Earlier text: The Watch TowerIt was on the 24th of April, 1877, that Prince Gortchakoff, the Chancellor of the Russian Empire, requested Tavfek Bey, the Turkish Chargé d’Affaires at St. Petersburg, to “be so kind as to inform” his Government that from that day Russia considered herself in a state of war with the Porte. The substance of this polite notification was simultaneously communicated by circular to the great powers. Without a moment’s delay the Russian armies, which, for some months, had been gathering on the frontier, crossed into Turkish territory. And thus began the war which within nine months has brought the Porte to the feet of the Czar. Unable to put down the Herzegovinian revolt or to satisfy Servia with promises, the matters were, by mutual consent, referred to a neutral commission of inquiry, which accomplished nothing, and was followed by a joint request, known as the Andrassy note, which was sent to the Porte by the powers and elicited the usual half-assenting reply. Then came the fanatical Moslem outbreak at Salonica, the Bulgarian massacres, and open war with Servia. It was speedily evident that Turkey was more than a match for the Servians, and an armistice was arranged through the intervention of Russia. Further negotiations succeeded, ending with a protocol of the powers, to which the Porte testily replied in substance that, “Strong in the justice of her cause, and trusting in her God, Turkey had determined to ignore what had been decided without her and for her.” Then was it that Russia came to the decision of independent action, and gave the order for the crossing of the Turkish frontiers. The average familiarity of the reader with the map of the confines of Europe and Asia is sufficient for the understanding of the geographical outlines of the war thus precipitated. The peculiar geographical conditions determined the plan and conduct of the campaign entered upon by Russia, compelling her to pursue two lines of advance instead of one,—to cross both the European and the Asiatic frontiers of Turkey; thus by one way or the other to circumvent the Black Sea barrier, and threaten the objective point of Constantinople far to the southward. As we now look back over the conduct of the war, the European advance is plainly the one most vigorously conducted, and the one marked by the most important events. The entrance into Asia has more the appearance of a feint on a large scale, designed to draw Turkish attention in that direction and to furnish some necessary occupation for a considerable part of the Ottoman armies. Three critical steps marked the campaign of European Turkey. The first of these was the crossing of the Danube. This majestic river, full of the associations of romance and history, after traversing a large section of Turkish territory nearly from west to east, turns sharply to the north just before reaching the Black Sea, into which it finally empties by several mouths. The last seventy-five miles or so of its course constitutes the boundary between Turkey and Russia. The long and narrow neck of land formed between the later course of the river and the Black Sea is called the Dobrudscha. Along the river, above this, and stretching westward almost to the confines of Austria, is a line of Turkish fortresses, the most important of which are Widin, Nikopol, Sistova, Rustchuk, and Silistria. Further to the southward, and in quadrilateral relations with Rustchuk and Silistria, are the fortresses of Shumla and Varna, the latter lying upon the Black Sea. Russia’s first move was to get beyond this immediate barrier of nature and military art. One army crossed into the Dobrudscha, and took up a watchful possession of that territory as far south as the bend in the Danube. Thus supported on the left, the remaining forces crossed the Danube at Soninitza, opposite Sistova. The crossing was made the latter part of June, after long delays and with much finesse, and not without peculiar difficulty and some armed opposition; but on the whole far more easily than was to have been expected. Immediately upon the passage of the river an army of Rustchuk was formed to watch the fortresses of the quadrilateral. The army of Rustchuk and the army of the Dobrudscha thus formed a protection upon the left flank of the main forces of the Russians headed to the southward. The second critical step of the Russians was the passage of the Balkans. This was effected by cavalry, under Gen. Gourko, in July, through a pass which the Turks had strangely left unguarded. Had the Russian generalship been better, the main army might probably have followed Gourko, and subsequent events would have taken a different turn, and led to a speedier conclusion. As it was, Gourko was obliged to re-cross the Balkans, and then, growing out of the attempts of the Turks to follow him, ensued the series of terrible battles for the possession of the Shipka Pass, which the Russians finally succeeded in holding. This was in July, August, and September. The third critical period of the campaign in Bulgaria, was that of the battles around Plevna. The Russians, once fairly across the Danube, and pushing somewhat eagerly onward down across Bulgaria, to cross the Balkans, overlooked the presence of a large Turkish force at Widin, on their extreme right. As they advanced, their force advanced, and they soon found themselves menaced by it in their right rear. The first battle of Plevna was fought with the