p. 77 | Review and Herald, Vol. 32, No. 5. (7/21/1868)

Earlier text: MINNESOTA STATE CONFERENCE

“ARE THE TEN COMMANDMENTS, OR ANY PART OF THEM, BINDING ON CHRISTIANS?”

By J. H. W.

(Continued.)

“(4.) In the days of the apostles some said that believing Gentiles ‘must be circumcised, and keep the law of Moses, or they could not be saved.’ Acts xv. To decide this question was the object of the first general council convened at Jerusalem. The result was, under the direct teaching of the Holy Ghost, that the council decided that through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ they (the Gentiles) shall be saved even as we (the Jews). Four things only were enjoined on them: ‘To abstain from idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from fornication.’ This, then, became, not the Mosaic law and condition of justification as such, but a Christian rule of action, enjoined by the Holy Ghost on believers, through this council.”

If the writer of the above really supposed that it would pass as an argument against the ten commandments or the Sabbath, he must have presumed greatly on the ignorance of his readers. It is enough to read that circumcision and the law of Moses were the subjects of discussion, to see the irrelevancy of the above argument. Does any one—even the writer of the above—suppose that the apostles and elders in council would gravely discuss and formally decide that the Gentiles need not keep “the ten commandments nor any part of them?” Were they absolved from the duty to honor parents? and could they blaspheme, steal, kill, bear false witness, and break the Sabbath, and incur no guilt thereby? Yes, most surely; for the apostles said nothing about these things! Such is the conclusion of the no-law and no-Sabbath argument. Do not think, dear reader, that we misinterpret or misrepresent our opponent. Read for yourself:—

“FOUR THINGS ONLY were enjoined on them, to abstain from idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from fornication.” This, and this “ONLY,” is declared to be “a Christian rule of action.” This not only does not mention any other duties, but it specifically excludes them. Therefore, whoever says that the Gentiles should not kill, or steal, or blaspheme, contradicts the decision of this council, according to the testimony of our opponents. We should think they would cease to advocate a theory so immoral in its tendency, for shame’s sake. And may it ever be a warning to us, as we witness how completely men are blinded and snared by the enemy when they oppose God’s law. We hold, and teach, in harmony with the council of Jerusalem, that circumcision and the law of Moses are not binding; and in harmony with the Saviour also, who said that worship is vain when it makes void the commandment of God.

“(5.) Christ said, ‘I am not come to destroy the law or the prophets, but to fulfill.’ Matt. v, 17. He did fulfill each jot and tittle, both in its preceptory and penal departments. He then cried, ‘It is finished, and gave up the ghost.’ John xix, 28–30. He had fulfilled all its precepts, and for us he met its penalties. Thus he magnified the law and made it honorable, and ‘nailed it to the cross.’ Col. ii, 14. No jot or tittle of the law now remains in force as a rule of life, or condition of justification or salvation; ‘that being dead wherein we were held.’ ‘We are delivered from the law.’ ‘We are also become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another; to him who is raised from the dead.’ Rom. vii, 4, 6. If we are become dead to the law by the body of Christ, and are married to another, what right has the old husband to control our action? We are bound only to Christ. Hence, when he sent his disciples to teach all nations, he said, ‘Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.’ It was not what Moses or the prophets had commanded that was to constitute a rule of life; but what Jesus commanded. He is our Lord and Master, and ‘His commandments are not grievous.’”

