OUR friends of the National Reformers, the W. C. T. U., and the American Sabbath Union are wont to claim nearly all sects, denominations, and organizations of labor as indorsing the Blair, or some other Sunday-rest bill. Cardinal Gibbons wrote a letter expressing his own sentiments as favoring some such a law and forthwith that name was multiplied into 7,200,000, including all the Roman Catholic Church of America—men, women, and children and characters of all kinds, as indorsing the bill. This 7,200,000 Catholics did not sign the petition; in fact many of them have signed the counter-petition. It is always better to look upon both sides of the question, so we present below a Catholic view from an editorial in the New York Catholic News of August 11, 1889. We hope our Sunday friends will note what has so often been stated by Catholics, that the only authority for Sunday is the Roman Catholic Church and traditions. The article says:—
“There are Sabbath associations and an American Sabbath Union, aiming to procure new statutes to enforce the observance of Sunday. At the instance of the Woman's Christian Temperance Union, Senator Blair has introduced a bill into Congress. It thus appears that not only special Protestant organizations are endeavoring to prevent Sunday labor and noisy Sunday amusements, but also other Protestant associations devoted to temperance and the like.
“The whole movement gives rise to some reflection. For the transfer of the Jewish law or Sabbath rest on the last day of the week there is not the slightest warrant in the New Testament. The observance of Sunday has no warrant except the authority of the Catholic Church, and it is utterly inconsistent in men who deny the authority of the Catholic Church, to attempt to force their fellow Protestants to observance of what has nothing but Catholic authority in its favor. Another curious point is the evidence the movement gives of the waning power of Protestant organizations over those who still loosely are denominated Protestants.”
The editor then quotes the following from Mr. Crafts' speech before the committee in the hearing of the Sunday-rest bill (p. 10):—
“Protestants represented in the official membership of the American Sabbath Union, namely: The combined membership of the Methodist Episcopal Church, the Baptist Church, the Presbyterian Churches (North and South), and the Reformed (Dutch) Church, all of which have officially appointed members of the American Sabbath Union; by whom the law is asked for (practically 6,000,000), 5,977,666.”
Upon this statement of members which has been swelled to ten millions, according to the field secretary of the Union, the News continues:—
“Thus, even taking the whole membership of several denominations, the advocates of the law can make out on their side only six millions out of the population of sixty millions; and they count Cardinal Gibbons' expressed wish for the Catholic sanctification of the Lord's day as the voice of 7,200,000 in favor of the law. In other words they admit that for the sanctification of the Lord's day, Catholic advocates in its favor outnumber Protestant by more than one million! We believe that no more than six million Protestants can be found in the country who believe in the inspiration of the Scriptures, in the dogma of the Holy Trinity, in the incarnation and redemption through Christ, and that actually Catholic believers in these fundamental doctrines of Christianity far outnumber Protestants.”
Can the above statement that “no more than six million Protestants can be found in the country who believe in the inspiration of the Scriptures, in the dogma of the Holy Trinity, in the incarnation and redemption through Christ,” be gainsaid? In our opinion it cannot. Take the inspiration of the Scriptures and the incarnation of Christ and redemption through him, the only Biblical doctrines537named, and how many Protestants really believe them? How many question the Bible! We leave the matter as it is for Protestants to consider.
The editor then refers to the religious combinations as follows:—
“Another curious point is that this combination of Protestant sects, to influence legislation, not being inspired by hostility to the Catholic Church, which would make it all right in the eyes of the masses, begins to excite alarm, and we are reminded of words uttered by Richard M. Johnson in 1828-9 when the Sabbatarians wished the Federal Government to suspend carrying the mails on Sunday. In the report of a committee which recommended the rejection of the petition, he said:—
“‘Extensive religious combinations to effect a political object are, in the opinion of the committee, always dangerous. This first effort of this kind calls for the establishment of a principle which, in the opinion of the committee, would lay the foundation for dangerous innovations upon the spirit of the Constitution, and upon the religious rights of the citizens. If admitted, it may be justly apprehended that the future measures of the government will be strongly marked, if not eventually controlled, by the same influence. All religious despotisms commence by combination and influence, and when that influence begins to operate upon the political institutions of a country, the civil power soon bends under it; and the catastrophe of other nations furnishes an awful warning of the consequences.’
