Earlier text: DRAWING—DRIVINGWHICH IS THE MORE DISHONORING?
By M. C. W.
WE are accused many times in presenting to the world the teaching, as we believe, of the word of God concerning the second coming of Christ, the nature of man, the Sabbath, and the matter of religious legislation, of dishonoring Christ. Arguments are not met, evidence is not disproved, but motives are impugned, and irrelevant and illogical conclusions drawn. It is dishonoring to Christ, they say, to oppose the conversion of the world; it is dishonoring to Christ to say that man has not an immortal soul; it is dishonoring to Christ to labor upon Sunday; it dishonors him to oppose Sunday legislation. Let us candidly examine this:— What we know of Christ, his person, his work, his teaching, the objects God designs to effect through Christ, are revealed in the Holy Scriptures. All subsequent work must be tested by that; all experiences and manifestations of the future are true only as they are in harmony with the word of God. "To the law and to the testimony; if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." Isa. 8:20. The Scriptures are given as a complete guide, "that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." 2 Tim. 3:17. This does not preclude future revelations, but it forms a standard whereby they are to be tested. These Scriptures came through Christ, the Living Word. John 1: 1-3; 1 Cor. 8:6. All, therefore, which would honor Christ is revealed in that word by expressed principle or fact; and all that would dishonor him is forbidden by declared principle or fact. And the fact is ever in harmony with the principle. 1. We teach that Christ's coming is near; and more than one dozen different lines of prophecy, compared with history, prove that this teaching is correct. This is confirmed by a multitude of signs, predicted at various times by prophets of old and fulfilling in our days. These same prophecies predict that the world will grow worse instead of better, that wickedness will increase, that the wheat and the tares will grow together until the end, or till Christ comes. They disprove the good time predicted for this world in its present condition, placing the glory of the earth after Christ's coming and the destruction of all earthly kingdoms and wicked men. Is it dishonoring to Christ to preach what he has so clearly revealed, even though it is not a message of cheer and peace to the heart which loves sin? Is it not more dishonoring to cry peace and safety when there is no peace? Eze. 13:10, 11, 22. 2. We believe that man is mortal. The Bible expressly declares that he is mortal, dying, corruptible. It declares that the soul that sinneth it shall die, and that all have sinned. It predicates immortality of God and Christ, but never of man. It foretells a time when the righteous, those who have accepted Christ, will put on immortality, that God will bestow it at that time as a free gift of his grace, and that it all comes through Christ, and Christ alone, who is not only the way and truth but the life. Which is the more dishonoring to Christ to acknowledge man's mortality, littleness, and nothingness, as he has expressly declared, and to look to Christ for all these things, as he has invited us to do, or to clothe man with an attribute of Deity, make God responsible for an endless hell, forever marring a redeemed universe? Which is the more dishonoring to ascribe life, blessing, and the glory of a clean universe to God through Christ, or to arrogate to mortal man endless life, and to ascribe to the power and wisdom of God a place of never-ending woe and pain and sin? 3. The Scriptures expressly declare that the Sabbath originated at creation, before sin entered our world; that it was made and set apart by three distinct acts on the part of the Creator; that it was embodied with nine other moral precepts in God's immutable and holy law, spoken with his own voice, engraven with his own finger on tables of stone; that this law was magnified, honored, and established by Christ and all the teaching of the New Testament; and that, therefore, the Sabbath as a part of that law shares in the immutability and perpetuity of the law. And the Scriptures likewise declare all this of the Sabbath, which was honored and observed by our Lord. On the other hand, we have neither precept nor example in God's word for Sunday observance. We have many fine theories of men as to what might have been, but, unfortunately for the theories, God's word does not sustain them. Which is the more dishonoring to Christ, to observe the day set apart through him, supported and protected by his word, honored by his example, confirmed with the rest of the decalogue by his death, kept by all the patriarchs, prophets, and apostles, servants of God and of Christ, or to observe and to uphold a day for which we have no scriptural or divine authority? 