Earlier text: The Spirit and the Bride Say, ComeBlessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth. Died, in Holden, Me., March 22, 1873, of inflammatory fever, Cyrus Field, aged sixty-four years and nine months. Long years he has been looking for Jesus to come, walking in the commandments and ordinances of the Lord. Words of comfort were spoken by the writer from Rev. 14:13. Died, at Nashville, Mo., March 31, 1873, of typhoid pneumonia and inflammation of the bowels, our son, John W. Wood, aged eleven years. His disease was caused by an internal injury in the lower part of the abdomen, from a fall upon a stick while at play with his mates at school. He suffered great pain for twenty-six days, but never complained. He said from the first that he could not get well. He conversed freely with his parents of his situation. He was conscious, and could talk plainly till the last moment and fell asleep without a struggle. Died, in Washington, N. H., March 16, of inflammation of the bowels, after an illness of five weeks, sister Leonora, daughter of William and Cynthia Farnsworth, aged twelve years and nine months. She gave her heart to the Lord about five years ago, was baptized, and united with the church. She ever tried to be faithful; especially did she try to do up her last work well and faithfully. She manifested a great interest for the family, and was very anxious that they should prepare to meet her in Heaven. We have no doubt she sleeps in Jesus. Died, at Victory, Vernon Co., Wis., April 15, 1873, sister Lucy Garbes, in the twenty-sixth year of her age. She leaves a husband and two children to mourn their loss. Sister Garbes embraced the present truth when the tent was at Liberty Pole, three years ago, under the labors of Bro. Sanborn and Downer. We have reason to believe that she sleeps in hope of a part in the first resurrection. Funeral services by the writer, to an attentive congregation, from Rev. 14:13. Also, at Liberty Pole, March 24, Anna B., daughter of Wm. B. and Mary A. Williams, aged three years, two months, and twenty-eight days. Died, in Glen Sutton, P. Q., March 8, 1873, of scarlet fever, after a sickness of only twenty-eight hours, David R., son of James and Alma C. Buchanan, aged two years, eleven months, and four days. Funeral discourse at East Richford, Vt., to an interesting congregation, by the writer, from Jer. 31:16. “They shall come again from the land of the enemy.” DISCUSSION ON THE SABBATH QUESTION
By Peter Vogel
BETWEEN ELD. J. H. WAGGONER, S. D. ADVENTIST, AND ELD. PETER VOGEL, DISCIPLE. “Do the Scriptures teach that the seventh-day Sabbath is to be observed by Christians throughout the gospel dispensation?” ELD. WAGGONER affirms; ELD. VOGEL denies. ELD. VOGEL’S EIGHTH NEGATIVE.
We have now seen all that Eld. W. has opportunity to offer on this proposition. Though I still have much negative matter on hand, the rules of discussion preclude my presenting anything further. I proceed, therefore, to review the last affirmative, and to present a brief summary. And first I wish to protest against Eld. W.’s summing up this proposition at the close of the next. The final words on this question belong to me. The first two propositions were so related that his being on the negative of the second, gave him opportunity to really close both, and he will also rightfully have the last word on the next proposition. I claim the privilege of closing this one; nor shall he deprive me of this right. It usually requires more space to answer an argument than to make it, and yet I have occupied less space than he. On the first two propositions, we are about even, he having forty lines more than I. His first affirmative of this proposition contain between seventy-five and eighty lines more than my replies, and the prints will show that my seventh article is but little longer than his, while his last contains about one-fifth more matter than it should. I do not say this complainingly, I only wish to show that he, rather than I, has the advantage in point of length. I shall not drag this proposition into the next, but shall claim the right to review his summary, in the event that he carries out his expressed intention. In Rom. 7, and the last half of chap. 6, Paul has special reference to Jews and their relation to the law. This “every reader knows” who attends to such expressions as, “Ye are not under the law, but under grace”—“ye are become dead to the law”—“delivered from the law”—“married to another.” I did not say that any one was “joined to Christ by his crucifixion,” but that by this all who were “under the law”—all Jews, whether converted to Christianity, or still “children of wrath”—were “delivered from the law.” This removes every difficulty presented. My analysis of Rom. 7, showing that it does not describe conversion, but Paul’s