“All this is true, and is as fully and completely true of combinations against Catholic parochial schools, or combinations which have made it necessary for Catholics to establish and maintain parochial schools, as in regard to the Sunday question.”
The Sunday is a Roman Catholic institution and its observance as the Sabbath by Protestants is homage paid to the Catholic Church, and when this observance is enforced by law those who enforced it are doubly guilty of walking in the footsteps of the Papacy. But as regard this Sunday law movement, it certainly is not true that “no loyal Catholic priest, or paper, or person will oppose what has thus been indorsed.” The News is loyal. Mr. Crafts is mistaken. M. C. W.
CAUSE OF INTOLERANCE.
By Milton C. Wilcox
“INTOLERANCE,” says one writer, “is the tyranny of conviction,” and a great truth is expressed in these words. Intolerance is the “state of being intolerant;” and “intolerant,” says Webster, is “not enduring difference of opinion or sentiment, especially in relation to religion. Conviction is the “state of being convinced or convicted.” To convict is to “prove guilty of an offense or crime.” Conviction therefore would denote as applied to the person convicted a sense of guilt, a realization that he was a sinner or a criminal. “Intolerance is the tyranny of conviction.” How is this?
All men are sinners. God gave his holy law as their rule of conduct. Its transgression is sin. The Spirit of God uses that law to convince and convict of sin. The word of God is the sword of the Spirit. The law and Spirit of God convict men of sin and show them their state of condemnation, in order that men, realizing this, may wash in that Fountain whose crimson tide is free to all, and which can cleanse from all sin. Those who accept of this offered mercy of God are released from condemnation and walk at liberty in the gospel of Christ. And this walking at liberty, through the grace of God, is the keeping of all of God’s commandments—the law of liberty. Says David, “I will walk at liberty, for I seek thy precepts.” Ps. 119:45.
But those who will not accept the conditions of liberty bring upon themselves greater condemnation. The natural heart loves sin and they yield to its promptings. It hates the law of God, and therefore, those who obey that law. As they were condemned by the law of God and have increased hatred toward it because of their inward wickedness and rebellion and the pure teaching of the law, so they are condemned by those who obey God’s law and have increased hatred toward them, because of their pure lives and teachings. The wicked must either submit to the truth of God or array themselves against it. There is no half-way ground.
Those who will not submit, and thus be justified through Christ, will endeavor to destroy that which condemns them, and crush out those who condemn them. It is for this reason alone that men have put forth such efforts to overthrow the law of God, the plan of salvation, and have persecuted, or been intolerant, toward those who have upheld God’s law.
The Jewish prophets were not persecuted because they were wicked men, or because their teaching tended to make men worse, but because their lives and teaching condemned the idolatrous nation. The Jews did not put Christ to death because he blasphemed; that was but the excuse. His holy life and pure teaching convicted them of sin. They would not crucify their wicked hearts, as crucified the One whose life condemned them. Instead of submitting, they rebelled. They adopted the tyranny of conviction rather than the freedom of conviction. If conviction were allowed to take its legitimate course it would lead to freedom through contrition and conversion. But conviction was perverted, and tyranny toward those instruments which God used in convicting them of sin was the result.
The papal church was not intolerant toward the Reformers because of any wickedness in their lives, or because of their mere showing of the corruptions in the church. These had been spoken of by the humorists, and had formed the subjects of satires for centuries, and yet were tolerated by Rome; but when the condemnation came from the pure truth of God, when the right way was presented in contrast with the crooked, dark iniquitous ways of Rome, conviction followed; and that conviction developed two classes, one who submitted and found freedom, and the other who rebelled and tyrannized over those whose teachings and holy lives condemned them.