4. God has declared that his Spirit will be given to those who preach his truth, and build up his church in the earth. He has sent forth his ambassadors with weapons not carnal, to beseech, entreat, and persuade men to come to Christ, and to turn from all sin. He has told them to pray for rulers that they might live godly lives in peace, to render unto earthly governments their due, but at the same time to render to God the things that are his. It is their duty to do by all men, by every man, as they would be done by, were circumstances reversed. Christ has said that the church which leaves him, and consorts with the world, is an adultress, and guilty of fornication. In all time of persecution and sore trial, when we see our rights trampled down, and these rights are not protected by law, we are to submit to God, and rejoice that we can bear persecution for his sake. But never is the gospel, or any institution of the gospel, to be propagated or enforced by the sword, or the civil power. Christ's kingdom is not of this world. Which is the more dishonoring to Christ, to repudiate earthly measures for the propagation of faith and morals, to turn aside from carnal means and weapons, or to reject Christ by turning to the world? We have not given references, because we have referred to so many scriptures, and most of them will be recognized by the Bible student. These evidences we are giving continually. Are these evidences from the word of God of worth? If so, accept them. God will care for results. It is ours to do his will. Which is the more dishonoring to Christ, obedience or disobedience? to regard his sayings, or to despise them? M. C. W. ON WHAT DAY OF THE WEEK WAS CHRIST CRUCIFIED?
By M. C. W.
THE above question has come to us requesting an answer. It is by no means new; it has arisen perennially since the apostasy was fully established, and men have striven after a knowledge of matters not expressly revealed more than for an understanding of those things which pertain to our soul's eternal welfare. The general belief is that Christ was crucified on Friday. This is fully set forth and defended with much learning and ability by men eminent for scholarship. See, for instance, Smith's Bible Dictionary. Another claim made is that he was crucified on Thursday instead of Friday, and this claim is set forth with no little skill and ability. Neither of these will we at this time defend or rebut. Still another claim is made by some observers of the seventh day, as well as others, that Jesus was crucified Wednesday. In urging this claim they have three objects: (1) To show that Christ fulfilled the prophecy of Dan. 9:27, by being crucified in the midst of the week; (2) that thereby, and only so, is fulfilled the words of our Saviour in Matt. 12:40, concerning Jonah being in the stomach of the great fish; (3) that it is further proved that our Lord therefore rose on the Sabbath instead of the first day and by this means an additional argument is given for the Sabbath, and one of the great claims for first-day sacredness is removed. In reply to this claim and its objects we would say:— 1. Dan. 9:27 does not have reference to a literal week of days, but of years, as has been repeatedly and conclusively shown. There is no prediction or assertion of Divine Inspiration which declares that our Lord was to die in the middle of the literal week of days. 2. It is assumed that the words of our Saviour in Matt. 12:40 mean exactly three days of twenty-four hours each, or seventy-two hours. We do not know just how long Jonah was in the stomach of the whale. Day and night, or evening and morning, was a common mode of expressing simply the regular day. See Dan. 8:14, margin, and Genesis 1. The Jews did certainly count parts of days as full days. This is shown by Josephus and the Holy Writ. See Judges 14:17, where it is said that the wife of Samson wept before him seven days, but on the seventh day he told her what she desired. The seven days, therefore, did not include seven days of twenty-four hours each. The same thing is shown in our Saviour's prediction of his own death and resurrection. For instance, Mark 8:31 declares that 'after three days [Jesus would] rise again.' But Mark 9:31 says, 'He shall rise the third day.' We do not accuse the Scriptures of contradiction, but believe that Jesus used terms in both cases which had similar meanings. And so the Jews understood it. See Matt. 27:63, where the words of Mark 8:31, 'after three days,' are quoted, when Jesus said he would rise; but in the next