Earlier text: LET YOUR LIGHT SHINEOf all the arguments that are made in support of the first day of the week as the Sabbath or Lord's day, the one which above all is the most thoroughly sophistical and deceptive is the argument that proposes to rest its obligation upon "the example of the apostles." We want to look into this thing a little and see what the claim is worth. First we will examine the claim of apostolic example upon its own merits. "The example of the apostles." What is it? and where shall it be found? The phrase must refer to the actions of the apostles, and what these actions were must be gathered from the New Testament, of course, because that is the only record there is of the apostles or their actions. Very well, then, to the record let us turn. How many apostles were there? Fourteen, at least. Well then, have we fourteen examples? Is each one of them an exemplar to be followed by all? and do the actions of each one form an example for all to copy? Or does it take all fourteen of them to make up the one "example of the apostles" which is to be obligatory upon all men? In either case it is essential of course that we know what the apostles did, and what is the example which they set. What example, then, did the apostles set in the matter of keeping the first day of the week? The day the Saviour arose from the dead there were eleven apostles. That day was past before they believed he was risen from the dead. For,— 1. The first person to whom he appeared was Mary Magdalene, "And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept. And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not." Mark 16:9-11. 2. "After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country" (Mark 16:12), and even they did not believe he was risen until they had reached Emmaus and were sitting at supper with him, the day being "far spent." Then and there "he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them. And their eyes were opened, and they knew him." Luke 24:10, 11, 13, 28-31. 3. "And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and" "the same day at evening" "found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them," "as they sat at meat," "saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon. And they told what things were done in the way, and how he was known of them in breaking of bread," "neither believed they them." "And as they thus spake," "when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you." "But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. And he" "upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed them which had seen him after he was risen," and "said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. And when he had thus spoken, he showed them his hands and his feet," "and his side. Then were the disciples glad when they saw the Lord." "And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat? And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and a honeycomb. And he took it, and did eat before them." Luke 24:33-43; Mark 16:13, 14; John 20:19, 20. It is certain, therefore, that so far as that day is concerned there is no apostolic example for keeping the first day of the week, because it was in the very last moments of the day before they believed that Jesus was risen from the dead. Even though apostolic example were claimed upon the actions of the apostles on that day, the claim would be defective for a further reason, and that is, because Thomas was not there, when Jesus came, and even refused to believe upon the testimony of all of them. And so, any way the thing may be fixed, there is neither truth nor justice in claiming apostolic example for the observance of the first day of the week, based upon the actions of the disciples on the day of the resurrection of the Saviour. After that night when Jesus made himself and his resurrection known to the disciples, there is no record in all the New Testament that the eleven or the twelve or the fourteen apostles, were ever together again on the first day of the week. Therefore we must follow them individually if we would know what was their example after that. After Jesus had ascended to Heaven, Matthias was chosen by lot in the place of Judas Iscariot, "and he was numbered with the eleven apostles." Acts 1:23-26. Then the twelve apostles were these: Peter and James, and John; Andrew, Philip, and Thomas; Bartholomew, and Matthew; James the son of Alphæus, Simon Zelotes, Thaddæus, and Matthias. Afterward Barnabas and Paul were called, thus making the fourteen apostles. Now as Thaddæus and Simon Zelotes, James the son of Alphæus, and Matthew, Bartholomew, and Thomas, and Andrew, and Philip, and Matthias, are not mentioned again in all the New Testament, not one of them even being named, and as the only mention that is made of James the brother of John is that Herod killed him with the sword (Acts 12:2), all these must be dropped bodily and forever from all calculations upon "the example of the apostles" either in regard to the first day of the week or anything else. Therefore, whatever apostolic example there may be, will have to be such without the example of these ten. Barnabas is first mentioned in Acts 4:36. He sold his land and laid the money at the apostles' feet. And when Paul came from Damascus to Jerusalem, and all the disciples were afraid of him, not believing that he was a disciple, Barnabas "took him and brought him to the apostles," and persuaded them to receive him (Acts 9:27). When tidings came to Jerusalem that the Gentiles at Antioch had received the gospel, the church sent forth Barnabas to Antioch. From Antioch he went "to Tarsus, for to seek Saul; and when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch," and there they taught, "a whole year." Then, as they, with others, "ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them." "So they, being sent forth by