Earlier text: General ArticlesThe Lombards fixed their name forever upon a part of the fallen empire of Western Rome. Lombardy in the north of Italy perpetuates the name of this nation, which at one time even spread its name over all Italy. Although in Italy was the place where the Lombards permanently fixed their kingdom, and to which their name was given, that was not their first settlement within the Western Empire. They, as well as the Ostrogoths, had been subjects of the empire of Attila and obtained their freedom, settling in Noricum on the Danube, at the death of that savage warrior. They were of Vandal blood and were the kindred of the Heruli and Burgundians. See Gibbon’s Decline and Fall, chap. 10, par. 8. “The name Lombard is the Italianized form of the national name of a Teutonic tribe, Langobardi, itself an Italian arrangement based on a supposed etymology of the Teutonic Langbardi, Langobardi, the form used when they are first named by the Roman writers—Velleius and Tacitus. The etymology which made the name mean Longbeard is too obvious not to have suggested itself to the Italians, and perhaps to themselves; it is accepted by their first native chronicler, Paul the Deacon, who wrote in the time of Charles the Great [Charlemagne]. But the name has also been derived from the region where they are first heard of. On the left bank of the Elbe, ‘where Börde or Bord still signifies a fertile plain by the side of a river,’ a district near Magdeburg is still called the Lange Börde; and lower down the Elbe, on the same side, about Lüneburg, Bardengau, with its Bardewik, is still found; it is here that Velleius, who accompanied Tiberius in his campaign in this part of Germany, and who first mentions the name, places them. As late as the age of their Italian settlement [A. D. 568] the Lombards are called Bardi in poetical epitaphs, though this may be for the convenience of metre. “Their own legends bring the tribe as worshipers of Odin [Woden] from Scandinavia to the German shore of the Baltic, under the name of Winnili, a name which was given to them in a loose way as late as the twelfth century. By the Roman and Greek writers of the first two centuries of our era they are spoken of as occupying, with more or less extension at different times, the region which is now Hanover and the Altmark of Prussia. To the Romans they appeared a remarkable tribe: ‘gens etiam Germanis feritate ferocior’ [fierce, bold, and savage above all the tribes of the Germans], says Velleius, who had fought against them under Tiberius; and Tacitus describes them as a race which, though few in numbers, more than held their own among numerous powerful neighbors by their daring and love of war. In the quarrels of the tribes they appear to have extended their borders; in Ptolemy’s account of Germany, in the second century, they fill a large space among the races of the northwest and north.”—Encyc. Brit., art. Lombards, par. 2, 3. “The Lombards. This corrupt appellation has been diffused in the thirteenth century by the merchants and bankers, the Italian posterity of these savage warriors; but the original name of Langobards is expressive only of the peculiar length and fashion of their beards. I am not disposed either to question or to justify their Scandinavian origin; nor to pursue the migrations of the Lombards through unknown regions and marvelous adventures. About the time of Augustus and Trajan, a ray of historic light breaks on the darkness of their antiquities, and they are discovered, for the first time, between the Elbe and the Oder. Fierce, beyond the example of the Germans, they delighted to propagate the tremendous belief, that their heads were formed like the heads of dogs, and that they drank the blood of their enemies, whom they vanquished in battle. The smallness of their numbers was recruited by the adoption of their bravest slaves; and alone, amidst their powerful neighbors, they defended by arms their high-spirited independence. In the tempests of the north, which overwhelmed so many names and nations, this little bark of the Lombards still floated on the surface; they gradually descended towards the south and the Danube; and, at the end of four hundred years, they again appear with their ancient valor and renown. Their manners were not less ferocious.”—Decline and Fall, chap. 42, par. 2. When Attila united under his dreadful sway the kingdoms of both Germany and Scythia, the nation of the Lombards was certainly comprised in the number of his subjects. And although Gibbon does not mention them by name, as indeed he so mentions very few, when “the kings and nations of Germany and Scythia obeyed the warlike summons of Attila,” to invade the Western Empire, A. D. 451–453, yet we consider it impossible that a nation so war-loving, so “fierce beyond the example of the Germans,” should have been left behind by Attila when he went on such an important expedition as this,—an expedition in which he knew that he needed every obtainable element of warlike strength. If we had no more definite account than this general narrative of Gibbon’s, we believe we would by it be justified in the conclusion that the “ferocious” warriors of the Lombard nation were numbered with the forces with which Attila invaded Gaul and Italy; and that that nation among others regained their freedom at the death of Attila. But besides this probable and just deduction, we have definite authority to this effect:— “Attila’s sudden death, either by hemorrhage, or the vengeance of his Burgundian bride, checked the progress of the Hunnish Empire. The Ostrogoths, the Gepidæ, and the Langobards obtained their independence after a severe struggle, whilst the remains of the nomadic Huns were lost in the rich pastoral steppes of Southern Russia.”