Earlier text: The Roman EmpireNOTES ON THE INTERNATIONAL LESSON.
By Alonzo T. Jones
“AND he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, according to all that David his father did.” Hezekiah was one of the best kings that ever reigned in Judah, while Ahaz, his father, was one of the worst. There was a conspiracy formed by Rezin king of Syria, and Pekah king of Israel, against Ahaz king of Judah. They proposed to destroy Ahaz and set up Ashariah the son of Tabael as king of Judah. The Lord sent Isaiah to Ahaz to say, “Thus saith the Lord God, It shall not stand, neither shall it come to pass.” Isa. 7: 1–10. Then Ahaz, instead of trusting the Lord, “sent messengers to Tiglath-pileser king of Assyria, saying, I am thy servant and thy son; come up, and save me out of the hand of the king of Syria, and out of the hand of the king of Israel, which rise up against me. And Ahaz took the silver and gold that was found in the house of the Lord, and in the treasures of the king’s house, and sent it for a present to the king of Assyria. And the king of Assyria hearkened unto him; for the king of Assyria went up against Damascus, and took it, and carried the people of it captive to Kir, and slew Rezin.” “AND king Ahaz went to Damascus to meet Tiglath-pileser, king of Assyria, and saw an altar that was at Damascus; and king Ahaz sent to Urijah the priest the fashion of the altar, and the pattern of it, according to all the workmanship thereof. And Urijah the priest built an altar according to all that king Ahaz had sent from Damascus; so Urijah the priest made it before king Ahaz came from Damascus. And when the king was come from Damascus, the king saw the altar; and the king approached to the altar, and offered thereon.” “For he sacrificed unto the gods of Damascus, which smote him; and he said, Because the gods of the kings of Syria help them, therefore will I sacrifice to them, that they may help me. But they were the ruin of him, and of all Israel.” 2 Kings 16: 7–12; 2 Chron. 28: 23. In following this worship of the gods of Syria, he shut up the house of the Lord, and in all the cities of Judah “he made high places to burn incense unto other gods.” Then, too, after he had put himself into the hands of the king of Assyria, he had to rob the house of the Lord to satisfy his demands. He “cut off the borders of the bases, and removed the laver from off them; and took down the sea from off the brazen oxen that were under it, and put it upon a pavement of stones. And the covert for the Sabbath that they had built in the house, and the king’s entry without, turned he from the house of the Lord for the king of Assyria.” “And Tiglath-pileser king of Assyria came unto him, and distressed him, but strengthened him not.” THUS it was that when Hezekiah came to the throne there was urgent necessity for a reformation. He accordingly immediately set about it. “He, in the first year of his reign, in the first month, opened the doors of the house of the Lord, and repaired them.” Then he brought in the priests and the Levites, and had them sanctify themselves, and sanctify and cleanse the house of the Lord. It took eight days to clean out all the rubbish and uncleanness that they found in the temple. Then Hezekiah gathered the rams, lambs, and bullocks for the burnt offering, and all the different orders of musicians to sing in the worship of the Lord. “And Hezekiah rejoiced, and all the people, that God had prepared the people; for the thing was done suddenly.” 2 Chron. 29: 36. Next, “Hezekiah sent to all Israel and Judah, and wrote letters also to Ephraim and Manasseh, that they should come to the house of the Lord at Jerusalem, to keep the passover unto the Lord God of Israel.” “So the posts passed from city to city, through the country of Ephraim and Manasseh, even unto Zebulun; but they laughed them to scorn, and mocked them. Nevertheless, divers of Asher and Manasseh and Zebulun humbled themselves, and came to Jerusalem, even many of Ephraim and Manasseh, Issachar and Zebulun.” 2 Chron. 30. This was the Lord’s last call to the people of the ten tribes. Those who thus humbled themselves and joined with Judah in the worship of God were delivered from the captivity inflicted by Sargon shortly afterward. The Lord knew the iniquities that were multiplying in Israel. He knew that their destruction could not long be delayed. As a nation, they were even now beyond recovery. But in his mercy and pity he sends one more gracious invitation to whosoever would return to his service and his worship. Still he longs for Ephraim to return. Still he pleads with Israel to repent. And then when they have gone with a perpetual backsliding, he cries out, “How shall I give thee up, Ephraim? how shall I deliver thee, Israel? how shall I make thee as Admah? how shall