Russian intent of destroying this menacing force. It was a defeat for the Russians. A second and bloodier battle was fought with the same result. And then a third in which the Russians were again defeated, and with sorer loss than ever. This brought the campaign well into September. Under the direction of the famous engineer Todleben, regular siege was now laid to Plevna, and its surrender at last followed, the date being the 10th of December. These general outlines of the campaign are very faintly drawn, and include, of course, an infinite variety of marchings and countermarchings, of engagements ranging from battles of considerable importance to the slight skirmishes of parties of reconnaissance, of cavalry raids and artillery duels, of torpedo warfare and Cossack exploits. The crossing of the Danube furnished many a picturesque and striking scene. The occupation of one Bulgarian village after another was marked by incidents romantic and pathetic by turns. The cruelties practiced by Kurd and Bashi Bazouk had pleasing relief in the predominant kindliness of the Russian regular. The piled-up masses of the Balkans and the fertile plains and valleys below combined to form a remarkable landscape. Great reputations were made and lost by generals and other officers on both sides, as in our own war of the rebellion. There were displays of incompetence by bureau officials and higher commanders, and useless sacrifice of brave and devoted men through blunder or caprice. Turkish elan was often more than a match for Russian obstinacy. And though by midsummer it seemed as if the Russian army was staggering under the load it had lifted, with the opening of 1878 came evidence that what had always been deemed the probable issue of the war would be the actual one. The campaign in Asia, though on a smaller scale than that in Europe, furnished in some respects a striking parallel to it. There was at first the same easy and triumphant advance of the invading forces, marked by the capture of Bajazid and Ardahan; then a period of struggle and disaster and check, lasting from the middle of May up to September; then a new impulse forward, with the overwhelming defeat of the Turks under Mukhtar Pasha in October, and the capture of Kars in November. The events since the fall of Plevna and of Kars are too recent to call for review here. The swift advance of the Russian armies beyond the Balkans, through Roumelia, past Philippopolis and Adrianople, and so on toward Constantinople, has filled up the month of January with an exciting chapter of current history. And as these words are written the victorious armies of the Czar are practically in possession of the Turkish capital. In the circumstances of its origin; in the prestige and power of the two nations party to it; in the gravity of the political, social, and religious interests involved; in its recondite relation to the prophetic voice of the Christian Scriptures; in the concern with which it has been regarded by all of Europe; in the historic character of the ground upon which it has been fought; in the magnitude of the armies which it has brought into conflict; in the number and sharpness of its battles; and in the heroism and military skill which it has witnessed,—this Russo-Turkish war of 1877 deservedly takes place among the memorable wars of all time; and its effects upon the European fabric are likely to be of the most permanent description.—Christian Union. To the Churches in Illinois. “Let all things be done decently and in order.” 1 Cor 14:40. Illinois friends, what think you the above text means? Why, it means we should be a decent people, and an orderly people. Who dare say, “Nay”? Then why are you not more orderly? In all the walks and talks of life we should be orderly. Other things being equal, the farmer who has “a place for everything, and everything in its place,” will, by far, outstrip the careless husbandman, as they run a race in husbandry. Aye, my sisters, I should much prefer to see things indoors “set in order,” than to behold them as I do in some homes. Have even a nail or hook for the dish-towel; and, when not in use, let said towel ever be found there. If, then, it be so inviting, so convenient, so necessary, to manifest order in the avenues of worldly life; its importance is transcendent whenever related to our labor in the cause of God. Not unfrequently do I hear of a breach of order in this brother or that sister who is engaged in the tract work. Now this should not be. It causes anxiety and waste of time and money, to say nothing of the additional labor it imposes on our officers. Friends, this is all wrong. You know, or may know, just how to work in the tract society; and I beseech you to labor by rule—“in order.” I hereby request both our officers in the State, and the workers in the Offices of publication, not to consummate any matter of business that may come before them in a lawless manner. I am very desirous that Illinois should take her proper place. May the Lord help us to “keep rank.” And to specify, let me say: Conference officers, awake! Work as unto Christ. Church officers, work for your respective churches. Members, do not backslide; but labor to save others. Tract workers, every one of you (will you hear me and comply?), work, record all work done, and report. Be minute men—“instant in season.” May we all prepare for the “sweet by-and-by;” and hear it said, “Thou hast been faithful.” OUR PAPER.
