WITH the Sunday-law advocates "there is no recognition of the right of every man to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, but every man must worship according to the dictates of the conscience of the Sunday-law claimant. Yet even this is not entirely the true statement of the case, but rather that every man must worship according to the will of the Sunday-law claimant. We say will, because in this case, as a matter of fact, there is no conscience at all."
That there is no recognition of the rights of conscience in others, is proved by the following quotation from the organ of the National Reform party, the Christian Statesman, of November 1, 1883: "If there be any Christian who objects to the proposed amendment on the ground that it might touch the conscience of the infidel, it seems to me that it would be in order to inquire whether he himself should not have some conscience in the matter." In the same article it is plainly shown that whoever does not keep Sunday stands in the same position as the infidel; and so it appears that whatever religious rites they may choose to have enforced by law, it must be so wholly out of respect for their wishes who will have it so, with no regard for the consciences of any who differ with them. And now as they so decidedly show that they will not respect our conscience, we propose to show that in this thing, at least, their action does not spring from conscience at all, and that therefore, on their part, there is no conscience for us to respect.
CONSCIENCE
Is defined by Webster's Unabridged to be "the moral faculty; the moral sense;" and "the English word implies a moral standard of action in the mind." Now the only moral standard of action for the human mind that there is in existence, is the moral law, the law of God, the ten commandments. That this definition and this statement are strictly in accordance with the Scripture is readily seen by Heb. 10:15, 16: "The Holy Ghost also is a witness to us; for after that he had said before, this is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them." "Written . . . with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshly tables of the heart." 2 Cor. 3:3. "So then," says Paul, "with the mind I myself serve the law of God." Rom. 7:25.
Again, "For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God." "Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience." Heb. 9:13, 14; 10:22. So then the blood of Christ cleanses the conscience "from dead works," "from evil," from sin. But how does the conscience discover that it is defiled by sin? Rom. 3:20 answers: "By the law is the knowledge of sin." And 1 John 3:4: "Sin is the transgression of the law."
Once more; Rom. 2:14, 15: "When the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves; which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness." When the Gentiles do the things contained in the law, their conscience bears witness. And by doing the things of the law, they show the work of the law written in their hearts, and to that their conscience bears witness. Observe, the conscience bears witness only to the things contained in the law. Therefore8as much of the law of God as is in the heart so much conscience a man has, and no more. By these "proofs of Holy Writ," then, the definition above given is justified, and it is proved that the ten commandments are the moral standard of action of the human mind; that they are the detector of the stains of sin upon the conscience; that they are the great regulator of the conscience; and that, virtually, the law of God is conscience. And by these proofs it is clear that when, out of respect for the law of God, a person does what is commanded in the law, he acts conscientiously. And it is equally clear that when a person, with the law of God before him, chooses to go contrary to the plain reading of the text of the law, he does not act conscientiously, but willfully, and his own will becomes the standard of his mind, and so conscience is shut out.
The fourth commandment is the original and only moral standard of action that there is in the world regarding the observance of the Sabbath. It alone is the regulator of the conscience on that subject. By it alone can be detected Sabbath-breaking stains upon the conscience. Obedience to it, out of respect to the commandment and its Author, is conscientious obedience. Disobedience to it, even though we seek to substitute another day, cannot be conscientiousness.
"Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work. Thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it." Ex. 20: 8-11. This commandment is just as plain as it can be written, even by the Lord himself. So that to everyone who can read it, his duty is plain, and he is without excuse in disobedience. There is in it room for only one possible question; that is, What day is the seventh day? and having found it, honestly before God, to obey the word with all our God-given powers; and to such obedience, and to such only, conscience bears witness; such obedience is conscientious.
Sunday-keeping is no part of the law of God. The Sunday institution is not based upon the fourth commandment; nor is it sanctioned by it. No man can read the first day of the week, the Sunday, into the commandment without destroying the commandment. And outside of the fourth commandment no one claims any commandment for Sunday-keeping in the Bible. They know there is no such commandment in all the Book. Therefore, as there is no commandment from God for the observance of Sunday, as there is no law of God on the subject, its observance cannot be a matter of conscience. Being not of God, there is nothing in it that can be recognized by the conscience, which is of God. Not resting upon the authority of God, it rests upon no authority that the conscience can respect. And there lies the weakness of the Sunday cause. If there were anything in it that would touch the conscience, anything that the conscience could recognize; if it rested upon authority that the conscience could respect, its advocates, moving in the fear of God, would never have need to ask for human laws to compel people to observe it.
