Earlier text: The Ten Kingdoms in the Dark AgesThe Teachings of St. Peter's Cathedral.
By Editor
REV. DR. BARROWS of the First Congregational Church, San Francisco, went to Europe last summer, and since he came home he has had a good deal to preach about. One of his latest Sunday evening discourses was on the teachings of St. Peter's Cathedral, Rome. He said "the teachings which could be gained under the dome of St. Peter's are many." In the first place "it teaches of the devotion which led to the construction of such a place of worship, and the constancy of the devotion of the church of Rome, despite its rigidity, formality, and superstition." The missionary spirit, he said, "is also apparent, for from every quarter there came helpers to the shrine." Yes, that is so, and in the sixteenth century this "missionary spirit" was so great that by Leo X., John Tetzel, and other such men of "devotion" were sent throughout Europe to sell indulgences for sin, to get money, professedly, for the building of St. Peter's, but really to be spent upon the Pope's drunken, vicious worthless nephew, Lorenzo dé Medici. But Dr. Barrows did not say anything about this display of "missionary" zeal. Another of these lessons is that "St. Peter's is the living representative of Christianity against pagan743ism." If he had said that it is a living representative of paganized Christianity, he would have more nearly stated the truth. And then in his closing prayer he besought that "the two great divisions of the followers of Christ," that is, the Catholics and the Protestants, "might be brought close together and travel side by side, and learn the true way to worship and follow Christ." That was a very appropriate prayer for the occasion. But what would ever the modern leaders of theological thought do for something to preach about if they could not go to Europe or somewhere else on a vacation every summer. That Sunday Law Convention.
ACCORDING to the call of the Sacramento preachers, noticed in our issue of two weeks ago, a meeting of pastors and church-members favorable to the passage of a Sunday law was held at the Young Men's Christian Association Hall, San Francisco, November 29. There were about sixty or seventy gentlemen present, the majority being ministers of various denominations, and about a half-dozen women. Among the clergymen were Rev. Dr. F. A. Horton of Oakland, Mr. Warren of San Leandro, Mr. Dobbins of West Berkeley, Dr. E. S. Chapman of East Oakland, J. A. Wheeler of Sacramento, Samuel Slocum of Cayucos, and J. C. Eastman of San Francisco, Presbyterians; John Kimball, editor of the Pacific, Congregationalist; M. C. Briggs, Dr. Heacock, Dr. F. F. Jewell, Mr. Rich, and Thomas Filben, Sacramento, Methodists; Dr. Abbott and Mr. Bateman, Baptists; N. R. Johnston, Reformed Presbyterian; and Elders McHatton of Sacramento, and Sweeney of Oakland, Disciples. A week before the day of the convention, the Congregational Club of San Francisco had discussed the subject in their regular Monday meeting. In that meeting Rev. Mr. Hamlin said that the Sabbath was about as well observed here without a Sunday law as it was at the East with one. The Sunday law was not enforced there, nor was it enforced here when we had one. If ministers stepped out of their sphere and meddled with politics they generally ran things into the ground. The almost unanimous opinion was that it would be useless to try to do anything while the present Legislature existed, and when the question was put whether the club should adjourn over two weeks or hold its next meeting at the same time with the convention, it was voted to hold their regular meeting at the same time that the convention was held. As those who issued the call were slow in putting in an appearance a good deal of doubt seemed to exist as to who was authorized to call the meeting to order. After waiting about a quarter of an hour, Dr. Horton arose and called for some one to state the object of the meeting so that they could get to work as all could not wait all the afternoon. It was then moved that Dr. Horton take the chair and call the house to order. Mr. Filben of Sacramento, though yet absent, was elected secretary. After prayer, the chairman called for some of the Sacramento ministers, as they had issued the call, to state the object of it. Dr. Wheeler responded, and said that the pastors of Sacramento had proposed attending the meeting in a body, but for a variety of reasons they had been prevented. The Christian people of Sacramento had not only been disturbed in their worship, but their religious feelings had been outraged by systematic and flagrant disregard of the Sabbath. So serious had the matter become that it had been brought before the pastors' conference, and a correspondence had been opened with divines throughout the State on the subject of a Sunday law, in accordance with which the present convention had been called. He believed that it would not be difficult to secure such legislation as would insure a proper observance of the "Lord's day, or Sunday, or Sabbath, or whatever you are pleased to call it." Mr. Johnston, a National Reformer by the way, moved that the calling the convention be approved. This opened the way for discussion, and then the thing became really amusing. We were there, and we verily believe that there were not