First, the Saviour’s words are quoted wherein he said he did not come to destroy the law, and then a labored argument is instituted to show that he did destroy it; thus making his action contradict his words. Can any one have confidence in Jesus as a Saviour, and in such teachings, at the same time? Reference is also made to Isa. xlii, 21: “He will magnify the law and make it honorable.” Magnify, says Webster, is “to extol; to exalt; to elevate; to raise in estimation.” Do our opponents believe the Saviour did such a work as this? And if they do, who would ever gather it from their writings? Was it “elevated” by its abolition? Did he “raise it in the estimation” of the no-law theorists, who spare no pains to disparage it? But again, he “will make it honorable.” This does not show that it was not honorable before, for we know it was; it therefore means that he will make it still more honorable; the same as to magnify it—exalt it, extol it, raise it still higher in estimation than it had before been held. Though every way honorable in itself, it had been dishonored by transgression, and he came to vindicate its claims, to suffer its penalty, thereby showing its sacredness and perpetuity; and to enforce it on men anew, yes, to write it in their hearts; so that instead of transgressing it they might love it, delight in it, consent that it is holy, just, and good, and so worship God by obeying his law “in newness of spirit,” and not merely in letter. We believe the blessed Saviour does all this in taking away the carnal mind, which Paul says is not subject to the law of God, and giving us hearts of love and obedience. But how do our opponents say he magnified the law and made it honorable? By 1, breaking it himself; 2, teaching others to do so; 3, abolishing it; 4, inspiring his apostles to denounce it as a yoke of bondage; &c. But the reader who loves reason, justice, and consistency, will see that the law that is magnified and made honorable is not the same one that is abolished; the one written in the heart is not the one nailed to the cross; the spiritual law is not a carnal commandment; the law which becomes a delight to the converted believer in Christ, is not a yoke of bondage.

“No jot or tittle of the law now remains in force as a rule of life.” How different from the teachings of Jesus: “Till Heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all [all things, Greenfield, in Heaven and earth, Wesley,] be fulfilled.” So far from his teaching that it is not a rule of life, he proceeds to condemn those who break the law, or “any part” of it, and who teach others to do so.

The writer, arguing that the Christian is released from obligation to keep the law, quotes, “that being dead wherein we were held,” and applies it to the law. If this were a correct rendering of the original, the above application would still be a perversion of the text, for all the context shows that it is the sinner that dies—not the law. But it is not a true rendering. Paul never made any such declaration concerning the law. Probably the writer of the above knew that all authorities were agreed that the marginal reading was the true one; possibly he knew that the Greek word apothanontes, from which “being dead” is rendered, was plural, and therefore could not refer to the law; but it was far from serving his purpose to recognize such facts. He had a theory to maintain, and oftentimes it happens that false theories may be as effectually advanced by concealing the truth as by promulgating an error. Nor is the law represented by the husband in the illustration of Rom. vii. By reference to verse 4, it will be seen that the same that died was afterward married to another, by virtue of a new life received through faith in Christ. The law is that by which a woman having two husbands is convicted of adultery. We prefer Paul’s application of this illustration to that of the no-law theorist’s; and there is a very wide difference between the two. The expression “dead to the law,” is equivalent to that of Chap. vi, 2: “dead to sin;” for it is only on account of sin that we die to the law. We have sinned, and the wages of sin is death, and the law holds us under its condemning power until death takes place, because a state of sin is a state of condemnation. We need not, however, literally die; but to avoid this, “the old man is crucified;” “the body of sin is destroyed,” that “henceforth we should not serve sin.” Through faith in Christ we so change our relation to the law that we are freed from its condemnation. We die to transgression; the law does not die. We change our relation to the law; the law does not change at all. But if the law was abolished by the Saviour, how do we die to it? By what act, or in what manner, is our relation ever changed to a law which was abolished 1800 years before we were born?

Will our opponents attempt to show? When they do, we shall be pleased to note their progress.

Now, that we are dead is shown in that we are buried in baptism; but the apostle says we are not dead to the law, or dead to sin, while living in transgression; therefore they who are still living in transgression of the law are not proper subjects of baptism. No change has been effected in them, which is here represented by death; the “old man” is still alive; “the body of sin” or transgression, has not been crucified, but is yet alive and shows its life by endeavoring to crucify the law, instead of yielding to its righteous demands. In every respect such stand in direct opposition to the apostle’s teachings to the Romans. And if they have ever been buried in baptism, it was unscriptural and invalid, for no death to sin,—to transgression of the law—had taken place. They were not buried in the likeness of Christ’s death, for he died before he was buried. They are the very ones who are committing spiritual adultery, or making strong efforts to do so, by being united to “the body of sin,” Rom. vi, 6, and trying to be united to “the body of Christ,” chap. vii, 4, at the same time. The “body of sin” is the “body of death,” vii, 24; and the opposers of the law (the carnally minded) will find it so. And when they arose from baptism it was to walk in the same old life of transgression—not in newness of life.

