Earlier text: General ArticlesBut some may ask, Does not Gibbon name Attila, as of equal importance with Alaric and Genseric in the ruin of the Roman Empire? We answer, Yes, and Gibbon therein states the exact truth. Then it may be asked, Why not allow the Huns a place among the ten kingdoms equally with the Visigoths and the Vandals? We reply that the place of the Visigoths and the Vandals among the ten kingdoms does not depend upon Alaric and Genseric alone. Suppose that at the death of Alaric the nation of the Visigoths had left the Western Empire, and had never entered its territories again, and in a few years had ceased to have any distinct existence as a nation, who would think for an instant of counting them as one of the ten kingdoms of the Western Empire. No one, assuredly. But this is precisely the case of the Huns, then by what right ought they to be counted as one? Plainly by no right. Attila, Alaric, and Genseric were of equal note in hastening the ruin of the Roman Empire, and they have an important place in prophecy, but that place is not in the prophecy of Daniel, it is in Rev. 8:7–11. Again it might be asked, Did not the Huns do as much as any other people in weakening the empire and hastening its downfall? We answer, Yes. Then why may they not be counted for that reason? Because that is not reason enough. The prophecy says, “The kingdom [Rome] shall be divided,” and that into ten distinct kingdoms. Therefore the question is not, Did the Huns, or any others, weaken the empire? but, Did they divide it? Did they divide from the Western Empire any portion of its territory and establish there a kingdom that remained? The only answer that history gives is a decided, No. Then it is certain that the Huns cannot of right have any place among the ten kingdoms. The evidence and the authorities which we have now given would, doubtless, be considered by all as sufficient to justify us in refusing to the Huns a place in the list of the ten kingdoms. But these are not all that we have to offer. In addition to these we have the positive evidence of Machiavelli himself, from whom Bishop Chandler is said to have made his list. From a casual reading some have supposed that Machiavelli himself named the ten kingdoms as such. This, however, is not the case, as appears from Bishop Newton’s words. He says: “Machiavel, little thinking what he was doing (as Bishop Chandler observes), hath given us their names.” It is plain, therefore, that the responsibility for Bishop Chandler’s list lies not with Machiavelli, but with Bishop Chandler himself. Machiavelli was a Florentine, who lived A. D. 1469–1527. He wrote a history of Florence, and in the first two chapters he very briefly sketched the barbarian invasions, and the fall of the Western Empire, in which he, simply as a matter of history, gave the names of the nations which invaded the empire. Now the question is, Was there in Machiavelli’s history sufficient evidence to justify Bishop Chandler in setting down the Huns as one of the ten kingdoms that arose on the fall of Western Rome? We shall here insert all that Machiavelli says directly about the Huns, and it will be seen that it answers this question in the negative. After mentioning the inroads of the Visigoths, Burgundians, Alani, Suevi, Vandals, and Franks, he says:— “Thus the Vandals ruled Africa; the Alans and Visigoths, Spain; while the Franks and Burgundians not only took Gaul, but each gave their name to the part they occupied; hence one is called France, the other, Burgundy. The good fortune of these brought fresh peoples to the destruction of the empire, one of which, the Huns, occupied the province of Pannonia, situated upon the nearer [western] shore of the Danube, and which, from their name, is still called Hungary.” “The Huns, who were said above to have occupied Pannonia, joining with other nations, as the Zepidi, Eruli, Turingi, and Ostro or Eastern Goths, moved in search of new countries, and, not being able to enter France, which was defended by the forces of the barbarians, came into Italy under Attila their king. . . . Attila, having entered Italy, laid siege to Aquileia, where he remained without any obstacle for two years, wasting the country and dispersing the inhabitants. . . . After the taking and ruin of Aquileia, he directed his course toward Rome, from the destruction of which he abstained at the entreaty