Earlier text: Thoughts on Daniel—Chapter XIThe First Day of the Week.
By John Nevins Andrews
WAS THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK GRADUALLY SANCTIFIED BY THE APOSTLES AFTER THE ASCENSION OF CHRIST?
[From Les Signes des Temps.] The first day was not sanctified on the day of Pentecost. We have learned two important facts concerning the sanctification of the first day of the week: 1. That it was not sanctified by any divine decree at the resurrection of Christ, as the seventh day was sanctified at the close of the creation. 2. That it was not gradually sanctified by the acts of Christ during the forty days before his ascension. Now we are to study the book of Acts to learn whether the apostles sanctified the day, either by some one united act of authority, or by a series of acts, no one of which accomplished the work, but all of which gradually tended to that result.247 Ten days after the ascension of Christ, occurred the day of Pentecost. On that day, the Holy Spirit was poured out on the disciples. Acts 2:1-12. Though the day of Pentecost can come but once in a year, it must come on some day of the week whenever it comes. The day of the week on which the Pentecost first occurred, after the ascension of Christ, is in dispute; but we will concede to the advocates of the sacredness of the first day of the week, that it occurred on that day. But those who believe in the sacredness of the first day of the week, assign the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, on the day of Pentecost, as one of the principal evidences that the first day of the week has been sanctified, in the place of the day ordained in the fourth commandment. But we ought to have something besides conjecture, before venturing to change the commandment of God. There were three Jewish feasts in each year. Ex. 23:14-16. The first was the feast of the passover, and of the offering of the first-fruits of the barley harvest. Lev. 23:5-14. This feast typified the death of Christ, our passover, and his resurrection, as the first-fruits of them that slept. 1 Cor. 5:7, 8; 15:23. So Christ died and arose again on the anniversary of that feast. John 18:28; 19:14. The second feast was the feast of the first-fruits of wheat harvest, fifty days after that of the feast of barley harvest. This feast typified the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, and so when the time came for that event, it occurred on the day of Pentecost, or fiftieth day. Lev. 23:15-21; Acts 2:1. The third feast was the feast of ingathering, at the end of the year, when all the harvest had been gathered into the garner. Lev. 23:29-43. This will be fulfilled in the kingdom of God, after all the saints have been gathered to the new Jerusalem. Rev. 7:9-17. If the Holy Spirit was poured out on the day of Pentecost, not because it was the day of Pentecost, but because it was the first day of the week, would not the Spirit of inspiration have called the day the first day of the week, or the day of the resurrection of Christ, instead of calling it by the name of a Jewish feast, which comes only once in a year? The sacred writer thought it important to say that this event occurred on the anniversary of the second Jewish feast, but he treated the particular day of the week as of so little importance as not to merit mention by him. But it is possible for us to ascertain the exact truth with respect to the question whether the first day of the week was sanctified by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost. What the apostles said to the multitude will decide the question. If the day was sanctified that morning, then the apostles must inform the people at once, so that they should not ignorantly profane it. Moreover, they had an excellent opportunity in which to do it, for the attention of the multitude was arrested by the fact that the apostles spoke many languages, and they inquired what this meant. Peter told them that this was the fulfillment of the prophecy of Joel, concerning the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, but he said nothing by way of indicating that this event had sanctified the day on which it took place. Acts 2:14-21. He also told them that God had raised from the dead Jesus of Nazareth, whom they had crucified, but he said not one word concerning the sacredness of the day on which he arose. Verses 22-36. But this is not all. When Peter had finished his sermon, the people were pricked in their hearts, and demanded, "What shall we do?" Verse 37. The apostles must answer this important question. If a new duty had been created that morning, by the sanctification of the first day of the week in the place of the seventh, the apostles must instruct the people concerning this duty, or bear upon their own souls the responsibility of leaving them to transgress. But they said not one word about celebrating the first day of the week in honor of the resurrection of Christ. On the contrary, they simply said: "Repent and be baptized." Verses 38-41. We shall show here-after that baptism is the true memorial of the resurrection of Christ. Rom. 6:3-5; Col. 2:12. It may be said that the apostles on the day of Pentecost said nothing concerning the commandments of God. But there was no need that they should speak of the commandments unless they had been abolished or changed, for their authority was recognized by all. But if a new duty had been created, and one that completely changed the fourth commandment, it was necessary that that fact should then and there be announced to the multitude. But the apostles said not one word of this, though they had the best opportunity possible, and though the people must have this instruction to save them from transgressing, if the sanctification of the first day of the week took place that morning. We are, therefore, certain that the day of Pentecost did not witness the sanctification of the first day of the week, or the change of the Sabbath from the seventh day to the first. The first day was not sanctified in the third chapter of Acts.
