VERSE 41. And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters’ clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay. 42. And as the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken.
The element of weakness symbolized by the clay, pertains to the feet equally with the toes. Rome, before its division into ten kingdoms, lost that iron tenacity which it possessed to a superlative degree, during the first centuries of its career. Luxury, with its accompanying effeminacy and degeneracy, the destroyer of nations as well as of individuals, began to corrode and weaken its sinews of steel, and prepared the way for its subsequent disruption into ten kingdoms.
And here a question presents itself for solution: Do the ten toes of the image represent the ten divisions of the Roman empire? To every sincere lover of a straightforward interpretation of the word of God, to every lover of truth and harmony, it is a matter of no little astonishment that any question should be raised here. To take the ten toes to represent the ten kingdoms into which Rome was divided, is so easy, consistent, and natural, that it requires a labored effort to interpret it otherwise. Yet such an effort is made by some—by Romanists universally, and by such Protestants as are still stupefied with the wine of Roman errors.
A volume by H. Cowles, D. D., has just fallen into our hands, which, as the latest, may perhaps best be taken as a representative exposition on this side of the question. The writer gives every evidence of extensive erudition and great ability. It is the more to be regretted, therefore, that these powers are devoted to the propagation of error, and to misleading the anxious inquirer who wishes to know his whereabouts on the great highway of time.
We can but briefly notice his positions. They are, 1. That the third kingdom was Grecia only during the lifetime of Alexander. 2. That the fourth kingdom was Alexander’s successors. 3. That the latest point to which the fourth kingdom could extend, is the manifestation of the Messiah, for, 4. There the God of Heaven set up his kingdom; there the stone smote the image upon its feet, and commenced the process of grinding it up.
Nor can we reply at any great length to these positions.
1. We might as well confine the Babylonian empire to the single reign of Nebuchadnezzar, or that of Persia to the reign of Cyrus, as to confine the third kingdom, Grecia, to the reign of Alexander.
2. Alexander’s successors did not constitute another kingdom, but a continuation of the same, or Grecian division of the image. For in this prophecy, the succession of kingdoms is by conquest. When Persia had conquered Babylon, we had the second empire, and when Grecia had conquered Persia, we had the third. But Alexander’s successors (his four leading generals) did not conquer his empire and erect another in its place; they simply divided among themselves the empire which Alexander had conquered and left ready to their hand.
“Chronologically,” says Prof. C., “the fourth empire must immediately succeed Alexander, and lie entirely between him and the birth of Christ.” Chronologically, we reply, it must do no such thing; for the birth of Christ was not the introduction of the fifth kingdom, as will in due time appear. Here he overlooks almost the entire duration of the third division of the image, confounding it with the fourth, and giving no room for the divided state of the Grecian empire as symbolized by the four heads of the leopard of chap. vii, and the four horns of the goat of chap. viii.
“Territorially,” continues Prof. C., “it [the fourth kingdom] should be sought in Western Asia, not in Europe; in general on the same territory where the first, second, and third kingdoms stood.” Why not in Europe, we ask? Each of the first three kingdoms possessed territory which was peculiarly its own. Why not the fourth? Analogy requires that it should. And was not the third kingdom a European kingdom? That is, did it not rise on European territory, and take its name from the land of its birth? Why not then go a degree further west for the place where the fourth great kingdom should be founded? And how did Grecia ever occupy the territory of the first and second kingdoms? Only by conquest. And Rome did the same. Hence Rome, as the fourth kingdom, answers the territorial requirements of the professor, as well as Grecia as the third kingdom.
“Politically,” he adds, “it should be the immediate successor of Alexander’s empire, . . . changing the dynasty but not the nations.” Analogy is against him here. Each of the first three kingdoms was distinguished by its own peculiar nationality. The Persian was not the same as the Babylonian, nor the Grecian the same as either of the two that preceded it. Now analogy requires that the fourth kingdom, instead of being composed of a fragment of this Grecian empire, should possess a nationality of its own, entirely distinct from the other three. And this we find in the Romans, and in them alone. But,
3. The grand fallacy which underlies this whole system of misinterpretation, is the pet theory of bewildered commentators that the kingdom of God was set up at the first advent of Christ. It can easily be seen how fatal to this theory is the admission that the fourth empire is Rome. For it was to be subsequent to the division of that empire that the God of Heaven should set up his kingdom. But the division of the Roman empire into ten parts, was not accomplished until A. D. 483; consequently the kingdom of God could not have been set up nearly five hundred years before. Rome must not, therefore, though it answers admirably to the prophecy in every particular, be allowed to be the kingdom in question. The position must be maintained at all hazards that the kingdom of God was set up in the days when Christ was upon earth.
