THE number of laborers in the work of the Third Angel's Message on the Pacific Coast is very small. "The harvest indeed is plenteous, but the laborers are few." And the number of licenses given at the last Conference was unusually small, it being considered, and wisely, we think, that a year or even six months of College training would so benefit some of our young men that the better quality of their labor after such training would more than compensate for the time spent in school.
We were well acquainted with a careful man who traveled much from house to house in his business, and was an Adventist in the time of William Miller. He made a practice, in the "first message," of hanging up a chart and talking to the household wherever he stopped long enough to give him the opportunity. He was not a preacher. But he never could be induced to pursue the same course after he embraced the faith of the Third Angel's Message. His reason was that this is the finishing work—the last message. It required smoothing planes to do this work, and he was not qualified for the service.
We commend this thought to all who wish to labor in this cause. We say it is the best work on the earth. But the best work calls for the best workers. All who intend to labor in this cause ought to set their mark to do first-class work.
Inasmuch as our laborers are very few, it becomes us to bestow our labor to the very best advantage. We sometimes take credit to ourselves as being a missionary people. And yet many of our ministers throughout the country are poorly qualified to put forth successful missionary efforts. Missionaries to foreign lands have to be men of comprehensive minds, thorough culture, ready and willing to do anything that may come to hand which will further the work to which they have consecrated themselves. A man who was fitted to do only one thing would be of no manner of use as a missionary; he would never be accepted for such service. He might be well versed in theology, and a fine speaker; but if he was only a good preacher he would be nearly useless in a missionary field.
This is suggestive to us as a missionary people. Large denominations which have plenty of means, and are able literally to "heap to themselves teachers," often find it an object to get a minister to fill the pulpit of a wealthy city church who can "draw." Like Apollos he must be "an eloquent man;" but he need not be as was Apollos, "mighty in the Scriptures." It will answer if he can talk fluently of science and philosophy, of politics and society affairs. But what would such a man be worth as a missionary? What would such a man be worth to us in our work? Just nothing at all. We do not insinuate that all the ministers of the large denominations are of that cast. Many of them are; but some are noble workers, ready to build up a people in every work pertaining to a church.
Churches and church work have many interests to be cared for; and he is not able to labor "to edification," which means literally "to building up," who is not prepared to care for them all. It frequently happens that a minister is reported as having a very successful meeting with some church; he enjoyed freedom in speaking, and was listened to with much interest. But let a genuine worker follow it up, and he may find the Health and Temperance Club run down, the Sabbath-school in a decline, the T. and M. work neglected, the librarian's books in confusion, a minority of the church paying tithes and not well instructed in their duty in this respect,535and, perhaps, the weekly prayer-meeting poorly attended. The minister has only pleased the ears of his hearers while the church has received no substantial benefit. All that pertains to a working church has been overlooked. In order to have that attended to, the Conference must send another man who has business tact and has studied to make himself useful in these matters.
We mention but two serious objections to this method of working. 1. The Conference has to pay double to have its work done. In a two or three days' visit to a church a minister might assist and advise in regard to all these branches of the work, and if he possess even ordinary health and strength he need not wear down in the effort. Especially is this the case with those preachers who do not bear any burden of writing for our periodicals. 2. There is no one who can have so good or strong an influence over the members of a church, to lead them to work in the various enterprises which a church must attend to if it expects to live and be useful, as the preacher. He can reach their hearts and enlist their sympathies where another who is not an interesting speaker, could not. It is an unfortunate fact, much to be lamented, that the members will turn out better to an appointment for preaching than they will to a business meeting. And he who has the ability to call the people together should turn that ability to the best account, and make his visit to a church useful as well as pleasing. A pleasant, interesting speaker will be praised; and if he is not strongly fortified with a sanctified judgment he will be led thereby to think he is doing a great work, while the worker who does much more to leave a lasting impression on the church may be looked upon as possessing a quite unimportant gift. Frequently the two have to go together, and the double expenses and time paid out by the Conference, because the preacher is only a preacher, and has not the energy, or does not feel the responsibility, to qualify himself to be a real missionary worker.
The truth is, and every minister ought to realize it, that he who can do nothing but preach, is not a profitable man to be employed by a Conference. He can never take a leading position with profit to the cause. He is not qualified to be an officer in the Conference because he lacks experience and executive or administrative ability.