—Weber’s Outlines of Universal History, sec. 180. [Dr. Geo. Weber was professor and director of the High School of Heidelberg, Germany.] To show more clearly not only the position of the Lombards after the battle of the Netad, but also that of the principal nations which had been subject to Attila, we would state:— 1. On the left bank of the Danube where it flows south, Attila’s brother, Dengisich, with the remains of the Huns, “maintained his ground above fifteen years,” in a kingdom that was “confined to the circle of his wagons.” In A. D. 453, these Huns crossed the river and made an attack upon the Ostrogoths, but were repulsed by a single division of the Ostrogoths under Walamir. About A. D. 468, Dengisich, with his “kingdom,” invaded the Eastern Empire, but lost his life, and his brother Irnac led the remnant of the Hunnish nation away into the Lesser Scythia, whence their fathers had come nearly a hundred years before.—Decline and Fall, chap. 35, par. 16; chap. 39, par. 2. 2. The Scyrri, whose king, Edecon,—the father of Odoacer—“enjoyed the favor of Attila,” and whose part it was in their turn to guard the royal village, remained in alliance with Dengisich for about thirteen years, when in a second bloody battle with the Ostrogoths, about A. D. 465, Edecon was killed and the Scyrri were defeated and dispersed.—Id., chap. 36, par. 29. 3. The wooden palace of Attila, on the Teyss, with the plains of what is now Upper Hungary, and “the old country of Dacia, from the Carpathian hills [and after Dengisich left, even from the Danube] to the Euxine [Black Sea],” became the seat of a new power which was erected by Ardaric, king of the Gepidæ,” and was possessed by that nation about a hundred years.—Id., chap. 35, par. 16; chap. 42, par. 2. 4. North of the Gepidæ, and extending into “the southern provinces of Poland,” was the country of the Heruli.—Id., chap. 42, par. 2. 5. On the west side of the Danube, as already shown, the Ostrogoths held “the Pannonian conquests from Vienna to Sirmium.” [Sirmium was near the mouth of the Save.] 6. On the Danube above Vienna, and as best we can make out, possessing for awhile at least both banks of the river, was seated the Lombards, who, as we have seen, regained their independence at the death of Attila, A. D. 453. Some time afterward, at the command of the daughter of the king of the Lombards, a brother of the king of the Heruli was assassinated while a royal guest at the Lombard palace, apparently as a suitor for the hand of the Lombard princess. This brought on a war and the Heruli were successful in imposing upon the Lombards “a tribute, the price of blood.” We know not to a certainty how long the tribute was paid. We only know that the success of the Heruli made them insolent, and that their insolence was paid for by their ruin. The narrative of these troubles and the result is given by Gibbon in a few words:— “The assassination of a royal guest was executed in the presence, and by the command, of the king’s daughter, who had been provoked by some words of insult, and disappointed by his diminutive stature; and a tribute, the price of blood, was imposed on the Lombards, by his brother, the king of the Heruli. Adversity revived a sense of moderation and justice, and the insolence of conquest was chastised by the signal defeat and irreparable dispersion of the Heruli, who were seated in the southern provinces of Poland.”—Decline and Fall, chap. 42, par. 2. This expedition carried the main body of the Lombards beyond the Danube for awhile, but the exploit only the more firmly established their power which was afterward further displayed in the extirpation of the Gepidæ, as will be related further on. For the present we shall merely state that, in A. D. 526–536, they took entire possession of Noricum and Pannonia, which they held till A. D. 566, when they removed to Italy and established their kingdom in the valley of the Po. The causes and the course of these events will be related in connection with the establishment of the Papacy. HEART in religion is the main thing. We can never be perfect in knowledge, but we may be perfect in love. We can never know God fully, but we may love him with all our heart. This God requires, and this he esteems above everything else. Out of this will naturally grow obedience. “If ye love me,” says Christ, “keep my commandments.” Obedience is both the fruit and evidence of our love. A loving heart and an obedient life are inseparable. The one can not exist without the other. As soon as a man loves God he has the spirit of consecration, the spirit of obedience, the spirit of service; and while love continues to dominate the heart, that spirit of service manifests itself in the life. How true it is, then, that “love is the fulfilling of the law.” Heart religion is the only kind of religion that is worth having. It is the pure in heart that shall see God.—Methodist Recorder. TRUTHS which men disrelish, they soon persuade themselves to reject. The thought of strict, personal responsibility, which the idea of a God involves, is very disagreeable to a carnal and corrupt heart, and men by various processes persuade themselves to believe that there is no God, and thus relieve themselves of the uneasiness which a sense of responsibility and of future retribution involves. Unbelief is a sad evidence of a bad heart.—Methodist Recorder. Disobedience Dangerous.