Such is the ground on which our opponents seem, at least, to reason. And it is just to maintain this, that our author dwindles down the third great empire of the world to the insignificant period of about eight years! For this he endeavors to prove that the fourth empire was bearing full sway during a period when the providence of God was simply filling up the outlines of the third! For this he presumes to fix the points of time between which we must look for the fourth, though the prophecy does not deal in dates at all, and then whatever kingdom he finds within his specified time, that he sets down as the fourth kingdom, and endeavors to bend the prophecy to fit it, utterly regardless of how much better material he might find outside of his little enclosure, to answer to a fulfillment of the prophetic record. Is such a course logical? Is the time the point to be first established? No; the kingdoms are the great features of the prophecy; and we are to look for them; and when we find them, take them where they are. Let them govern the time, not the time govern them.
But that view which is the cause of all this misapplication and confusion, is sheer assumption. Christ did not smite the image at his first advent. Look at it. When the stone smites the image upon its feet, it is dashed in pieces. Violence is used. The effect is immediate. The image becomes as chaff. And then what? Is it absorbed by the stone, and gradually incorporated with it? Nothing of the kind. It is blown off, removed away, as incompatible and unavailable material; and no place is found for it. The territory is entirely cleared; and then the stone becomes a mountain, and fills the whole earth. Now what idea shall we attach to this work of smiting and breaking in pieces? Is it a gentle, peaceful, and quiet work? or is it a manifestation of vengeance and violence?
How did the kingdoms of the prophecy succeed the one to the other? It was through the violence and din of war, the shock of armies, and the roar of battle. “Confused noise and garments rolled in blood,” told of the force and violence with which one nation had been brought into subjection to another. Yet all this is not called smiting or breaking in pieces.
When Persia conquered Babylon, and Greece, Persia, neither of the conquered empires is said to have been broken in pieces, though crushed beneath the overwhelming power of a hostile nation. But when we reach the introduction of the fifth kingdom, the image is smitten with violence; it is dashed to pieces, and so scattered and obliterated that no place is found for it. And now what shall we understand by this? We must understand that here a scene transpires of so much more violence and force and power, than the overthrow of one nation by another through the strife of war, that the latter is not worthy even of mention in connection with it. The subjugation of one nation by another by war, is a scene of peace and quietude in comparison with that which transpires when the image is dashed in pieces by the stone cut out of the mountain without hands.
Yet what is this smiting of the image made to mean by the theory under notice? Oh! the peaceful introduction of the gospel of Christ! the quiet spreading abroad of the light of truth! the gathering out of a few from the nations of the earth, to be made ready through obedience to the truth for his second coming, and reign! the calm and unpretending formation of a Christian church—a church that has been domineered over, persecuted, and oppressed, by the arrogant and triumphant powers of earth, from that day to this! And this is the smiting of the image! this is the breaking of it into pieces, and violently removing the shattered fragments from the face of the earth! Was ever absurdity more absurd? Were ever two events more unlike? Had the object been to find two scenes the exact opposite of each other, it would have been fully met in the comparison of these two events; but that any one should seriously contend that these are one and the same thing, is one of the anomalies of human reasoning; or, rather, it is one of the unpardonable inconsistencies to which men will sometimes resort, to save a theory.