perversion, or the struggle in committing his first sin, is unassailed and unassailable. A careful examination of my argument will show that my “just distinction,” with reference to the use of “carnal,” was also justly used. A reference to Ps. 14 and 53, will show that the quotation of Rom. 3:10–19, refers only to the Jews, or, as Paul says, “to them that are under the law.” “What advantage then [own, therefore, in view of the preceding considerations] hath the Jews” over the Gentile (Rom. 3:1)? explains itself, and does not give Eld. W. any aid on what follows. A distinction “between moral and circumstantial duties” will not set aside the principle illustrated by the Reading will case, since I have proved (3d affirmative, 2d prop.) from Lev. 19:35–37; Deut. 28; Gal. 3:19; and Rom. 5:20, that moral principles were given, in the law, to the Jews, as if they were not moral, but positive; or, if my brother prefers the word, as “circumstantial duties.” I fail to see that Eld. W. has extricated Jacob and Jonah from the condition in which I showed them to be. Nor have his notes of exclamation any potency to show that a given government is unsuited to the present manhood of our race, simply because it was not adapted to the patriarchal infancy, and the Jewish childhood, when “the Holy Spirit was not yet given” (John 7:39) to guide and teach men (1 John 2:27). As well say, because a man from a dark mine cannot at once bear the full light of the sun, or a lame man walk without crutches, that, therefore, they never can. For his special benefit, I must recommend to my brother’s perusal the quotations from Jews’ Letters to Voltaire, and request him, also, to reconsider whether I was not always consistent with myself. I might add, in his own courteous words, “He knew it,” but I will spare him the pain, and simply ask, What has he done with my arguments on this point? Where is his reply? Behold, too, how he strains my statement that he “is constrained to admit that the old covenant is abolished.” Could I have referred to my “logic,” when I had not yet written a line on that topic? Or, has he forgotten the position which at least some of his brethren used to occupy? Verily, somebody is talking “for effect.” As proof that the ten commandments are not the first, or old, covenant, the word concerning, in Ex. 24:8, was caused to be printed in italics; but now, having so completely turned it against him that he has not a word in reply, his position is still the same! I gave reasons why the word “covenant,” in 2 Kings 23:3, is used in the sense of “vow,” but to this we have no reply, save a requotation of the passage. Wonderful proof! When I said that Deut. 5:5, cannot refer to Ex. 19, I, of course, referred to verses 2, 3, in reply to his statement that “the parenthetical words of verse 5 refer to verses 2, 3, the covenant made with Israel, but not to verse 4 and onward, for the covenant commanded was given by God himself, without the agency of Moses.” He now abandons this, and quotes from Ex. 19:16, &c., saying, “These are the very things to which Deut. 5:5, does refer!” This not only amounts to the same as my reference to Ex. 20:19, but is a turning over to my position, since “verse 4 and onward” pertains, he says, to “the covenant commanded.” We are making fine progress. “He which persecuted us in times past, now preacheth the faith which he once destroyed.” I recognize the Bible as inspired; but to construe a figurative expression literally, or to interpret statements in prose so as to swell them up to the fervor of poetic diction, severely rendered, is neither Scripture nor inspiration. 1 Chron. 16 is poetry, in Hebrew; verses 8–22, contain the first fifteen verses of Ps. 105; and verses 23–33, the whole of the 96th Psalm, with some slight variations. Let the reader also examine the use of “thousand,” in the following passages: Job 33:23; Ps. 91:7; Isa. 30:17. I question whether “everlasting, and forever, may be so limited as to be less than one generation.” At least, Ex. 21:6, is very doubtful; it enslaves not only one man for life, but also all the generations which issue from him. But did my brother think of what he now says, when he quoted Ps. 119:142, as applying to the ten commandments, and argued that “everlasting” excluded all “limitation?” In his own style, “What a difference it makes when a fact is for him, or against him!” Matt. 19:21, does prove the ten commandments imperfect. When the young man said, “All these things have I kept from my youth up,” the Saviour, “who knew what was in man,” “beholding him, loved him.” It was not “covetousness,” according to the law, to have and desire to retain “large possessions.” James does not call the ten commandments “the law of liberty,” for the latter is “perfect” (chap. 1:25), whereas the former, as we have seen, is not. Nor