Your ShelfYour Projects

Signs of the Times, Vol. 10, No. 42.

General Articles
Earlier text: Necessity for the Reformation

Is Prohibition of the Liquor Business Right in Principle?

By N. J. Bowers

To PROHIBIT is not to allow, not to permit. Any business should be allowed and permitted to run that is necessary, useful, and conducive to human happiness. Can this be said of the whisky traffic? No man with a particle of common sense or regard for truth can say so. It is just the opposite, and at the very extreme of opposite, at that. The great majority of suffering, pauperism, and crime of every shade and grade, can curse alcohol for its existence. They have been conceived, born, and sent forth into the world by it. That which occasions a large share of the want, beggary, woe, and sin in this world ought to be stopped, prohibited, and killed so dead and buried so deep that no resurrection could ever raise it up.
Do we count a man a criminal who would throw arsenic or strychnine into the family well? or who would put poison into our food? Has not the murderer intemperance ten thousand victims where the well poisoner and the food poisoner have one? Do we count the man a villain who plants alienation in the heart of husband or wife? Alcohol has done so in ten thousand cases. Does not the vender of alcoholic drinks over and over and over again transgress with impunity that law which says, "Thou shalt not kill"? Yet he goes on, and is "allowed" to do so. He should be prohibited. Why should the man who kills with the pistol, or the knife, or with strychnine, or henbane, or Prussic acid, be hanged, while the one who kills with the contents of a glass over a counter, amid music and fine pictures, goes free, and is called "respectable"? Why not equalize matters more? Why is not one murderer, and poisoner, and alienator of families, as culpable as another, especially when he does the most of the work? Why not check his career by the law? Yes, why not? Why not have laws against whisky vending as well as against counterfeiting, gambling, garroting, burglary, and highway robbery?
It is extremely hard to see why that which feeds the stream of intemperance should not be the subject of legal prohibition and punishment as well as the flood of crime which this stream empties on society. We think it plain that prohibition is not wrong in principle, but that it is eminently right and just.
N. J. BOWERS.

How Prohibition Prohibits.

The Independent refers to the Christian Mirror's account of "Portland's rum-hole,"—the hole through which the liquor captured by the police of the city is poured into the sea, and goes on as follows:—
"That paper now reports another 'rum-hole,' that into which the State sheriff pours the liquor he has seized. The Mirror reports the seizures lively, and denies that there are any open liquor shops in the city. The deputy sheriff declares that there is not an open place where liquor is sold known to the officers. There are such apparent establishments, with counters and bottles, etc., but the bottles are all empty, and they are 'shams, kept for the very purpose of creating the impression that liquor is openly sold, and that prohibition does not prohibit in Maine.' Doubtless in these cases there are bottles and casks concealed somewhere; but they task the ingenuity of the officers to find them, and are, therefore, not open saloons. In the sheriff's office alone (the Police Department is additional) the following is the official report of work done in Portland from January 1, 1883, to August 1, 1884:—
Gallons rum seized 1,275
" gin 95
" whisky 2,088
" brandy 26
" wine 130
" ale 36,373
" lager beer 8,138
" porter 31
" Bass ale 14
" cider 55
Total gallons 48,225
No. of distinct seizures 1,197
No. of cases appealed 154
Fines paid $11,900
Persons discharged 70
Persons committed to jail 19
"This does not look like an absolute failure, even in Portland."

Temperance.

By Texas Siftings

WHO HATH WOE?

Who hath sorrows, who hath woes? He who to the ale-house goes. Who hath fightings and contentions, Grief and fearful apprehensions, Causeless wounds, a guilty soul? He who thirsts for alcohol— Follows it to ruin's brink In his cravings after drink.
Who hath babblings? Who but they Led by alcohol astray— Idiotic in their talking, Lame and crippled in their walking? Who are these with eyes so red, Vile, besotted, reason fled? Those are they who tarry long Drinking wine and liquor strong.
Look not on the ruby wine When its color seems divine; Death is in that sparkling cup, Never dare to take it up, For at last the scorpion's tail And the adder's sting prevail; Therefore on the goblet frown— Spurn the liquor, dash it down.
— Texas Siftings.

Nicotine.