By D. P. Curtis
Yes, the REVIEW is our paper; and I often wonder how any of our brethren can consent to live from month to month, and from year to year, without it. I have just been reading the issue of Feb. 14. Bro. Cottrell's article, “Many called, Few chosen,” and Bro. Haskell's “Appeal for our Periodicals,” in that number, are worth a year's subscription. I wish to call the attention of our brethren everywhere to those two articles. If you have not read them, do so now. If you have read them, read them again. If there are brethren around you who do not take the paper, go to them with it, and read those articles to them. It will do you good; it will do them good. Appeal to them by their love to God, by their hope of Heaven, by their desire for the reward of well doing, to subscribe for the paper at once, and no longer starve their own souls and the souls of their families, for the lack of that mental and spiritual food which it serves up weekly, to all who read its well-filled pages. I do not see how any one who believes the third angel's message can afford to live without it. Brethren, what Bro. Haskell says in that “Appeal” is true, in every line, in every word. May the Lord help you to believe it, realize it, act upon it. Pleasant Grove, Minn., Feb. 18, 1878. THE TWENTY-FOUR ELDERS.
By John Nevins Andrews
[Translated for the Review, from Les Signes Des Temps.] Who are the twenty-four elders and the four beasts? These elders are mentioned in Rev. 4:4, 10; 5:5, 6, 8, 11, 14; 7:11, 13; 11:16; 14:3; 15:7; 19:4. With the elders there are four living beings. These are mentioned in Rev. 4:6, 7, 9; 5:6, 8, 11, 14; 6:1, 3, 5, 6, 7; 7:11; 14:3; 15:7; 19:4. They were before the throne of God when John had his vision, as we will show. John was commanded to present himself before God, so that future events might be shown to him. He saw the Father seated on the throne of glory. In his hand was a sealed book, which no living creature could open or69 look upon. This book was opened by the Son of God. Chap. 5. When it was opened, seal after seal, the successive events of time to come were revealed to John. In other words, this book was the revelation that the Father gave to the Son, that he might make it known to John, by the ministry of his angel. Chap. 1:1. The elders and the four living beings were before the throne when the Father gave this book to the Son. John wept, when he saw that no man or angel could be found worthy to unseal the book; but one of the elders told him to cease weeping; for the Lion of the tribe of Juda, was worthy to loose the seals thereof. This shows that they were in the presence of God when the revelation was given to John. When each one of the first four seals had been opened, one of the four living beings said, “Come and see.” This shows that they were before the throne of God, when the revelation was given to John, by Christ. Now, if we turn to chap. 5:7–10, we learn who they were, and from whence they came. They sang a song of praise, saying, “Thou HAST REDEEMED us to God, by thy blood, out of every kindred, tongue, people, and nation.” These words indicate that they were human beings who had been made immortal. This establishes another fact. They had been made kings and priests to God; and John saw them thus, in the first apartment of the heavenly sanctuary, where he saw the seven lamps of fire, and the golden altar of incense. Rev. 4:5; 8:3. See also the object of this position in the earthly sanctuary. Ex. 40:24–27; 27:19, 20. It thus appears that, as in the earthly sanctuary there is a high priest and below him other priests who serve as assistants, so there is also in the heavenly sanctuary, under the high priest, those who perform the duties of assistants. Christ is the only mediator between God and man. But angels and men can render some service in certain parts of the heavenly sanctuary. We find in the earthly sanctuary several things pertaining to the twenty-four elders and the four beasts. God gave to David a pattern of the temple, as he had given to Moses a pattern of the tabernacle. 1 Chron. 28:11–19; Ex. 25:40. The object of this was to make the earthly sanctuary as exact a representation of the heavenly sanctuary as possible. Heb. 8:5; 9:23, 24. When God gave to David the pattern of the earthly temple, he told him to divide the priests into twenty-four classes. These were to act under the high priest. 1 Chron. 24. This was designed to represent the order of things in the heavenly sanctuary. The four living beings were represented by the four standards under which the people of God camped in the wilderness. But, it might be asked, how do you prove that these human beings had been glorified before the time when John had his revelation? We think the reply will not be hard to find. When our Saviour was raised from the dead, many saints were raised with him. Matt. 27:51–53. When he ascended to Heaven they ascended with him. Eph. 4:8. The high priest is seated on the throne of the Father. The twenty-four elders are seated on thrones in the presence of God. Heb. 8:1; Rev. 4. In the great day of Judgment, when the saints will be united to Christ to judge the world (1 Cor. 6:2, 3), all those who have had part in the first resurrection, will be seated on thrones of judgment. Rev. 20:4. When all the redeemed are assembled before God, they will bow before his throne. Rev. 7:9, 10. And when Christ seats himself on his own throne, all those who have overcome will be seated with him on his throne as Christ has overcome and is now seated on the throne of his Father. Rev. 3:21.