of the pontiff, his respect for whom was so great that he left Italy and retired into Austria, where he died. After the death of Attila, Velamir, king of the Ostrogoths, and the heads of the other nations took arms against his sons, Henry and Uric, slew the one and compelled the other with his Huns to repass the Danube and return to their country; whilst the Ostrogoths and the Zepidi established themselves in Pannonia, and the Eruli and the Turingi upon the farther [eastern] banks of the Danube. “After the deaths of many emperors, the Empire of Constantinople devolved upon Zeno, and that of Rome, upon Orestes and Augustulus his son. . . . Whilst they were designing to hold by force what they had gained by treachery, the Eruli and Turingi, who after the death of Attila, as before remarked, had established themselves upon the farther bank of the Danube, united in a league under Odoacer, their general. In the districts which they left unoccupied, the Longobards or Lombards, also a northern people, entered, led by Gondogo their king. Odoacer conquered and slew Orestes near Pavia, but Augustulus escaped. After this victory, that Rome might with her change of power also change her title, Odoacer, instead of using the imperial name, caused himself to be declared King of Rome.”—Chap. 2, par. 6, 7. The bare facts here stated by Machiavelli are clearly against the propriety of counting the Huns among the ten kingdoms. He says, (1) that the Huns occupied Pannonia, on the western bank of the Danube; (2) that after the death of Attila, the Ostrogoths and other nations “compelled Uric with his Huns to repass the Danube and return to their country;” (3) that the Ostrogoths and Gepidæ established themselves in Pannonia; (4) that the Heruli and Turingi occupied the eastern bank of the Danube; (5) that when these latter went to Italy they left their country unoccupied; (6) and then it was occupied by the Lombards. So by this word, we have the Ostrogoths, the Gepidæ, the Heruli, the Turingi, and the Lombards occupying all of Pannonia and both banks of the Danube,—that is, all the country that had been occupied by the Huns, and that is now Hungary,—and the Huns gone back to their own country on the shores of the Black Sea and in the country of the Volga and the Don. It is true, that he says the country on the western shore of the Danube “from their name is still called Hungary;” but, even granting the correctness of this statement, his whole narrative shows that it is so called only from their name and not from their continued occupation, for in another place, when telling of the entrance of the Avars, A. D. 566, whom he calls Huns, he repeats the statement that the Huns after the death of Attila “returned to their country.” It appears, however, from all the other authorities which we have cited, that in the matter of the name of Hungary, Machiavelli is mistaken, that name coming from the Magyars and not from the Huns. Then where, in Machiavelli’s history, or within the bounds of the Roman Empire, did Bishop Chandler find a kingdom of the Huns?—He did not find them there at all, for Machiavelli himself, in harmony with every other authority on the subject, did not place them there. This also is confirmed by Machiavelli:— “At this time [the reign of Odoacer, A. D. 476] the ancient Roman Empire was governed by the following princes: Zeno, reigning in Constantinople, commanded the whole of the Eastern Empire; the Ostrogoths ruled Moesia and Pannonia; the Visigoths, Suevi, and Alans held Gascony and Spain; the Vandals, Africa; the Franks and Burgundians, France; and the Eruli and Turingi, Italy. The kingdom of the Ostrogoths had descended to Theodoric, nephew of Velamir. . . . Leaving his friends the Zepidi in Pannonia, Theodoric marched into Italy, slew Odoacer and his son, and . . . established his court at Ravenna, and, like Odoacer, took the title of King of Italy. . . . The Lombards, as was said before, occupied those places upon the Danube which had been vacated by the Eruli, and Turingi when Odoacer their king led them unto Italy.”—Chap. 2, par. 1, 10. Here, then, is Machiavelli’s own list of the princes and peoples who ruled in both the Eastern and the Western Empire between A. D. 476 and 493, and the Huns are not named at all. By what right, then, did Bishop Chandler number the Huns as one of the ten kingdoms, and cite Machiavelli as authority for it?