Earlier text: Justification and Obedience"A Check on Adventism."
By Editor
OUR readers may rest assured that it gives us no pleasure to deal with such vagaries and "whimsys" as Mr. Woodward has crowded into his book. We review him solely from a sense of duty to the truth of God's commandments. We are compelled to make mention of the Methodist denomination, not from any prejudice we have against them, for we have always entertained kindly feelings toward them, as much of our early religious experience was spent—and pleasantly spent—in their company, though we belonged to another church. But the Methodists on the Pacific Coast have always kept up a warfare against us, and in an unreasonable manner. In self-defense—no, in defense of the truth we hold—we have repelled their attacks. Dr. Benson, former editor of the California Christian Advocate, was unceasing in his direct opposition to us, and finally published a pamphlet against us; for it was professedly against us as a people, containing ill-natured and undeserved remarks about the Seventh-day Adventists. And these have been repeated by the present editor of the Advocate. We reviewed the professed argument of Dr. Benson, saying but little about his unjust personalities. Next we reviewed Mr. Armstrong, though his pamphlet had little reference to us. His controversy was with the Seventh-day Baptists. But his exposition of Ex. 16 was too glaring a misrepresentation of that chapter for us to pass by without exposing it. We convicted him of willfully perverting the word of God. This language is not too strong, under the circumstances. When a man appears before his readers of the English, and claims to have demonstrated by the Hebrew text that the seventh-day Sabbath originated when Israel left Egypt, and misrepresents both the text and the grammar of the Hebrew, knowing that very few of his readers can detect the deception, no language is too strong to apply to the wickedness of his course. We asked, and it was only reasonable to ask, the Methodists to undertake to defend his course or withdraw his book from the market. If we were placed in such a light before the world, we should consider ourselves bound, as Christians, to do just what we asked of them. But they did neither; they cannot defend it, and the Advocate advertised it editorially afterward. Then came Mr. Woodward, with a pamphlet more pretentious and more full of errors and deceptions than its predecessors. It bore the high-sounding title of "A Check on Adventism!" The reader will recognize our duty to notice it. But we have no fears for Adventism on its account. Adventism can stand any number of such "checks" as this, and thrive under them. If Methodism can stand the recoil from such a blast, we congratulate it. As a writer, Mr. Woodward has not shown himself worthy of much attention. But the book was published by the Methodist publishing house in San Francisco, recommended by the Advocate, and contains a highly complimentary "Introduction" by Dr. Stratton, who, to our great astonishment, manifested the weakness and prejudice shown so prominently by his denomination on this coast. The Advocate said, in reference to our first brief notice of the work, that Mr. Woodward and Dr. Stratton are able to take care of themselves. That is very gratifying intelligence. Nothing would please us more in this matter than to have Dr. Stratton come forward and try to defend some of the positions taken by Mr. Woodward. We have something more to notice in regard to his alleged change of the Sabbath at the exode. 1. He says that the week was changed, that is, a new week was given, to Israel, in which the seventh day of the original week became the first day; and the sixth day of the original week was the seventh day of the Jewish week! And yet he says that when the Jews left Egypt the Egyptians kept the first day of the week as the patriarchal or original Sabbath. Now inasmuch as the original Sabbath was the seventh day, and according to Mr. Woodward it was never known as the first day until after the Jews left Egypt, and then only in a week given specially to them and not given to any other nation, we would be pleased to know how it came that the Egyptians had been observing it as the first day of the week before the new week was revealed to the Jews! Here Mr. Woodward has made his own dilemma, from which we would like to see him attempt to extricate himself. Perhaps Dr. Stratton can show us the "cogency" of his position. And others to notice are no better. 