We receive so many letters similar to the following that we are induced to publish this:—
"It sometimes occurs that persons accept present truth, who have been separated from one married companion, and have married again, or perhaps are married to one who has been divorced, or perhaps they have been parted for years, and had no divorce when they married again. I do not know as that is any worse. These things are deplorable, but, since they exist, I wish to know what the duty of a person under such circumstances. I do not ask from curiosity, for the subject is one of too serious a character for that; I ask in behalf of one who would not knowingly do wrong."
1. They who have been divorced for any cause allowable in the State in which they live, and marry again, are legally married; and if such second marriage took place before they came to the knowledge of the present truth, we are to suppose that they acted according to the best light they had, and receive them without further question. To decide otherwise would often result in rejecting those who had acted both legally and conscientiously, or cause them to break up legal relations, to the injury of individuals and society. We have never advised, nor shall we ever advise, any to take such a course. Where the action is legal, we cannot go back of the time of their receiving the light of present truth.
2. To marry again without a divorce, no matter how long the separation, if both parties are living, is decidedly worse. Such an action is illegal in any country, and utterly inexcusable; it should not be tolerated for a moment. Under such circumstances, no person could plead that he had acted according to the best light he had, or acted conscientiously, unless he was too ignorant to be responsible for anything, and then he would be below the plane of church membership.
3. After people come to the knowledge of the truth, they may justly be held to conform to the precepts of Christianity in all matters. Our State laws are similar to those rules which were allowed because of the hardness of the hearts of the people, but which the Saviour disallowed. He said: "Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery." This language is too plain to admit of any difference of opinion, and we could not conscientiously do less than to expect all Christians to regard this as the rule of their action. If fornication or adultery is the ground of the divorce, we believe, on the Saviour's authority, that the innocent party is left as free as if separated by death, and of course may marry again. But this privilege should be denied to the guilty party; otherwise a premium is placed upon crime, as a means of throwing off moral and legal obligations and forming new alliances.
Another question has been asked: If one party knows, or has sufficient reason to believe, that the other has committed adultery, and obtains a divorce on some other ground, not wishing to name that cause in the application, has the party who obtained such divorce a right to marry? We must confine our answer to that question to our own action. We could not conscientiously solemnize marriage under such circumstances because the crime is not in proof. The parties stand before the world on the evidence given in court, and if adultery is not given as the ground for obtaining the divorce, we dare not act on any supposition that such ground exists. This is the course we have marked out for ourselves, and to go beyond this would be to open the door for any number of evasions of the Saviour's rule of conduct.
We feel a strong assurance that our position is correct on every point here noticed. We have answered questions on this subject before, but perhaps not so definitely in some respects as in this case. We must also express our deep regret that we have not a well-considered United States law on the subject of divorce. State laws are no better than a farce, for if one State provides some just limitation, it is neutralized by the law of a neighboring State, and taken together, they are as loose as the veriest libertine could ask. Christians should not be satisfied to stand legally justified by such laws; they must see to it that they are morally justified on Scripture grounds.
The Hebrew Student
By Editor
WE have received No. 7 of Vol. 2 of the Hebrew Student, published by the Hebrew Book Exchange, Morgan Park, Ill. We have before noticed this journal, the only one of its kind and object in the country. From this number we shall draw next week.
The Two Covenants.
By John Nevins Andrews
(Continued).
AND now let us return to the words of Jeremiah, to ascertain what he himself means by the covenant made with Israel when God led them out of Egypt.
When Jeremiah predicts the establishment of a new covenant with Israel and Judah, he uses the following language respecting the old covenant:—
"Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers, in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an HUSBAND unto them, saith the Lord." Jer. 31:32.
This text sheds much light on the nature of the covenant to which Jeremiah refers. But it is remarkable that Jeremiah, in another place preceding this, has defined with great precision what he means by the covenant made when God led Israel out of Egypt. Thus we read, Jer. 11:3, 4:—
"Thus saith the Lord God of Israel: Cursed be the man that obeyeth not the words of this covenant, which I commanded your fathers in the day that I brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, from the iron furnace, saying, Obey my voice, and do them, according to all which I command you; so shall ye be my people, and I will be your God."
