Earlier text: Constantine and His Favors to ChristiansImportant Questions Answered.
WILL you please answer the following in your columns?— 1. What is the chemical difference between fresh and stale bread, rendering the latter more digestible? 2. What change takes place when milk is boiled, making it more constipating than when raw? and does heating it to, perhaps, 140° produce the same effect? 3. What effect does soda have on the digestive organs, making it injurious? 4. What is the digestibility and nutritive quality of caramel? 1. Fresh bread contains a large amount of water, about forty-five per cent., much of which is in a pure or uncombined state. Within two or three days after baking, chemical changes take place in the interior of the loaf, in which the greater portion of the water enters into a combination with the starch and gluten of the grain, giving to the bread the appearance of being lighter, although if placed upon the scales it will be found that it has lost scarcely anything in weight. This fact can be easily demonstrated by placing a stale loaf in a closely covered vessel, and putting it in a hot oven for half an hour. On breaking open such a loaf it will be found to possess all the characteristics of a newly baked loaf, the water having been driven out from a combination with the constituents of the flour by the heat. A portion of the inside of a freshly baked loaf, when rubbed between the fingers, or when chewed, forms a sticky, pasty mass, which is permeated by the digestive fluids with difficulty. Pieces of stale bread treated in the same manner separate into small particles, which are readily acted upon by the digestive fluids. It is for this reason chiefly that stale bread is so much more wholesome and digestible than freshly baked bread. It should be added that the indigestibility of warm bread is greatly increased by the addition of butter. 2. The nutritive constituents of milk are casein, albumen, milk-sugar, fat, and salts. Boiling or heating to a temperature of about 140° coagulates the albumen, but does not materially affect the other constituents. The skin that forms upon the top of the milk, heated to near a boiling point, consists of this coagulated albumen, one of the most important nutritive elements of the milk. Milk is digested chiefly in the duodenum, by the action of the pancreatic juice, and the pepsin produced from it is found to be slightly constipating in character. The change produced by boiling seems to increase this natural tendency of milk, though whether this is due to the effect of heat upon the albumen or not, it is, perhaps not possible to say with certainty. Experience shows, however, that heating milk to 130 or 140 degrees temperature does not increase its natural constipating tendency. 3. The gastric juice, one of the most important of the digestive fluids, is very strongly acid in character, the degree of acidity being equal to that of a solution containing one five-hundredth part of pure hydrochloric or muriatic acid. In order that digestion should be properly performed, it is necessary that this degree of acidity should be retained in the stomach. The use of soda, or any other such article, neutralizes the acid in the food, and so checks the digestive process. The use of soda in cooking, in the form of baking-powders, etc., is a pernicious practice, and one that should be discarded, as well as the common practice of taking soda, magnesia, and other alkalies, to relieve acidity of the stomach. The only defense possible is that it is sometimes the least of two evils; but healthful living would dispense with both. 4. Caramel is a chemical substance produced by the action of heat upon sugar, and is neither nutritious nor digestible.—Christian Union. Citizens of No Mean City
By H. Clay Trumbull
“I AM . . . a citizen of no mean city.” Paul was proud of his citizenship. He had a right to be. The good name of a man’s home reflects honor on himself. If a town has a bad name, it is to the discredit of every man whose home is there. And every man is more or less affected by, and has more or less of a share in shaping, the character of the community in which he lives. A keen eye sees at once a difference between citizens of New York, Philadelphia, Boston, Chicago, St. Louis. Let us, then, feel our responsibility for the character of the community about us, and endeavor to make our own its best rather than its objectionable peculiarities. The disciple of Jesus is a “citizen of no mean city;” his home is “the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem”—“a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.” He is a “fellow-citizen with the saints, and of the household of God.” Let him see to it that he walks worthy of his high citizenship, that he reflects no dishonor on the city which he represents before men.—H. Clay Trumbull. Battle Creek, Mich., Sanitarium.