verse they ask that the stone be made sure 'until the third day.' They understood these phrases as not being contradictory. See also the following, where the third day is used: Matt. 16:21; 17:23; 20:19; Mark 10:34; Luke 9:22; 18:33; 24:6, 7. And the disciples say on that first day, hours after Jesus had risen, 'To-day [first day] is the third day since these things were done.' Luke 24:21. This shows that Matt. 12:40 does not necessarily mean seventy-two137 hours, and that the third day was not the Sabbath but the first day. It is assumed that 'the heart of the earth' of Matt. 12:40 means the grave, although this is the only place where the term occurs. Why may it not mean the powers of earth? Jesus was not arrested for three and one-half years, because 'his hour had not yet come,' but when he was apprehended, he said, 'This is your hour, and the power of darkness.' Luke 22:53; John 12:27. The 'heart of the earth' may refer to the powers of earth, for such was Rome then. It is assumed that Christ ate the passover on the 14th of Nisan and was crucified the same day. But if Jesus ate the passover which was killed at the proper hour of the day, and he was crucified at the proper hour of the day, both the type and the antitype did not take place the same day. Again, he was not crucified on the day of the passover; for in the consultation among the Jews it was said that he should not be put to death 'on the feast-day, lest there be an uproar among the people.' Matt. 26:4, 5; Mark 14:1, 2. It is assumed that a secular day and a yearly sabbath intervened between the day of the crucifixion and the weekly Sabbath. If we should admit the intervention of the yearly sabbath, there is no reason to assume the existence of the secular day. But the intervention of the yearly sabbath may be questioned. It is assumed that Christ rose on the Sabbath, because of the expression in Matt. 28:1, 'in the end of the Sabbath.' Robinson, the noted lexicographer, defines the word opse, here translated 'in the end,' as follows: 1. 'Absol, late, late evening.' Mark 11:19. Put for the evening watch. Mark 13:35. 2. With a genitive, 'on the end of, at the close of, after.' So the Diaglott, Anderson, Bloomfield, Bagster's Analytical Greek Lexicon, and others, translate 'after the Sabbath.' In Matt. 28:1 it occurs 'with a genitive,' and therefore should be translated 'after.' Like all subjects not expressly revealed, much can be said on both sides. One not instructed in the word of truth could, if unbiased, be led to adopt almost any view of the question which a skillful manipulator of texts and arguments might present. But whichever of the two first theories may be correct, we are certain that the last is founded on mere assumption. And even though it could be made plausible, which we by no means admit, we would sincerely inquire of its advocates, Qui bono?—What good? What if Christ did rise on the first day of the week? what does it prove?—Simply nothing as regards a Sabbath, and every honest Bible student knows it. What likeness is there between the observation of a day as holy, and a rising from the dead on the dark part of a day, a time when most Sunday-keepers are sleeping? A man who keeps Sunday because Christ arose on that day, and who continues its observation after he was shown that the resurrection had nothing to do with the Sabbath, would not be convinced if it was shown that he did not rise on Sunday; for the non-rising on that day has as much to do with its being a holy day as the rising. Where God has not spoken, man may not assume to speak. What if he did or did not rise on the Sabbath? How does that affect an institution, a day set apart by three distinct and unchangeable acts on the part of the Almighty, and enforced by explicit and immutable law. He who will not accept the Sabbath of the Lord from plain, positive testimony of the word of God, will never truly accept it from any argument based on men's assumption, and supported by questionable proofs. He who will continue the observance of Sunday as the Sabbath after a candid investigation of what God has fully revealed, will not change his practice because of any such argument as may be presented on the day of his crucifixion or resurrection. The crucifixion and the resurrection are connected with the Sabbath only incidentally. They fulfilled the type of the passover and the offering of the wave sheaf, and these were yearly institutions, not weekly. They were not dependent on the Sabbath or week, and the Sabbath was wholly independent of them. It is founded on the immutable counsel of God; it will stand through all eternities to come, founded on God's eternal word. THE CHURCHES ACKNOWLEDGING THEIR FAILURE.
