Ordination is the formal act by which a person is set apart to an office in the Christian church, and it is usually performed by the laying on of hands, and prayer. There has been a diversity of views held by individuals and churches concerning the manner of ordaining, the authority conferred by ordination, and the persons who have the authority to perform this ceremony. Some churches do not consider the imposition of hands at all necessary, but nearly all professed Christian churches have ordained by the laying on of hands. It is certainly in accordance with Scripture.
For ages there has been a conflict among professed Christians concerning the authority of different classes of ministers, or between Episcopacy and Presbyterianism. Those who put forth the high claims of the former hold that the bishops of the church succeeded to the authority held by the apostles; that they alone are to ordain priests, ministers, pastors, and deacons; and that in the act of ordination these receive the Holy Spirit through the laying on of the hands of the bishops, and are thus qualified to perform their work. The Roman Catholic and Greek churches have defined this subject with great minuteness, and other Episcopal bodies follow their views to a greater or less degree, in proportion as they approximate to the mother from which they sprung. Holding their view, we should be constrained to accept the conclusion that unless we could trace the ordination of the ministry back through an uninterrupted succession from the time of the apostles to our time, we should have no well-grounded assurance that they were properly authorized to act as ministers of the Lord Jesus Christ, however sound they might be in the faith, or faithful and devoted in their lives.
In the latter view it is claimed that bishops and elders are of the same rank, and that the two original words from which these words are rendered refer to one and the same office; that all ordained ministers of Jesus Christ are of the same spiritual rank so far as their office is concerned, though of course some may possess greater ability and influence than others; and that ordination is but a solemn ceremony marking the point when the candidate steps from the ranks of the laity into those of the ministry, his brethren by this act recognizing him as a proper person to fill the position of a minister of Christ, and by the act of ordination installing him in that position. It certainly becomes a matter of considerable moment to us to know which of these views is true.
If the former position be the true one, in order that a person may be properly ordained, and thus qualified to perform the office of the ministry, those who ordain him must necessarily have been properly ordained, and their predecessors must be able to trace their ordination in an uninterrupted line back to the apostles and to Christ. It would indeed in that case become a matter of great difficulty to ascertain what ministers were properly qualified. We should need tables kept with all the care with which the Jews anciently kept their genealogical tables, stating explicitly when and by whom every minister in the whole church had been ordained; for if the matter be of any importance at all, it must be one of great moment. For instance: if, in order that his baptism may be valid, a man must know that the minister who performs this ordinance has been ordained by properly ordained ministers in uninterrupted succession from the apostles, surely it would require considerable labor and much knowledge of history to trace this matter up in every part of the world, and thus satisfy his conscience.
And so of every other duty or ordinance to be performed by the gospel ministry. The establishment of this episcopal claim of lineal succession would throw the whole Christian world into the direst confusion, unsettle the consciences of Christians everywhere, and make it utterly impossible to be sure we have a properly authorized ministry unless we acknowledge the strongest claims of the Roman Catholic Church. And even taking the claims of that church for a standard, it is exceedingly doubtful if such a succession as we have referred to can be established. We have never heard of tables being kept wherein the ordinations of a tithe even if the Catholic clergy were recorded. Guessing and probabilities in such a matter would not answer. If it be necessary that there be an uninterrupted succession from the time of the apostles till our time in order to a properly qualified ministry, and in order to the valid performance of Christian ordinances, then we must know we have such a succession; and to know it is really impossible; for during the past ages of darkness the connecting links have been lost, at least so that they cannot be found with certainty.
Again, these lines which can be traced up, perhaps through the popes or possibly through some of the most important bishoprics, have come through some notoriously bad men, monsters indeed some of them were. Would the ordination of a wicked man who happened to occupy the papal chair or the position of a bishop be a valid Christian ordination, and necessary to the authenticity of the ordination of his successors? We are very thankful that we are under no necessity to accept such conclusions, and are driven to no such extremities. We claim that those who hold such views have simply made a mistake in reference to the design of ordination. They attach a meaning and importance to it which God and the Bible never meant it to have.