THIS is not only an immense, but also a growing institution. After an absence of a few years we realized it as we looked upon the new structure, and the improvements in various respects. Its well-known facilities have attracted to it a large patronage from all parts of the land. Throughout the last year the patronage was larger, we are informed, than that of any other institution of this kind in the country. In some particulars it excels all others; such as its perfect system of ventilation, and its special attention to surgical cases. Dr. Kellogg is known to be one of the best surgeons in our land, and many hundreds of operations are performed each year. It is well appointed and thoroughly fitted up in every respect to meet the wants of all classes of patients. The main building will accommodate 250 persons; while 150 can be accommodated in other buildings belonging to it. The entire length of the main building, including extensions, is 480 feet; height, to top of main part, 84 feet. The dining hall is well lighted and ventilated, and will seat more than three hundred guests. The arrangements for cooking and serving the tables are complete, while the fare is the best we have found in all our travels. The153 food is wholesome and abundant, and prepared in first-class style. There is a religious element in the institution which is as health-giving as its sanitary appliances. Nothing like ultraism or fanaticism appears, but a firm faith in God is manifested, both in their devotions and in their labors. The Sanitarium Sabbath-school numbers 120 adults. This has been held regularly for the last five years, except when the general meetings occasionally interfere. They have also a prayer-meeting every Friday evening, and hold quarterly meetings at the same time that they are held in the churches at large. The amount of good done to “body and soul and spirit” in this institution is beyond computation. We greatly rejoice in its prosperity, and pray that its usefulness and efficiency may increase continually. As we viewed this Sanitarium in its various departments and surroundings, and considered from what a small beginning it has grown to its present proportions; and called to mind the years of laborious effort which it has taken to bring it up to its present condition; and remembered how many discouragements its founders had to encounter, we could but pray that our “Health Retreat” in California may yet see days of usefulness and prosperity. We hope it may be so. But we cannot refrain from some feelings of sadness when we consider how fast the time is passing away, and how great is the need of putting it in operation. This we expect will be done the present season. If some of the brethren of wealth do not soon take hold of this institution and place it on a sure financial footing, we hope to see a fund created in some way by means of which it may be assisted, and that very soon. At our important meetings this spring this matter must be considered. And we hope that all the friends of missionary work will pray for its success. QUALIFICATIONS OF ELDERS.
NO PERSON is naturally qualified to render acceptable service to God. Converting grace alone can renew our fallen natures so that we can yield that loving obedience which God justly requires. “The carnal mind [the fleshly or natural mind] is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.” Rom. 8:7. There is only one means whereby this enmity can be removed, and its opposite, love and peace, be made to take its place. “Being justified by faith, we have peace with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ.” Rom. 5:1. But a complete willingness to serve God may be accompanied with a very limited ability to serve him. A man who is thoroughly converted may be perfectly willing to preach the gospel, and yet not have any of the qualifications necessary for an acceptable preacher. He has yet very many things to learn before he is competent to instruct others. He may have laid a good foundation for a Christian character by obtaining the “precious faith,” but to this he must add the Christian graces. 2 Peter 1:1, 5-7. The graces have to be cultivated; the work of overcoming is yet before him. A man may be truly converted who is yet quite ignorant of the general teachings of the Scriptures; ignorant in regard to duty, and to what constitutes true Christian character. To a certain degree this is the case with all young Christians. For this reason we are exhorted to “grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.” 2 Peter 3:18. If this be true (and no one will dispute it), then it must be evident to all that any and every person needs instruction and experience to be fitted to exercise the duties of an officer in the church. And the Scriptures show this to be true, and prove themselves adapted to our wants in this respect, by pointing out the qualifications of church officers, and laying down rules whereby one may become fitted to discharge the duties of his office. And in this is also seen that it is a vain excuse for any one to plead exemption from the responsibilities of an office because he is not qualified to discharge its duties. If there be first the ability to acquire knowledge, and the power and disposition for self-culture, and faith to trust in the promises of God that we may receive grace to help in time of need, and a spirit of consecration to the cause and work of God, no pre-requisite is lacking for becoming an efficient officer in the church. We say these are the pre-requisites; the requisites are a knowledge of and conformity to the rules laid down in the Scriptures. But it is objected that the servant of God should not depend upon learning, or study; he should be fitted up by the Holy Ghost as the disciples were on the day of Pentecost. Well, if the objector has been three and a half years in the service, under the immediate personal instruction and direction of the Lord Jesus, and only needs the illuminating influence of the Holy Spirit to bring the words of the Lord to his remembrance (John 14:26), as was the case with the apostles, then