Earlier text: The Visigoths in the Western EmpireUnder the Law.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
ONE of the peculiarities of the human mind is that while it readily grasps a pleasing story or a fable, it refuses to accept truth until it is compelled to. So strong is this tendency toward error, that mental philosophers are obliged to take it into account. One of Bacon’s rules for avoiding erroneous conclusions is the following: “In general, let the student of nature take this as a rule, that whatever the mind seizes and dwells upon with particular satisfaction is to be held in suspicion.” The converse would teach that truth will naturally be repelled and rejected. And this is just what the Bible says: “The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God.” 1 Cor. 2:14. “The carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.” Rom. 8:7. “For out of the heart proceed [naturally] evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies.” Matt. 15:19. These things are directly opposed to the law of God; and therefore, as a general thing, before men will accept the truth of the Bible concerning the law, every feature must be made perfectly clear. It is not enough that the principles be unfolded, but the harmony of all the texts bearing on the subject must be shown. Accordingly we find it necessary to devote special explanation to Rom. 6:14 and kindred texts. That text reads thus: “For sin shall not have dominion over you; for ye are not under the law, but under grace.” So strong is the natural tendency to reject truth, that in spite of the overwhelming evidence already produced to show that the law is to all eternity binding upon every created rational being, many people will seize upon the expression, “Ye are not under the law,” and claim that there are some, at least, who have no duty to keep it. The readiness with which this view is seized and dwelt upon, should alone arouse suspicion as to its justness. But that there may be no chance for an honest doubt, we propose to examine not only this text, but every text which contains the phrase, “under the law.” In Rom. 6:12 the apostle gives this exhortation: “Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.” We have already learned that “sin is the transgression of the law.” 1 John 3:4. Therefore when the apostle tells us not to sin, he virtually tells us not to transgress the law. But this is an evidence that the law is binding upon us; and therefore we are assured that the statement in verse 14 cannot mean that the law has no claims upon us. Again: The apostle continues: “Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin; but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.” Rom. 6:13. This is but a repetition of the argument presented in the preceding paragraph. For he says we must not sin, that is, must not transgress the law; and again, that we must yield our members as instruments of righteousness. Now righteousness is obedience to the commandments of God. See Deut. 6:25; Ps. 119:172; Isa. 51:6, 7, which have already been explained. So the 13th verse is an exhortation not to transgress the law, and another exhortation to keep the law, both of which amount to the same thing, and show that the apostle recognizes the fact that the law is in existence and is to be obeyed. Then comes the conclusion: “For sin shall not have dominion over you; for ye are not under the law, but under grace.” Verse 14. Notice a few facts and necessary conclusions. 1. Since “sin is the transgression of the law,” the absence of sin must indicate obedience to the law. Therefore when the apostle says to any persons, “Sin shall not have dominion over you,” it is an evidence that they are keeping the law. 2. Those over whom sin has no dominion are those who are not under the law. “Sin shall not have dominion over you; for ye are not under the law.” The fact that sin has no dominion over them is an evidence that they are “not under the law.” Therefore, to be “not under the law” is equivalent to being free from the dominion of sin. 3. But we have already seen that to be free from the dominion of sin represents a state of obedience to the law; therefore, to say that one is “not under the law” is equivalent to saying that he is keeping the law. These propositions will stand the test of any criticism, and they demonstrate that the apostle’s argument is based on the fact that the law is in full force, binding upon all, and that there are but two classes of people: those who keep the law, and those who transgress it. Those who keep the law are not under it, and of course those who transgress it are under it. In other words, those over whom sin has dominion are under the law; and those over whom sin has not dominion, are not under the law. In harmony with this, the apostle continues: “What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.” Verse 15. That is, Shall we transgress the law because we are not under it? By no means. Keep from under it, by refraining from sin. Thus far we have not shown the full force of the terms “under the law,” and “not under the law,” but have simply shown that they do not indicate that any persons are outside the jurisdiction of the law; that those “under the law” are violating it, while those “not under the law” are obeying it. The next two verses give us a clew to the real force of the terms. They read thus: “Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered unto you.” Verses 16, 17. “Whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness.” Sin, the transgression of the law, brings death, “For the wages of sin is death.” Rom. 6:23. Every one who sins is under condemnation of death; and since, as has been abundantly proved, those who sin are “under the law,” it follows that “under the law” is an expression meaning, Under the condemnation of the law. Now see how aptly this meaning fits verses 14 and 15. Ye are not under the condemnation of the law, but under the grace of God. Shall we sin, then, because we are not