We admit that we are speaking plainly and strongly on this subject, but it is from a firm conviction of duty; it is because we are convinced that the wants of our cause, and the scarcity of efficient laborers to meet the calls from every quarter, demand that our people wake up to the loss we are sustaining from a lack of organized effort.
In the late war between France and Prussia, it is said that if every officer in the Prussian army had been withdrawn, or suddenly destroyed, the army could have marched right on and fulfilled the plan marked out for the campaign, because every company was a company of trained men, each qualified to lead or command. The tactics of such an army must be absolutely perfect. But, ordinarily, when a regiment or division loses its officers, it is demoralized, and its efficacy destroyed. How is it with our soldiers in this international warfare, or even with the subordinate officers among us? How many are seeking qualifications to take advanced and more responsible positions in an emergency, or yet seeking to become more efficient and useful in their present positions?
It is an accepted truth that we are all responsible, not merely for what we do or are able to do, but for what we might do, and for the ability we might possess if we cultivated our powers. Do we consider this, and try to act accordingly? Perhaps all of us, certainly most of us, have talents buried in the earth which might be of use to the Master if we would dig them up and put them out to usury. And for them all we shall have one day to give account.
How and When Sunday Appropriated the Fourth Commandment.
By John Nevins Andrews
(Concluded.)
Dr. Bound was not absolutely the inventor of the seventh-part-of-time theory; but he may be said rather to have gathered up and combined the scattered hints of his predecessors, and to have added to these something of his own production. His grounds for asserting Sunday to be the Sabbath of the fourth commandment are these:—
"That which is natural, namely, that every seventh day should be kept holy unto the Lord, that still remaineth: that which is positive, namely, that day which was the seventh day from the creation, should be the Sabbath, or day of rest, that is now changed in the church of God."
He says that the meaning of the declaration, "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God," is this:—
"There must be one [day] of seven and not [one] of eight."
But the special key to the whole theory is in the statement that the seventh day in the commandment was "genus," that is to say, it was a kind of seventh day which comprehended several species of seventh days, at least two. Thus he says:—
"So he maketh the seventh day to be genus in this commandment, and to be perpetual: and in it by virtue of the commandment, to comprehend these two species or kinds: the Sabbath of the Jews and of the Gentiles, of the law and of the gospel so that both of them were comprehended in the commandment, even as genus comprehendeth both his species."
He enforces the first day by the fourth commandment, as follows:—
"So that we have not in the gospel a new commandment for the Sabbath, diverse from that that was in the law; but there is a diverse time appointed; namely, not the seventh day from the creation, but the day of Christ's resurrection, and the seventh from that: both of them at several times being comprehended in the fourth commandment."
He means to say that the fourth commandment enforces the seventh day from the creation to the resurrection of Christ, and since that enforces a different seventh day, namely, the seventh from Christ's resurrection. Such is the perverse ingenuity by which men can evade the law of God and yet make it appear that they are faithfully observing it.
Such was the origin of the seventh-part-of-time theory, by which the seventh day is dropped out of the fourth commandment, and one day in seven slipped into its place; a doctrine most opportunely framed at the very period when nothing else could save the venerable day of the sun. With the aid of this theory, the Sunday of "Pope and Pagan" was able coolly to wrap itself in the fourth commandment, and then in the character of a divine institution, to challenge obedience from all Bible Christians. It could now cast away the other frauds on which its very existence had depended, and support its authority by this one alone. In the time of Constantine it ascended the throne of the Roman Empire, and during the whole period of the Dark Ages it maintained its supremacy from the chair of St. Peter; but now it had ascended the throne of the Most High. And thus a day which God "commanded not nor spake it, neither came it into" his "mind," was enjoined upon mankind with all the authority of his holy law. The immediate effect of Dr. Bound's work upon the existing controversy is thus described by an Episcopalian eye-witness, Dr. Heylyn:—
"For by inculcating to the people these new Sabbath speculations [concerning Sunday], teaching that that day only 'was of God's appointment, and all the rest observed in the church of England, a remnant of the will-worship in the church of Rome;' the other holy days in this church established, were so shrewdly shaken that till this day they are not well recovered of the blow then given. Nor came this on the by, or besides their purpose, but as a thing that specially was intended from the first beginning."