From this digression we return to the inquiry, Do the toes represent the ten divisions of the Roman empire? We answer, Yes; because, 1. The image of chapter ii, is exactly parallel with the vision of four beasts of chapter vii. The fourth beast of chap. vii represents the same as the iron legs of the image. The ten horns on the beast of course correspond to the ten toes of the image; and these horns are plainly declared to be ten kings which should arise; and they are just as much independent kingdoms as the beasts themselves; for the beasts are spoken of in precisely the same manner; namely, as “four kings which should arise.” Verse 17. They do not denote a line of successive kings, but kings or kingdoms which exist contemporaneously; for three of them were plucked up by the little horn. The ten toes, beyond controversy, represent the ten kingdoms. 2. We have seen that in Daniel’s interpretation of the image he uses the words king and kingdom, interchangeably, the former denoting the same as the latter. In verse 44, he says that in the days of these kings, the God of Heaven shall set up a kingdom. This shows that at the time the kingdom of God is set up there will be a plurality of kings existing contemporaneously. It cannot refer to the four preceding kingdoms; for it would be absurd to use such language in reference to a line of successive kings, since it would be in the days of the last king only, not in the days of any of the preceding, that the kingdom of God would be set up.
Here then is a division presented, and what have we in the symbol to indicate it? Nothing but the toes of the image. Unless they do it, we are left utterly in the dark as to its nature and extent. As such a position would cast a serious imputation upon the prophecy, we are held to the conclusion that ten toes of the image denote the ten parts into which the Roman empire was divided, between the years A. D. 356 and A. D. 383, conquered and possessed respectively by the85Huns, Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Franks, Vandals, Suevi, Burgundians, Heruli, Anglo-Saxons, and Lombards. This enumeration of the ten kingdoms is that given by Machiavel, in his History of Florence, lib. i, who is, says Dr. Hales, “the best, because the most unprejudiced authority.” The dates are furnished by Bishop Lloyd; and the whole is approved by Bishop Newton, Faber, and Dr. Hales.
J. N. ANDREWS
By John Nevins Andrews
TESTIMONY NO. 17.
This excellent work came to hand a few hours since, and I have just completed its careful perusal. It is truly the testimony of the Spirit of God to the people who are awaiting the advent of Jesus. It embraces practical instruction adapted to a very great variety of cases. No experienced Christian can read the exhortations, rebukes, entreaties, admonitions, reproofs, counsels, and instructions, and not see that these are wisely adapted to the nature of the cases set forth. Whence, then, these words of wisdom? Who can read them with candor and not acknowledge the counsel of the Faithful Witness?
First in the work is an extended account of the sufferings of the Son of God, and instruction drawn from this of the highest practical value. It is calculated also to shed much light on the subject of the atonement, and the relation of the death of Christ to the law of God. I have spoken of this already, as it has been published in advance in a 16-page tract. I wish a copy of it could be in the hands of every person who can read the English language.
After this excellent treatise concerning the death of the Son of God, there follows a very large amount of testimonies relating to individuals. The names, of course, are not given, and with them the mass of readers have no concern. But in the reproofs and instructions given, all do have a most vital interest. Each case may be taken as the representative of a class, and from the counsel given to each individual case, that class is faithfully admonished. How solemn and heart-searching are these words of warning! How faithfully do they lay open the evil nature in man! Yet who can say that these things are in one particular more searching than the warnings and reproofs of the Bible? And how little is there in these words of solemn warning that flatter the pride of man! How little that seeks the favor of any by words of peace to those who are at ease in Zion.
After the various messages of reproof relating to individual cases, there follows most excellent counsel and warning to ministers of Christ. No one can read this without acknowledging that these are instructions of the highest practical value. And now shall they be heeded by us who are specially addressed? What account shall we render in the Judgment if we go on in the spirit of carelessness and neglect and slothfulness, so faithfully reproved in this solemn admonition? Shall we be workmen that need not to be ashamed, or shall we be unskillful in the word of righteousness from neglect of that book whose words came from Heaven? Shall we be able to help the people of God because we have a living experience in divine things, by which we are able to lead them forward in the things of God? or shall our experience be inferior to those with whom we labor, so that we shall bring them down to our own low plane of action?
The work concludes with a faithful testimony respecting moral pollution. It is very humiliating that such a warning is in place. But it is manifestly in place, and may its warning voice be heeded by old and young.
I commend the book to the people of God everywhere. May it be read thoughtfully, prayerfully, and often. Do not think it an occasion of rejoicing that another is the person who receives the reproof when you are also guilty of that very sin. The Spirit of God speaks to you. Thou art the man.
J. N. ANDREWS
“GREATLY BELOVED.”
By R. F. COUTRELL
What a testimony to be borne, fresh from Heaven by an angel of God, to a mortal man! What man so highly favored of God? Who would not covet such a testimony?