And it will be even thus in the great struggle of religious liberty and religious tyranny in our own land. The truth of God relative to the near coming of Christ and his holy law and Sabbath will be preached, condemning all wickedness and convicting men of sin. Some will submit to God’s claims upon them, others will rebel, and being a majority will tyrannize over those who do God’s will and proclaim his truth. Laws will be enacted against them. The Sunday law is of this character. It will not be applied to men simply because they do not observe Sunday, but because they keep the Sabbath. This is shown by the Sunday persecutions which have taken place in Arkansas, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee. But however great the penalty, however severe the persecution, the child of God need not fear. This life is but preparatory to the next, and he who lives for God here, lives with him throughout eternity. M. C. W.
“THEY DRAW THE LINE ON GOD.”
By C. P. B.
THE Christian at Work of July 18 has an article under the foregoing head, in which it discusses the proposed preamble of the Montana State Constitution, and says that it shows “that the new State draws the line on God: and this illustrates the position of the country as a whole: it draws the line on God—on one eternal, Supreme Being, with accountability to him.” This, the Christian at Work regards as “but the prophecy of the action of other States as in years to come, they come trooping into the Union; beyond question they will all draw the line on God.” The article in question continues:—
“Pennsylvania draws the line on God in a remarkable way. The Constitution of the State declares that ‘no person who acknowledges the being of a God, and a future state of rewards and punishments, shall on account of his religious sentiment be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust in this commonwealth.’”
“This immunity against disqualification,” explains the Christian at Work, “does not by its terms apply to those who deny the existence of God and rewards and punishments, but it leaves them exposed to the liability of a religious test at the will of the Legislature, and protects only those who assent to the doctrines noticed.”
But it is certain that this provision protects no one. It simply leaves the entire people of the State of Pennsylvania at the mercy of the Legislature and of the Supreme Court, for, under a constitution requiring a belief in God, the Legislature must of necessity have the right to say what constitutes such belief. There are few who do not believe in some deity. For instance, the Indian reveres the great spirit, but no one will claim that he has any proper conception of the true God. The Chinaman reveres Joss, and if asked if he believes in God, would say, Yes; and so he does; but in what god? Again: there are many who imagine that they believe in God who have no correct ideas of the divine attributes. Indeed many who are called Christians have scarcely a more correct idea of God than has the Chinaman or the Indian. Ideas of God vary so much that the mere avowal of the belief in God amounts to but very little. Many people who avow a belief in the Supreme Being understand by that simply the fixed, unchanging laws of nature. And all these are now admitted to the rights of citizenship under the Constitution of Pennsylvania, but they might all be excluded under a more restricted definition of the term God.
There is probably no more agreement in regard to the doctrine of future rewards and punishments required by the Constitution of Pennsylvania. We find all sorts of shades of belief from the doctrine formally held by many, of eternal torment in literal fire, to the idea of simple progression after death. The idea which now generally prevails is that, after death the good go to Heaven while the wicked are forever banished from the presence of God and to all eternity suffer the reproaches of their consciences for having done wrong. But, as a general thing, those who embrace the views of Spiritualists, believe, properly speaking, in no future rewards or punishments. They regard death as simply a change of state or condition, and they hold that men are responsible only to themselves for their actions, and that death ushers them into a state where they are capable of much greater development than is possible in this life. There, they are expected to develop and increase in knowledge and power indefinitely. There is nothing akin to rewards or punishments about it. It is no more a reward than is it a reward for a child to grow from childhood to manhood. The spirit entering the spirit life simply grows and develops, and if it enjoys more after a time, it is simply because its capacity has been enlarged.
But, we will suppose that those who hold to the theory of torment in literal fire should be in the majority in Pennsylvania. They could under the Constitution disfranchise Spiritualists on the ground that they do not believe, properly speaking, in future rewards and punishments. The only thing that prevents such a condition of affairs in a State, having such a constitutional provision, is the fact that no party is sufficiently strong to enforce that part of the Constitution. It is a dead letter simply from the inability of anybody to carry it out. And is not at all likely ever will be carried out, but it serves to illustrate the evils of such constitutional provisions.