2. He says that the sacred day of the nations, the first day of the week, was the patriarchal Sabbath, and to this day he applies the words of Nevins, viz., that the idea was general among them "of some peculiar sacredness belonging to the seventh day." But the truth is, that they always honored the first day as the day of the sun, and they never counted it the seventh day, to which their tradition attached that "peculiar sacredness." This is a fact fatal to the Sunday-seventh-day inference. Dr. Akers professed to demonstrate that a change was made at the exode, but his starting-point is a supposition. He supposed, or affirmed without a particle of proof, that the work of creation commenced on a given day of a given month, while there is no chronology existing to which he can refer to sustain his guess-work. Again he supposed that the Jews left Egypt on a given day of the week, of which he had no proof whatever. But, it will be replied, was he not a D. D., a learned man, and should we not respect his positions on that account? We will see, (1) His being a D. D. does not give him any special knowledge of what occurred four thousand or five thousand years ago, unless he learns it by some record of those times. That he has not got. (2) Dr. E. O. Haven, a Methodist, D. D. also, and LL.D., and Bishop of the M. E. Church, and late President of Michigan State University, some years ago published a work entitled "The Pillars of Truth," in which he said:— "There are some who maintain that it can be chronologically demonstrated that, on account of some confusion in time of disaster, revolution, and ignorance, the Jews are themselves mistaken, and that the genuine Sabbath is our Sunday, wrongly called 'the first day of the week.' There is no good reason, however, for denying that the Jewish Sabbath is the true seventh day, reckoning from the creation of man, and that the Christian Sunday is the first day of the Hebrew week, or the genuine week." We know of no one who is so severely hit by Dr. Haven, in the above extract, as Dr. Akers. We say that Dr. Akers, and of course Mr. Woodward in following him, had "no good reason" for his statement. And we have Dr. Haven on our side! The Bishop, a man of better education, and far more candor than these petty controversialists, fully sustains all that we claim on the question. If we had no Bible evidence, but admitted that it is to be settled by human authority, we would then rather stand with Dr. Haven, than with Mr. Woodward opposed to Haven, even with Dr. Stratton to introduce him! Was this a "whimsy" with Dr. Haven? 3. Mr. Woodward quotes from our Sunday-Law tract to prove his position, which is another rank deception on his part. He claims that the nations kept the patriarchal Sabbath, known as the first day of the week, while the truth is that not a single nation ever recognized the first day of the week as the patriarchal Sabbath. Our quotations, repeated by him, had no reference to any Sabbath, but to "the day of the sun," the first day of the week being dedicated to the sun,523 and always distinguished from the seventh day. If Mr. Woodward's claim on the change of the week were true, we should find some trace of some nation reckoning the days of the week different from the reckoning of the Jews. But no such trace can be found. Every nation, and in all times, reckoned the days of the week just as did the Jews. This is a strong point which cannot be evaded. 4. Mr. Woodward's reason for the change of the week and of the Sabbath is not only fanciful, but foolish. He says:— "The original Sabbath day had become so connected with idolatrous worship, and buried beneath superstitions, and so desecrated by immoral practices, that it was practically impossible to free it, at that time, from these pollutions, and make a day so clean and pure, that it would always, by its associations, suggest to Israel the true worship of God, and be helpful to that nation struggling for liberty and purity." Our printers have not "exclamation marks" enough to spare to do justice to this "reason." Let us take its dimensions. 1. Because the nations had abused the original sanctified rest-day of Jehovah, the Lord, when he separated his people from the nations, gave them a purer day to keep, one which was never sanctified, and which nobody had ever regarded as a sacred day! 2. Because the holy rest-day of the Lord had been abused by the nations, therefore the Lord caused his chosen people, to whom he committed "the lively oracles," to disregard it altogether; to count it, and to use it as, a profane day! 3. The Lord found it absolutely necessary to break off all association in their minds, of the new Sabbath with the old or original Sabbath; yet when he enforced this new Sabbath upon them he told them, in his own person, and himself wrote the words in stone, that it was the day upon which he rested when he made heaven and earth! 4. If any inquire where the evidence for this "reason" is found, we reply that it is an entirely new version, fresh from the brain of "Rev. T. H. Woodward, A. M.," "Irresistible," is it not? 5. Again he says, of the necessity for this change: "While the heathen were worshiping, Israel was working; and while Israel was worshiping, the heathen were working." This is another deception; for it is a fact that the heathen never observed the first day as a rest-day, or Sabbath. Although it was called "the day of the sun," and venerated as such, no rest from labor was required upon it, either by precept or custom, until the time of Constantine. The alleged reasons of Mr. Woodward never existed as facts. 