Earlier text: CONFESS YOUR FAULTS ONE TO ANOTHERLETTERS TO AN ANTINOMIAN.—1.
By John Harvey Kellogg
[NOTE.—Some time since, a tract was put into my hands, bearing the title of "The Law of God." The name of the writer was not given, but I was informed who he was. As a writer and speaker he is quite well known, especially in what are called the Western States. The tract was highly valued by his friends, and was recommended as an "unanswerable argument." As no personal considerations induce me to write, I will not use the name of the author. I write not against any individual, but solely to vindicate the most precious and important truth ever committed to man. J. H. W.] DEAR SIR: A tract entitled "The Law of God," written by yourself, has been placed in my hands, and, for several reasons, I choose to address a review of it to you. My long personal acquaintance with you would lead me to speak in the most kind and respectful manner, and this I shall try to do. But the positions which you take in this tract are, in my opinion, so very far from the truth, and the assertions that you make do so great violence to the revealed word of God, that I shall sometimes be compelled to "use great plainness of speech." Personal considerations should have no weight in such a case as this; for the word of God, and the bearing which our use of it has on our eternal interests, are of infinite importance. From the very first paragraph your tract is open to severe criticism. I feel compelled to say, that, as far as its argument and consistency are concerned, it hardly demands extended notice. But in this respect it is about on a level with the writings of all those who oppose the law of God. I cheerfully accord to you all that your friends claim in regard to your ability. You have shown yourself an able and logical advocate of the truth, when you have taken the side of the truth. Having conceded this in your behalf, we are driven to the conclusion that the inconsistencies shown in this tract are the necessary outgrowth of the erroneous theory that you have espoused. For the sake of the truth, for the sake of those who are liable to be misled by fallacies, we are often compelled to review arguments which are not logical and consistent. You start out with strong expressions of aversion to "traditional history of ancient times," and promise to confine yourself to what has been written, mindful that, "secret things belong to God, but what he hath revealed belong to us and to our children." As I read this I thought it a pity that you had not turned to the passage you pretended to quote; then, probably, you would not have mentioned it as you have, and you might have been instructed in regard to its application. This text is for us, and applicable at the present time, or it is not. If it is not, then your quotation is a mistake, and your remark has no force. If it is, then it is unfortunate that you did not quote the whole text, and give your indulgent readers an idea of the revealed object of the revealed things. I believe that its terms prove that it is of perpetual application, and will quote it in full: "The secret things belong unto the Lord our God; but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, THAT WE MAY DO ALL THE WORDS OF THIS LAW." Deut. 29:29. Obedience to law—the law of God—is the great object of all revelation; and therefore he who tries to turn the word of God from its object of bringing people to obedience to the law, is a perverter of the Scriptures of truth, and is misleading souls to their ruin. Whether you have been willing to occupy this position, your own words must show. We would fain think better of you than you have shown yourself in this tract. In the same paragraph you remark that "during twenty-five hundred years there was no written law;" that God revealed his will to men as their necessities required. And you say: "Some of these precepts were afterward written by Moses; but most of them remain without record to the present time." I hardly feel qualified to deny your statement; but I marvel that it did not strike you as a most singular method of conforming to "what has been revealed," to make such positive assertions concerning things which "remain without record to the present time." You assume to know that most of the things given to the people in precept were never recorded; but how do you know it? How did you learn that the revelation of God's will to them was so different from that given to us, seeing, as you affirm, that there was no record made of it? Your particular friends may consider your assertion very satisfactory; but others would be gratified to learn of your means of information concerning things which occurred five thousand years ago, which were never recorded. I think we have means of knowing that the precepts given to them necessary to the formation of moral character were identical with those which the Scriptures give to us. Indeed, your strongest argument tends to this