Ordination is simply an outward ceremony by which a body of believers set apart or install a person into some official position, as that of minister, local elder, or deacon. If a person is to be separated from the ranks of the laity, and placed in an official position, there must be some act by which this is done; and ordination is this act. As there is order in the church of Christ, and as there should be proper ceremonies, such as would strike the mind of the candid beholder as being fitting and proper, connected with every act of an official character in the church, this act has connected with it prayer, and the laying on of hands. In the case of the minister, the church, through its official authority, whether of a conference, synod, presbytery, council, or association, designates the person whom it considers worthy of receiving such a position. Then a sufficient number of individuals properly representing that body, proceed to perform the ceremony. The official act of ordination shows that the person is now entrusted with the authority of the church to act in this capacity.
The same principle, as regards ceremony, applies in other things, as marriage and baptism. When two persons choose each other as companions for life, to associate together in a new and important relation, the laws of God and man prescribe that there shall be some public act, or ceremony, which shall mark this point. Hence the marriage ceremony. When a person leaves the world and its pleasures, and espouses Christ for his master, to follow him for time and eternity, this is an important step. Baptism is the divinely appointed ceremony to mark this point; it shows faith in the burial and resurrection of the Master, and in the final resurrection of all who sleep in him.
So in ordination. A man is considered by his brethren to possess the proper character and qualifications for the ministry, and he is chosen to take upon himself the important position of a public teacher, a shepherd of the flock. This new relation marks an important era in his life. How reasonable that appropriate ceremonies be connected with it. Prayer is most fitting. He will need divine help. If God does not help him, he will surely make a failure. Earnest prayer in his behalf is most proper, to solemnize the minds of all, and to call down the blessing of God. And how often a special blessing is then and there bestowed. Such a blessing may not be granted in every case, but very often it is.51The blessing comes from God in answer to prayer, not through the laying on of the hands of the poor mortals officiating, though it should come even at the moment the hands are imposed.
What significance is there in the laying on of hands? Through the hands we bestow blessings upon others. Gifts are usually presented by the hand. In early ages and in oriental countries, before the age of writing, many gestures, as a shrug of the shoulders, or a bowing of the head as a mark of respect from an inferior to a superior, had a symbolic meaning. So the laying on of hands signified by an outward sign the imparting of something to another, whether a good gift or a bad one. Thus Jacob laid his hands on the heads of the two sons of Joseph. Gen. 48:13. Moses laid his hand on Joshua's head when Joshua took his position as leader of the hosts of Israel. Num. 27:18. The sinner, by laying his hand on the head of the victim he was about to offer, implied that his own sin was transferred to the victim. Lev. 3:2. The high priest confessed the sins of the people over the head of the goat on the day of atonement, thus in figure imparting to the scapegoat the sins of the people which had been transferred to the sanctuary during the preceding year. Lev. 16:21. And our blessed Saviour placed his hands upon the children's heads. Mark 10:16. In all these instances the transference of something to another is implied. Hence we conclude that the laying on of hands in ordination is but an outward symbol of the bestowal of blessings through the church.
Great blessings come to individuals and the world through the church of Christ. Those who officiate in ordination represent the authority of the church. When they thus lay their hands upon the head of the candidate, it is an outward symbol of the bestowal of authority upon the person to act in the position to which he is being set apart, and as a symbol of the blessings coming through the church to others by his means. What could be more fitting to symbolize these than the ancient ceremony of the laying on of hands? Because God has often chosen the moment when hands are imposed as the very point when he sends his Holy Spirit upon the candidate and all concerned, many have concluded that the laying on of hands is the essential condition necessary in order that the Spirit might be given, and hence that there must be an uninterrupted succession from apostolic times through which this special blessing should come,—a position involving a host of absurdities.
In that case, in every great reform from previous corruptions it would be necessary that the servants of God leading out in such reforms should have been ordained by the old leaders in those corruptions, in order to be properly qualified for their work. God's true people are not to be identified by a lineal descent from good men of past ages; but they are to be known by the possession of the truth of God, and the Holy Spirit of God. All that the true disciple will care to know about the setting apart of the ministry will be, Has it been done by the properly constituted authority of the people having the characteristics of the true church? and was the man himself worthy to occupy the position? Indeed, we boldly take the position that tracing back ordination into any past generation is a matter wholly useless, of no consequence whatever. Where do the Scriptures intimate that after generations must trace the ordination of the ministry back to the apostles, or back to anybody? The ministry then existing were to ordain faithful men to take charge of the affairs of the church, and this God's faithful ministers are ever to do. But they are not made “faithful ministers” by an ability to trace their ordination to previous generations.