three persons in the hall who were really agreed upon the reasons why a Sunday law should be made, nor upon what kind of a law it should be when it was made. Yet they were all perfectly assured that there should be a Sunday law. Upon the motion to approve the calling of the convention, Rev. John Kimball was the first speaker. He said he could not vote for the motion as it stood. He believed in the objects of the convention, but it should have been held before the election. It was useless to hope that any church influence could be brought to bear on the next Legislature. The members were pledged, especially those belonging to the Democratic party, against any legislation of this character. A movement at this stage would only be inviting a Waterloo. It might, however, be a good time to begin to agitate for the next election. The Democratic party was now in control, and it was notoriously against any such legislation. The Republican party attributed their defeat to the fact that they had not taken the same ground as their opponents. The speaker believed in agitating the subject and disseminating literature. Rev. Mr. Briggs said he hoped that those who called the convention would present some plan,—a clear definition of what was wanted. If it is to be a civil Sabbath law, the discussion and advocacy of it must not be allowed to run wild. It must be a law that will protect the citizens. Intelligent instruction on this point would prevent the purblindness that characterized the work of the previous Sunday law campaign, of urging its enforcement as a religious law. He said that information is greatly lacking on this point of the intelligent distinction between the civil and the religious aspects of the question. What he favored was distinctively a civil law. Mr. Sweeney said that he came in simply as a citizen to work for a civil Sunday, not as a preacher to work for a law to enforce a religious institution. "If we can come in here this year as preachers and call on the State to enforce the observance of the Christian Sabbath, next year we may come in as preachers and ask the State to compel everybody to be baptized; and the next year ask the State to compel everybody to celebrate the Lord's supper, and so we shall have church and State." But none of these things are wanted. Therefore he said he indorsed the remarks of Dr. Briggs. Simply a civil law is all that is wanted. The question was one of political economy and State ethics, and not of religion at all. The preacher should be entirely separated from the question, and the law should be demanded by them as citizens. Mr. McHatton said that this was the idea of his people. They were working for a civil Sunday. Dr. Chapman did not think that the minister ought to be left out of the question. The movement was a religious one, and he was decidedly against divorcing it from a Christian standpoint. The ministers of the State were decidedly to blame for their long delay in taking action on the subject, but it was now necessary to do something. Should no attempt be made on the present Legislature, could they expect to succeed with other ones? He said he would not entertain the question as to whether it would be a "Waterloo" or not. He had been in politics long enough to know that legislators keep their finger on the public pulse, and that they generally give what the people want. Besides, if the Legislature is asked and it refuses, then there is something to go into the work with next time. "If the legislators are not on the side of the toiling multitudes, then we shall know how to go to work." It is failure not to try. This speech was much applauded. Dr. Jewell said, "If parties in their platforms have challenged us, it is cowardly not to accept the challenge. If they have opposed the Sunday law, it is time for us to speak out. I indorse Dr. Chapman's idea. I don't want to eliminate the minister from the subject. If any people are the friends of the workingman they are the ministers. The workingmen have a right to the Christian Sabbath. I am the friend of the workingman. I am traveling in the footsteps of their friend, the Carpenter of Nazareth. I do not propose to drive all the gospel out of the question." Mr. Sweeney said, "I too am in favor of the workingman. I am too in favor of all this religion. But Jesus of Nazareth never asked the Roman Empire to unsheath the sword in favor of his religion? Nor do we want to invoke the sword of California in favor of his religion." Dr. Carver stated that he was surprised that Mr. Sweeney should make such an assertion. He would advocate no Sunday law that excluded the Man of Nazareth. If Democratic or Republican parties would not give them what they required, then let them support some party that would. And that a religious Sabbath and not a civil Sunday is what is wanted. Then Mr. Rich offered an amendment to the motion of approval, reading as follows:—
"WHEREAS, The purpose of the Sacramento ministers in calling this convention is to secure by agitation a civil Sabbath for California, therefore,