I set thee as Zeboim? mine heart is turned within me, my repentings are kindled together.” Hos. 11: 8. But Ephraim was “like a silly dove.” “Ephraim provoked him to anger most bitterly,” till even mercy could no longer forbear, and the Lord was compelled to cast them out of his sight. “So was Israel carried away out of their own land to Assyria unto this day.” WHEN Hezekiah had brought back the people to the worship of God (“so that there was great joy in Jerusalem; for since the time of Solomon the son of David king of Israel there was not the like in Jerusalem”); then “all Israel that were present went out to the cities of Judah, and brake the images in pieces, and cut down the groves, and threw down the high places and the altars out of all Judah and Benjamin, in Ephraim also and Manasseh, until they had utterly destroyed them all. Then all the children of Israel returned, every man to his possession, into their own cities.” 2 Chron. 31: 1. Then it was that Hezekiah broke “in pieces the brazen serpent that Moses had made; for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it; and he called it a piece of brass.” 2 Kings 18: 4 (margin). “AND he rebelled against the king of Assyria, and served him not.” His rebellion, however, did not, in the end, amount to much in his favor. Perhaps he would have fared better if he had maintained his rebellion upon its own merits, and trusted in the Lord to help him. But he not only rebelled, but he meddled with that which did not concern him at all, and so vitiated the righteousness of his own rebellion, and brought upon him a reverse, and the oppression of the king of Assyria. In short, the story is as follows: The people of Ekron rebelled against the king of Assyria also. But their king—Padi—“was inspired by friendship and zeal for Assyria” (so says Sennacherib himself), and resisted their rebellion. Then they took Padi, and gave him up, “bound in chains of iron, to Hezekiah of Judah.” They then joined with Egypt against Assyria. Sennacherib defeated the allied forces, and then went to Ekron. What he did there we will let him tell in his own words:— “I deposed the rulers and dignitaries who had revolted, and killed them; I hung their bodies on crosses on the walls of the city. I sold for slaves all the men of the city who had committed violence and crimes. As for those who had not committed crimes or faults, and had not despised their masters, I pardoned them. I brought Padi, their king, out of Jerusalem and restored him to the throne of his royalty.” THEN, as Hezekiah, by keeping Padi a prisoner for them, was made partaker in their rebellion Sennacherib went up to punish him. Of this Sennacherib tells part and the Bible tells part. Sennacherib says:— “But Hezekiah king of Judah did not submit. There were forty-four walled towns, and an infinite number of villages, that I fought against, humbling their pride and braving their anger. By means of fire, massacre, battles, and siege operations, I took them; I occupied them; I brought out 200,150 persons, great and small, men and women; horses, asses, mules, camels, oxen, and sheep, without number; and carried them off as booty. As for himself, I shut him up in Jerusalem, the city of his power, like a bird in its cage. I invested and blockaded the fortresses round it; those who came out of the great gate of the city, were seized and made prisoners. I separated the cities I had plundered from his country, and gave them to Mitenti king of Ashdod, to Padi king of Ekron, to Ishmabasi king of Gaza. Then the fear of my majesty terrified this Hezekiah of Judah. He sent away the watchmen and guards whom he had assembled for the defense of Jerusalem.” THEN it was that Hezekiah did as the Bible says: “And Hezekiah king of Judah sent to the king of Assyria to Lachish, saying, I have offended; return from me; that which thou puttest on me will I bear. And the king of Assyria appointed unto Hezekiah king of Judah three hundred talents of silver and thirty talents of gold.” And he had to rob the temple of even the gold from the doors to pay it. 2 Kings 18: 14–16. Of this Sennacherib says:— “He sent messengers to me at Nineveh, the seat of my sovereignty, with thirty talents of gold, and eight hundred talents of silver, metals, rubies, pearls, great carbuncles, seats covered with skins, thrones ornamented with leather, amber, seal skins, sandal wood, and ebony, the contents of his treasury. He sent an ambassador to present this tribute and to make his submission.”