Your ShelfYour Projects

Review and Herald, Vol. 41, No. 20.

LIFE OF WILLIAM MILLER
Earlier text: Objections to the Sabbath Answered

DISCUSSION ON THE SABBATH QUESTION

By Joseph Harvey Waggoner

BETWEEN ELD. J. H. WAGGONER, S. D. ADVENTIST, AND ELD. PETER VOGEL, DISCIPLE.

THIRD PROPOSITION.

“Do the Scriptures teach that the seventh-day Sabbath is to be observed by Christians throughout the gospel dispensation?”
ELD. WAGGONER affirms; ELD. VOGEL denies.

ELD. WAGGONER’S EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE.

Eld. Vogel said, “That no passage of Scripture is so fortified but that an ingenious opponent can say something contrary to its most obvious sense, and even make his position seem plausible.” Had he been only intent on illustrating this in all his course he could have hardly succeeded better than he has, except that he has not by any means always made “his positions seem plausible.” I have aimed more to get the truth before the readers than to notice all his efforts to cover it up, exposing the more prominent as occasion seemed to require. I will briefly notice the objections remaining.
He says “under grace” means “under the gospel,” and answers that “the children of wrath” are “under the gospel,” and so “under grace.” But every reader knows that Paul, in Rom. 6 and 7, addresses only those who had died to sin, and were baptized into the death of Christ. Have the children of wrath been “delivered from the law” by “having become dead to the law by the body of Christ?” Have they “obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine” delivered unto them? Are they under grace because they are dead to sin, as sin has no dominion over them? A more manifest perversion of Scripture I never saw than Eld. V.’s comments on Rom. 6 and 7. He applied chap. 7 to the Jews, who, he said, were “joined to Christ” by his crucifixion! and yet says “under grace” does not prove “union with Christ.” He also said chap. 7 does not describe a “constant Christian experience.” But I ask, Does it describe the experience of one convicted of sin, who is looking to Christ for salvation? Not a single verse in these chapters will apply to “the children of wrath,” or to the Jews who are not in “union with Christ.” There is no hint of the death (or abolition) of the law, but of individuals who, dying to sin, are “redeemed from the curse of the law” that they may be united to Christ.
He made a just distinction between “carnal” as applied to sinful man, in Romans, and as applied to a positive law, in Hebrews, and then illogically proceeded to apply the sense of the “carnal commandment” of Hebrews to Romans! “Carnal,” in Rom. 7 and 8, is a state of sin, of enmity against God and opposition to his law. There can be no higher or stronger sense of carnal than that of enmity to God,—sold under sin; but this is placed in opposition to the spiritual law of Rom. 7. And spiritual can be used in no higher sense than as the opposite of sin, or of enmity against God. Eld. Vogel persistently confounds things essentially distinct. I will speak of this subject again.
He again affirms that Rom. 3: 10-19, refers only to the Jews, and cites to the O. T. quotations as proof. We will look at one of them: “God looked down from Heaven upon the children of men to see if there were any that did understand, that did seek God. Every one of them is gone back: they are altogether become filthy; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.” If Eld. V. cannot see that this applies to “all the world,” he might yet submit to Paul, who so makes the application. In chap. 2, Paul has been speaking directly of Jews and Gentiles, and then asks, “What advantage then hath the Jew? over the Gentiles, of course.” He has still both classes before his mind. “What then? are we [Jews] better than they [Gentiles?] No, in no wise, for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin, as it is written, ‘There is none righteous, no, not one,’ &c. I rest this with the reader. It is most remarkable with what ease Eld. V. can find proof, in his favor, in the merest inference, but none at all in a plain declaration against him.
He cites the case of a will, to prove that an abolished law may be in force as regards that will,—which is not, however, the correct way of stating it—and then says that that proves that pardon and abolition of law go together! Can he be so obtuse as to think that is so? Let him show a case of prosecution and conviction under an abolished law, and he will then have approached the point. If his eyes shall ever be opened to see the difference between moral and circumstantial duties he will understand the difference between crime, and the distribution of property!