"Resolved, That we approve the object proposed." Mr. Johnston.—"I don't like the word 'civil' in that." Dr. Chapman.—"Insert the words, 'to secure a better observance of the Sabbath.' Isn't that what the Sacramento brethren want?" Dr. Abbott obtained the floor and said, "I like the term 'Sunday,' not Sabbath. I would like some one to show me in the words of Jesus any Christian Sabbath. There is no such thing as a Christian Sabbath. And if any one here has fixed upon the idea of a Christian Sabbath, he had better revise his scholarship. The term Sabbath has no place in Christianity, it is a Judaistic expression. The term Christian Sabbath, the Lord never used, nor his disciples. I want a Sunday law. I believe in having a Sunday law, but I believe that agitation in favor of one at this time is neither timely nor practical. We have been defeated. We must yield all religious ideas in connection with the question. Sweeney is right." Then in hopes of getting an agreement, the proposed amendment was changed so as to leave out the words civil Sabbath and have it read, "To secure by agitation a Christian Sunday for California." Dr. Briggs.—"When you leave out the word 'civil' my interest in the question is gone. If you strike out the word 'civil' you cannot reach the Legislature. To urge the Legislature to pass upon anything Christian is fruitless." Then the proposed amendment was changed again so as to read "civil Sunday." Then Mr. Morris asked, "Is agitation the proper word to use there, or is it legislation? It is by legislation that we are to get the Sunday law." Another said, "We have in our churches the Christian Sabbath, it is the civil Sunday that we want." Mr. Ware.—"It is not a civil Sunday that we want, it is a civil Sunday law." So then the word "law" was inserted. Then a motion was made to strike out the word "civil." This motion was fortunate enough to get to a vote, and was lost. Then the chair shut off debate, and744 put the question of the proposed amendment and it was lost. Then the original motion for approval was put and carried, four voting against it. A motion was then carried for the appointment of a committee to draft resolutions and an order of business. While the committee was out, the way was opened by the chair for short speeches. Mr. Johnston advocated stringent Sabbath laws, based on the fourth commandment, and cited the action of the late convention of the Woman's Christian Temperance Union at Minneapolis,—that they were not ashamed to base their claim for law, upon the religious aspect of the question, nor should these. He considered the publication of newspapers, the running of excursion trains, and even funerals, a desecration of God's holy Sabbath and would support a law to prevent them. He would stop excursions and excursion trains on Sundays, if Senator Stanford himself stood on the track. Another clergyman suggested that a law should be made preventing people from dying or becoming sick on Sunday. Professor Knowlton said as Sunday newspapers would bear no inconsiderable place in relation to the Sunday law, they should consider the fact that virtually all of the work on a Sunday paper was done on Saturday, while the work on a Monday paper was done on Sunday. They should consider which paper would be affected by the law. Then a gentleman arose and said, "That is a question that concerns me. I am a newspaper man, and my paper is printed on Mondays, and the work has to be done on Sunday to get it ready. Now will you prohibit that, and stop my Monday paper?" Then said he, "The work on the Sunday paper is done on Saturday, but will you let us sell it on Sunday?" Then said he, "What then are we newspaper men to do? You will not let us print a Monday paper, and you will not let us sell a Sunday paper, what is to become of the newspaper business in California?" By this time the Committee on Resolutions had returned, and their report was received. They recommended "the formation of a Sabbath Union for California, on a permanent basis, and the election of officers and an Executive Committee." Dr. Abbott moved that the word Sunday be substituted for Sabbath. Another said as Sabbath means rest, he could not see why Sabbath could not be used. Dr. Abbott replied, "This is for the Legislature to act upon, and we can never get the word Sabbath in the law. If we ever get any law we shall have to get it as a Sunday law not as Sabbath." Another said, "The old law read, 'The first day of the week commonly called Sunday,' that is what we want." Another said, "There is already in the civil code of California a recognition of Sunday as a civil day. What more is wanted? Is it not something religious?" Then a reverend gentleman said that there are some people in the State who keep the seventh day, and are opposed to the Sunday law. But that on this question the majority must rule. Another said that on that principle, if those who keep Saturday were in the majority, then they would have an equal right to pass a law to compel all to keep Saturday. He said, "You are in the majority and propose to make a law compelling them to keep Sunday. You claim this as your right. Now if they were in the majority, would you recognize it, would you allow it, as their right, to compel you to keep Saturday?" At this there was a murmur all over the house and the answer, "No." Then said he, "What becomes of the Golden Rule? It is gone. And then where is your Christianity? For Christ said, on this hangs all the law and the prophets. If those who keep the seventh day were trying to get a law to compel all to keep Saturday, I would oppose it. And when you