A further effort is made by quoting the expression, “we are delivered from the law.” Here, again, are counter claims set up. We claim that by sin the law holds us under condemnation; that through Christ we cease to sin, receiving forgiveness for the past, and are thus released from its power to condemn. Our opponents claim that the law was binding on us, but by the faith of Christ we are delivered from its obligation, so that neither the law as a whole, “nor any part of it,” is binding on us to perform. We do not claim—we do not ask such a deliverance; we “delight in the law of God,” being freed from it so far as its power to condemn is concerned. Now we think we have plainly pointed out these two positions in the New Testament, and shown the tendency and the result of each. But we think also that both these positions are subjects of prophecy.

1st. We delight in the law and claim that the law is written in our hearts. See Jer. xxxi, 33; Isa. li, 7. 2dly, Our opponents disclaim all connection with the law, and claim that they are delivered from obligation to obey any part of it. But the law forbids theft, murder, adultery, false witness, idolatry, &c. What say our opponents? They say, Not any part of the ten commandments is binding on Christians. Why not? Because Christ has delivered them from obligation to keep the law. Now we see where the prophecy applies. Jer. vii, 8–10. “Behold, ye trust in lying words, that cannot profit. Will ye steal, murder, and commit adultery, and swear falsely, and burn incense unto Baal, and walk after other gods whom ye know not; and come and stand before me in this house, which is called by my name, and say, WE ARE DELIVERED TO DO ALL THESE ABOMINATIONS?” The deliverance here claimed can be from nothing but from the law which forbids such things; therefore the prophecy is an exact representation of the position of the antinomian theorists. If they feel hurt that we should think thus of them, or apply such a prophecy to them, we reply to the first, that we have no confidence in human nature; it needs all the restraints that God’s holy law ever threw over it. To the second, we say, if you do not like the application of the prophecy, just change your position so it will not apply. But so long as you stand where it does apply to you, it is a small matter whether any make the application or not; the great day at hand will try every man’s work, and reveal every man’s true position.

The various texts under consideration have so often been noticed that we have no intention of going into an exhaustive examination of them at this time; but only to show the fallacy of the argument now under consideration. But we cannot consent to pass from the seventh chapter of Romans, without leaving an appeal to the reader in respect to the two opinions in reference to it. Our opponents claim, as before shown, that the law is dead—they have nothing to do with it, unless to denounce it. We claim that the sinner

must so die to sin that he will gladly keep the law. Here is a plain issue. Now Paul makes a number of statements in this connection which we propose to notice. And the reader will also bear in mind that when our opponents take up the first part of Rom. vii, we invariably meet them on the issue, and examine the texts; and when we read other texts in close connection which plainly contradict their theory, they pass them by without a notice. Why is this? Remember the harmony of Scripture is what assures us of truth. While we proceed to quote these expressions of Paul, let the reader apply them to the view of our opponents if he can harmonize them with that view.

Being united to Christ, we are to “serve in newness of spirit.”
The law convinced Paul of sin.
The law slew him. (Could a dead law slay him? or did he slay the law?)
The law is holy, just, and good.
The law is spiritual; (therefore, to be kept right must be served in newness of Spirit.)
The law became Paul’s delight.
The precept of the law is kept by us who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit. Chap. viii, 4.
The carnal mind is not subject to the law.

Will our no-law friends appropriate these expressions to their side of the question? We should be pleased to see the trial.

