Earlier text: General ArticlesTHE COMING OF THE LORD.
By An English Writer
"OUR God shall come, and shall not keep silence; a fire shall devour before him, and it shall be very tempestuous round about him. He shall call to the heavens from above, and to the earth, that he may judge his people. Gather my saints together unto me; those that have made a covenant with me by sacrifice. And the heavens shall declare his righteousness; for God is judge himself. Selah." Ps. 50:3-6. WE stand on the eve of one of the greatest events the world has ever witnessed. Signs are multiplying on every side of us, compared with which there has been no parallel, either in the history of the church or the world. One of the greatest changes to both hangs upon this great event. It is the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ the second time in power and glory, to bring all things into subjection to himself, and to be "King of kings and Lord of lords." Let us see what the psalmist says of this event in the passage under consideration. The first word is a striking one—"Our God." It is the family word. None but the child can use it. That child is one of the family. He is related to his Heavenly Father. He has been redeemed and brought nigh by the blood of Christ. He is in the bonds of the everlasting covenant. He is a joint heir with Christ. He can look up, and say, "My beloved is mine, and I am his." He will be able to say with joy, when the Lord shall descend from Heaven in flaming fire, "Lo this is our God; we have waited for him, and he will save us; this is the Lord; we have waited for him; we will be glad and rejoice in his salvation." Yes; it is the family word. He who now puts into our lips the sweet words, "Our father," enables us to look forward to that solemn hour, and say, "Our God." We are about to meditate on a solemn scene—God coming down to this earth in human form, as a devouring fire, with storms and tempests raging around him. Oh! how necessary to be able to say, before we gaze upon it, "Our God." What will it be if we cannot say, "Our God?" With what feelings of terror and alarm must it be viewed unless we can say, in prospect, "Our God!" Make sure of this, reader, before you go one step farther. Only this can make you calm in the prospect, and in the reality when it comes, to be able to say, "Our God." Therefore it is that the Holy Spirit puts this little word first, on which we may dwell earnestly, soberly, searchingly, before we proceed to that which follows. "Our God shall come, and shall not keep silence." In order clearly to understand what is meant here by God's "not keeping silence," we must refer to the closing part of the chapter, from the sixteenth verse to the twenty-first: "But unto the wicked God saith, What hast thou to do to declare my statutes, or that thou shouldest take my covenant in thy mouth? seeing thou hatest instruction, and casteth my words behind thee. When thou sawest a thief, then thou consentedst with him, and hast been partaker with adulterers. Thou givest thy mouth to evil, and thy tongue framest deceit. Thou sittest and speakest against thy brother; thou slanderest thine own mother's son. These things hast thou done, and I kept silence; thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself." Here God reviews the character of the wicked in this dispensation. It is exactly what has been going on in our world for the last six thousand years. Men have been taking God's covenant "in their mouth," in other words, making a profession of religion, while, all the time, the power of religion has been absent. Underneath this profession, sin and iniquity of the worst form have been carried on. Men have really been "hating" God, and casting his words behind them. "Theft," "adultery," "evil," "deceit," "false witness," "slander,"—have not all these things been going on in the world at a fearful speed? All this while God has "kept silence." He has not interfered to strike men down, in such acts, with his arm of judgment; so men begin to say, "Where is God? Tush! doth God see?" If there be a God, why does he not interfere? Either there is none, or else he is "altogether such an one as ourselves." Thus the world has gone on—the wicked "flourishing as a green bay tree," the righteous returning with a "full cup" of tears, and God keeping silence. But it shall not always be so. "Our God shall come, and shall not keep silence." He shall come and "reprove" men and "set" each act and deed "in order," "before the eyes" of the wicked. It is interesting to notice how nearly all the features of the wicked, described in this chapter, and which history has endorsed as the dominant principles in the world, are again reproduced by the Holy Spirit in the third chapter of St. Paul's second epistle to Timothy, and which are to be more prominently developed—as the flower from the bud—in the last days. And what are to be the heralds of the coming? "A fire shall devour before him; and it shall be very tempestuous round about him." Here, again, the Holy Spirit confirms this testimony by St. Paul: "And to you who are troubled, rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from Heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ; who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power." Yes; from