Earlier text: THE PARABLE OF THE RICH MAN AND LAZARUSTHE INTRODUCTION OF FIRST-DAY OBSERVANCE.
By Wm. Pepper
It is a question with many how Sunday came to be so generally adopted, or how its observance was introduced, if it is not the proper day to observe. The following from a work entitled, “History of Denominations in the United States,” will, we think, throw light upon the subject:— “Passing from inspired history to that which is uninspired, we find frequent notices of Sabbath-keepers during the first six centuries of the church. Mosheim mentions persons of this class in the second century. Indeed, the notion that a change had been introduced as to the day on which the Sabbath should be observed, seems not then to have been entertained. In process of time, however, a custom arose of celebrating the resurrection of Christ by a religious meeting on the first day of the week. No historical record, sacred or profane, has informed us of the first celebration of this day; nor is there any certain evidence that it was at first observed weekly. It seems to have been introduced as a voluntary festival to commemorate the resurrection, just as the sixth day was observed to commemorate the crucifixion, and the fifth day to commemorate the ascension. Though not regarded as the Sabbath, it gradually grew in the estimation of Christians during the first three centuries. “In the fourth century, the emperor Constantine embraced Christianity; and in his zeal to magnify those institutions which were regarded as peculiarly Christian, and to bring into disrepute those which were in any way connected with the Jews, he set himself at work to give importance to the first day of the week. He required his armies, and the people generally, to spend the day in devotional exercises. No courts of judicature were to be held on this day, and no suits or trials in law prosecuted. Certain works of necessity or mercy, however, were declared lawful; such, for instance, as the emancipation of slaves, and the labor of the husbandman in pleasant weather. His decrees were subsequently confirmed and extended by Christian emperors, and similar decrees were passed and enforced by the various ecclesiastical councils.”—Page 251. “The Reformation in the sixteenth century introduced an important era in the history of Sabbath-keeping. The great point upon which that movement turned, was the doctrine of justification by faith,—a doctrine which had been nearly lost to the world. The unfolding of it necessarily led to the discussion of many kindred topics, among which was the subject of festivals. The Church of Rome had multiplied her festivals to a burdensome extent, and had taught that the days on which they occurred were inherently more holy than other days, and that there was great merit in observing them. In their zeal to oppose this doctrine, the leading Reformers went to the other extreme of maintaining that under the gospel all days are alike. Accordingly they rejected the Sabbath. They soon discovered, however, that it was necessary to have some fixed times and public occasions for bringing the truths of religion into contact with the minds of the people. They could not go back to the ancient Sabbath, because that might subject them to the charge of Judaizing. Hence they advanced the doctrine, that the church itself has power to appoint such festivals as are necessary to its prosperity and may alter them to suit its convenience.”—Page 253. How many there are today who are ever ready to sacrifice the truth of God for the sake of convenience! Reader, how is it with you? Remember the testimony of the Lord is, “In vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” STREAMS FROM THE ROCK.
By Thomas Toke Lynch
Oft when of God we ask
For fuller, happier life,
He sets us some new task,
Involving care and strife:
Is this the boon for which we sought?
Has prayer new trouble on us brought? This is, indeed, the boon.
Though strange to us it seems:
We pierce the rock, and soon
The blessing on us streams:
For when we are the most athirst,
Then the clear waters on us burst. We toil as in the field
Wherein, to us unknown,
A treasure lies concealed,
Which may be all our own;
And shall we of the toil complain
That speedily will bring us gain? We dig the wells of life,
And God the water gives:
We win our way by strife,
Then he within us lives;
And only war could make us meet
For peace so sacred and so sweet.
—Thomas Toke Lynch. THEN AND NOW.