Some of the most important ordinations recorded in Scripture were not only not performed by the apostles, but were performed by those who held a less exalted position than that which the candidates were to fill. We notice those of Paul, and Barnabas, and Timothy. “Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery,” 1 Tim. 4:14. It seems, then, that Timothy did not receive ordination through the laying on of the hands of the apostles, but of the “presbytery.” The common presbyters, or elders (for the same Greek word is used for both), ordained this celebrated minister, who was a fellow-laborer with the great apostle Paul, and acted as his special representative after Paul's imprisonment.
But how was Paul himself ordained? Acts 13:1–3. “Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.”
Here was the ordination to that brilliant ministry of labor which Paul gave to his Master and to the church. One would suppose on hearing the high claims of Episcopacy set forth, that the whole conclave of apostles would have been present at Jerusalem; that a grand round of ceremonies would have been exhibited; and that Peter, James, and John, at the least, would have laid their hands on the heads of Paul and Barnabas, and that thus the needful unction would have been bestowed upon them. But no. In distant Antioch a few devoted souls were humbly seeking God by prayer and fasting, that they might be qualified for the ministry of the word. With the exception of Paul and Barnabas, we know very little about these persons. They were not apostles. Most likely they were simply teachers, persons of no great authority. But there were some particulars connected with this ordination of great interest. The men to be set apart were those who were “called by the Holy Spirit,” and these humble representatives of the church sanctioned this call of the Spirit of God by laying their hands on these apostles' heads, to show by an outward ceremony that the Spirit, and the church which they represented, were in unison in calling these men. This was enough, and this constituted a valid ordination. No doubt these men were qualified to represent the church, so that their act was really the act of the church itself; and this was all that was necessary.
The most important thing was the evidence that God's Spirit sanctioned their act. God would not have his ministers go out independent of his church. If he represents the church, the church should show, by the act of ordination, that the minister goes out by their concurrence, and this, we believe, is all that ordination signifies. Hence we conclude that in the Christian dispensation, wherever a body of Christ's faithful disciples assemble, and there is found among their number a man blessed with the necessary qualifications to enable him to teach the truth, and with a good moral character and sterling sense, one who gives clear evidence of having the Spirit of God with him and a burden of saving souls upon his heart, should those of good judgment in that church, after humbly seeking God in prayer for light, feel that the Lord called this brother specially to the work of the ministry, and lay hands upon his head with prayer to God for his blessing, it would be to all intents and purposes a valid Bible ordination. This, in short, is what the brethren at Antioch really did in the case of Paul and Barnabas. Bishop Watson says, “It is a well-known fact that presbyters ordained their own bishops in the church of Antioch for more than two hundred years after Christ.”
We conclude that the high claims of Episcopacy, as put forth by Catholic, Greek, and some of the Episcopal writers, as well as by some Baptists who try to trace their ordination through the Waldenses and others, are wholly baseless so far as scriptural foundation is concerned. In this way Catholic writers have perverted most of the simple ordinances of Christ's church, and founded the high claims of Catholicism upon them. These ordinances, when properly understood, will be found simple, plain, sensible, and every way fitted to accomplish the object Christ had in view in their institution.
FOR HUSBANDS.
Don’t think when you have won a wife that you have also won a slave.
Don’t think that your wife has less feeling than your sweetheart. Her relation to you is changed, not her nature.
Don’t think that you can dispense with all the little civilities of life toward her on marrying. She appreciates these things quite as much as other women.
Don’t be gruff and rude at home. Had you been that sort of a fellow before marriage, the probabilities are that you would be sewing on your own buttons still.
Don’t make your wife feel that she is an encumbrance on you by giving her grudgingly. Give her what she needs as cheerfully as though it were a pleasure so to do. She will feel better, and so will you.
Don’t meddle in the affairs of the house under her charge. You have no more right to be poking your nose into the kitchen than she has to walk into your place of business and give directions to your employes.
Don’t find fault with her extravagance in ribbons, etc., until you have shut down on cigars, tobacco, beer, etc.
Don’t leave your wife at home to nurse the children on the score of economy, while you bolt down town at night, to see the show, or spend a dollar on billiards.
Don’t bolt your supper, and hurry off to spend your evenings lounging around away from your wife. Before marriage you couldn’t spend evenings enough with her.
Don’t prowl in the loafing resorts till midnight, wasting your time in culpable idleness, leaving your wife lonely at home to brood over your neglect and her disappointment.
Don’t think that board and clothes are sufficient for all a wife does for you.—Selected.
RULES FOR HEALTH.