There is not the least evidence that either Jacob or Jonah thought of getting “beyond the jurisdiction of God.” But look at his position in that light. Jacob was one of the very few on earth who had preserved the knowledge of the true God; and the world did not improve in piety from his time to that of Moses. Eld. V. said the law was given in “a tangible form” “that they might see sin where before they did not.” And this was essential to be done, in the condition of the race. But the gospel swept away all that means of instruction in moral obligation, and restored men to their former liberty, without a “direct enforcement” of even the law against murder! leaving men under “principles” by which they had never yet known God or their duty to him. What a gospel!
The letter of the Jews to Voltaire says their “government” was both civil and religious, and Eld. V. says this proves that they considered the “ten commandments” a political instrument. It proves no such thing. He complains that I make him say the law was only political, whereas he said it was mainly political. He said “it was political,” “a secular compact,” and argued on these statements without qualification. If he is not always consistent with himself, it is not my fault. I took the basis of his argument as the ground of my assertion, and he has no right to complain.
He says, “Eld. W. is constrained to admit that the old covenant is abolished.” Well, that is cool! Will not Eld. Vogel next say that the power of his logic has driven me to acknowledge that we are in the Christian dispensation and claim it as a victory? I charge directly that such things can only be said “for effect.”
He denies the relation of covenants as presented by me, that is, that the first covenant (agreement) of Ex. 19 was based on the covenant (law) given in Ex. 20. I gave 2 Kings 23: 3, as an illustration. This he denies, and says the people alone could not make a covenant with God—they only made a “vow” to keep the covenant. I gave the verse in full—the king “made a covenant before the Lord,” “to perform the words of the covenant that were written in this book.” It is easy to see his object in thus directly contradicting this text, but how he dares to do it is not so easy to understand. It proves his saying that “an ingenious [?] opponent can say something contrary to its obvious sense!”
He says Deut. 5: 5, cannot refer to Ex. 19. It reads, “I stood between the Lord and you at that time, to show you the word of the Lord; for ye were afraid by reason of the fire, and went not up into the mount.” But it is true that in Ex. 19, Moses took the word of the Lord down to the people, and returned the word of the people to the Lord; verses 5-8. And it is true that by reason of the manifestation of God’s glory on the mount, “all the people that was in the camp trembled.” Ex. 19: 16, &c. These are the very things to which Deut. 5: 5, does refer.
Eld. V. would do well to inform his readers how much of the word of inspiration may be safely thrown aside as a “poetic outburst.” That which David said was commanded to a thousand generations (and to Abraham) was confirmed to Jacob and to Israel for a law, and an everlasting covenant. Christ and the apostles recognized the inspiration of David’s “poetic outbursts.” Is Eld. V. greater than they? There is no parallel between “a thousand generations” and “your generations.” Everlasting, and forever, may be so limited as to be less than one generation. See Ex. 21: 6.
Matt. 19: 21, does not prove that the first covenant failed of its object “when fully kept,” for it never was fully kept. It was designed to develop a holy people (Ex. 19: 5-8), but it failed, for they did not keep it. The Savior quoted a part of the decalogue to the young man, that which hangs on the duty of love to our neighbor, Matt. 22: 34-40, and thus proved that the young man was selfish and covetous. His testimony in his own favor is not decisive; for it is not unusual to see “a young man” vain-glorious and self-conceited.
James’ “law of liberty” says “thou shalt not kill;” but Eld. Vogel says this law is not “directly” or “tangibly” enforced in the N. T. Therefore James’ law is not that of Eld. V. James tells us some of the things that his “law of liberty” says; but Eld. V. cannot tell what his law says because it is “intangible.” Nay, such a law cannot say anything.
His remark on Rom. 3: 31, was not misunderstood. He did refer it to the whole Mosaic code with especial reference, &c.
To make plausible his absurd statement that the constitution of the new dispensation is the Messiahship of Jesus, he quotes the figurative expression, “On this rock will I build my church.” This may be good proof to one who teaches things “intangible.”
I did not ridicule his crude notions of law and character, only as they appear ridiculous in a fair presentation. My illustrations hold good, and his emphasis does not change the nature of his expression. It amounts to this: A certain thing tested by a stick is straight as to that stick though the stick itself be crooked! What kind of straightness has it? Or, a certain angle, because it agrees with an obtuse angle, is a right angle as to that obtuse angle! But what is the form of such a right angle? Perhaps he cannot see anything crude in such a position as his—it is not for me to measure his capacity.