Here we have Jeremiah’s own definition of what constituted that covenant which the children of Israel had, by their disobedience, dissolved. And it identifies this covenant with the solemn contract between God and Israel, which Paul designates as the first covenant. For Jeremiah makes the essential feature of this covenant to consist in one grand stipulation on the part of God toward his people; viz., "OBEY MY VOICE; . . . so shall ye be my people, and I will be your God." Now it is a remarkable fact that this is the very stipulation, and the only one, made by God in entering into solemn contract with Israel. It is a stipulation exacting obedience to the voice of God, which was about to utter the ten commandments. Thus the contract was opened by the God of Heaven: "If ye will OBEY MY VOICE indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people." Ex. 19:5. We cannot, therefore, fail to identify the covenant to which Jeremiah refers. It is not the ten commandments, but the solemn contract made between God and Israel respecting those commandments.
But the words of Jer. 31:32, are entitled to particular attention in determining what the prophet understood by this covenant of which he spoke. He says: "Which my covenant they brake, although I was an HUSBAND unto them." The expression sheds great light on the nature of the covenant in question. Was that covenant simply the law of God? or was it the solemn contract between God and Israel by which the people pledged themselves to obey that law, and God pledged himself on that condition to accept them as his people, and to be their God? Surely, we cannot mistake here. The first covenant made God the husband of his people. The solemn contract between them and himself was that whereby he espoused, or married that people. Jer. 2:2. There can be no mistake, therefore, that a contract was requisite, in order that God should become the husband of that people; and that contract is found in Ex. 19 and 24. He could be their lawgiver, by virtue of proclaiming his law to them; but to be their husband, he must enter into contract with them, and it is precisely this relation that he sustains to Israel by virtue of the covenant of which Jeremiah speaks. See Webster's second definition of contract, previously quoted.
And this distinction properly introduces a further argument on the nature of this covenant, from Rom. 9:4: "Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises." Paul elsewhere informs us that there are two “covenants.” Gal. 4:24. Here he distinguishes between the giving of the law and the covenants. Our opponents claim that the giving of the law was the making of the first covenant. We say, Not so; for that covenant was the solemn contract between God and Israel which preceded and followed the “giving of the law;” and that law of God was that which the people covenanted to obey, when it should be spoken by the voice of God. This text preserves the distinction between the law of God and each of the two covenants.
And this distinction between the law of God and the first covenant is further shown by another important fact. The new covenant was made because the first covenant had been destroyed by the sins of the people, and because God still desired to save them. The first covenant was rendered null and void by the disobedience of the people. "Because," says Paul, "they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord." Heb. 8:9. "Which my covenant they brake, should I have continued an husband unto them? saith the Lord." Jer. 31:32, margin. If, therefore, we hold, as do many at the present day, that the covenant between God and Israel was simply the ten commandments, then we have the people of Israel weaken, and finally bring to an end, the law of God, simply by disobeying it! So that the law of God did depend for its strength upon the obedience of the people, and not upon the authority of the Lawgiver! But let us test the other view of this subject. It has been shown from Moses, from Paul, and from Jeremiah, that the first covenant was the mutual agreement between God and Israel respecting the ten commandments. This is a covenant in the primary sense of the term. This covenant it was in the power of the people to destroy, by violating its conditions, i. e. by breaking the law of God. This transgression could not in the slightest degree weaken the authority of the law of God; but it could, and did, render null and void the contract which made God a husband unto them. The truth on this point may be expressed in a word: Men could not release themselves from the obligation to obey God's law by breaking that law; but they could release the God of Heaven from the obligation he had taken upon himself, toward them in the first covenant, by violating its conditions, and thus bringing the covenant to an end. Hence the distinction is palpable between the law of God and the solemn contract made respecting that law. One could be destroyed by a failure on the part of the people to fulfill its conditions. The other can neither be destroyed, nor even weakened, by such transgression; and it will, in due time, demand the death of all its transgressors. J. N. A.
Time of Christ's Resurrection.—Questions.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
THE following questions have been received from a subscriber who does not agree with the position taken in a short article a few weeks ago—that Christ rose from the grave on the first day of the week:—
“1. What are we to understand by Dan. 9:27: ‘and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease’?”