—Le Normand’s Ancient History of the East, Book 4, chap. 3, sec. 3, par. 9–11. Rawlinson’s Seven Great Monarchies, Second Mon., chap. 9, par. 166, 167. THAT was a dear piece of business for poor Hezekiah. He had far better have let the Ekronites conduct their own rebellion, and send their king somewhere else. It would have been much better if he had attended to his own business, and let this business of these others alone. By doing as he did, he not only brought upon himself this evil, but he debarred himself from the help of the Lord. He could not ask the Lord to help him. All that he could do, in his distress, was to confess to the king of Assyria, “I have offended; return from me; that which thou puttest on me will I bear.” It is far different from this the next time this same king of Assyria comes into the land, and sends an insulting letter, demanding a further surrender. Then in his innocency he could go and spread the letter before the Lord, and ask him to look upon it and see, and bow down his ear and hear, all that Sennacherib had spoken. Then, too, the Lord answered; and the king of Assyria’s army was smitten by the angel, and he returned with shame of face to his own country. Let every one remember that injunction of the Scriptures, “Let none of you suffer . . . as a busybody in other men’s matters.” 1 Pet. 4: 15. Keep yourself clear of such things, and then if distress comes, in innocency you can present your petition to the Lord, and can trust in him to help, and he will hear, and deliver. Setting Others to Work
By Sel.
ONE of the most successful ways of working is to set others to work. The greater the number working, the more will be accomplished. Not only will a greater amount of work be done, but the workers themselves will be benefited.—Sel. Reverence in the Pew.
By Editor
A SHORT article was published in the SIGNS of October 29, under the head, “Act Reverently,” which was taken from the Homiletic Monthly. It says:— “I could sometimes wish you did not leave your pew so abruptly and promptly as you do, the moment the last word of the benediction has been pronounced. There is no need that you should have your hat in your hand; no need that you should have the great coat upon the shoulder; nor yet that the moment the last syllable is pronounced, doors should be thrown open as though you were eager and impatient until the thing had come to a close.” The regular readers of the SIGNS will remember that an article was published some time since, mainly on the subject of reverence in the pulpit. The article was an expression of a number of ministers on the subject, and resulted from a meeting which they had held to consider this matter. In this article, and as a part of it, was an extract from “Testimony No. 20,” in which it was recommended that ministers should bow a moment in silent prayer as they entered the pulpit, to seek the blessing of God at the very beginning of the services. All the ministers who were present at that meeting, which was held in Oakland, Cal., resolved to conform to this recommendation; and in following it out, good results have been seen. In those houses where this is practiced, we seldom see any one enter the pulpit except on occasions of preaching. But the Testimony spoke of the influence that such a course would have upon the congregation. The whole extract is as follows:— “Things that are wrong often take place in the sacred desk. One minister conversing with another in the desk before the congregation, laughing and appearing to have no burden of the work, or lacking a solemn sense of their sacred calling, dishonors the truth, and brings the sacred down upon the low level of common things. The example tends to remove the fear of God from the people, and to detract from the sacred dignity of the gospel which Christ died to magnify. According to the light that has been given me, it would be pleasing to God for ministers to bow down as soon as they step into the pulpit, and solemnly ask help from God. What impression would that make? There would be a solemnity and awe upon the people. Why, their minister is communing with God; he is committing himself to God before he dares to stand before the people. Solemnity rests down upon the people, and angels of God are brought very near. Ministers should look to God the first thing as they come into the desk, thus saying to all, God is the source of my strength.” We have, however, to express our regret that such an effect has not largely been seen in our congregations. Such should be the effect, and we had every reason to believe that it would be; but it has not been, as a general thing. True, in some places it could hardly be expected; as where a minister comes into the house of worship and walks the entire length of the house, even to the steps of the pulpit, with his hat on his head. We deeply regret that we are compelled to say that we have seen some of our ministers do this; and where such a breach of propriety, such an act of irreverence occurs, we do not believe that anything will lead a congregation to reverence the house and the