The second chapter of Acts contains decisive evidence that the first day of the week had not been sanctified when the day of Pentecost closed. Now we come to the third chapter. Here we learn that not long after the day of Pentecost, Peter and John wrought a notable miracle at the temple, in healing a lame man from his birth. Verses 1-11. Then, as all the people were attentive to hear, Peter preached to them concerning the crucifixion, the resurrection, and the ascension, of Christ. Verses 12-26. The discourse of Peter did, therefore, call attention to three of the four most memorable days in the history of Christ: the day of his crucifixion, the day of his resurrection, and that of his ascension, though making no distinct reference to the day of his birth. If any one of them ought to be celebrated, he had now a good opportunity to say so. The apostles had had time to consider whether they should sanctify a new day. The merit of each day could be thus compared by them. The day of his crucifixion, when Christ died for sinners, claimed pre-eminent distinction as the day in which infinite love and inflexible justice, were more strikingly manifested than on any other day in the history of our race; the day of his resurrection witnessed his triumph over death; the day of his ascension witnessed his triumphal entrance into the new Jerusalem, as described in Ps. 24:7-10, and saw him take his place upon the throne of his Father, as predicted in Ps. 110:1-4. It was for Peter to say whether the people should observe all these memorable days, or, if not all of them, then which one. It was also for him to say whether the celebration should be weekly or annual. Now what did he say on these points? Nothing! Why did he remain silent? If any one of these days ought to be observed, the time had come when the fact should be made known. The people were profaning the day because of ignorance. Why did Peter suffer this profanation to continue without offering one word of warning or instruction? There can be but one answer: The day sanctified in the beginning, in honor of the Creator, when God created all things by Jesus Christ, had not been superseded by the sanctification of a new day, nor did the apostles think it best to commence to sanctify another day on this occasion. The first day was not sanctified in the fourth chapter of Acts.
Now we come to chapter four. Here we learn that 5,000 persons were converted by the sermon which we have just examined in chapter three, which is a greater number than was converted on the day of Pentecost. Acts 2:41; 4:4. The apostles were brought before the Sanhedrim, and Peter again speaks concerning the crucifixion and the resurrection of Christ. Acts 4:8-12. In this address, Peter quoted Ps. 118:22, which speaks of the stone rejected by the builders, which God had made the head of the corner. He said that this stone is Christ. The Psalmist adds in verse 24: "This is the day which the Lord hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it." This is the day which Abraham saw and rejoiced concerning it, namely, the day of the gospel in which the Christian is to rejoice always. John 8:56; 1 Thess. 5:16; 2 Cor. 6:10; Phil. 4:4. Some persons assert that Christ was made the head of the corner when he was raised from the dead, and that this act sanctified the day of his resurrection as the one in which Christians should rejoice; but the Bible does not say that he became head of the corner on the day of his resurrection. On the contrary, it appears that this did not take place till he ascended, and became head over all things to the church. Eph. 1:20-22. Nor does the Bible anywhere assert that the first day of the week has been sanctified as a day in which to rejoice, for it commands us to rejoice always. But the address of Peter will leave us no ground for doubt on these points. He is called, in the providence of God, to speak of the resurrection of Christ, and also to speak concerning the fulfillment. Cf. Ps. 118:22. If this Psalm predicts the sanctification of the first day of the week, in honor of the resurrection of Christ, Peter cannot avoid declaring the fact, unless he is willing to leave the people in ignorance of their duty. What, then, does he say of the sanctification of the first day of the week? Not one word! If the day was already sanctified, he must speak of the fact, to save the day from profanation. Or, if the apostles were about to sanctify the day, that fact ought to be announced, and the circumstances under which he spake demanded that he should speak plainly on the point. But he said not one word concerning it, which proves that he had no idea that the first day of the week was a sacred day. After the apostles left the Sanhedrim, it is said, in verse 33, that with great power they gave witness to the resurrection of Christ, but they said nothing concerning the celebration of the first day in honor of that event. We are, therefore, certain that as late as the close of the fourth chapter of Acts, no such duty existed. The first day was not sanctified during the period recorded in the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth chapters of Acts.