conclusion, as I shall show. You assert that the ten commandments are not "the law," but only a part of the law, and, although you do not directly assert it, it is plain to see that you labor to leave the impression on the minds of your readers that more than the ten commandments were written on the tables of stone. If the reader will turn to Ex. 34:28, Deut. 4:13, and 10:4, he will certainly come to a different conclusion. And you afterward contradict it; on page 10 you speak of the hundreds of commandments "written exclusively in the book;" and on page 17 you say, "The tables never had anything upon them except the ten commandments." Thank you for this admission, not that it is any addition to the proof of the truth; that is clear; but it spoils much of your argument, and saves labor to the reviewer, in showing that the ten commandments are "the law" in distinction from all others. Then you proceed to affirm that there is no distinction of law; that God would have spoken all that he delivered to Moses, if the people had not fled affrighted from his presence. Is this a part of "what is written"? Here, again I regret that you did not inform us where you got your information. I find no hint of such a thing in the Scriptures. That reason could not exist against his writing them all together, if it prevented his speaking them all together. We must bear in mind that he had written the ten commandments on the tables of stone when he called Moses up into the mount. He said: "Come up to me into the mount, and be there; and I will give thee tables of stone, and the law, and the commandments which I have written." He did not say that he had written "a part of the law," nor yet "a law," as the Authorized Version has it; but "the law," as it is in the original, and as the Revision renders it. The ten commandments are, pre-eminently, the law, and God himself called them so. None of the civil and ceremonial precepts were "the law," in the sense that the ten precepts are. You affirm that "the law of God originated twenty-five hundred years subsequent to creation." This remark is obscure; it may be taken two ways, (1) That it originated twenty-five hundred years after creation, as to or in its various parts. (2) That it then originated as a whole,—as a written, collected code. It is often asserted that the laws were then for the first time codified or digested. If this is what you mean,121 then I have to say, that it does not at all contradict the idea that every one of the separate precepts of the law was binding through all the years previous to that time. But if you mean that no part of it existed or was binding until it was given to Israel from Sinai, then you are involved in a twofold difficulty. (1) You contradict "those things that are revealed" in the book of Genesis and in other parts of the Pentateuch; for we learn thence that every item of the ten commandments is known before the time of Moses. (2) You leave the people, during the "twenty-five hundred years from creation," free to blaspheme, to worship false gods, to murder, to commit adultery, and to steal, without incurring any guilt. Do you take this position? If not, to what does your assertion amount? If the various precepts of the law were binding before it was given to Israel, as a code, then your argument has no point whatever. If they were not binding, then these crimes were not crimes in that age; then Enoch could walk with God, and Noah could be righteous before him, and Abraham could be faithful, and each commit every offense forbidden in the decalogue! It is truly a wonder that any are so blind as to think there is any force in your argument. Its strength is in deception—in its obscurities and misstatements. These are not arguments; but they answer their purpose as substitutes for argument, to satisfy the prejudices and quiet the consciences of those who do not "delight in the law of God." But you assume a fearful responsibility in strengthening the prejudices of the carnally minded, and quieting the fears of those who are, to some degree, "convinced of the law as transgressors." In closing this letter, I would remind you that when Paul said, "by the law is the knowledge of sin," and, "sin is not imputed when there is no law," and, "where no law is, there is no transgression" (Rom. 3:20; 4:14; 5:13), he was arguing concerning "the law" given to the Jews, which he identified as the ten commandments. Rom. 2:17-27. And these declarations, with his entire argument, apply as directly to those who lived in the "twenty-five hundred years from creation," as to us who live in this year of grace. Some of them were obedient and just, and some were "wicked and sinners before the Lord exceedingly." I will next show that the strongest foundation you lay for an argument confirms the conclusion I have drawn from Paul’s letter to the Romans, and overthrows all that you have said concerning the law and people in the "twenty-five hundred years from creation."