try to make a law to compel them to keep Sunday, I oppose that." The nominations for officers was next made: Gen. O. O. Howard for President, Dr. Briggs for Vice-President, Mr. Filben for Secretary, and an executive committee of seven. It was recommended that petitions be prepared as soon as possible and sent throughout the State for signatures, and returned as soon as possible to be presented to the Legislature, which begins its session January 1, 1887. A representative of the Good Templars stated that already that body had 20,000 signatures to a petition for the Sunday law. A resolution recommending that in all places where there are two or more churches, union services be held for the good of the cause, failed to pass. And then the explanation was made that "as this is a civil, and not a religious movement, it is not supposed that the services would be held on Sunday, but on a week day." Then it was voted to adjourn and so closed the Sunday Law Convention. Lack of space demands that our comments upon it, and our impressions of it, be reserved till next week. We may add, however, that the papers show that General Howard resigned immediately, and as yet nobody has been chosen in his place. J. The Resurrection of Christ.
By James White
ONE of the most important events recorded in the Bible is the resurrection of Christ. And no fact of occurrence is more plainly revealed. With those who respect the Scriptures of truth there cannot be the shadow of a doubt on the subject. Many times the Bible says, in the most direct terms, that Christ was raised from the dead. As to its importance, it lies at the very foundation of our hope and our salvation. It is the assurance of our future and eternal life. “For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.” 1 Thess. 4:14. “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.” 1 Peter 1:3. “Who was delivered for our offenses, and was raised again for our justification.” Rom. 4:25. There are many who affect to believe that the time of the resurrection of Christ is almost or quite as important as the event itself. But we cannot believe that the time is of any importance at all, because it is not revealed. If it were of importance it would doubtless be revealed. We notice the case of the Lord’s Supper. Many attach great importance to the time and frequency with which it should be celebrated, affirming that it should be celebrated weekly, and always on a certain day of the week. The revealed facts are these: 1. It is plainly commanded. 2. It is distinctly stated of what it shall consist—of bread and the fruit of the vine. 3. Its observance is to be continuous—“as oft as ye eat,” etc. But here the record ends. When, or how often was not told. Of course the time and frequency cannot be subjects of faith or matters of duty, for where the Scriptures are silent there is neither faith nor religious duty. And so of the resurrection of Christ. As a fact it is plainly revealed, it being many times affirmed in the Bible. As to its importance, it is constantly insisted upon by all the writers of the New Testament. But as to the time of its occurrence, there is no information given in the Scriptures. That is altogether a matter of opinion, or inference, or reasoning. And being such, we cannot expect that there should be uniformity of opinion respecting it. Where things are explicitly or distinctly revealed, there must be harmony with all who place implicit trust in the revelation. But where they are merely matters of inference or reasoning, we cannot expect uniformity of opinion, because men’s minds will not run in the same channel unless they are directly or authoritatively led. Nor is it necessary or desirable that there should be uniformity in respect to matters that are not revealed, because they are matters indifferent or of no importance. As before said, if they were important they would have been revealed; and, where the Scriptures are silent, there is neither faith nor religious duty. In regard to the resurrection of Christ there are various expressions in the Bible, and they are very differently construed. 1. Matthew makes a statement as to the time when the women went to the sepulcher, but says nothing concerning the time of the resurrection. That had taken place when the women went to the grave. 2. Mark, in the first verses of chap. 16, speaks precisely as Matthew does. From verse 9 it has been inferred that Jesus arose on the first day of the week. If the punctuation were changed, as we think is allowable, it would read: “Now when Jesus was risen, early the first day of the week he appeared first to Mary Magdalene,” etc. This is a statement of the truth, and exactly corresponds with Matt. 28:1, and Mark 16:1, 2. “Early the first day of the week,” evidently refers to the time of their going to the sepulcher, or of his being seen of them, and not to the time of his resurrection. 3. Luke 24:1-3 says they went to the sepulcher on the first day of the week, and Jesus was not there. How long he had been gone, the text does not say. 4. John 20:1, says exactly the same thing; they came to the sepulcher on the first day of the week, and found it empty. Besides this, John says nothing concerning the resurrection. Only Luke gives a reason why they went to the sepulcher on the first day of the week. It was because of their respect for the commandment of God, and for the Sabbath—the seventh day—the observance of which the commandment enjoins. They prepared spices and ointments to anoint the body of Jesus. They rested the Sabbath-day, and came to the sepulcher on the first day. Whether they knew of the order to carefully guard the grave until the third day, does not appear. 