What was the prophet Daniel doing, when this dispatch was sent to him from glory?
He was not boasting of his own righteousness, telling how good he had been, how long he had lived free from sin. He was not glorying in the light and wisdom he had, and of being able to “dissolve doubts and make interpretations.” He had had visions of God, but he did not boast. In his modesty he could say, “This secret is not revealed to me for any wisdom that I have more than any living.” He was careful to give all the glory to the God of Heaven.
But what was he doing, when this special dispatch came to him from Heaven? He was seeking the Lord by prayer and supplications, with fasting, and sackcloth, and ashes. He was confessing his sin and the sin of his people. In his earnest and importunate supplication he was crying out: “O Lord, hear! O Lord, forgive! O Lord, hearken and do; defer not for thine own sake, O my God! for thy city and thy people are called by thy name.”
If we would enjoy the favor of God, if we would be greatly beloved in Heaven, let us follow the example of the beloved prophet.
R. F. COUTRELL.
A DIALOGUE
By R. F. Cottrell
Between a First-day-keeper, and a Seventh-day-keeper,
First-day-keeper. You who keep Saturday for the Sabbath are great sticklers for a particular day.
Seventh-day-keeper. Yes; the commandment says, The seventh day is the Sabbath, and from this we think it a logical conclusion that the Sabbath is the seventh day.
F. But here is a difficulty. The world is round; and the day begins at different times in different places. The sun enlightens only one half of the world at one time, and this enlightened half is gradually and constantly changing, so that at any moment it is all times of day in different parts of the world.
S. I presume that God who made the world, made man to live upon it, and made the Sabbath for man, knew this as well as you, some time before you discovered it. What is your object in these remarks? Do you object to the Sabbatic institution, and hold that the Lord did wrong in commanding man to keep a Sabbath on such a rolling world as this?
F. No; it is right we should have a Sabbath; but as the day is constantly revolving, continually sliding, as it were, from under our feet, it is impossible for all to keep the same time, and consequently it was only intended that we should keep one seventh part of the time. Hence any one day of rest after six of labor is the Sabbath. All days are alike. Any day of the seven, kept as a day of rest and worship, is acceptable to God, and answers the letter and spirit of the Sabbath law.
S. God blessed and sanctified (set apart) a particular day, or he did not. The record says he blessed and sanctified the seventh day. Now he either blessed and sanctified a particular day of the seven, or he blessed and sanctified equally each day of the seven.
F. His blessing is upon any day of the seven which we choose to keep holy to him.
S. But here is a slight difficulty. He blessed and sanctified the day, because that in it he had rested. Did he rest equally on each day of the seven? or did he labor six days of the seven in making the world, and rest only on the seventh? Did he rest on a particular day of the seven, or not?
F. We know that the Jewish Sabbath was kept on Saturday; but the Christian Sabbath answers the commandment just as well, and is just as acceptable to God.
S. Why talk about a Jewish and a Christian Sabbath? Are these two distinct Sabbaths? or are they one and the same? You make the Sabbath law require only the keeping of one day in seven; consequently this is all it requires of the Jews as well as of us Christians. So whatever day we keep, it is the same Sabbath the Jews were required to keep. Then there are not two Sabbaths, one of them Jewish and the other Christian. These two are one.
F. That is very true. And the Bible says nothing about a Jewish and a Christian Sabbath. It is one Sabbath throughout the Bible; and any day of rest after six days of labor is that one Sabbath. The Jews might have changed the day, and it would have been86the same Sabbath still. Another day would have answered the commandment just as well.
S. There was one difficulty in the way of their changing the day. God, who gave them the Sabbath, gave them also a civil, national law which required that the man who should do his own work, of whatever kind, on that day, should be put to death. Would that law have taken a man's life for laboring on the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, or sixth day of the week? If not, neither of these days was the Sabbath. The Sabbath law then was just what it is now; and if it applies equally to any and every day of the week, as you assert, then the civil law referred to, enforced, would have put a man to death for working on any one day of the seven; for according to your position all days are alike—all equally blessed and sanctified—all equally the holy Sabbath or rest day. These considerations force the conclusion that the Sabbath law bound the Jews to a definite day; and if it bound them to a definite day, is it not possible at least that the Sabbatic law, unaltered as it is, binds us to a definite day?