We should not leave our souls to the ministers nor our health to the doctors. So the following simple rules for the preservation of health, especially through the changeable seasons of autumn, winter, and spring, should not be left entirely to health journals. We are right in the midst of the time when they apply—
Never lean with the back against anything that is cold.
Never begin a journey until breakfast has been eaten.
Never take warm drinks, and then immediately go out into the cold air.
Keep the back—especially between the shoulder blades—well covered; also the chest well protected.
In sleeping in a cold room, establish the habit of breathing through the nose, and never with the mouth wide open.
Never go to bed with cold or damp feet; always toast them by the fire ten or fifteen minutes before going to bed.
Never omit regular bathing; for unless the skin is in an active condition the cold will close the pores, and favor congestion and other diseases.
After exercise of any kind, never ride in an open carriage nor near the window of a car for a moment. It is dangerous to health and even to life.
When hoarse speak as little as possible until the hoarseness is recovered from, else the voice may be permanently lost, or difficulties of the throat be produced.
Merely warm the back by a fire, and never continue keeping the back exposed to the heat after it has become comfortably warm. To do so is debilitating.
When going from a warm atmosphere into a colder one, keep the mouth closed, so that the air may be warmed by its passage through the nose ere it reaches the lungs.
Never stand still in cold weather, especially after having taken a slight degree of exercise; and always avoid standing upon ice or snow, or where the person is exposed to a cold wind.—Albany Argus.
“YOUR LIFE IS HID WITH CHRIST.”
By M. Boden
“Your life is hid with Christ in God,” oh, blessed happy thought,
What comfort to the aching heart hath such assurance brought!
Your life is hid with Christ in God, and only he can give
Back to the silent clay its breath, and bid it rise and live.
O ye who mourn for loved ones, and over still forms weep,
The Lord hath power to waken them from out their dreamless sleep,
When Christ shall leave the Father’s house and take his earthly flight,
The brightness of his presence shall dispel the shades of night,
And every eye shall see him, and every heart shall fear
Save those who wait his coming—these shall gaze without a tear.
With joyous hearts and happy they shall hear him say, “Well done,
Ye blessed of my Father, now your earthly race is run.”
And, oh, marvel of the ages! the graves shall opened be,
The people of the Lord come forth, from Death’s dominion free;
Come forth to life immortal, while these be the words they sing,
“O Grave, where is thy victory; O Death, where is thy sting?”
And land and sea, and death and hell shall render up the trust
Committed to their keeping. O ye that dwell in dust,
Awake and sing; for God hath cast away thine enemy,
The King of Israel, e’en the Lord, is in the midst of thee;
And through the endless ages no tears shall dim thine eyes,
Ne’er shall thy feelings vent themselves in groans and heavy sighs.
Ye shall run and not grow weary, ye shall walk and shall not faint,
For everything of good is yours that human heart can paint.
Ay, more; for eye hath never seen, nor sinful heart conceived
The things that God has treasured up for those who have believed;
And finite minds can never think of half the beauties blest,
That shall delight the saints of God when entered into rest.
M. BODEN.
Romeo, Mich.
THE DISCIPLINE OF SORROW.
If the block of marble that lies before the sculptor was capable of feeling, how it would deplore and bemoan every stroke of the hammer, chipping off piece after piece of substance. It would deem its lot a pitiable one indeed. Yet the hammer and chisel are transforming the rough and shapeless stone into a form of life, grace, and beauty, fit to adorn the palace of a king.
So it is with us. Our characters are like unhewn blocks of marble, rude, misshapen, comparatively worthless; and God is sculpturing them into forms of divine symmetry and beauty, that may forever illustrate to the universe the power of his grace. The heavy blow of adversity and the rasping cares and petty annoyances of our daily life are but different parts of the same divine and loving process.
And shall we look simply at the hammer and chisel, and doubt the glorifying work for which God is using them? Shall we think only of the chips which the blows of his presence strike from us, and overlook the immortal characters which the Great Sculptor is seeking thus to perfect for his celestial temple?—Selected.
The Evil of Breaking God’s Commandments
ALL the evil that is in the world is owing to our having broken and to our still breaking God's commandments.
Keeping God’s Commandments
ing God's commandments.
THE possession of religious knowledge may be fatally but easily mistaken for the possession of real religion—Bickersteth.
Taxes for Education
It was Edmund Burke, who beautifully said, “Taxes for education are like vapors, which rise only to descend again to beautify and fertilize the earth.”