The fifth chapter of Acts contains an address by the apostles, concerning the crucifixion and the resurrection of Christ. Verses 24-32. If the day had been sanctified by God, in honor of the resurrection, had not the apostles delayed to mention the fact as long as they could innocently delay to speak of it? Or, if the apostles were to sanctify the day, had not the time come for them to commence that work? And was not this an occasion which demanded that they should speak boldly concerning this new day? They made not the slightest reference to this, which shows that they had nothing to say on the subject. The sixth chapter informs us that seven deacons were chosen, in consequence of trouble which arose concerning the distribution of alms. But this chapter says nothing concerning the sanctification of the first day, though that needed to be announced if it had taken place, and could not have been announced without exciting much discussion. The seventh chapter of Acts contains the defense of Stephen, in which he boldly charges upon the Jews the murder of Christ. Verse 52. He certainly would not have feared to tell them that God had already sanctified a new day, or that the apostles were preparing to do this, but he had nothing of this kind to say. The eighth chapter tells us that Philip went to Samaria, and preached with great success in that city. If the apostles, in preaching to the Jews, had been afraid to speak of the sanctification of the first day, lest they should offend them, Philip had no occasion to fear to speak on this subject at Samaria. He there spake freely of the sanctification of the first day, and it was absolutely necessary that he should instruct the Samaritans, that they might obey this new duty, if it existed, but he said one word on the subject. Then Philip was sent to the vicinity of Gaza, that he might preach to the eunuch of Ethiopia. God willed that the eunuch should be fitted to preach the gospel in Ethiopia. The eunuch was acquainted with the Old Testament (verses 30-33), and, therefore, knew the commandments of God. But if the first day had been sanctified to take the place of the seventh, it was necessary that the eunuch should be informed of this, that he might teach the Ethiopians their duty toward God. He had no occasion to fear the prejudices of the eunuch concerning the sanctification of the first day, but Philip said nothing to him on the subject. The first day was not sanctified during the period recorded in the ninth, tenth, eleventh, and twelfth chapters of Acts.
The ninth chapter records the conversion of Saul and the resurrection of Tabitha, but it says not one word to show that the apostles had taken even the first step toward the sanctification of the first day. The tenth chapter records the mission of Peter to the gentiles at Cesarea. After he had preached the gospel to them, he caused them to be baptized. He had then an assembly of converted gentiles that would not be offended to hear of the sanctification of the first day of the week, and that needed to know that it had been sanctified, if this were true, to save them from profaning it. But Peter had nothing to say on the subject, because no such sanctification had taken place. The eleventh chapter contains the confirmation and enlargement of the work among the gentiles. This chapter says that the disciples were first called Christians at Antioch. Here was an excellent opportunity to say that the first day had been sanctified for the Christian church, but Luke did not insert this declaration in his history of the work at Antioch, nor, indeed, in any other place. The twelfth chapter speaks of the imprisonment of Peter, and of his miraculous deliverance. It also tells us that the word of God grew and multiplied; but with all this increase of light and strength, not one word is spoken concerning the sanctification of the first day of the week. We are, therefore, certain that no such sanctification had taken place as late as the end of chapter twelve. We will continue the examination of this subject in our next number, if God permit. J. N. A. Question on the Commission
By Editor
“I WISH you would show me where Christ ever commanded women to go and preach the gospel. The commission was not given to women, but to men, if I understand correctly.” This is a question which has troubled many minds beside that of our brother. And there is a degree of plausibility in his position, yet we think his conclusion cannot be maintained by the Scriptures. God's word and his providence will always be found to be in harmony. By his providence we here refer only to those facts which indicate the choice and will of the Lord, which are not controlled or modified by the will or action of any agent. Now we find that in all ages God has chosen women to occupy important positions in his work. The instances which are recorded in the Old Testament are so numerous and so well known that we need not refer to them particularly. As the question relates more especially to the commission of the gospel, we will notice the teaching of the New Testament. 1. In Acts 21:8, 9, we learn that the four daughters of Philip the evangelist prophesied. This could be only by the direct act of God, and is conclusive proof that the Lord, in the New Testament as well as in the Old, conferred the gifts of his Spirit on women, and set them forth to important positions in the work of the gospel. Indeed, according to the instructions of Paul to the Corinthians, there is no more important position in the church than that occupied by these four sisters; no more useful gift in the gospel than that conferred upon them. 2. We think the fact stated in Acts 21:8, 9, guides us to a perfect understanding of Paul's reference to those women who acted as servants of the church, who were helpers of the apostles, and who labored in the Lord. See Rom. 16. 