In a former chapter, we called attention to the fact that Sunday can be maintained as a divine institution only by adopting the rule of faith acknowledged in the church of Rome, which is, the Bible with the traditions of the church added thereto. We have seen that in the sixteenth century the Presbyterians of England were brought to decide between giving up Sunday as a church festival and maintaining it as a divine institution by the Bible. They chose the latter course. Yet apparently avoiding the charge of observing a Catholic festival, by claiming to prove the Sunday institution out of the Bible, the utterly unsatisfactory nature of the several inferences adduced from the Scriptures in support of that day, compelled them to resort to the traditions of the church, and to add these to their so-called biblical evidences in its behalf. It would be no worse to keep Sunday while frankly acknowledging it to be a festival of the Catholic Church, not commanded in the Bible, than it is to profess that you observe it as a biblical institution, and then prove it to be such by adopting the rule of faith of the Romanists. Joaunes Perrone an eminent Italian Catholic theologian, in an important doctrinal work, entitled, "Theological Lessons," makes a very impressive statement respecting the acknowledgment of tradition by Protestant Sunday-keepers. In his chapter "Concerning the Necessity and Existence of Tradition," he lays down the proposition that it is necessary to admit doctrines which he can prove only from tradition, and cannot sustain from the Holy Scriptures. Then he says:—
"It is not possible, indeed, if traditions of such character are rejected, that several doctrines, which the Protestants held with us since they withdrew from the Catholic church, could, in any possible manner, be established. The fact is placed beyond a venture of a doubt, for they themselves hold with us the validity of baptism administered by heretics or infidels, the validity also of infant baptism, the true form of baptism [sprinkling]; they held, too, that the law of abstaining from blood and anything strangled is not in force; also concerning the substitution of the Lord's day for the Sabbath; besides those things which I have mentioned before, and not a few others."
Dr. Bound's theory of the seventh part of time has found general acceptance in all those churches which sprung from the church of Rome. Most forcibly did old Cotton Mather observe:—
"The reforming churches, flying from Rome, carried, some of them more, some of them less, all of them something, of Rome with them."
One sacred treasure which they all drew from the venerable mother of harlots is the ancient festival of the sun. She had crushed out of her communion the Sabbath of the Lord, and having adopted the venerable day of the sun, had transformed it into the Lord's day of the Christian church. The reformed, flying from her communion, and carrying with them this ancient festival, now found themselves able to justify its observance as being indeed the veritable Sabbath of the Lord! As the seamless coat of Jesus, the Lord of the Sabbath, was torn from him before he was nailed to the cross, so has the fourth commandment been torn from the rest-day of the Lord, around which it was placed by the great Law-giver, and given to this papal Lord's day; and this Barrabas the robber, thus arrayed in the stolen fourth commandment, has from that time to the present day, and with astonishing success, challenged the obedience of the world as the divinely appointed Sabbath of the Most High God.
J. N. A.
How Readest Thou?
By James White
A CORRESPONDENT of the Sabbath Recorder has asked that paper the question, "What is the difference between Seventh-day Baptists and Seventh-day Adventists?" The Recorder states the principal points of difference, but on two points it seems to misapprehend the position of Adventists. In this article we will notice one of these points, because it is one which concerns all, in that it involves the interpretation of the Scriptures. The Recorder says:—
"These different views grow, mainly, out of different modes of interpreting the Scriptures. The Adventists interpret everything literally. The Seventh-day Baptists recognize the fact that Scripture language is often highly figurative and must be interpreted accordingly."