The seventh of the above on chap. viii, 4, is never noticed by our opponents; perhaps not well appreciated by many of our friends. We shall at least be excused for justifying our rendering. “That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us.” Common Version. The word rendered righteousness, is dikaioma, by Greenfield defined, “law, precept, statute, ordinance;” by Robinson, “decree, ordinance, precept.” The passage in Bloomfield’s Notes on the Greek is rendered, “the requisition of the law.” Whiting’s Trans., “the precept of the law.” Bible Union Version, “the requirement of the law.” Sawyer’s Trans., “the righteous ordinance of the law.” Comp. Com., “precept,” with the remark: “Slade, Locke, Taylor, &c., observe that this dikaioma being said to be done by us, not in us,* is an unanswerable argument against the antinomian dogmas.” They who, through faith in Christ, walk after the Spirit, “obey the requisitions of the law,” “fulfill the precept of the law.” The carnally minded, of course, are “delivered to do abominations,” contrary to the law.

“His, [Jesus’] commandments are not grievous.” This perversion of Scripture is so palpable that it needs no notice to expose it. Turn to 1 John v, and see throughout the whole chapter the distinction kept up between God and his Son, Jesus Christ. “Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God; and every one that loveth him that begat, loveth him also that is begotten of him. By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments; and his commandments are not grievous.” He who would so pervert the testimony of God’s word, so plainly stated, will not hesitate to do anything to accomplish his purpose. Of course John does not contradict Paul. It is to them that “love God” that “his commandments are not grievous.” The carnal mind does not agree to this; hatred is shown in all it does and says. May the Lord divest us all of this carnal mind. J. H. W.

REPORT OF MEETINGS.

By John Nevins Andrews

At the close of the Wisconsin Conference Bro. Cornell and myself started immediately for Washington, Iowa, which place we reached on the second day. Here we found kind friends with whom we tarried two days, and endeavored to improve the time in the prayerful study of the Bible, in writing, and religious conversation. From this place, on Thursday, we went to Pilot Grove, where the Conference convened. This meeting has been quite fully reported, and I will speak of it briefly.

First. I was agreeably disappointed to find so large a body of brethren standing steadfast in the truth after all the efforts of Satan for their overthrow.

Second. I was also very favorably impressed with the manner in which the finances of the Conference had been managed. The Secretary and the Conference Committee had the means of determining at once how the funds of the Conference stood.

The meetings of the Conference for the transaction of business were entirely harmonious, and we believe were guided by the good angels of God. The meetings for devotion and for the preaching of the word were solemn and profitable. A special season of prayer in behalf of the sick will long be remembered by me on account of the answer to prayer.

It seemed to be plainly duty to send out the Iowa tent. So I was constrained to separate from dear Bro. Cornell, with whom I would gladly have continued to labor further. Bro. Butler and Cornell will, I believe, see much fruit of their labor the present season.

The Sabbath following the Iowa Conference, I met with the church at Waukon, and with my mother, and mother-in-law, and other relatives. I was very grateful for this privilege after so many years of separation.

June 26-29 was devoted to the sessions of the Minnesota Conference. The brethren in this State are much embarrassed in sustaining those who labor in their Conference. The labors of Brn. Ingraham and Pierce are highly appreciated; yet on account of want of means they can labor only part of the time. An earnest effort was made to relieve this embarrassment. To some extent it was successful. But further efforts must be made if the brethren desire to keep these ministers the most of the time in the field. If the S. B. funds were paid quarterly in advance instead of at the end of each quarter, as the best do, and after long delay, as many others do, it would make a great change for the better. In fact, if all would do their duty promptly it would change this state of things entirely.

I trust the blessings of God will be upon the cause in Minnesota. But I am well convinced that no State needs more urgently the labors of Bro. and Sr. White, and I trust that they will be able to visit Minnesota this present season.

J. N. ANDREWS.

OBJECTION ANSWERED.

By E. F. COTTRELL

ALL that is required of us in this dispensation, is to love God with all our heart, and our neighbor as ourselves.