By S. F. Bollman
“Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.” 1 Sam. 15 : 22. AMONGST the numerous lessons taught us in the Bible concerning the danger of disobedience, few are more instructive than the failure of Saul to carry out the Lord’s instructions in regard to the destruction of the Amalekites. God’s judgments and requirements are always righteous and infallible; and men’s, in so far as they vary from divine requirements, are always erring and fallacious. The Lord, through the instrumentality of Saul, designed to visit punishment on the Amalekites as the cup of their iniquity was full. See 1 Sam. 15 : 2. Saul, instead of executing his instructions to the letter, presumed that an approximate obedience would be sufficient; but his departure from specific instructions cost him his kingdom, “Because thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, he hath also rejected thee from being king.” 1 Sam. 15 : 23. A notable instance of the exactness which the Lord requires in services concerning which he has given specific instructions, may be found in Lev. 10 : 1, 2, where Nadab and Abihu, who, although authorized to offer sacrifices and burn incense to the Lord under certain conditions and in a certain way, for not observing the specific requirements, were devoured by fire from the Lord. Another notable instance, showing that exact obedience to the Lord’s requirements is absolutely essential, is found in the 16th chapter of Numbers. There the rebellion of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, and certain princes, famous men in the congregation, is recorded, with the swift destruction which overtook them for finding fault with Moses and Aaron for obeying the Lord and carrying out in detail all particulars as commanded them. And further, even Moses himself, for hastiness of spirit, and not giving God the glory in the matter of bringing water from the rock at Meribah (Num. 20 : 10–13), was not permitted to go over into the goodly land which he viewed from Pisgah’s top, but “died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the Lord. And he buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Beth-peor.” Deut. 34 : 5, 6. Compare also Deut. 3 : 26, 27. But not only does the Bible abound with instances of the punishment of individuals for transgressions of his law, but also of nations as well. We mention the captivity of the Jews in Babylon as an instance in point. The particular sin long persevered in, which resulted in their being carried into captivity, was their breaking of the Lord’s Sabbath, and the consequent idolatry which followed from their forgetting that the Lord created the heavens and the earth and all the hosts of them; hence, by the rivers of Babylon, with their harps hung upon the willows, they mourned their lost privileges; and wept when they thought upon Zion. If God, then, in the past, has visited upon his peculiar people severe judgments and sore chastisements because of their transgressions of his laws and violation of his commandments, may we not expect that his requirements will be insisted upon with the same inflexibility to the end? Most assuredly, men may not construct creeds or systems of faith which contradict God’s revealed will or moral law without suffering the penalty which he has attached to a transgression of his commandments, “though hand join in hand the [wicked persons, communities, or denominations] shall not be unpunished.” Prov. 16 : 5. In 2 Thess. 1 : 7, 8 we are assured that the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from Heaven “in flaming fire, taking vengeance on them that know not God and obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.” It is obedience to what God has revealed and clearly expressed as obligatory upon the children of men, which will be the test in the Judgment. If those were times of ignorance concerning the perpetual obligation to keep the Lord’s Sabbath, those times are surely now past, and the providence of God in the Third Angel’s Message, now going forth and being proclaimed in the world, surely calls upon men to repent of Sabbath breaking and to honor the Lord by keeping the seventh day as the Sabbath, instead of the first which has no divine authority for its observance. In order to render acceptable service to God, it must be from a proper motive. The inward feeling of the heart must be in harmony with the outward act. God looks at the heart.