If, then, the Sunday institution and Sunday laws are not founded in conscience, from what do they spring? From
SUPERSTITION.
Superstition is defined by Webster: "Extreme and unnecessary scruples in the observance of religious rites not commanded." In the zeal and the efforts of the National Reform party and of those who demand laws compelling the observance of Sunday, this definition is met exactly. The keeping of Sunday religiously is the observance of a rite absolutely not commanded by the Lord in any place in all his revelation to men. Let them show us a commandment from the Lord for the observance of Sunday and we will willingly and gladly keep it, and do all that we possibly can to get all others to observe it; and thus on our part at least they will have no need of the enactment of laws enforcing its observance. Let them show us from the Bible, Old Testament or New, any such expression in favor of Sunday as that "ye ought" to keep it, or that "I have given you an example that ye should do" it, or that "happy are ye if ye do" it, and we will obey the injunction, and thenceforth will keep Sunday. We will keep it conscientiously. And until they shall open the Bible and show us a command for it, that we may see it and say, This is the word of God, until then we utterly refuse to keep it, civil law or constitutional amendment to the contrary notwithstanding. But they never can produce such a commandment, and they know it, and therefore they will have civil enactments and constitutional amendment to supply their want, and thus seek to remedy the fatal defect.
More, as we find in the Bible, in the moral law, that great regulator of the conscience, a plain commandment enjoining the observance of the seventh day as the Sabbath of the Lord, our consciences oblige us to keep it so, out of conscientious regard for the authority of the Author of the law. And so long as that commandment stands, and they fail to produce from the word of God a commandment for us to keep the first day, just so long we refuse to give up the observances of that which is commanded, to adopt the practice of that which is not commanded. In other words, and according to the definitions given above, we refuse to yield our conscience for their superstition.
By some this may be thought strong language. But the question is not, Is it strong? but, Is it true? And the answer must be, according to the Scriptures, and the highest authority in the English language. It is true. And it being also true that for the sake of this superstition, its advocates will annul the chartered liberties of this whole liberty-loving people; liberties which were bought with much blood and untold suffering; liberties for which our fathers pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor; liberties which have been the vital principle in the work of every reformer from the day of Arnold of Brescia to our own; liberties which are the legitimate outgrowth of the Reformation as a whole, and consequent upon the spread of its enlightenment,—when all these must be ruthlessly torn away, and relentlessly crushed out, for the establishment of a superstition, we know of no words that would be too strong by which to characterise it. We cannot sit idly by and see all our so dearly-bought rights so cruelly taken away. They urge the contest upon us, and in the name of civil and religious liberty, in the name of human rights, in the name of conscience, in the name of Him who alone can cleanse the conscience from all stain, and in the name of Him who alone is Ruler of the conscience, we accept the issue. We accept the issue, and in conscience reject the superstition.
J.
BRIEF COMMENTS.
THE CHARGE TO JOSHUA.
THE number of times that the Lord tells Joshua to be strong and of good courage is worthy of note. After telling him that he will be with him even as he was with Moses, and that he will not fail him, the Lord says, "Be strong and of a good courage" (chapter 1:6); then follows the assurance that he shall divide the land among the Israelites. In the next verse he says again, "Only be thou strong and very courageous." Then follows an admonition to do according to all that was written in the law, and to meditate upon it day and night; and then exhortation is again given: "Have not I commanded thee? Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed."
The Lord does not desire that his people should give way to discouragement. The same exhortation that was addressed to those who were about to enter into the earthly Canaan, is applicable to the Israel of God, who are striving for an inheritance in the heavenly Canaan. "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed." Why not be discouraged? Are we not weak? and is not our enemy powerful? Would it not be presumptuous in us to feel strong and confident? Yes; it would if we depended only on our own strength; but fortunately we have also the same promise that was made to Joshua. It is this: "For the Lord thy God is with thee whithersoever thou goest." And he has also said, "I will not fail thee, nor forsake thee." The Christian should ever realize this glorious truth: "The eternal God is thy refuge, and underneath are the everlasting arms." Knowing this, how can he become discouraged? The apostle's exhortation is, "Be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might." Eph. 6:10.
"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me; and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand." This scripture should fill every follower of Christ with encouragement. So long as they hear his voice, and follow where it leads, they are safe. No one, not even Satan, can snatch them away. God is "greater than all." Though trials and temptations may come, "God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it." 1 Cor. 10:13. Christ also says: "In the world ye shall have tribulation; but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." John 16:33. And to strengthen the assurance, he adds: "I and my Father are one." When both the Father and the Son unite for man's salvation, what confidence may we feel!