Again: if it is right and proper that Christians, because in the majority, should require all to subscribe to a certain belief, it must be right for infidels or heathen, were they in the majority, to require that all subscribe to their ideas, all of which serves to show that governments can, of right, have nothing whatever to do with matters of faith or religion, but that those things must be left to538the individual, with the government simply forbidding acts that are uncivil, that is, acts that interfere with the person, property or character of others. Thus far civil government must go, but it can go no farther without trespassing its God-appointed bounds. C. P. B.
STRENGTHENING THE HANDS OF EVIL-DOERS.
By J. W. Scoles
IN a recent number of the Christian at Work, the editor of that journal says:—
“Churches to-day should not exact as tests of church membership more than the Lord Jesus Christ required. And in applying tests for the Christian ministry it is well to avoid establishing a new decalogue. Moses established one by command of God; and fifteen hundred and twenty-three years later Christ declared love to fulfill all the law: the ten articles of the moral law gave way to one supreme statute—love to God and man. What was sufficient in Christ’s time ought to be sufficient now. And yet—only the other day a candidate for the ministry was rejected because at first he declined to subscribe to a new commandment, “Thou shalt not take snuff!” We should like to know just how many decalogues a candidate to the ministry must subscribe to before being allowed to preach the gospel!”
And we should like to know just what species of moral intoxicant the writer of the foregoing has been making use of that he should give utterance to such sentiments as these. Is it possible that he considers an overt act necessary in order that the decalogue shall be violated? Did Christ add any new principle to the seventh commandment when he declared that the look of lust was a violation of its requirements? (Matt. 5:27, 28). Is not the entire decalogue so spiritual that it takes cognizance of every thought and purpose of the heart? Paul seemed to think so when he said, “What things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped and all the world may become guilty before God.” Rom. 3:19. Again, in Rom. 7:14 he says, “For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin.”
The ten articles of the moral law constitute the original and only decalogue that ever was or ever will be given by God to man. These statutes never gave way to the one supreme statute of love to God and man, because they themselves are, and always have been, the very embodiment of this principle. The first four comprise man’s duty to his God, the last six show his relation to himself and his fellow-man. Therefore Christ answered truthfully when he said, “On these two commandments hang all the law.” Matt. 22:40. And no man who loves God with all his heart, and who loves his neighbor as himself, will, or can, continue in the direct violation of any of the principles of these ten commandments.
And lastly, we would like to know upon what ground such inspired men as Paul, Peter, and other of the New Testament writers, condemn the various lusts and iniquities of the people in those days, if it was not upon the basis of the same decalogue. When Paul exhorted the brethren at Corinth to cleanse themselves from “all filthiness of the flesh and spirit,” did he ask them to subscribe to a new decalogue? When James spoke of the wisdom which was “earthly, sensual, devilish,” and warned all who would be righteous to avoid it, was he doing so upon authority of a new code of morals? Did Peter formulate a new creed when he besought those to whom he wrote to “abstain from fleshly lusts which war against the soul”?
It is bad enough for any man to indulge in the filthy, injurious and polluting practice of tobacco using in any form. It is worse for a man who professes to be an ambassador for Christ to attempt to proclaim a pure and holy gospel to others while he is himself indulging in such filthiness of the flesh; but for a Christian journal with such a noble mission as is naturally suggested by the title of Christian at Work to uphold the dirty, destructive, and soul-debasing vice, is worst of all.
J. W. SCOLES.
The Sabbath-School.
Tithes and Offerings.
TITHING.
(Lesson 11, September 14, 1889.)
1. UNDER what circumstances was the first tithe paid, as recorded in the Scriptures? Gen. 14:16-20.
2. What was the office of Melchizedek?
"And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine; and he was the priest of the most high God." Verse 18.