worship of God as they should, under that person’s ministrations. But in this article we are not particularly referring to such instances. The desired result has not been seen in those congregations where the ministers have observed the strictest rules of propriety in the house dedicated to the worship of the Most High. We have many times said, and we firmly believe it, that irreverence is the sin of this age. And while the Seventh-day Adventists have the truth—the present truth—for this age, it is a fact beyond all dispute that very many of them have scarcely learned the alphabet of true reverence. What can we say for those members of a congregation who know the practice of ministers as they enter the desk, who yet continue talking and visiting while the minister is upon his knees? And this we have known, not alone among the children and youth, but among adult church members. Another fault, nearly if not quite as great, is the practice, where the Sabbath-school is held before the preaching service, of many to get so engaged in their own talk, in the brief recess, that they linger at the door, or just outside, until the meeting has commenced. They not only lose all the benefit of the first act of reverence and worship on the part of the minister and of such of the congregation as unite with him, but they so disturb all in the house by rushing in late that the effect of the first services, especially of reading the hymn, is almost entirely lost. We are aware that the custom of reading hymns arose in times when hymn books were not held by the congregation, when the reader “lined” the hymns for their benefit; yet we are heartily in favor of retaining the practice, as a correct and impressive reading of the hymn prepares the mind for the service of singing, and is of especial benefit to those in the congregation who have no books. It is true, again, that sometimes hymns are read where the reading is neither correct nor impressive. We think it is better to omit the reading than to have it done in a blundering manner; for one serious blunder, and such we have known, may spoil the effect of the whole service of song. We have also said, and this also we firmly believe, that there is but little use of preaching to unbelievers, or to “those who are without,” in a congregation of professed worshipers, or in a church, where the spirit of irreverence largely prevails. If the members of the church would show proper respect for the worship; if they would bow their heads in silent prayer as the minister bowed in the pulpit; if all who profess to be worshipers would join in the song of praise, and try to sing with the spirit and with the understanding; if they would hear the word in a reverent frame of mind, and with the constant prayer that it might prove a benefit to their own souls and to the souls of the strangers present,—a solemn awe would rest upon the unbelievers, and they would be led to “report that God is in you of a truth.” But, on the other hand, if the church members, or any considerable number of them, continue their conversation while the minister is bowed before God; if quite a number of them linger at the door to visit and chat until after the services have commenced, and then come in, disturbing the service and the congregation; and if to this we have to add that the minister walks up the aisle with his hat on—a breach of courtesy which would not be tolerated even in a private house—how can it be expected that outside parties will be reverent and have solemn impressions formed in their minds? A failure only could be expected under such circumstances. But it may be replied, “The preaching is not always a failure under such circumstances. Where much of this prevails, we yet know that souls are converted by the power of the word proclaimed.” We know and we rejoice that it is so. And Paul rejoiced that the gospel was preached even of contention; but doubtless his rejoicing would have been greater if the preaching had been in the true spirit and power of the gospel. Souls are often converted by very imperfect and faulty labor; but that is no reason why imperfections and faults in labor should be perpetuated. We verily believe that our power as a people, both ministers and lay members, would be tenfold greater if reverence for the house and worship of God were assiduously cultivated. We have spoken of common conversation being continued while the minister is bowed in prayer. But we go further; we say it should not be indulged in at all in the house of God when we have met for worship. Nor should it be tolerated at the close of the service, if we wish our souls to be benefited by the service. But we close our remarks; we have said enough, and earnestly pray that God may bless these words to the good of many souls. Which Is Evangelical?