As far as the last sentence is concerned, we are one with our Seventh-day Baptist brethren. We know that Scripture language is at times very highly figurative. No sane person who has ever read the Bible could think otherwise. For instance, the twelfth chapter of Revelation is plainly figurative. No one can suppose that that chapter is an account of a literal woman being pursued by a literal dragon, or that any literal dragon ever drew literal stars from heaven with his tail. But by reference to the book of Daniel we learn that beasts are used to represent earthly governments, Dan. 7:17; 8:20, 21; and when we come to the thirteenth of Revelation and find that the dragon gave to a certain beast "his power, and his seat, and great authority," Rev. 13:2, we cannot do otherwise than conclude that this dragon is also used to represent an earthly government. So also with the beast. We do not believe that a literal beast had a mouth speaking great things, and opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, or that any wild animal would pursue the saints of God in preference to sinners. These things plainly show that this beast represents a blasphemous, persecuting, earthly power.536Such instances of figurative language might be given indefinitely, but these are sufficient to show that Seventh-day Adventists recognize the fact that the Bible does contain figurative language. A more important consideration is, by what rule to interpret the Bible. This is not so difficult a matter as most people suppose. There is not a book of any importance in the English language, or in any other, that does not contain figures. There is not an individual who does not use figures in his daily conversation. Yet we have no difficulty in understanding them. Now we think that the Bible has the advantage of all other books in its use of figures, and for this reason: It is the language of inspiration, and, consequently, there is harmony throughout; its figures are never confused; but men are liable to change and often use figures entirely inappropriate. The Bible, then, may be understood as well as any other book. No one who believes that it is a revelation from God to man can doubt this; for it would be folly to give a communication that could not be understood. If it could no be understood, it would not be a revelation. The following simple rules of interpretation will guide to a correct understanding of the Scriptures:—
1. Accept a statement as literal, unless it is plainly figurative. If there is any absurdity in the statement when interpreted literally, or if it would not harmonize with other parts of Scripture, then it must be a figure.
2. Figures that are in common use must be interpreted as they would be in any other book; give them their most obvious meaning. Any word in the Bible has the same meaning that it has anywhere else, unless the sense requires that it should be understood as figurative.
3. When a figure is used, if its meaning is not obvious, an explanation will be found either in connection with it or in some other part of the Bible.
4. When we have found the correct meaning of a figure, or that which a symbol represents, we can substitute this meaning for that figure or symbol, and it will make good sense.
5. When we have the correct understanding of any passage, however figurative the language may be, it will not contradict any other part of the Bible, figurative or literal; there will be harmony throughout.
6. If after a prophecy is fulfilled we find that it corresponds in every particular with the events which our principles of interpretation would lead us to expect, then we may know that our rule is correct, and we may confidently apply the same principles of interpretation to those parts of the prophecy which are yet to be fulfilled.
7. And most important of all, we must believe that the Bible is the word of God, and that as such it must be true in every particular, and, consequently, perfectly harmonious. This belief must be so strong that it amounts to absolute knowledge. Enough of the Bible has been fulfilled to demand such faith.
These rules will, we think, guide to a correct knowledge of the Scriptures. A few illustrations may be given. Thus: When it is stated that Job had seven thousand sheep, or that lambs were to be offered in sacrifice, we understand that literal sheep and lambs are meant. But when Christ said to Peter, "Feed my sheep," and "Feed my lambs," we have no difficulty in understanding that he desired Peter to have a care for his disciples, and to encourage and strengthen them. The fact that Christ calls himself the Shepherd, and his followers a flock, confirms this. When Daniel speaks of seeing a goat, Dan. 8:5, 8, we readily conclude from the context that a literal goat is not meant, and when we come to the 21st verse we find the explanation given. We read both in Daniel and in Revelation that the beasts continued a certain number of days. We conclude that these are not literal days for two reasons. 1. They are used with reference to beasts, which are plainly declared to symbolize kingdoms. 2. The number of days indicated would, if literal, be an insignificant length of time for any kingdom to retain power, and the kingdoms there brought to view did actually exist for a much longer period. Having found the days to be symbolical, we search the Scriptures, and find that a day in prophetic language represents a year. Num. 14:33, 34; Eze. 4:6. We then read these days as years and find that they represent a reasonable length of time for a government to last; and when we consult history, we find that these nations did actually hold power a number of years equal to the number of days mentioned in the prophecy. Thus our chain of reasoning is complete, and our mode of interpretation is established as correct beyond the shadow of a doubt.
And so we might go on in giving examples of interpretation. There are in the Bible many things "hard to be understood," but it is not impossible to understand them. "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, . . . and it shall be given him." Jas. 1:5. "If any man will do His will, he shall know of the doctrine." John 7:17. Unaided human reason cannot grasp the meaning of the Scriptures; but a sanctified judgment, one that is directed by the Spirit of God, can understand. See 1 Cor. 2:4-16. E. J. W.