3. Who was the greater, Abraham or Melchizedek?
"And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better." Heb. 7:7.
4. Of how much did Abraham give the tithe?
"And he gave him tithes of all." Gen. 14:20, last clause.
"Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils." Heb 7:4.
5. What proposition did the king of Sodom make?
"And the king of Sodom said unto Abram, Give me the persons, and take the goods to thyself." Gen. 14:21.
6. What response did Abraham make?
"And Abram said to the king of Sodom, I have lifted up mine hand unto the Lord, the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth, that I will not take from a thread even to a shoelatchet, and that I will not take anything that is thine, lest thou shouldest say, I have made Abram rich." Verses 22, 23.
7. Did Abraham make any exception, and for whom was the exception made?
"Save only that which the young men have eaten, and the portion of the men which went with me, Aner, Eschol, and Mamre; let them take their portion." Verse 24.
8. Was the tithe before or after the young men had eaten? See note.
9. By giving a tithe of all, whom did Abraham acknowledge as the only rightful owner of the tithe?
10. How many years was this before the law respecting the tithe was given to the Israelites? Compare margin of Gen. 14 and Ex. 20.
11. Then to what priesthood did the tithing system properly belong?
12. What solemn vow did Jacob make 150 years after Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek?
"And Jacob vowed a vow, saying, If God will be with me, and will keep me in this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat, and raiment to put on, so that I come again to my father’s house in peace; then shall the Lord be my God; and this stone, which I have set for a pillar, shall be God’s house; and of all that thou shalt give me I will surley give the tenth unto thee." Gen. 28:20-22.
13. How can we account for the fact that Jacob knew God’s claim to the tenth?
"For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment; that the Lord may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him." Gen. 18:19.
14. Who is our high priest?
"Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus." Heb. 3:1.
15. After what order is Christ a priest?
"So also Christ glorified not himself to be made a high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to-day have I begotten thee. As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek." Heb. 5:5, 6.
16. Then as tithing originated under the Melchizedek priesthood, and as Christ is a priest after the order of Melchizedek, what would we conclude in relation to the payment of tithes in this dispensation?
17. Did Christ teach the paying of tithes?
"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith; these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone." Matt. 23:23.
RENDER UNTO GOD THE THINGS OF GOD.
By M. C. W.
WHEN the Pharisees sent some of their number to Jesus to entangle him in his talk, they presented before him a Roman penny, and asked him if it was lawful to pay tribute to Cæsar or not. Jesus asked them, "Whose is this image and superscription? They say unto him, Cæsar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore to Cæsar the things which are Cæsar's; and unto God the things that are God's." The wisdom of the lowly Nazarene baffled them.
Here is a broad principle stated by our Lord. In fact it is so comprehensive that it covers all relations which man owes to earthly governments and to God. "Cæsar" represents earthly governments and what they can rightly demand of man. "God," of course, represents God and his requirements. What belongs to God is not to be rendered to Cæsar, and what belongs to Cæsar God does not require of us only that it should be rendered to Cæsar.
The question asked of our Saviour was, "Is it lawful to give tribute unto Cæsar or not?" Tribute was a tax exacted of the people of a nation or of some conquered nation, for the support of a government. Where there were sufficient of the conquered nations, the nationality of the government were free from taxation. But government is ordained of God. To maintain the laws of the government, officers are necessary; and to support these, funds must be raised. Therefore tribute or tax must be levied on all who are within the territory ruled by this government. That it is right to pay this our Saviour's words show. He himself paid tribute. Matt. 17: 27. Paul enjoined it. Rom. 13: 7.
Furthermore the government, we will say Germany for example, must have her heralds, consuls, and ambassadors, officers to be sent out into all the world to represent Germany and see that the rights of German subjects are respected and secured. These servants of the public must be supported by the German government. In fact, it would be derogatory and disgraceful to the German539government to have it otherwise. The ambassador is not expected to earn his own living or to provide for himself, in the country to which he has been sent, by pursuing some other kind of business, or engaging in some enterprise or scheme which might present itself. It would be a disgrace to his government so to do.