By W. N. Glenn
A GENTLEMAN whose attention had been called to the Blair measures now pending in Congress, makes this reply regarding a Sunday law:— "I am no bigot, nor do I favor a Puritan Sunday. But how anyone who cares for the real welfare of the public (and especially how one living on this coast) can oppose reasonable legislation on the Sunday question, passes my comprehension. You ought to spend just one Sunday at Santa Cruz in summer." It ought to be obvious to anyone who is not bigoted (and the writer of the above claims that he is not) that there cannot be any "reasonable legislation on the Sunday question," except it be to vote down any proposed measure of the kind that may arise in any legislative body. Experience has long since demonstrated that no legislation on that subject can be devised that will satisfy the advocates of Sunday laws, unless it contemplates the observance of that day as a religious institution. And every believer in the principle of the golden rule knows that such laws are very unreasonable. We have known a number of persons who claimed to favor a merely civil Sunday law, but they have invariably been professedly religious people, whose greatest concern was that the day was being desecrated. While they claim that they want simply a day in which men will not have to work,—a legal holiday,—we always hear their loudest complaints against those who already make Sunday a holiday, and go out of the cities to country places in order to enjoy it as best suits them. How is this? Is it any worse to celebrate in one's own way a voluntary holiday than it would be to have it done by compulsory cessation of labor? Is it only a law against rowdyism that is wanted? then why not use the laws already in existence? It would not cost any more time, or any more money, or any more trouble on the part of those interested, to have existing laws executed than it would to have a Sunday law enforced. And, moreover, the laws already enacted for the quelling of disturbances of every kind are available every day. All this plea of a "civil Sabbath," and "reasonable legislation on the Sunday question," is mere subterfuge. The whole agitation comes of a delusion that in some way (not one of the agitators can tell how) Sunday has been made a sacred day. When a man gets all worked up into a frenzy over some action being very wicked on one day, which he will allow without a single protest on the other six days, from year to year, it is very clear that his mind is exercised in behalf of the day rather than on account of the deed. And no amount of sophistry can conceal the fact that it is religious dogma that he wants to have enforced upon the people. In reference to the proposed constitutional amendment requiring that the principles of the Christian religion be taught under the auspices of the State, the same gentleman above referred to has this to say:— "The principles of the Christian religion are so simple and plain that, to use a Scripture phrase, 'a fool need not err therein;' and if our rotting political institutions are ever sound, it will be by aid of them." If the principles of the Christian religion are so simple as this writer assumes, how is it that those who advocate religious teaching in public schools have not demonstrated the fact in their various churches? If the churches, whose legitimate business it is to teach the principles of the Christian religion, have made such a muddle of it as to become divided into hundreds of sects, often entertaining the bitterest animosities, how could the State be expected to do any better? Is it not a tacit admission of the utter failure of modern church teaching, that the government is implored to take the work off their hands, and enforce it by law under the supervision of the churches? After eighteen hundred years of effort, we find the professed church so divided in sentiment that the only point of belief upon which the sects can anywhere near agree is the Roman dogma of Sunday sacredness. But if the government is able to teach the principles of the Christian religion in such a manner as to retain all the simplicity accorded to it in the above quotation—a thing in which the church virtually acknowledged having failed—of what further use are the churches? Having admitted their inability to successfully hold up the banner of love to God and fellow-men, they would fain have us intrust to their direction the civil arm of our republican existence. And under such a régime, the first thing they propose to do is to drown the last vestige of Protestantism in the gulf of religious legislation, and build up an "image" to that "beast" under whose rule the darkest history of the church has been written. Alas for "the principles of the Christian religion," when a degenerate church begins to teach them through the medium of worldly government! Then we may expect that our "rotting political institutions" will decay faster than ever. W. N. GLENN. “DAKOTA’S DISGRACE.”