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
THE following is a portion of an editorial note in the Pacific of June 10:— “The election of the Rev. Edward White to the chairmanship of the Congregational Union of England and Wales is sure to be noted as indicating the tendencies of belief among the Independents there. Mr. White is by far the most pronounced and prominent advocate of the doctrine of ‘eternal life only in Christ.’ Of course, he was not elected because of his advocacy of that tenet. He is a man of great energy and ability, and has done yeoman service for the Free Churches of England. He is also a thoroughly evangelical minister, if we except this particular divergence.” An “evangelical minister,” according to Webster, is one who is “earnest for the truth taught in the gospel; fervent and devout; strict in interpreting Christian doctrine;” and the Pacific says that one who believes that we have “eternal life only in Christ,” is not, in that particular, evangelical. Let us see whether Mr. White or the Pacific is evangelical on the immortality question. The New Testament must, of course, decide the matter. To start with, we take that most wonderful of texts, John 3:16: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” What do we learn from this verse? 1. That God’s love for the world was so great as to cause him to send his Son for their rescue. We can judge something of God’s love for his Son, when we remember that Christ was the brightness of the Father’s glory, “and the express image of his person;” that he was “heir of all things,” the one by whom the worlds were made (Heb. 1:2, 3); and that “in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.” Col. 2:9. God is infinite in all his attributes, and therefore his love for his Son was infinite. And since he gave his Son for the world, we know how great was his love for the world. It was infinite. 2. The worth of the sacrifice shows the extent of the need. God would not lightly give his Son to suffer and die; it must be that without that gift there was no possibility for man to be rescued from his condition, and to receive that which was offered to him. 3. We are plainly told that this wonderful sacrifice was made in order that those who would believe in Christ might not perish, but that they might have everlasting life. Man can believe in Christ and have everlasting life, or he can disbelieve and perish. There is no other alternative. The choice is not between happiness and misery, but between life and death. With eternal life in the presence of God, happiness must necessarily be associated, but it is secondary. Eternal life is what Christ says we get by believing on him. To deny that we get eternal life only through Christ, is to deny the words of Christ. Mr. White accepts the words of Christ; the Pacific says, Not so. Which is evangelical? Let us imagine that Nicodemus held to the doctrine of inherent immortality, as advocated by the Pacific and many others. Then when Christ said,681 “God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life,” Nicodemus would have retorted, “Well, he needn’t have gone to all that trouble, for we shall have eternal life any way. If that’s what you came for, you came to no purpose.” Do you say that such language would be insulting? We admit it, but how many are saying the same thing to-day! The doctrine of “eternal life only in Christ” is not evangelical, says the Pacific. Then the author of the gospel must be declared unevangelical; for he says, “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life; and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life.” John 3:36. Is not this eternal life only in Christ? Other texts are simply a repetition of the statement already made. Says Christ, “I am come that they might have life.” John 10:10. Says the Pacific, “You are too late; we have it already.” Again the Saviour said to the unbelieving Jews: “Ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.” John 5:40. We can imagine the pitiful tone in which he spoke these words, and the sorrow of his heart, as “he came unto his own, and his own received him not.” And then to think that he knew all that his coming implied,—the agony in the garden, the brutal insults and cruel scourging in the judgment hall, and the shameful death on the cross. What for? “That they might have life.” Was Christ deceived? Was his anxious solicitude for man all a mistake? and was his sacrifice a useless waste of life? Evidently so, if men could have life outside of Christ. But he was not deceived; none so well as he could know man’s terrible need, and the eternal destruction that must follow if the sacrifice were not made. Then how terribly deceived must those be who, in response to Christ’s pathetic appeal, virtually say, “We don’t need to come to you that we might have life; we can get it without your assistance.” Fatal delusion! What an insult to the Son of God! Once more. Said Christ, in that wonderful prayer which was not for the apostles alone, but for them who should believe through their word: “Father, . . . glorify thy Son, . . . as thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” John 17:1-3. Would the Pacific say that Christ was “thoroughly evangelical, if we except this particular divergence”? Perhaps the Pacific has another standard of evangelicism. But for “this particular divergence,” Mr. White would be “a thoroughly evangelical