we may allow that he has but little need of any further education. At first view it may be thought that the experience of Paul was not at all parallel to that of the other apostles, as he was converted by revelation of the Lord. But (1) Paul had a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures before his conversion. He was an educated man. It needed only that he should be enlightened in regard to the application of the words of Moses and the prophets,—that he should become convinced that Jesus whom he persecuted was the Messiah,—and he could readily preach the gospel in a manner to confound the opposers. (2) Although he did boldly proclaim in Damascus that Jesus was the Messiah, he retired into Arabia and remained there three years before he fully entered upon the work of his ministry. This time he probably spent in study and in communion with his divine Master. Timothy knew the Scriptures from his childhood; yet Paul exhorted him to study to show himself approved unto God, a workman that need not be ashamed; and in furtherance of this object, he said to him: “Meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them; that thy profiting may appear to all.” While general education is not by any means to be depreciated, and some knowledge of books is absolutely necessary to doing efficient service in the cause of God, our chief study must be of the Holy Scriptures, which only are able to make us wise unto salvation; and our chief reliance upon the Spirit of God, not only to impress the word of truth forcibly upon our understandings, but to shed abroad the love of God in our hearts (Rom. 5:5), without which we ourselves shall be nothing, and in our profession and our labors will be sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal. The apostle Paul, to whom “the care of all the churches” (2 Cor. 11:28) seemed to be specially committed, gave to Timothy a complete list of the points which qualify an elder to fill his office. The term used in our version is “bishop” (1 Tim. 3:2); Dr. Schaff, Bible Dictionary, says: “The original Greek word means overseer. . . . In the N. T. the term is synonymous with presbyter or elder.” The shade of difference which is sometimes claimed is of no practical importance. Dr. Smith, Dictionary of the Bible, says the Greek word had been used as a title of office before the time of the New Testament. He also says that the term episkopos, bishop, is equivalent to presbuteros, elder. It is conceded that in 1 Tim. 3:1-7 are given the qualifications of the officer which by us is known as the elder of the church. The apostle says that he who desires the office of a bishop desires a good work. The word rendered good has also the signification of honorable; worthy, in James 2:7. Let the elders bear in mind that it is the work, not the honor, which they should desire. It is not said that the office is honorable, but the work; it is the work that gives honor to the office. The position or office can bring honor to no one if the work is neglected, or if it is not faithfully discharged. The rendering in Acts 20:28, overseer, compare 1 Pet 5:2, is correct and very suggestive. An overseer is one who takes charge of a work or of laborers; whose duty it is to see that the work is done in a proper manner, and that the laborers are faithful in the performance of their work. No less than this is required of an elder. It is evident, then, that an elder should be so related to the church that he can take the oversight of its work and its members. He must of necessity know how the work ought to be performed. He must understand the plan of the work, the ability of the workers, and be always ready to judge between that which is done well and that which is poorly done. A great responsibility rests upon him. And this leads to the notice of a question. Members of a certain church asked advice concerning the following, as the state of their church: The elder moved away, to such a distance that he could have no personal knowledge of the condition of the church or the walk of its members. He could not attend their regular meetings; perhaps could attend the quarterly meetings, but seldom at other times. But they had been unable to elect another, as he refused to resign his office, and had obtained that influence over certain members which prevented the church taking any action in the case. What was to be done? Our advice was, Appeal to your Conference for help. The person who does as is stated above is walking disorderly, and should be dealt with accordingly. He is not doing the work assigned to him; he is not feeding the flock (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet 5:2), and he stands in the way of others doing the work. He is not seeking the welfare of the church and the upbuilding of the cause, but is seeking self-exaltation at the expense of the work. Such a course is calculated to distract and divide, and is every way worthy of censure. We presume that this is an extreme case, and we hope that there are very few cases where the strength of our language will apply. But we have spoken decidedly and in strong terms that all may avoid the approach to such an evil. We have said, and we believe, that an elder ought to have as watchful oversight of his church as a teacher has of his school. If a teacher should habitually absent himself from his school, and neglect his scholars, steps should be taken to put a more faithful one in his place. If he cannot attend to the duties of his position, he should promptly give notice, that the want may be supplied. But if he cannot attend to his duties, and takes a course to prevent another from attending to them, we readily conclude that he is an enemy to the school, and takes no interest in the welfare of the scholars. To this all must agree; and the application to our subject is evident. Beside the important suggestion contained in the title overseer, we find no less than sixteen specifications in 1 Tim. 3:1-7 of the qualifications of an elder. And it is worthy of remark that in every case where we have called the attention of elders to this fact, surprise has been expressed that there are so many, which shows that the points in this enumeration have not been as generally and thoroughly studied as they should be. On the occasion of an election we almost always hear the officer elect express his sense of unfitness, of a lack of qualifications for the office and the work. But few could tell in just what that unfitness consists, and what are the requisites in a fitting up to the work. Why not, then, carefully study this enumeration, and learn wisdom from the word, and try to bring themselves into conformity to its requirements? We will next briefly consider the points in their order. “Can ye not discern the signs of the times?” J. H. WAGGONER, . . . . . EDITOR. E. J. WAGGONER, . . . . . ASSISTANT EDITOR. URIAH SMITH, . . . CORRESPONDING EDITOR. OAKLAND, CAL., FIFTH-DAY, MARCH 5, 1885. ALONZO T. JONES