one end of Christendom to the other, one piercing cry shall rend the heavens; "Ye rocks and hills fall on us, and hide us from the presence of the Lamb." The entreaty, earnest and loud, will then be heard from many a lip that now scorns the preaching of the cross: "Lord, Lord, open to us;" but "too late." It shall be "very tempestuous." The nations shall be at their wits' end. The ties of nature and of society shall be set at naught. Men's lusts and passions shall have unbridled course. They shall run to and fro. Knowledge shall increase. Men's hearts, on all sides, will be "failing them for fear and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth." A few will lift up their heads in that universal wreck, and run calmly and joyfully; for they know their redemption is nigh, their hour of triumph is at hand. Oh! to stand among that little band in that awful hour, and be able to say, "Our God!" But what will the Lord do then? "He shall call to the heaven from above, and to the earth, that he may judge his people." . . . The Spirit of God confirms this testimony by St. Paul: "For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from Heaven with a shout, with the voice of the Archangel, and with the trump of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first; then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air; and so shall we ever be with the Lord. The word rendered "then," in this passage, may be more properly rendered, "after that," and shows us that some interval may elapse between the meeting of the dead saints and the living ones before they are taken up to meet the Lord in the air. The fond greeting, the loved embrace, the outburst of joy shall fill it up. Then all shall rise together at one and the same summons from on high, "and so shall we ever be with the Lord." "Ever with the Lord!" Oh! the joy of these words! Here thought fails. The lips falter. The mind shrinks. Eternity alone can tell their depth. We wait to sound their meaning. Who would not say, in such a world of sin, and sorrow, and death as this, "Come, Lord Jesus, come quickly!" But mark the psalmist's words. Who are they that are called? "Gather my saints together unto me." What an expressive word—"my saints!" How the Lord appropriates them as his own! "They shall be mine in the day when I make up my jewels." What precious words—"my saints," "my jewels!" What sinful, erring creatures we are! How do we daily and hourly provoke the Lord who loves us! What naughty children the Lord has to manage! How he may say of us, as Moses said of Israel, "Ye have been rebellious against the Lord since the day that I knew you;" and yet, "my saints!" "my jewels!" Oh, what grace! what wondrous love! But mark another word here. "Gather my saints." "He shall gather the lambs in his arms." He shall gather them as a shepherd his sheep in the hour of weakness and danger—the weak ones, the nervous ones, those who start at a shadow, and tremble at the fluttering of a leaf. They shall not be weak or nervous then. The frail body shall be dropped forever, and they shall be clasped in an embrace such as they have never known on the earth, to a bosom of infinite love. But mark another word here. "Gather my saints together." It is the family meeting. It is the grand reunion. It is the glad assembly. We shall not rise to meet the Lord individually—in isolations. We shall be gathered together. So the apostle speaks of our "gathering together unto him." And again, "We which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them. No more separations! No more sects, or systems! All together! One mind, one heart, one joy, one glad meeting, without the shadow of a farewell greeting ever darkening its shores! What heart does not bound at the thought! But mark yet one word more, the sweetest of all, "unto Me." Ah! what would all the others be without this? Nothing, nothing! The foam, the dust, the shadow, the air! What would that meeting be without Jesus? What is any meeting without him? The very notes of Heaven would be discord; its jasper walls would be hideous; its very air would be oppressive. It would all be dreaminess, and darkness, and death. With his name every song is sweet. In his smile, every countenance is bright. Every chord of the golden harps will vibrate with his praise. Every voice will be vocal with his name. Jesus, Jesus, Jesus!—through eternity. For this the Lord himself prays: "Father, I will that they also whom thou hast given me, be where I am, that they may behold my glory." Love can only be satisfied with the presence of its object. So with the Saviour. He longs for us. He waits for us. We must be with him. How can he be happy without us? But who are these thus gathered? Mark it well, reader: "Those who have made a covenant with me by sacrifice." They are those who have laid themselves and their earthly substance an offering on God's altar, and who have made a covenant with God through the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ. They are the blood-bought ones. They are those who have cast themselves—all sin and guilt, helpless and undone—on the finished work of the Lord Jesus. They are those who cry from the depths of their hearts: "Other refuge have I none;