—Sel. IN a recent letter to the Sunday School Times, one correspondent speaking of what another had written says:— “A writer in the Sunday School Times, referring to the common habit of using words of which we do not realize the meaning, has said, that to many in all our congregations, the words of the hymns which we sing are the words of an unknown speech,—known, indeed, in outward form, but unknown in life and spirit. The truth of these words I have often been reminded of, especially at our communion services, when it is the custom in our church, after the sacrament, to sing a verse or two of that beautiful hymn, ‘Jesus, I my cross have taken, all to leave and follow thee.’ Now it sounds comical to hear an ordinary congregation of well-dressed, comfortable-looking people singing these words. Think of a woman with a silk gown on, and a stuffed bird in her hat, standing up and singing, ‘Naked, poor, despised, forsaken, Thou from hence my all shalt be.’ And then for many of us to sing, ‘Perish earthly fame and treasure,’ is about as bad, for how much fame and treasure have we got to lose! We read of one who chose rather to suffer affliction with the people of God than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season; esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasure of Egypt; but we don’t hear him reminding the Lord of it every little while. Indeed, he seems to have forgotten all about the pleasures of Egypt after he had his mind fixed on the promised land. “Most men’s vocabulary for religion and sentiment is rich and lofty beyond their needs; the terms which are applicable to the great crises of the soul, are applied indiscriminately to every passing emotion. Only the other day, in speaking of the words ‘Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness,’ I heard some one say that everybody hungered and thirsted after righteousness—more or less. This kind of talk is quite common in these days. Some people seem to want to bring everything down to their own level; they don’t want to think of anything higher that what they find in themselves, or any one nobler or more heroic than themselves.” Sin Should Be Called Sin.
MEN pay their tribute to virtue by their careful evasion of the plain facts about their personal vices. Many a man who does not scruple at doing a wrong, will resent the suggestion that he has done that wrong under its ordinary name. A man will feel justified, for example, in saying that which is not true about a matter that he is deeply interested in concealing; but he will not admit that he is “a liar.” No, indeed! Even if he takes money from his employers who have trusted him, he is not ready to say squarely that he is “a thief.” Far from that! Even if he were to kill a man in a duel, when he had tried to do it, he would not think it fair if he were called “a murderer.” Of course not! Indeed, there are very few persons who are willing to have their particular transgression called by its appropriate designation. But, however they may feel about it, it is not right for any of us to become partners in their crime, or apologizers for their criminality, by refusing to stigmatize their mode of sinning by its proper Saxon name.
—S. S. Times. Boycotting and Papistical Excommunication
“WHY are some of the newspapers so mealy-mouthed about the origin of boycotting? Why do they not say plainly that it is simply an imitation, or adaptation, or application of Papistical excommunication; and that it partakes of the arrogance, insolence, and impertinence, the injustice and merciless cruelty, the extreme barbarity of Papistical excommunication?”—Christian Intelligencer. The Religious Amendment.