—By no right whatever. The good Bishop made a mistake, that is all. And solely on the authority of his name, the mistake has been perpetuated now these one hundred and fifty-eight years. To these kingdoms as named by Bishop Chandler, Bishop Lloyd affixed certain figures as marking the date of their rise. We quote Bishop Newton’s account of it. He says:— “That excellent chronologer, Bishop Lloyd, exhibits the following list of the ten kingdoms with the time of their rise: (1) Huns, about A. D. 356; (2) Ostrogoths, 377; (3) Wisigoths, 378; (4) Franks, 407; (5) Vandals, 407; (6) Sueves and Alans, 407; (7) Burgundians, 407; (8) Herules and Rugians, 476; (9) Saxons, 476; (10) Longobards began to reign in Hungary A. D. 526, and were seated in the northern parts of Germany about the year 483.” Why Bishop Lloyd should be given the title of “that excellent chronologer,” we cannot imagine; for not more than half his dates are correct. He dates the Huns “about A. D. 356,” whereas about A. D. 356 they were away in the depths of Scythia above the Caspian Sea; they never crossed the Volga till about A. D. 374–75; and their first appearance to the eyes of the Romans was in A. D. 376. (Gibbon, chap. 26, par. 12, 13.) He dates the Ostrogoths A. D. 377. If that was intended to be the date when Alatheus and Saphrax, with their army, crossed the Danube, it is well enough, but in that case, his dating the Visigoths in A. D. 378 is wrong, because they crossed the Danube a year before, instead of a year after, the Ostrogoths. Besides this, of the Ostrogoths who crossed the Danube in A. D. 377, the last remains were slain January 3, A. D. 401, while trying, under the leadership of Gainas, to make their way back into the countries beyond the Danube (Gibbon, chap. 26, par. 31, 32 compared with 32:5–7), and therefore are not the Ostrogoths at all who formed one of the ten kingdoms, those being the main body of the nation, who submitted to the Huns in A. D. 376, and regained their independence at the battle of the Netad, A. D. 453. (Id., chap. 26, par. 13, with 34:5 and 35:16.) He dates the Franks A. D. 407, whereas their “uninterrupted possession” of territory, and monarchy, in Gaul, dates from A. D. 351. (Id., chap. 19, par. 20, with Note, and 38:3.) He dates the rise of the Saxons A. D. 476, when the fact is that they entered Britain, England, in A. D. 449, and never left it. (Id., chap. 31, par. 41, 42; 38:33; Green’s England, chap. 1, par. 17; Knight’s England, chap. 5, par. 6; Mosheim’s Church History, Fifth Cent., part 1,645 chap. 2, sec. 3, par. 3; Encyc. Brit., England, History, par. 15). He names the Lombards as “in the northern parts of Germany about” A. D. 483, and began to reign in Hungary A. D. 526. Whereas they were in the northern parts of Germany “about the time of Augustus and Trajan” (Gibbon, chap. 42, par. 2), and were in Pannonia A. D. 453, and settled on the banks of the Danube after the battle of the Netad the same year. In the date A. D. 526, he is not so far wrong, as, soon after that they had gained possession of all Noricum and Pannonia. “Lyman’s Historical Chart” gives the ten kingdoms as follows:— “Vandals, Alani, Suevi, Visigoths, Burgundians, Franks, Saxons, Heruli, Ostrogoths, Lombards.” With the exception of the Alani, this is correct. But this same chart says of them in A. D. 418, “The Goths nearly exterminate them,” and of those who escaped after the death of their king, Gibbon says:— “The remains of those Scythian wanderers, who escaped from the field, instead of choosing a new leader, humbly sought a refuge under the standard of the Vandals, with whom they were ever afterwards confounded.”—Chap. 31, par. 38. As this was only twelve years after they crossed the Rhine, it is certain that the Alani are not entitled to a place among the ten kingdoms. After viewing thus the lists of the ten kingdoms as named by other men, we repeat, and we believe we may do it with a stronger assurance, that the ten nations named by Gibbon as the ones “who established their kingdoms on the ruins of the Western Empire,” are the ones, and the only ones, that form the ten kingdoms of the prophecy of Daniel 2:41–43, and 7:7, 8, 19, 24. For the convenience of the reader we shall draw out here in tabulated form, the ten kingdoms as named by Gibbon, with the dates of their entering the Western Empire, the places of settlement, and the