Hangs my helpless soul on thee." Reader, have you done this? If you have not, then you are not in that covenant. And if you are not in that covenant now, can you think of that meeting? You may hide this sad picture from your conscience, or, worse than all, charge your sin on God by a series of excuses. But it will not avail then. Mark the next verse: "The heavens shall declare His righteousness, for God is judge himself." His righteous dealings will then be acknowledged by every lip, and be felt by every heart. Even the wicked will be compelled to own it. And not only so, but righteousness shall be written on everything, as it never has been yet. And why? "For God is judge himself." He shall be judge in the earth, and the result will be righteous judgment. Misrule, injustice, oppression, will all end then. "Righteousness shall cover the earth as the waters cover the sea." And what is the practical lesson from all this, for the world, as well as for God's people? There is a word for each one at the close of this chapter. "Ye that forget God, consider this." Unconverted reader, weigh it well, lest God "tear thee in pieces." The day is at hand. Consider. Fly to Jesus. He is your only hope. Out of him you are not safe for a moment. Be warned, and haste to the refuge. Christian, "order your conversation," or citizenship, "aright." Aim to glorify Jesus. Let his praise fill your heart. Let his image be clearly, decidedly, unmistakably, written on every act of your life. Be whole-hearted for Christ. "Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life." REAL AND APPARENT HAPPINESS.
By Jeremy Taylor
If we should look under the skirt of the prosperous and prevailing tyrant, we should find even in the days of his joys such alloys and abatements of his pleasure as may serve to represent him presently miserable, besides his final infelicities. For I have seen a young and healthful person warm and ruddy under a poor and thin garment, when at the same time an old rich person hath been cold and paralytic under a load of sables and the skins of foxes. It is the body that makes the clothes warm, not the clothes the body; and the spirit of a man makes felicity and content, not any spoils of a rich fortune wrapt about a sickly and an uneasy soul. Apollodorus was a traitor and a tyrant, and the world wondered to see a bad man have so good a fortune; but knew not that he nourished scorpions in his breast, and that his liver and his heart were eaten up with spectres and images of death. His thoughts were full of interruptions, his dreams of illusions; his fancy was abused with real troubles and fantastic images, imagining that he saw the Scythians flaying him alive, his daughters like pillars of fire dancing round about a caldron in which himself was boiling, and that his heart accused itself to be the cause of all these evils. Does not he drink more sweetly that takes his beverage in an earthen vessel, than he that looks and searches into his golden chalices for fear of poison, and looks pale at every sudden noise, and sleeps in armor, and trusts nobody, and does not trust God for his safety, but does greater wickedness only to escape a while unpunished for his former crimes? “Auro bibitur venenum.” No man goes about to poison a poor man’s pitcher, nor lays plots to forage his little garden made for the hospital of two beehives, and the feasting of a few Pythagorean herb-eaters. They that admire the happiness of a prosperous, prevailing tyrant, know not the felicities that dwell in innocent hearts, and poor cottages, and small fortunes. Can a man bind a thought with chains, or carry imaginations in the palm of his hand? Does the hand intermeddle with the joys of the heart? or darkness, that hides the naked, make him warm? Does the body live, or does the spirit? or can the body of Christ be like to common food? Indeed the sun shines upon the good and bad; and the vines give wine to the drunkard as well as to the sober man; pirates have fair winds and a calm sea at the same time when the just and peaceful merchantmen have them. But although the things of this world are common to good and bad, yet sacraments and spiritual joys, the food of the soul, and the blessing of Christ, are the peculiar right of saints.—Jeremy Taylor. THE idea prevails with many that "all time is alike," or "there is no difference in time," and therefore it does not make any difference which day is observed as the Sabbath. And it seems marvelous that this plea is put forth by those who strenuously insist that it is our duty to keep the first day of the week! That position was stated by "Rev. R.G. Baird" in his "Two Sermons" against Seventh-day Adventists, as follows:— "The observance of the Sabbath is, in the abstract, a moral duty; but as no time is more holy than another, except as we make it such, or more God's time, except as we devote it more exclusively to his worship, the particular day on which the Sabbath is to be observed, is a matter that pertains wholly to the ceremonial." No time holy, except as we make it such! Oh, the arrogance of rebellious man. How can we make time holy? The answer would probably be, "By resting on it from our works." But we learn from the Bible record that even the resting