The time mentioned in this chapter is prophetic time—one day standing for a year. The one week of verse 27 then, is seven years, and the seventy weeks of verse 24 are 490 years. This period is divided into three portions—seven weeks, sixty-two weeks, and one week. The first two portions (sixty-nine weeks, 483 years) were to reach to the Messiah. Verse 25. They ended when Christ commenced his work as the Messiah, the ‘Anointed, at his baptism. It was to this period that he referred when he went into Galilee proclaiming, “The time is fulfilled.” Mark 1:15. But there yet remained one week (seven years) of the seventy weeks of years; and it was in the midst of this that Christ was to be cut off, i. e., crucified. In fulfillment of this, Christ was crucified just three and one-half years from his baptism. This is the interpretation given by all commentators; with it the prophecy is the strongest proof of the Messiahship of Christ; without it, the prophecy cannot be explained. We would ask our friend to give an explanation of this entire chapter, and tell us where the seventy weeks apply, if they are only 490 literal days. An attempt to prove from this chapter that Christ was crucified on Wednesday, will involve the person making it in hopeless confusion. For an explanation of this prophecy in detail, see “Thoughts on the Book of Daniel,” for sale at this Office.
Question 2 is stated so obscurely that it is impossible to tell what is meant.
“3. Did the passover that year come on fifth-day?”
It undoubtedly commenced at the close of the fifth day, or what we now term Thursday night. It was at this time that the passover supper was eaten.
“4. Were their feast days ever termed Sabbaths? Lev. 23:2.”
Yes; read the remainder of Lev. 23, especially verse 32, and you can see for yourself.
“5. Could the women that saw where he was laid have had time to prepare spices before the weekly Sabbath, if it was sixth-day at sunset that he was laid in the tomb?”
“If it was sixth-day at sunset” that Christ was laid in the tomb, of course nothing could have been done after that before the beginning of the Sabbath, as it would have been already Sabbath. But where did you learn that128it was sunset when the burial took place? The Bible does not intimate such a thing.
“6. Did not the earthquake happen at sunset (in the end of the Sabbath), the same time of day that he was laid in the grave? Matt. 28:1, 2.”
No one can tell the time of the earthquake, since it is not revealed. The words, “In the end of the Sabbath,” refer to the time when the women came to the sepulcher, and the earthquake had occurred when they made their visit. See margin of verse 2. Now are we to understand that the women came to the sepulcher on the Sabbath? Not if we have any regard for the harmony of Scripture, or the testimony of the most eminent critics. We regard it as beyond dispute that the accounts of this event as told by Matthew and Mark must agree. Mark says plainly that the visit of the women was “when the Sabbath was past.” The best authorities translate Mat. 28:1 in harmony with this. This is done, not to strain the text to make it agree with a preconceived idea, but because it more clearly expresses the real meaning of the original. Thus Dr. Clarke says on this text: “‘After the end of the week;’ this is the translation given by several eminent critics; and in this way the word opse is used by the most eminent Greek writers.” He quotes several passages from Greek authors, in which the word opse, here translated “end,” is used in the sense of “after.” Campbell and Macknight’s version of the text is, “Sabbath being over, and the first day of the week beginning to dawn.” Dr. Barnes says, “The word end here means the same as after the Sabbath—that is, after the Sabbath was fully completed or finished.”
We see then, from the combined testimony of the evangelists, that the visit to the sepulcher was made on the first day of the week; that Christ rose on the same day will be briefly shown in answer to the next question.
“7. Was Jonah three days and three nights in the whale’s belly? If so, may we not conclude that Jesus was three whole days and nights in the heart of the earth?”
Yes; if you will first prove that Jonah was “three whole days and nights” in the whale’s belly. You assume the very thing that ought to be proved in order to make your argument sound. But that cannot be proved, as the Bible makes no such assertion. It does say that “as Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly, so shall the Son of man be three days in the heart of the earth.” Matt. 12:40. This gives us no more light than we had before; but by collating the texts which speak of Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection, we shall have an inspired comment on the expression, “three days and three nights.” In addition to the one already quoted, we give the following:—
“From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.” Matt. 16:21.