By Chas. B. Reynolds
All Christians agree as to what constituted the sin of our first parents. God gave man all the trees in the garden of Eden except “the tree of knowledge of good and evil.” That he never gave to man; that was sacredly reserved, set apart as God’s own; yet that was the tree coveted, and whose fruit was stolen. Adam and Eve used for their own purposes and gratification that which God reserved as sacred to himself. It was this which brought the curse upon the earth,—shame, misery, and death upon all mankind. All trees were God’s, and in his love he gave all to man, save that particular one which he reserved, and forbade man to use. Just so, all time was God’s: he could have given man one day only, and reserved the other six, but he gave man all but one. The seventh day God never gave to man, but sanctified it, set it apart as holy to himself. God as solemnly set apart the seventh day as he did the tree of knowledge of good and evil. When we use for our own purposes or gratification that which God never gave to us, but set apart as holy to himself, are we not repeating the very sin of our first parents? If this called forth the curse then, how can it call forth a blessing now? Had Adam and Eve been posted in modern theology, could they have saved themselves and their posterity, could they have averted the curse, by pleading that though they appropriated to their own use the particular tree expressly forbidden, yet there was a tree—the very next one to the tree God so particularly commanded them not to use—that one they had held sacred, had not used? God forbade that they should eat of one tree in the garden. Well, there was one tree in the garden of which they had not eaten! Or, so long as they loved and served God, and in all other respects endeavored to obey him, what mattered this one small variation? How could they suppose God would be so very particular about just that one identical, particular tree, over and above all others? Would it not be “uncharitable” to make using or not using the fruit of that particular tree which God had set apart a test, just as though God cared for any one tree so much more than for another? Was it reasonable to suppose God was so particular that he would visit with terrible punishment the eating of the fruit of that one tree, especially as they did abstain from using one other tree? All admit that the above pleas would not have availed to save Adam and Eve. Such reasoning would have been vain as it is absurd then: how is it that it is so much used, so generally deemed satisfactory and valid, now? Should we not insist on the clearest evidence, the most ample Bible proof, the plain, positive “Thus saith the Lord,” ere we accept the teachings of modern theologians, and use for our own purposes the seventh day, the day God sanctified and blessed, and then pretend to obey him by sacredly regarding the next day? CHAS. B. REYNOLDS. CHRISTIAN DUTIES.
By D. F. G.
To benefit the soul is a greater work than to benefit the body; in fact, the former includes the latter. Experience has shown that to bring individuals and communities under the controlling influence of religious principle, is the most efficient means of promoting their happiness and prosperity. The conquests of Christ’s kingdom over evil, are always conquests of love. It is our duty to love our enemies, while we may hate their practices. It is not required that we love them as we love the virtuous and lovely. In order to do good to others, it is necessary that we deny ourselves. Nature prompts parents to practice self-denial for the sake of their children. Christ said, “If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.” The self-denial practiced must be the self-denial required by duty. It is our duty to make others happy; it is our duty to cultivate a cheerful spirit; and no one can be cheerful while suffering from remorse. The gathering cloud of gloom may be dispelled by active efforts to do good. The imagination must not be allowed to form gloomy images. Things should be viewed as they are, and right views of God’s providential government entertained. No one need be gloomy who has a Heavenly Father pledged to supply all his wants, one who has declared that all things shall work together for good to those who love him. If we love him, we shall keep his commandments, and they are not grievous. Brethren and sisters, let us strive to do our duty, and then we have the assurance that every one that trusts in Jesus shall be safe in Christ, when the day of Judgment and perdition comes. D. F. G. Children are eloquent teachers. Many a lesson which has done our heart good have we learned from their lisping lips. It was but the other day another took root in memory. We were going to a picnic, and of course the little ones had been in ecstacies for several days. But the appointed morning broke forth with no glad sunshine, no song of birds, no peals of mirth. “Shan’t we go mother?” exclaimed a child of five, with passionate emphasis. “But when will it clear off?” “Oh, look out for the blue sky.” And so he did, poor little fellow, but never a bit of blue sky gladdened his eyes. “Well, I don’t care, mother,” said he when the tedious day had at length numbered all its hours, “if I haven’t seen it, I know there is blue sky somewhere.” The next morning there was blue sky, such as only greets us after a storm. “There, mother, didn’t I tell you so?” cried a joyous voice; “there is blue sky!” Then the little head bowed for a moment in silent thought. “Mother,” exclaimed the child, when he again looked up, “there must have been blue sky all day yesterday, though I never saw a bit of it, ’cause you see, there ain’t no place where it could have gone to. God only covered it up with clouds didn’t he?” Prayer Must Not Replace Personal Labor