historical references by which names, dates, and places can be verified. ALEMANNI, A. D. 351, Swabia, Alsace, and Lorraine. (Gibbon, chap. 10, par. 26; 12:20; 19:20; 36:5; 49:22.) FRANKS, A. D. 351, N. E. Gaul. (Id., chap. 19, par. 20; 36:5.) BURGUNDIANS, December 31, A. D. 406 (Id., chap. 30, par. 17); in Burgundy A. D. 420 (Id., chap. 31, par. 39). VANDALS, December 31, A. D. 406 (Id., chap. 30, par. 17); in Spain A. D. 409 (chap. 31, par. 36); in Africa A. D. 429 (chap. 33, par. 35). SUEVI, December 31, A. D. 406 (Id., chap. 30, par. 17); in Spain, A. D. 409 (chap. 31, par. 36). VISIGOTHS, A. D. 408 (Id., chap. 31, par. 2, 14); in S. W. Gaul, A. D. 419 (chap. 31, par. 39); in Spain A. D. 467 (chap. 36, par. 22; 38:2, 29). SAXONS, A. D. 449, Britain. (Id., chap. 31, par. 41, 42; 38:33; Green’s England, chap. 1, par. 17; Knight’s England, chap. 5, par. 6.) OSTROGOTHS, A. D. 453, in Pannonia (Gibbon, chap. 35, par. 16); in Italy A. D. 489, final conquest A. D. 493 (chap. 39, par. 7, 8). LOMBARDS, A. D. 453 in Pannonia and Noricum, banks of Danube (Weber’s Universal History, sec. 180; Gibbon, chap. 42, par. 2; Encyc. Brit., art. “Lombards”); in Lombardy, A. D. 567–8 (Gibbon, chap. 45, par. 5–7; Machiavelli, History of Florence, chap. 1, 2). HERULI, A. D. 475–6, in Italy (Gibbon, chap. 36, par. 28–33). THERE are some who too fondly anticipate a millennium. There is a lack of information on the progress of Christianity. The facts are misstated daily in pulpits all over the country. Ministers hesitate to present the worst side, for fear of causing discouragement. They create hopes that are never to be realized. We are not at the dawn of the millennium. Compared with the work to be done, the past is nothing. Our children’s children for ten generations to come must labor harder than we are doing to accomplish the conversion of the world. The world’s population is 1,500,000,000. Of these, Christians number less than a third. Half of that third belong to the Roman Catholic Church. The Protestants number 113,000,000. They are divided into 500 sects. And this number of their strength includes, also, all the thieves, ex-convicts, the debased, besotted, the speckled and streaked in Christendom. . . . Before us we have the great problem—the 1,100,000,000 of pagans to convert to Christianity. That is the solid rock that looms up in our path. Look at it; see what work has been done in 1800 years, and how much is yet to be accomplished. In India, after more than a hundred years of mission work, we have 600,000 native converts and 2,000,000 Christians among 260,000,000 heathens. Can we remove that solid bowlder that is as old as the hills? . . . It is a big loaf to be leavened, and it has been a long time working. . . . Our Methodist Church we think the most divine and ineffable. We boast that we are going to conquer the world and we come from our palaces and princely farms and subscribe fifty cents a head for the undertaking. [“That’s so, that’s so,” replied several voices.] It is a burning disgrace, that excites pity and disgust. Here have we been our own board of twelve Bishops and forty laymen incubating for a week. Now we find that our nest was filled with rotten eggs, and a world is waiting to be conquered. I’ll say no more.—Bishop Foster, before the Methodist Missionary Conference, November 9, 1885. It is not more certain that the righteous shall inherit eternal life than it is that “the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God.” It is not more certain that there is a glorious Heaven for the reward of Christian virtue on earth than it is that there is a hell for the punishment of unrepentant and unpardoned sinners. The attitude of God, as revealed in his word, is one of intense opposition to sin, and of awful menace to the safety of the sinner. He who fails to see this has not read the Bible correctly. Human thought never dwelt on more fearful language than that of the Bible in respect to sin, and also in respect to sinners, if they shall leave this world without making their peace with God. They will find out at last that “sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.” What, then, should be the character of the pulpit ministration of God’s word? How should the minister preach that word? Should he confine himself exclusively to those aspects of God which relate to his benevolence and grace as manifest in the gospel