does he assert anything contrary to this in chap. 2. Verse 12 is a continuation of the theme discussed up to verse 10, the intervening verse being but an illustration, which might have been drawn from any source, sacred, or secular. Figures of speech, intelligently used, have real meanings. And “build” in the declaration, “On this rock will I build my church,” cannot be deprived of the sense of resting or depending on, as on a foundation. Hence we do find here the constitution of the Christian church. Any position can be made to appear absurd, by a licentious use of illustrations. The “crooked stick,” and “obtuse angle,” as applied to my “notions of law and character,” are wholly inappropriate. Compare the law to a Flemish ell (twenty-seven inches), and the gospel to a French ell (fifty-four inches), and my position is more fairly represented. Suppose seven ells to be perfection, under either dispensation: is Jewish perfection then equal to that of the gospel? Eld. W. failed to grasp my point respecting those passages in Revelation. He argued that the ten commandments are literally meant, in Rev. 11:19, by “the ark of his testament;” I replied, No more literally than “the temple of God,” denotes the Jewish temple. It is true that there were two vails in the tabernacle, or temple, but one of these (the second) was pre-eminently “the vail;” comp. Matt. 27:51, and all parallel passages; and within this vail Jesus entered (Heb. 6:19). This follows, further, from the fact developed that the first holies has its antitype on earth, in the church of Christ. Nor is there anything militating against this in Heb. 8. “The heavens,” of verse 1, and “heavenly,” of verse 5, are not equivalents; they are from different words in the original; the first is descriptive of place, the other, not; the latter word occurs in such passages as Eph. 1:3; 2:6—“hath made us [the members of the church] sit together in heavenly places.” Even the same word has often different meanings in the same sentence. Ex. 24:12, that “important proof-text,” is up again. How simply my brother acts over “simply.” I said that “I know of no instance where the ten commandments are called ‘the law,’ simply.” Can there be any doubt as to my meaning? Did I not say, in the same paragraph, “The expression, ‘the law,’ when referring to the old dispensation, and not qualified to the contrary, . . . always refers to the entire body of the law as a whole, or to single commandments as part of the whole”? Is not “law” qualified, in Ex. 24:12, by “which I have written”? This qualification makes it definite, and it may and does take the article on that account. I quote Keil again: “Definite, as being made so by some accompanying descriptive words; (as) the blue-eyed damsel; the winds of autumn; the man who is upright.” Are not “which I have written,” “descriptive words”? There is a contrast (implied) between that written by God, and that not written by him, as there is one between an upright man, and one not upright, and between autumnal winds, and winds not autumnal. With a rule so directly to the point, I covet the reader’s verdict. The “handwriting” of Col. 2:14, can only mean the ten commandments; for (1) nowhere, in all the Bible, is the rest of the law ever called a handwriting, whereas, the hand which wrote it is a common descriptive of the decalogue. (2) Let the reader consult the connection, observing that “his cross” reads “the cross,” in Greek, and he will find himself unable to make any fair disposition of it other than I have done. (3) So far from retaining the rest of the law, this is the grandest stroke for its abolition, since, with the removal of the foundation, the house must fall. I have also shown that the Greek for “blotting out,” is opposed to “recording,” and may apply, with the fullest appropriateness, as I apply it. I am asked, For whose benefit were such precepts as forbid killing, stealing, and adultery, taken away? In whose way were they? I am accompanied with some unworthy insinuations concerning myself. To me, such proceedings seem highly culpable, for no one knows better than my opponent, that I claim no abolition in the sense he attributes to me. Have I not repeated, again and again, that I cling to every iota of morality in the law? Did I not prove that the ten commandments were given to the Jews as if they were merely positive commandments, and that only to this extent were they abolished? that they were given to them, in a large measure, as a political constitution, and that as such they were abrogated? It may be true that, in after ages, the Jews saw that a moral basis underlay nearly all of them—and some of their leaders may even have so spoken of them—yet this neither alters the fact of their having been given as positive, nor that to this extent their abolition was a necessity; it