5. The Saviour said he should be crucified, and rise again “the third day.” 6. He also said he would rise “after three days.” 7. He also said that he would be “three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” These expressions are variously understood. Some take “the third day” literally, and explain all others to conform to this. Others take “after three days” as the decisive expression, and locate the crucifixion differently from the others. Still others rest everything on the “three days and three nights,” of which Jonah’s case was the example, and explain the other expressions to conform to this. These locate the crucifixion at a still earlier date. Some affirm that the resurrection of Jesus took place on the Sabbath, and that the grave was empty about twelve hours before the women visited it. These also mostly rest strongly on the expression “three days and three nights,” and throw the time of the crucifixion back to correspond. And some believe that the three days and three nights do not measure the time in which Christ was in the grave. They say he was not literally “in the heart of the earth” at all; and hence the words admit of an explanation. They take this expression to cover the entire time during which he was under the dominion of earthly powers,—from his arrest until his resurrection.745 To these we may add— 8. Different sects of the Jews differ in their methods of computing the time of the passover. This has caused chronologers to adopt different dates for the occurrences of that week. 9. Chronologers and astronomers have professed to “demonstrate”—each to his own satisfaction—the time of the crucifixion, but they disagree in their conclusions. 10. It is a disputed point whether the Saviour ate the passover with the disciples out of its proper season, and whether he was or was not crucified at the time of slaying the paschal lamb. However strongly it may be claimed from Matt. 26:17-20, Luke 22:7, etc., that it is settled, we have to set it down as a disputed point. One thing needs no argument to prove, namely, that all opinions can never be harmonized where there are so many points of difference, and no means of securing an authoritative exposition or solution of them. We have not given any opinion concerning these differences, as to the correctness of either, but we believe that the resurrection of Christ was on the first day of the week. True, it is not so declared, but circumstances seem to indicate it. For instance, it appears by Matt. 28:11 that the Roman guard went into the city to show these things to the chief priests, at the same time that the women went away from the sepulcher. If the resurrection took place on the Sabbath, before the setting of the sun, we should certainly suppose that the guard would go to the priests that evening, and not wait till after the rising of the sun the next morning. But this is only reasoning; and no mere supposition can approach to a certainty on such a question at a time of such excitement as then existed. Certainly it forms no foundation for faith or duty. Luke 24:21 seems more decisive. Jesus said that he should be crucified and rise again the third day. The disciples who walked with him to Emmaus, speaking of his crucifixion, said, “To-day is the third day since these things were done.” This was on the first day of the week, and seems to refer to it as the third day upon which he should rise. But there is no hint of any importance being attached to the time of the resurrection. Under the circumstances we must express surprise at two things:— 1. That people, in the absence of any direct proof of the fact, so confidently affirm that Christ was raised from the dead on the first day of the week, and even make it an article of Christian belief, and the ground of the weekly observance of that day. 2. That others, who deny both the fact and the conclusion, spend their time in disproving the fact, as the sure way to destroy the foundation of Sunday-keeping. In our experience of many years in advocating the Sabbath of the Lord, and in exposing the fallacies of the Sunday arguments, we have never spent a moment in arguing the subject of the resurrection of the Lord. Some have zealously, but unwisely, made this point a hobby. A small body of this class for a time almost flooded the land with their little publications, from Providence, R. I. One of them entreated us in the most earnest manner to unite with them in the effort to prove that the resurrection of Christ took place on the Sabbath, “For,” said he, “when this is done, the foundation of Sunday keeping is taken away.” But we were not moved, because we were not convinced of the utility of the scheme. Our reply was to this effect, that the scheme will never succeed; the evidence that the Saviour rose from the dead on the Sabbath is either wanting or obscure, and therefore the people will never become convinced. And again, as they do not wish to be convinced, but would rather retain their present