But while we gain courage from the fact that he is "able to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him," we are not to be presumptuous. Jesus said, "No man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand," but he did not say that no man could take himself out. This scripture has been perverted, and made to teach that no follower of Christ can fall away. That this view is incorrect, is shown by many passages. We are exhorted thus: "Hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown." Rev. 3:11. We are told also, "He that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved." Matt. 24:13. For positive testimony, see Heb. 6:4-6. Our Lord says also: "If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned." John 15:6. See also Rev. 4:2-5; 3:16.
The case, then, stands thus: So long as we hear the voice of Christ, and are content to follow him, trusting him humbly and implicitly, no harm can befall us; his strength will enable us to repel all attacks; but when we begin to trust ourselves, we take ourselves out of his hands; or, refusing longer to listen to his voice, we are cast out. Let us all heed the words of the apostle Paul: "Because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not high-minded, but fear." W.
PERILOUS TIMES.
By J.
"In the last days perilous times shall come," says the Scripture. 2 Tim. 3:1. That we are in the last days no one can doubt who will give any attention to the word of God on that subject, for that word has spoken so much about the last days that no one who will study can fail to see that the times in which we live are those days. The disciples asked the Saviour, "What shall be the sign of thy coming?" Matt. 24:3. He answered, "There shall be signs." Luke 21:25. They asked for but one "sign," he said there shall be a number, "signs." Peter, quoted from Joel, says, "And I will show wonders in heaven above and signs in the earth beneath." Acts 2:19. These signs are so numerous, and in such places, that everyone who is not warned by them will be without excuse. "And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things that are coming on the earth." Luke 21:25, 26. Now count the number of places where these signs are to be: (1) In the sun, (2) in the moon, (3) in the stars, (4) and upon the earth, (5) and amongst the nations, (6) and upon the sea, (7) and among men themselves, their hearts failing for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth. Men will see these things coming, their hearts will fail them for fear, because of them, yet they will fail to draw from them the only lesson that there is in them, namely, the Lord is coming. He says: "When these things begin to come to pass then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draweth nigh." These things began to come to pass in 1780. Then the sun was darkened, and the moon also, as the consequence. Again, the Saviour said, "When ye shall see all these things, know that he is near, even at the doors."
Now is there any one of these things named by the Saviour as signs which cannot be seen by any one at the present day? It is a historical fact that the sun and the moon were darkened May 19, 1780; and this fact is perpetuated as unexplainable, in each successive edition of Webster's Unabridged Dictionary, the highest human authority in the English language. It is likewise a fact that in November, 1833, occurred the greatest star-shower ever known, which fact is perpetuated in the astronomical geographies and treatises, as well as in many other kinds of records. Again, what nation is at ease and in quiet? Not one. Our own nation, the best one of all, is not. It is a fact that there is distress with perplexity as never before in every nation. Mark the expression, "distress of nations, with perplexity." Webster says, "We are perplexed when our feelings, as well as judgment, are so affected that we know not how to decide or act." Nations have been grievously distressed before, but they always knew just638what to do to relieve themselves. The peculiarity of the present "distress of nations" is the "perplexity"—they do not know how to decide or act; they do not know which way to turn. Therein lies the sign, and nothing below the divine mind of Christ could have penetrated it. "The sea and the waves roaring," spreading affliction and calamity, and all can see it. "Men's hearts" are "failing them for fear and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth." The cyclones, the water-spouts, and the fearful floods, carrying destruction in their paths, none knowing when nor where they will come, are the very embodiment of that which causes men's hearts to fail them for fear. There is not one of those signs in the heavens that may not be seen by all, in the most authentic records; and there is not one of these signs upon the earth that is not seen by all in the very fact itself. Be he believer or unbeliever, he does see all these things. This is the fact, but it only points to the other, and most stupendous fact, that the second coming of Christ is at the doors. He says, "When ye shall see all these things, know that he is . . . even at the doors." The people do see all these things. He is at the very doors.
But it is not in these things that the peril lies which is referred to in 2 Tim. 3. These evidences only show that we are in the days when the perilous times shall be. The perils are from other causes: "In the last days perilous times shall come for [because] men shall be lovers of their own selves." And from this root, selfishness, grows the fearful catalogue of eighteen forms of sin, named in the following verses. In the sins of the last days lies the peril.