His comment on my view of Rev. 11: 19, is certainly unworthy of any man possessing the least degree of candor. I said, and proved by Heb. 8: 1-5, &c., that the temple of tabernacle of testimony in Heaven is the antitype of the Jewish sanctuary; and he says my argument would transfer the Jewish temple to Heaven! He might as well assert that my saying that Christ is a priest in Heaven would transfer the Levitical priesthood to Heaven. I made a clear distinction between the type and antitype; why does he try to cover it up? There is just as clear a distinction between the church and the sanctuary, as there was between the children of Israel and the sanctuary. His reference to “the veil” within which Christ “is entered” does not show that there is but one of “the holies” in Heaven, for Heb. 9: 3, speaks of “the second veil.” The second proves a first; therefore there are two. In Rev. 16: 17-21, the “great voice out of the temple of Heaven, from the throne” is followed by thunders, lightnings, earthquake, and hail-storm on the earth; and so in chap. 11: 19. He has better shown ability to caricature the Revelation than to expound it. He also says I err in applying the “heavenly things” of Heb. 8: 5, to a place rather than to a condition. But verse 5 is the complement of verses 1 and 2, which, corrected to suit his theory, would read, “We have such an High Priest who is set on the right hand of the throne of the majesty in” the condition! It is not in that condition, but in that place, that he is “a minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man,” and of which (sanctuary) that pitched by man was a type.
Ex. 24: 12, is an important proof text, and I know not how to characterize his course on this except to call it an evasion. When I quoted it literally according to the original—“the law”—he said:—
“I said that I know of no text which calls the ten commandments the law simply. (Please note this little word when you quote me again, Bro. W.)”
Did he require that the word, simply, should be in the text which calls the ten commandments “the law?” That would be a miserable cavil. Or, did he use the word in the sense of solely, as calling them and them only, the law? If so, Ex. 24: 12, does exactly that thing, and he cannot deny it. Or, was this word, simply, thrown in to help to evade the conclusion when the text was produced? In either case it was a very simple thing. Beside his learned (!) reference to the Hebrew on this text, he tries to evade its force by reference to the English grammar. Behold his parallel—“The man who is upright.” I trust our readers are not so easily deceived as to take this as an illustration in point. Eld. Vogel knows there is no classification in Ex. 24: 12. Were the ten commandments one of a class of laws written on tables of stone? No. A qualifying sentence which can refer to only one individual, as is the case in this text, does not weaken the specifying power of the article. The ten commandments are the only law that ever had the honor of being spoken and written by Jehovah, and he who detracts from the holiness, the justice, and the authority, of that sacred law cannot fail to bring confusion upon his own head.
All readers of the Bible know that Moses was required to make a copy in a book of all the laws given through him. All the ceremonial laws and types of Christ were therein written. But the argument of Eld. V. was this: The ten commandments were the only law that God ever wrote; therefore they alone are the “handwriting,” and to them Paul refers when he says the handwriting was “blotted out.” That being so the ten commandments only were nailed to the cross. The laws written by Moses in a book were typical, and being so, must be nailed to the cross—the antitype. (Not, however, nailed to the day of Pentecost, as Eld. V. would have it!)
And I will leave it to the reader if “blotting out” is not a figure more suitably applied to that which Moses wrote in a book, than to that which God wrote on tables of stone. And whether “nailing to his cross,” and “taking out of the way,” are not more fitly referred to types of the cross and to positive institutions, than to such precepts as these. “Thou shalt not kill—Thou shalt not commit adultery—Thou shalt not steal.” For whose benefit, or in what interest, were they taken out of the way? In whose “way” did these precepts stand? or what class of men would rejoice to be assured that these were “blotted out,” and left on no “tangible” footing of “direct enforcement?” Eld. V. reiterates this position in his last article, saying that the Sabbath alone “was against us and contrary to