3. On the day of Pentecost Peter applied the prophecy of Joel 2 to the position and work of the disciples of Christ in the gospel, under the commission, proving that the gifts of the Spirit were to be conferred on the women as well as on the men. And Paul said these gifts were “for the work of the ministry.” Eph. 4. So that the instances referred to in Acts 21 and others, were not exceptional, but in strict conformity to the plan of the gospel. Nevertheless, there were restrictions against their being placed in offices as rulers of the business of the church. But the restriction could not shut them out of the work of the ministry, as we have seen. In regard to the commission being given to men: this does not at all militate against the facts above stated. Even where the Scriptures are more explicit and the word men is inserted, women are not excluded. Thus: Paul says when Christ ascended on high “he gave gifts unto men,” and adds that these gifts were “for the work of the ministry.” And yet we find the same gifts conferred upon women, and they prophesied and worked in the gospel by virtue of these gifts and callings. Paul taught that God “now commandeth all men everywhere to repent.” Acts 17:30. We cannot say that it is not the duty of women to repent likewise, because they are not mentioned in the commandment. He also affirms that Christ “by the grace of God should taste death for every man.” Heb. 2:9. We believe he tasted death for every woman also, though the apostle did not say so. The point at which we should always aim is to find the complete harmony of all the scriptures. It is possible to take one passage and draw a conclusion from it which seems to be legitimate and unavoidable. Yet if the conclusion does violence to other scriptures, or interferes with the harmony of the whole, we may rest assured that it is not the correct one, however plausible it may appear. "IF any man will do His will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself." Give Us Law.
By Uriah Smith
THIS is the strong and persistent cry of the advocates of Sunday sanctity. In the Christian at Work of April 20, 1882, we find an article on "The International Sabbath Conference" recently held in Pittsburg, Pa. Among the many steps suggested to secure the better observance of that day, one was to "call a convention of railroad managers, if possible, that by concord of action, the great competing lines may rest on the Sabbath." Then the writer goes on to ask, "Why not have the convention enlarged by representatives from the leading industries of the country?" If all the railroads and the leading industries of the country, the large manufacturing establishments, printing-offices, breweries, etc., would unite in action, the influence would be immense. But he regrets that this is hardly practicable; and even if it could be secured, he has great misgivings as to its efficiency; for he says: "It would be a plan, not a law; would have the strength of an agreement, but not the force of a penalty." Let these clauses about "law" and "penalty" be read as if they were printed in italics; for they reveal the true objective point in all this movement. The national reformists are not willing to let the matter rest on any voluntary arrangement; they dare not trust to the strength of an agreement; they must have a command issuing from the government, backed up by the convincing argument of pains and penalties, "Thou shalt honor this as a sacred day." Hence the writer continues:— "There is need of the power of government behind the plan—the strength of the national government in support of the rule; for the great business corporations of the country have risen above and reach beyond the authority of a Commonwealth. And not till the people have made the Federal Government the escutcheon of the Sabbath, may we expect the rival industries to honor that sacred day." This language needs no comment. The question to be solved is, Will they secure this power of the Federal Government? The possibilities in this direction are indicated in the following statements from the same article. Having referred to several letters received from the superintendents of different railroads, that the demands of the public (church-members included) compelled them to operate their roads on Sunday, against their desire, he says:—248 "And thus the men of business were driven into the dilemma from which they desire to be rescued. They are not there from choice, but by popular demands; and they ask to be delivered from their constituency. And if the church urged her claims as earnestly as the world, and the Christian insisted upon his rights as loudly as the infidel resists them, these corporations would enter triumphantly into the liberty wherewith Christ makes his people free. Christian men lead the enterprises of our age." This is undoubtedly true. If all professed Christians should unite upon any measure, it could be carried, beyond question. It is this union of effort that is now sought. The Conference, though not largely attended was pronounced a complete success every way; for, says the reporter, "there was much motion of thought and feeling, and we may reasonably expect that the electricity generated will shine like Edison lights." U. S. Social Meetings.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