by the law condemned to death? No, indeed; for that would at once bring us again under condemnation. Let us keep from sinning, and then we shall be no more condemned. How are we freed from the condemnation which the law brings? “Being justified freely by his [God’s] grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past.” Rom. 3:24, 25. Having accepted Christ, his righteousness is imputed to us, which makes us clear before the law, and we are then subjects of the grace, or forbearance of God. Take an illustration from human affairs. Here is a man that has been convicted of murder. The law of the State forbids murder, and therefore it condemns the man. The murderer is then “under the law,” because the hand of the law is upon him. 264Nothing that he can do will avert the threatened punishment. He may be sorry for his crime, and may resolve never to break the law again; but that will make no difference. He has already broken the law, and must suffer the penalty. But now, through the intercession of powerful friends, and because of his repentance and his promises of future obedience, the Governor is induced to pardon the criminal. Now he is no longer under the law,—a condemned prisoner,—but a free man. He is free by virtue of the grace or favor of the Governor. Therefore he may be said to be “under grace.” The question now arises. Is he at liberty to commit murder, because he is not under the law, but under the grace of the Governor? Everybody says, No, indeed. He is now under even greater obligation to keep the law than he was before, because he is the subject of the Governor’s special favor; and that favor would not have been extended to him, but for his promise to henceforth keep the law. And as sin brought condemnation and death, so, when we are cleared from sin and condemnation, continued obedience, or righteousness, brings eternal life through Christ. This is indicated by the expression, servants “of obedience unto righteousness” (Rom. 6:16) and, “the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Rom. 6:23. In closing this preliminary study of the term, “under the law,” the reader can profitably compare with what he has read, the following verses:— “Therefore, as by the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. Moreover the law entered, that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound. That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.” Rom. 5:18-21. Some One-Thousand-Dollar Reasons for Keeping Sunday.
By A. T. J.
OUR readers will remember that for several weeks lately we have bestowed some attention upon a book entitled “The Abiding Sabbath,” the book being an essay that received a prize of five hundred dollars, as the best of a number of efforts, by different individuals, to prove the perpetual obligation of all men to keep the first day of the week as the Sabbath. We are perfectly willing that the decision as to the merit of that book, shall rest with our readers. We have nothing more to say in regard to it. But since we began the notice of that book, we have received another on the same subject, and with exactly the same design. This too is a prize essay. Not a five-hundred-dollar, but a one-thousand-dollar prize essay. It was written in 1884 by “A. E. Waffle, M. A., then professor of rhetoric and English literature in Lewisburg University, Lewisburg, Pa.” The prize of one thousand dollars was awarded, “after a painstaking, and protracted examination,” by the Committee of Publication of the American Sunday-school Union; the award was approved by the Board of the Union; and the essay was printed and copyrighted by the Union, in 1885. It makes a book of 418 pages, and is printed under the title of “The Lord’s Day; Its Universal and Perpetual Obligation.” The author of this book treats the subject in three parts. Part I he devotes to proving the necessity of the Sabbath, by showing that it is necessary to man’s physical, his intellectual, his moral and religious, and his social welfare. In Part II he discusses the proposition that “the Sabbath of the Bible was made for all men.” In Part III he considers “the nature and importance of the Sabbath.” We shall not notice the work in detail because the ground has been mostly covered in our review of “The Abiding Sabbath.” About all that we shall do with this book will be to notice the reasons that are given for keeping Sunday, as we want our readers to become thoroughly acquainted with the kind of reasoning that draws five-hundred-dollar prizes, and one-thousand-dollar prizes, in proof that Sunday is the Sabbath. We need to make no apology for following up this subject. For certainly a subject to which is devoted so much high-priced discussion, is worthy of notice to any extent that that discussion may run; more especially when in it there is involved moral and religious principles upon which turn eternal destinies. Of the early institution of the Sabbath Mr. Waffle says:— “Our first argument is founded upon the fact that the Sabbath was instituted at the beginning of human history. . . . In the first three verses of the second chapter of Genesis, we read, ‘Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.’ . . . The nature of this early Sabbath is hinted at in the words that record its institution. God rested from the work of creation. This is evidently meant to teach men that on the seventh day they are to cease from secular toil, and rest. . . . The idea is more fully developed in the statement that God blessed and sanctified the seventh day. . . . Sanctifying the day means that God set it apart as a day to be devoted to holy uses. It could have no higher use than to keep man near to his God and to cultivate his moral and religious nature. . . . It is hardly possible to avoid the conclusion that a Sabbath, on which men rested from secular toil, and engaged in the worship of God, was instituted at the beginning of human history. Just as the law of marriage and the law of property are older than the decalogue, so the law of the Sabbath, having its origin in the needs of man, and in the benevolence and wisdom of God, was given to the first man, and was but repeated and emphasized on Sinai. . . . The bearing of this conclusion upon the general discussion will be readily perceived. If the Sabbath did have this early origin, it was given to the whole race, and should be observed by every human being. . . . The moral law itself is not done away in Christ; no more are the things before it which God made obligatory upon man. Unless it can be shown that the law of the Sabbath given at creation, has been repealed by a new legislative act of God, it is still binding upon all men who learn of it. For, coming at this time, it was not given to one man, or to one nation, but to the whole human family.” That is the exact truth, well stated. The Sabbath was instituted at the beginning of human history. The first three verses of the second chapter of Genesis are evidently meant to teach men that on the seventh day they are to cease from secular toil, and rest. And it is indeed true that, unless it can be shown that the law of the Sabbath, given at creation, has been repealed by a new legislative act of God, it is still binding upon all men who learn of it. And that it has not been repealed, that there has been no new legislative act of God, neither by himself, nor by Christ, nor by the apostles, Mr. Waffle shows conclusively. After proving the Sabbath to be a part of the moral law, he advances argument to show that “the law of the Sabbath has never been repealed,” from which we shall present a few passages. He says:— “If the conclusions of the preceding chapter are just, the law of the Sabbath can never be abrogated. So far as it is a moral law it must remain binding upon all men while the world stands. . . . We assert that the law of the Sabbath, so far as it is a moral law, has never been annulled. A law can be repealed only by the same authority that enacted it. It certainly cannot be done away by those who are subject to it. If the law of the Sabbath, as it appeared in the ten commandments, has been abolished, it must have been done by some decree of Jehovah. Where have we the record of such a decree? Through what prophet or apostle was it spoken? . . . We can find no words of Christ derogatory to this institution [the Sabbath] as it was originally established, or as it was intended to be observed. All his utterances on the subject were for the purpose of removing misapprehensions or of correcting abuses. It is strange that he should take so much pains to establish the Sabbath upon a proper foundation and promote right views of it, if he had any intention of doing away with it altogether. The same is true of his actions. There is no record that he ever did anything upon the Sabbath not consistent with its purposes from the beginning. He healed the sick; but works of mercy on that day were never forbidden except in the rabbinical perversions of the Sabbath. “It is fair to conclude that Christ never intended to abolish the Sabbath. The only conceivable ground for such a statement is the fact that he opposed the notions of it prevalent in his time. But his efforts to correct these furnish the best evidence that he was desirous of preserving the true Sabbath. He said that it became him to ‘fulfill all righteousness.’ He voluntarily placed himself under the law, including the law of the Sabbath. Thus he not only maintained the sacredness of the Sabbath by his works, but he also kept it as an example for us. “But do the apostles teach that the fourth commandment is no longer in force; that it is not binding upon Christians? It is asserted by many that they do, and appeals are made to their epistles to maintain the assertion. . . . Paul says: ‘Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.’ How could he have given it higher praise? And this he says just after the declaration, ‘We are delivered from the law.’ Does he mean that we are delivered from that which is ‘holy, and just, and good,’ and that we are henceforth to disregard the things required in the law? Not at all. He simply means that we are freed from the penalty and the bondage of the law. Again he says: ‘Do we make void the law through faith? God forbid; yea we establish the law.’ Here his meaning obviously is that the law is not only honored by the redemption through Christ, but is established in the minds of those who through faith enjoy this redemption, faith giving ability to appreciate its excellence and power joyfully to obey it. But he is even more specific. When he wants a summary of our duties to our fellow-men, he can do no better than to take the second table of the law. Rom. 13: 8-10. . . . Paul was hardly so inconsistent as to quote thus from a law which had been abrogated as a rule of life. “He is not alone in this practice. St. James says: ‘Whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.’ What of it, if the law is annulled? It does not matter if we violate obsolete laws. But James would have said that these laws were still binding, and that no one of them could be violated with impunity. His main point is the integrity of the law—the impossibility of wrenching out one of its members without destroying all. The way in which Paul and James and Peter and John urge upon the Christians to whom they write, abstinence from specific sins, and the performance of specific duties, shows that those who believe in Christ have need of law. This general view of the relation of Christians to the law will help us to understand what is said by Paul concerning the law of the Sabbath. It is plain that no part of the moral law is abolished. This is still recognized as of binding force upon all. The law of the Sabbath is a part of it, and any apostolic precepts which appear hostile to the Sabbath must be interpreted in the light of this fact. “Our conclusion is that there is nothing in the writings of the apostles which, when fairly interpreted, implies the abrogation of the Sabbath. . . . They