us. This we have seen to be true of the entire decalogue.” Is it possible that the “entire decalogue” if “directly enforced” even in the most “forcible manner” would be “against” Eld. Vogel, and “contrary to” him? Is he willing to admit that the precepts, “Thou shalt not kill—Thou shalt not commit adultery,” would be in his way if they were yet of “direct enforcement?” Are they “contrary to” him, and to the “liberty” which he desires? Or if he would not admit the conclusion of his argument as applied to himself, I ask again, Out of whose way were they taken? In what interest were they abolished? This antinomian heresy is nothing new. It has been deprecated by the thoughtfully pious of all ages. And happy will it be for the world if the advocates of such a theory never fall altogether to the level of their own teachings.
He plays upon the words, “as given to Israel,” and “positive enactment,” as if they changed the nature of the precepts of Jehovah. He knows that he cannot justly apply these words to the ten commandments in the sense of merely positive laws, but only in the sense of expressly revealed laws. They do not affect the question of their morality at all. It is no credit either to himself or to his position that he persistently harps on the conclusion when he has been once compelled to renounce the premise.
After a long delay the closing part of Eld. Vogel’s article reached me as I had written this. I care to notice only a few points on the Hebrew, barely sufficient to submit the question.
(1.) I have not denied that the predicate may take the article, and sometimes does, as exceptions exist to the best accredited rules; but that it necessarily or usually does I deny, and point to the uniformity of use in the instances given, to sustain me. As to whether Winer is comparable to Gesenius as authority, I say nothing, as it is not a question of argument. But of the facts presented, I know.
(2.) I yield nothing on Ex. 16: 23. I laid no claim on the use of the preposition, only because I knew it was no sufficient ground; and he has now conceded that point. He admits that the preposition is used in its possessive sense when the first noun is indefinite. Then, of course, that use does not prove the first noun to be definite, as he claimed; that must be determined by other means. My wonder was that he so confidently made such a claim in the face of this fact. Yet he seems determined to show his inconsistency by again quoting that it “may be substituted for the construct relation,” not seeming to understand that it is only in its possessive sense, not affecting the question of its definiteness. He cannot possibly avoid the dilemma in which I placed him by comparing Ex. 16: 25, and 20: 10. But he says “the contextual connection” alters the case! And so after all it is the context that does the use of the preposition that makes it definite, is it? This is the first of my knowing that a noun may be proved to be “definite by construction,” by the context, when it cannot be done by the construction of the sentence! He has given no just reason why Ex. 20:10, is definite—the true reason he denies.
(3.) My criticisms on Ex. 24: 12, he sets aside by simply reasserting his position and appealing to the learned for its justness. This is perhaps next to the best thing he could do in the case; the best would be to frankly confess his errors. If he really thinks his position is just, then I “reassert my position,” that it is because he knows nothing of Hebrew accents. And yet I query thus: It seems that he must know enough of Hebrew to be aware of the error of his statements when the facts are pointed out, even if he knew nothing of those facts before. I feared from the first that he was not so ignorant as his position would indicate; but I was willing to put the mildest possible construction on his case. There are those who will have an interest to put it into the hands of “the learned” for decision, and if Eld. Vogel is willing to risk a reassertion of his position before them, I am satisfied. I cheerfully submit it. I might point out other errors in his last, but I take leave of the Hebrew unless he opens it himself.
When I consented to hold this discussion I stipulated for the privilege of ten articles on this proposition, promising, however, to confine it to eight if possible. I have matter prepared for others, but I could not present all my proofs even with many more, and I let other considerations prevail, and thus abruptly close. The unusual length of Eld. Vogel’s last suggested this method of closing by lengthening this, reserving a summary till the final close. I think I may safely say that proofs beyond controversy have been presented that the moral law is yet of force—yet the means of condemning sin. I pray that all of our readers may weigh the evidence with that candor and reverence that is due to such an important subject.