opinion, it will take very plain and decisive proof to convince them. This being so, it is unreasonable to expect to turn the world on this subject by any argument which can be presented. But our principal objection to the scheme is this: The argument, as they present it, is virtually an acknowledgment that, if the resurrection of Christ did take place on the first day of the week, that would afford a foundation or ground for the observance of that day; and then, as most people will continue to believe that the resurrection of the Lord was on the first day, they will have the consent of this argument that their claim is just, and that there is ground for keeping Sunday. This we deny. The resurrection of Christ has no connection whatever with the duty to observe any day. If we could prove that the resurrection of Christ was on the Sabbath, we should not offer that as a reason for keeping the Sabbath. The duty to observe the Sabbath rests altogether on other grounds. The Lord never spoke of the resurrection as a reason why we should observe a day, and we have no right to manufacture reasons to uphold institutions not found in the Bible, and then, on the strength of our own reasons, claim a divine sanction for those institutions. They who coin the reasons ought to honestly confess that the institutions proved by such means are their own, and not the Lord’s. We frequently see questions asked and articles written on this subject, carrying the idea that it is important that we should have the truth concerning the time of the resurrection of Christ. We emphatically deny that there is any importance attached to it. We do not care a jot when it occurred, for the reason that the Lord has not cared that we shall know. This we know because he did not see fit to reveal the time; or, if he did reveal it, it was only by incidental references from which we can barely infer a conclusion. This is not the manner of revealing important facts upon which hang sacred duties. Of the death of our Lord, we have a memorial in the supper; of his burial and resurrection we have a commemorative ordinance in baptism. Many effect to believe that the first day of the week is a memorial day in the gospel system, but not a sentence of Scripture can be offered to prove it. It is plainly declared that, in the supper, we “show forth the Lord’s death.” Equally plainly it is said that we are “buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him.” “Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death; that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.” These are New Testament memorials of the death, burial, and resurrection of our Lord. The Sabbath, as a memorial, commemorates the work and rest of the Creator. The institution refers to nothing else; no reason for it is given except the Creator’s work and rest. The New Testament is entirely silent concerning any new Sabbath, as well as any new reasons for observing the Sabbath. It is only by perversions of, or human additions to, the word of God that another Sabbath, or other reasons for observing the Sabbath, are foisted upon the church.
J. H. W. The Missionary.
By S. N. Haskell
Planting the Third Angel’s Message in New Zealand.—No. 2.
KAEO is situated 160 miles north of Auckland, on a river of the same name, and is about seven miles from the bay. It is in a beautiful and fertile valley about ten miles in length and three in breadth. The surrounding hills are grazing lands for the sheep, cattle, and horses owned by the inhabitants. The valley has its nooks and coves, where are nestled, among the fruit trees, the small houses with their colonial ovens. American stoves are a thing unknown in this country. Kaeo is in the district of Whangaraa, and within a few miles of the latter place there are many small country places retaining their native names. Three miles south of Kaeo is Ku Ku Prairie, and about the same distance in the opposite direction is Tami Tami. The latter place has a post-office, contains a saw-mill, and is quite a place for ship building. There are saw-mills at other places on the bay. A small steamer runs up the river as far as Kaeo when the tide is in. On the surrounding mountains is the stately kauri pine, the cutting of which is the principal employment of the settlers. After being cut the timber is rolled down the mountain-sides to the winding streams, there to await the freshets, which occur twice a year, when, under the engineering of competent lumbermen, often native Maoris, the logs are carried down into the bay. In the various nooks of the bay are large saw-mills, and from these the vessels carry the lumber to more distant ports. Australia is largely supplied with this timber, it being used for building and all common purposes. It is much harder and heavier and of finer texture than the white pine of America, and of a different nature from the hard pine. It resembles somewhat the Oregon pine. This pine yields a gum, which is gathered by the natives and sold to dealers who ship it to England, where it is converted into superior copal varnish, and sent to all parts of the world. It is now becoming scarce, as much of the timber is being used for lumber. Wagon roads are few, though others are in process of construction. The traveling is done mostly on horseback and on foot. Boats furnish a ready means of conveyance