of God from the work of creation on the seventh day did not make that day holy. "And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it, because that in it he had rested from all his work." Surely, if God resting on the seventh day did not make it holy, our resting on Sunday will not make it holy. The assertion that no time is specially the Lord's time, or no day the Lord's day, except as we devote it to his service, is equally untrue and absurd. We are to preserve those relations which God has established. The vainglorious act of sinful man cannot establish relations of this nature. That the day is sacred without regard to our use of it, is proved by all those scriptures which speak of the guilt of the people in profaning his holy day. Isa. 58: 13: "If thou turn away thy foot from the Sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the Sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, honorable," etc. Now, if it rested with us to make the day holy, as Mr. Baird affirmed, He would not be a holy day unless we rested upon it. How, then, could man profane a holy day, when the very act of profanation deprived the day of all holiness? Ex. 31: 15 says, "Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the Sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord." Ex. 16: 23: "To-morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord." According to Mr. Baird's theory, that was not true; for it was not holy before the people rested on it, and was holy only because they rested on it! Every reader can see that his declaration is a plain contradiction of the Scriptures. There is a prevailing looseness in regard to the claims of God and to the obligations of his law which cannot be too severely condemned. Why will men claim that obedience to law rests upon the will of the subject? No law is thus abused, and no government thus insulted, but the law and government of God. To illustrate the position of Mr. Baird, and of many other religionists, we will suppose that the fourth of July has been set apart by our government, by an express law, as the day to commemorate the independence of the United States; and the law gives as the reason for such appointment the signing of the Declaration of Rights. Now a party rises up and claims that the design of the law will be carried out by observing the eighth of January instead; that we are required to keep one day of the year, and not any particular day; that both the letter and the spirit of the law will be kept by observing the eighth of January; that on that day a very memorable event occurred, worthy of being commemorated; that history has made much mention of the victory of Gen. Jackson, on that day; and that as we are to keep the day it must be optional with us which day we keep. Now, query: Would that law be kept by keeping the eighth day of January instead of the fourth of July? The law specifies the particular day—the fourth of July. It gives the reason—the signing of the Declaration of Independence on that day. It is not optional with us—the law carries with it the authority of the government. On the other hand, the eighth of January is not mentioned in the law; the victory at New Orleans is not the reason given for appointing the day; history is not law, so a historical fact cannot supersede a legal enactment; though the day is to be observed by us, it is not a matter of option, but must be kept in obedience to the law; the claim and authority of the government is honored only by the observance of that day which it set apart by law. He would be considered wildly foolish who would contest the case in favor of the eighth of January, under such circumstances. But such is the relative position of the parties in this Sabbath controversy. The law says the seventh day. Mr. Baird acknowledges the validity of the law, but says the first day will answer instead of the seventh. The law gives as the reason that God rested on the seventh day. Mr. Baird says the better reason is that Christ arose on first day. The law says the seventh day is the Lord's day, the day of his choice, the day which he reserved to himself, and hallowed to sacred use. Mr. Baird says no one day belongs to the Lord, except as we give it to him, or is hallowed, except as we make it so, and the first day will answer all the ends of the law. The fact that it is a law, that it is by authority, binds us to observe the day pointed out in the law. But Mr. Baird says a day not indicated by authority, not enforced by any law, will answer far better than the day mentioned in the law! Was ever folly and presumption more apparent? We appeal to the reader,—Will you take a position which so manifestly contravenes the expressed will of Jehovah? Have "the law and the testimony" ceased to be the rule of life? Has it ceased to be the "duty of man" to "fear God and keep his commandments?" Had the authority of God been effectually set aside or superseded, we cannot imagine how men could recognize the fact in their lives more than by living just as they now do. And the saddest of all is the thought that these things stand justified by the theories of religious teachers and leaders. How long shall a just God suffer these things? "O Lord, revive thy work." The Two Covenants.