honored the moral law as the highest expression of God’s will, and say no word to indicate that the law of the Sabbath was not a part of it. Thus both Christ and his inspired apostles have given their sanction to this institution. They have not taken away this choice gift of God to men.” This is sound doctrine. It is true that in speaking of the law of the Sabbath he uses the qualifying phrase, “so far as it is a moral law;” but as the law of the Sabbath is moral to the fullest extent; as there is nothing about it that is not moral, his statement is literally sound. That is, the law of the Sabbath in its widest extent “must remain binding upon all men while the world stands;” and the law265 of the Sabbath being entirely moral, “has never been annulled.” There is more of it that might be quoted, but we have not the space for it. Besides, this is all-sufficient to show the universal and unchangeable obligation of the seventh day as the Sabbath of the Lord. And now, in view of the fact that the seventh day is the day which God established as the Sabbath at creation; in view of the fact that the seventh day is the day named by God in the fourth commandment; in view of the fact that the law of the Sabbath “as it appeared in the ten commandments,” has never been repealed; in view of the fact that Christ kept, “as an example for us,” this identical day—the seventh day—named at creation and in the decalogue; in view of the fact that the apostles maintain that “no part of the moral law is abolished,” and that it is “of binding force upon all;” in view of the fact that God, and Christ, and his inspired apostles have given their sanction to this institution, and that in all their words of sanction to the institution there is absolutely no reference to anything but the seventh day as the Sabbath; in view of all this we ourselves would give a thousand dollars, if we had it, to any man who could show, by any process of legitimate reasoning, how Sunday or any other day but the seventh day can be the Sabbath. Next week, if the Lord will, we shall give our readers the advantage of some of the steps which Mr. Waffle takes to accomplish this, for which he received a prize of one thousand dollars. The Missionary.
By Stephen N. Haskell
The Cause in Australia and New Zealand.
We have each month mentioned particulars of the work in Australia and have also spoken of the work in New Zealand. We can only say in reference to the cause in Australia that from the time we began to see success attend our efforts, the interest has been steadily on the increase, widening and deepening. The tent has been pitched four times in three different suburbs, and in each place a number have embraced the truth. The church in Melbourne numbers fifty-five at the present time, and in the place where the tent was last pitched, thirty-five additional ones have signed the covenant. These are mostly of the better class. Among them are those having stores, which have to be closed on the Sabbath. One music dealer has placed our publications in the hands of his agents, and has already secured for us a large number of subscribers for the Bible Echo, besides selling many copies. In each place where the tent has been pitched, we have seen the influence of the truth beyond what has appeared to be the direct efforts put forth. God has gone out before us in this work, and prepared hearts to accept the truth. Our brethren have secured a hall in Melbourne, where the friends from the suburbs can meet on the Sabbath. The last Sabbath in March, the hall where our brethren meet was full to overflowing, and had they all been present, they could not have been seated. The interest is better at the present time than at any period since the work commenced. Tuesday, the 23d of February, we left Melbourne for Auckland, New Zealand, where we remained four weeks, visiting the places that were visited in November. While New Zealand and Australia are considered as much the same in America, they are two distinct fields and will ever be. It costs nearly as much to go from one to the other as it does to go from America to Europe, and requires nearly as much time. They are as separate in their commercial relations as two nations, although both are under the British Crown. Each has its own lines of steamers direct to England and other parts of the world. Yet there is weekly connection between the two colonies. Our visit to New Zealand in the winter introduced the truth at Auckland, and also at Kaeo, which is 160 miles north. Both of these places are in the north island. Auckland is one of the largest cities in New Zealand, while Kaeo is a country place on a river of the same name. The principal business is lumbering. Bitter opposition was manifested in both of these places, but the friends who had fully committed themselves while we were there in November had grown stronger, and others had been reading and were anxious to hear more. During our two weeks' stay at Kaeo, we baptized fifteen. The people gave a ready assent when the importance of baptism was presented. They were convinced that the Bible teaches that baptism is immersion, but there seemed to be a general dread of going forward in the ordinance. I did not learn the cause of this holding back until after the baptism had taken place. It seems that, with the few exceptions, none of them had ever seen a baptism. Some evil-minded person had told them that the ceremony would be indecent, and that the candidates would be required to go into the water almost devoid of clothing. Unconscious of this cause of their reluctance to a public baptism, I urged them to go forward, telling them that baptism is a public ordinance, and that the more that could be present, the better would be the impression. It was finally announced at the meeting on Sunday forenoon that baptism would be administered in the afternoon. A large company was present at the water's edge, and the impression that was made was excellent. The Spirit of God evidently witnessed to the scene. From