up and down the river, when the tide is in. Most of the streams are fordable, except in some places where they are crossed by planks or long sticks of timber. The length of these timbers causes them to spring, so that care must be exercised, else the footman is liable to have an opportunity of measuring the depth of the water beneath. At one time on an occasion of haste, we went upon one of these bridges, and losing the motion of the timber, and consequently our balance, suddenly found ourselves in the midst of the stream. The water was only about four feet deep, so we experienced no serious difficulty. During a freshet the water rises to a great height, but at other times the streams become nearly dry. It was in this valley that Joseph Hare, Sr., settled in 1865. He came from the north of Ireland, where he had been a school-master for twenty years, and then a Bible-reader in a Protestant church. He had acquired an excellent reputation as a school-teacher, but because of the opposition of the Catholics to his method of teaching the Bible in his school, which was finally prohibited, he left a situation upon which he was dependent for a livelihood. His services were in every other way satisfactory, and his employers endeavored to keep him by proposing a compromise, to the effect that he might have the privilege of teaching the Bible after the close of school, to such as wished to746 remain. To this he objected. The Bible had been to him the Book of books. He had ever taught it to his children when they came around the table for the family meal, and had woven its teachings into all his school work, and now to make it a secondary matter was a thing which he could not do. When he left the school he had no knowledge of how he should support his large family, but resigned his position because of principle. To his surprise, he was soon offered a position as Bible-reader in one of the churches at a larger salary than he had received in the school. Thus God honors those who honor him. The course which Brother Hare pursued in the training of his children, constantly inculcating Bible principles into their young minds, led them to regard the Bible as a sacred book, and to rely upon what it taught them as true. The result has been that in a large family profanity is unknown, and all are strictly temperate. Although he himself had smoked for over forty years, not one of his children is addicted to the habit, and it is seldom that a family can be found where exists greater respect for each other, and especially for the parents, than in this. After moving to New Zealand, his oldest children, having reached manhood, carried these sterling principles with them into their business and social relations, and consequently are respected for their integrity. Soon after receiving the Sabbath, Father Hare abandoned the pipe, much to the improvement of his physical, mental, and spiritual condition. The same may be said of Mother Hare's family by her first husband. She is Brother Hare's second wife. He had been in the colony but one year when his first wife died, by whom he had had eleven children, all living but one. Three years later he married his second wife, who had, by a former husband, eight children, all living. Only one of the number uses tobacco in any form, and all of them are temperance people. Since his second marriage they have had five children, all living at the present time. Many of those who have grown to be men and women have families and their husbands and wives in each case are persons of moral worth. Of this numerous family, including children and grandchildren, thirty-seven on the father's side and three on the mother's side are keeping the Sabbath. No family is yet divided in the keeping of the commandments of God. On Father Hare's side all are observing it save one, and it is present circumstances that prevents her from doing so, and all are persons who are respected in the community. It is hoped they may each be able to say in the day of the Lord, Here am I and the children thou hast given me. After Edward Hare and his wife, who lives in Auckland, had accepted the Sabbath, he was very anxious that we should visit his father and mother, and present to them and their brothers and sisters, the truths which he and his wife had accepted. Accordingly after remaining in Auckland five weeks, we left, Nov. 24, for Kaeo, on the boat, which makes the trip between the two points once a week. We found his father officiating as a local preacher for the Methodist Church, that being the only denomination which held meetings in the place. In our next, we shall speak of the reception of the truth by the friends at Kaeo. S. N. H. Anti-Mission Congregationalists
SPEAKING of the number of anti-mission Baptists in this country, the Congregationalist says: “We fear that there is a large number of anti-mission Congregationalists among us. We only judge from the little interest taken by so many churches in helping forward the great cause.” Renewing Relations with the Vatican
SPECIAL steps are soon to be taken to bring about a renewal of diplomatic relations between England and the Vatican. Bishop Sharp, of London, has recently had a long conference with the Pope upon this subject and it is reported that a special apostolic delegate will be sent to England with this object in view.