By John Nevins Andrews
THERE are two views prevailing as to what constitutes the first covenant. One was noticed last week, namely, that the old covenant was the agreement entered into between God and the children of Israel, a record of which is found in Ex. 19:5-8. Proof was given from the Scriptures that this is the truth on this important subject. According to the second view, the first covenant was simply the ten commandments. The first view is the more comprehensive, as it presents the two leading definitions of the word covenant, and answers to them both. 1. It presents as the covenant the contract between the parties. 2. It presents the condition to the contract. But the second view presents as the first covenant that which answers to the definition of covenant only in its secondary sense; viz., the condition on which the contract rests. Undoubtedly the word covenant is thus used in the Bible. And for that reason many persons suppose that the ten commandments answer to, and constitute, the first covenant of which Jeremiah and Paul speak. That view of this subject which is really the truth will give to every part of the testimony its proper place, and will then show a divine harmony of the whole. But error must of necessity suppress, or pervert the truth. Here are the more important passages quoted to prove that the ten commandments constitute the first covenant:- Ex. 34:28: "And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments." Deut. 4:13: "And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone." Deut. 9:9-11: "When I was gone up into the mount to receive the tables of stone, even the tables of the covenant which the Lord made with you, then I abode in the mount forty days and forty nights, I neither did eat bread nor drink water; and the Lord delivered unto me two tables of stone written with the finger of God; and on them was written according to all the words, which the Lord spake with you in the mount out of the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly. And it came to pass at the end of forty days and forty nights, that the Lord gave me the two tables of stone, even the tables of the covenant." 1 Kings 8:21: "And in it have I set there a place for the ark, wherein is the covenant of the Lord, which he made with our fathers, when he brought them out of the land of Egypt." 2 Chron. 6:11: "And in it have I put the ark, wherein is the covenant of the Lord, that which he made with the children of Israel." These are the texts relied upon by our opponents to disprove our views of the first covenant and to establish their own. We freely admit that the word covenant is applied to the ten commandments; and further, we also admit, or, to speak more properly, we maintain, that the ten commandments do sustain a very important relation to the first covenant. But all parties must agree, 1. That the ten commandments are not a covenant in the sense of being a contract or agreement, as they contain no such thing. 2. That they are a covenant in the sense of being the conditions of the agreement which God made with Israel. It does not seem that either of these two propositions can be denied by any candid man, as they are, manifestly, the exact truth. Both parties to this controversy must here come together upon common ground. And if they each act with a pure conscience, it will be difficult for them to disagree respecting the following proposition:- THE TEN COMMANDMENTS DO NOT CONSTITUTE THE COVENANT OF EX. 24:8.
That text reads thus: "And Moses took the blood and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words." Two palpable reasons sustain the foregoing proposition: 1. The covenant made with Israel "concerning all these words," was the agreement which the people entered into with the Almighty, as recorded in Ex. 19 and 24, that they would keep the words spoken by him. 2. The ten commandments were the words concerning which this covenant or agreement was made. These reasons are not likely to be disputed. They establish the fact, therefore, that the covenant which was ratified or dedicated with blood by Moses was not the ten commandments. On the contrary, it is a covenant in a more extensive sense than they can be. It is an agreement between God and Israel concerning his law, and that law is elsewhere called a covenant, not because there is in it a contract between God and his people, but simply because it is the grand condition of the contract, or covenant, which Moses here dedicates with blood. It is remarkable that the people entered into formal and solemn contract to obey the voice of God before they heard it, and that having heard his voice, they ratified that contract in the most solemn manner; and that to conclude all, Moses, having written the whole thing in a book, sprinkled both it and all the people, saying, "Behold the blood of the covenant which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words." Ex. 24:8. Both parties to the controversy respecting the first covenant will here again certainly unite in saying that Moses uses the word covenant in this remarkable text, not as signifying the ten commandments, but the agreement made respecting them. Here we stand on solid ground, and our opponents will not attempt to drive us hence. And now that we are so happily agreed in this fact let us advance to the important truth which lies directly before us. Here it is:- The contract made in Ex. 19 and 24, relative to the ten commandments, which Moses (Ex. 24:8) calls "the covenant which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words," is the identical first covenant concerning which we are involved in controversy. This proposition our opponents stoutly deny. But so certainly as they are honest men (and we are ready to award this noble quality to every one of them who has not given palpable proof that he does not possess it), they will be constrained to agree with us here also. Providentially, we have the testimony of the New Testament in so explicit and distinct an utterance as to leave no chance for dispute on this point. Paul quotes this very record in Ex. 24:8, respecting the dedication of the covenant concerning the law of God, and makes the explicit statement that this covenant thus dedicated was the first covenant. Here are his words:- "Whereupon neither the first TESTAMENT [covenant] was dedicated without blood. For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people, saying, This is the blood of the testament [covenant] which God hath enjoined unto you." Heb. 9:18-20. Here, also, we have a right to ask our opponents to agree with us. In fact the testimony is so explicit that there is no chance for them to do otherwise. Paul settles this point in dispute, and shows that the first covenant is not the law of God, but the solemn contract between God and Israel respecting that law. And that which makes Paul's testimony in this case very valuable is, that he writes as a commentator upon those words of Jeremiah which constitute the theme of this discourse. Letter From England.