It would not only be the "town-talk," but the world-talk, to see something like this pasted conspicuously on the bill-boards of London in flaming posters, and distributed in small circulars from door to door: "A grand entertainment and krAzy SuPpEr will be given by his Highness Count Von Moltke, the Ambassador of His Imperial Majesty, Emperor Wilhelm II. of Germany, December 14, 1889. tHe krAzy suPpEr WiLl be a NoVeLl aFphair, krAzy wAiTers, crazy diShEs, & krAzy guEsTs. A fish-pond and post-office, two American novelties will furnish no small part of the amusement. Lots of fun and frolic and pretty girls. Come one, come all. Tickets can be obtained at Herr Vandeburgers, 39, Strand; price 5s. Don't forget the place or time. Such a thing would never be dreamed of by an earthly government. It could not stoop so low as to so disgrace itself and its subjects.
Well, God has a government, with a law which is purity and righteousness itself. He has his messengers which go from his shining courts to all parts of his boundless, star-gemmed dominion. In that dominion, which is worthy of Omniscience and Omnipotence, a world has fallen, humanity made in God's image has rebelled. To reconcile man to him, God gave his only begotten Son to die. Through him, he will give life, power, and grace to men, that they may throw off the yoke of rebellion, turn from all sin, and thus be fitted for an eternal home with him.
Those who accept of these conditions he makes his representatives here. He has given them rules for organization, for support, for the propagation of the glad tidings. He sends out his ambassadors, ministers, plenipotentiaries, and heralds, to bring men to him. The true minister and the true evangelist are ambassadors of Jesus Christ. They represent him to the world. They bear the awful message of life or death to dying man. But they are human and mortal. They need support. What provision has God made for this? Surely he has not called men to warfare upon their own charges.
Did he design that the world should support them? that entertainments, socials, fairs, lotteries, grab-bags, raffles, oyster suppers, should be held or given for that purpose? No; a thousand times, no. All these things minister to the very lusts for which Christ died, in order that man might overcome them. If such things are beneath a government of earth, as all will confess, how infinitely are these things beneath the government and loyal citizens of Heaven. And yet the church of Christ, professedly so, has prostituted herself to just such means as the above, and laughs at reproofs and admonitions. She has grown worldly, and has lost her credentials—power and connection with God.
"The Church has fallen, the beautiful Church,
And her shame is her boast and pride."
How shall the ambassadors for Christ be supported?—In God's own appointed way. "Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel." 1 Cor. 9: 14. If through the ambassador men become reconciled to God, become partakers of spiritual things, they ought to minister to him of earthly things for his support. Verses 11-13. It would seem that the heart which had tasted of the goodness and love of God would realize this, and would gladly meet the Lord's requirements.
What God does require for this purpose is set forth in our lesson of this week. "The tithe [or tenth] is the Lord's." No sophistry can destroy the force of this positive language. It was the Lord's before the Levitical dispensation was ushered in, as recognized by Abraham and Jacob; it was the Lord's during the Levitical dispensation; it is the Lord's still, as shown by Malachi, the third chapter, which is prophecy, warning, and promise for the Christian dispensation. If we desire the blessing we must do the duty.
God in his wisdom, for our good, has given man two special tests of loyalty to him. They are not only tests, they are helps to liberality and knowledge of God. The one concerns man's time: "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God." It belongs to God; render it to him. The other concerns man's means: "The tithe is the Lord's." It belongs to God; render it therefore to him. It is the better way, it is the blessed way. Oh, if the church had but heeded God's claims she would now have been strong in God and the power of his might. His ambassadors would have borne faithful messages of warning without fear or favor by the world, pandering not to its fashions, its follies, its lusts. God's way is the better way.
NOTE.