That is all that ever was required. Nothing more was ever required of any living man, and nothing less. “And this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments.” We cannot love God with all the heart, and break his commandments. We cannot love our neighbor as ourself, and kill him, steal from him, lie about him, or defraud him of any of his rights. Neither can you love God with all the heart, while you rob him of his “holy day,” the day which he has reserved to himself, for his own especial honor and worship.

We are commanded to hear Christ.

Then let us hear him. “Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled”—to the consummation.

Christ is our example.

So he is. Said he, “I have kept my Father's commandments.” “He did no sin”—he transgressed no commandment of his Father. He lived our perfect pattern of obedience to every precept of the law of God, and then died a sacrifice for our transgressions of it.

But Christ broke the Sabbath.

So said his enemies, the Pharisees. But he showed them that what he did on the Sabbath was “lawful” to be done, that is, it was according to the Sabbath law, the fourth commandment; and thus he vindicated his course, and proved them liars. We take position on the side of Christ.

Paul teaches that the law is abolished.

Paul teaches that the law is holy, just, good, and spiritual; and that the faith of the gospel, so far from abolishing the law, establishes it. “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid; yea, we establish the law.” Does Paul contradict himself? Does he teach that holiness, justice, goodness and spirituality have been abolished? If not, then that which he says is abolished is something else besides the moral law, the law which he establishes. Peter forewarns us that some would wrest Paul's words to their own destruction.

Well, John says he was in the Spirit on the Lord's day.

So he does; and that proves that notwithstanding it is claimed that Paul has done so much to blot out the Sabbath, that the Lord had a day which he claimed as his own, as late as when the book of Revelation was written. Who, since that, has had authority to annul or change it?

E. F. COTTRELL.

MICHIGAN CENTRAL RAILROAD.

On and after July 1, 1868, Passenger Trains will run on this road as follows:

GOING WEST.

LEAVE.	MAIL.	DAY EXP.	EVE. EXP.	NIGHT EXP.
Detroit,......	6:45 A.M.	9:30 A.M.	5:25 P.M.	9:10 P.M.
Battle Creek,	12:05 P.M.	2:15 P.M.	11:30 P.M.	2:00 A.M.
Chicago, Arrive,	7:40 P.M.	8:00 P.M.	6:30 A.M.	8:50 A.M.

GOING EAST.

	MAIL.	DAY EXP.	EVE. EXP.	NIGHT EXP.
Chicago,......	5:00 A.M.	8:00 A.M.	5:15 P.M.	9:30 P.M.
Battle Creek,	12:03 P.M.	1:48 P.M.	11:30 P.M.	3:37 A.M.
Detroit, Arrive,	5:55 P.M.	6:30 P.M.	3:40 A.M.	8:25 A.M.

THESE trains all run by Chicago time, which is fifteen minutes slower than Detroit time.

News and Miscellany.

Can ye not discern the Signs of the Times? Matt. xvi, 3.

A recent visitor at Jerusalem gives some of his impressions of that city, as follows: It is cavernous, disagreeable, damp, desolate, and very uninteresting. It abounds in caves and cisterns, aqueducts, and tombs. Creeping into a little fox-hole, just outside the Damascus gate, we wandered for hours through spacious and lofty caverns undermining half the city—the ancient quarries discovered by Dr. Barclay. In Warren's recent excavations we groped through arches and covered ways of Herodian time down to the original rock of Solomon's foundations. You are struck with the incongruity of new and costly modern buildings rising from among the rubbish and decay of the old city, and of no use, except for the pilgrims of all Christendom who watch with jealous care their respective rights in the Holy City, and are kept from biting and devouring one another by the sabre of the Turks.

There are great empty places of desolation within the walls. Just inside the Drug gate I saw Jerusalem ploughed as a field, and got lost in the great cactus wilderness of the Typorean valley, just where that magnificent causeway of Dr. Robinson's arch once connected Mount Zion with the Temple. Stumbling over dead dogs and garbage up the steep of Zion, I was run at by a cow who was just about tossing me on her horns when the herdsman came to my defense. And then going out of Zion gate I had to run the gauntlet of the lepers who there do congregate, whining horribly, and stretching out their shapeless stumps.