the Holy Ghost," traveled together a long while and to many places, till at last they fell into that dispute about whether John Mark should go with them or not, "And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other," and so far as the record goes, we know not whether they ever saw one another again (Acts 15:36-41). And that closes the record about Barnabas; and in all that is said of him, there is not one word nor a hint about the first day of the week; so Barnabas, too, must be left out of the calculations in regard to "the example of the apostles" for keeping Sunday. Therefore if there be any apostolic example for it it must be such without the example of eleven of the apostles. John was with Peter at the beautiful gate of the temple when the lame man was healed, and was imprisoned with Peter and was released with him. He and Peter were sent by the apostles to Samaria together, when they heard of the work of Philip there, and they "preached in many villages of the Samaritans." And that is all that is said about John in the book of Acts; Paul mentions him in Galatians 2:9; but in all that is said about him there is nothing about the first day of the week. Besides the gospel, whose statements we have already noticed, John wrote three epistles and the book of Revelation, and in not one of them is there a word said about the first day of the week, much less is anything said about the example of the apostles in favor of keeping it. He did say, however, "He that saith he abideth in Him ought himself also so to walk, even as He walked." 1 John 2:6. So John, too, must be left out of all calculations upon "the example of the apostles" for Sunday keeping, and if there be any such example it must be such without the example of twelve of the apostles. Peter preached the Pentecostal sermon, and again when the lame man was healed, got into prison several times, preached in Samaria, was sent for by the angel to preach the gospel to Cornelius and his house, and was put into prison by Herod and was brought out by an angel. That is the last that is said of him in Acts, but in all that is said about Peter and his work there is not one word about the first day of the week; much less is there named any example of the apostles for keeping it. Paul merely mentions him in first and second Corinthians, and in Galatians 2 he says of him, "When Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed;" he dissembled, "and the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; inasmuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation." And "I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel." Peter wrote two epistles, but in neither of them does he say a word about the first day of the week, nor about any apostolic example for keeping it. But he does say that Christ left "us an example, that ye should follow his steps" (1 Pet. 2:21); not the example of the apostles. Therefore Peter also must be left out of all calculations based upon "the example of the apostles" for keeping the first day of the week. This makes now thirteen of the fourteen apostles who have to be dropped and left entirely out of the count in looking for "the example of the apostles" for keeping the first day of the week. So far as these thirteen are concerned there is not a word in all the New Testament that gives any room whatever upon which to base any kind of apostolic example for keeping the first day of the week. And as there remains but one more apostle to be noticed, it is bound to be that if there is any such thing at all, instead of it being the example of the apostles, it will have to be the example of the apostle. Paul alone, then, is the one person in whom must be summed up the whole subject of "the example of569 the apostles" for keeping the first day of the week. If there is any such thing at all it will have to be found in him and in him alone. And here at last we find a meeting on the first day of the week mentioned in connection with the name of an apostle, the only instance in all the book, after they believed the Saviour was risen from the dead. The record in which is found this "example of the apostle" is as follows:— "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; and continued his speech until midnight. And there were many lights in the upper chamber, where they were gathered together. And there sat in a window a certain young man named Eutychus, being fallen into a deep sleep; and as Paul was long preaching, he sunk down with sleep, and fell down from the third loft, and was taken up dead. And Paul went down, and fell on him, and embracing him said, Trouble not yourselves; for his life is in him. When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed. And they brought the young man alive, and were not a little comforted. And we went before to ship, and sailed unto Assos, there intending to take in Paul; for so had he appointed, minding himself to go afoot. And when he met with us at Assos, we took him in, and came to Mitylene." Acts 20:7-14. There is the complete inspired record of the events of the only first day of the week upon which there is any shadow of a chance to base any "example of the apostle" in favor of its observance. What example then, is here set by the apostle? - There was a meeting on the first day of the week.
- The meeting was at night, because, "When the disciples came together . . . there were many lights in the upper chamber where they were gathered together."
- "Paul preached unto them."
- He preached all night, because, "he continued his speech until midnight. . . . And talked a long while, even till break of day."
- Therefore this was an all-night meeting.
- At break of day "he departed" "afoot" for Assos, about twenty miles, and his companions "went before to ship and sailed unto Assos, for so had he appointed." And when he met them at Assos he went aboard and sailed on to Mitylene.