SABBATH EVE.

By Julia H. Woodruff

FATHER! The sun, with dying glow Of gold and crimson, sinketh low, The shadows creep across the plain, The Sabbath eve is here again.
Father, earth cares—a myriad train, Have bound me with their six-days’ chain, But this calm hour brings blest release, A presage of eternal peace.
Father, each word and law of thine, But most this Sabbath hour divine, Binds to thy throne our finite powers, We feel creation’s God is ours.
Then hail, thrice-hallowed Sabbath eve, That brings from toil a sweet reprieve, That lures the earth-bound spirits hence, And links it with Omnipotence.
JULIA H. WOODRUFF.

Woodland, April 14, 1873

By M. E. Cornell

California.

The interest of the work here in Woodland is greater than ever before. Since the dedication of the church, I have been laboring constantly in public and from house to house, and while I have besought the Lord with many prayers and tears, for myself and this people, the work has revived, and increased each day until the present time. Eleven more were baptized yesterday, making, in all, twenty since the house was dedicated.
The editor of the Yolo Democrat, Mr. William Saunders, formerly editor of a paper at Charlotte, Mich., with his wife and daughter, were among the happy number baptized yesterday. Also the foreman in his office, with his wife. Bro. Saunders had investigated very thoroughly, and after weighing the matter for several months took a firm and decided stand. Being a man of sterling integrity and of good report, and highly prizing the truth he has embraced, we shall confidently hope that he will be a pillar in the cause here. The baptismal scene was one of unusual interest and solemnity. The Spirit of God rested down upon us, and many were affected to tears. Hard hearts were softened, and some noted skeptics were constrained to acknowledge that it was surely the work of God.
Several more decided last evening, and many more are under deep conviction. I had planned to go to another field before this, but can get no liberty to leave here while this harvest is ungathered. So long as my burden of prayer and freedom in speaking continues, and souls are pressing to the light by scores, I cannot leave. My courage was never better than now, and I want to say to all the workers in the cause that you may reckon on all there is left of me in this harvest work until it is done. I believe God accepts me anew as a laborer, though I feel very unworthy to be trusted with so responsible a work. My gratitude to God knows no bounds, and I praise him day and night for such goodness and mercy. The work is the Lord’s, and to him be all the glory. M. E. CORNELL.

Woodland, April 14, 1873

Obituary Notices.

Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth.
Died, at Patricksburg, Owen Co., Ind., March 19, 1873, our much esteemed sister, Rebecca McCully, in the 34th year of her age. Sister McCully had loved and observed the Sabbath with all of God’s commandments since she first saw the light, nearly three years since. She seemed to love every cross, and bear all with willingness. Her disease was consumption, and although she was a great sufferer, still she seemed to have much of the grace of God to help her to endure, till death took her. She gave good evidence of departing in the triumphs of faith, and we trust she sleeps in Jesus, and will have part in the first resurrection. Funeral discourse by Eld. D. H. Oberholtzer, S. D. A. E. B. L.
Died, near Woodburn, Clark Co., Iowa, March 3, 1873, of consumption, sister Mary A., wife of Mahlon W. Neal, aged thirty-one years, six months, and fourteen days. She leaves five children and her companion to mourn their loss. She died in hope of a part in the first resurrection. The funeral was attended the 5th. Remarks by Bro. H. Nicola, from Job 14:14. B. Auten.
Died, in Ringville, Franklin Co., N. Y., March 17, 1873, of fits caused by whooping cough, Willie E., infant son of R. and H. Town, aged seven months and eight days. Funeral sermon by H. W. Lawrence, of West Bangor. Richard Town.
Died, in Ceresco, Feb., 1873, of spinal meningitis, Thomas Crouch, near twenty years of age. Being an only child, it renders the affliction severe to his dear parents. May his mother, who is feeble in health, be sustained in this trying hour. Funeral discourse by the minister of the Baptist church in the village. J. Byington.
Died, in Hillsdale, Mich., of putrid erysipelas, Almon T. Pond, in the seventy-second year of his age.
After many years of toil and adversity, our dear father is at rest. He suffered much, as the disease went to his lungs, yet not a murmur or complaint escaped his lips. He was sick just one week. In his prolonged agony, he would look up and say, “How long, O Lord, how long!” and, “Lord, speed the time.” As if in answer to our earnest prayers, his death was like one falling into a quiet slumber.
Although we mourn our loss; yet the hope of meeting again in the glorious resurrection morning gives sweet consolation to our aching hearts. He leaves a wife and four children, one an adopted daughter, whose untiring efforts for his comfort were remarked by all.
As no minister of like faith could be had, Prof. Dunn, F. W. Baptist, spoke words of comfort on the foundation of the Christian’s hope, from 2 Cor. 4:14. E. J. Pline.
Died, at Waterloo, March 31, 1873, of consumption, after a lingering illness of months, our beloved Bro. Wm. Elwell, aged 43 years and 11 months. Our brother called his friends and weeping wife and children to his bedside, exhorting them to live out present truth. He has been a faithful soldier of the cross. He leaves a wife and five small children, who hope soon to meet him beyond this vale of tears. Funeral discourse by the writer. Text, Job 14:10. David Downer.
Died, at Lapeer, Mich., March 26, 1873, sister Margaret Castle. Sister Castle has been identified with God’s commandment-keeping people about fourteen years, having, I believe, embraced the truth under the labors of Bro. Lawrence. Funeral services by the writer from 2 Sam. 14:14. A. M. Weeks.
Died, at Waterloo, Feb. 21, 1873, Lucinda Deulard, infant child of Alrezo and Mary Deulard, aged six weeks and four days. Discourse by writer, from 2 Sam. 12:23. D. Downer.