J. N. A. A BAD POINT TO ATTACK.
By Editor
We have received from Eld. Geo. Thompson, of Leland, Mich., a communication taking S. D. Adventists to task for the position they hold on Acts 20:7-11, that Paul held his meeting at Troas on a portion of the week corresponding, according to present reckoning, to Saturday night, and that on the next day, Sunday, he continued the long journey he had undertaken to Jerusalem. He heads his article, “An Advent Error Corrected;” and we give it in full as follows:— Whether the first or seventh day is to be observed as holy time—as the “Sabbath”—will not now be discussed. I only wish to correct a wrong or false statement, adopted and proclaimed by Adventists, orally and in print. Our beloved Hannah More argued it in my family. Your books and tracts and papers assert the same most palpably erroneous statement. “Well, what is it? out with it.” I quote from an Advent tract entitled “Review of Objections to the Seventh-day Sabbath,” “He [Paul] never dreamed that it had become the Christian Sabbath; for as soon as it was light, he started on his journey to Jerusalem,” &c. Other writers and speakers have asserted that Paul traveled all day of the first day, and therefore it is plain he did not regard it as the Sabbath. If Paul did, as they assert, we yield the argument. But the assertion is plainly false. He did NOT travel on the first day (in the case referred to), but preached, observed the Lord’s supper on that day, and continued the meeting till MONDAY MORNING, and then he went on his journey. So says the divine word, in Acts 20:7: “And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them ready to depart on the morrow,” &c. What is the day after “the first day of the week?” Monday. Now with such a plain statement, how come Adventists to affirm that Paul traveled all day Sunday—or first day? Is it not clearly false? And what can you hope to gain by such a course? “Honesty is the best policy.” I am aware of the answer that the day began at sundown, and that the saints at Troas came together on the beginning of the first day, after sunset on Saturday. This could not be; for as Christ did not arise till near sunrise of the first day, they would not meet before the time of his resurrection, to commemorate that event. They met not only during the day, but more especially in the evening of, or following, the first day—call it “Monday” if you wish, the Bible calls it the evening of the first day. Jesus rose on Sunday morning, did he not? Well, in the evening of that day, or after dark, the disciples came together, and Jesus with them. See John 20:19, “The same day, at evening, being the first day of the week,” &c. Thus Jesus met them, repeatedly, on the “evening of the first day,” or at its close, and so the saints at Troas continued the practice of meeting on first-day evening for public worship. Now I maintain that this is clear, and that Paul started on his journey on Monday morning. Show it different who can. We are glad our correspondent affirms his willingness to yield the argument if Paul did travel on Sunday as we assert. This is merely a question of fact to be decided by testimony. And now to show that this is no theory which S. D. Adventists have devised, we will present some evidence which we think it will be difficult for any man to overthrow. Prof. H. B. Hackett, D. D., Professor of Biblical Literature, in Newton Theological Institution, thus comments upon this text:— “The Jews reckoned the day from evening to morning, and on that principle the evening of the first day of the week would be our Saturday evening. If Luke reckoned so here, as many commentators suppose, the apostle then waited for the expiration of the Jewish Sabbath, and held his last religious service with the brethren at Troas, at the beginning of the Christian Sabbath, i. e., on Saturday evening, and consequently resumed his journey on Sunday morning.”—Commentary on Acts, pp. 329, 330. But he endeavors to shield the first-day Sabbath from this fatal admission by suggesting that Luke probably reckoned time according to the Roman method, rather than by that which is ordained in the Scriptures! Kitto, in noting the fact that this was an evening meeting, speaks thus: “It has from this last circumstance been inferred that the assembly commenced after sunset on the Sabbath, at which hour the first day of the week had commenced, according to the Jewish reckoning [Jahn’s Bib. Antiq., sect. 398], which would hardly agree with the idea of a commemoration of the resurrection.”—Cyclopædia of Biblical Literature, article, Lord’s day. And Prynne, thus states this point: “Because the text saith there were many lights in the upper room where they were gathered together, and that Paul preached from the time of their coming together till midnight, this meeting of the disciples at Troas, and Paul’s preaching to them, began at evening. The sole doubt will be what evening this was. . . . For my own part I conceive clearly that it was upon Saturday night, as we falsely call it, and not the coming Sunday night. . . . Because St. Luke records that it was upon the first day of the week when this meeting was . . . therefore it must needs be on the Saturday, not on our Sunday evening, since the Sunday evening in St. Luke’s and the Scripture account was no part of the first, but of the second day; the day ever beginning and ending at evening.”