Such is the "example" of the only apostle, on the only first day of the week, that can by any right enter into the question. But of all those who profess to keep the first day of the week, how many follow the example? Not one. How many of them even attempt to follow it? Not one. Notice, the example was a meeting at night on the first day of the week; they profess to follow the example by meeting in the daytime. The example was a meeting all night; they profess to follow it by having a meeting of perhaps two hours in the daytime. In the example the bread was broken shortly after midnight; those who profess to follow the example do it by breaking the bread about midday. "The example of the apostle" is that he preached in the night "until midnight" and then, shortly after, talked "a long while, even till break of day;" they profess to follow the example by preaching in the daytime from a half an hour to an hour. The example of the apostle is, that in the daytime on this exemplary first day of the week, "he appointed" the sailing of a ship, and he himself "departed" "afoot," on a long journey; they propose to follow "the example of the apostle" by refusing, themselves, to journey, and prohibiting by law all others from journeying at all on that day. In short, they propose to follow the example by going directly contrary to it. But if a rule is not to be followed according to its terms, then what is the use of a rule at all? If a problem is not to be solved according to the example, then what is the use of the example? Now, on the part of those who keep Sunday, "the example of the apostle" is their own chosen rule, in fact it is at once both their rule and their example, and yet in solving the problem of Christian duty as they themselves have chosen it, they go directly contrary to the terms of the rule which they themselves have chosen. Then what is the use of their rule? By what right do they claim the authority of the example of the apostle for their practice, and then in their practice go directly contrary to the record in the only instance there is in existence upon which to base their claim? If this rule of apostolic example be binding in any one of its terms, it must be equally binding in every one of its terms. If not, why not? If it binds men to meet on the first day of the week, it certainly must be equally binding upon them to meet in the night of the first day of the week, for that is according to the example. If this example binds the minister to preach on the first day of the week any more than at any other time, then it certainly must be that it binds him to preach in the night, and all night too, of the first day of the week, for that is according to the example of the apostle. In fact there is no shadow of anything upon which to base a claim of apostolic example for holding meeting at all in the daytime on the first day of the week, for in all the apostolic record there is no instance of a meeting in the daytime on the first day of the week, after they believed that Jesus was risen from the dead. Therefore, when in pretense Sunday is kept on the authority of "the example of the apostles," and that of only one apostle, and then in practice it is kept in a manner directly contrary to the example which they claim as authority, that is but practically to deny the authority which they in pretense claim. It is only to say that there is no such thing as apostolic example for their practice. And that is the truth in the case. As a matter of fact, the sum of it all is that the claim of "the example of the apostles" for Sunday-keeping is nothing but a pretense by which those who make the claim seek to justify themselves in their transgression of the commandment of God in refusing to keep the Sabbath of the Lord. Next week, if the Lord will, we shall show that in matters of moral obligation there is no such thing as apostolic example.
J. WHILE the bulls which were meant to crush the reformer were still on their way to England, the Parliament unequivocally showed the confidence it had in his wisdom and integrity, by submitting the following question to him: "Whether the kingdom of England might not lawfully, in case of necessity, detain and keep back the treasure of the kingdom for its defense, that it be not carried away to foreign and strange nations, the Pope himself demanding and requiring the same, under pain of censure." This appears a very plain matter to us, but our ancestors of the fourteenth century found it encompassed with great difficulties. The best and bravest of England at that day were scared by the ghostly threat with which the Pope accompanied his demand, and they durst not refuse it till assured by Wicliffe that it was a matter in which the Pope had no right to command, and in which they incurred no sin and no danger by disobedience. Nothing could better show the thralldom in which our fathers were held, and the slow and laborious steps by which they found their way out of the house of their bondage. But out of what matter did the question now put to Wicliffe arise? It related to an affair which must have been peculiarly irritating to Englishmen. The Popes were then enduring their "Babylonish captivity," as they called their residence at Avignon. All through the reign of Edward III., the Papacy, banished from Rome, had made its abode on the banks of the Rhone. One result of this was that each time the Papal chair became vacant it was filled with a Frenchman. The sympathies of the French Pope were, of course, with his native country, in the war now waging between France and England, and it was natural to suppose that part at least of the treasure which the Popes received from England went to the support of the war on the French side. Not only was the country drained of its wealth, but that wealth was turned against the country from which it was taken. Should this be longer endured? It was generally believed that at that moment the Pope's collectors had a large sum in their hands ready to send to