The Lord’s Servants.

By G. W. Colcord

“And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men.” 2 Tim. 2:24.
My mind has been called, of late, to the above text, by the deportment of a public speaker, a professed minister of the Lord Jesus. I requested him to show the people wherein I had taught error—when, lo! he turned upon me, using such language, and making such gestures, that, to say the least, the people declared his demeanor wrong.
We should never try to build up self, nor the cause we love, on the mistakes of others; this is wrong. To imagine yourselves to be right, simply because we can see faults in others, is truly a superficial conclusion. “But they, measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise.” 2 Cor. 10:12.
That all our hearts may be more fully inclined to the soul-purifying service of Him who said, “Learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart,” do I offer the following thoughts:—
Our calling is to be servants, not of self, but of the Lord. How high, how holy, the vocation! As high as perfection’s mark, Phil. 3:14, and as holy as Heaven. Heb. 3:1. “And who is sufficient for these things?” No one, innately; but he who is willing to “deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow” the Lord, may say, “I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.” Oh! for that consecration that will be accepted in Heaven.
But further: Having heard the call, and become his servants, how it becomes us to yield a full and willing service, in truth; nothing short of this will be acceptable in the sight of our Maker. And until we realize this truth, we are not standing where we should. God has spoken; shall we not all give ear? “The servant of the Lord must not strive”—must not contend for the superiority—“but” he must “be gentle unto all men.” Toward those who oppose our faith, should we manifest this lovable spirit of gentleness, just as fully as toward those in unison with us.
This just requisition has reasons appended: 1. “A wrathful man stirreth up strife,” but it is appeased by him who “is slow to anger.” Prov. 15:18. 2. To allow the spirit of unsanctified contention to rule in our hearts, proves us carnal. 1 Cor. 3:3. 3. Strife is seed sown for a fruitful harvest of “every evil work.” James 3:16.
Its presence is to be deprecated in all; but especially so in the labors of the Lord’s ministers. “Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some of good will.” Phil. 1:15. Two classes are here brought to view: One preach “Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction;” “the other of love, knowing that” he is “set for the defense of the gospel.” Verses 16, 17. Popular ministers often “strive for masteries” because they fear the loss of their people’s favor—apprehend that the God-fearing members of their flock will see and cherish the light of truth, and, as a result, they will be compelled to sustain a decrement of their fame; a decrease in the membership, and a diminution of their hire. For a better description, see Isa. 56:9-12; Eze. 34:2, 3; Matt. 15:14; 23:1-8.
Dear brethren, while we would strive to “declare all the counsel of God,” may we have wisdom “to feed the church of God;” to reclaim those who “err from the truth;” and to save souls from the second death. This is our calling—but how little we realize it! Lord, help us to comply with the requirements of thy word more and more perfectly, that at last it may be said to us, “Well done.” G. W. COLCORD.

The First Prayer in Congress.