“And Jesus going up to Jerusalem took the twelve disciples apart in the way, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be betrayed unto the chief priests and unto the scribes, and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify him; and the third day he shall rise again.” Matt. 20:17–19. See also chap. 17:23.
“And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.” Mark 8:31. See also Mark 9:30, 31.
“Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished. For he shall be delivered unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and spitefully entreated, and spitted upon; and they shall scourge him, and put him to death; and the third day he shall rise again.” Luke 18:31–33. See also chap. 9:22.
We have given all the different expressions used concerning this event. Remember that these texts are the language of our Lord himself, and that in all of them he is speaking of only the one thing. Now since we cannot allow that Jesus would contradict himself, or that he would state the case differently on one occasion from what he did on another, we must admit that the expressions, “three days and three nights,” “after three days,” and “the third day,” all designate precisely the same period of time. Let this be borne in mind. Now one more text will show what Christ meant by the expression, “the third day.” When told that Herod would kill him, he replied, “Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to-day and to-morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.” Luke 13:32. This text cannot be made plainer by comment. No one would think that by it he meant to include more than a part of two days, with one whole day intervening. But remember still that the expressions, “three days and three nights,” and “after three days,” are used of the same period of time.
One step more concludes this brief argument. Christ was crucified on Friday, and was buried toward the close of that day. We learn this from Luke 23:53, 54: “And he [Joseph] took it down, and wrapped it in linen, and laid it in a sepulcher that was hewn in stone, wherein never man before was laid. And that day was the preparation, and the Sabbath drew on.” From verse 56 we learn that this was the weekly Sabbath, as it is distinguished as being the Sabbath of the commandment.” See Ex. 20:8–11. Keeping in mind the fact that Christ was not to rise till the third day, we readily see that he could not have risen on the Sabbath, as that would have been only the second day. So we are forced to conclude that he rose on first-day; and this exactly fulfills his prediction, as we have already proved.
“8. Do not the Scriptures affirm that these things happened as he said before his crucifixion?”
Yes; see answer to question 7 for proof that they did.
“9. Do we gain or lose by compromising this question with our opponents?”
We always lose by compromising with error, and we lose just as much, and even more, by denying a fact, no matter how important the truth which we are trying to sustain. Indeed, the greater the truth for which we are arguing, the more necessary is it that we make no false assumptions. Those who hold the view that our friend does, seem to think that it is impossible for an opponent to have any truth on his side. The Sabbath cause is not strengthened by such an assumption. There is probably no error that has not some truth in its composition. The reason why so many err in regard to Bible doctrines is not because they hold to no truth, but because they draw false conclusions from the truth that they do hold. Now we must reject their error, but we must not with it throw away the truth. Deadly poison may be carried in a silver cup; but we need not throw away the cup in order to get rid of the poison. Many persons argue most zealously that the fourth commandment is still in force, and binding upon all men, and claim that it enforces the observance of the first day of the week. Shall we, in order to refute their claim, deny the fourth commandment? By no means; we simply show that their conclusion is unwarranted from their premises. So in regard to the question before us. First-day keepers, driven to extremities for a warrant for their practice, claim that the fact that Jesus rose on the first day of the week sanctifies that day. But their conclusion is unsound, for it has nothing to support it. The resurrection of Christ had no effect whatever on the Sunday. If any one tells us that it did, we shall simply ask him to give us Bible proof of the fact. If he had risen on Sabbath it would not have added one whit to the sacredness of that day.
It is strange that our friends cannot see that by attempting to prove that Christ rose on Sabbath instead of on Sunday, they virtually admit that first-day keepers are correct in their argument. It is they, and not we, who are compromising with our opponents. By the course which they pursue, they proclaim their belief that the day on which Christ rose became, in consequence of that action, the Sabbath. Now as you cannot convince a Sunday-keeper, or indeed anybody who carefully considers the matter, that Christ did not rise on Sunday, you lose all power to convince them that the seventh day is the Sabbath. You can do nothing further with them.