Serving Christ Brings Happiness
It takes time to be unhappy. It is impossible to be unhappy while we are lovingly serving Christ. Therefore he who thus serves Christ all the time is always happy.
Brutal Men Should Not Own Living Things
That man who is very passionate, not only passionate and ugly, but brutal, should never become the owner of any living thing which should be subject to his control or dependent on his care.
The Parsimonious Old Gentleman
A RICH but parsimonious old gentleman, on being taken to task for his uncharitableness, said, “True I don't give much; but if you only knew how it hurts me to give anything, you wouldn't wonder.”
A Boy’s Duty to Enter the Ministry
If it is a boy’s duty to enter the ministry, he should strive hard to enter it, as well as he should strive hard to enter Heaven; and he should pray for the Lord’s guidance in the one case, as well as he should pray for it in the other.
Selfishness Spoils Everything
THINK about yourself, about what you want, what respect people ought to pay you, what people think of you, and then to you nothing will be pure. You will spoil everything you touch; you will make sin and misery for yourself out of everything which God sends you; you will be as wretched as you choose on earth, or in Heaven either.
The Duties That Wait
By E. J. Haynes
There are some duties which should be done to-day, yet they will wait as patients in the ante-room of a physician. The ante-room of many souls is filled with duties that have been waiting, one two hours, another a month, a third a year, and one old, gray duty, leaning on his crutch, says, “Ah, I have waited forty years for audience, and have not yet found it!” Some duties come at last, like the bailiff with his warrant, or the sheriff with his writ; they will follow you and dog your footsteps until you shall give them attendance. There are some duties that can only be done to-day—to-morrow’s duties being those of reparation.—E. J. Haynes.
Happiness at Home
HAPPY is the man who can find solace and poetry at home. Hearty and warm greetings from loving hearts, fond glances from bright eyes, and welcome shouts of merry-hearted children, the many thousand little arrangements for comfort and enjoyment, that silently tell of thoughtful and expectant love,—these are ministrations that reconcile us to the prose of life. Think of this, ye wives and daughters of business men! Think of the toils, the anxieties, the mortification and wear that fathers undergo to secure for you comfortable homes, and compensate them for their toils by making them happy by their own firesides.
A SINGULAR CONFESSION.
We had hoped that Christendom would awake by-and-by to the fact that they have no right to use the term Sabbath to designate the first day of the week; for it does not belong to it, viewed from any standpoint, either human or divine. So used it is a misnomer and a falsehood; and if this distinction could come to be clearly recognized, it would go far toward setting the Sabbath question in its true light before the world. But the reader will see how far this is from being the case when he learns that The Christian Instructor comes out with a humble confession that it has committed an “unpardonable oversight,” and been guilty of conduct that is “flagrantly offensive,” because it has in two or three instances applied to the first day of the week the “semi-barbaric and wholly heathenish name Sunday,” instead of “the beautiful and scriptural” name Sabbath. This is one of the most remarkable instances in which an action which is just right has been confessed as “an unpardonable oversight” and “flagrantly offensive.” We can assure the Instructor that its confession is wholly uncalled for and out of place. When it applies the beautiful and scriptural name Sabbath, which belongs to the holy rest-day of God and to that only—when it applies this sacred name to the first-day Sabbath which is half semi-barbaric and heathen and half papal, it may then come down with a confession of something which is an unpardonable oversight and flagrantly offensive. No man has any more right to call the first day of the week by the name Sabbath, than he has to call Jehovah Beelzebub, or Christ Mohammed.
IS IT CROOKEDNESS?
There is no little excitement in religious circles in New York and Brooklyn just now, but not, however, of a nature very creditable to the parties concerned. The disturbing question is whether the pastor of the Brooklyn Tabernacle, T. De Witt Talmage, has acted an honest or dishonest part in his effort to raise the debt of his church. The Independent of a recent issue gave utterance to a scathing criticism of Mr. T.'s course. In its issue of Feb. 6, 1879, it makes the following additional allusion to the subject, which will explain itself:—
“Dr. Talmage is entitled to his own defense of his telegram, as reported in The Tribune:— “‘I have been found fault with by one or two religious papers, but by no secular papers yet, concerning a telegram that I sent last spring to Baltimore. I sent a dispatch to a brother, who was in Baltimore, for a large subscription, as we were anxious to raise our church debt. He telegraphed back that he could not afford it. Then I sent another one, saying: “Will you and Mr. Hobbs allow me to pledge you each for $5,000, if I make up the difference between this amount and your actual subscription privately?” Signed T. De Witt Talmage.” The president of the board was in Baltimore, and I thought if he gave a large subscription it would inspire the whole congregation, and I asked for $5,000 from him and Mr. Hobbs. Any man of common sense can see the meaning, which was that if these men could not make up the $5,000 asked for, I would out of my own pocket make it up to them; and, indeed, that was the amount of my first subscription. Let me say, in passing, that any man who can twist any other meaning out of that telegram is either a villain or a fool. [Loud applause].”