Prayer was never meant to be a substitute for labor, an easy way of throwing our responsibilities upon God. The old classic story of the teamster whose cart stuck in the mud, and who fell to crying to Hercules for help instead of using effort himself, and was told by the god he invoked to put his own shoulder to the wheel, shows that even a heathen mind could see that faith was never meant to exclude work. That is a good anecdote which they tell about Mr. Moody—and an authentic one too—in his earlier days in Chicago, when the noon-day prayer-meeting had been established, and he was a regular attendant. Bro. K., a man of wealth, rose one day and told the meeting of an opportunity which there was to do a certain good thing if only three or four hundred dollars could be raised for the purpose, and he urged those present to pray earnestly that it might be done. Mr. Moody was on his feet, with a sudden inspiration, saying, “Bro. K., I wouldn’t trouble the Lord with a little thing like that; I would do it myself.” The universal smile proved that every one took the point of his joke.—Congregationalist. “Let no man therefore judge you in meat or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days.” “This text,” says a recent number of an “Age-to-come” paper, “will ever stand as an insurmountable objection to the observance of the seventh day, by the disciples of Christ, in the present dispensation.” Nothing could better illustrate the lack of discrimination, and the utter confusion of ideas, which some men who stand high in their own conceit as religious teachers, bring to the investigation of the word of God. Take, for instance, the following parallel to the foregoing statement: “Bunkerhill monument will ever stand as an insurmountable obstacle in the way of the construction of a railroad from New York City to Buffalo.” Such a statement would no more than match the remark quoted above respecting the relation of Col. 2:16, to the observance of the seventh day as the Sabbath. Yet if any one should make such a statement, it would be very evident that he knew nothing about geography, and had no coherent idea of the situation, and relation to each other, of the objects named. Exactly so with the man who thus speaks of the Sabbath in connection with Col. 2:16. That text has no reference whatever to the weekly Sabbath. The Sabbath is separated from the objects there named by a space of more than twenty-five hundred years. The Sabbath was instituted at creation, before man sinned, and consequently before a type could have been introduced. The meats, drinks, feast days, and yearly sabbaths of the Mosaic system of which Paul speaks in the text under notice, had their origin twenty-five hundred years later in the typical system which had been introduced on account of sin. The weekly Sabbath would have existed just the same if no sin had ever come into this world, and no typical system had ever been devised. The ceremonial sabbaths, of which there were seven in the course of the year, see Lev. 23, owed their existence to the typical system. That Paul refers to these we know, because he says, “Sabbath days: which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.” The seventh-day Sabbath antedates all shadows, and never was and never could be, under any circumstances, a type of anything connected with the redeeming work of Christ. We sincerely pity the man whose mental vision has become so clouded that he cannot discern a distinction which is so plain, and who is in consequence betrayed into the foolish statement that Col. 2:16 will ever stand as an insurmountable objection to the observance of the seventh day. Can God Organize Matter to Think?
By Dudley Marvin Canright
Here is what one of these immaterialists says, “Now we are frank to confess that we do not know precisely what a spiritual body is. Some of its characteristics may be, perhaps, pretty well defined, and that is about as far as we can go.”—N. V. Hull, Editor Sabbath Recorder, Aug. 30, 1877. A doctor of divinity says, “It must not be thought amiss, nor awaken surprise, if we confess that we know not in what the essence of soul, or spirit, consists.”—Man All Immortal, p. 29. They can neither tell what matter is nor what spirit is, so they are all compelled to confess. Then how do they know that spirit is not one form of matter? And Newham writes: “We do not consider the question of the materiality of the soul as being very important, because what we call spiritual may, in fact, be an infinitely fine modification of matter, far too subtile to be apprehended by our present powers.”—Body and Mind, p. 97. Dr. Knapp says: “This doctrine respecting the immateriality of the soul, in the strict philosophical sense of the term, is of far less consequence to their religion than is commonly supposed. The reason why so much importance has been supposed to attach to this doctrine is, that it was considered as essential to the metaphysical proof of the immortality of the soul. But since the immateriality of the soul, in the strictest sense, can never be made fully and obviously certain, whatever philosophical arguments may be urged in its favor, the proof of immortality should not be built upon it.”