It is often the case that a word or phrase is used in a conventional sense, without any attention being paid to its strict meaning. Indeed, the most difficult words to define accurately are those which we use most frequently in our ordinary conversation. It is well, sometimes, to stop and consider whether the name given to a certain thing really describes that thing. If it does not, one of two things should be done: either select a name that will accurately specify the object, or else reform the thing itself. The term "social meeting" belongs to this much-abused class. Let us analyze it. No child needs to consult Webster to know that "meeting" means "a coming together," and although the derivation of social from socius, "a companion," may not be universally known, everybody knows, in a general way, what it means. To be social is to be companionable; to have the qualities that will make one agreeable; "ready or disposed to mix in friendly converse." Putting this and that together, we come to the conclusion that a "social meeting," in the strict sense of the term, is where people come together as congenial companions, for the purpose of holding friendly conversation; in all cases with the object of mutual improvement, but in the sense commonly used, for the purpose of religious intercourse. If this be the case, why may not the religious social meeting be tried by the same rules by which we would measure social gatherings in every-day life? It goes without saying, that while perfect freedom and absence of restraint should be enjoyed, there must be a certain degree of form and ceremony, in order to maintain harmony. Every individual is bound to regard the comfort of his neighbor, even if he himself be somewhat inconvenienced thereby. Certainly no one can reasonably dispute that the following rules are indispensable conditions:— 1. Be prompt. If you have an engagement to meet a company of friends at a certain hour, you do them a grievous wrong if you keep them waiting. Besides, you may be the loser yourself, for your friends may not wait your tardy movements. If an earthly ruler should grant you an interview, that you might make application for something greatly desired, you would not think of keeping him waiting. In your eagerness you would be ahead of time. In the social meeting you have an appointment to meet, not your friends, merely, but the King of kings. He has pledged his word to be there, and not only to hear your request, but to grant it. Is it not treating him with disrespect if you are late? Suppose he should take your tardiness as a token of indifference, and should not wait to receive you. What a loss it would be to you. Your own interest, as well as your duty to your companions and to God, demands that you should be on time. Then do not fail. 2. Do not be afraid of each other. What would you think of a friend whom you had invited to your house if, on entering, he should drop down in a chair nearest the door, or should skulk into the farthest corner? You would think he had done something he was ashamed of; at any rate, you would not call him a companionable friend. But how often do we see just this very thing in the so-called "social" meeting. A few individuals scattered about a large room, more like sentinels on duty than like friends met for social converse. Brother A. comes in, and nervously drops into a seat about half way up the aisle. Perhaps he is tired out, and can get no farther, perhaps he is afraid the leader will call on him to offer prayer. Sister B. comes quietly in, and meekly sits down two or three seats back of Brother A. It would not look well for her to put herself ahead of him. It is very difficult for any one but the deacons and one or two "pillars" to get past this obstruction. The meeting can scarcely be called a meeting, for all seem inclined to get as far away from each other as possible, and especially to get away from the leader. This is not a "social meeting." Why, the very essence of sociability is in close companionship. If you wish to converse with your friend, you come close to him. It may be that the reason why, at meeting, the people sit so far apart, is that they don't want to say anything. It is uncomfortable to sit up in front where people can see you and wonder why you don't say something. This may not be the reason, but if you sit back, some one is sure to think so, and your reputation will suffer. So sit near together and be sociable. 3. Have something to say. Of course; how could you be sociable if you did not? And the observance of the preceding rule will make the observance of this one a necessity, for no one but a confirmed misanthrope can sit in the midst of a company engaged in eager, earnest, elevating conversation, and not be moved to say a word. To be able to listen quietly to others is a valuable acquirement, but do not listen all the time. If all did so, who would talk. Each individual must do something toward making the meeting social, but, 4. Do not monopolize the conversation. If a company are assembled, and one individual does all the talking, that is a lecture or a sermon; but all must have something to say, if there is any sociality. But all cannot speak if one or two take all the time. In ordinary company an individual who talks all the time is considered an egotist. It is not considered courteous to do so, nor is it. It is no more so in the religious social meeting. Is it not true that the social meeting is for all? Do not all have an equal right to share in its privileges? Yes, certainly. Then he who occupies more