Avignon, to be employed, like that sent already to the same quarter, in paying soldiers to fight against England. Had they not better keep this gold at home? Wicliffe's reply was in the affirmative, and the grounds of his opinion were briefly and plainly stated. He did not argue the point on the canon law, or on the law of England, but on that of nature and the Bible. God, he said, had given to every society the power of self-preservation; and any power given by God to any society or nation may, without doubt, be used for the end for which it was given. This gold was England's own, and might unquestionably be retained for England's use and defense. But it might be objected, Was not the Pope, as God's vice-regent, supreme proprietor of all the temporalities, of all the sees and religious corporations in Christendom? It was on the ground of his temporal supremacy that he demanded this money, and challenged England at its peril to retain it. But who, replied the reformer, gave the Pope this temporal supremacy? I do not find it in the Bible. The apostle Peter could give the Pope only what he himself possessed, and Peter possessed no temporal lordship. The Pope, argued Wicliffe, must choose between the apostleship and the kingship; if he prefers to be a king, then he can claim nothing of us in the character of an apostle; or should he abide by his apostleship, even then he cannot claim this money, for neither Peter nor any one of the apostles ever imposed a tax upon Christians; they were supported by the free-will offerings of those to whom they ministered. What England gave to the Papacy she gave not as a tribute, but as alms. But alms could not be righteously demanded unless when the claimant was necessitous. Was the Papacy so? Were not its coffers overflowing? Was not England the poorer of the two? Her necessities were great, occasioned by a two-fold drain, the exactions of the Popes and burdens of the war. Let charity, then, begin at home and let England, instead of sending her money to these poor men of Avignon, who are clothed in purple and fare sumptuously every day, keep her own gold for her own uses. Thus did the reformer lead on his countrymen, step by step, as they were able to follow.570 Meanwhile, the three bulls of the Pope had arrived in England. The one addressed to the king found Edward in his grave. That sent to the university was but coldly welcomed. Not in vain had Wicliffe taught so many years in its halls. Oxford, moreover, had too great a regard for its own fame to extinguish the brightest luminary it contained. But the bull addressed to the bishops found them in a different mood. Alarm and rage possessed these prelates. Mainly by the instrumentality of Wicliffe had England been rescued from sheer vassalage to the Papal See. It was he, too, who had put an extinguisher upon the Papal nominations, thereby vindicating the independence of the English Church. He had next defended the right of the nation to dispose of its own property, in defiance of the ghostly terrors by which the Popes strove to divert it into their own coffers. Thus, guided by his counsel, and fortified by the sanction of his name, the Parliament was marching on and adopting one bold measure after another. The penetrating genius of the man, his sterling uprightness, his cool, cautious, yet fearless courage, made the humble rector of Lutterworth a formidable antagonist. Besides, his deep insight into the Papal system enabled him to lead the Parliament and nation of England, so that they were being drawn on unawares to deny not merely the temporal claims, but the spiritual authority also of Rome. The acts of resistance which had been offered to the Papal power were ostensibly limited to the political sphere, but they were done on principles which impinged on the spiritual authority, and could have no other issue than the total overthrow of the whole fabric of the Roman power in England. This was what the hierarchy foresaw; the arrival of the Papal bulls, therefore, was hailed by them with delight, and they lost no time in acting upon them.—History of Protestantism. THE AUSTRALIAN COLONIES.
By E. J. Burnham
A FEW weeks ago there was a Health and Temperance Society organized in Melbourne, with Brother H. Scott as President. It is designed not only to promote health-reform principles among the members of the church, but to reach the people, and get them interested in health and temperance publications. The society held its first regular monthly meeting last Sunday afternoon. Besides the business that came before the meeting, there were recitations, select readings, and singing. The officers of the society intend to have public meetings occasionally, with recitations, select readings, appropriate music, and perhaps addresses sometimes. The tract society meeting for this quarter, was held July 24. As Elder Israel was in Adelaide, Brother Scott presided. The reports showed that the members had been active. It was decided that an effort should be made to enter the various hospitals and benevolent institutions of the city with our literature. Several persons volunteered for this work, and have made a beginning. There is a prospect that good may be done. The meetings in Castlemaine still continue with good interest. They were interrupted for a few days, as Brother Curtis was obliged to vacate the Mechanic's Institute on account of the opposition. Another hall has been secured, which can be used as long as necessary. The ministers have been very much stirred, and have done all they could to hinder the success of the meetings. Two have decided to keep the Sabbath, and others are interested and convinced. Brother Israel has been holding a series of meetings in Adelaide. The weather has been very unfavorable; but some have been interested in the truths presented. We hope for good results from the efforts of ministers and Bible and tract society workers. Let us have an interest in your prayers. Melbourne, August 9, 1887. NOTES ON THE INTERNATIONAL LESSON.