By Editor
A BILL to charter lotteries in North Dakota passed the Senate of the State, and it was thought would pass the Assembly; but the Lower House, alarmed by large public demonstrations, and under strong pressure from the Federal Government, it is supposed, were forced to postpone the matter indefinitely, as they did not have a sufficient majority to pass it over the governor’s veto. It is, however, a sad commentary on the times in which we are living when a chosen body of the people’s representatives can take such actions as did North Dakota’s Senate. It is a disgrace to the new State that matters should go as far as they did go. The following from the New York World, under the above heading, we commend to thoughtful people everywhere; we can but wonder, however, how much influence church fairs had in educating these North Dakota legislators:— “The new State of North Dakota makes a most unpropitious start in giving countenance to a scheme for paying the expenses of its government from a chartered lottery. “The State might, with equal morality, try to escape taxation by chartering highwaymen to rob stage-coaches or railway trains. It would be even manlier to go into partnership with gambling establishments, after the manner of the prince of Monaco. People who play at roulette are commonly either habitual gamblers or rich fools who are willing and able to pay for the excitement of losing money. “But lotteries are the depleters of the poor. The wage-earners and persons with small salaries buy tickets in the desperate hope of bettering, by a lucky chance, a lot which seemingly has no other promise of improvement. Wherever lotteries are tolerated, there is blight, mildew, and decay. The miseries of the poor are augmented. The managers grow rich and use their wealth to still further corrupt the government and demoralize society. “Louisiana is the only State in the Union where this form of robbery is sanctioned by law. Does North Dakota wish to form herself on the model of Louisiana?” (Lesson 24, March 15, 1890.) 1. WHAT was the nature of the law of sacrifices? Heb. 10:1. 2. Was it exactly like the things of which it was the shadow?—Ib. 3. What differences were there between the priesthood of Aaron and that of Christ? 4. Could the sacrifices of that law make anyone perfect?—Ib. 5. If they could, what would have been the result? Verse 2. 6. Why would they have ceased to be offered? Ans.—They would have had the same power as the offering of Christ, and would not have needed to be repeated. 7. What is meant by their being remembrances of sin? Ans.—Their continual sacrifices were continual acknowledgments of sin. Verse 3. 8. Why were their sins kept in continual remembrance? Verse 4. 9. What is Christ represented as saying when he came into the world? Verse 5. 10. Did this mean that the Lord would not have any sacrifice? 12. For what can we say a body was prepared him? Ans.—For a sacrifice in contrast with those undesirable ones that could not take away sin. 13. Where was it written that he should thus come? Heb. 10:7. The volume of the book doubtless refers to the Pentateuch; for the Saviour said that Moses wrote of him, and that all things written in the law of Moses concerning him must be fulfilled. John 5:46; Luke 24:44. 15. What two things are spoken of in verses 6 and 7? Ans.—Burnt-offerings and the will of God. 16. What do we learn concerning the will of God in the verse from which this is quoted? Ps. 40:8. 17. Is the law the will of God? Ans.—There is no difference between the will of God and the law of God. The law of any ruler is his will. See Rom. 2:17, 18, etc. 18. Where did Christ say the law was? Ps. 40:8. 19. Where did God promise to put his law, in the new covenant? Heb. 8:10. 20. Who is the mediator for the fulfillment of this promise? 21. Would he make the sacrifice that he did, to accomplish this, if the law were not in his own heart? 22. What is meant by his taking away the first? Heb. 10:9. 23. What is the second, that he came to establish? See note. VERSE 9 has also been obscured by the unwarranted additions of theologians, who have put their theories into their translations. In a certain translation of the New Testament, of high pretensions, it is made to read, “He taketh away the first will that he may establish the second.” But there are no two wills spoken of in the text. The rendering is intended to be equivalent to this: He taketh away the first covenant, that he may establish the second. No one is warranted in putting an idea into a text which is not written in the text, merely because the idea may be true. That construction is altogether foreign to the apostle's train of reasoning. There is a contrast presented throughout in verses 5-9, as follows:— - “Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire.”
- “I come to do thy will.”
He takes away the first, that he may establish the second. In this is found the only contrast in the argument, and it is made very prominent. The sacrifices and offerings of the Mosaic law could not perfect the conscience, could not reform the life, could not write the law of God in the heart. These are taken away, that he may come in whose heart is the law, and who alone can fulfill the promise of the new covenant. Notes on the International Lesson.