than his rightful share is robbing others. It is not only discourteous, but absolutely wrong, for, indeed, every lack of courtesy is a sin. Don't talk so long that others wish you would stop. If you do, you have done incalculable damage. But it does not seem long to you; you really could not say what you want to say, in less time. Then stop before you are through. If you really feel what you do say, the people can readily imagine what you would have said if you had spoken longer. Say what you have to say, in few words, right to the point, and, 5. Speak loud enough to be heard. A person who speaks so indistinctly that no one can tell what he says, would not add to the sociability of a meeting any more than one who said nothing at all. You may have a good confession to make, or an encouraging word to offer—a thought that is really a gem—but if nobody heard it but yourself, you might as well have simply thought it silently. Paul's advice concerning speaking in unknown tongues, is applicable to those who speak with an inaudible tongue. Speak so as to be heard, "Else when thou shalt bless with the Spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?" 6. Keep in harmony with the spirit of the meeting. Study propriety. Don't fly off on a tangent, and speak about something entirely foreign to the subject of the meeting. What you say may be true enough, and very good in its place; but remember that "to everything there is a season." If some friends were earnestly conversing on an important subject, and one should suddenly branch off on a subject entirely foreign to the matter under consideration, what would be the result? The conversation would be brought to a close at once. It would look as though he was tired of their talk, and wanted it to stop; as though he wanted to direct the conversation to suit himself. In some cases it would be called impudence. It certainly could be nothing else than uncivil. Well, the same thing done in religious meeting has the same effect. After this has been done, although there may be a few feeble attempts to revive the interest, the meeting is dead. However such conduct may be considered in ordinary conversation, there can be no greater sin against the welfare of a meeting. It may arise from thoughtlessness, but it betrays a lack of appreciation of what is being said, an absence of sympathy with the spirit of the meeting, that is almost, if not quite, criminal. I never see a person branch off in this way in the midst of a meeting, without thinking that he has been not listening to what has been said. Don't do it. Better by far say nothing at all. In a word, strive, as well in social meeting as in daily life, to obey the injunction of the apostle: "Be ye all of one mind, . . . be courteous." E. J. W. CUMBERED ABOUT MUCH SERVING.
CHRIST never asks of us such busy labor,
As leaves no time for resting at his feet;
The waiting attitude of expectation
He ofttimes counts a service most complete. He sometimes wants our ear—our rapt attention—
That he some sweetest secret may impart;
'Tis always in the time of deepest silence,
That heart finds deepest fellowship with heart. We sometimes wonder why our Lord hath placed us
Within a space so narrow, so obscure,
That nothing we call work can find an entrance;
There's only room to suffer—to endure. Well, God loves patience! Souls that dwell in stillness,
Doing the little things, or resting quite,
May just as perfectly fulfill their mission,
Be just as useful in the Father's sight, As they who grapple with some giant evil,
Clearing a path that every eye may see,
Our Saviour cares for cheerful acquiescence,
Rather than for a busy ministry. And yet he does love service, where 'tis given,
By grateful love that clothes itself in deed;
But work that's done beneath the scourge of duty,
Be sure to such he gives but little heed. Then, seek to please him, whatsoe'er he bids thee;
Whether to do, to suffer, to lie still!
'Twill matter little by what path he led us,
If in it all we sought to do his will. Hanford Camp-Meeting.
By M. C. Israel
A REPORT of this meeting was given last week, and reference made to the temperance and missionary work, statistics of which are as follows: A few weeks before the meetings commenced, about two hundred and fifty copies of the Signs were sent from the office, to as many families who lived in the vicinity of the place where the meeting was to be held. This advertised the meeting, and brought many out who otherwise would not have been present. Eleven thousand pages of tracts were distributed; quite a good proportion of these were on the subject of temperance. About three hundred copies of the Signs were also distributed. Ten subscribers were obtained for the Review, twenty-one for the Signs, ten for Good Health, six for the Instructor, and six for the College Record. At the close of two of Sister White’s discourses, the temperance pledges were passed, with the following results: Teetotal Pledge, forty-seven signers; Anti-Rum and Tobacco Pledge, thirty-six signers; Anti-Whisky Pledge, thirty-six signers. We visited a man who signed the Teetotal Pledge. He was a prisoner at Andersonville during the late war. The time of our meeting found him steeped in whisky and tobacco, but on hearing Sister White’s discourses on temperance, he decided to become a temperate man. At last account he had remained true to his pledge, and his aged mother had commenced keeping the Sabbath. Much was done for the advancement of the third angel’s message in this place and vicinity, and the way is opened for missionary labor. Salinas, California.