only increases the need of abrogation. Is not such a view of the case more than implied in my third affirmative of the second proposition? I do not, then, wish to change “the nature of the precepts of Jehovah,” but only to remove them from the unnatural position in which God was compelled, for a time, to place them, by reason of man’s incapacity. Nor have I “renounced the premise,” but merely admitted that one supposed way of showing its existence, has no bearing on the question. Had I even renounced the premise, my good brother would have given it to me again in his change of base respecting the reference of Deut. 5:5, to Ex. 19. How kind! I will requite this good deed by allowing him to have the coveted last word on the Hebrew, knowing that what I have already said on the matter involved is all-sufficient, and hasten to the more necessary work of a I. Eld. W. sought to maintain his affirmation under the three following divisions:— 1. “That the Lord claims a day in this dispensation.” Here we are happily agreed. In so far as he tried to identify this day with the Sabbath, by making Jesus Lord of it in a higher sense than man is, I so fully met him that he had no reply (1st Neg.). I pledged myself to identify this day with the first day of the week, on the next proposition. 2. “That the Sabbath is recognized and familiarly spoken of in the New Testament, without such explanations as would be necessary to guard against misapprehension, if it were abolished.” To this I replied (1) That all the mentioned instances of observing the Sabbath would be expected on the supposition of its abolition; and (2) That the explanation is given that these things were done to conciliate Jewish prejudice. See Acts 21:20–25; 1 Cor. 9:20. (3) Circumcision, animal sacrifices, the annual sabbaths, &c., all of which are confessedly abolished, were attended to by Christians as well as the Sabbaths. (4) The Sabbath is expressly said to be abolished (Col. 2:16, 17); and (5) The Gentiles are, in particular, forbidden to observe all Jewish days. Gal. 4:10, 11. 3. “That the law of which the Sabbath commandment is a part, was not abolished, but is now binding on all mankind.” To this I opposed its exact counterpart, viz., that Christ “abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of the commandments, in [their] ordinances.” Eph. 2:15. Here the discussion virtually ended. Nevertheless, every step in the development of his argument was patiently met, and refuted to my entire satisfaction, and I trust, also, to that of all unprejudiced readers. And here I must add THE VERDICT OF ELD. W.’S OWN BRETHREN.
These articles appear simultaneously in the Gospel Echo and Christian, my paper, and the Advent Review, Eld. W.’s paper, and of which he is one of the editors. Concerning the conduct of these papers he wrote to me in a letter dated June 5, 1873, as follows: “I would ask that the editors and correspondents of both papers shall not interfere, but leave the points broached by us entirely to us during the discussion.” The Christian has strictly observed this just request, referring all querists to the discussion, while the Review has not only seldom issued a number without at least one article touching the propositions between us, and sometimes two or three, but has, in violation of the agreement, even taken hold of the very points in hand. The issue of April 8, 1873, for example, has an article on “The Vail of the Sanctuary,” by the resident editor, and one on 2 Cor. 3, by one of its most prominent correspondents—both being “points broached by us.” And in this week’s issue, April 15, 1873, the same correspondent takes up my various references to Galatians, with a promise to consider also Heb. 8. I have a right to speak of these matters here, because these articles appeared since my 7th Negative was sent to the printers. What does this mean? Were Eld. W.’s brethren satisfied with his effort and conscious of victory, would they act thus? Not only this procedure, but also the fact that different views from Eld. W.’s are taken on a number of passages, declare unmistakably what this means. It is a verdict in my favor. Proceeding with my summary, I would remark that, according to the rules of discussion, it is amply sufficient for the establishment of a negative to meet the affirmative arguments. I have, however, the following negative arguments:— II. The ten commandments, together with the rest of the Mosaic laws, form but one law. 1. The same names are indifferently applied to either portion, both being called “the law of the Lord” and “the law of Moses.” (See 2d Neg.) To this there was no reply. The Sabbath being wholly a positive institution, whether originated at the giving of the law or pre-existent, was on that account abolished with such other positive institutions as pre-existent circumcision and the co-etaneous annual sabbaths. III. I next made my arguments more specific by singling out the ten commandments. I showed that they stood to the Jews in such a special relation as is inconsistent with the genius of the present dispensation; that they were abolished as to this particular relation; and that this abolition involved the total destruction of the Sabbath. See end of 4th and beginning of 5th Neg. Let me name four points:— 1. The ten commandments, as given to the Jews, are pronounced imperfect by the Saviour in Matt. 19:21, and Mark 10:21 (see 5th Neg.). When they are called perfect, the term is used only in a relative sense (see 4th Neg.). 