of Christ, and slur over and virtually conceal those aspects of the same God that relate to his law and his holiness and justice as expressed therein? Should he treat sin as a trifle, and give the sinner the impression that he is in no special danger? Should he keep “the terror of the Lord” out of sight? Should he be afraid to say “hell,” when the Bible says “hell”? These questions supply their own answer. No minister is faithful to God, or to the audience to which he speaks, who does not, while presenting Christ as “the way, the truth, and the life,” also let the hearer know that he must accept Christ as his personal Saviour, or suffer the damnation of hell. Knowing the “terror of the Lord,” and preaching that terror, as well as the benevolence and mercy of God, the minister will best imitate the example of Christ and his apostles. There is no danger that sinners will be frightened beyond the occasion for fear. The real danger is that they will not so see their peril as to flee for refuge while they may to the hope set before them in the gospel. The awful justice of God, the denunciations and the threatenings of the Bible, as well as the mercy of God, are in order on the preacher’s lips.—Independent. Modern Esaus.
By Rev. J. P. Kester
WE have, in the person of Esau, a representative of a class found in almost every society. The great charm of the patriarchal histories is this: they show us human nature free from the disguises of latter ages. In them we get a complete picture, not only of their world, but Jacob and Esau, of Oriental times, are living characters of to-day. Their type and character is not one that has died out and been replaced by others; they still live in the nineteenth century. Who does not know Esau? The Esau of the nineteenth century is a fac-simile of the Esau of Oriental times, still clad in skins and hunting-traps, with a heavy bow and spear, much more ready to use his strong limbs in the chase than to bend his knee at the altar of prayer and consecration, his highest and only ambition being “to make a good bag.” Esau, as ever, is a hunter, and his eye is on the game, and he seldom, if ever, looks upward to his God. Business, money and pleasure are the things he hunts; he seeks nothing higher. He has heard, no doubt, of a glorious heritage, a spiritual birthright; but he is altogether absorbed in something more to his taste. He may be considered generous, ready to give alms and show himself a good fellow in general, but his spiritual birthright—ah! that can be had any day for a mess of pottage. Hundreds, and even thousands, are selling their birthright to-day. What is this spirit of Esau? It is what is condemned in the word of God as worldliness—pursuing the world, its riches, honors, pleasures and applauses, to the entire forgetfulness of that which is to come—sacrificing the future for the present. They say, “Give me the pottage and let him have the birthright—who cares for it?” This is worldliness. This is the Esau spirit against which Christ speaks when he says, “What shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world and lose his own soul?” The great sin and folly of the present age is precisely this: putting the present before the future. Money, luxury, pleasure, financial success, and then, if possible, the birthright. First with them is the world, the present; this must be secured by all means, and then, in odd moments and by side efforts, try to secure that which is to come.—Rev. J. P. Kester. THIS service comprehends all that pertains to seeking the honor and approbation of God in all things; living unto God; embodying his will and pleasure in our hearts and lives; striving to do all things whatsoever he has commanded. In something of a right understanding of the case, the psalmist said, “Then shall I not be ashamed, when I have respect unto all thy commandments.” The same spirit breathes in the words of Philip Doddridge, “My gracious Lord, I own thy right
To every service I can pay,
And call it my supreme delight
To hear thy dictates and obey.”
—Watchman. THEY who degrade holy things, thereby degrade themselves.—Sel. “UNTO thee will I cry, O Lord my rock; be not silent to me.” Psalm 28:1. WHOSOEVER would be sustained by the hand of God, let him constantly lean upon it; whosoever would be defended by it, let him patiently repose himself under it.—Calvin. California Camp-Meeting.
By W.