God's government on earth now is not connected with any particular nation. Christ's kingdom is not of this world, but of the future. Consequently no civil penalty is required to be executed in the church against the Sabbath-breaker, or the violator of any other precept of the moral law. But you believe that the law of God has a penalty, and that it will be executed in the future against every one that shall, at the close of his probation, be found in sin. You admit the existence of the Sabbath law. Then you believe that, at the execution of the Judgment, the unpardoned Sabbath-breaker will suffer the penalty of the divine law. Now is it not possible that the same law, that required the observance of a definite day of the Jews, and was enforced on pain of death, requires the observance of the same definite day of you?
F. It must be admitted that the Jews were bound to one definite day; and they could keep it there in that one locality; but we cannot keep the same day here.
S. The day moves there, as well as here. The Sabbath glides right along over Palestine without stopping a moment for any one to keep it. It comes later to the western boundary of that land than to the eastern. Consequently if the same definite day could be kept throughout Palestine, by the same rule it could be kept by the Jews at Rome; and so it was. Now if you really want to keep the same seventh day that the Jews kept in that country, just get your eye on the day over there, and when it gets along here keep it. And having kept one Sabbath fresh from the holy land, you need have no trouble about where the next is coming from; it will come again in just seven days as true as clock-work. But if you object that you cannot see the day in that far-off land, and cannot go there to get it (though many would circumnavigate the globe both ways to find an objection against it), I will tell you that there are a multitude of Jews in this country that have brought the Sabbath with them all the way from that land to this. Traveling with the sun they have not lost the day. And besides this, a host of Christians have come in company with them, at least as far as from Rome, bringing with them the first day of the same original week, which they call the Christian Sabbath. Their testimonies as to the numbering of the days of the week agree. In the mouth of two or three witnesses every word and every day of the week is established.
F. Well, I believe we ought to keep the Christian Sabbath, the day of Christ's resurrection.
S. Do you then abandon your one-day-in-seven theory, and take the ground of an actual change of the Sabbath from the definite seventh day to the definite first? If so, I shall have to ask you for your Bible proof, the want of which gave birth to the indefinite-day theory.
F. It is according to the law of the land to keep Sunday; and we are bound to obey our rulers. All ought to be agreed in the day; and I think no one has a right to disturb the peace and order of community by introducing the observance of another day.
S. You finally take ground then upon a definite day. The seventh day and the first are two distinct days after all; and they are rivals too, as their claims conflict with each other. Your first position gave us full liberty to keep any day of the seven we might choose. Accordingly we choose to keep the seventh, the day named in the commandment, which is as truly one seventh part of the week as any other day. Holding your first position, you cannot find fault with us for this. But from what you now say, it would seem that, although we may bend and twist and stretch the Divine law to suit our taste or convenience, yet it will not do thus to trifle with human laws. When the State demands of us a certain day, we must not offer another in its stead.
F. Well I would like to have the subject discussed; and I will bring you a minister that will defend the Christian Sabbath.
S. What is the Christian Sabbath? Is it not any one day of the seven? Then we are keeping it; for the seventh day is as truly one seventh part of the week as any other. So you have nothing to defend, till you settle upon a definite day; and when you do this, you abandon the fundamental argument by which you defend it. And if you will read the history of the discussions on the claims of the Sabbath and the Sunday, you will find that they ever have been considered two distinct days. And as there is confessedly “no scriptural direction for the change,” your only consistent position is that of the Roman Catholic church, namely, that the church has substituted the observance of Sunday, the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday, the seventh day; and if you are as frank to own the truth as they, you will freely acknowledge, with them, that it is “a change for which there is no scriptural authority.”
R. F. COTTRELL.
THE SUFFERINGS OF CHRIST.
By John Nevins Andrews
I HAVE just read this little tract by Sr. White, and I could wish that every person who could read at all would do the same. The editor of a leading Advent paper has stated through his editorial columns that Sr. W. was possessed with a demon. The Jews anciently said this of Christ. But others among them said, “These are not the words of him that hath a devil.”
I repeated this saying when I had read the tract. I even thought that the editor aforesaid would be constrained to utter those very words were he to read the tract. Indeed it would be much in place for him to do this in the same public manner that he has made the charge.