2. The “first,” or “old,” covenant is conceded to be abolished; and that the ten commandments are this covenant, I showed from Ex. 24:8 (6th Neg.), and Heb. 8 (7th Neg.); to which I might add my brother’s concession on the reference of Deut. 5:5. 3. I showed that the ten commandments are expressly called the covenant which the Lord made with the children of Israel when he took them by the hand and led them out of Egypt (1 Kings 8:9, 21), and that the covenant so described is done away (Jer. 31:31–34; Heb. 8:6–13). (See 4th Neg.). To this no reply was attempted. 4. According to Eld. W., Matt. 5:17, refers exclusively to the decalogue. To his argument thence derived, I replied by showing that it teaches abolition in the strongest terms (3d Neg.). And so complete was my success that he attempted no rejoinder. IV. At the close of my first negative, I made nine arguments in proof of the Sabbath’s being a positive institution, and added two more in the paragraph marked I, at the end of the 7th negative. To none of these has a reply been made, though Eld. W. is aware that this is fatal to his position. For, 1. The abolition of the law consists in abolishing only that, and all that, which is positive; and 2. It requires express legislation to transfer a positive institution from one dispensation to another, and there is no such legislation respecting the Sabbath under this dispensation. V. Narrowing the compass of the discussion still more, I produced arguments wherein the Sabbath is expressly named as abolished, three of which will suffice for this summary:— 1. In Col. 2:16, 17, the Sabbath is expressly named as abolished: “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holy day [heortee, the Jewish festivals, including the yearly sabbaths], or of the new moon, or of the sabbaths: which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.” 2. I argued from the fact that building fire in dwellings on ordinary occasions was prohibited, that the Sabbath bears the unmistakable impress of a local and temporary institution. Here I was somewhat disappointed by Eld. W.’s silence; for I was anxious to expose the only answer ever attempted. 3. Mark testifies that the Sabbath belongs to the class of things that were “made” (2:27), and Paul declares, Heb. 12:27, that the “things that are made” are “removed.” To this, also, we have had no reply, and, no doubt, for the obvious reason that none is possible. God Is His Own Interpreter
“Blind unbelief is sure to err,
And scan his work in vain;
God is his own interpreter,
And he will make it plain.” Dubuque Excited Over Telegraphic Spirit Manifestations
DUBUQUE is excited over “spirit manifestations,” in which a telegraphic battery and instrument are used, Long and frequent communications, purporting to come from “the other world,” and containing some curious, yet truthful facts, have been received, and no one can account for the phenomena. The instrument thus operated upon by the invisible “intelligence” is at a private residence, and is not connected, by wires, or otherwise, with any other battery. JOY COMETH IN THE MORNING.
By J. H. Woodruff
LINES TO MRS. A. BURWELL ON THE DEATH OF HER HUSBAND.
Sister, weeping lone to-night,
O’er a much-loved treasure flown—
List’ning for the well-known tread—
Missing the familiar tone,
Tides of memory sad and sweet,
O’er thy soul will ceaseless flow,
Bringing back the lost one’s ways,
Looks and tones of long ago. Know thy Saviour sendeth all;
He who wept at Bethany,
Think how not the sparrows fall,
But he watcheth tenderly.
He will speed to thy relief,
Haste the bitter fount to dry,
Turn to song the poignant grief,
Bid all earth-taint quickly fly. Sister, ’neath whose household tree,
Love sits grieving lone to-night,
Round whose hearthstone clouds have closed
Shutting out the joy and light;
Weep—but sorrow not as those
Who no hope in Jesus know;
Thou may’st sing amid thy woes,
Praises for the chastening blow. The address of James Ertzenberger is Tramelan, Jura Bernois, Closed Mail, Via England, Suisse. M. Wood: The piece entitled, “The Puzzled Dutchman,” appeared in the REVIEW some time ago. Special Notice to Subscribers.