By R. F. COTRELL
The position of those who insist upon Christianizing our Government is truly marvelous. Their organ, the Christian Statesman, sees the corruption, the utter rottenness, of Government officers and political parties, and also that, in the history of the past, such corruption as now exists here has been the certain prelude to national overthrow; and yet a firm hope is cherished that amid this teeming corruption we are suddenly to arise to the eminence of a truly Christian government, an eminence that has never been attained by any earthly government during the more than eighteen hundred years of the preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Such a transformation would be marvelous in the extreme. The faith and hope they entertain is bold indeed. It looks for wonders; wonders not exceeded by a resurrection of the dead. This, God has promised; but the other, never. The hope of the resurrection is sure; because it rests in the promise and the power of God, the God who spoke the universe from naught. But how men can expect that out of the mass of civil and political rottenness which they see existing, purity is suddenly to arise, and that from the prevailing iniquity and infidelity a pure, moral, and truly Christian government is about to come forth, and all this without a single promise of God to that effect, is a thing too wonderful to be expressed in words; “expressive silence” itself can only faintly point to the amazement due to so bold a hope. And it is not only contrary to all appearance, and without a promise of God, but in direct opposition to what God has said of the latter days of the dispensation. “The Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith;” “evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse;” “in the last days perilous times shall come,” and “when they shall say, Peace and safety, sudden destruction shall come upon them.” Said Jesus: “Because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold; but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved;” and, “as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.” The religious amendment which they demand has no other hope of success but by securing the suffrage of one or another of the corrupt political parties. When it shall be clearly seen that this “Christian party in politics” holds the balance of power, the most corrupt and degraded politicians will not scruple to espouse their cause, in order to their own advancement, and aid in the glorious work of fabricating what the world never saw, a government truly Christian. Then the fabled millennium of “peace and safety” will have begun. Out of the rotten materials of a degenerate republic, out of iniquity and infidelity, the true spiritual reign of righteousness and peace, the kingdom of God on the earth, is to be built! And this by the suffrages of a corrupt people, and contrary to the word of the living God! Did men of sane mind ever entertain a hope so preposterous? Their Wisdom Is Perished.
By W.
The subject of the International Sunday-school Lesson for August 15 was “Christ Teaching Humility,” the text being John 13:1–17. We do not design in this article to consider in detail the subject of feet-washing as a Christian ordinance, for that ground was thoroughly canvassed in the “Notes” in the SIGNS of that week; but we wish to call attention to some of the “expositions” of the text that are given in the various religious journals. First, we pick up the Christian Union. It says on verses 12–16:— “Feet-washing seems here to be as explicitly commanded as the Lord’s Supper. Yet there is no evidence that it was practiced in apostolic times, nor is in general use in the Christian church to-day. It is practiced in some Greek convents, by the Pope once a year on Maunday Thursday, and by some minor Baptist sects, chiefly confined to Pennsylvania. This apparent disregard of Christ’s seemingly explicit command can be defended only on the general ground that no ceremonial is of the essence of Christianity; that what Christ prescribes is not the symbol, but the spirit symbolized.”
Then we think it would be well for “the Christian church” to learn the meaning of these words which are found in this connection: “The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him.” If Christ gave an explicit command (as he did in this instance), and “the church” has taken it upon itself to decide that compliance with that command is not necessary, then certainly the servant has, in his own estimation, got quite a distance above his Lord. “No ceremonial is of the essence of Christianity.” Very true; but that is no reason for disregarding the ceremony if it is commanded. We should not refuse to follow certain ordinances because those ordinances may be performed in a mechanical manner, but should see to it that we perform them with the spirit. We all know that love is shown by obedience to the expressed wishes of another. We also know that a child may mechanically or from necessity obey any given command, and that then the obedience indicates no love. That is, love is manifested, not by the mere performance of any act, but by the spirit with which that act is performed. Now recognizing this fact, a boy will say, “It seems quite plain that my father told me to care for this garden; but since the essence of love and obedience is not in any form, nor in outward acts of obedience, I will pay no attention to what he has said, but will be sure to have a strong feeling of love in my heart.” The father would quickly decide that such a son was too “progressive.” It is not true that feet-washing was not practiced in apostolic times, as is shown by 1 Tim. 5:10. But even if the Saviour’s command had never been obeyed, that would not be the shadow of a reason why we should not obey it. Next we pick up the Methodist Recorder. On verse 14 it has the following:— “The command will rather find its fulfillment in all kinds of mutual condescension and help than in any literal observance.”—Alford.