IN Thatcher's Military Journal, under date of December, 1777, is found a note containing the identical “first prayer in Congress,” made by the Rev. Jacob Duche, a gentleman of great eloquence. Here it is—a historical curiosity:—
O Lord, our Heavenly Father, high and mighty King of kings, and Lord of lords, who dost from thy throne behold all the dwellers of the earth, and reignest with power supreme and uncontrolled over all the kingdoms, empires, and governments, look down in mercy, we beseech thee, on the American States, who have fled to thee from the rod of the oppressor, and thrown themselves on thy gracious protection, desiring to be henceforth dependent only on thee. To thee they have appealed for the righteousness of their cause; to thee do they now look up for that countenance and support which thou alone canst give. Take them, therefore, Heavenly Father, unto thy nurturing care. Give them wisdom in council and valor in the field. Defeat the malicious designs of our adversaries; convince them of the unrighteousness of their course and if they still persist in sanguinary purposes, oh! let the voice of thine own unerring justice, sounding in their hearts, constrain them to drop the weapons of war from their unnerved hands in the day of battle. Be thou present, O God of wisdom, and direct the councils of this honorable assembly. Enable them to settle things on the best and surest foundations, that the scenes of blood may be speedily closed, and order, harmony and peace may be effectually restored, and truth and justice, religion and piety, prevail and flourish among thy people. Preserve the health of their bodies and the vigor of their minds; shower down upon them and the millions they here represent such temporal blessings as thou seest expedient for them in this world, and crown them with everlasting glory in the world to come. All this we ask in the name and through the merits of Jesus Christ, thy Son, our Saviour. Amen.

Government of the Tongue.

How beautiful is that admonition of St. James, from the propriety of the imagery under which the moral is conveyed! He exhorts to govern the tongue, which, though so small a member of the body, is yet of such great effect, that to govern the tongue is to govern the whole man. “If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man, and able also to bridle the whole body. Behold, we put bits in the horses’ mouths, that they may obey us, and we turn about the whole body. Behold, also, the ships, which, though they be so great, and are driven of fierce winds, yet are they turned about with a very small helm, whithersoever the governor listeth.” Nothing upon the subject can possibly exceed the eloquence of this passage; and the apostle carries on his discourse all the way in the same beautiful style of allusion.

Writing for the Paper.

IF a man could sit down and write his thoughts, just as they come to him, with the glow of feeling that comes with them, and without the restraint that is put upon him by the consciousness that he is writing for others to read, who will question his facts, controvert his views, and criticise his syntax, it would be far easier to express one's thoughts, or tell his story. Not that there is no advantage in this public censorship, for there is, both to the writer and the reader. The discipline is an advantage to him in this, it makes him more careful in his style and statements. It is an advantage to the reader, because he knows that he may have confidence in what he reads. To write for a daily newspaper, if it be news, it should be stated concisely, yet in full. If it be editorial, it should be comprehensive, plain and direct. A leader should be, in one sense, a summary of important news, or a short, clear statement of a public question or of matters vital to the interests of the people.
An editor, while he is neither a preacher, lawyer, doctor, manufacturer nor merchant, is all in one. He must know and have something to say on all that pertains to these callings. He is not to write pleas, essays, nor treatises, but to embrace something of each, as the occasion may require. A daily paper is a journal, a teacher and a guide. The man whose time is mostly taken up in his business, so that he has but little time for reading or literary entertainment, expects, when he looks over his paper at night, to find true information in good form ready for him. Those who write for the papers should observe three things—condense, write short articles, and to the point. The first excellence in a newspaper article is its point; the second, its clearness; the third, its brevity.—Providence Journal.

Appointments for Tract and Missionary Meetings and Quarterly Meetings

Appointments.