A blue cross on the margin of your paper signifies that your subscription will expire with two more numbers. A renewal is earnestly solicited. Annexed to each receipt in the following list, is the Volume and Number of the REVIEW & HERALD TO which the money received pays—which should correspond with the Numbers on the Papers. If money to the paper is not in due time acknowledged, immediate notice of the omission should then be given. $2.00 EACH. Maggie A Stroud 43-20, Neils R Beck 43-20, L W Edmond 43-21, W W Hanscomb 43-21, A Strickland 43-14, David Barr 43-20, A La Rue 43-21, Mrs H M Wallace 43-18, Augustus Geary 43-21, J S Conkrite 43-20, E B Potts 43-22, W W Locke 43-16, Eben Metcalf 43-20, Emma Dymond 43-20, J A Luke 43-21, P E Ferren 43-21, J B Mock 43-21, O A Richmond 43-17, Mrs S Flanders 42-9, Mrs L W Jones 43-20, Mary Woodward 43-17, S J Rogers 45-14, W A Gordon 43-21, A Steward 43-20, L H Davis 43-14, Silas Strite 43-20, Hiram Tole 43-20, Lovina L Putnam 43-21, John West 48-22, M E Harris 43-19, John Goss 43-21, Noah Hodges 43-20, S Simond 44-16. $1.00 EACH. H M Kenyon 42-20, Harvey Pratt 42-20, Nancy Collins 42-20, M A Ashley 42-18, Joseph G Blake 42-21, Kate Dunken 42-21, L D Newton 42-7, R Myrick 44-1, G P Cushman 42-17, Peter Rusha 42-17, Lucy Mott 42-21, George O States 42-18, Mary J Small 44-1, J B Benson 36-14, R F Griffin 42-21, H I Bonnifield 42-21, J W Landes 42-21, J C Whittor 42-17. Miscellaneous. E B Clark $4.36 41-10, M Rich 1.08 42-16, Jessie Sage 1.50 44-1, Emily Shirley 50c 44-1, D D Babcock 1.50 44-1, A Martinel 2.50 42-10, A W Oliver 1.75 44-1, Daniel House 1.50 43-20, A J Ferrell 2.10 43-20. 75 Cents Each. Paying to Vol. 42, 18. S L Wall, Wm Wolf, N E Hickenlooper, Joseph Bailie, Orey Jakan, Orey Lauden, Josie Philpott, C L Huntsman, Joseph Smith, W L B King, E Cook, Pamelia Allen, J W Scott, John A Bean. 50 Cents Each. Paying to Vol. 42, 18. David Morehouse, Philip Suits, Wm Gardner, John Hendrix, S J Logan, John Chrockett, J Mackenzie, Gilbert Rutherford, Adaline Read, Kittie Brumley, Ruth Nichols, Eliza A Allen, Mary Wall, Emily Cobb, A Foster, O Tarble, W H Cleveland, S I Tagart, Polina Duck, Edward Sawyer, Daniel Hopkins, John Isenhower, Wm McComb, J T Lynger, Nelson Cyrus, Wm Purdy, Walter Brown, Wm Tennis, Elias W Perry, E G Butler, A Sanders, Wm Ellsworth, Joseph F Crowl, Wm Rennel, Henry Morain, Sanford M Edwards, J A Taylor, Thomas Baker, J S Prunk, John Kirkpatrick, A C Periego, Eld David Wilcox, Mrs Geo Williams, R H Pelton, John Smead, C Beach, H O Ness, Gies & Farnsius, A friend. S T Fowler 60c, Nellie F Heald $1.00, Mrs E Van Deusen 1.50, Mrs Wm Stillman 30c, A C Hudson 1.00, Mary Harpham 1.75, R C Horton 25c, M L Gotfredsen 1.10, M A Ayrhart 10c, B B Dunlary 50c, E Lake 25c, E I Eastman 10c, Mary Chandler 50c, Mary Wolcott 20c, Isaac H Moser 1.00, J F Kneper 70c, W Stuff 50c, A M Gravell 25c, I M Stoddard 1.00, C R Austin 25c, Simon T Beck 1.00, Wm W Davies 1.00, N R Beck 1.40, J H Rogers 1.50, Wm M Meadows 75c, D K Young 25c, Harriet Wagner 3.00, G F Evans 3.50, A C Perigo 20c, Wm Jndd 20c, A H Clymer 3.42, H C McDearmon 25c, D V Winne 3.93, H A St John 5.00, C W Prindle 1.00, Eben Metcalf 60c, Peter Hoen 1.50, James Williamson 30c, Laura M Cole 60c, Wm H Wild 1.00, Joseph G Wood 25c, W W Locke 2.00, John Fulton 1.00, Samuel Rone 50c, L H Darrett 3.10, J J Courtney 50c, S W Schwartz 25c. J T Richards, Spencer, Owen Co., Ind., $5.00, C Buck, Berlin, Ottawa Co., Mich., $8.00 Cash Received on Account.
A H Clymer $5.43, E J Connet for Illinois T. & M. Society, 2.00, A C Bourdeau 25.00, Iowa Delinquent Fund 73.60. A sister $2.00, M A Lyons 1.00, A friend 1.00. Donations for the Danish Monthly.
M A Lyons $1.00, N R Beck 14.60. Mrs Ira Gardner (s. B.) $1.54, M A Lyons (s. B.) 75c. Mrs Serena Scott $1.00, Hattie Myers 25c. Appointment for Wisconsin
And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of Heaven is at hand ** Services in Chicago, every Sabbath (seventh day), at 269 West Erie St. All Sabbath-keepers spending a Sabbath in Chicago, are invited to attend. Appointment for Wisconsin.