THE account of the healing of the Centurion's servant is given by both Matthew and Luke, the latter writer giving some points which are omitted by the former. In order to get the full narrative, both accounts should be read together. The careless reader might suppose that the two accounts conflict, but we shall see that there is no contradiction. FROM the record in Matthew it would seem that the centurion came in person to Christ, and made his own request. But from the record in Luke (chap. 7:1-10) we learn that the centurion did not see Jesus at all. Doubtless as he did not think himself worthy to have Jesus come under his roof, he did not think himself worthy ever to make his request in person. Matthew says, "There came unto him a centurion, beseeching him, and saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, grievously tormented." Luke says, "And a centurion's servant, who was dear unto him, was sick, and ready to die. And when he heard of Jesus, he sent unto him the elders of the Jews, beseeching him that he would come and heal his servant." Again, Matthew says, "And Jesus saith unto him, I will come and heal him. The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof," etc. Luke says, "Then Jesus went with them. And when he was now not far from the house, the centurion sent friends to him, saying unto him, Lord, trouble not thyself; for I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter under my roof." There is no contradiction. There is an old Latin maxim which reads, "Qui facit per alium, facit per se,*" that is, "He who does a thing by means of another, does it himself." This principle is universally recognized. In this case, Luke gives the details, but Matthew gives a more condensed account, simply stating the conversation that was carried on between Jesus and the centurion, but without mentioning that it was carried on through others.571 NOTE the difference between the estimation in which the Jews held the man and his own estimation of himself. The elders said that "he was worthy, for whom he should do this; for he loveth our nation, and hath built us a synagogue." Luke 7:4, 5. That he was held in high esteem, is shown by the fact that the elders of the Jews interested themselves in his behalf, which is the more remarkable because the centurion was a Roman. But we are not dependent upon the simple statement that he was benevolent to the Jews, for our knowledge of his character. He was indeed a man superior to his fellow Romans. Luke says that his servant "was dear unto him," and his efforts in behalf of his servant prove this. Now among the Romans generally, slaves were regarded as less than the beasts. Says Edersheim: "The slave was entirely unprotected; males and females were exposed to nameless cruelties, compared to which death by being thrown to the wild beasts, or fighting in the arena, might seem absolute relief. Sick or old slaves were cast out to perish from want." The master had his slave's life in his own hands, and if he killed him on the slightest provocation, or on none at all, he would never be held to account for the deed. And, as quoted above, when disease or age made the slave's services valueless, he was turned out to die. Therefore we find that the centurion was not only favorable to the true religion, but he had a compassionate heart. BUT notwithstanding this, or, rather because of this, the centurion felt himself very unworthy. This was not a characteristic trait of the Romans. When they prayed to their gods, they demanded what they wished, as something which they had a right to expect. The centurion was humble, consequently he had faith. Says the prophet, "Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him; but the just shall live by his faith." Hab. 2:4. A proud man never exercises faith. Faith and pride are antagonistic. "Everyone that is proud in heart is an abomination to the Lord" (Prov. 16:5), because pride is wickedness. But faith and true humility are inseparable companions. And faith and humility constitute the only real goodness. So we find that the centurion was indeed worthy, not because of his good deeds, but because of his humble faith. Good deeds do not recommend a man to the favor of God, but simple faith. The only worthiness which God requires in the sinner who wishes pardon, is that same faith. "Abraham believed God, and it [his faith] was counted to him for righteousness." THE centurion showed his faith (1) by remaining at home and sending messengers, although the case was very urgent; (2) by his belief that it was not necessary for Christ to come to his house in order to heal his servant. His words, "Say in a word, and my servant shall be healed; for I also am a man set under authority, having under me soldiers, and I say unto one, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it," show that he had the true idea of Christ's power. He grasped the idea that Christ was a divine being, and not simply a prophet, as he was regarded by most of those who believed in him. His words show that he had a knowledge of the power which Jesus had, which he expressed when he said in the garden: "Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?" Matt. 26:53. He knew that Christ could at his will summon and send heavenly angels, who are "ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation." Heb. 1:14. He knew that just as his well-disciplined soldiers would obey his slightest order, so that he could accomplish anything that he desired, without moving from his place, so Jesus, into whose hands the Father had committed all things, could command the invisible forces, and they would instantly accomplish his will, no matter what the distance. THIS was a higher conception of the true character of Jesus than any of the Jews had gained. Jesus testified to this, when he said, "Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel." It was indeed a marvelous thing. Jesus took advantage of it to utter a prophecy: "And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of Heaven; but the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Matt. 8:11, 12. He knew that many of the despised Gentiles, sunk though they might have been in vice, would gain the kingdom of Heaven, and be fit associates for Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, because that like those patriarchs, they would feel their helplessness, and would exercise simple faith in God. But "the children of the kingdom,"—the literal seed of Abraham,—puffed up because of their supposed superiority, would not stoop to the simplicity of faith, and would therefore be shut out. The lesson for us is, that if we would be inheritors of that everlasting kingdom,—that kingdom which cannot be moved,—we must seek grace whereby we may serve God with reverence and godly fear—that is, with faith and humility. HENDERSON BAY, W. T.