Oh, yes; that settles the matter. Mr. Alford’s dictum is sufficient. To be sure Christ said, “Ye also ought to wash one another’s feet,” but Dean Alford says that he didn’t mean what he said, and so we need not trouble ourselves over the matter any more. This is a sample of the pernicious use of commentaries, and of the perniciousness of nine-tenths of the comments that are written. When a man gives a scholarly criticism on the meaning of some terms in the original, or when he compares several texts bearing on one point, and shows the necessary conclusion therefrom,—that is legitimate comment; but when he ventures to give his own opinion of a text, unsupported by any authority, it were better for that man if he had never written a commentary; and people who implicitly trust any commentator who will even once give his own opinion as to the meaning of a text, are willingly walking into darkness. The Christian at Work has a comment very similar to that of the Christian Union. It says:— “Finally the application of the entire transaction comes out in the words: ‘If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet, ye also ought to wash one another’s feet.’ This is not to be literally understood; for neither the apostles nor the members of the early church, though acting under the direction of the Spirit, ever actually practiced feet-washing as a religious rite.”
To this we would say, (1) That because a public record of the performance of an act is not kept, that is no evidence that the act was not done. The thing having been commanded, we naturally conclude that it was practiced, except when the church was not led by the Spirit; for obedience to known requirement is an evidence of being led by the Spirit. (2) In 1 Tim. 2:10, feet-washing is mentioned by Paul as a well-known Christian duty, and one entirely distinct from acts of hospitality and relieving the afflicted. (3) Obligation to perform any deed can rest only on an expressed commandment, and not on the action of any other persons. When a thing is commanded, it is our duty to do it, even if everybody else disregards it. But the Christian at Work overthrows its own theory when it says concerning the Saviour’s command:— “It means that as the Lord found it not inconsistent with the highest dignity and glory to minister in all lowliness unto the weakest, so we must find exaltation and happiness by doing likewise.”
Just above it said that feet-washing is not to be practiced, because (as it claims) the apostles and the members of the early church did not do so. Then by the same “reasoning,” ministering unto the weak and lowly is not to be done unless “the church” in all ages has done so. Now the veriest tyro in history knows that the great apostasy began in the very days of the apostles, when there were many in the church who loved to have the pre-eminence, and that for hundreds of years the members of the church, instead of finding exaltation and happiness in serving the weak, found it in building themselves up at the expense of others. And so according to the popular exposition of John 13:1–16, it is now every man’s duty to look out for himself, regardless of others. When one begins to “explain away” the Bible, he may as well throw it away. The Sabbath Recorder, however, caps the climax of absurdity in the following extract:— “In company with a traveling companion, we reached the house of another friend about noon, after a long journey on foot, under a hot sun, and over a dusty road. We had barely passed the customary greetings, and taken our seats in the back room, when the good woman of the house asked us to take off our boots. Seeing that we hesitated, she repeated her request in a manner which plainly showed that she was not joking. We accordingly took them off, and she took them out of the room. Presently she returned them as neatly blackened as they had been for some time. When she set them down she said, ‘And thus I have fulfilled my Lord’s command to wash the disciples’ feet.’ And who shall say that she had not done so?”
Everybody ought to say that she did not. In the first place, even if our Saviour’s command had reference only to acts of hospitality, it would not be fulfilled by performing such acts and then calling attention to it. True hospitality, as well as true obedience, is unostentatious. But the idea of saying that for one person to black another’s boots is a fulfillment of our Lord’s words, “Ye also ought to wash one another’s feet,” is too absurd for serious comment. According to this exposition, the Saviour’s words should be read thus: “If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet, ye also ought to black one another’s boots! For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.” The simple statement of the case refutes it. Besides, the reader will notice that the act of feet-washing is to be reciprocal: “Ye also ought to wash one another’s feet.” Now, allowing that to wash feet means to black boots, in order to have the command fulfilled in the case under consideration, the editor of the Recorder ought to have turned around and blacked the good woman’s shoes. The very absurdity of such an exposition as the above is, after all, the most serious thing about it; for it is sad to think that men will thus sport with divine commands. It is nothing less than making void the commandments of God. On the same principle men rest on Sunday, and say that they are thus obeying the Lord’s command to “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.” With as much reason others are sprinkled with a few drops of water, and say that they are obeying the injunction to be baptized. On such a principle of interpretation there is no conceivable act that may not be construed into obedience to some divine command. It is sad to think that because of such evasions of plain precepts, men are losing their power