THIS meeting was the largest and the best camp-meeting ever held in this State. Such is the universal verdict. Indeed, all said that it was the best camp-meeting they had ever attended. It was located just outside the limits of the city of Woodland, in a field, which the owner, not an Adventist, kindly granted free of charge. The Woodland Water Company furnished water for the camp, free. This was no small item in the saving of expense. Very much smaller meetings, for one-half the time, have often paid sixty dollars or more for water. The Puget Sound Lumber Company also greatly favored the camp, by kindly taking back, without charge, all lumber that was not cut. There were one hundred and eighty-five tents pitched, and about eight hundred people camped on the ground. There were more Sabbath-keepers who attended, as some came to the first part of the meeting and went home to allow others to come to the last part; but the average attendance was about eight hundred. The attendance from town was not very large, except on the first Sunday. There would have been more present the second Sunday if it had not rained. Those who did attend were well pleased, and the meeting seemed to leave a good impression on the community. During the thirteen days' meeting there were twenty-nine discourses, two regular Bible-readings, besides several meetings for instruction in holding Bible-readings, twenty children's meetings, six meetings of the Conference, four of the Tract and Missionary Society, three of the Sabbath-school Association, besides prayer and social meetings, teachers' meetings, ministerial examinations, and class instruction in canvassing, and in keeping church, missionary, and Sabbath-school records. The ministerial examinations were a new feature in this Conference, but were highly appreciated by all the ministers. The instruction given was most valuable, and we believe that the introduction of this feature will tend to greatly raise the standard of the ministry. In this connection we may say that there was never before so great a degree of harmony and brotherly love among the ministers as now. Never before was there so little of the spirit of criticism as during this meeting. The same may be said of the rank and file. This certainly augurs well for the future prosperity of the cause. During the entire camp-meeting we heard not an impatient word or an unkind allusion. The business meetings were especially interesting. They were the most profitable meetings held. Those who stay away from business meetings, thinking them uninteresting, deprive themselves of a great blessing. We are thankful that there were not many such at this camp-meeting. The business pertaining to the Conference and Tract Society was performed without the slightest discord. It was specially noticeable that in these meetings the entire congregation was often moved to tears. There was never before so deep an interest taken in the spread of the work, and the salvation of souls. The addresses from Mrs. E. G. White, that were read at different times, added greatly to the success of the meeting. Her appeals for greater consecration and union had good effect; and as the nearness of the end was vividly set before the people, an increasing spirit of solemnity rested on the congregation. The fact that probation for sinners will soon end, and that the Lord is soon coming, seemed more real to very many than ever before. Heartfelt confessions were made, and as God's tender mercy as manifested in Christ, was set forth, many were enabled to grasp by faith the living promises, and to go free in the Lord. The most encouraging feature was that almost from the first, individuals at the meetings in various parts of the camp would with tears of joy praise God for the blessing of sins forgiven. There was marked evidence throughout the camp that the Spirit of the Lord was working. The children's meetings were very profitable, and the interest in them increased till the close. The average attendance at these meetings was about sixty. It was the aim of the leaders to give simple instruction in the great principles of the gospel. The little ones showed great interest in studying the Bible to learn both faith and duty, and the Spirit of the Lord made a deep impression on their hearts. During the meetings twenty-eight children gave their hearts to God, and there was every evidence that they were intelligently and hopefully converted. Several of these were baptized before they left camp, and others who had to leave will be baptized at home. At three different times during the camp-meeting, efforts in behalf of the unconverted and backsliders were made in the large congregation. At each of these times from one hundred and fifty to two hundred came forward for prayers, and the most of these were labored with personally. At such a meeting on the last Sabbath, thirty-two arose in response to an inquiry as to how many had resolved at this meeting to keep the Sabbath. On the last Monday of the meeting thirty-four were baptized, and probably nearly as many more left the ground designing to be baptized at home at the first opportunity. Among those baptized was a young Chinese convert, who has been keeping the Sabbath for several months, having made considerable sacrifice to do so. We believe that he is the only