The Independent adds:—
“We can, at least, shrug our shoulders when asked to choose between the two designations. But T. DeWitt’s nephew and trustee, John F., ought to have been able to catch the meaning; and he thought it was the uncle that was something other than a fool. Put on it the best possible construction; forget that Dr. Talmage’s subscription was met by raising his salary; and then it remains that, for the purpose of persuading other people to subscribe liberally, on the ground that the trustees were well disposed and were doing the most they could, these two men were asked to pretend that they gave what the pastor was going to give himself. The man who can twist any honesty out of that proposition is either—but we forbear.”
TO CORRESPONDENTS.
By Editor
E. HADLEY: You will find all the points mentioned in the sermon on the Sabbath to which you refer, fully examined in the different works on the Sabbath published at this Office. If you want the whole thing in a tolerably good-sized nutshell, we refer you to the History of the Sabbath, by Eld. Andrews.
N. J. BOWERS: We consider a farm, team, etc., when rented, the same as temporarily sold; and to any person to whom it would be right to sell, it would be equally right to rent. A thing rented for a certain length of time, as we view it, is the same as sold for that length of time, and out of our control, and outside of our responsibility.
Is there any proof in the Bible, either by precept or example, for family or public prayer? G. D.
ANS. Abundance. See back volumes of the REVIEW. If brief reference to particular texts is inquired for, see those scriptures which state that Noah, Abraham, Jacob, etc., built an altar unto the Lord, and called upon him. Here was family prayer. See also Jer. 10:25, where God is called upon to pour out his fury upon the families that call not upon his name. See 1 Kings 8 and 2 Chron. 6:12, 13. Here is public prayer. See Acts 20:36 and 21:5. Here is public prayer again. See 1 Tim. 2:8. Here is an injunction applying to all kinds of prayer, but referring especially to public and family prayer.
J. R. WRIGHT: For an explanation of Rom. 14:5 and Colossians 2:16, see the History of the Sabbath, published at this Office.
F. WINCHESTER: The Waldenses were never put to death for observing Sunday. Instead of this, they kept the seventh day. A full account of their origin, views, and worship is given in Eld. Andrews' History of the Sabbath, pp. 403–415.
In a recent number of the Journal and Messenger, in an article on the Sabbath, the editor says: “In the original Hebrew the word rendered seventh, in Gen. 2:3, is not that meaning seventh, but that meaning Sabbath or rest.” “And the same is true in Ex. 20:11.” Of course this does not affect our position one way or the other, but I would like to ask if this assertion is true. E. H. GATES.
ANS. The word rendered seventh, is, according to the Englishman's Hebrew Concordance, sh'veegee. This is the word rendered “seventh” in Gen. 2:3. It occurs in the Old Testament 96 times, and is in every instance rendered seventh, never Sabbath. It is the word used in the fourth commandment where the word seventh occurs in our version. On the other hand, the word for Sabbath is shabbathth. It occurs in the O. T. 108 times, and is always rendered Sabbath, never seventh. We have never yet seen an honest criticism from ministers or laymen, on either the Hebrew or Greek in opposition to the Sabbath.
Card from Carson, Mich. No name, hence ruled out.
Is it a fact that the hare does not chew the cud, as stated by eminent naturalists? If so, how shall we understand Lev. 11:6? G. D. B.
ANS. McClintock and Strong, in their Cyclopedia, say that the original in this passage “should be understood as merely implying a second mastication more or less complete, and not necessarily that faculty of true ruminants which derives its name from a power to draw up aliment after deglutition, when worked into a ball, from the first stomach into the mouth, and there to submit it to a second grinding process.” This latter the hare does not do, the former it does.
SOUTHAMPTON, ENGLAND.
By John Norton Loughborough
Another week has passed, giving us still further opportunity to learn the situation, and to do a little missionary work. It has been the coldest week known in this part of England for thirty years, still we have been able to do something. We realize to some extent the importance of improving the time in our Master’s cause.