These questions might have been considered at much greater length. If all the conflicting opinions had been given, one issue of the SIGNS would not have contained them. But, having considered them all, we have tried to state as clearly and briefly as possible the view that harmonizes with the Bible narrative. We have treated the subject at so great a length, not because we think the subject itself worthy of such consideration, but because we know that Sabbath truth is in danger of being brought into disrepute by the injudicious course of some of its friends. Truth differs from error in that it does not depend on technicalities. We are not obliged to resort to “doubtful disputations” in support of the Sabbath. God has spoken plainly in regard to it; and we can find no stronger evidence than the unchanging word of God. The Sunday lacks this support, as can be easily shown. God has made ample provision for the support of his truth; we do not need to manufacture evidence. It is a trick of the enemy to cause those who would defend the truth, to turn aside from the main point and discuss unimportant questions. Do not be thus deceived. We have an important truth to present to the world. Let us do it faithfully and understandingly, using the arguments that God has provided for us, and not those which the enemy would put into our hands. E. J. W.
My Visit East.
By William Clarence White
AFTER the close of the General Conference I was detained several weeks in Battle Creek. Many plans involving the interest of the Tract Societies and both Publishing Houses, were discussed thoroughly, and some measures were adopted, and improvements suggested which we are sure will meet with the hearty approval of our friends. Our books are to be advertised in some of the leading religious newspapers. Good agents of any religious denomination will be employed to sell our subscription books, and some of our standard books are to be put in more attractive binding. These efforts at improvement will encourage our agents to give these works a very wide circulation. We are already much encouraged by the rapid sales of bound books since the Conference.
An overland trip in winter is usually quite unpleasant, and this one was dreaded more than usual because of the very bad condition of my throat, which since September had been much inflamed and in a state of constant irritation. But the cold which I had feared was no worse than the dampness of Oakland; and while at Battle Creek I availed myself of the unparalleled advantages of the Medical Sanitarium; and at the end of three weeks I felt that my throat trouble had been cured; it was more free from pain and irritation than it had been for several years. Familiar as I had been with the many processes and appliances in use a year or two ago at the Sanitarium for treating all forms of disease, I was surprised to note so many new and valuable improvements. Every department shows that earnest thought has been bestowed upon it by the Medical Superintendent, that the best results may be obtained.
Sabbath, January 27, I spent with Eld. Butler at the home of Eld. Whitney, Rome, N. Y., and the following week went with them to New York, Philadelphia, and Boston, where they assisted in the selection of apparatus and furnishing goods for Healdsburg College and its boarding-house. We spent considerable time in the large publishing houses of these cities, where we found some most excellent and useful books, of which we shall speak more fully at another time.
Sabbath, February 3, and the following Sunday and Monday, we spent at South Lancaster, Mass., where we enjoyed the privilege of visiting the New England important school. This school has been in operation about eight months, and is doing a good work. Several are preparing for the ministry, and others for other branches of missionary labor. This school which begun with about twenty scholars, has grown to four times that number, and yet it retains its character as a family school. All the teachers and over fifty of the scholars are the members of one family, and an extremely industrious family it is. The young lady students do all the washing, mending, and other house-work; while the young men cultivate garden vegetables in summer, and in winter saw and split wood for the towns of South Lancaster and Clinton.
Sabbath I took dinner at the school, and Monday listened to several recitations, where I was impressed with the somewhat novel, but really practical and rapid method of teaching language, and by the interest and efficiency manifested in the missionary class. For some time Professor Bell has been studying how to make a short course in English complete and practical, and I think the present course will prove very beneficial to the class, if not entirely satisfactory to himself. The missionary class, taught by Sr. Huntley, is doing some valuable work, besides learning the theory of bookkeeping. While nearly half the time in this class is spent working out problems and making entries liable to come before librarians or district secretaries, the balance is spent in the regular work of a Vigilant Missionary Society. While reading the answers to some of the students' letters I thought, Happy New England! What a blessing a class of this sort would be to any Conference. The school as a whole bears an appearance of sober industry, quite characteristic of New England. W. C. WHITE.
Why Don't You Write?
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
THIS question is put to missionary workers. I do not refer to writing for the SIGNS, but to writing to those with whom they are doing missionary labor. Very frequently letters are received at the office of the SIGNS, from persons who have received several copies of the paper, and being pleased with it, would like to know to whom they are indebted for the favor. Of course no one at the office can tell; for the papers may have been sent by any one of the thousands of missionary workers throughout the country.