"As the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be." Matt. 24:37. "The earth also was corrupt before God; and the earth was filled with violence. And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth." "And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." Gen. 6:11, 12, 5. "Every imagination of the thoughts," on which Dr. Clarke says: "The very first embryo of every idea, the figment of every thought, the very materials out of which perception, conception, and ideas were formed, were all evil." "And the Lord said, My Spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh." Again says Dr. Clarke: "They were flesh, wholly sensual, the desires of the mind overwhelmed and lost in the desires of the flesh." Every desire was fleshly, and every effort was only in the direction of satisfying such desires, with the natural and inevitable result, as the Saviour expresses it, "They were marrying and giving in marriage;" and with nothing in view but the satisfaction of the fleshly desires, it was an easy step to where "they took them wives of all which they chose." Gen. 6:2.
Now let anyone take the divorce records of any of the County or District Courts in the United States, or the statistics which are compiled from these, and in view of the wonderful facility with which divorces are obtained, let him ask himself whether we are not fallen upon such times as were in the days of Noah? whether men do not now take to them wives of all that they choose? In itself marriage is right. It was instituted by the Lord himself. It is the dearest relationship of the human race. It is honorable in all when it is entered into in the fear of God, and when the relationship is maintained in accordance with those sanctions which God has established. But when people are married to be divorced, and divorced to be married, all respect for the relationship and its obligations is annihilated, and the institution is destroyed.
From this the evil goes on in the descending scale to another stage mentioned by the Saviour, "Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot . . . even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed." Luke 17:28-30. That it is the moral condition of the world that is here referred to, as well as to worldly carelessness and lack of faith in the great event which is to come upon them, is plainly shown in 2 Peter 2, where he is writing of the same things spoken of by the Saviour; after giving the instance of Noah and his times, he takes up Sodom and Gomorrah, and speaks of "just Lot vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked; for that righteous man dwelling among them in seeing and hearing vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds."
Paul also shows that this is the point that is reached in the full development of the perilous times. He says: "For of this sort are they which creep into houses and lead captive silly women, laden with sins, led away with divers lusts." But he not only shows what the condition of affairs will be, but he shows how it is brought about. "Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth," 2 Tim. 3:6-8. "As [in the same manner] Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses." By turning to the record in the seventh and eighth chapters of Exodus, we learn that it was by miracles that these men withstood Moses, and Paul says as they did, "so do these resist the truth." Now if it be so, as all the other scriptures show that we are in the perilous times, for this specification to be met, and thus these positions be fully confirmed, there should be in the world at the present time people who resist the truth (the word of God, John 17:17) by working miracles, showing signs, and doing wonders. It is well known that Spiritualism does these things. It is equally well known that the very first of the efforts of Spiritualism everywhere is to destroy confidence in the Bible as the truth of God, and to resist its obligations upon the people.
In speaking of the second coming of the Lord, Paul says, "Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved." This shows that just before the Saviour comes, Satan, by power and signs and wonders, will resist the truth of his coming, and the truth which will prepare a people for his coming. It is thus then that Satan, by miracles and signs, resists the truth of God, and brings to the full the last days as were the days of Noah and the days of Lot. If anyone will know the possibilities of evil that are in Spiritualism, let him read Deut. 18:9-14, with the eighteenth and twentieth chapters of Leviticus, and he will see what it did for those nations which dwelt in Canaan. And when in the last days these same "spirits of devils, working miracles," "with all power" "go forth to the kings of the earth and the whole world" it is "to gather them to the battle of the great day of God." Thirty-nine years have these "spirits of devils" been going forth. Soon, very soon, will they gather the nations to the battle of the great day. "Who is on the Lord's side?" We are in the perilous times. Who will escape? Christ is at the doors. Who is ready when he shall knock to open to him immediately? Luke 12:36. J.
NOT A PROPHET, BUT AN ANGEL.
By Editor
In a Spiritualist contemporary we find the following:—
"Did not the angel that appeared to Saul declare that he was one of his brethren the prophets?"
We once heard of a hackman who attempted to pass himself off for a Quaker, at the time of a convention of Friends, in order that he might secure their patronage. He succeeded so far as to get his carriage filled with the visiting Friends, but when he came and asked, "Where's thou baggage?" they saw that he was unfamiliar with the language of Quakers, and, disgusted with the attempted deception, at once sought another conveyance. In like manner the question above quoted shows that the writer, in attempting to prove Spiritualism from the Bible, has no knowledge of the book. We don't remember that we ever saw in an infidel or Spiritualist paper a correct reference to any Biblical event.