—Christian Theology, vol. ii., p. 372. To these pertinent testimonies we add one more, that of the renowned John Locke, who says: “We have the ideas of matter and thinking, but possibly shall never be able to know whether any mere material being thinks or not; it being impossible for us, by the contemplation of our own ideas, without revelation, to discover whether Omnipotence has not given to some systems of matter, fitly disposed, a power to perceive and think, or else joined and fixed to matter so disposed, a thinking, immaterial substance; it being, in respect of our notions, not much more remote from our comprehension to conceive that God can, if he pleases, superadd to matter a faculty of thinking, than that he should superadd to it another substance, with a faculty of thinking; since we know not wherein thinking consists, nor to what sort of substance the Almighty has been pleased to give that power which cannot be in any created being but merely by the good pleasure of the Creator. For I see no contradiction in it, that the first eternal thinking Being should, if he pleased, give to certain systems of created, senseless matter, put together as he thinks fit, some degrees of sense, perception, and thought.”—Essay, Book iv., chap. 3. Then, for all that the wisest men can tell, it may be matter after all which thinks. Who can tell what light is? You are in a dark room. You hold in your hand a match. It is nothing but a bit of wood and a little brimstone,—both gross matter, and no light in either of them. You scratch the match, and lo! the whole room is full of light. What is that light? It is not a living thing, an immaterial intelligence, is it? No: it must be matter in some form. But why does it give light? We see that it does, but none can tell why. Is not the production of light out of these dark materials in the above case as wonderful as the production of thought by the human material brain. The one is as unexplainable as the other. Light travels with the velocity of 200,000 miles a second, that is, eight times around the earth while you are winking your eye once! Yet this same light is material; for it can be analyzed. Pass a ray of light through a prism, and it is separated into seven distinct parts; viz., red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, and violet.—Wells’s Natural Philosophy, p. 326. This shows conclusively that light is material, though of a very subtile nature. Can the body of an angel be of a purer or higher substance than this? It may be; for perhaps God has matter in his great laboratory far more refined than any with which we have to do. “As there are forces in the universe unknown and even inconceivable to man, so there may also be celestial bodies called spirits totally unlike what he sees about him, real and substantial each in its kind, but too subtile for human understanding. Science asserts there is no such thing as pure space. The air is displaced by our walking through it, and the ether may be cut in twain by an angel’s winged form, our eyes perceiving neither air, ether, nor angel. Man’s ignorance of the essence of things is too patent. Spirits, good and bad, belong to the realm of the supernatural, are of the order of the celestial material, but not gross. I think God may have some other substances besides ‘oxygen, nitrogen, and carbon’ out of which to make them. Science, very probably, could neither ‘weigh, analyze, nor measure’ Gabriel. Nevertheless this royal being is somebody, and immateriality as referred to him and his heavenly fellows is a misnomer, a theological blunder.”—D. T. Taylor, in Bible Banner. But it is not necessary to suppose any other substances than those with which we are already acquainted. A being created out of light, electricity, and heat would be sufficiently elevated to meet our highest conceptions of even a seraph. What is heat? I enter a cold room. The stove is cold, the wood is cold, the match is cold. I light the match, ignite the wood, and shortly the room is filled with heat. What is that? From whence did it come? It is made from gross matter, and hence is material. We can feel it, we can see the effects of it; but here our knowledge stops. Neither heat nor light have any weight. Take the most powerful burning-glass, and pour ten thousand rays of light upon the most delicate balance, and it does not affect it in the slightest degree. So an iron rod as cold as ice or white hot does not vary a particle in weight. (“Wells’s Natural Philosophy,” pp. 293, 207.) What are they then? Not immaterial, intelligent spirits certainly. They are either a subtile kind of matter, or the action of matter in certain conditions. Brand’s Encyclopedia of science says, “The cause of the phenomena of heat is unknown; but they are supposed to depend upon the presence of a highly attenuated, imponderable, and subtile form of matter, the particles of which repel each other, but are attracted by other bodies.”