6. He contradicts himself in this "reason," for he says: "This disregard for the sacred day of each other would produce a mutual dislike, which was the very thing necessary," etc.; yet in another place he says (as we quoted last week) of the first day of the week: "even under the Jewish economy, as the great day, the Sabbath of creation." That is to say, that the Lord took steps to cause them to turn entirely away from the original Sabbath of creation, to "produce a mutual dislike," and thereby effectually separate them from the nations, and yet took steps to cause them to regard it, and to observe it by holy convocations and special observances, as "the great day," "the Sabbath of creation," superior to the new Sabbath given to them!" Truly, "the legs of the lame are not equal." It is no relief to his inconsistency that we proved that his assertion is not true concerning these holy convocations; they were not on the first day of the week, as he affirmed, but the first day of the feast, which came but once a year. Rather it is a double contradiction on his part; he contradicts himself and the Bible also. The thoughtful reader may like to have a mystery solved. Mr. Woodward informs us that the Lord turned his people away from the original Sabbath because it had been so defiled by the heathen that it was impossible to free it "from those pollutions, and make a day so clean and pure that it would always suggest to Israel the true worship of God." Where he obtained that information he seems unwilling to tell! But the singularity of the case is that, after the heathen had continued to pollute it for full fifteen hundred years longer, and Israel had totally disregarded it and profaned it for the same length of time, it was suddenly found to be exactly adapted to the pure worship of a Christian people! As Mr. Woodward is the only man that ever lived who had any understanding of this matter, as he has now for the first revealed it, he ought assuredly to "rise to explain." We will close this part of our review by referring in few words to the use that is made of Deut. 5 and Ex. 31. Mr. W. says: "The sacred record gives another reason why they should observe this Sabbath;" and then quotes Deut. 5:15, referring to the Lord having brought them out of the land of Egypt. Now there may be local and temporary reasons for observing a duty in addition to the general reasons. But mark this fact: When the Lord gave the reason of the institution of the Sabbath, and told the Jews why the seventh day, which he commanded them to keep, was the Sabbath, he always referred to the fact that he made the world in six days and rested the seventh day. He never gave, anywhere nor to anybody, any other reason. Americans are often told that they ought to give homage to God because of our being so highly favored of Heaven as a nation. That is good as a local reason, but it is not the ground of the obligation. So with the keeping of the Sabbath. Israel could not keep the Sabbath—they could not serve God, Ex. 8:1—in the rigor of their servitude in Egypt. Thus there was force in the appeal to them to keep the Sabbath because they were redeemed from bondage. But that was not the ground of obligation to keep the seventh-day Sabbath. That duty originated when God made the heavens and the earth, and sanctified the seventh day. And the Sabbath was a sign between the Lord and the children of Israel. This is supposed to mark it as peculiarly "Jewish." But of what was it a sign? Read Eze. 20:12, 20. "Moreover, also, I gave them my Sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am the Lord that sanctify them." "Hallow my Sabbaths, and they shall be a sign between me and you, that ye may know that I am the Lord your God." This is most important knowledge, and it is a blessed privilege for any people or individual to possess it. But the full answer remains to be given; it is found in Ex. 31:17. This chapter—see verses 13-17—refers to the seventh day, which the Jews were commanded to keep. It says: "It is a sign between me and the children of Israel forever; for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed." Mr. Woodward quoted only the first part of this text in commenting on the sign; he did not quote that part which tells us that it was the memorial of creation. If Israel kept the seventh-day Sabbath which was commanded them in the wilderness, they would thereby know that Jehovah was God; Eze. 20:20; why? because it was proof to them of his creative power; on it he rested when he made the world and all things therein. We submit the subject from the Old Testament with one question, which we ask every reader to consider, and answer as before God and in view of the Judgment. Did God command to Israel in the wilderness any other weekly Sabbath than that of the fourth commandment of the decalogue? We affirm that he did not; and we affirm that that was the creation Sabbath. Read Ex. 20, and see. That being so, Mr. Woodward is engaged in an unequal warfare in fighting against that Sabbath. He is fighting against God, who sanctified that Sabbath and always claimed it as his own. The Signs of the Times.
By Editor
“Can ye not discern the signs of the times?” J. H. Waggoner, - - - - - - Editor.