But the substitution of Saul for John is not so bad as is the statement that the angel declared himself to be one of the prophet's brethren; and in this version of Rev. 22:9 he finds himself in company with a great many professed Bible Christians. And just because there are hundreds of professed Bible Christians who actually take the Spiritualist ground that the angel who talked with John was one of his fellow-prophets, we will tell just what the angel did declare himself to be. The following is a literal translation of the Greek of Rev. 22:9:—
"And he said to me: See (thou do it) not; for I am a fellow-servant of thee and of thy brethren the prophets," etc.
The revised version has it: "For I am a fellow-servant with thee, and with thy brethren the prophets." The simple meaning is that he was not one to be worshiped, but was a fellow-servant not only of John, but of all the prophets, and of those also who should keep the sayings of the book.
We cannot accuse the Spiritualist editor of knowing better than to quote the text the way he did, for he did not know where the passage is, nor to whom the words were spoken. But we are sometimes forced to question the honesty of ministers of the gospel, whose title of "D. D." ought to signify that they have at least read the Bible through, and that they know how to translate easy Greek, who will refer to the angel of Rev. 22:9 as one of the old prophets.
Our Spiritualist editor will no doubt say, "Well, the text doesn't amount to anything anyway, because we are not dependent on the Bible for our knowledge." Then why try to make it appear that it teaches Spiritualism? The reason is, that by so doing some professed Christians may be led to wholly accept that delusion, thinking that the Bible favors it. As a matter of fact, there is not a text in the Bible which gives the slightest countenance to Spiritualism; noonday sunlight and midnight darkness are not more opposite than are the Bible and that doctrine.
TOO SIGNIFICANT TO BE PLEASANT.
By Editor
THE following protest we clip from the Christian Union, which says that it was written by "a leading Protestant divine." The protest is just and timely, but that it will have any effect, there is no reason to hope. What indicates this, and also makes the necessity for a protest the more urgent, is the general indifference that is manifested over the matter. The Christian Union's report, in the same issue that contains the protest, makes no mention of the occurrence; and the protest itself is put in the most obscure portion of the paper, as though the editors were ashamed or afraid to have it seen, but inserted it out of courtesy to the "leading Protestant divine." Are there not more who will vigorously protest against American subserviency to Romish intrigues? or is Protestantism dead?
"The celebration of the centennial of the adoption of our Federal Constitution in Philadelphia was an imposing occasion, and no doubt also a very profitable one for the City of Brotherly Love. All the exercises were on a scale commensurate with the greatness of the occasion, and were all successfully carried out. The appropriateness of the monster industrial and military parades, the reception of the Governor of the State of Pennsylvania and of the President of the United States, appealed to everyone's patriotism. But there was one feature of the celebration made unduly prominent, that impressed many as utterly incongruous and out of place, and that was the place taken by the Roman Catholics as a religious denomination.
"The formal reception given by Cardinal Gibbons placed him and his co-religionist in a false position before the American people. Why should he have assumed or been granted a more prominent part than any Presbyterian minister or Episcopalian or Methodist bishop? Why should he have had any part as the express representative of a religious denomination, especially on such an occasion, when the adoption of an instrument was celebrated, one of whose chief glories is that it acknowledges no ecclesiastical distinctions, and accords absolute religious equality to all?
"The whole affair looked very much as if Cardinal Gibbons appeared as the head and representative of a distinct power, on a plane with that of the634Governors of the several States; in fact, it made the impression that the Roman Catholic Church was, or aspired to be, an organization political in its character, because putting itself on a par and level with other such organizations—the President representing the Union, Governor Beaver, Pennsylvania, and Cardinal Gibbons, the Roman Catholic Church!
"Is the last-named organization a State within the State? Is it at all analogous to a State of the Union or in the Union? Why was the distinction made for this one denomination more than for any other? Why should it have been made for any? That it appeared very plainly as if some special civil or political significance attached to Cardinal Gibbons and his church no one can doubt who saw the Cardinal in all the glory of his sacred vestments, like a Governor in his uniform, and marked how Mr. Cleveland formally attended his reception just as he did Governor Beaver's. It was very significant to behold on such an occasion 'the head of the nation shake hands with the prince of the church,' as one of the daily papers described the scene. The whole thing was a little too significant to be pleasant."
The Missionary.
By James White
CENTRAL EUROPEAN MISSION.