—Article Heat. That wonder of all wonders,—electricity, what is it? All nature is running-over full of it,—the earth, the clouds, the metals, our own bodies; yet who can explain it? It is easily produced by rubbing two pieces of matter together, as glass and silk, or a child’s hand and a cat’s back. See the electric sparks fly! Take this simple fact, now of every-day occurrence. A man stands in New York. He touches the end of a wire, and a man across the ocean in London immediately perceives the fact. He cannot explain how this is done. We say it is done by electricity. Ah! but what is electricity? Is it an immaterial, intangible, conscious spirit from the other world? Three centuries ago it probably would have been explained as such, but now we know it is simply an action upon matter, wonderful as it is. It is produced from matter; hence it must be either a subtile kind of matter or the product of matter. Any way, its whole origin is material. It is not an immaterial intelligence. Says Mr. Wells, “Neither do we know whether electricity is a material substance, a property of matter, or the vibration of an ether.”—Wells’s Natural Philosophy, p. 369. The nature and action of electricity is just as marvelous as that of thought itself. It is no more wonderful or unreasonable that the natural brain should produce thought than that a piece of glass should produce electricity. Every year scientific investigation is revealing new wonders of matter. A man only exposes his ignorance when he says that matter cannot do this and cannot do that. He is simply asserting that of which he knows nothing. It is our humble opinion, well founded, we think, too, both in revelation and science, that angels and the celestial beings are as material as men, only that they are more highly organized, more refined,—matter on a higher plane. Who that has carefully observed the wonderful and infinite diversity of matter, even as seen in this earth, will deny the reasonableness of this position? It cannot be disproved, to say the least. When we have found out God to perfection, when we have explored earth, Heaven, and hell, and have fathomed all the infinite diversities and capabilities of matter, then, and not till then, will it do for us to say what God can do with matter and what he cannot do. Attraction of gravitation, what is it? It is that power which holds all bodies down to the earth. It pulls the apple off the tree, and causes it to fall to the ground. I hold a stone in my hand. I let it go, and it falls to the ground. Why is this? Because attraction pulls it there. Attraction operates upon all bodies in the universe, however distant. The sun attracts the earth, and holds it in its orbit. Says Wells, “Every portion of matter in the universe attracts every other portion.”—Natural Philosophy, p. 30. Attraction, then, is either a very subtile kind of matter, or else the product of matter. Its source is wholly material. Imagine the tremendous power with which the sun attracts this huge earth. Hitch ten thousand monster ropes and chains to Jupiter, fasten the other end to the earth, and then let the earth drop. How quickly all would be snapped in twain! Yet the sun, by the simple power of attraction, holds this same earth as easily as a boy holds his kite. But can you dissect attraction? Can you cut it and carve it? Can you see it and handle it? Can you hear, or smell, or taste it? Can you say, it is so long, so wide, and so high? It is black or white, sweet or sour? No; it is just as indefinable and inscrutable as thought itself. Yet no one claims that it is a living being. Its root and source is in matter and of matter. Till our theologians can explain some of these wonders of matter, they need not come to us with their assumptions that matter cannot think, because they cannot tell how it thinks. Who can explain so simple a thing as vegetable life, that force by which all vegetables grow? I have in my hand a seed. It is round and hard, and apparently lifeless. I can weigh it, measure it, open and dissect it. I now take a handful of common earth, mere particles of dust. There is no life here that I can see. This dust I can weigh, measure, divide, and analyze. I put the seed into it, and add a few drops of water. The water I can handle, measure, and analyze. It is composed of oxygen and hydrogen,—common matter in its crudest form. All these elements are nothing but matter. Now can matter do anything? Can it stir itself? Can it move? Can it arrange itself in a different manner from that in which you place it? Our immaterialist friends say, No, never; but we say, Yes, when vitalized. Now look. Shortly that seed swells out,—becomes larger. A little sprout begins to put forth, and tiny roots are thrown out. Particles of that water are taken up, and atoms of matter are appropriated. Day by day a stalk grows up inch by inch, until it stands six feet high and two inches through. Is not this all matter from beginning to end? Is it not all done by matter? Yes. None would be so foolish as to claim that that stalk inclosed an immaterial, intelligent entity, to which this action is due. It is done by the power of vegetable life which the Creator has stored in that little seed, a particle of matter. Ah! there is the secret of it. The principle of life, vegetable life, has been placed there by God. Then inanimate matter can be so endowed by the Creator as to move, and act, and157 live. Open that green corn stalk, and you will see that the sap is constantly running up through all its pores. There is life and action there; yet it is nothing but matter after all—matter vitalized. But can that stone, that piece of iron, grow? No; God has never bestowed that power upon these, but he has upon other matter, or rather matter in other forms. Is it, then, any harder for God