Chinese Sabbath-keeper in the United States. The Sabbath-schools on the two Sabbaths were interesting and profitable occasions. Lessons were well learned by both old and young. The class contributions for the two Sabbaths were $102.21. The persons who were appointed to canvass for periodicals during the meetings, did their work well, and met with a good degree of success. The number of subscriptions taken was 314, classified as follows: For the SIGNS OF THE TIMES, 76; American Sentinel, 53; Review and Herald, 19; Bible Echo, 22; Sabbath-School Worker, 72; Pacific Health Journal, 72. The sales at the book stand amounted to something over $700. On Sunday morning, October 17, Elder Haskell gave a little talk on the work in Australia, New Zealand, and Central Europe, and a letter was read from Brother W. C. White, giving an account of the progress of the work in Russia, and of the imprisonment and release of Elder Conradi. The wants of the cause in California were also briefly stated, and then those who felt that it would be a pleasure to assist the cause with their means, were asked to pledge. Only a general call was made, and there was absolutely no urging, yet in a short time over one hundred thousand dollars was pledged for home and foreign missions. There was one feature of this movement that is worthy of note. Heretofore the bulk of the money raised has been by the poorer class, but these pledges were mostly by the more wealthy. To be sure much of this amount was pledged on condition of disposing of property, but there was a strong determination expressed by the wealthy brethren to sell, even at a sacrifice, and to give not only of their means, but themselves to the cause of God. These pledges were not made in a burst of enthusiasm, but were the deliberate action of cool-headed business men who knew what they were about, and no one who knows the people of California will doubt that every dollar pledged is good. These men and women have been successful in gathering together earthly treasure, and are now determined to have treasure in Heaven. Besides these pledges, quite an amount of cash was contributed in small amounts by those who could not pledge; an organ valued at $125 was donated to the New Zealand Mission, $75 was contributed towards buying an organ for the Australian Mission, and a good cow was given to the San Francisco City Mission. These liberal contributions were only the natural result of the good meetings which had preceded, and of the conviction that the end of all things is at hand, and that God is now saying to his servants, as to Moses of old, “Speak unto the children of Israel that they go forward.” At the close of this meeting the Doxology was sung with a heartiness that showed that the people felt blessed in the sacrifices which they had made. Monday, October 18, baptism was attended to, and ministers were appointed to their various fields of labor. In the evening Elder A. T. Jones gave a stirring half hour's talk on National Reform as it concerns Seventh-day Adventists. This was followed by a praise meeting of an hour, after which Brother R. S. Owen was set apart to the work of the gospel ministry, Elder Loughborough offering the prayer, and Elder Haskell giving the charge. Then the congregation united in singing, “All Hail the Power of Jesus' Name.” Thus closed a meeting which will never be forgotten by at least a large part of those who attended it, and whose influence will be felt in the work until the saints meet in the kingdom of God. W. The Enemy of the Workingman.
By J.
THE following is the greater part of an editorial of the San Francisco Chronicle, September 19, 1886, on “Errors of the Labor Party.” It shows how absolutely a man sells himself into slavery, and pledges himself, his wife, and his children, to want, when he joins one of those unions. “The decision of the masons, plasterers, and carpenters at Charleston to raise wages 50 cents to $1.00 a day in consequence of the increased demand for labor resulting from the earthquake, illustrates the tendency of unions to commit errors of policy when they are not under intelligent guidance. Of course the house owners of Charleston are less able than ever to pay increased wages to labor, and thus the result of the ill-advised proceeding of the unions will be twofold—first, it will check the repairs of injured buildings, and thus retard the recovery of the city and protract the period of enforced idleness among classes whose employment depends on a resumption of business; and secondly, it will attract to Charleston an influx of masons, plasterers, and carpenters from other States, and in a little while the supply of labor will be in excess of the demand and wages will fall down lower than they were before the earthquake. Instead of helping the classes whom the policy of the unions was designed to serve, it cannot but injure them. “Unions must be guided by broad, liberal, far-seeing principles of policy, or they will prove a curse instead of a blessing. It is a serious matter for a workman who has a wife and children dependent on him to part with the control of his own actions in favor of a body in which he is a mere unit. If there is any danger that the plan of action which he binds himself to pursue is going to be dictated to him by a party of men who are not real