NICOTINE is a powerful vegetable poison, so powerful that when made volatile by heat the vapor is so oppressive as to occasion difficulty in breathing. Animals have been put to death in the interests of science by the application of two or three drops to their tongues. Persons have been intentionally murdered by this substance, and yet thousands are ignorantly or willfully undermining health by inhaling this poison in the fumes of tobacco. The quantity is very slight each time, but it is cumulative, and after a while the smoker complains, "I am growing nervous." Later his constitution is ruined, and he is the victim of "the climate," or "business," of this or that disease, but the cigar or more villainous cigarette is not mentioned or thought of with blame.—The Examiner.

Keeping Whisky Away

J. B. Grinnell, for whom the town of Grinnell, Iowa, was named, says: "In Grinnell there are no saloons, and no one has been sent to jail, to the poor-house, or the penitentiary for twenty-five years. We can stand a cyclone occasionally if you will keep whisky away."

Everlasting Fire.

By Ellet Joseph Waggoner

LAST week we considered the condition of the world without Christ, the fate from which Christ saves those who believe in him, and which unbelievers are to receive: It was found to be perdition—the exact opposite of life eternal. In our further investigation of this subject, in order that doubts may not embarrass the minds of any, we will first consider those texts that are supposed to teach just the opposite of what we have found to be the case. And first, we will say that it is not a subject on which philosophy or mere human reason can throw light. We can know nothing about it, except what we learn from the Bible. It is not for men to say what God will or will not do. Believing that the Judge of all the earth will do right, we must prepare our minds to accept what his word says concerning the fate of those who rebel against his Government. If we should find that they are to be kept alive throughout eternity, suffering infinite torture, we are bound to accept that view, even though it is repugnant to our ideas of justice. And so, also, if we find, as we have already, that they are to perish, i. e., be blotted from existence, then we must accept that view, however contrary it may be to our previous instruction.
We have said that there are, and will be at the end of the world, but two classes—believers and unbelievers, or righteous and wicked. In the twenty-fifth of Matthew these two classes are brought to view. The King is represented as separating the two classes, setting the righteous on his right hand and the wicked on his left. "Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world." Verse 34. This disposes of the righteous; they then receive the reward of eternal life. The time will then have come for the saints to "take the kingdom, and possess the kingdom forever, even forever and ever." Dan. 7:18. But what of the wicked? "Then shall he also say unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels," Matt. 25:41.
Does the fact that the wicked are to go into "everlasting" fire, prove that they will live and be tormented to all eternity? We will not presume to decide without an examination of the Scriptures. Let the Bible be its own interpreter. In the seventh of Jude we read that "Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." The reference will be understood by all. On account of the wickedness of the cities of the plain, God rained down fire from heaven upon them, and their fate,—"suffering the vengeance of eternal fire,"—is given as an example and warning to other evil-doers.
Now must we understand, because those cities suffered the vengeance of "eternal fire," that they are therefore now in existence, and will be eternally? Turn to 2 Pet. 2:6, and read: "And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes, condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly." What was the result of that eternal fire? The cities upon which it fell were turned to ashes. And Jeremiah shows that, instead of its requiring an eternity for eternal fire to accomplish its work, it takes but a short time. He says: "For the punishment of the iniquity of the daughter of my people is greater than the punishment of the sin of Sodom, that was overthrown as in a moment, and no hand stayed on her." Lam. 4:6. Now if those cities were "overthrown," and turned to ashes, then the fire must have long ago ceased to burn. And this is the case, for the waters of the Dead Sea now roll where those cities once stood. Then "eternal fire" in that case did not burn to all eternity. If it was so in one instance, it may be in another.
We have seen (Matt. 25:41) that fire is to be the means by which the wicked are punished. What will be the result of this fire? Read Mal. 4:1, 3, and we shall see: "For, behold, the day cometh that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble; and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch." "And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do this, saith the Lord of hosts." So we see that this "eternal fire," into which the wicked are to go, like that which fell upon the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha, will turn them to ashes. That seems reasonable enough. Fire always turns to ashes that which is thrown into it, if that thing be combustible; and in this case we are told that the wicked "shall be stubble." Why should they not be ashes when the fire has done its work?
On Jude 7, Dr. Barnes has the following comment:—