—Diss. on Lord’s Day Sab., pp. 36–41, 1633. Conybeare and Howson, in their great work, The Life and Epistles of Saint Paul, also bear testimony to the same fact. Of the meeting at Troas they say: “It was the evening which succeeded the Jewish Sabbath. On the Sunday morning the vessel was about to sail.” And in speaking of Paul’s journey on foot from Troas to Assos where he was to meet the ship, they say: “And strength and peace were surely sought and obtained by the apostle from the Redeemer, as he pursued his lonely road that Sunday afternoon in spring, among the oak-woods and streams of Ida.” Life and Epistles of Paul, pp. 592, 595. Our friend therefore should head his article, “An Error of Prof. Hackett, and Kitto, and Prynne, and Conybeare and Howson, Corrected,” and not “An Advent Error Corrected.” Any man has power of course to deny the plainest facts established by the most direct testimony. He may, for instance, deny that there is any such place as England, or that any such man ever lived as George Washington. But he would only damage his own reputation for candor and honesty (which is altogether the best policy) by so doing. It is equally vain for any one to deny that the day, as reckoned in the Scriptures, begins with the setting sun, and that the night is the first part of the day, and that a night meeting requiring “many lights” as Paul’s meeting did, could not be held, except during this first division of the day. Our friend says that the disciples met “after dark” on the evening of the first day of the week, John 20:19. How does he know it was after dark? Where is the testimony? That passage is explained by the fact that there were two evenings to each day, one to commence the day, the other to close it; and this closing evening was from 3 o’clock P. M. to sunset, when the first evening of the next day commenced. Hence the paschal lamb was to be killed “between the two evenings.” Ex. 12:6; Num. 9:3, margin. Robinson in his Greek Lexicon of the New Testament, under the word, evening, says:— “The Hebrews reckoned two evenings; so in the phrase בֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם between the two evenings, as marking the interval or portion of the day during which the paschal lamb was to be killed, Ex. 12:6; Lev. 23:5; Num. 9:3, 5; and also the evening sacrifice was to be offered, Ex. 29:39, 41; Num. 28:4. The time thus marked was regarded by the Karaites and Samaritans as being the interval between sunset and dark. But the Pharisees and Rabbinists, according to the Mishnah (Pesach 5.3), held the first evening to commence with the declining sun; and the second evening with the setting sun. This latter view was the prevailing one in the time of our Lord; the hour of evening sacrifice and prayer being then the ninth hour, or 3 P. M., Acts 3:1; and the paschal lamb being regularly killed between the ninth and eleventh hours, Jos. B. J. 6.9.3. A like distinction of two evenings was made by the Greeks. . . . In the N. T. ἡ ὀψία marks a) The former evening in Matt. 14:15 (comp. v. 23 et Mark 6:35). Matt. 27:57; Mark 4:35; 15:42. b) The latter evening in Matt. 8:16 et Mark 1:32; Matt. 14:23, comp. 15; Matt. 16:2; 20:8; 26:20; Mark 6:47; 14:17; John 6:16; 20:19.” The evening, of John 20:19, as Robinson says, was the latter evening from 3 P. M. to sunset. But this was not after dark, and no meeting with “many lights” could be held on this evening. This was not the evening of Acts 20. But our friend thinks that the disciples would not have met to celebrate Christ’s resurrection at an hour earlier than that on which he did arise. The trouble with this is that they did not meet to celebrate his resurrection, but to “break bread,” which was to celebrate his death. He says further, that they met in the day time and especially in the evening. How does he know that? The record says nothing about it. It mentions only the evening meeting, which, as we have shown, could not have been held on any other than the first division of the day; and the light part of the same day he went on his journey to Jerusalem. In view of this testimony we expect him to remain true to his pledge, and yield the argument. But it makes no difference if he doesn’t. It would not affect the result, if it could be shown that Luke reckoned according to the present computation from midnight to midnight, and that Paul’s meeting was on our Sunday evening. For while Paul remained behind to hold this evening meeting at Troas, his companions in travel were working the ship around the promontory to Assos, where Paul was to meet them the next day. These persons remained at Troas only seven days. Verse 6. “Where we abode seven days.” It does not then add, when we came together to break bread; but the disciples came together to break bread; and “we went before to ship.” Verse 13. Therefore during all that meeting they were sailing the ship. And