E. J. Waggoner, - - - - - - Assistant Editor.
J. N. Andrews, } Corresponding Editors.
Uriah Smith, Oakland, Cal., Fifth-day, November 22, 1883. Our Lord's Last Passover.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
WE have now to consider the remaining events of the passover supper, and the institution of the Lord's Supper. Although in Exodus 12, where the directions for the passover are recorded, there is no mention made of wine, we learn from the Rabbinical writings that four cups were drank during the meal. Matthew and Mark speak only of the cup which Christ blessed as the emblem of his blood. Luke speaks of two cups, chap. 22: 17, 20. The first one mentioned is one of those drank during the passover supper; the second, verse 20, is plainly said to be the emblem of Christ's blood. And this verse furnishes proof that the Lord's Supper was instituted at the close of the passover supper; for Luke says: "Likewise also [he took] the cup after supper, saying, This is the New Testament in my blood, which is shed for you." There is no disagreement between Luke 22: 20, and Matt. 20: 26. The first says: "Likewise also [he took] the cup after supper; the latter says: "And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to his disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it." The unleavened bread was on the table as part of the passover meal. While they were at table, and some of them still eating, Jesus took of this bread, and did as is recorded. This act, and the solemn manner of Christ marked the close of the passover meal, so that when he took the cup it was indeed after supper. We have now sufficient data from which to ascertain whether or not Judas partook of the Lord's Supper. All of the evangelists state that it was while they were at supper that he was pointed out. Matt. 26: 21-25; Mark 14: 18-21; Luke 22: 21-23; John 13: 18, 21-26. Thus the prophecy in Ps. 41: 9 was fulfilled. John tells us (13: 26) that the traitor was designated by Jesus giving him a sop when he had dipped it in the dish. But this shows that they were then partaking of the passover, which as we have seen, was after the feet-washing, and before the Lord's Supper. John further tells us that when Judas had received the sop he "went immediately out." John 13: 30. The conclusion, then, is unavoidable, that Judas was not present when Jesus instituted his memorial supper. Matt. 26: 27 is urged as an objection against this conclusion. "And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it." Mark also says that they all drank of it. But we reply that "all" need not necessarily refer to the twelve, but might refer only to all who were present; for after Judas had left them, and Christ was in the garden with only the eleven, he said to them, "All ye shall be offended because of me this night." No one will claim that Judas was present with them. Luke's account is supposed by some to disprove this conclusion. In order to make the subject perfectly clear, we will give his account in full. Verse 17: "And he took the cup [one of the passover cups], and gave thanks, and said, Take this and divide it among yourselves; 18. For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come. 19. And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you; this do in remembrance of me. 20. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. 21. But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table." The objection is, that Christ is here represented as mentioning the traitor in connection with the Lord's Supper, but not until after it had taken place, and that, consequently, Judas was at the Lord's Supper. To this we answer thus: 1. We have already proved that the Lord's Supper followed the passover (see verse 20), and that Judas left during the passover supper. See John 13: 30, in connection with other proof given above. 2. We have also seen that Luke's account is not chronological; that he mentions many events out of their regular order. There is, therefore, no alternative left us but to conclude that Luke has not followed the consecutive order of events in this instance. Should we conclude otherwise, we not only make confusion of the accounts of the other evangelists, but we make Luke inconsistent with himself. But it is still further objected that there is no break between verses 19 and 20, and that the statement, "Behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table," closely follows the words, "This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you," the two sentences being connected by the conjunction "but." Keeping in mind the two points already brought out, as just mentioned above, a reference to the Greek of the text will remove this objection. The word translated "but" in verse 21 is pleen. Liddell & Scott's Lexicon gives this definition: "Adv. after parenthesis, yet, still, but." Robinson says of it: "At the beginning of a clause, much more, rather, besides, passing over into an adversative particle, but rather, but yet, nevertheless;—Also where the writer