I need not ask the readers of the REVIEW to give this tract their careful attention; but I will ask them to put it in the hands of their neighbors and friends, and of such as they may feel an interest to benefit.
Indeed I would be very glad to have every person in our land read this little tract. I am sure that our candid opponents, however decided their opposition, would be favorably impressed by its perusal. And I cannot but think that even the bitterness of some of our unreadable assailants would be mitigated at least for a season were they to read this tract.
And now I beg of those who read this little work to consider what the religion of the Bible cost its Author. And can you ever have eternal life if you make no sacrifice for him? He did all this for thee; what hast thou done for him? Ask yourselves the question seriously: Do I know anything of this kind of religion? Have I Christ's religion, or have I the religion of conscience? Have I made a sacrifice of everything for him, or is it my study to gain Heaven at the least possible expense to myself? Very few persons know anything of the real spirit of the Christian religion. How is it, reader, with yourself? If Christ should save only such as share in the spirit that led him to die for sinful men, how many of us would be saved? How much of the spirit of sacrifice have we ever exhibited in our lives?
“Seeking thee his worn feet hasted;
On the cross his soul death tasted;
Let such labor not be wasted.”
J. N. ANDREWS.
BALAAM.
By JOS. CLARKE
The conduct of Balaam, in wishing to earn the honors and the gold of his king, is a cutting satire upon human nature, as it is often developed in money-loving, avaricious apostates from the faith, who, Judas-like, will sell their Lord for cash down.
The perseverance of this greedy apostate, in receiving Balak’s messengers after he was expressly forbidden to go with them, and his experience in his conversation with the beast, which seems to have had more sensibility than his rider, and his triple attempt to curse the people of God upon his seven altars, three times erected in as many different localities, and the anger and disappointment of Balak, who lost all his expense and labor, in his sacrifices, and who sent the poor prophet Balaam home in disgrace, empty as he came, is altogether an apt representation of the madness of those who oppose God in his work.
But the strangest part of the story is, that Balaam, after having been, as he no doubt was, once a true and great prophet, should, after all, advise his king Balak to effect by base stratagem, the overthrow of the people of God, by causing them to associate with the women of Moab, and form connexions with them by marriage; knowing, as he did, that this was forbidden of God.
But the guilt of those, who, professing to be the people of God, still consider it right to ally themselves with the world, by marriage, may be inferred from the winding up of this strange and wicked plan, as recorded in Numbers, chap. xxv. See also Rev. ii, 14.
JOS. CLARKE.
REPORT FROM BRO. MATTESON.
By John Matteson
The cause is still onward here in Alaiedon. The Lord is working with the truth, and Satan is working against it. Many threatenings have been made, and much talk about shutting up the school-house against us. Finally the officers called a school-meeting. The Methodist elder had made appointment to come and preach last Sunday evening and then hold protracted meetings right along. By a unanimous vote it was decided that I should have the house for meeting as long as I desired.
Last Sabbath seventy grown people attended our forenoon prayer-meeting. The Holy Spirit was at work on our hearts. There was a strong conviction of sin and of righteousness and of a Judgment to come. Some who have been eighteen years with the Methodists, say they have never seen or felt such heavenly influences before. The friends are beginning to love the truth and prepare for the Judgment and coming kingdom. The love of God is moving upon our hearts, and Jesus in his infinite mercy is mindful of us. Our Bible class numbers thirty-five; and all are interested in the study of the Scriptures. We have twenty-four scholars in the Sabbath-school; and there are now forty-five who have commenced to keep the Sabbath since our meetings commenced a little more than four weeks ago. And still others are investigating.
Sunday forenoon I preached. The roads are broken up and the going very bad. The rain continued. Yet a goodly number came to meeting. I gave up the house to the Methodists and told them that they could come and have meetings as long as they wanted, only reserving Wednesday evening, Sabbath, and Sunday afternoon. In the afternoon went to another school-house, preached a funeral discourse to a full house although the rain storm continued. I was astonished to see so many people in such weather and going. Enjoyed good freedom in speaking to a very attentive and interested congregation.
This is the first day I have spoken on the immortality question. The minds of the people by this time seem to be ready to hear and investigate the truths of the Bible. And many were convinced by conversation on this point before I commenced to preach on it. Yet all need instruction.