I HAVE now been in Basel long enough to have some idea of the work, its condition, its wants, and its difficulties; and not so long but I can look upon it with the eyes of an outside observer. I had considered the subject of this mission so much that I was quite well prepared for what I found. There are in the mission house those who speak only English, some who speak only French, and some only German. And yet, as type-setting is all done in one room, these have all to work in concert. Of course there are some who speak two languages, and some all three; but there are none who have a good knowledge of all three. There are more who have a knowledge of both French and German than who have a knowledge of English and any other language. Printing is done in other languages, but these are the three spoken in the house.
The greatest work to be done in this mission is among the German-speaking people, as they are far the most numerous. They are in Switzerland, Austria, Prussia, and Russia. In the past the work has most largely been in the French. For this there are several reasons: The work here began among the French. Elder Andrews paid his chief attention to the French. The only paper published was the French. The difficulties even up to the present time have not been so great in that language as in the German, as Brother B. L. Whitney and family are quite proficient in the French tongue. They could exercise an oversight in this that they could not in any other. To these reasons may be added: The German version of the Scriptures differs more from the English than do the French versions. The Germans have such a reverence for the name of Luther (they are fast losing their reverence for the truths he taught), that they would accept no version but his. The French have the benefit of revisions and later versions.
In all languages they have labored under these serious difficulties: The translators had but little practical knowledge of the English, from which all the translating had to be done, and but little experience in the faith and doctrines of the denomination. And this led to serious troubles among the translators and proof-readers, as to the style to be adopted, etc. And even where they were acquainted with the ecclesiastical style of the churches of the continent, it was easy, and quite natural, for them to misapprehend the ideas of the writers of our faith. We have established ideas, common among us, of which they have no knowledge. These are plain to the understanding of our readers in America, but the translators had difficulty in comprehending them, and still greater difficulty in rendering them so as to be comprehended by their people. And the communication between them and the English was often so imperfect that the necessary explanations could not be made.
Under all these circumstances it is rather surprising that there has been as much done as there has, and that the success has been as great as it has. I am assured by the managers that a great change has been made for the better, and the work is now in a much more satisfactory condition than formerly. Steps have been taken to harmonize the work of the translators and proof-readers. Everything to be translated is carefully examined and revised, and all Scripture texts are compared with the Bible of the language into which the translation has to be made. Where they differ greatly the original is made to meet the reading of the foreign Bible before it is given to the translators. As much as possible, this revision and comparison is made with the translators, that they may fully understand the case. And there are those here now who have knowledge of the English, and experience in the doctrines of the denomination, who can give attention to this work. The resolution has been adopted to give no work to the printers until there has been a revision of the original, and it accepted in the translation, by the best counsel that can be obtained. This prevents a great deal of trouble and expense to which the work has been subjected, mainly because there was not sufficient experienced help. Our people will never be able to realize the manifold burdens that have fallen upon Brother B. L. Whitney. Often when assured by authority which seemed to be reliable, that the translation was correct, and it was put in type, another would come and utterly condemn it, and this would lead to endless perplexities, and the multitude of corrections would make the work a thing of patches.
For some time past changes have been made which beget confidence, and the work seems to be looking upward. The Lord is blessing it in every department: canvassers are having excellent success; the "Life of Christ" in German is selling unexpectedly well. This will very soon be issued in French, which will open the way for more extensive labor among the French. All this is encouraging to the mission at large, and to the office.
As all translations have to be made from the English, and our denominational literature is mostly in that language, it is very desirable that the knowledge of that language be increased in the office. To this end there are two classes a week, instructed in English grammar and language, and two lessons a week given in Bible study, the exercises being all in English. By this means a number are being trained to a knowledge of the expression of the English as found in the Bible, and to a knowledge of the Bible itself.
The interest in the work seems to be increasing generally in the office. The fruits of Sister White's labors are now being seen, and her labor is doubtless appreciated more than when she was here. It is not surprising that they have been rather slow to realize and thoroughly accept so much that was new and strange. Perhaps the best indication, to one who is comparatively a stranger, is found in the good courage of those who have been longest acquainted with the work here. There is one thing I find: there is real self-denying interest among those who have burdens to bear. They necessarily have to work for small compensation, and the living is not correspondingly cheap. In economy on every point, even to small things, it is more like our experience in this cause thirty to thirty-five years ago. This mission, if any in the world, needs the prayers and sympathies of the people of God. There is a great work to be done here, and it will be done.
To those who understand the case, it is not surprising that Brother B. L. Whitney is entirely broken down; we are glad that circumstances are such that he can go to Battle Creek to the Sanitarium. May the blessing of God be with him there; we shall pray that he may be restored to health, and as speedily as possible returned to the work in Basel.
J. H. W.