returns after a digression to a previous topic." Andrews' Latin Lexicon says the same of the corresponding word in the Vulgate. Thus this objection is entirely removed. Luke introduces the subject of the passover, and speaks of the cup. This seems to remind him of the Lord's Supper, and he briefly describes that in verses 19, 20, they being thrown in parenthetically, and in verse 21 he resumes the narrative concerning the passover. We think, therefore, that Luke's account does not disagree in the least with that of the other evangelists, nor disprove our conclusion that Judas was not present when the Lord's Supper was instituted. This fact is not without weight upon the subject of524 open or close communion. When we consider the nature and object of the Lord's Supper, it will appear that Christ could not have allowed Judas to remain on that solemn occasion. The object of the Lord's Supper is stated thus: "For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come." 1 Cor. 11: 26. This information Paul says he "received of the Lord." The supper, then, was intended as a memorial, to keep in mind the death of Christ. And not merely to keep the fact in mind, but as an expression of the partaker's belief in Christ's death. But a mere belief that Christ died is not sufficient to constitute Bible belief in his great sacrifice. The devils believe, but their belief is of no benefit to them. There are many disbelievers in Christianity who will admit that there was such a being as Christ, and that he died; and yet their belief is of no profit to them, for they do not discern Christ's divine nature, nor the object for which he died. We must understand that he died to vindicate the claims of justice; that God's law had been broken, and that the death of the sinner was demanded; that Christ died in man's stead, that through faith in him we might be saved from death. But "faith without works is dead," and therefore our faith in Christ is nothing unless accompanied by obedience. To reap any benefit from Christ's sacrifice we must turn from our sins, and keep the whole law of God. See Isa. 1: 16-18; 55: 7; Rom. 6: 1-6; Matt. 7: 21-23; Luke 6: 46, etc. Now no one, however "liberal," would claim that one who has no faith in Christ could be allowed to partake of the Lord's Supper. No one would think of inviting a heathen or a profane worldling to that ordinance. But, as we have seen, faith in Christ implies an honest desire to keep God's law; consequently, no one who is a violator of the law of God, even though he may profess faith in Christ, has a right to come to the Lord's table. We think this proposition cannot be controverted. We do not say that one must be without fault before he can commune, but he must have repentance for his sins, and an earnest desire to put them away. With trust in God, that he for Christ's sake will forgive sin, the individual must humbly strive to walk in the light as fast as God shows it to him. Now how was it with Judas? We find that he had cherished his selfish and avaricious feelings, and had finally yielded to them altogether, and had been stealing from the common purse which our Lord and his disciples had. John 12: 6. He had been carrying on a constant deception. He had become so hardened, even under the sublime teachings and solemn warnings of Christ, that he had bargained to betray his Lord. He had deliberately sold himself to the devil for twenty dollars. He was a thief, a liar, a murderer, and a traitor; a villain of the deepest die; a hardened, unrepentant sinner. And his sin is augmented by the fact that he sinned against the greatest light that any man could have. It would have been sacrilege for such a one to eat of the Lord's Supper; to partake of the body and blood of Christ. We read: "If we walk in the light, as he [God] is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin." 1 John 1: 7. But Judas was walking in darkness, and could have no fellowship with Christ and his loyal disciples. He had nothing in common with them. He was with them, but not of them. These two positions strengthen each other. From the very nature of the Lord's Supper, as explained by the Holy Spirit, we see that it would have been morally impossible for Judas to remain on that occasion; and by our Lord's action we may learn something as to what persons may be permitted to eat of the supper which is called by his name. For in the light of the foregoing testimony it seems clear that Christ designed that the traitor should be pointed out at the time that he was, so that he might withdraw and not be present at the ordinance which was to follow. This idea is strengthened by our Lord's words to Judas, "What thou doest, do quickly." Although none of the disciples fully understood that Judas was to betray Christ (or that he was to do it immediately), John 13: 28, yet the fact that Christ knew of his intentions, and that nothing could be gained by further attempt at concealment, would naturally cause him to obey Christ's command to go at once. E. J. W. The Missionary.