Went back to attend the Methodist appointment. Two preachers came into the neighborhood, but none into the school-house; and not one of the Methodist party came near the house. About forty came to the meeting and went home through the mud and rain disappointed.
Next morning the elders were going from house to house. They were very happy. One of them said he was “chockfull” of glory, running over all the time, and he could not refrain from shouting. Yet they seem now to have come to the conclusion that they will not come near the school-house as long as I am here.
The work goes well. I got a little rest this week, and next week I will commence preaching again if the Lord give strength. Pray for us.
JOHN MATTESON.
Mason, Ingham Co., Mich., Feb. 17, 1869.
Be Choice in Your Reading.
By W. E. Caviness
We live in an age when there is great danger of our minds being called away from dwelling on heavenly things. What a vast amount of newspapers and other reading there is circulated throughout the country that is not profitable reading, and is not calculated to elevate and refine the mind, and fit subjects for the society of Heaven. The great part of such reading has an immoral tendency.
Oh! that we could always realize that Satan will use those very things to draw our minds away from the word of God, and keep us from searching for truth as for hid treasures. We may go to many households and find the father, and perhaps most of the family, engaged in trashy reading, while the Bible lies on the stand untouched. Can we be prepared to live with God and angels without first becoming acquainted with the mind of God as contained in his word?
If it was necessary for Timothy in his time to know the Scriptures, how much more necessary for God's people now, when darkness covers the earth and gross87darkness the people. There should be an earnestness on the part of all to become thoroughly acquainted with the designs and purposes of God and his will, by reading and searching his blessed word.
W. E. CAVINESS.
Meetings in Wisconsin.
By I. SANBORN
I AM still continuing the protracted meeting with the church at Sand Prairie. The hearts of the people here seem to be very hard, yet the truth, with the aid of the Holy Spirit, is melting away the prejudice and some are turning to the Lord. Many are convicted, and I trust will soon yield to the truth. On account of rain and thaw, the roads have been bad for a number of days, and thereby some have been kept from the meetings, but we soon shall have a change in this respect. I now expect to continue here through the month of March, as I have taken up my appointment at Sugar Grove, for the present, and will visit that place as soon as I can in the future.
I. SANBORN.
Sand Prairie, Feb. 22, 1869.
REPORT FROM BRO. HASKELL.
By Stephen N. Haskell
Bro. Rodman and myself have now been here about four weeks. The Lord has seemed to bless our feeble efforts. Eight have decided to keep the commandments of God. Quite a number of others are interested. The people here are stirred up to study the Bible as never before. The store, (the only public place in the village,) being a common resort for the people, much of the time is a scene of Biblical discussion among themselves. There seems to be a general conviction with those that have heard that we have the truth. It has been a time of general sickness here as elsewhere, so much so that the second week we postponed some of our meetings in view of it, and visited the sick.
We have now given thirty-two discourses, and the interest seems to increase rather than abate. The Lord is evidently in the place. Blakeville is a small village in the town of Rindge. The people here are generally a candid, well-meaning, and industrious people. Pray for us, that many may decide for God and his truth.
Last Friday we were much cheered by the arrival of Bro. Canright, who has given two discourses, one on the perpetuity of the law, and one on some of the common objections to the seventh day, with good effect.
May the Lord prosper his truth is our humble prayer.
S. N. HASKELL.
Blakeville, N. H., Feb. 17, 1869.
Obituary Notices.
By E. F. Cottrell; W. B. Castle
Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth.
I HAVE just been informed to-day, March 1, of the death of our beloved sister, Cornelia Rice, of Folsomdale, N. Y., formerly of St. Lawrence Co. It seems she died about the last of October, 1868. A messenger was sent, at her request, to my house, some 35 or 40 miles, to get me to attend her funeral; but we were all absent, attending meeting at Olcott. She was a faithful sister, living alone as to those of like faith. She doubtless sleeps in Jesus. May her kind family remember her example and exhortations, and get a preparation to meet her at the first resurrection. E. F. COTTRELL.
Died, in Hillsdale, Mich., Feb. 13, 1869, of a complication of diseases, John P., youngest child of A. F., and Phedima Fowler, aged 1 year and 27 days. The bereaved sorrow not as those who have no hope.
A few remarks were made by a brother, and such consolation as the Scriptures afford was presented on the occasion of the funeral. W. B. CASTLE.