to comprehend the simplest truths; but so it is. The Lord says: “Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honor me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precepts of men; therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvelous work among this people, even a marvelous work and a wonder; for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid.” Isa. 29:13, 14. When a wise man turns aside from the plain commandments of the Lord, he becomes the most dangerous of counselors. W. D. C. asks: “When will Matt. 25:31-46 be fulfilled? Are ‘my brethren’ (verse 40) a third class distinct from the sheep and the goats? It seems as if those who have heard the gospel would not be so surprised at the words of Christ.” A reading of the text itself should suffice to answer the question. “When the Son of man shall come in His glory, and all the holy angels with him,” can be nothing but the glorious second advent of Christ, when “he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other” (Matt. 24:31); when “he shall reward every man according to his works.” Matt. 16:27. At that time, as now, there will be but two classes,—the righteous and the wicked. A reading of the passage will show that those on the right hand, the sheep, are the righteous, and that those on the left, the goats, are the wicked. There is not now, nor will there ever be, any class between these two; if a man is not good, he is bad: there can be no middle ground. Says Christ: “He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.” Matt. 12:30. Now as to the question of surprise which the righteous ask, verses 37-39, we see nothing in it to indicate that those who ask it have never heard the gospel. Humility is the characteristic of the Christian. If they have learned of Jesus, who is meek and lowly of heart, they will be very unconscious of their own worthiness. There will be no551 spirit of boasting. If they should say, “Yes, Lord, we know that we have done all these things; we have served you faithfully,” that would be an indication that they had heard the gospel in vain. See Matt. 7: 22, 23. But no such spirit will exist among those who are really Christ’s. No one will think of proclaiming his own worthiness, because, as a matter of fact, no one will have any worthiness of his own, but will be “complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power.” Col. 2:10. And so instead of thinking of themselves, or claiming anything because of their own merit, the redeemed will with one accord unite in saying, “Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honor, and glory, and blessing.” Camp-Meeting in Santa Barbara County.
By W.
This meeting, the third of the kind that has been held in the State this season, was held at Santa Maria, just within the north boundary line of Santa Barbara County. The camp was located in a eucalyptus grove close by the village, and was a pleasant place to see. Its arrangement, as well as the uniform quiet on the grounds, and the promptness and order with which everything was conducted, called forth many expressions of surprise and admiration from all who attended either as campers or as transient visitors. Many had supposed that camp-meetings were always scenes of disorder and confusion; they seemed surprised to learn that people can worship God in a house of cotton with as much decorum and reverence as they can in a house of wood. The attendance, both of our own people and of others, was small. The time of the camp-meeting was a little unfortunate, it being a time when nearly everybody was engaged in threshing. This, of course, was sufficient reason for the limited transient attendance; and the fact that our brethren in that section have newly come to the faith, and could not realize the importance of a camp-meeting, will account for the absence of some of them. But we think that an impression was made on all who were present that will be lasting, and that will not be confined simply to them. Visitors who came out of curiosity went away to sound the praises of a meeting where all was peace and quiet; and some who were in the dark as to duty, went away rejoicing in the light of present truth. All seemed very grateful for the instruction given, and no one could doubt but that the souls of all were refreshed, as they testified of their increased knowledge of the love and mercy of God, and of their determination to press forward to new victories in the strength of that love. The spirit of sacrifice manifested by those who came to the meeting was commendable, and will, we believe, bear fruit. From nearly one hundred miles south, and from an equal distance north, women and children rode in open wagons over mountain roads, camping out at night under their wagons, that they might be present. It is almost needless to add that they were present at the beginning of the meeting, and that they stayed until the close. This is not, however, meant as a reproach to those who were present only a portion of the time. We are convinced that all made the strongest effort possible under the circumstances. The expenses of the meeting were promptly and cheerfully met. As an item of encouragement we also note that the attention of many is being directed to the College, and that some from the southern country will attend the coming term. We believe that our educational institutions were planted in the providence of God, and that upon them largely depends the future of the young among us, as well as the general advancement of the cause. We believe that God designs them to wield an influence that has as yet scarcely been dreamed of but by few. All left for their homes with good courage, with regrets that the meeting closed so soon, and with a determination that the next one should be more largely attended if their influence could do aught toward accomplishing that result. W.