"The phrase 'eternal fire' is one that is often used to denote future punishment—as expressing the severity and intensity of the suffering. As here used, it cannot mean that the fires which consumed Sodom and Gomorrha were literally eternal, or were kept always burning, for that was not true. The expression seems to denote, in this connection, two things: (1) That the destruction of the cities of the plain, with their inhabitants, was as entire and perpetual as if the fires had been always burning—the consumption was absolute and enduring—the sinners were wholly cut off, and the cities forever rendered desolate; and (2) That in its nature and duration this was a striking emblem of the destruction which will come upon the ungodly."
But does not the Bible also say that the fire into which the wicked are to be cast shall not be quenched? It certainly does; let us read: "And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off; it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched. Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." Mark 9:43, 44; also verses 45-48. We would not in the least evade the full force of this text; we believe it, and yet we still hold that the wicked are to become ashes, and cease to be. Let us see if we cannot also find an instance of unquenchable fire that has already existed and ceased to be. In the seventeenth chapter of Jeremiah, the Lord, by his prophet, warned his people against the sin of Sabbath-breaking. He told them that if they would keep the Sabbath according to his commandment, their city, Jerusalem, should stand forever. "But," said he, "if ye will not hearken unto me to hallow the Sabbath day, and not to bear a burden, even entering in at the gates of Jerusalem on the Sabbath day; then will I kindle a fire in the gates thereof, and it shall devour the palaces of Jerusalem, and it shall not be quenched." Jer. 17:27. But the Jews did not heed this warning: they continued to violate the Sabbath, and the Lord brought upon them that which he had threatened. Read what is said of it:—
"And the Lord God of their fathers sent to them by his messengers, rising up betimes, and sending, because he had compassion on his people, and on his dwelling-place; but they mocked the messengers of God and despised his words, and misused his prophets, until the wrath of the Lord arose against his people, till there was no remedy. Therefore he brought upon them the king of the Chaldees, who slew their young men with the sword in the house of their sanctuary; . . . and they burnt the house of God, and brake down the wall of Jerusalem, and burnt all the palaces thereof with fire, and destroyed all the goodly vessels thereof. . . . To fulfill the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah." 2 Chron. 36:15-21.
Here we see that as the result of that fire that was not to be quenched, the palaces were burned, and the vessels were destroyed. Is the fire burning yet? Certainly not. Are the palaces and walls still in existence? No; the fire made an end of them. Now suppose the fire that was kindled in the gates of Jerusalem had been quenched; what would have been the result? Why, the walls and palaces would not have been devoured, as Jeremiah had said they should.
Take a common occurrence. A fire breaks out in a city. The wind fans the flames so that every effort to extinguish them is in vain. The next day the papers say that certain blocks of buildings were burned to ashes. Why was it? Because the fire could not be quenched. If it could have been, the buildings would have been preserved. But does the fire still continue to burn? No; it went out as soon as the buildings were consumed. There was nothing then for it to feed upon, and it died.
Now what did we read in Malachi that the fate of the wicked shall be? "They shall be ashes under the soles of your feet." But this result would not be accomplished if the fire into which they are to be cast should be quenched. The fact that the fire shall not be quenched is the fullest proof necessary that they will be utterly consumed. Mark the strong language used by John the Baptist: "Whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into his garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire." Matt. 3:12. Here, as in many other places, the wicked are likened to chaff, now if they are to exist in the flames of punishment to all eternity, this would be an inappropriate figure, for chaff does not long withstand the fire. And the fact that they who are represented by the chaff will not be proof against the destructive action of the fire, is indicated by the statement that he will "burn up" the chaff.
Right here we may notice a passage in Isaiah. "The sinners in Zion are afraid; fearfulness hath surprised the hypocrites. Who among us shall dwell with the devouring fire? who among us shall dwell with everlasting burnings?" Isa. 33:14. This is a very pertinent question. Shall we conclude from it that the prophet teaches that the wicked will dwell in the fire to all eternity? That would be a hasty, shortsighted conclusion. The very next verse answers the question: "He that walketh righteously, and speaketh uprightly; he that despiseth the gain of oppressions, that shaketh his hands from holding of bribes, that stoppeth his ears from hearing of blood, that shutteth his eyes from seeing evil." Such, and such alone, can dwell with the devouring fire, and with everlasting burnings. While the "devouring fire" seizes upon the chaff, and burns it up, the righteous ones, gathered into the garner of the Lord, shall dwell in safety. Well may the sinners in Zion be afraid, for the day is coming that "shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch."