J. H. W. SUNDAY IN ARKANSAS.
By Dan T. Jones
[The following letter shows the animus of the movement for the enactment of Sunday laws. Our correspondent was on the ground, and writes from personal knowledge.—Ed.] Thinking you might be interested in the action taken by the State Bar Association of Arkansas, with reference to the present Sunday laws of that State, I give below a copy of the same:— “Our statute as it stands in ‘Mansfield’s Digest’ provides that, “‘Persons who are members of any religious society who observe as sabbath any other day of the week than the Christian sabbath, or Sunday, shall not be subject to the penalties of this Act (the Sunday law), so that they observe one day in seven, agreeably to the faith and practice of their church or society.’—Mansfield’s Digest, sec. 1886. “This statute had been in force from the time of the organization of the State government; but it was unfortunately repealed by the Act of March 3, 1885.—Acts 1885, p. 37. “While the Jews adhere, of course, to the letter of the original command to remember the seventh day of the week, there is also in the State a small, but respectable, body of Christians who consistently believe that the seventh day is the proper day to be kept sacred; and in the case of Scoles vs. State, our Supreme Court was compelled to affirm a judgment against a member of one of these churches for worshiping God according to the dictates of his own conscience, supported, as he supposed, by good theological arguments. It is very evident that the system now in force, savoring as it does very much of religious persecution, is a relic of the Middle Ages, when it was thought that men could be made orthodox by act of parliament. Even in Massachusetts, where Sabbatarian laws have always been enforced with unusual vigor, exceptions are made in favor of persons who religiously observe any other day in place of Sunday. We think that the law as it stood in ‘Mansfield’s Digest’ should be restored with such an amendment as would prevent the sale of spirits on Sunday, as that was probably the object of repealing the above section.” The above report was made by a committee on Laws and Law Reform, and was unanimously adopted by the State Bar Association, and a printed copy of the same, with other recommendations, was placed upon the desk of each member of the Legislature. There was also placed upon the desk of each member a copy of the Arkansas Methodist, published at Little Rock, containing an article from the editor, Dr. Winfield, from which I take the following extract:— “We hope our present sabbath and temperance laws will not be interfered with. The former, especially, are about as near perfect as we can expect to get them under the present Constitution.” Rev. Winfield, D. D., is a man of extensive influence. About one-third of each House of the legislature are members of the Methodist Church. So you see the pressure is brought to bear on both sides of the question. What the result will be remains to be seen. A bill containing an exemption clause favoring those who observe the seventh day, has been introduced in the Senate and reported favorably by the committee to which it was referred. And it will come up for final action in a few days. We are doing all we can to have the bill passed, and await with much anxiety the final result. An Eastern paper remarks that “there is a sense in which the gospel may be made too free,” and, as an illustration, publishes the following anecdote:— “A wealthy planter, a man of education, an eloquent speaker, a successful politician, was converted. He wanted to do good. His neighbors were irreligious, and he felt that his first duty was to them. He built a commodious church, put an organ in it, and hired an organist. He obtained a license to preach, and prepared some excellent sermons. When the house was ready, he sent his servants all over the neighborhood, and invited everybody to come to church. The people came and listened. At the close of the service the preacher thanked them for coming, and invited them to come again. “Thus year after year the man went on paying all expenses himself, not taking collections from anybody; for he wanted to convince the people that the gospel was free, “without money and without price.” “And what was the result?” we asked. “Oh, he preached for twenty years, and there wasn’t a single conversion in all that time!” People are not likely to prize very highly that which costs them nothing. If you want to get a man into the church, begin by getting him to do something for it. If you want to develop the piety of a church, train its members to work and to give.” DANGER FROM THE ENCROACHMENTS OF ROMANISM.
MANY who are well acquainted with the true character of Romanism are indifferent to it, because not aware of the rapid growth of the Catholic Church in the United States. They tell us, and truly, that Rome loses great numbers of adherents here through the influence of our free schools, free institutions, and the strong pervasive spirit of independence which is so hostile to priestly authority. But let us not congratulate ourselves too soon. The losses of Romanism in the United States are not, to any extent, the gains of Protestantism. When a man born in the Catholic Church, loses confidence in the only faith of which he has any knowledge, he does not examine Protestantism, but sinks into skepticism. Romanism is chiefly responsible for German and French infidelity. For when a mind to which thought and free inquiry have been forbidden as a crime, attains its intellectual majority, the largeness of liberty is not enough; it reacts into license and excess. Skepticism and infidelity are the legitimate children of unreasoning and superstitious credulity, and the grandchildren of Rome. Apostate Catholics are swelling our most dangerous classes. Unaccustomed to