Providence permitting, I will hold meetings at Victory, Wis., Sabbath and Sunday, May 10, 11. Meetings to commence Sabbath evening. We hope the churches of Kickapoo Center and Liberty Pole will attend. I make this appointment at the suggestion of members of the Wisconsin Conference Committee that these churches are very needy of labor. We urgently request a general attendance. We would also be glad to see any of our friends from Iowa, and other places. Geo. I. Butler. As we understand that there will not be a camp-meeting in Illinois this year, it is thought best by the President of the General Conference and also by the Wisconsin Conference Committee to hold our camp-meeting this year at Clear Lake where we held it two years ago. This is about one mile from Milton Junction in Rock Co., Wis. The time of the meeting is June 26-30, 1873. We cordially invite all Sabbath-keepers in the vicinity to freely participate with us in the exercises of the meeting. We also cordially invite all our brethren and sisters from the Illinois Conference to join us in this meeting. Bring on your tents and let us all try in the fear of God to make it the best and most profitable meeting we have ever had. We earnestly request that, if it be possible, Bro. and sister White attend this meeting; but if they cannot, we hope and urgently request that Brn. Canright and Butler will attend it. P. S. Thurston, } Wis. Conf. H. W. Decker, } Conf. I. Sanborn, } Conf. The place for the camp-meeting in Iowa will be Washington Iowa. The time as appointed in this week’s paper is June 5 to 9. H. Nicola. Monthly meeting for Western N. Y., at Olcott, Niagara Co., May 10, 1873. E. Tarbox, Clerk. Quarterly meeting at Rockton, Ill., May 17 and 18. Brethren from other churches are invited to attend. Will Bro. Steward or Bro. R. F. Andrews meet with us? G. M. Bowen. Quarterly meeting for Mt. Hope, Grant Co., Wis., at Mt. Hope, May 17 and 18. A general invitation is extended to the brethren and sisters abroad. Preaching may be expected. The next quarterly meeting of the Tract and Missionary Society of District No. 3, will be held in connection with this meeting. Let all send in their reports. Wm. Proctor. I design holding meetings in Vermont as follows: At Bordoville, May 10; at West Bolton, 17 and 18; at Westmore, 24 and 25; at East Charleston, 31 and June 1. I expect that my brother will be with me at these meetings. At East Charleston and Westmore, we intend to organize systematic labor for Orleans County. We therefore hope not to be disappointed in not seeing the old friends of the cause at those points. Shall we not have the privilege of meeting Eld. Albert Stone at Westmore? I believe the time has come to rally all our forces in Vermont, and to systematically push forward the work among young believers as well as in new fields. Shall we not see a good representation of Sabbath-keepers from Huntington, Starksborough, Bristol, etc., at West Bolton? We have not time to go farther west than Bolton before tent season. D. T. Bourdeau. Dist. No. 1, Olcott, N. Y., May 24, 25. The regular monthly meeting for Western N. Y. will be held in connection with the quarterly meeting of the Tract Society. Dist. No. 2, Roosevelt, May 24, 25. “ “ 3, Adams Center, May 25. “ “ 4, Norfolk, May 24, 25. “ “ 5, 6, As Brn. Russell and Tyrel may arrange. “ “ 7, Brookfield, May 17, 18. “ “ 8, Genoa, May 31 and June 1, in connection with which the general quarterly meeting will be held. A general attendance at this meeting is desired. Those going by R. R. from the east, west, and north, will take the Southern Central R. R. at Auburn or Weedsport for Locke. Dist. No. 10, Ulysses, Pa., May 10 and 11, 1873. “ “ 11, Where Bro. Welch may appoint, May 17 and 18. P. Z. Kinne, Pres. Quarterly and Tract Society meeting for Dist. No. 2 at Marion, Iowa, May 17, 18. Hope there will be a general rally of the friends of the cause at this meeting as there are some matters in reference to Missionary work that must be attended to before camp-meeting if possible. Meetings to commence Friday evening. H. Nicola. At Convis, Sabbath, May 10, Newton, 14, at 5 P. M., Burlington, Sabbath, 17. A. S. Hutchins. We have been sending out the interesting “Appeal to the Friends of the Cause,” by the General Conference Committee, and subscription papers also, in behalf of the school. Individuals receiving them, not particularly interested, will please hand them to the proper persons in their vicinity. Any one who has not received a copy and is desirous of learning the facts in the case will be furnished free on application. Address REVIEW & HERALD, Battle Creek, Mich. Visiting on the Sabbath.