And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of Heaven is at hand
Tract and Missionary Meeting at Aledo, Ill., May 10, 11. At Serena, 17, 18. There should be an extra effort made to attend these meetings; especially should the directors of all the districts in the Conference and also the Vice-president and Secretary attend one or both of them. Bro. S. N. Haskell is expected.
Now, brethren, is our opportunity to get instructed as to the best manner of prosecuting this work. Let us not permit the pressure of the business affairs of this life to keep us away, and we thus lose the good that we might have gained by attending. R. F. ANDREWS.
PROVIDENCE permitting, I will be at Soldier Valley, Iowa, May 3 and 4; Onawa, Tuesday and Wednesday evenings, 6 and 7; at the Barcus school-house Decatur, Neb. 10 and 11. I hope to see the friends from Hooper and Mt. Pleasant at this meeting. Cherokee, Iowa, at the Bugh school-house, Tuesday and Thursday evenings, May 13 and 15. Bach Grove, at the Gensman school-house, May 17 and 18. Hook’s Point, 24 and 25. Washington, May 31 and June 1. At these meetings, opportunities will be afforded for baptism. Will Bro. Webb meet me at Duncombe Station, Friday, May 16? R. M. KILGORE.
At Parma, in Quarterly meeting, the first Sabbath in May. Hope to see a general attendance. A. S. HUTCHINS.
Quarterly meeting for S. D. Adventists of Gratiot Co., will be held at Alma, Sabbath and Sunday, May 3 and 4. Brethren and sisters from other churches are invited. G. W. STATES, Clerk.
QUARTERLY meetings of the N. Y. and Pa. T. and M. Society will be held as follows:— Dist. No. 9, at Wheeler, May 3 and 4, 1873. “ “ 10, “ Ulysses, Pa., May 10 and 11, 1873. “ “ 11, “ Where Bro. Welch may appoint, May 17 and 18. Further appointments may appear next week. P. Z. KINNE, Pres.
MONTHLY meeting at the Sands school-house, for the Onawa and Decatur churches, May 10. Will Bro. Bartlett meet with us? M. D. CLARK.

To Scattered Sabbath-Keepers in Minnesota.

By Dudley Marvin Canright

DEAR BRETHREN AND SISTERS: As I cannot see you, either at your homes or in our meetings, I take this way to address you. As nearly as I can learn, from one quarter to one-third the Seventh-day Adventists in Minnesota are scattered, one here, two or three there, &c., in almost every section of the State where they can have no meetings nor attend those we hold with the different churches. Being thus situated, many lose the spirit of the message, do not keep up with the progress of the work, leave off sacrificing for the cause, drink in the spirit of the world, and finally either backslide entirely, or live in a half dead and alive condition.
Knowing that there is greater danger of your doing this, than there would be if you were where you could have the society and encouragement of a church, I want to remind you of this danger and help you all I can. Watch yourselves, examine yourselves often, try yourselves honestly whether you are not letting the truth leak out of your hearts, little at a time. I once tried living alone for five years, and came near losing my soul. Hence, I know how to sympathize with you.
If you live as you ought and work as you should, you may be preparing the way for the truth to be preached sooner or later in your different places. If this does not come as soon as you wish, hold on, stick to it, and keep calling till you do get help. Some, after they have written once or twice for help, become tried with us because we do not immediately come, and will write no more, nor help the cause any. This is wrong and foolish. We try to plan our work in the fear of God and go where there is the best prospect.
I now have this special request to make of every Sabbath-keeper in Minnesota who either does not belong to any one of our churches or who is not now paying S. B. which he or she has pledged to some church:—
Write to me immediately at Hutchinson, McLeod Co., Minn., and state very distinctly, 1. Where you live, town and county, nearest village, railroad depot, and your post-office. 2. What is the opening to present the truth there or near there. 3. Whether you take the REVIEW, Reformer, and Instructor. 4. Tell me what you are willing to give per week for the next year, beginning April 1, 1873, for the support of the cause in Minnesota. This need not be paid now, but at any time during the year.
Come my brother, my sister, don't excuse yourself now and so do nothing while all the rest are sacrificing to help on the good work. We want you to do this more for your own sake than because we need the means, though it is needed much. We know that if you do not give something you will lose your interest in the work and the reward in the kingdom. Are you poor? So are others. Give a little. Then God will bless what you do have. You are not poorer than the poor widow. The Lord is coming soon. The harvest is being gathered. Are you helping? Don't wait till you are rich. This is a deception of the devil. Wait till you are out of debt? Yes, but you always manage to keep in debt. Don't be deceived.
Our report for Conference must be prepared soon. We want to know how the State stands, what we can depend upon for another year. What shall we report for you? Do you wish to give $1.00? That will be 2 cts per week. $5.00 will be 10 cts per week. $10.00 will be 20 cts per week, &c. Let me hear from you.
We are determined to get all our forces in Minnesota into good order and working condition this season so far as possible. Will you help us? or do you feel no interest in the cause?
D. M. CANRIGHT.
Continue reading: News and Miscellany