By Alonzo T. Jones
written by John, and there we find the term “the Lord’s day,” but in all the book not a hint of the first day of the week. Now we want to know where it is that the spirit of inspiration by the apostle John “distinctly calls the first day of the week the Lord’s day.” When in one book the apostle speaks of the first day of the week, and in another book of the Lord’s day, without a word of explanation of either term, the only natural, reasonable, or logical impression that could be gathered from it is that he refers to two different days. If in John 20:1 it were written, The first day of the week, which is the Lord’s day; or, if in Rev. 1:10 it were written, I was in the spirit on the Lord’s day, which is the first day of the week, then all would be plain, then we should have it “distinctly” called the Lord’s day; then, indeed, there would be no ground for argument. All such connection, however, is lacking. And when Dr. Gregg, or anybody else, presents such a connection, he has to manufacture it. And with such arguments anything that is wanted can be “distinctly” proven. All that there is to do, is to find two terms that have no connection whatever, or a single term that says nothing at all on the subject under consideration, then assert loudly that your proposition is proven, and lo, it is done. But Dr. Gregg is not done yet; he goes on to show that “the first day of the week was observed without discussion and without ambiguity as the Lord’s day;” and he does it just as easily, and as “distinctly” (?) as he showed that it is the Lord’s day. He says:— “The Spirit of inspiration, speaking through the apostle John, distinctly calls it ‘the Lord’s day.’ Stamped with the Lord’s own name, we are to recognize the claim of Christ when with his own lips he says: ‘The Son of man is Lord of the Sabbath.’ In accordance with the teaching of these direct words . . . is the teaching of this preceptive history, which tells us how Paul spends the first day of the week at Troas.” It is astonishing that any person can be so reckless in his treatment of Scripture. It is inconceivable how he can believe his own argument. The occasion that called forth these words from the Saviour was, that the Pharisees had accused his disciples (and thus him indirectly) of doing that which was not lawful to do on the Sabbath day. (Matt. 12:1-9, Mark 2:23-28.) Does any man in the wide world suppose that the Pharisees referred to the first day of the week, when they accused the disciples of breaking the Sabbath? No, the only day that could possibly have been referred to by the Pharisees as the Sabbath, was the seventh day. Therefore when Christ, in refuting their accusation, said, “The Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath day,” he had reference to the seventh day of the week, and to no other. Therefore the seventh day of the week is the Sabbath of which Christ is Lord. And it is a willful perversion of Scripture to make of this saying a reference to anything else than the seventh day. So also it is with the expression “the Lord’s day.” It was written by the finger of God on the table of stone, “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord.” Now Christ, who made the Sabbath, and who made the table of stone on which these words were written (John 1:3), declares, “The Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath day.” Put these two expressions together—“Sabbath of the Lord,” “Lord of the Sabbath”—and who can deny that they both refer to the same identical person and thing? But in neither of these is the Sabbath referred to apart from the day, as many argue. The commandment says, “Remember the Sabbath day.” Christ says, “The Son of man is Lord of the Sabbath day.” Then we have, the Sabbath day of the Lord, and the Lord of the Sabbath day. It is impossible to fairly deny that both of these refer to the same person and to the same day. And this proves to a demonstration that the Sabbath day of the Lord, the day to which154 the Pharisees referred when they accused the disciples, the day to which Christ referred when he refuted their accusation, the seventh day of the week, is the Lord’s day. And we repeat, It is a perversion of the Scriptures, to make this expression refer to any other than the seventh day, the Sabbath of the fourth commandment. Yet says Dr. Gregg, “In accordance with the teaching of these direct words . . . Paul spends the first day of the week at Troas.” That is, Paul spends the first day of the week in accordance with the teaching of words that refer solely to the seventh day of the week. We don’t believe a word of it. Paul had a better sense of what obedience is, than that signifies. We know that a great many people of our own day are trying to do this, but it is not obedience, it is not in “accordance with the direct words” of the Lord. But more, Paul was at Troas in A. D. 58; John wrote these “direct words” in A. D. 96. Therefore Dr. Gregg’s argument is that Paul spent the first day of the week at Troas, in accordance with words that were not in existence till thirty-eight years afterward! But to flatly contradict itself, sound reason, and the word of God, is as near as the defense of the Sunday institution ever approaches to the truth. NOTE.