so to organize and endow matter that it will think and reason, than it is to give it vegetable life so that it will grow? But going a step higher than vegetable life, we have animal life. First we have matter in its crudest form, a mere lifeless mineral, though even here there is evidently a very low kind of life. The next step higher, as we have seen, is matter in the vegetable form, with vegetable life. The next and third step in matter is where it is endowed with animal life. This the dumb brutes have in common with man. The highest order of vegetable life and the lowest order of animal life are so nearly alike that it is sometimes difficult to mark the dividing line. But what is animal life? Take that little flea, that fly, that mosquito. Each has animal life, is possessed of sensation, of power to do, to move, and to propagate its species. Yet these are nothing but matter organized. No one claims that they have immortal souls. Indeed, believers in the immortality of man’s spirit generally agree in denying even intelligence to the higher brutes, much more to the lower. Now we ask them to tell us what animal life is? It is not reason, it is not intelligence, it is not an immaterial person, an intelligent, thinking being, dwelling in all these fleas, flies, and gnats. No: they say it is simply animal life. Well, then, gross matter can be endowed with life so as to move, eat, drink, propagate, &c. Can these wise spiritualizers put their finger on that animal life and tell us what it is? How long, how wide, and how deep is it? How much does it weigh? Can they open and dissect it, can they analyze it chemically? No: yet they are compelled to acknowledge that it is an attribute which God has bestowed upon certain organizations of matter. Simple matter has been endowed by the Creator with this wonderful faculty. Now we appeal to any candid man to say if this attribute of matter is not just as mysterious, just as incomprehensible, and just as difficult to conceive of, as that God should also organize matter in certain forms so as to be able to think, reason, and be intelligent. We cannot tell how matter can think, neither can they tell us how matter can live, and yet it does both. “THE COMBAT DEEPENS.”
By Editor
The article by Eld. Geo. I. Butler in last week's Review, on “The Constitutional Amendment,” was much to the point in showing the progress of that work, and how the forces are gathering to carry the amendment which is proposed, and precipitate all its attendant results. We have still further evidence to present on this important subject, looking in the same direction. In The Universalist, of Oct. 6, 1877, published in Boston, Mass., appears a report of “The Massachusetts Convention of Universalists,” which was held at Worcester, Mass., Sept. 25, 1877. From this report it appears that certain resolutions were offered in the convention of 1876, and were then referred to a committee. One of the resolutions reads as follows:— “Resolved, That since the silence of our fundamental law is being construed as a rejection of Christianity as a source of national strength and prosperity, giving countenance to the claims that our government should be made entirely secular, we heartily sympathize with the aims of the National Reform Association in seeking a legal recognition of God and his government.” The committee reported at the convention of last September, and after lengthy remarks showing the importance this question is assuming in the minds of men, recommended the adoption of the resolutions. As the question came up for discussion, Mr. Henry Kimball moved to strike out the resolution we have quoted above, as he “feared it would start up a new matter of controversy.” He said, “We may initiate a religious war, of all wars the most bitter.” Dr. G. T. Flanders said: “There is danger in the resolution.” Rev. Mr. Chambré said: “It is a reactionary movement, hostile to the religious liberty whereof Universalists have been special champions.” “Rev. G. W. Haskell said that the Association which seeks the change in the Constitution only keeps its Calvinism in abeyance. That will come in due time if it gets encouragement.” After these plain statements in regard to the nature and tendency of the proposed amendment, Rev. S. L. Beal moved the indefinite postponement of the resolution. This was lost by a vote of 44 to 64. The original motion to strike it out then came up for action, and was lost by a vote of 42 to 59. A motion was then made to adopt the resolution; and this motion was carried by a vote of 61 to 47. A motion then introduced to adopt all the resolutions, and the report of the committee, was carried by a vote of 69 to 20. The action of the Liberal League in calling for the abolition of all recognition of God and religion in State instruments and operations, and making the government wholly secular, is alarming the fears of professed Christians, and arousing them to action to repel what they consider the danger; and, as Bro. Butler remarked last week, who cannot see that this is to precipitate the conflict on the Amendment question, and that speedily? And who doubts the ability of the professedly Christian portion of the people, to carry any point on which they may unite? The fulfillment of the prophecy of Rev. 13: 11-17, is sure to be seen, and its accomplishment is coming on, not only surely, but speedily. Are we duly preparing for the issue? V. HJERMESLEV, DENMARK.