By Isaac Morrison
Since returning from the East Portland camp-meeting, I have been laboring on this part of Puget Sound. The neighborhoods are small, but there are some good people here. Many of the settlers have come from the Central States to avoid the severe winters. Five persons have signed the covenant since I returned, and three others have commenced to keep the Sabbath. At Artondale, I organized a Sabbath-school of about twenty members. A few other families that cannot attend the Sabbath-school, teach the Sabbath-school lesson to their children at home. Elder Fulton visited us July 21, and stayed several days. Three persons were baptized; others will be soon. The brethren were much encouraged by his presence and counsel. He thinks of organizing a church here, after the Tacoma camp-meeting. Isaac Morrison. LABOR IN ALABAMA.
By C. W. Olds
WE have been in this field for about six months, meeting with success in our labors and think the outlook for future labor quite encouraging. We are at present in the busiest and perhaps richest portion of Alabama. Mining is a leading industry, and business of all kinds is lively. Here are gathered people from nearly every part of the United States, and especially the North, so that many cities seem like our Northern towns. The Southern people are very kind and courteous, and welcome Northerners with a gratifying cordiality. Our tracts and papers, which to many are entirely new, are read with interest, with a desire to know more of the truth they advocate. I feel confident that if we had persons here to work on our papers alone, a good list of subscribers could be obtained. However, we have taken forty-five orders each for SIGNS and Sentinel, ordered with some of our subscription books. Many of the SIGNS were taken for only six months, and as the time expires we shall visit the subscribers again, trying to persuade them to renew for a year. The "Great Controversy" and "Marvel of Nations" sell rapidly. One of our agents has delivered 150 "Marvel of Nations" in Birmingham vicinity, and taken 200 orders for "Great Controversy." We have delivered 60 "Thoughts on Daniel and the Revelation" in the city, and have 200 or more readers for Good Health. We have appointed a few agents among our brethren in Northern Alabama who send in encouraging reports. One agent took twenty-two orders in two and a half days, and another thirty-five in three days for "Marvel of Nations." There are some discouraging features here as elsewhere, but all our workers should be prepared for this. Our work is much hindered for want of good help; but we hope this lack will soon be made up, and if there are any who desire to assist in this very important branch of the work here, I would be glad to correspond with them. We have been unable thus far to give as much attention to the preaching of the word as its importance demands, yet we trust ere-long to do more. We desire the prayers of God's people for this important field. C. W. OLDS.
520 Sixteenth St. N., Birmingham, Ala. UPPER COLUMBIA T. AND M. SOCIETY.
By L. A. Fero
REPORT FOR QUARTER ENDING JUNE 30, 1887. No. of members, - - - - - - 143
" reports returned, - - - - - - 82
" missionary visits, - - - - - - 165
" letters written, - - - - - - 184
" periodicals distributed, - - - - - - 1,952
" new subscribers obtained, - - - - - - 13
" pages of tracts and pamphlets distributed and sold, - - - - - - 56,911
" SIGNS taken in clubs, - - - - - - 65
" Sentinels " " " - - - - - - 100
Received on sales, - - - - - - $110 35
" " periodicals, - - - - - - 185 94
" " membership and donations, - - - - - - 29 80
Total receipts, - - - - - - $326 09