Catholic Missionary Work.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
It is proper, in tracing somewhat the history of missions, that we pay a little attention to the missionary work of the Catholic Church. Our object in these articles is not to give anything like a complete or connected history of missionary work since the time of Christ, but to give examples, that we may learn just what spirit characterizes the true missionary; that we may know what qualifications are required in order to work sucessfully in the cause of Christ. We may learn this not alone from those whose lives were modeled as nearly as possible after the divine pattern, but also from those who fell into grievous errors. By the faults of others, it has been well said, wise men learn to correct their own.
One of the most necessary qualifications of a missionary is zeal. Paul says, "It is good to be zealously affected always in a good thing." Of Christ it was said, "The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up." Paul would never have accomplished the vast amount of good that he did, had it not been for his self-denying zeal. In 2 Cor. 11 : 23-27 we find a brief summary which shows how great it was. The zeal of Peter is proverbial; one cannot think of him except as ardent and active in everything which he undertook. The gospel would never have been carried to the ends of the earth, but for those who disregarded their own comfort and even their lives.
Now it cannot be denied that the labors of Catholic missionaries have been characterized by the most intense zeal. Whatever may be said of the indolence, sloth, and dissipation of the digni-taries of the church, and it would be difficult to exaggerate the vices of many of them, the pioneers in the various countries where Catholicism has obtained a foothold, were men who made no provision for self; they gave their lives for the cause in which they were engaged.
The crusades were examples of burning zeal, although they were marked by fanaticism. They were missionary enterprises also, the object being to recover Jerusalem from the power of the infidel Turks, so that Christians could make pilgrimages to that city without being molested. The real object for which the crusades were projected, we will notice further on. It is sufficient to say that although they were missionary enterprises, nominally for the furtherance of Christianity, they were not characterized by the true missionary spirit. An excess of zeal, untempered by love, will always lead men astray. Outrageous cruelties were perpetrated, and hundreds of thousands of persons lost their lives in these attempts to increase the power of the church. Inoffensive Jews were murdered without compassion. Such things have no place in the gospel of Christ. Paul says, "For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh; for the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds; casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ. 2 Cor. 10 : 3-5. And again: "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." Eph. 6 : 12. The disciple of Christ will not resort to physical force under any pretext. "The servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men." 2 Tim. 2 : 24. We can set down the crusades, therefore, as being Christian only in name. They are examples of a spirit of which the missionary should avoid even the semblance.
Still later we come to the founding of the order of the Jesuits, in the sixteenth century. This has ever been one of the most successful means of aiding the growth of the Catholic Church. The labors of the Jesuits have always been characterized by self-sacrificing devotion. The energy which they have displayed is recognized on all sides. No matter how great the danger, either from savages, from storm and flood, or from the ravages of the plague, wherever there was any chance of gaining converts to the church, the Jesuits were found; and they always held themselves in readiness to go to the most distant and unknown regions at the command of their superior. Their zeal may well be emulated by all who would work in the cause of Christ.
But while we commend their energy and devotion, we must not forget that it was all put forth to advance—not the pure doctrines of Christianity—but the power of the popes. The order of the Jesuits has been from the first a military aristocracy, in which the Roman pontiffs have held supreme power. The rank and file gave up their own will entirely, it is true, but it was to the pope of Rome, and not to God. Every individual was powerful in his appropriate sphere, but in every act he was closely watched and guarded lest he should transcend his proper limits. The individual members, many of them, have been men of piety and devotion, and really conscientious, but even their influence was perverted, so that the cause of Christ was hindered rather than advanced by their efforts. The following from the "Lives of the Popes" shows the spirit of the Catholic Church in its missions: "In the true spirit of Roman arrogance, Augustine assumed to himself the right of governing all the churches in Britain, whether planted by the recent laborers, or existing from earlier times. But the ancient British churches were indignant at such an encroachment on their independence and liberties. 'We are all prepared,' said Dey-noch, abbot of Bangor, on one occasion, 'to hearken to the church of God, to the pope of Rome, and to every pious Christian, so as to manifest to all, according to their several stations, perfect charity, and to uphold and aid them by word and deed. What other duty we can owe to him whom you call pope, or father of fathers, we do not know; but this we are ready to exercise toward him and every other Christian.' This independence by no means pleased Augustine; and he was heard to say to his Anglo-Saxon followers, 'Well, then, since they will not own the Anglo-Saxons as brethren, or allow us to make known to them the way of life, they must regard them as enemies, and look for revenge.' The horrible spirit which dictated such a speech is too apparent to need comment, and shows how little of real Christianity the Roman missionaries mingled with their zeal for the papal see."