By John G. Matteson
We have held five meetings this week. The weather is often cold and wet. We hold our meetings in the evening now, and it is therefore much more unpleasant for the people to come together. We are in need of a suitable place for our meetings, but we use dwelling houses and try to accommodate ourselves to circumstances. Sunday afternoon the Baptists held their quarterly meeting in Östrup. I was present a short time. They are much scattered in this part of the country, but there were, however, about a hundred persons present. They occupied a large low room, very poorly ventilated. This was a very close and stifling place for persons who need pure air to breathe. It was a difficult matter to hear the speaker, as the surroundings deadened the sound. He spoke of the second advent of Christ and the preparation of the people of God for it. It would be well for the Baptists in this country, if they would be willing to labor in harmony with other Christians, whenever an opportunity is given. Nothing is gained by being sectarian and misjudging others. It is much better to recognize the good, wherever it is found. It is through the mercy and blessing of God that some here and there are earnestly considering the things which belong to the kingdom of God, and are separating themselves from the world, because of their love to Him who has borne our sins upon himself.” I then held meetings in Faarup and V. Hjermeslev, and found the rooms in both places full of attentive hearers. In order to reach these places, I was obliged to walk about ten miles, and also make several visits. Providence permitting, I intend to make another visit to Fanö, and try to labor some there. My wife remains here. The fare on third class cars is about half as much as in America. There is great excitement among the people at present. The Cabinet has passed a provisional financial law, which the lower house asserts is contrary to the constitution, and wants rescinded. But the Supreme Court sustains the Cabinet. Some think that Parliament will be dissolved; and the people refuse to pay their taxes. The Lord alone knows what is in the future. Our prayers ascend to him for our country, that he will stay the winds of war, and that he will give grace, that some souls here may be prepared for the glorious appearing of our Saviour, and escape the troubles which shall come on the earth. There is not much religious awakening in Denmark. The Methodists have labored earnestly for many years, but their success does not correspond to the efforts they have put forth. It has been their experience that Jylland is a much better field of labor than the islands. As far as I have been able to learn, there is much more religious agitation in Norway and Sweden. A resolution has been made in the Parliament in Norway to separate the church and state. And several priests have withdrawn from the State church, and established free churches. It seems, however, duty for me to continue at present to labor in Denmark, if the Lord will give grace, and bodily strength for the work. Many die here of consumption. I have visited four persons who have suffered from this disease, and am requested to visit another. Two of them have died, and the others show no signs of improvement. It is only of late years that this disease has made such great headway in Denmark. In America, also, more die from this disease than from any other. The human race is sinking deeper and deeper in infidelity and disobedience, and the curse is resting heavily over the groaning creation. May the Lord soon come and redeem his people. Alstrup, pr. Brönderslev, Oct. 16, 1877. LEAVING ALL.
By A. S. Hutchins
A CIRCUMSTANCE of the short notice on which two young men left home for the Biblical Institute now in session at South Lancaster, Mass., is mentioned in the Review of Nov. 1. A case similar to this occurred in our State. A brother rode up to the door of one of our young brethren about sundown, announcing, “You have twenty-five minutes in which to get ready, if you go.” What should be done? This strong young man was in a strait. He was between two fires. Part of the friends were saying, “Go.” His convictions of right said, Go. And so leaving a cow partly milked, and some friends not half reconciled to his departure, with another who had made equally rapid preparations to leave, he took the wings of the evening, hastening miles to the train which should bear them away. These brethren express their great gratitude for the privileges of the Biblical lectures; and will not God greatly bless such of their friends at home as follow them with their prayers?