think for themselves, and having thrown off authority, they become the easy victims of socialists or nihilists, or any other wild and dangerous propagandists. But, notwithstanding the great losses thus sustained by Romanism in the United States, it is growing with great rapidity. In 1800 the Catholic population was 100,000. In 1884, according to official statistics, it was 6,628,176. At the beginning of the century there was one Catholic to every 53 of the whole population; in 1850, one to 14.3; in 1870, one to 8.3; in 1880, one to 7.7. Thus it appears that, wonderful as the growth of our population has been since 1800, the growth of the Catholic Church has been much more rapid. Dr. Dorchester, in his valuable and inspiring work, "Problem of Religious Progress," easily shows that the actual gains of Protestantism in the United States, during the century, have been much larger than those of Catholicism, and seems disposed, in consequence, to dismiss all anxiety as to the issue of the race between them. But it is the relative rather than the actual gains which are prophetic. From 1800 to 1880 the population increased ninefold; the membership of all evangelical churches, twenty-seven-fold, and the Catholic population, sixty-three-fold. Not much importance, however, should be attached to this comparison, as the Catholic population was insignificant in 1800, and a small addition sufficed to increase it severalfold.122 But in 1850 the Catholic Church was nearly one-half as large as all evangelical Protestant churches. Let us, then, look at their relative progress since that time. From 1850 to 1880 the population increased 116 per cent., the communicants of evangelical churches, 185 per cent., and the Catholic population, 294 per cent. From 1850 to 1880 the number of evangelical churches increased 125 per cent.; during the same period Catholic Churches increased 447 per cent. From 1870 to 1880 the churches of all evangelical denominations increased 49 per cent., while Catholic Churches multiplied 74 per cent. From 1870 to 1880 the ministers of evangelical churches increased in number 46 per cent.; Catholic priests, 61 per cent. From 1850 to 1870, ministers increased 86 per cent.; priests, 204 per cent. From 1850 to 1880, ministers increased 173 per cent., and priests, 391 per cent. In 1850 the Catholic population was equal to 45 per cent. of the evangelical church-membership; in 1870 it was equal to 68 per cent.; and in 1880 it equaled 63 per cent., a slight relative loss. During the ten years Romanism gained largely on Protestantism in the number of churches and ministers, but lost slightly in the number of communicants—a loss due to the falling off of immigration during the last half of the period. Examination shows that the growth of the Catholic Church corresponds closely with that of the foreign population, but is somewhat more rapid. Since 1880 there has been a marked increase in the Catholic population. The average annual growth of the latter from 1870 to 1880 was 176,733, while from 1883 to 1884 it was 231,322. It has been shown that during the remainder of the century or longer, the rate of immigration will undoubtedly increase. The ratio of growth of the Catholic Church will, therefore, increase, and it will continue to make a rapid gain on the Protestant denominations. But this is not all. Rome, with characteristic foresight, is concentrating her strength in the Western Territories. As the West is to dominate the nation, she intends to dominate the West. In the United States a little less than one-eighth of the population is Catholic; in the Territories taken together, more than one-third. In the whole country there are not quite two-thirds as many Catholics as there are members of evangelical churches. Not including Arizona and New Mexico, which have a large native Catholic population, the six remaining Territories had in 1880 four times as many Romanists as there were members in all Protestant denominations collectively; and including Arizona and New Mexico, Rome had eighteen times as many as all Protestant bodies. We are told that the native Catholics of Arizona and New Mexico are not as energetic as the Protestants who are pushing into those Territories. True, but they are energetic enough to be counted. The most wretched members of society count as much at the polls as the best, and too often much more. It is poor consolation which is drawn from the ignorance of any portion of our population. Those degraded peoples are clay in the hands of the Jesuits. When the Jesuits were driven out of Berlin, they declared that they would plant themselves in the Western Territories of America. And they are there to-day with empires in their brains. Expelled for their intrigues even from Catholic countries, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Mexico, Brazil, and other States, they are free to colonize in the great West, and are there gathering and plotting to Romanize and control our Western empire. Rev. J. H. Warren, D. D., writes from California, in which State there are four times as many Romanists as Protestant church members: "The Roman Catholic power is fast becoming an overwhelming evil. Their schools are everywhere, and number probably 2,000 in the State. Their new college of St. Ignatius is, we are told, the largest, finest, best equipped of its kind in the United States. They blow no trumpets, are sparing with statistics, but are at work night and day to break down the institutions of the country, beginning with the public schools. As surely as we live, so surely will the conflict come, and it will be a hard one." Lafayette, himself a Romanist, was not wholly blind when he said: "If the liberties of the American people are ever destroyed, they will fall by the hands of the Romish clergy."—Rev. Josiah Strong, D. D., in Our Country. The Missionary.