The Napoleonic Debt.

Such statements as the following, which is reliable, we believe, somewhat shake our confidence in the extravagant laudations of the wonderful genius and ability of the present French Emperor. The quotation is from The Chicago Tribune:

“The French Emperor has had seventeen years of rule, and during the whole time he has borrowed, in one way or another, the enormous sum of four thousand three hundred and twenty-two millions of francs. He has expended an infinite amount of ingenuity upon devising indirect means of making loans. Thus he gave the Algerian Company a contract, under which it was to furnish one hundred millions of francs in six years for public works in Algeria. At the end of the six years the whole sum had become, of course, a debt of the State. The bank of France secured twenty years of monopoly in return for adding one hundred millions to its capital and loaning this sum to the Empire. By all these means the interest of the debt of France has risen from 291 millions in 1852 to 549 millions in 1868. The increase on interest is almost exactly the average annual amount borrowed by the Emperor during the seventeen years of his rule. That is to say, Napoleon’s debt is now so big, in addition to what the debt of France was when he came to the throne, that when he has met the expenses of the Empire as far as he can, he has nothing to pay the interest on the loans of his reign, but has instead a deficit of just the sum required to pay that interest.

Not a franc to pay the interest on his debts—that is the financial situation of Napoleon at this moment. How long can he carry on his immensely-expensive system of public works and his military expenditure, when he cannot manage to pay anything on the interest of his debts except by borrowing?”

REPORT FROM BRO. COTTRELL.

By R. F. COTTRELL

A good work is begun here. Fifteen, at least, have embraced the Sabbath. Others confess it who have not decided to keep it. May they make a choice that they will not regret. Much is yet to be done for those who have embraced the truth. Some are to be converted; but I think Satan will not be able to overthrow the work. The message is getting a deep hold in the hearts of some, so deep that it cannot be easily erased. The enemy will try them, but may they have help from on high.

I expect the coming week to begin in a new place, but if it seems duty shall return here again after a few weeks. May the blessing of God abide here. May this people be able to forsake every idol, lay aside every error, and heartily unite in the solemn work of preparation for the Judgment; so that at last they may be found “gold, silver, and precious stones,” and not “wood, hay, stubble.” Let us work while the day lasts. R. F. COTTRELL. Randolph, N. Y., July 9, 1868.

THINGS IN NEW HAMPSHIRE AND MASS.

By Dudley Marvin Canright

ABOUT three months ago, myself and wife left Norridgewock, Me., not knowing whether we should return there or not. We came to Boston, where we stopped with Bro. Rice and Bro. Layton three or four weeks. I improved my time in the public libraries, obtaining some historical facts which I wanted. I do not have many hopes that the Sabbath cause will ever do much in Boston, at least not at present. Bro. Rice is now about moving away, and in the order of the Lord, too, I think. Bro. Layton, who has long been in bondage, has now obtained strength to firmly decide on the Sabbath. We hope the way will now open for him to move where he and his family can have the privilege of Sabbath meetings.

I spent two Sabbaths in Rhode Island, with Bro. Rodman. Most of the brethren here have not much experience in the work, yet they seem to be ready to learn.

From Boston we went to Manchester, and stopped with Bro. and Sr. Smith. Here we were glad to meet our sister Ella, from Battle Creek, who came here to seek her health by a change of climate, &c. She and my wife made it their home at Bro. Smith’s for five weeks. Bro. and Sr. Smith did all that could be done to make them contented and happy while there. This was a very pleasant home, indeed, for us all. The hearts of this family are in the work, and they are not afraid to sacrifice for the Lord. God has blessed them in so doing, and so he will all who trust him.