IN the fourteenth chapter of Genesis, every principle of the tithing system is given. Abram gave a tithe of all he possessed to Melchizedek, after which the king of Sodom proposed that he should have the persons, and Abram might keep the substance. That which he had taken from the kings was his by right of conquest, therefore it was his privilege to dispose of it as he thought best. He first gave to God his portion, the tithe of all; he then assured the king of Sodom that he would himself not take anything, even to a shoelatchet; but certain individuals who went with him were to receive their portion, and the young men were to have what they had eaten, and their portion.
WHEN Saul and David returned from pursuing the Philistines, after the death of Goliath, the women of the cities came out to meet them with songs of rejoicing and demonstrations of great joy. So terrified had been the children of Israel on account of the threats of the Philistines, that when Goliath was slain by David, it caused the singers to raise the glad song, "Saul hath slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands." Instead, however, of being grateful to God for the victory gained, Saul was filled with cruel jealousy against David, through whom this great work had been wrought.
THE people esteemed David and loved him, and because of this, and because Saul no longer enjoyed their love and confidence, he watched an opportunity to slay David. In his insane rage, he nearly accomplished his purpose on one or two occasions, but God, who watches all his work with deeper interest than we can know, sent his angels to preserve the life of him through whom such great results should afterward be wrought.
"God works in a mysterious way
His wonders to perform."
IT is not always the case that we can see the justice of God's dealings with us, but of one thing we may feel satisfied, and that is, that he will do what is right. Therefore, if we are walking with our hand in his, whatever comes to us will not come without his knowledge and consent, and in his own good time all will work out for our best good. David did not discern the hand of God in all that took place during the period of his trial, but yet the Lord was overruling everything connected with it for David's good as well as for his own glory.
IN our own experience, when trials come upon us to such an extent as to almost seem unbearable, how often it is that deliverance arises from some unexpected source. When David was fleeing for his life, the Lord raised up a friend for him in the person of Jonathan, the son of the very man whom David had cause to fear more than anyone else on the earth.
THE secret of the friendship thus formed between David and Jonathan was that the fear of the Lord was in it. God had been called upon by both of these men to witness the covenant made between them. This friendship existed until it was broken by death, and was apparently as strong upon the part of David as that of Jonathan. Scarcely anything could be more pathetically and beautifully expressed than David's lament over the death of the latter. "I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan; very pleasant hast thou been unto me; thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women." 2 Sam. 1:26.
BUT there is a friendship even closer than this. "There is a friend that sticketh closer than a brother." Prov. 18:24. The love of Christ for sinful men is a love that passeth knowledge. Here is a love higher than heaven, deeper than the grave, and wider than the world. And the love of God is manifested toward us "in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." Rom. 5:8. Oh, then, let us love him because he first loved us, and gave himself for us. J. W. SCOLES.
The Missionary.
By Wm. Potter; Isaac Morrison
REPORT OF MEETINGS.
WE pitched our tent in Grant's Pass, June 26. About fifty were out at our first meeting. We remained there until August 12, holding in all about forty public services, congregations ranging from thirty to one hundred and fifty. The interest was good nearly all the time. Only two opposition discourses were given, one by a Presbyterian and one by a Methodist, both taking the no-law position. A large portion of our hearers are convinced that we have the truth. As a result of our effort thirteen signed the covenant. Three were baptized. Six others are keeping the Sabbath, and there are others for whom we have strong hope. Since taking down the tent we have held two Sabbath meetings at a private house. Brother T. H. Starbuck was with us one Sabbath and gave an excellent discourse, which was appreciated by all present. We have a Sabbath-school of over thirty members.
August 12 we came to this place, pitched our tent, and began meetings Wednesday evening, August 14, with a congregation of one hundred and forty. Have now given five discourses with increasing attendance and interest. We have calls to visit on every side. We shall endeavor to go forward in the fear and strength of God. We ask the prayers of all that the work may prosper in our hands, and as a result, souls be saved in the kingdom of God.