By G. D. Ballou
WE have held meetings here since May 11, with steadily increasing interest. This is not noted as a church-going place, the common church audiences ranging only from twenty-five to seventy-five; and yet the population numbers not far from 2,500. Our attendance has been from sixty to two hundred, and is quite regular. Those who come, seem to be impressed with the truth. Our temperance talks and illustrations have taken a deep hold of the people. For reasons unknown to us we have found it very difficult to secure the attendance of the professed followers of Christ, those who come being chiefly non-professors. Perhaps this is just as it should be, and we labor in hope. We have secured the names of nearly one hundred and fifty families for the special edition of the SIGNS, and the county editors seem willing to favor us, and through these aids we hope to double our attendance. We believe the Lord is opening the way, and we shall try patiently and faithfully to follow where he leads. Bro. A. Brorsen is now with me. G. D. BALLOU. Temperance Speech at a Wine Banquet.
Recently the freeholders assembled in the new extension of the county jail, Paterson, New Jersey, to celebrate the expenditure of $30,000 for that purpose, and to partake of a banquet provided by the officers of the board and the contractors. After drinking a number of toasts, Judge Woodruff offered as a volunteer toast, “The Temperance Cause,” and called upon W. H. H. Bartram to respond, which he did as follows:— “Gentlemen: I thank you for this invitation, and I recognize its fitness. You have assembled to celebrate the enlargement of this jail, rendered necessary by the use of strong drink, in which you are so freely indulging this day. Down stairs the cells and corridors are crowded with criminals who have but changed places. A few years ago they were respected citizens, some of them occupying as responsible positions as those filled by yourselves; but they commenced as you have commenced, and they continued as many of you are continuing, and to-day they are reaping the harvest in a career of crime, and paying the penalty with a period of punishment.” At this moment another bottle was opened, and Mr. Bartram said:— “I hear the popping of the cork. I listen to the merry voices and the praises you are singing to the infernal spirit of wine; but there comes to me the sad refrain, from the prisoner’s cell, who is shedding penitential tears over his folly, and accompanied by the still sadder wail of anguish uttered by the broken-hearted wife, worse than widowed through the traffic in strong drink, which, as a judge in one of your courts said, ‘is the great promotive of crime,’ a traffic licensed by your votes, and sustained by the patronage you are this day giving it. It is with inexpressible sadness that I discover that there can be found in Passaic County so many men with hearts so hardened, feelings so calloused, sensibilities so blunted, that, in a place like this, under circumstances like these, they dare raise to their lips that which depraves the citizen and endangers the State. “Thanking you, gentlemen, for this unexpected privilege, I take my seat, fully conscious that you will never again call on me under similar circumstances.”—Selected. Northern Europe.
By John G. Matteson
We held two meetings every day during Easter, which in this country includes four days; and as the Sabbath occurred between Good-Friday and Easter, we had five holidays. Easter is here regarded as a holier day than Sunday. The preparation for its festivities includes a general house-cleaning. All work must be laid aside, and the people stroll out into the fields to breathe the pure air. We therefore made use of this occasion to preach the word of God, and had many attentive listeners. On the Sabbath we celebrated the ordinances, sixty-four brethren and sisters participating. We were glad to have this opportunity of once more together commemorating the sufferings and death of our dear Saviour, before he shall appear in the clouds of glory. During the last few days I have held meetings in Moss. There is still an interest manifested to hear the word of God; but I cannot at present secure a suitable hall, and consequently the meetings must be suspended till some future time. Bro. Rosqvist is now laboring in the western part of Sweden, north of Stockholm. He has held meetings in several places, and intends to continue his labors there for some time. In Denmark, Bro. Brorsen has held meetings every day in Hvalsömagle and other adjoining towns on Sjælland. Forty persons were present at their quarterly meeting in Hvalsömagle. Several others have commenced to obey the truth in that place. One sister was buried with Christ in baptism. Bro. B. is a zealous worker in the cause of God, and he is very much encouraged by the success with which the Lord has blessed his labors. Bro. C. C. Hansen writes from Asaa that the truth is making progress also in that place, and that a dear sister, in spite of great opposition, has gone forward in baptism. J. G. Matteson. Christiana, April 17.