workmen, but are mere politicians and stump speakers—who have no regular job to lose, and who calculate to make their living as agitators, by levying assessments on men who do work, then he had far better not join any union at all. It is on him and not on the union that the responsibility of feeding his wife and children rests. It is nothing to the union if they starve. It ought to be a good deal to him. “There is a man walking the streets of San Francisco to-day who until lately had a steady job in one of the largest manufacturing establishments in this city. He had held his job for thirteen years.647 He was a good, steady workman; his employers thought well of him and paid him good wages. One day there arose a dispute between these employers and a union of which he was a member, and the union ordered him out. He had no quarrel with his bosses, no complaint to make, no grievance to urge; but he had bound himself to obey the orders of his union, and when it ordered him out he laid down his tools and out he went. The controversy lasted some weeks. When it was finally adjusted the workman went back and asked for his old job. He was told that his place had been filled by a man from the East. The firm had contracts which they were bound to fulfill under heavy penalty, and when their old hands deserted them they sent East and got new men. They could not now discharge these to make room for hands that had left them of their own free will. So this man—an honest, sober, industrious, competent workman—walks the streets of San Francisco to-day with nothing to do. How his family lives perhaps the neighbors could tell. “Surely cases of this kind—and we are told that the workman in question is one of 150 in the same calling who are out of a job—ought to lead unions and assemblies of labor to pause before they order men out on strike on trivial grounds, or in the vain pursuit of an object which cannot be attained. It is a grand thing, no doubt, to be revenged upon a grasping employer by leaving him without a working force just when he needs it the most to fulfill his contracts. But revenge is a luxury in which few can afford to indulge. It generally costs more than it yields. If the employer needs his hands to fulfill his contracts, the workman needs his employer to feed his family. And this country is getting to be so full of people that it is a good deal easier to find a new workman than a new employer. An advertisement in a New York or a Chicago paper will cause workmen to spring up by the thousand, eager for steady work and ready to take the place of strikers without the smallest regard for unions or Knights of Labor. Where the effect of a strike is merely to transfer a steady job from a San Franciscan to an Eastern man, how is the former benefited? “The great industrial machine is so complicated that it cannot be trifled with without serious consequences. Results flow from rash acts which their authors did not for a moment foresee. The railway hands on the Gould system of railways felt sure that they were going to dictate terms to the managers of the roads, or to stop their running—but what is the result? The roads are running as usual, and Sedalia and East St. Louis are full of hungry children of railway hands out of a job. Looking back over the causes which produced these results, is it not time for workmen to insist on their executive assemblies going a little slow in ordering men to throw up their jobs in order to assert a principle which may be unsound or impracticable? “Unsuccessful experiment is expensive. While it is being worked out to failure, men and women must live, and they cannot live without work. It is dry work chanting hymns to labor, with an empty stomach.” The real enemy of the laboring man is not the employer, but the tyrannical managers, and the scheming manipulators, of the despotic unions, whose beck or nod he binds himself to obey. The laboring man must have an employer, if it is not himself it must be somebody else; the employer must have workmen, or else his business comes to a standstill; but the manager of the union has nothing at stake, nor to do, but to maintain the power and standing of the union, and by that his own power, while he laughs in his sleeve at the real toiling workman, and grows fat on the assessments and monthly dues of the order. J. The Possibility of Falling
THERE is no one on earth who is beyond the reach of temptation; consequently there is no one who is beyond the possibility of falling into sin. The aged saint who has long been an example “in word, in conversation [daily manner of living], in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity,” may, if he ceases his watchfulness, fall into the snare of the enemy. Even the holy apostle Paul said that unless he kept up the warfare with self continually, he should himself be a castaway. When a good man falls into sin, it is no argument against Christianity, nor against its power to purify the life; but it is an evidence of the weakness of the flesh when the individual is not abiding in Christ. There is no occasion for glorying over such ones, or for regarding them as hopelessly lost. “Thou standest by faith; be not high-minded, but fear.” “And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in again; for God is able to graft them in again.”