Again, persons receiving papers do not always wish to read them; so they send a request to the office of publication to have them discontinued. Sometimes the papers are returned to the office. Of course the office can take no action in the matter, as the papers were not sent directly from here, and the papers are not discontinued until the sender becomes discouraged because he sees no result of his labor.
Now all this trouble might be avoided if every one who sends out SIGNS, would send a card with the first number, letting the person know why and by whom the paper is sent. All necessary explanations can be made in a few words, and a courteous request for a reply will usually bring a response stating how the SIGNS is liked, and whether or not you shall continue sending it. Unless this is done, your work is only half done, and in many cases will be wholly lost. Many persons complain of the meager results obtained from missionary labor, and think that the work does not amount to much, when the trouble is no doubt entirely with themselves. Often it happens that those who are deeply interested are suddenly deprived of the SIGNS, because the one sending it has become discouraged, when, had he written, he might have had occasion for joy.
And right here a few words concerning the manner of doing missionary work may not be out of place. It is a common saying that whatever is worth doing at all is worth doing well. If this is true of ordinary work, how much more so of the Lord's work. Indeed, we think it may be truly said that the Lord's work may as well be left undone as not to be done well. None are called to share the joy of their Lord but those who have done well. And the words "Well done" imply continuous and careful service. If a person has done nothing he certainly cannot expect to have those words spoken to him; and he has no more right to hope to hear them, if he has done something, but has done it carelessly.
This will apply to every part of the work. It is not merely in the matter of writing letters, that our missionary workers are in danger of carelessness. The papers and tracts sent off should be neatly folded and wrapped, and plainly directed. A little inattention to these details may destroy the effect which the paper is designed to have. We should be careful that those to whom we send the paper are not disgusted with its first appearance.
We said that it would be as well to do nothing in this work as to do it carelessly. We did not speak unadvisedly. Says the prophet, "Cursed be he that doeth the work of the Lord negligently." Jer. 48:10, margin. Inattention to details in the Lord's work brings his curse upon us. Those who do nothing at all are also cursed;129the result is the same in both cases. In ancient times the Lord directed how the service of his sanctuary should be carried on, even to the smallest detail. He told what the priests should wear, and how they should appear before him. Nothing was too trifling to escape his notice. Is he not the same now as then? Will he countenance negligence now any more than he would then? No, indeed. He would have us understand that his work is sacred and important. Carelessness and negligence are not countenanced in the Bible, even in regard to our secular business, much less in the Lord's work. Let us who are permitted to engage in the service of God, bring to it all the energy and ability that we possess, and look to Him who has promised to impart wisdom, that we may learn how to work still better. Let us consecrate ourselves to His service, but let us not think to consecrate carelessness, for he will not accept that. But he will accept our best efforts, and if we give those, we shall surely hear at last the welcome words, "Well done." E. J. W.
Onward.
By Editor
THE following cheering report of progress we copy from the English "Department" of the SIGNS OF THE TIMES, of Feb. 2, 1883:—
On the first Sabbath of 1883, four new names were attached to our roll of covenant members at Ravenswood. Our Band of Hope, which was organized the last of November, has held its regular fortnightly sessions on Tuesday evenings. The exercises consist of singing, recitations, and readings, by the youth and children. The meetings are under the management of a committee of six, all under twenty years of age, selected by the members from their own number.
The roll of membership already numbers sixty-three. These are not only pledged to abstain wholly from the use of intoxicating liquors, but also from tobacco in all its forms, and not to gamble, or use profane language. Twenty of these members were added on "boxing night."
We have already placed the "History of the Sabbath," by Eld. J. N. Andrews, in over sixty of the one hundred free libraries of the United Kingdom. A number of these reading-rooms have the SIGNS OF THE TIMES on their tables. The librarians report that the book is kept in constant use, and that the Signs are "eagerly sought, and would be greatly missed."
In a nation as old as this, where every reform moves slowly, we are glad to see increasing evidence that our seed-sowing is not in vain. Some idea may be formed of the amount of effort put forth during the last three months by reading the following:—
MICHIGAN.—Eld. A. O. Burrell says of meetings in Mt. Pleasant, Feb. 26: We concluded the protracted effort here last night, having continued the meetings some eight weeks. Twenty-five have commenced to keep the Sabbath. Sold more than $100 worth of books and maps. Arrangements have been made to meet the indebtedness on the church building, which was about $100; and lumber has been bought for a shed for teams, so that none will have an excuse to stay away from meeting when the weather is stormy. We return to this place in two weeks to administer the ordinance of baptism.