THE last lesson closed with the arrival of Jesus in Capernaum, and the statement that he "was teaching them on the Sabbath-day" (Rev. Version), and "his word was with power." The present lesson continues from that point, stating that "in the synagogue there was a man, which had a spirit of an unclean devil." Mark 1:23 says, "a man with an unclean spirit." The fact that this man was in the synagogue would indicate that his malady was not continuous, but periodical, and that he was suddenly taken while listening to Jesus. SATAN was remarkably active during the ministry of Christ on earth, his emissaries stirring up those whom they could influence, in every conceivable manner, to interrupt the work or counteract the teaching of the Lord. But Jesus' mission was to "destroy the works of the devil" (1 John 3:8), and to "set at liberty them that are bruised" (Luke 4:18). This is the first record we have of his casting out an unclean spirit, and we can hardly imagine the influence the wonderful scene must have had upon the minds of the people. "I KNOW thee who thou art, the Holy One of God." Satan would never have put such words into the mouth of anyone for the ordinary purposes of an honest confession. His object was to create disturbance, to distract the minds of the people from the words of Jesus, or to thwart their intent. Although the poor victim had evidently left the door open in some way for Satan to get so firm a hold upon him, there was in his rational moments a response to the penetrating words of Jesus. Hence the terrible struggle which ended in the victory of faith and the power of God. AS usual Satan overreached himself, and what was designed to be a terrible barrier in the way of the Lord's work became the means of showing the people that Jesus was endued with power from heaven. "With authority and power he commandeth the unclean spirits, and they come out;" and, contrary to Satan's design, "the fame of him went out into every place of the country round about." FROM the synagogue, Jesus went to Simon Peter's house, and Simon's mother-in-law was "taken with a great fever." Jesus rebuked the fever, and she immediately rose and ministered unto them. According to Mark's account, the events of this Sabbath-day occurred just after the Lord had called Simon and Andrew, and the sons of Zebedee, to follow him. See Mark 1:16 and onward. This remarkable case of healing, right in his own family, would have a great influence in confirming the faith of Simon. It was an important experience for one just called to leave everything to follow the humble Nazarene as a disciple. ALTHOUGH Jesus spent the day in earnest labor for souls, he did not cease with the setting sun. For as the Sabbath ended the people began to come to him with their sick folks. He did not turn any away, but "laid his hands on every one of them, and healed them." But, notwithstanding all the mighty works done in Capernaum on this and other occasions, the great city in the main failed to repent. Yet there are people who contend that the entire world will be converted by the far less powerful preachers. ALTHOUGH Jesus was calling sinners to repentance, he did not want devils to acknowledge him. He did not deem it any honor for them to proclaim him to the people. Their cries of recognition could do them no good, and could only do the Lord's cause harm. So he rebuked them when they essayed to say, "Thou art Christ the Son of God." He set the example of not allowing the adversary to get any advantage of him, either by direct opposition or by pretended adherence to his cause. THE DRAUGHT OF FISHES.
By W. N. GLENN
THE people pressed upon Jesus to hear the word of God. There was a power in his preaching that was irresistible. It will be remembered that even at Nazareth, where before his discourse was ended they were ready to kill him, the congregation was for a time much affected by the 'gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth.' And at Capernaum they followed him even into the solitary places where he had quietly retired for prayer. His manner was so different from that of the cold formality of the rabbis! There was warmth, and love, and true sympathy with the needs of all classes, as well as an unmistakable authority in his teaching that even the rulers could not successfully gainsay. In short, 'never man spake like this man.' ON the occasion referred to in the lesson, on the shore of the Sea of Galilee (or Lake Gennesaret), the multitude so pressed upon the great Preacher that he stepped into a boat lying at hand and asked the owner (Simon Peter) to 'thrust out a little from the land.' And then he sat down and taught the people who stood on the shore. To-day this seems like a novel way to preach. Well, it was the greatest of all preachers who assumed such a position. Why did he do so?