By T. H. Gibbs
THE location of our mission is 321 Second Street, and our force numbers eight, three of whom are novices in the work. Like other fields, ours has its discouraging features. The people are principally Catholics, thus causing much territory to be passed over in order to find those desirous of the truth. We have been laboring in this neighborhood since January, and are now beginning to see several places of interest open up before us, and some are beginning to obey. Five have just decided. We are blending the canvassing work with our Bible-readings, which plan we find works well. The attendance at our meetings is from thirty-five to fifty each Sabbath. The interest in our Sabbath-school and meetings is truly encouraging. Besides our regular Sabbath services, we have Sunday-school at three P. M., and preaching each Sunday evening. We have also a Tract and Missionary Society organized, and all have a mind to work. Calls for the living preacher are coming in from different points. By the time this is in print, I hope to be in British Honduras, as recommended by the General Conference. T. H. GIBBS. WHEN Christ was on earth he prayed often, sometimes spending whole nights in prayer. Of course none of these prayers are recorded. We have, however, the record of several prayers which he offered in public, prominent among which are the prayer at the grave of Lazarus, and the one for his disciples, just before his betrayal and crucifixion. But neither of these is referred to by the term, "the Lord's prayer." That prayer is the brief petition which our Saviour gave as a model for all prayers. And a model it is indeed. It comprehends everything that it is possible for man to desire from God. There are no circumstances or conditions in life that are not covered by this petition. Yet this must be understood as applying to followers of Christ, and not to unconverted persons, even though they be convicted of sin. This will appear in the course of our comments upon the prayer. THERE is no other form of words ever devised which can be used as a prayer over and over again for years, and still retain its freshness. This is simply because this one was given by One who knew man's needs. But our Saviour did not design that his disciples should simply repeat the words which he gave them. This is evident from the introduction: "After this manner therefore pray ye." It was designed as we have said, as a comprehensive model. Let us consider it well, that we may henceforth pray with more of the spirit and the understanding. WHAT tenderness is expressed in those words! What infinite condescension it reveals on the part of God to allow poor, frail mortals to address him thus. His greatness is unsearchable and his ways past finding out. Before him, "the nations are as a drop of a bucket, and are counted as the small dust of the balance; behold, he taketh up the isles as a very little thing. And Lebanon is not sufficient to burn, nor the beasts thereof sufficient for a burnt-offering. All nations before him are as nothing; and they are counted to him less than nothing, and vanity." Isa. 40:15-17. He walks "upon the wings of the wind" (Ps. 104:3); he "hath his way in the whirlwind and in the storm, and the clouds are the dust of his feet." Nahum 1:3. And yet this awful God has the tenderness of a parent, and his ear is open to the supplications of those who whisper, even in faintest accents, "Our Father;" for we are told that "like as a father pitieth his children, so the Lord pitieth them that fear him." Ps. 103:13. Although God is the "high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy," he has assured us that he dwells with him that is "of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones." Isa. 57:15. Thus the first words of the Lord's prayer bring us into the most intimate relation with the great Creator. EVEN in the first word alone there is a great truth conveyed. It shows the relation of those who can call God Father. They are brethren, having common hopes and needs. Even in his secret devotions, the Christian is not to make his petitions wholly personal. He is not to be shut up to his own needs, but is to remember that he is only one of a great family, whose welfare ought to be with him scarcely second to his own. Paul wrote to the Romans: "God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I make mention of you always in my prayers." Rom. 1:9. It is possible for a person to be selfish even in his petitions for overcoming grace; but it will be found in that case, as in all others, that selfishness defeats itself. Every Christian will bear witness to the fact that the richest blessings have come to him when, even though almost overwhelmed with a sense of his own need, he has coupled his petition for pardon and strength, with a request for a blessing upon others besides himself. And so, even in the closet, we are to say, "Our Father." It is not everybody, however, who can say, "Our Father." We hear much of the "Fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man," but the Bible says nothing about such a thing. All men are not sons of God. Paul reminds the Ephesians of the time before they were converted, saying, "At that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world." Eph. 2:12. In the first verses he shows still more plainly that men are not by nature the children of God. He says: "And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience; among whom also we all had our conversation [manner of life] in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others." Again the apostle warns the Ephesian brethren against the sins to which they had formerly been addicted, saying, "For because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience." Eph. 5:6. See also Col. 3:6.123 But the plainest statement of all, that men are not by nature the children of God, was given by our Saviour himself. To the wicked Jews who said, "We have one Father, even God," he said: "If God were your Father, ye would love me; for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. . . . Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do." John 8:41-44. Putting these texts together, we learn that all who know not God are the children of wrath; they are the children, or recipients, of wrath, because they are the "children of disobedience;" and they are children of disobedience because they are the children of the devil. Now a person cannot at the same time be a child of God and a child of Satan. Nor is it necessary that one should be as hardened as were the Jews to whom Christ spoke, in order that they may be called children of Satan. "Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin." John 8:34. If a person is a child of disobedience and of darkness, he is not a child of God. "All have sinned;" and therefore none are by nature children of God. How do people become children of God? If they are not natural children, it must be by adoption. So Paul says: "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba [Father], Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God; and if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ." Rom. 8:14-17. In like manner he writes to the Galatians: "God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ." Gal. 4:4-7. In the above text it will be noticed that the Spirit is the pledge of our adoption. It is called the Spirit of adoption, because only those who have it are sons of God. Indeed, its reception constitutes us sons of God. If we are children, then we are heirs of God; and so Paul says that the Spirit is "the earnest [or pledge] of our inheritance." Eph. 1:14. If we are heirs of God, we are joint heirs with Christ. All that Christ has or is to have, we shall have also. He is the Son of God by birth; the only begotten Son of God. Angels are the sons of God (Job. 38:7) by creation. Adam was a son of God in the same way, only a little lower than the angels. If he had not sinned against God, his descendants would like him have been sons of God. But he transferred his allegiance to Satan, and so no man from Adam down can be a son of God except by adoption. "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." John 3:3. From this brief study of the Scripture it is clearly evident that since the Lord's prayer begins, "Our Father," it cannot be used by one who is not a child of God. For those who are in a state of nature, and thus children of wrath, there is another prayer. It is, "God be merciful to me, a sinner." They cannot address the Creator as Father, but only as God, the Judge who, however, is able to save as well as to destroy. If they have once been adopted into the family of God, and have lost their heirship through sin, the same prayer is applicable. With David, under like circumstances, they may cry: "Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy loving-kindness; according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies, blot out my transgressions." "Hide thy face from my sins, and blot out all mine iniquities." "Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with thy free Spirit." But only those with whose spirits the Spirit of God bears witness that they are children of God, can with confidence repeat the tender words, "Our Father." Yet not a long time must the sinner lie a suppliant at the throne of God, unable to utter those words. God is longing for the world to become reconciled to him. When the prodigal son, who had forfeited his right to a place in his father's house, said, "I will arise, and go unto my father," not as a son but as a servant seeking mercy, his father met him while he was yet a long way off. He met him not as a master, but as a father. The humble prodigal did not have time to call himself a servant before he was embraced as a son. And so, although no one in a state of nature can properly repeat the Lord's prayer, at the first sincere petition for mercy, which the repentant sinner puts up to God, the Spirit of God is sent forth into his heart, and he becomes a son, and can confidently and joyfully say, Father, Father. CALIFORNIA T. AND M. SOCIETY.
By Anna L. Ingels
REPORT FOR QUARTER ENDING DEC. 31, 1886. No. of members, - - - - - - 1,139
“ “ dismissed, - - - - - 16
“ “ added, - - - - - 90
“ reports returned, - - - - - 502
“ missionary visits, - - - - - 2,699
“ letters written, - - - - - 2,684
“ pages of tracts, pamphlets, and books distributed, - - - 816,112
“ periodicals distributed, - - - - - 55,476
“ SIGNS taken in clubs, - - - - - 3,695
“ new subscribers obtained, - - - - - 328
Received on book sales, - - - - - $ 285.81
“ “ periodicals, - - - - - 791.18
“ “ membership and donations, - - - 1,128.30
------------------------------------------------------------
Total receipts, - - - $2,205.29 ANNA L. INGELS,
Secretary.