This same misdirected zeal led the missionaries to work more to gain large numbers of converts who could be used by the popes, than to instruct them in vital godliness. To convert the people in a mass, was their object. Of this, the historian says: "It was perhaps the zeal of Gregory for multiplying nominal converts to Christianity that led him to introduce alterations in the forms of worship, which were so exaggerated by succeeding pontiffs as to change the solemn service of God into a ridiculous show. Observing the influence which the harmonies of music and the beauties of painting and sculpture exerted upon the minds of the Lombards and other half-civilized tribes, he resolved to employ the arts as handmaids to religion."
If the energy and zeal that characterized the labors of the Jesuits, had been put forth solely for the good of the souls of men, and to propagate the doctrines of Christ in their purity, what a vast amount of good might have been accomplished. And shall the servants of the King of kings be less earnest in their efforts than the servants of the pope? Shall those who labor to spread the knowledge of true Christianity manifest less interest in their work than those who are laboring for the establishment of error? It certainly ought not to be so. There is no danger that we will be too zealous in the cause of God or that we will do too much, if our zeal is only according to knowledge. The wisdom that comes from above is "first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy." Let the missionary be filled with this wisdom, and he cannot go astray however zealously he may labor. Without this, all his efforts will be worse than wasted. E. J. W.
Renton, Washington Territory.
By Chas. L. Boyd, Wm. L. Raymond
Our meetings with the tent closed at Scio, Oct. 1. As a result of the labors there, ten decided to keep the Lord's Sabbath, and we trust the most of these will become such Christians as may be an honor to the cause of truth.
The meetings closed with a review of a discourse by Mr. Stipp, the leading Baptist minister of the valley, in which he sought to prove that in the Old Testament no promise was ever made of a537future state, that the Sabbath reached only to the cross, and that in the Christian dispensation there is no weekly Sabbath of divine appointment.
This discourse and the review did more to win friends to the cause than anything which had been, or perhaps could have been done.
Chas. L. Boyd,
Wm. L. Raymond.
Self-denial and Business.
At the Christian Convention in St. Louis, following the one at Chicago, Dr. Goodwin preached a sermon on self-denial, in which he used the following plain language:—
"Christians tell us that they cannot stay in business and be out-and-out Christians. Then let them come out of business. The Bible says that the world lieth in wickedness, and it says, too, that the followers of Christ must come out of the world. It were better to die in the poor-house and die honest, than to stay in a world full of iniquitous business and die in sin.
"But what Christians mean when they say that they cannot stay in business and be Christians, is that they cannot get rich. And that is true. But why should men make so much money? If Christ were in the world he would not make money. Nor should his followers be heaping up money. He did not believe in Christians laying up $50,000 and $100,000 a year. It is a moral wrong in the face of the great religious needs of the world. Last year even our own denomination gave hardly $300,000 for foreign missions, and that less than the year before, and this hardly more than was given thirty years ago. And yet we are told by high authority that this country makes money enough every twenty years to buy out the whole German Empire, lands, cities, navies, and all. But with this vast increase in wealth, and with one person out of five a professing Christian, our missionary secretaries find it almost impossible to go on with their work for want of funds. And what have we? Beautiful churches, excellent organs, fine singers, and personal indulgence in a world of luxuries. Analyze a contribution-box in a rich church, and how many twenty, or ten, or five dollar bills do you find in it? A man worth an income of $15,000 or $20,000, sings:—
'Had I a thousand worlds to give,
That were a present far too small,'
Then puts a nickel in the contribution-box."
North Pacific Conference.
By Charles L. Boyd
DURING the past five weeks I have been laboring among the scattered Sabbath-keepers of King County, W. T.
The mud and rain have been unfavorable, and have made my work hard to perform, but have presented no unsurmountable difficulties. I have made about fifty family visits, held about forty meetings, organized two Sabbath-schools, a Tract and Missionary Society, and a church, to be known as the Renton church of Seventh-day Adventists.