—Because it was an opportunity to give his message to a large concourse of people. There was no choice of places or times with Jesus; it was merely opportunity that he sought, as he 'went about doing good.' WHEN Jesus had finished his discourse, he told Peter to launch out into deep water and let down the nets for a draught of fishes. The men had toiled all night and taken nothing; so Simon thought it hardly worth while, nevertheless he obeyed the request of the 'Master,' as he had already learned to call Jesus. He was well rewarded. The haul was so great that the nets began to break. Then another boat was called, and both boats were so loaded that they 'began to sink.' But they did not sink. No such calamity could happen while Jesus was on board. THIS new evidence of the divine wisdom of Jesus seems to have overwhelmed Simon more than anything previously; but his sudden fear was probably because he had entertained doubts regarding the utility of any further attempts to catch fish. But Jesus reassured the trembling disciple, telling him to 'fear not; from henceforth thou shalt catch men.' The poor penitent, in the fullness of his consciousness of sin, little thought that that was his first qualification for an honored139 companion of the Lord and for a successful minister of the gospel. But so it proved. Why should anyone hesitate to leave all and follow the Master, after such a demonstration of his ability to provide for all the wants of his servants? It was enough for those disciples; it should be enough for anyone. WE stated last week that Brother J. I. Tay had received three letters from Pitcairn. The one published in the Signs of February 17 was dated August 1, and came by the way of London. One of those to Brother Tay came from Pitcairn by way of Tahiti, while the other two were written from Tahiti. The first one bears the date of November 15, 1889, and is from Sister M. A. McCoy. She wishes two copies of "Thoughts on Daniel and the Revelation," and one "Thoughts on Baptism." She says: "Since I last wrote, three women have joined our class in the Sabbath-school, Mrs. Albina Young (Richard's mother), sixty-one years of age, Mrs. Butler, and Mrs. Christian. They were delighted with the lessons and deeply regretted that they had not joined before. My desire to join the mission is still the same. "We are very sorry to learn of Elder Cudney's fate. We had hoped and prayed to see you here, but it seems the Lord wills it otherwise. We heard of his loss from the officers of the Cormorant only last July; and in a recent paper we received last week, we read an article entitled 'From Honolulu to Pitcairn.' His bright hopes as well as ours were disappointed." The above expression, "Richard's mother," means the mother of Brother Richard Young, who has been employed at the Pacific Press for some time. He is now ill, but is improving slowly. She speaks of some news that came to them in an old dirty Review and Herald of 1887, which "came ashore in a package of sugar." In their last mail they received letters and tracts sent them for the purpose of turning them from the truth, but she stands firm, concluding with the prayer that God "bless and prosper the cause of the present truth." The second letter is from Sister Emily McCoy, dated Papeti, Tahiti, January 11. She writes that she had gone there for her health, but was now better. She would have been glad to have accepted Brother Tay's invitation to come to Oakland, but could not. Her father, the magistrate of Pitcairn, and brother to the one who wrote the first letter, had just come for her. She says, "Papa was hoping to find you here on his arrival, but was disappointed." The third letter is written from the same place as the previous one, dated January 12, 1890, and is from James R. McCoy, chief magistrate of Pitcairn Island. He sent from there a box of various things for Richard Young from his parents, and some remembrances to Brother Tay. He speaks of seeing the captain of the Cressington, who saw Brother Tay in San Francisco, and expresses his great regret at not meeting him and Elder Cudney. He says, "All were well in Pitcairn when I left, the 15th of November last, and still holding on to the present truth." He wishes to know when Brother Tay will come to the Island, and on our own vessel. He thanks God that he will soon be out of that place of sin and iniquity, in their quiet home in Pitcairn. We praise God that in his providence we have hope that a ship will soon be launched on this coast which will carry to the islands of the sea the precious truths of God. The prophet says, "The isles shall wait for His law," and they have waited. It is now time to give them that for which they have waited so long, and we trust that God's blessing may be over the work of preparing the ship, that it be hindered not. "The King's business requireth haste." May He who has kept the dear souls in Pitcairn still keep, till He in whom they hope shall redeem them unto Himself. THE following is taken from a letter by H. G. Underwood to the Occident; it shows what the gospel is doing in Corea, and the kind of missionary field it is:— Just now I am in Japan having some printing done, and as I have passed through this land and seen