who were these companions of Paul’s? They are enumerated in verse 4; and among them we find the names of Timotheus, Paul’s son in the Lord, and Tychicus, whom he twice calls, Eph. 6:21; Col. 4:7, a “faithful minister in the Lord.” If Paul’s meeting was upon our Sunday evening, then on our Sunday these persons were navigating their ship. Therefore apply the text as we will, adopt what division of time we see fit, it is certain that these “faithful ministers in the Lord” pursued their journey and performed secular labor on the first day of the week. And under the circumstances, their example is just as good as that of the apostle Paul. But the record says that Paul also traveled on the first day of the week; and we can but believe it. Henry Alford, D. D., Dean of Canterbury, in his “New Testament for English Readers,” while he thinks, in his comment on this passage, that the meeting on the first day indicates especial honor put upon the day, nevertheless adds, “The idea of the transference of the Jewish Sabbath from the seventh day to the first was an invention of later times.” D. EISMINGER: We regard the language of Paul in 1 Cor. 14:34, as being similar to that in 1 Cor. 11:20-34. It was designed to correct some abuse which had crept into the Corinthian church, from which all subsequent generations might learn an instructive lesson. The women were taking a position, as we infer from 1 Tim. 2:12, written also by Paul, in which they were usurping authority over the men. It certainly cannot refer to a religious exhortation in meeting; for all were commanded to engage in that work; Heb. 10:25; and Paul in 1 Cor. 11:5 gives special directions how it was proper for a woman in that age to be attired when praying or prophesying, that is, speaking or exhorting in accordance with the prophecies. J. M. ADAMS: The word rendered “ought,” in John 13:14, is opheilete, and is defined by Robinson as follows: “1. to owe, to be indebted; pr. in a pecuniary sense. . . . 2. Trop. to owe, to be bound, obligated, &c. to the performance of any duty, i. q. I ought, I must; so of what is required by law or duty in general.” Was God or Moses the author of the law called in the Bible, “the law of Moses”? * ANS. God is primarily the author of all dispensations. The typical law is called the law of Moses, because Moses was made the minister of it in its promulgation. Under God, Christ was the author of the Mosaic dispensation. See Heb. 3:2-6. Were the law of ten commandments and the law of Moses given at the same time? * ANS. The passover was instituted before the Israelites came to Sinai; other regulations after that time. D. W. C. McNEFF: See the resurrection of Moses and his appearance at the transfiguration, accounted for in the pamphlet, The State of the Dead, pp. 115-125. Those who came out of their graves after Christ’s resurrection, we think were raised to immortality and ascended with Christ to Heaven. Eph. 4:8, margin. There is no discrepancy between Gen. 6:6, and James 1:17. There is no variableness nor shadow of turning with God; but there would be if he put no difference between the righteous and the wicked, regarding the latter with as much favor as the former. God’s invariable rule is, with both nations and individuals, to regard them with favor, as long as they refrain from evil and do his will, but if they do evil and obey not his voice, to turn against them his displeasure. Jer. 18:7-10. This is consistent with his character. He could not do otherwise and be the God which he represents himself to be. The antediluvians had apostatized from God. His relation to them therefore changed, because they had changed their relation to him; and the expression, “it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth,” was simply an announcement of his intention to unmake him from the earth, or destroy him. But in this there was not the least change of principle or basis of action on the part of God. He found Noah righteous and saved him. Had the others been righteous, no destruction would have come upon them. They perished because they changed, not because God changed. 2 Pet. 3:8: “But beloved be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” Please explain. In. ANS. It is a statement made to show that the Lord is not slack concerning his promises as stated in the following verse. To men the promised restitution may seem long delayed; but not so; for with the Lord it is the same whether it is one day or a thousand years. He never forgets, but moves steadily on toward the accomplishment of his purposes. He delays in order to give all a time to repent, not being willing that they should perish. But though events that might be crowded into a day, are, through God’s longsuffering and waiting upon sinners, protracted so as to cover a thousand years, God will bring them to pass at last; for Peter adds, “But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night.” ANSWERED BY LETTER: M. B. Miller, J. Willoughby, E. P. Daniels, R. Hart, C. H. Howe, E. W. Farnsworth, S. J. Hersum, J. H. Waggoner, F. R. Richmond, H. C. Mitchell, D. W. Comstock, A. J. Richmond. OUR EUROPEAN MISSIONARIES.