—It would perhaps be well to call attention to an important concession that is made by this writer. In the first extract given above it will be seen that he says, “When the seventh day of the week was the Sabbath,” &c. This is a plain admission that the term “seventh day” in the fourth commandment is not indefinite, meaning simply one day in seven, but that it refers to the definite seventh day of the week. We have just read an article on the growth of the communist spirit in the United States, which says that anarchist or agrarian ideas take readily with the poor laborers from Europe, to whom the prospect of the possession of land is as the restoration of Paradise. In their native countries it was simply impossible for them to own land; and never having had anything to say about the administration of Government, and looking upon rulers as tyrants, their highest ideas of earthly happiness are of the possession of riches and freedom from restraint. In considering such matters they have but the minds of children; they do not perceive that in overthrowing the law in order to acquire that which others now possess, they open the way for others in turn to rob them with impunity. And this is one of the strongholds of Mormonism. We have repeatedly been informed that the great reason why Mormon missionaries are so successful in bringing converts from the countries of Europe, is that they hold out before the people glowing descriptions of the richness of Utah, and the certainty that they will all become land owners if they go there. It is indeed “the promised land” to them. And it is not surprising that they embrace the delusion. What if they do not find things as they expected? They have been aided to come across the sea, and they are powerless to return as they are to resist the mandates of “the church” where they live. Most of the States of Europe are in a pitiable condition because of the prevalence of the spirit of anarchy and the efforts of dynamiters. They are trembling, not knowing which way to turn for security of life or property. The United States is in a condition of almost equal danger, with this difference: she does not seem to realize it. Communism is no where else so bold, so defiant, so open in its utterances and its preparations to overthrow law and order, as in the United States. The supineness, we might say the effeminacy, of our Government and rulers in meeting these questions is shown by their dallying with this leprosy of Mormonism, which is plotting, not only for the entire subversion of purity and morality, but for the overthrow of the Government itself. Does God Claim the First Day of the Week?
Does God claim the first day of the week as his own? This is a question that has been agitated for a long time, but more especially in the last forty years. During this time it has been actively declared by tongue and pen that Sunday has no claim whatever to any sacredness, but that, according to the Bible, “the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God,” and that this is the only day that was ever made sacred, or that God has ever claimed as being in any way peculiarly his own. This has been disputed, of course, by almost all people, because nearly all keep Sunday. But the one thing lacking to Sunday-keepers all these years is a “Thus saith the Lord,” in favor of the Sunday as a sacred day, or that it should be kept at all. Sabbath-keepers have called repeatedly for the scripture that commands that the first day of the week shall be kept. They have even offered large rewards for the discovery in the Bible of any such text. And we have known Sunday-keepers, too, who would have given a good deal to find such a text plainly written in the word of God. This is a question too that is every day coming to be of more and more importance to all people; and we are watching with intense interest the development of the controversy. And we notice that as the truth becomes more widespread that the seventh day is, and that Sunday is not, the Sabbath; the defense of Sunday becomes more bold in its assertions; that, as it becomes more and more apparent that the Sunday-sabbath institution lacks the essential element of truth, its defenders more positively assert that which is false. The latest that we have seen in this connection is the assertion that God does claim the first day of the week to be his, and so plainly, so decidedly too, that there can “be no arguing or quibbling about it.” If that be true, certainly the Sunday-sabbath controversy must soon be forever settled. If the Lord does really claim the first day of the week, so plainly as to preclude all argument, that will surely be a “Thus saith the Lord;” that is what we all want, and to that we will all willingly yield. But not to hold our readers in suspense, we will lay before them this decisive (?) “claim.” Rev. David Gregg, the Sunday-school lesson commentator for the Christian Statesman, in the issue of that paper for December 25, 1884, says:— “When the seventh day of the week was the Sabbath, God claimed it as his day, and that made its hours consecrated time. If God in any way claims the first day of the week, its hours must be treated just as the hours of the seventh day were. Now does he claim it? He does. And that there may be no arguing or quibbling about it, he stamps his name upon it. The Spirit of inspiration speaking through the apostle John distinctly calls it ‘the Lord’s day.’” There you have it. But for all he has pronounced to the contrary, we think there is room here for some argument. 1. He does not tell us where it is that the apostle John “distinctly” calls the first day of the week the Lord’s day. 2. We look through the gospel according to John, and although we read there twice, the expression “first day of the week” (John 20:1, 19), in all this book there is no such term as “the Lord’s day.” 3. We look through the three epistles of John, and in them there is no mention of either the first day of the week or the Lord’s day. 4. We turn to the book of Revelation, written Have the Poor the Gospel?