By J. N. Loughborough
SOUTHAMPTON, with its suburban towns, is a city of 60,000 inhabitants, and is situated in the midst of what is called “the garden of England.” It is a seaport, commercially considered next in importance to Liverpool and London. Taking Southampton as a center, within a radius of twenty miles there are nearly a score of cities and villages. One of these cities to the south-east of us, Portsmouth, has a population of 120,000. It is probably safe to state that there are 300,000 inhabitants who understand the English language within twenty miles of the house where I am now writing. Southampton is not a manufacturing or mining town, like many sections of England. While the laboring classes in the mining and manufacturing sections are just now suffering much distress in consequence of efforts to reduce their wages, “strikes,” etc., this part of England is not thus affected. As the Southampton Times stated last week, it is as prosperous as any part of the kingdom, because its laborers are not turned aside from their pursuits as are those in the coal mines and mills. At this important point vessels are arriving and departing almost daily, to and from various parts of the world. Much of England’s trade with the East Indies passes through this port. For this reason, it is a point where we can do much missionary work on ships. Southampton is a place of no small note in English history. Here at No. 21 French Street, still stands the old brick house in which Dr. Isaac Watts was born on the 17th day of July, 1674. This was the Dr. Watts whose hymns53 are sung with thrilling effect all over the world. It was when sitting on “pear tree green,” and looking across river Itchen to Southampton surrounded with its beautiful gardens and fields clothed in “living green,” that Watts composed his beautiful hymn,— “On Jordan’s stormy banks I stand,
And cast a wishful eye
To Canaan’s fair and happy land,
Where my possessions lie.” Watts’ Park in the city contains, on an appropriate monument, a life-size statue of Dr. Isaac Watts. On last Sunday I went to the same church where Dr. Watts maintained a life-long membership. There I listened to the first sermon I have heard in England. It was a very impressive discourse from Dr. Carlisle, B. A., who has been for many years pastor of the church, from the words, “Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, to-day, and forever.” Southampton is also the point from which the May Flower set sail for America with the Pilgrim fathers, who landed at the famous Plymouth Rock, Mass., and among whom, as many of our readers are aware, were the ancestors of our beloved brother, Eld. James White, of Battle Creek, Michigan. Of the many interesting items connected with Southampton and its history, I hope to write more at length in the Youth’s Instructor ere long. After arriving here, noting the situation, and learning from Bro. Ings of the interest already awakened in this vicinity, we decided, for the present at least, to make this place the headquarters of the mission. We have rented “Stanley Cottage,” on Stanley Street, near Shirley road, Freemantal, Southampton. It is a brick house, slate roof, with five rooms and an outside brick store-room 16x20 feet. The house is well supplied with cupboards, thus furnishing us ample facilities for book and mission rooms. There is a fireplace in each room, which is quite essential in a climate subject to so much fog as South England has. We have been in the place only ten days, but our house is settled, the two large boxes of books we brought with us are all arranged, and we are taking hold of our work as fast as possible. Last Sunday evening I spoke, by request, to one hundred and fifty in Shirley Hall, from Heb. 5:8, 9. I had good freedom. Many of the congregation were moved to tears, and wished me to speak again. The hall is under the control of a society calling themselves “Free Evangelists.” Bro. Ings is distributing tracts and papers, visiting from house to house, and gathering names of persons who will read our publications with candor. Those he visits give him names of their friends, and thus he obtains the addresses of persons from all parts of the kingdom, and elsewhere. This furnishes us the names of more individuals than we can correspond with; we have therefore to-day sent a number to various vigilant missionary societies in America that have requested us thus to do. We are now engaged in writing to those whose names we have in Great Britain whom