this time there was a breaking down, and all objections were removed. Seven were baptized, but others who had been holding back made up their minds that day to keep the Sabbath. The next Tuesday eight more were baptized. This led still others to take their stand, and more would have been baptized if I could have remained. The entire community was stirred. After our baptism on Tuesday, we enjoyed a precious season of the ordinances, organized a Sabbath-school, and made arrangements for the meetings. Our meeting did not hold as long as the one at Troas (Acts 20), but until past one o'clock, Wednesday morning. Our ticket being purchased a month previous, and berth secured, we were under the necessity of leaving just as we did. Others will no doubt sign the covenant, and be baptized the first opportunity. Father Joseph Hare acts as pastor and local elder of the church, and his son, William Hare, as superintendent of the Sabbath-school. We felt a great anxiety for their first public Sabbath meeting after we left, as they were to arrange their classes for Sabbath-school, and hold public service in the Temperance Hall at Kaeo. Our only opportunity of connecting with the steamer for America was to leave the next day, Wednesday, for Auckland. We never left any people more reluctantly than we did these. When we took the parting hand from some of them, it would not be stating the truth to say there were no moist eyes. We accordingly spent the Sabbath before leaving for America at Auckland, where a few signed the covenant and will meet regularly for social meeting and Sabbath-school, Edward Hare acting as the leader. We were much rejoiced on Monday following the Sabbath to receive the following telegram from Kaeo: 'Sabbath-school and services well attended. Isa. 12:1, 2.' We immediately sent the following response: 'Telegram received. 1 Cor. 15:57, 58.' There are now two small companies in New Zealand, one in Kaeo and one in Auckland. We cannot form a correct estimate of the number of Sabbath-keepers in Australia and New Zealand, but as nearly as we can learn, there are about one hundred and fifty, some one hundred and twenty-five of whom have signed the covenant. What is much needed at the present time is a series of meetings in Auckland; but these can be better held in the summer season, which commences in September and continues until the next June. We have reason to believe that with less labor put forth here than has been put forth at Melbourne there would be greater results. At the present there is much bitter opposition from some of whom we might expect better things. It is a singular fact that professed Christian ministers will meet for worship each Sunday, and publicly declare that there is no scripture for the same, and yet manifest a bitterness toward the Sabbath of the fourth commandment. Has God changed? Did he make a mistake in placing the Sabbath in the midst of nine moral precepts like a golden clasp binding together our duty to God and to our fellow-men? Or is it because men have carnal hearts? We think the latter. May God hasten the time when those of a more conscientious mind will have the opportunity of hearing the truth more favorably set before them in the city of Auckland. This city is not as large as Melbourne, and the people generally are more liberal to those who differ with them in religious sentiment. This city and suburbs have over 40,000 inhabitants, while Melbourne and suburbs have about 300,000. The public press is also more liberal. In this respect they better represent America. They are more free to give different persons an opportunity to express themselves through their columns. The boat sailed Tuesday at 2:00 P. M. A few hours previous, the few friends met at the house of Brother Hare, where we spent a short time making suggestions as to their future efforts, and closed the interview with a season of prayer, committing them to the care of a covenant-keeping God. As we bid them adieu by the wave of the hand, while the stately Alameda was coursing its way for the broad Pacific Ocean, which separated us from our dearest earthly ties, our heart yearned for that country and people. May God speedily raise up faithful laborers who will feed hungry souls with the bread of life. On stepping on board the steamer at Auckland, we received by the hand of the purser, an album containing the photographs of thirty-six individuals who were the first fruits of the Third Angel's Message in Australia. This was highly appreciated, and will be appreciated by the friends of the mission in America. Our voyage was the most pleasant one we ever had. With the exception of two or three days a row boat could have lived on the sea, and some of the way scarcely a ripple was seen. On the first Sunday evening we were invited to speak to the passengers; quite an interest was manifested. This developed those who were more religiously inclined, and opened the way for daily Bible-readings with them. The regret was repeatedly expressed that we had not commenced at the first of the voyage. On board a steamship with an over-crowded list of pleasure seekers for passengers, where entertainments for pleasure were arranged almost daily and nightly, it was like an oasis in the desert to find a few who revered God's word. One man, a public teacher, seemed at first to enjoy them much; but after a little the card table had a greater attraction for him. The officers did all in their power to make it pleasant for the passengers. We never had better accommodations, or received more attention from the officers. They kindly agreed to grant us favors in the way of carrying packages of periodicals for us to and from Australia. But266 while cabin passengers fared well, those in the steerage had unusually poor accommodations. It would be for the interest of America and the Colonies if their first-class steamers, as on the Atlantic Ocean, had second and third class accommodations, and a fortnightly line. S. N. H. Pacific S. D. A. Publishing Association.