minister.” Divergence from what? Not from the New Testament and the teaching of Christ, as we have clearly seen. What then? Ah, now we have it. The Rev. Edward White is a Congregationalist, and in general holds to the doctrines which the Congregationalist body holds in common with the great mass of professed Christians. But this same mass of professed Christians does not accept the doctrine of “eternal life only in Christ,” and it is in “this particular divergence” that Mr. White is unevangelical. If it were not for that, he would be “thoroughly evangelical.” Then it is evident that, according to the Pacific, popular belief, and not the New Testament, is the standard of evangelical principles. Popularity seems to be the accepted standard; but in spite of the great number on the popular side, we can’t help believing that the Bible is true, and that Jesus meant what he said. What is the record? “And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.” 1 John 5:11, 12. Is not this “eternal life only in Christ”? It certainly is, and it is evangelical doctrine, too. “For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Rom. 6:23. “No, no,” says the Pacific, “Paul is mistaken; eternal life doesn’t come ‘through Jesus Christ our Lord;’ or, even if it does sometimes come through him, we can get it without him just as well.” Again we ask, Which is evangelical? Sometimes people say, “Well, it is of no practical importance what you believe concerning the immortality of the soul.” We think that the intelligent reader can see that it is of a great deal of importance. It is a question of whether we shall give Christ the honor that is his due, or whether we shall withhold from him all his honor. One of his titles is “our life.” See Col. 3:4. Nowhere in the Bible can we find that he came for any other purpose than to give life to those who would believe on him. His sole object in coming to earth to suffer and die, was to give life. And now if we say that Christ did not bring “life and immortality to light through the gospel,” but that Socrates or Plato brought it to light, then we exalt a heathen philosopher above Christ, and rob the Lord of glory of his crown. The work of Spiritualism to-day is to convince men that they have life in themselves, instead of in Christ; and thousands who profess to be evangelical, and to abhor Spiritualism, are doing their best to help along that delusion of Satan. And this popular doctrine, which is so flattering to the pride of the human heart, that man is not dependent for eternal life on any source outside of himself, is that which will eventually sweep millions of professed lovers of the Lord into the ranks of those who openly blaspheme his name. Reader, where do you stand? Do you profess to love the Lord Jesus Christ? Then do not any longer refuse to acknowledge that which will constitute his crown of glory and rejoicing. “My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.” 1 John 3:18. Healdsburg College Notes.
By Alonzo T. Jones
We have been at the College a full month, and we count it indeed a privilege. One hundred and twelve students are now in attendance. Forty-three of these dwell at the Students’ Home; to this number may be added the managers of the Home, and several teachers, making in all fifty-six in the Home “family,” which may properly enough be termed “the happy family.” Almost, if not quite, all seem to enter heartily into the endeavor to conform to the rules of the institution, and to accomplish, as far as may be on their own part, the purpose of their presence here. All appear to go about the mechanical, and other forms of physical labor, as cheerfully as they do about the mental. And what is better than all—that which, indeed, is the complement of all else—with the majority of those at the Home there is an honest and hearty strife “to enter in at the strait gate”—an earnest effort to form genuinely Christian characters. Of those students who do not live at the Home, of course I cannot speak from personal association, but from what I can gather there seems to be a good, healthy influence, religious as well as otherwise, pervading the whole school. We are sure that our people on the Pacific Coast do not realize as they should the value of Healdsburg College. They do not realize what a blessing God has placed, as it were, at their very doors. He has established this institution, has proved its success, and has shown its efficiency, not only in fitting laborers for the cause, but in the training of youth to be successful men and women in the management of the every-day affairs of life. The management of this institution is composed of those who have spent years in the education and management of children and youth; they take anxious thought for those who are committed to their charge; they are watchful and diligent to see that correct habits and right principles are inculcated and observed; and the advantages, the influence, and the care that are to be enjoyed by those who are sent to the Students’ Home, are not second to those of the best homes in the land. We wish our people would visit the College and the Home; that they would study into its principles, its advantages, and its workings, more—yes, very much more—than they do; for we are sure that if this were done, the good that is already being done by the school would be increased many fold. Brethren, think of these things, and ask