we know to be specially interested in the truth. If any of the missionary societies in America have sent papers and tracts to persons in England, Scotland, or Ireland, and have received favorable responses, please write us here, giving the names and the facts in the case. There is no difficulty in obtaining the names of thousands of persons here who will read with interest, and will then loan the papers and tracts to others to read. Out of these thousands God will move scores and hundreds to obey the truth; this is our faith. In opening this branch of the work we found ourselves short of copies of the SIGNS. Bro. Ings had only a club of ten copies. He immediately sent to Oakland for another club of ten, and I sent for a club of ten, making us in all thirty copies. This is hardly a drop in the bucket. One sister in Massachusetts offered us a club of twenty-five; and we have written to her accepting them. This will make us fifty-five a week. For the next six months, we could use weekly at least five hundred copies of the SIGNS. There are persons who said to me, while in the United States, that if we found interested readers in England they would like to send the SIGNS. I would say to such, If you wish to invest the sum of $6, $12, or even $24 in clubs of the SIGNS, to be sent to my address as given in this article, we will see that as many as five hundred copies are judiciously distributed each week; and as fast as we find worthy readers who are unable to pay, we will transfer names from the club to such readers. Even outside parties here are willing to help us in the matter of distributing the papers. The way is already open to send a number of copies nearly every week to the English inhabitants of the East Indies. We see such a field open before us, and so much to be done, that our souls are stirred within us to do all we can. We are negotiating for a hall in which to hold public meetings. In all probability we shall be engaged in our first series of meetings in Old England before this article is read by the readers of the SIGNS. We shall have a meeting of interested ones in our own house next Sabbath. We are well, though somewhat affected by the change of climate from California to England, a distance of six thousand miles. The weather just now is quite cold. The public prints say it is the most severe that has been known here in thirty years. We long to be speaking to the people. We shall commence with about four meetings per week, and increase the number as health and strength will permit. We believe God will sustain us. We know we have the prayers of God’s people everywhere. Jan. 9, 1879.
J. N. LOUGHBOROUGH. Answers to Questions.
By Editor
To W. H. SWAIN.—We do not believe that the false prophet of the book of Revelation is the Mohammedan power. In Rev. 19 : 20 it is said the false prophet wrought miracles before the beast, "with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshiped his image." Chapter 13 says it is the two-horned beast which deceives them that dwell on the earth by the miracles which he does in the sight of the beast, and causes the dwellers on the earth to worship the beast, to make an image to him, and to receive his mark. Comparing these two chapters of this book we learn that the two-horned beast is the false prophet. But Mohammedanism never caused men to worship the first beast—the papacy. These powers have always been in antagonism; therefore Mohammedanism cannot be the false prophet, for it has always acted just the reverse of what is ascribed to the false prophet. For a full exposition of the subject, see a pamphlet for sale at this office entitled, The United States in the Light of Prophecy. To W. M. SMITH.—The propriety of partaking of the Lord's supper with other denominations does not at all depend on the nature of the invitation given. We consider it quite inconsistent for those who keep all the commandments of God to commune with those who ignore the keeping of them, either in whole or in part. How do you harmonize Rev. 21 : 1, where it says "there was no more sea," with Rev, 5 : 13, where it speaks of every creature in the sea praising God? ANSWER.—Several translations, as Anderson's, Whiting's, Sawyer's, and the Syriac, give the more literal rendering,—"and the sea was no more." Doubtless this referred to the sea which was connected with the first earth, which was also "passed away." The old earth and the old sea were passed away—were no more. The new earth will then have a sea of its own.