By M. C.
A CORRESPONDENT wishes to know to what extent Sabbath-keepers are justifiable in visiting their friends on the Sabbath day. I think it depends on what object they have in view. If they go for the purpose of doing some good, and have their conversation on heavenly things, it is proper that they should go; but if, on the contrary, they go for pleasure, and do not have any good object in view, and talk of this life and worldly amusements, certainly there is no doubt but that it is wrong. It is well to do good on the Sabbath day. SISTERS in N. Y. desiring summer hats can obtain them at Genoa, May 31 and June 1. Arrangements are being made for dressing over old hats. The Kansas Camp-Meeting.
By George I. Butler
I wish to say a few words about this meeting which the reader will see is appointed in this week's Review, near Centerville, Kansas. The place selected for the meeting is as central as any for all parts of this large Conference. The church near that place are anxious to have it there, and promise to carry passengers to and from the railroad, free, and provide for teams. The grove chosen is near Waymire crossing, on Big Sugar Creek, one mile south of Centerville, ten miles north-west of Mound City, fifteen miles south-west of La Cygne, and eighteen miles east of Garnett. Passengers coming on the cars should come on the Ft. Scott and Gulf R. R., and stop at La Cygne in the day-time, Wednesday preceding the meeting. The trains from the north and south generally meet there about noon. Teams will be there to take all who are there at that time to the meeting. It would be well to address a letter to Smith Sharp, Centerville, Linn Co., Kan., beforehand, so that it may be known how many are coming. Will not those who have charge of the northern Missouri tent, ship it to Smith Sharp, La Cygne, Kansas, by freight, so that it may be there in ample time? The present condition of affairs in this Conference makes it very important for the well-being of the cause that there should be a good attendance at this meeting. Indeed, it may well be doubted if there is not a more general interest manifested than there has been for the last two years, to attend, and take hold to lift in the work, if there is another appointed very soon. The General Conference has had a deep interest for the good of the cause in that weak Conference, for years, sending laborers, season after season, at an expense of thousands of dollars to itself. Bro. and sister White made a visit there, almost at the hazard of their lives, when the Conference was organized, having previously (the same season) attended eleven other camp-meetings, when they were just about worn out with hard labor, for the purpose of inspiring hope and courage, and showing their interest in the work there. But we are sorry to say there has not been that response on the part of all the brethren there we had hoped to see. But little has been done to support the local labor in the Conference, to say nothing of what has been sent in from abroad. This year, the General Conference has sent in no laborers to carry on the work there, partly because there are enough on the ground, who could and would labor, could they be properly supported, and partly because the brethren have not generally felt the burden of the work in their own Conference. If our brethren in particular localities do not feel the burden of the work in their own Conferences, the General Conference will try to help where they do. Here is far more encouragement to try to help those who will take hold with us than those who will not. God will be more ready to bless in such places. We speak thus frankly because we want the brethren to realize that they have reached an important point in the progress of the cause there. We know that money is scarce, and times are hard, but that need not hinder people from going to meeting, or manifesting a proper degree of interest in the work. We repeat, this meeting is an important meeting, and we hope there will be a special effort made to attend it. The people are used to traveling long distances in that new country. When worldlings can go hundreds of miles on buffalo hunts or land speculations, Christians can go some distance to worship God if they have an equal interest. Come, friends of the cause, rally from all parts of the Conference, and inspire courage in all our hearts by your earnest interest. Take hold, and we will do what we can to start the work forward. Start out in earnest this spring. You have two tents purchased, and men enough to run them. Sacrifice something for the purpose of properly supporting them. We are most happy to say there are those who feel a most commendable interest in the work, and are doing what they can for its advancement. With these we deeply sympathize, and we earnestly hope all will imbibe the same good spirit. Monroe, Wis., April 23, 1873. The Systematic-Benevolence Fund and the Ministry.
By James White
We have just listened to the reading of Bro. Butler’s good words in this number upon the subject of The Systematic-Benevolence Fund and the Ministry, and we unhesitatingly endorse them as sound and necessary at the present time. Unless Bro. Butler’s suggestions be patiently considered and firmly carried out by our auditing committees it will be better for Seventh-day Adventists in the end, to abandon their present system of labor and support and throw their young ministers upon their own responsibilities, to depend upon the result of their own labors for support as most of the denominations do. But our system is the right one, and if properly guarded will reach great results.