year are now thousands of miles away, in a foreign land, spreading the last warning message; and others who will be in attendance at this meeting may be far away ere another year rolls around. We must come together and receive a new fitting up, and be better prepared to withstand the wiles of the enemy. And then we need the benefit of the instruction that will be given in all branches of the work. The times demand a stir all along the line, and in order to be ready for a general engagement we must be armed and equipped. Above all, we want to see our families converted to the truth. Every child and youth belonging to Sabbath-keepers should be in attendance. Those already converted need to be present to gain strength, and those that are not brought into the fold should certainly be there, where they can be benefited. Have you friends that you can persuade to attend with you? if so, bring them along, and they may return to their homes rejoicing in the truth. Let us come to the meeting praying that our heavenly Father may be in our midst by his Holy Spirit, and then we can expect a refreshing from the presence of the Lord. WM. INGS.