WALK along Fifth Avenue in New York City any pleasant Sunday morning. The avenue is thronged with wealthy people going to church in their carriages or on foot. There are churches on almost every corner. Every religious faith is represented, from the Jewish to the Roman Catholic. No element is wanting to attract a congregation: luxurious seats, elegant architecture, a skillful organist, a well-trained professional choir, a polished and perhaps eloquent pulpit orator, and “the best society.” Take a walk the next Sunday in the Ninth, Fifteenth, Seventeenth, or Eleventh Ward, the first tier of wards south of Fourteenth Street and extending from the East to the North River. The streets are also full of men and women and children, if the day is fair and not too cold. But they are not going to church, and there are no churches to go to. Look at this table, and consider its moral significance. The churches enumerated are Protestant churches; every chapel and mission is included:— Ninth Ward—population, 54,596; churches, 24. Fifteenth Ward—population, 31,882; churches, 15. Seventeenth Ward—population, 104,837; churches, 16. Eleventh Ward—population, 68,778; churches, 12. In Boston, churches are multiplied in the Back Bay, but the North End is churchless. Philadelphia, Cincinnati, St. Louis, Chicago—all repeat in slightly different forms the same story. Five hundred persons to every Protestant church in New Hampshire! Five thousand persons to every Protestant church in downtown New York! Every Sunday the ministers in these up-town churches have been ringing the changes on one text: “Follow me.” Why not devote one Sunday to following Him? If they are faithful to their commission, their unvaried teaching, in all variations of form, has been “to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.” What did Christ command his disciples if not to go out from their physical and social and spiritual luxury, to seek and to save that which is lost? To dress in our Sunday best, go to our luxuriously equipped churches, greet our set, be lulled to spiritual somnolence by sweet music, or stirred to spiritual sentiments by eloquent discourse—is this to follow Him whose heart was stirred within him with compassion when he saw the multitude as sheep without a shepherd, and who left the synagogues to find them in the streets and the fields? What would Christ do if he were to come again on earth and visit Boston or New York or Chicago? We will not undertake to answer that question. But what he did do when he was here before was to say to his disciples, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men; and they followed him out of the synagogue into the places where men were.—Christian Union. SOMETIMES the question is asked of a Christian whose name has been mentioned, “Is he a worker?” Now this question reveals an abnormal condition of things in the church. Such a question ought never to be asked of any Christian, for the reason that if a Christian at all he ought to be a worker. The very terms of discipleship and all the teaching of the New Testament imply that all believers are workers. By workers we mean those Christians who are giving personal time and attention to the practical spiritual work of God, who recognize that to them is committed the Lord’s unfinished work on the earth. As a matter of fact, the fewest number in proportion of church members are, in any true sense, workers. It is true of all our large churches, that the bulk of church work is passed over into the hands of the committee of the church, or abandoned to the officers, and in not a few cases the committee or board of officers are so engrossed with their own work that they in turn pass their assigned work over to the pastor. This may seem to be a little overdrawn; but it can hardly be denied that this is the tendency. There is a growing disposition on the part of very many, especially of the well-to-do portion of our church membership, to look upon the church as an institution organized and maintained to provide a comfortable place in which they may go and participate in the worship of God, be instructed and comforted and otherwise helped in their Christian life—when they feel so disposed. To this end and for these privileges they are willing to pay a reasonable pew rent to maintain the current expenses of the church and provide a salary for the pastor, if it be not too large. In addition to this they will give an annual subscription to the various benevolent and missionary causes in which the church is interested, albeit it is only a few who participate in this part of worship who do so to any hearty and generous extent. Having adjusted themselves to this order of things, paid their pew rent, and given their “mite,” which is by no means a widow’s mite (for she gave all she had), they say, “It is