The Way to See Good Days

"He that will love life, and see good days, let him refrain his tongue from evil, and his lips that they speak no guile. Let him eschew evil, and do good; let him seek peace and ensue it. For the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers; but the face of the Lord is against them that do evil." 1 Pet. 3:10-12.

The "Teaching of the Apostles."

By Ellet Joseph Waggoner

THE reader must bear in mind the reason why these articles are written. It is not because we attach any importance whatever to the document called the "Teaching of the Apostles," but because some people were lauding it to the skies, and claiming that it would completely overturn all seventh-day observance. Our object was to show just how much weight it does have, so that none can have the "Teaching" as an excuse for Sunday keeping. In our investigation we have found, (1) That when correctly translated, the document does not mention the "Lord's day;" (2) That it is not claimed by its most zealous defender that the "Teaching" was written by any of the apostles; (3) That no one knows when it was written, but they suppose that it was in the first, the second, or the third century; (4) That no one pretends to know who wrote it; (5) That the fact that it was written early in the Christian era adds nothing to its value, because writers on church history agree that it was a common thing to forge the names of eminent men, and that to deceive and lie in a good cause was thought to be commendable, even by those calling themselves Christians; and that even when we concede honesty of purpose to them, we cannot depend on what they say, because they were in every way unfitted to be expositors of Bible doctrine.
Still further, we found that the immediate company in which it was found does not recommend it, because the so-called "Epistle of Barnabas" is universally conceded to be a forged document, besides being full of blunders, and puerile and absurd to the last degree. Concerning the two "Epistles of Clement," we found that one is not an epistle at all, and is not claimed by scholars to be the production of Clement, and that the other bears no author's name, so that nobody knows who wrote it, and, more than all, is admitted by all to have been the object of much interpolation. And as for the "Epistles of Ignatius," they are declared by high authority to be base forgeries, "the last shifts of a grave imposture," "utterly spurious," and fit only to be "swept away from among the genuine remains of early church literature with the besom of scorn." Such is the company in which this document that is to upset all the calculations of Sabbath-keepers was found.
And now comes the venerable Bishop Bryennios himself, the one to whom the world is indebted (?) for the discovery of this wonderful production, and says that of the sixteen chapters that compose the "Teaching," the "last ten chapters are entirely distinct, and have no authority whatever, except so far as the writer happens to be correct in his injunctions." And the Independent of October 16, the one from which the last quotation is taken, commenting upon it, says: "European and American scholars have not claimed that any part of the 'Teaching' is authoritative; the first six chapters no more so than the last ten. They only insist that the whole document has value and significance as a reflection of the teachings and usages of the sub-apostolic age."
Surely we need quote no more testimony. The learned Bishop grants that the last portion of the "Teaching" has no authority, "except so far as the writer happens to be correct in his injunctions." That is a great concession. Now we can answer for seventh-day keepers that they are not disposed to regard any writings whatever as having authority, except so far as the writer is correct; the standard of correctness must invariably be the Bible; and when any writer makes a statement that agrees with that standard, we accept it, not because a certain writer said so, but because it does agree with the standard.
The Independent's statement that the whole of the "Teaching" has value only "as a reflection of the teachings and usages of the sub-apostolic age," is a confession that the document is simply one of the forgeries so common in the early centuries. It purports to be the "teaching of the apostles," when it is nothing of the kind. This proves the truth of what we said in the second article, that nobody really believes that the "Teaching" carries with it any weight of authority. Then why did the Advance say that it would tend strongly "to make keepers of the seventh day change their observance to the first day, and keepers of the first day more confident of their position then heretofore"? There can be but one answer: Advocates of first-day observance having no Scripture authority for their claims, have fallen into the habit of accepting anything which seems to support them, even though they know their witnesses to be false.
That this conclusion is not ill advised, appears from an examination of the quotations in our last article, concerning the so-called epistles of Clement, Barnabas, and Ignatius. Those quotations were made for a twofold purpose. First, to show the writings from whose company the "Teaching" derived so much of its honor, and second, that our readers might know the foundation upon which the Sunday institution is built. For, be it known, these same writings,—those attributed to Clement, Barnabas, and Ignatius,—are constantly quoted in behalf of Sunday observance. The statements found in them, together with a few from other "Fathers," equally untrustworthy, are the strongest proofs brought to bear in favor of Sunday-keeping. Men who write "D. D." after their names, who have graduated at theological seminaries, where church history is a most prominent branch of study, and whose text-books in that study were those from which we have made our quotations, will quote the words of these "Fathers," with as much assurance as though they were inspired. We will not question the honesty of such men, but we think that the following words are fulfilled in them:—
"Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouths, and with their lips do honor me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men; therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvelous work among this people, even a marvelous work and a wonder; for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid." Isa. 29:13, 14.
The reader will have little difficulty in estimating at its true value the evidence that has formed the basis for Sunday observance, when he reads the statement of the Advance, that the "Teaching" will tend to "make first-day keepers more confident of their position then heretofore." Vain confidence! As though any number of untruths could be made to equal one truth. Truly, when men turn away from the commandment of God, and are determined to abide by the "precept of men" their perceptions become blunted, and they become unable to distinguish truth from error. In closing, we would say to all who desire to establish Sunday observance, that it cannot be done unless they can bring a "Thus saith the Lord" in support of it, because the storm that is coming will "sweep away the refuge of lies," but "the word of the Lord abideth forever." Nothing will stand that is not built upon this foundation.
E. J. W.