yourselves, before God, what you should do toward sending your own children and inducing others to send theirs. There are now twenty-eight students in the history class. They are well under way, and appear to be deeply interested, and willing to study hard, to accomplish as much as possible, and do it well, in the term allotted to this branch of Bible work. Fields of new and deep interest in the understanding and illustration of the sublime truths of the Bible, are opened to their minds, and they are trying to show a just appreciation of them in a higher honor, and a deeper love, for the word of God. We call it the history class, but we would have no one get the idea that it is in the study of history apart from the Bible. It is the study of the history of those nations and kings which are directly referred to in the Bible, especially in the prophecies. So it is simply the study of the Bible in history—the study of the word of God as spoken of nations and kings, and fulfilled by them. It is the study and development of these things in such a way that those who go out into the field to labor may have not simply a vague idea, or, perhaps, at the best, a mere outline of the nations pointed out in prophecy; but that they may have a good understanding, a positive knowledge, of them; and also that in and by this they may have an acquaintance with the historical sources, the acknowledged authorities, whence are drawn the facts of history which mark the fulfillment of the prophecies of the word of God. It lends a new interest to the word of God, and a greater importance to history, when it is seen that through all history, from Abraham and Chederlaomer to our own day, there runs the golden thread of God’s providence and word, with which the principal events of history are so inextricably blended that they are seen to be but parts of one another. It strengthens and increases faith in God and in his word, and shows the Bible to be the sublimest production that ever has been, or ever shall be, seen in this world. This gives strength and confidence to those who are called, as ministers of Christ, to use the sword of the Spirit. We have said that there are twenty-eight students in the history class; but there should be more than twice that number here receiving the benefits of the school in fitting them for efficient labor in the cause of the Third Angel’s Message. There could be more than twice that number, and there would be too, if the example were followed which has brought two of those who are here. Two young men are here by the direct effort of certain brethren individually. One brother, who works for wages himself, bears entirely the expenses of a young man for the full Bible course of six months; and without such help this young man could not be here at all.
Another brother supports entirely, for six months, the wife and three children of a man who has labored some in the cause, while this man spends these six months at the College. In this latter instance, this good brother made considerable of a journey on foot, through mud and rain, to see the one now at College, and persuade him to come to the school. He pleaded with him, and urged him to come. He begged to be allowed to furnish the means for the support of his family, so that he might come with the assurance that his family would be682 well cared for. Finally, when after earnest prayer, and consultation together and with the Conference Committee, the man decided to come, this brother went at once and deposited, for the benefit of the family, the whole six months’ supply of money. And this brother has a family of his own to support; nor is he rich. We say that these instances show sincere love for Christ and for the souls for whom he died. These men, denying themselves that men may be fitted in the shortest time to carry the last message of mercy to the perishing, manifest the spirit of Christ, who, though he was rich, yet became poor for our sakes. Why is it that there cannot be scores of such men on the Pacific Coast? Why is it that our College cannot thus be filled with men to be sent forth into the fields already white unto the harvest? Does any one suppose that these brethren will have no part in the reward that shall be given for the labor that is done by these men whom they thus virtually send into the field? Nay, verily. “I the Lord search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.” Jer. 17. These brethren are thus sowing seed that shall bear fruit, thirty, sixty, or a hundred fold; and their reward shall be according to the fruit of their doings, saith the Lord. More than this, these brethren are doing double work for the Master. Each, in his own place, is on his own part working for him; and in addition to this, each one sends a man into the field to work for him. Thus there are four men, instead of two, at work for the Master. Again we say, Why can there not be scores of such men as these? You who can do this, and are not doing it, what account will you render to the Master when he comes? Will it be sufficient justification for you to say that you could not preach, while in your hands were means sufficient to have fitted one to go forth who could preach? Oh, that our brethren would all realize how great is the haste that the “King’s business” requires; and how excellent are the facilities with which he has supplied the cause on this coast, in the establishment of this institution!