We find almost as great a variety of sects in England as in America, although they are of a different kind, and have different names. Some of these sects, near Southampton at least, seem to be passing through a state of fusion just at present, and some of their devoted members are specially interested in the present truth. There is much complaint in England of a lack of audiences at the churches; but the people say there is a lack of imparting instruction on the part of the ministers. The following, clipped from The Week, an English paper, will speak for itself:—53
“Clergymen complain more and more of the tendency of the male portion of their flocks to absent themselves from church. This they attribute to a want of ‘spiritual-mindedness,’ whereas—painful as it is to say so—it is largely owing to their own want of sincerity or their incapacity. Men like Dean Stanley in the church or Mr. Spurgeon out of it have never lacked hearers. But men who cannot express what they have to say so that another person can understand it, who insult their hearers by repeating empty platitudes and foolish common-places, who cannot even read a chapter out of the Bible distinctly, who make mannerisms of the prayers, who treat religion as a plaything, and whose first and last thought is to trick themselves out in fine clothes so as to impress the ‘silly women’—what right have such persons to expect rational men to place themselves under their tuition? If religion suffers, is it not in too many cases through the direct or indirect acts of ministers of religion? Men will not go to church to listen to sermons which are beneath the level of schoolboys’ exercises, especially when the prayers are rendered unintelligible by reason of elaborate accompaniments and loud-mouthed choirs. This being the time of year for sermons, we would be glad if some of the preachers would ponder over the foregoing short discourse.”
During the past week, Bro. Ings has visited about two hundred and fifty families, and left tracts and papers with them. Among these he found another person, an intelligent lady, who had commenced the observance of the Sabbath as the result of reading, since his visits last summer. Last night we received a letter from a sister twelve miles away who had brought another into the truth by loaning her books and papers. The willingness of those who are embracing the truth, and of those who are interested but have not fully taken their stand with us to help us circulate tracts and papers, and to supply us with names of those who, they think, would be interested readers, is encouraging to us. There seems to be the greatest eagerness here to read the Signs, and it is pronounced by many the best and most instructive paper they ever saw. We are anxious to get the supply of papers we have ordered. It is a grief to us to have the people literally begging for them when we have none for them. One of our sisters loaned her Signs to a minister in Southampton, and his verdict was, “Those papers are marvelous.” Especially do the readers speak in the highest terms of Sister White’s articles in the papers, pronouncing them “wonderful.”
Last Sabbath, Jan. 11, we held our first Sabbath meeting in our own house, “Stanley Cottage.” It was a very bleak day, the coldest of the week, still a few came in. After a brief discourse upon the work of Christ, and the Way of Life picture, encouraging responses were made by those present.
There is much sickness in these parts, and several of the sisters who are keeping the Sabbath have large families to care for, and could not meet with us. We expect more next Sabbath, and as the weather gets more mild we hope for much larger Sabbath congregations. We shall do all we can to help those who are interested, and those who are taking their stand with us. We labor in hope, knowing that our “labor is not in vain in the Lord.”
Our place of residence borders on the line of Shirley, which with its two villages, Old and New Shirley, contains six thousand inhabitants. Last Saturday evening we engaged the Shirley hall for two evenings per week. We regretted that we could not find a place to occupy on Sunday evenings, but we thought it better to hold meetings Monday and Wednesday evenings than not to hold any. The hall we have rented is one-half mile from our place of residence. It is a good hall near the center of New Shirley, with seating capacity for two hundred and fifty. We pay for the hall, heated, and well lighted with gas, $1.00 each evening. Next week we can have it three evenings, and we are in hopes to get in once in a while a Sunday evening discourse.
Monday evening, on short notice, we held our first meeting in the hall. Notwithstanding it was very dark, and so foggy that some lost their way in getting to the place of meeting, we had a fair audience, and marked attention was given as we spoke from Dan. 2. On Wednesday evening we had an increase in our audience, as well as an increase in the interest on the part of the people. We are forming some interesting acquaintances. Those who are keeping the Sabbath are becoming more and more settled in the truth.
We have gathered up nearly two hundred names during the past week for our T. and M. societies. We expect that some out of this number will obey the truth. We feel more and more need of daily help from God, that we may rightly perform our part in this last message of mercy, knowing that the Lord on his part is ready to bless when we come into a position where he can bless us.