the happy, cheerful dispositions of the Japanese, I have felt that indeed the Coreans need the gospel. How many are there of them? is a question right to the point and that should be answered. In Corea the native census is taken once in three years. A yearly house-tax is levied over the whole land, and once in three years the magistrate of each district must report to Seoul the number of houses in his district, that the amount of house-tax to be paid into the government treasury may be known. It is thus to the interest of the magistrate to send a true report, and it is said that the last calculation was based upon this official report, reckoning an average of five persons to each house, and giving a return of twelve millions of people. To all these how many missionaries are there?—Reckoning all, men and their wives, with all the new ones just arrived or on their way, there are just twenty-five, or about one to every 500,000 people. Corea has now been open since 1882. In 1884 the first Protestant missionary was sent, and yet at the end of 1889 there are now only twenty-five in the whole land, of whom almost a half came within the last thirteen months. Now what has been done? We bless the Lord that the results have been far in advance of all that we could expect or hope for, and not in any way in proportion to the paucity of the laborers. In the Presbyterian Church at the end of the first year our first convert had not been seen. We had come to sow seed, and had hardly dared expect to see fruits so soon. Japan had to wait six or seven years for the first results. In July of the second year, however, the Lord permitted us to see the first convert baptized. At the end of the third year our numbers were about twenty. Steadily they increased, their interest grew, the members were zealous, and at the close of the next year there was a revival, and before the year ended the little band was almost sixty. Another year of steady progress was granted to us, and to-day the company numbers over a hundred baptized Christians, besides over half as many more who have applied for baptism, and profess themselves Christians, but have been urged to acquaint themselves more fully with God's word. And this takes no account of the numbers about whom word is continually reaching us from distant parts of the country, who, having received the printed word, send and tell us of their faith in the "one God and the Father of us all," and in his Son Jesus Christ. UPPER COLUMBIA T. AND M. SOCIETY.
By S. H. Carnahan
REPORT FOR QUARTER ENDING DECEMBER 31, 1889. No. of members at present, - - - - - 208
" " dismissed, - - - - - 11
" " added, - - - - - 7
" " reporting, - - - - - 68
" missionary visits, - - - - - 324
" letters written, - - - - - 189
" " received, - - - - - 47
" Bible-readings held, - - - - - 27
" pp. tracts, pamphlets, and books loaned, 20,252
" " " " " " given, 15,862
" " " " " " sold, 29,639
" periodicals distributed, - - - - - 3,017 One-third of the societies failed to report.
S. H. CARNAHAN, Sec. "Sufficient is the word of God." The whole Reformation is embodied in that truth. "To know Christ and his word," said Lefevre, Roussel, Farel, "is the only true, living, and universal theology. He who knows that knows everything."—D'Aubigné. THE church is dreaming of the conversion of the world by means which never yet converted the people of a single town, city, or nation. How long will she persist in this dream and refuse to be consoled by the hope of speedy rest and redemption?—Messiah's Herald. THE Zenana Bible and Medical Mission, which works in conjunction with the Church Missionary and other Protestant missionary societies in India, has a mission staff of 238; they have 66 schools, over 4,000 pupils, and hospitals and dispensaries where over 9,000 attendances were registered in 1888. This work of women among women is one of the most urgently required of any branch of work in India. Two Syrian Christian young men came to New York a year ago. They were graduates of the collegiate and medical departments of the Syrian Protestant college at Beirut, and last spring they graduated from the medical department of the University of New York. One of them sought to engage in mission work in New York soon after their arrival, thus setting an example which is not always followed by Western Christian young men when arriving in a foreign city. PRINCIPAL GRANT, of Queen's University, Kingston, says that he met men in Japan who had lived in Yokohama for ten or twelve years, who had gone into society "and discussed everything—as they supposed—at the club, yet who did not know that within a gunshot of their office was a crowded, self-supporting congregation of native Christians, ministered to by an eloquent Japanese. They had never visited a missionary institution. They had a hazy idea that Roman Catholic priests were devoted men, and that they could show some results; but they would assure you in a loud and lofty, or an absurdly confidential tone, that Protestant missions were a failure."