By James White
These men of God, Elders Andrews, Bourdeau, and Matteson, who have left their relatives and friends in this country to go to Europe to preach to hearts as hard as steel, and to stand up for God amid the moral darkness of the old world, deserve our sympathy, our prayers, and our support. We should not, however, regard them as orphans, and wholly dependent on us. No, God is their father. Christ, who said to men more than eighteen centuries ago, “Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel,” said also, “and lo, I am with you alway.” These dear embassadors for Christ learned all this by experience before they left us. And may the blessed Saviour let them feel the strength of the promises ever. But it is right that they should feel that they have the moral support of their American brethren. Full and frank expression of our confidence and love has been made and still should be. We know these men. We have stood shoulder to shoulder with them here in battle for truth, and we can never cease to love them and pray for them. And the prayers of their brethren should go up to Heaven for them from the family altar, from the prayer-meeting, and from the “closet.” These dear brethren should rest in Christ, and in the confidence of their brethren. They feel deeply, and must guard against over-sensitiveness. And in order to succeed in this they must have confidence in their brethren. It is men that feel in every nerve, whose feelings are fine, that God calls to do his exalted work. And indispensable to their prosperity is confidence in God and in his people. Such men generally have a vivid imagination. Here again, confidence in God and in those who are appointed to take the general supervision of missions must exist. John Wesley once said, “If you would have faith, preach faith, and talk faith.” Our assurances of the confidence of the whole American army of brethren can hardly be stronger than they have been. It is the privilege of these men to triumph in the mighty God of Jacob, and feel that their brethren confide in them, pray for them, and would as far as possible enter into all their hardships and privations. God bless our dear missionaries in Europe, to which twenty thousand of their brethren in America respond, Amen. J. W. EXPERIENCE IN HEALTH REFORM.
By R. F. Cottrell
There is no compulsion with our people in regard to living out the principles of this reform, except as it regards the grossest habits. Yet I must be allowed to believe that those who live the nearest to the light given will find in the end that they have taken the wisest course; and believing so, it is certainly right to act accordingly. Some have expressed fears for my health and life, because of my adherence to a wholly vegetable diet, prepared in the most simple manner and taken without condiments; but my health is good. There is scarcely a person living more free from pain and sickness; and from those I have been acquainted with for the past few years I hear the remark that I look healthier than I did when they saw me a few years ago. As I travel about, I hear persons complain of their hard colds produced by the frequent sudden changes of the weather; they are all “stuffed up,” and can hardly breathe. Now I am a stranger to this experience. I take cold by a draft of air, or by leaving a warm, unventilated room; but it goes about as suddenly as it came. The reason I do not get stuffed up, I think, is because the stuff is not in me. Sickness is in the world, both upon man and beast. Pestilences are between us and the coming of our Lord; and I claim the privilege of following the light graciously given us, and getting as near to it as I possibly can. As before expressed, I believe those who follow it the closest will have no cause to regret it. Some are ignorant of the “light” of which I speak. Read up, my friends, read up.