I spent two Sabbaths in Amherst, 8 miles from Manchester. The work was begun here a little over a year ago, by Bro. Gage. They seem united and zealous in the cause, though but few. I enjoyed those meetings very much. Here is a good chance for some of our scattered brethren to move among Sabbath-keepers. Small or large farms can be had here quite cheap. This would be an excellent place for a large Conference, if we had a few more families here. Come, brethren, and get where you can help and be helped.

Two Sabbaths I spent at Washington, which I have reported. When it was decided that I should labor in these two States, this season, we began to look for a place to live. The way at length seemed to open very favorably at South Lancaster, Mass. Bro. Haskell has a large house, a large share of which he rents, as he has no children. So here we are now, all comfortably settled in a very pleasant place.

There is a small company (10) of devoted Sabbath-keepers here, who have been praying and hoping for better days, and an enlargement of their numbers. Many scattered ones from miles around have, of late, joined this church. Bro. Rice has just bought a large house within a few rods from us. He has a hall which will be fitted up for our meetings. We are looking for others to move here soon. All these things encourage us very much. We hope that the Lord will build up his cause here, and light a light that will shine far around to others. We invite the scattered ones to come and find a home with us. There is a good chance here for almost any kind of business for men, women, or children.

I intend now to visit the scattered ones in these two States as fast as is practicable. Some things look discouraging, but we hope in God. Dear brethren and sisters, shall the work move forward among us here this year? Do you not want to see the cause built up, and see your families and friends come into the truth? If we do we must live and labor for it. Bro. Haskell and myself are ready to do all we can; and now we ask and expect that you will help us. Take hold of the reforms and come up to the work. Do not lag behind, and have to be urged to do your duty; but come up cheerfully, and God will bless you. I am not acquainted much in this section, and do not know where the Sabbath-keepers live. If you want me to visit you, write to me. We are looking for a chance to give a course of lectures. If any know of a good opening, we would like to hear from them.

Finally, brethren, pray for us, your servants, that the Lord may bless our labors. My address is South Lancaster, Mass. D. M. CANRIGHT. July 6, 1868.

REPORT OF MEETINGS IN WISCONSIN.

By I. SANBORN

It has been quite a long time since I have reported my labor. After I left my field of labor in Grant Co., in April, I was at home about three weeks, and after I had attended the Quarterly Meeting at Johnstown, I went to Albany, in Green Co., and held a few meetings which were very interesting to all the little flock, who seemed to take new courage to press on. From there I went to the State Conference, which was a very profitable meeting to me, and, I think, to all present. The stirring truths brought out by Bro. Andrews and Cornell were, with the blessing of God, calculated to do much good, and I think the brethren parted with new determinations to at least double their diligence in the good work of spreading the truth. I know I did. After Conference I spent the next Sabbath at Albany, and on first-day I heard the Congregationalist minister, of that place, preach a sermon in favor of the immortality of the soul, which was just like all other sermons on that subject, very weak. The last position the Elder took was that a certain man in Albany had a dream, and dreamed that a certain woman who used to live there, but had removed to some other part, had come back to this man's door; and he dreamed that he talked with her. Then he awoke and told the dream to his wife, and said, I think we shall hear of that woman's death; and in a few days they learned that this same woman had died a few days before this man dreamed of seeing her. Said the Elder, I believe that it was the spirit of that woman that gave him the dream.

Of course all the Spiritualists present were much edified, and I was not so much surprised at seeing the elder take such a position, after I had learned that he had had a good chance, several years ago, to understand the truth, but he rejected it. “And for this cause God shall send them strong delusions that they should believe a lie; that they all might be damned who believe not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” 2 Thess. ii, 11, 12. In the afternoon of the same day the Lord gave me liberty in reviewing the Elder's positions.

The next Sabbath and first-day I attended the Quarterly Meeting at Monroe, which was well represented by brethren and sisters from other churches; three were received into the church. These brethren seem to be rising, notwithstanding the many trials they have passed through.

From Monroe I came on to Cassville, Grant Co., to resume my labors in this new field. The attendance at the dedication of the meeting-house in Waterloo was very large; it was estimated that there were about 500 people present on first-day. On second-day, after meeting at five, P. M., went to Grant River, where five more were baptized.