MISSOURI.—Over date of Feb. 26, Bro. C. H. Chaffee writes from Nevada, Mo., saying: From Jan. 24 to Feb. 21, I was with the friends at New Boston, and held twenty-five meetings. Eleven united with the church; four were baptized. There are twelve others keeping the Sabbath, who I think will soon unite with the church. Thirteen subscribers were obtained for the Instructor and one for the SIGNS. The interest was good, the house being crowded all the time although the weather was severe for this country. I received $46 as a donation. There are now thirty-five Sabbath-keepers at this place.
WISCONSIN.—Bro. G. C. Tenney, writing from northern Wisconsin, reports having visited a number of churches with this general result: We are glad to unite with our brethern in raising the somewhat fallen interest in the T. and M. work. There is manifested by all the people a disposition to work when work is placed before them. We raised a club of subscribers for the SIGNS at each of these places, and sold quite a large number of books. At Sturgeon Bay our house of worship is nearly completed, and it is expected that it will be dedicated in the spring.
Feb. 17, 18, dedication meetings were held at Maple Works. This house has been under way for some time, and its completion was a matter of much satisfaction to those interested. It is a very neat and substantial house, and at its dedication was freed from debt.
Bro. H. R. Johnson writes of his meetings in Cushing, Wis., Feb. 25: Some have commenced to obey God in all his requirements. Others are studying the Scriptures daily to see if these things are so. A Baptist minister came to speak against the Sabbath, but finally stated that he had not the books with him necessary to prove the change of the Sabbath. This opened the eyes of the people, for they thought the Bible was their only guide. At last he took the seventh-part-of-time theory, and stated that the seventh day was all right, only we caused confusion by preaching it in the churches. The honest ones here are taking the Bible for their only rule of right, and are trying to manifest their love to God by obeying him.
PENNSYLVANIA.—Bro. J. G. Saunders writes from North Warren, Warren Co., as follows: I find that after an interest has been raised and left to die, it is hard to bring it up again. But we can now report that the interest has, to a great extent, been revived, and some new ones have accepted the truth. One family of seven are deeply interested, and last Sabbath four of them said they could not work. They came to our meeting, and took part in the same.
KANSAS.—Eld. G. H. Rogers reports from Towanda: I came to this place Jan. 8, and have been here seven weeks. Owing to sickness, unfavorable weather, and other circumstances, I have not been able to hold meetings more than about one-half of the time. Have employed the rest of the time in visiting. I think ten or eleven have been hopefully converted. Fourteen have signed the covenant to keep the commandments of God, and sixteen have promised to keep the Sabbath. I hope for others. A V. M. Society of ten members has been formed, and a Sabbath-school has been organized. Three copies of the Review are taken; also seven copies of the SIGNS, and six of the Instructor. About $30 worth of books have been purchased.
Reports throughout the field are encouraging. We trust the season which opens so auspiciously may be fruitful of great results. Trust, work, and pray.
San Diego, Cal.
By M. C. Israel
I ARRIVED at this place Feb. 23. Organized a Sabbath-school and held meetings on Sabbath and Sunday. There were ten Sabbath-keepers present, and some others. On Tuesday, the 27th, I went out to Jamul (Ha-mool) Valley, to visit the families of Brethren Sheckler and Turner. We had a very interesting visit, and baptized Brother and Sister Sheckler and their son, Claude. Although these brethren are isolated from those of like faith, they are not strangers to the Spirit of God. They will have a little Sabbath-school and meetings. We held Sabbath-school and meetings on Sabbath, March 3, and held a meeting on Sunday. After the preaching service, organized a Tract and Missionary Society of nine members; all new members but one. Weekly contributions were pledged to take a club of twenty-five copies of the SIGNS. The little company feel very much encouraged, and we pray that they may do much in advancing the interest of the truth in this part of the State. Sister E. J. Howard is laboring faithfully to build up the work here.