corban.” In other words, by the payment of a portion toward the maintenance of the local organization and giving a subscription to home or foreign missions, they esteem that they have fairly and honorably commuted from all further service. As for the prayer-meeting, they are seldom found there. They have perfect confidence that the pastor and elders or deacons, with a few others who are fond of such things, will see to the spiritual interests, which are supposed to be attended to at the weekly meeting of the church for prayer. If they were asked to do any personal spiritual work, such as visiting the sick, or speaking to some neighbor about his soul, or to seek to restore some brother who has fallen by the way or grown cold and indifferent to Christ and the church, they would be amazed at the bare suggestion of such a thing. To their minds that is what the pastor was hired for, and that is the especial business of the elders or deacons. Or, suppose some less pointed services were suggested—such, for instance, as visiting some neighbor, whom they know is not in the habit of going to church at all, and seeking to win him to the house of God. This would be considered by them as a most untoward proposition. They would probably meet it by saying, “Why, the church is open every Sabbath. They are at liberty to come if they like; and, if they choose not to do so, it is no concern of mine.” If they do not say this in so many words, they at least act it out in a way that speaks louder than words, week after week, not to say year after year. It is our custom to look over the congregation with whom we worship, and to whom we sometimes preach; and it is the rarest case that we ever see a pew-holder bringing any one with him to church, morning or evening, unless it may be occasionally some one who chances to be a visitor at his house. We should like to suggest to all our readers the propriety of asking themselves the question, “Am I a worker?” Am I habitually engaged in any definite and specific line of service by which the kingdom of Heaven may be advanced on the earth? Am I contributing any personal influence, as a matter of purpose, which is calculated to lead any soul to Christ? Or, let us put it in another way: If I should withdraw from the church of which I am a member, apart from my money contribution and the one I count in the congregation when155 I am present, would the church be any weaker in respect of the working force than if I should stay? Is it likely that any soul would miss my spiritual influence, or my personal help in the matter of his salvation or Christian edification? Would my pastor miss my help in his heavy work? Would the prayer-meeting feel my loss? Would it be said of me, “A good man, full of faith and the Holy Ghost,” is gone from among us, whose work of faith and labor of love will be sadly missed in this church and community? It is a matter of some moment for every church member to consider these questions, or, rather, the question of his relation to the church and cause of Christ in the capacity of “a worker;” for it is a truth that stands out with startling distinctness on the pages of the New Testament, that God has no sons who are not servants. Whoever comes to Christ for salvation is at once tendered the yoke of service. The Master, when he went away, gave to all “his servants authority, and to every man his work.” When he comes he will require it at our hands. Woe to that wicked servant who buries his Lord’s talent in a napkin, and spends all his abilities on his own affairs. When that day of reckoning comes, there is danger that it will be revealed that the man or woman who was not a worker for God was never a son or daughter of God. We say, and say truly, that a man who is not a Christian on the earth is not likely to be found to be a saint in Heaven. It is equally true that the professor of religion who is not a worker for God on the earth will not likely be found to be a servant of God in Heaven; and yet we know that service is one of the most marked characteristics of the saved in Heaven. See Rev. 7:15; 22:3. —N. Y. Independent. Among the Churches.
By E. A. Briggs
FEBRUARY 8 to 12 I spent with the church at Rocklin, and held three public services. Some of the meetings were held with the members only, and the Lord’s supper administered. I also had the privilege of holding meetings with the Sabbath-keepers at Newcastle, Grass Valley, and Nevada City. At the latter place five new converts placed their names upon the covenant, three of whom were baptized. It was a pleasure to notice the willingness with which the brethren and sisters came long distances to attend these various meetings. All expressed themselves as being of good courage in the present truth. My post-office address for several weeks to come will be Placerville, Cal.