By S. N. Haskell
THE Institute for instruction in Bible-reading commenced at Battle Creek, Mich., Oct. 30, and has continued with increasing interest to the present time. It is the largest gathering of our leading brethren from different parts of the country that we have ever had. Over three hundred have joined the class, and the Bible-readings have created an unusual interest. The subjects presented thus far have been, the Sabbath, the question of tithes and offerings, the coming of Christ, and the perpetuity of spiritual gifts. Among the subjects mentioned none has created a greater interest, nor shone forth more clearly from the sacred page than has the one last named. Not only has it been proven that the Scriptures clearly teach the perpetuity of Spiritual gifts, and that there will be manifestations in the last days, but also that the gift of prophecy has ever been manifested, from time to time, in connection with the people of God, and will be seen especially in the closing work of the gospel. A common expression has been, "We never before saw such evidence on this point." One feature of the meetings, making them of unusual interest, has been, while considering the question of Spiritual gifts and applying the various Scripture tests whereby the true are distinguished from the false, the fact that there are present many living witnesses who testify that they have seen these tests verified in instances where this gift has been manifested in connection with the work of God in our time. The Scriptures teach that those having visions from God do not breathe while they are in vision. Dan. 10 : 17. And that they are as dependent on the Spirit of God to bring to their minds what they had seen as to give the vision in the first place. Instances were related where this particular test had been applied, and there were twenty-three living witnesses who bore testimony to having seen the same. The attendance at these meetings has increased from a congregation of a few hundred persons, principally ministers and delegates, to over one thousand, including many of the citizens of this city. The Bible-readings will be continued, more or less, through the Conference, and will be conducted by different ministers from various parts of the field who will prepare lessons to present. The order of exercises at present is a special meeting of the ministers at 5:30 A. M., to seek God for a fitting up for his sacred work; a general meeting of like nature from 8 to 9 A. M.; Bible-readings from 9 to 10:15 A. M.; a meeting to consider the general wants of the cause from 10:30 to 12 M. In the afternoon a missionary meeting is held from 2 to 3 o'clock; and from 3 to 4 instruction is given in canvassing for "Thoughts on Daniel and the Revelation," by Bro. Geo. King; and from 4:15 to 5:30, Bro. W. J. Boynton instructs a class in the Signs canvass. Another Bible-reading from 7 to 8:30, which sometimes continues until after 9 o'clock, completes the day's programme. Sr. White attends many of the meetings that pertain to the general interests of the cause, and her testimony was never more free and apparently accompanied by the Spirit of God than it is at present. The General Conference convened Thursday, Nov. 8, at 9 A. M. Seventy delegates holding credentials, representing twenty-two Conferences and two missions in America, took seats in the Conference. The English, German, and Scandinavian missions were also represented. An interesting address was given by Elder Geo. I. Butler, President of the General Conference. He presented the general condition of the cause and the necessity of our people taking advance steps. Missions should be established in all the principal cities in this country. Immediate steps should be taken to establish at least four additional papers in Europe; a Swedish, German, Italian and English. At a subsequent meeting the various Conferences presented maps drawn for the purpose, showing where there are churches and scattered Sabbath-keepers in each Conference, and the field yet unoccupied. Interesting statistics were given, showing the rise and progress of the cause in the various States. This at a glance brought before the minds of the brethren the work to be accomplished by those who believe in the Third Angel's Message. Elder Loughborough spoke of the wants of the cause in England. Bro. Rasqvist, who has just arrived from Sweden, gave a very interesting account of the work there, and of his experience in connection with it. He is a young man, has preached about three years, and has been instrumental in raising up several good churches in Sweden. The first of these was organized at Gnuttehethel and has at present a membership of fifty-eight. In Stockholm there is also a company, with other churches in other parts of Sweden. This country has a State Church, the head of the church being the king of Sweden. There are thirteen bishopricks, with a bishop over each, and an archbishop over the whole. These various bishopricks constitute a Chief Council, under which there are subordinate councils which look after the religious interests throughout the country. These councils can forbid any one preaching whose views are not in harmony with the State Church. In the good providence of God the truth had secured quite a strong foothold in Sweden before attempts were made by officials of the State Church to arrest its progress. Bitter opposition, however, finally came, and Bro. Rasqvist was brought to trial, condemned, and sentenced to pay a fine of fifty crowns, or be imprisoned and live on bread and water. Not thinking it right to pay the fine, and also not being able to do so, he was thrust in midwinter into a cold prison, his own clothes taken from him, and a thinner prison-suit given in place of them; and thus he was left to suffer for his faith, and for preaching the truth of God. Bro. Rasqvist experienced much of God's presence while in prison, and to use his own words, "Angels of God were all around me while I was there." On being released a much greater interest was manifested to hear the truth, and the people wanted to see the man whom the priests had caused to be imprisoned. Just before Bro. R. left to come to this country, a second attempt was made for his arrest. Thus we can see that the spirit of the dragon is stirred, and, as John declares, makes war with the remnant church, who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. Rev. 12:17. The conflict is coming closer and closer; the last solemn message is doing its work, and ere long the captivity of the people of God will be turned, and they will stand triumphant on Mount Zion. Oct. 9, 1883. S. N. HASKELL.