The prospect is good here for much good to be done in different districts. Bro. R. F. Andrews assisted through the dedication meetings, and his plain, pointed manner of presenting the truth was much esteemed by all who heard him, and the people are very anxious he should come again as soon as he can. We were sorry he could not have stayed over another Sabbath, but duty called him to go. I. SANBORN.

Cassville, Wis., July 6, 1868.

Satan has the Power of Disease.

By Dudley Marvin Canright

The Bible teaches that Satan afflicts men with disease and death. This we believe to be true. The early fathers believed so, too, as will be plainly seen by the following extract from Tatian's address to the Greeks, written about A. D. 150.

“There are, indeed, diseases and disturbances of the matter that is in us; but, when such things happen, the demons ascribe the causes of them to themselves, and approach a man whenever disease lays hold on him. Sometimes they themselves disturb the habit of the body by a tempest of folly; but, being smitten by the word of God, they depart in terror, and the sick man is healed.” Chap. xvi.

Again: “The demons do not cure, but by their arts make men their captives. And the admirable Justin has denounced them as robbers. For, as it is the practice of some to capture persons and then to restore them to their friends for a ransom, so those who are esteemed gods, invading the bodies of certain persons, and producing a sense of their presence by dreams, command them to come forth into the public, and in the sight of all, when they have taken their fill of this world, fly away from the sick, and, destroying the disease which they had produced, restore men to their former state.” Chap. xviii.

They occasionally do a little good to cover their evil deeds. D. M. CANRIGHT.

Curtis' Corner, R. I.

Church Ventilation.

Mr. Leeds devoted a large part of his lectures on ventilation to showing the defects of many of the popular methods of ventilation, and in explaining how a supply of wholesome air may be obtained in school rooms, churches, and private dwellings. The following is a very good example of how not to do it:

“I called one morning about ten o’clock at one of the finest new churches, which was then being occupied as a hospital, and asked for the surgeon in charge. He had not arrived. (They did not often venture in before eleven o’clock, the wards became so foul during the night it took till that time, with the windows up, to get them fit for the surgeon in charge to venture in.) I inquired of the ward master how the building was ventilated. ‘Oh! very well, indeed—they had good ventilation,’ pointing up to a large, splendid ventilator in the ceiling. ‘Do you keep that always open?’ I asked. ‘Oh! certainly,’ he replied. But I always have a great suspicion of those ceiling ventilators, as they are generally shut. So I walked around the ward, and when under it asked him again if he thought that was open. A smile came over his face as he discovered for the first time it was a handsome fresco painting on the solid wall. And this was the only practical attempt at any ventilation in any of the church buildings used as hospitals in all Washington.”

Obituary Notices.

By R. J. LAWRENCE; ANNIE E. JONES

Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth.

DIED, in Ortonville, Oakland Co., Mich., June 19, 1868, Bro. Riley Rathbun, in his 88th year.

The deceased embraced the present truth some fifteen years since under the labors of Bro. Cornell, and has been a faithful observer of the Sabbath and other doctrines connected with the present truth. About one year ago he over-worked, and took cold, which induced consumption. He died in hope of a part in the first resurrection. He leaves two orphan children, with a step mother, and a large circle of friends to mourn his loss.

Funeral services by the writer, July 21, at Ortonville, in the Baptist meeting-house. Subject, Resurrection. R. J. LAWRENCE.

FELL asleep in Jesus, in Antwerp, Mich., June 18, 1868, Delia M., wife of David H. Gault, aged 22 years and 11 months. ANNIE E. JONES.

Sacrifice as Obedience

Though obedience be better than sacrifice, yet for a man to sacrifice himself is sometimes the best obedience.

Accommodating Our Views to Truth

Nor a few seek to accommodate truth to their views and feelings; it is wiser to accommodate our views and feelings to truth.

Continue reading: A Word to Parents