THE eleventh annual meeting of this Association was convened at the Pacific Press Publishing House, Oakland, Cal., on Monday, April 26, 1886, in accordance with notice published in the Signs of the Times and Oakland Evening Tribune, President S. N. Haskell in the chair. Having been opened with prayer, the President appointed Committees on Nominations and Resolutions, as follows:— On Nominations, Prof. S. Brownsberger, Elder J. D. Rice, and Elder Wm. Ings; and on Resolutions, Elders J. H. Waggoner and W. M. Healey, and Wm. Saunders. The meeting then adjourned to the church, corner of Thirteenth and Clay Streets, for greater convenience. On assembling at the church it was found that 883 shares were represented by stockholders present, and 1,115 shares by proxy, being 175 more than was required by law. The meeting now being ready for business the minutes of the tenth annual meeting were called for, read, and approved. Then followed the reading of the Profit and Loss Account and Balance Sheet for the year ending March 31, 1886, which were also accepted. Addresses were delivered by the President, Vice-President, and by Elder George I. Butler, President of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, all of which were most interesting and were listened to attentively by the stockholders present. The meeting then adjourned to 2:30 P. M. The committee on Nominations recommended as Directors for the coming year, S. N. Haskell, C. H. Jones, J. N. Loughborough, W. C. White, and Wm. Saunders. These were balloted for and elected. The vote was then made unanimous. E. J. Waggoner and Alonzo T. Jones were elected editors, and J. H. Waggoner, U. Smith, S. N. Haskell, and Geo. I. Butler, corresponding editors of the Signs of the Times for the coming year. C. H. Jones, W. C. White, and E. J. Waggoner were elected as a Publishing Committee. The Committee on Resolutions submitted the following, which were taken up separately and adopted:— WHEREAS, The reports of the workings of the printing office established by the Pacific Publishing Association, during the past year, and its present condition, meet the minds of your Committee as satisfactory, and recognizing the hand of God in the success of the institution, therefore, Resolved, That our thanks are hereby extended to all who have by their counsel and labors assisted in carrying on the publishing work to its present position, and that we will do all we can to sustain it in the future. Resolved, That we consider ourselves highly favored in having Elder G. I. Butler, President of the General Conference, with us to aid us by his counsel and encouragement. Resolved, That we are glad to have Elder S. N. Haskell, President of our Association, present with us in our annual meeting after his protracted absence, and we are cheered by the reports of the work established by him and his co-laborers in Australia. Resolved, That we are pleased to note the increase of our denominational work at the office during the past year, and look forward to the time when all our facilities shall be required to publish the Third Angel's Message. The following resolution was submitted by W. M. Healey and Wm. Saunders, part of the committee. Resolved, That we hereby express our thanks to Elder J. H. Waggoner for his past faithful and earnest labor, as editor of the Signs of the Times, and other publications, and as duty calls him to other fields, our sympathy and prayers go with him. At a meeting held Wednesday, April 28, the Board was organized as follows: President, Elder S. N. Haskell; Vice-President, C. H. Jones; Secretary, S. C. Stickney; Treasurer, E. A. Chapman; Auditor, B. R. Nordyke. Adjourned.
S. C. STICKNEY, Sec.