There are others who have been led to the light of the Sabbath truth through the missionary labors of Bro. A. W. Benson, who we hope will fully consecrate themselves to the Lord, and unite with the church soon.
These friends are in earnest for a meeting-house. A lot has been secured, and work will soon commence on the house.
The members of this church are much scattered, and if each one is a steadily shining beacon light, I trust may be the means of guiding many souls who are tossed about by error and sin, to the quiet haven of present truth.
Seattle, W. T., Nov. 23. CHAS. L. BOYD.
Let Your Light Shine
"Father," said a little girl, "why does everybody speak so much of poor E—'s goodness? We never heard of her doing anything remarkable."
"My child," asked the father, "what is the lamp doing?"
"Nothing, father."
"You are right, my child; it is not doing anything. Nevertheless, it is lighting up the whole room."
"Let your light so shine before men," said One, "that they may see your good works and glorify your Father which is in Heaven."—Ex.
Temperance.
The Tobacco Nuisance.
WE have suffered from it ourselves and seen others suffer; ladies and gentlemen and people who had reached that honored age when their comfort and convenience should be a restraint on the company they are in. We have suffered enough to be indignant, though we must confess, in strict self-examination, that what prompts us to protest is no high ethical zeal, like that which fired the bosom of Mr. Trask and his disciples. Disgust and indignation, and a sense of having had indignities practiced upon us by the votaries of the weed is the highest moral range we rise to on this present occasion.
We do not undertake any preachment on the morality, nor on the hygienic aspect of the matter. What we say is that any man who uses tobacco is bound to take his pleasure in a way which does not annoy his neighbor. The best that he can say for his practice is, that he enjoys it. There is no food in it, and it is not taken for medicine. Possibly it rests him, or quiets his nerves, or puts him in good humor. The sum of it is, that he enjoys it as a personal luxury.
But he has no right to take his comfort out of other people, and the trouble with tobacco seems to be that it makes people blind to the annoyance they give others in using it. Your genuine smoker comes to feel that he has a right to all the air, in doors and out of doors, and feels himself abused and wronged when men or women put in a claim to breathe it without the tobacco admixture. Ladies abroad tell us that it is no gentleman who would smoke in their presence without asking permission; but, on the other hand, both ladies and gentlemen agree that no lady would venture to refuse permission, when asked.
On both sides of the water we are rapidly coming to a point lower than this, where no permission is asked of man or woman. Your smoky friend plants himself to the windward on all occasions, and blows the dead smoke he is done with in your eyes. It is hard to find a retreat. On the Baltimore and Ohio Railway we have known ladies to be smoked out of their costly seats in the drawing-room cars. This catastrophe is not impossible on other lines. The smoking saloon vents itself into the drawing-room. On steamer decks and hotel piazzas there is no escape, and too often one retreats to his chamber in the hotel to find, like the Light Brigade, at Balaklava, "Cannon to right of them, cannon to left of them."
Now, we do not know why our comfort is not as much of an object as any one's. People who do not smoke have rights, and rights which claim priority and are not to be trespassed on in this way.
If people will smoke, let them remember how great a nuisance they may easily make themselves, unless they take pains to avoid it. Society has a right to require them to be cleanly in their habit. An uncleanly smoker, who does not take great pains with his person, soon becomes intolerable in society, more offensive than a smoky chimney. Refined ladies shudder at the approach of his redolent personality. Dead smoke in the curtains and walls is too much for fresh air, rose-buds, and good housekeeping combined.
Beau Brummell broke off an engagement because the lady used cabbage. Yet, such are the caprices of society, that had tobacco been in vogue then as it is now, he might have claimed his right to puff in the lady's face or have loaded her tapestries with his odors. He might even have offered her the choice of his "Opera Puffs," and wished to see the light curls rising from her fairy lips.
Izaak Walton wondered that the horse, "the honestest beast alive, should have such a strange power to make men dishonest." Tobacco lovers might, with more reason, wonder why manners go down on the approach of their favorite weed. The fact is not to be denied. Tobacco is no school of manners. About all that can be required of the habitual smoker is, that he shall not be a nuisance. This we insist on.—Independent.
Fancy and Humor in Old Age
FANCY and humor early and constantly indulged, may expect an old age overrun with follies.