A Mixed Case.

By Ellet Joseph Waggoner

At the last Methodist Conference in California a "Sabbath Committee" was appointed, whose report appeared in full in the Advocate. It is but just to state that the report as given was not adopted, but what the objections were is not stated. If they were against the first paragraph, which we quote below, we shall be happy to make them known if we are informed of them. Here it is:—
"Sabbath is made binding upon the human conscience by the law of God. Some statuary provisions, intended to impress the world with its holiness, passed away with the exigence to which they were made specially to apply; but the fourth commandment is yet as binding as the first or the sixth. The decalogue is fundamental law. It is the constitution of the moral world, and the full force of its fourth section passed over to the first day of the Jewish week by the change which the Holy Spirit distinctly announced and the apostolic church adopted immediately after the resurrection."
It is doubtful if so great a medley of truth and error could be found in one paragraph on any subject except the Sabbath. The first half is straight enough. The law of God contains our rule for Sabbath observance. The statutory provisions, that were local and temporary, formed no part of the fourth commandment, as is admitted above. Consequently their existence or non-existence in no wise affected the force or meaning of the fourth commandment. That, as the committee truthfully said, "is yet as binding as the first or the sixth." This being the case, it necessarily follows that all our knowledge concerning the Sabbath must be derived from the fourth commandment.
Thus far we agree. But now, after stating that the decalogue is the constitution of the moral world, they add, "and the full force of its fourth section passed over to the first day of the Jewish week." If that be so, then we must find some statement to that effect in the fourth commandment, or else must find it in an amendment to the constitution. Read the commandment: "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 manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates." This commandment, the committee say, is as binding as the first or the sixth. By what legerdemain do they make it uphold first-day observance when it mentions only the seventh day, and that explicitly? We would like to have that committee explain their words.
We will ask another question: What did the commandment mean when it was given? What day did it specify as the day of rest? All will admit that it was not the first but the seventh day of the week. The committee admitted this, when they said that the force of the fourth commandment "passed over" to the first day of the week. If any are in doubt as to just what day the Lord did point out by the commandment, let them read the sixteenth chapter of Exodus, and remember that the order of things therein stated continued forty years. For forty years the seventh day was marked by the regular occurrence of miracles. Now, then, another query: Since the wording of the commandment has not been changed, and it clearly designated the seventh day when it was given, how is it possible for it to mean the first day now? Can the same commandment teach one thing at one time, and another thing at another time? If it can, why could it not teach both things at the same time? And if it did that, would it really teach anything?
Let us try this mode of reasoning on the first commandment. That says, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." There is no mistaking who is meant by this commandment, for it is prefaced with, "I am the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage." The living God is the one who thus claims supreme honor, and so it was and is understood. But we find that in after years the Jews, as an entire nation, forsook the Lord, and served Baal. For this cause God visited them with punishments. What a pity they did not have the wisdom of modern theologians, for then they could have said: "The decalogue is the constitution of the moral world, and the full force of its first section has passed over to Baal." We are not sure that this argument would have been of any advantage to them, for they doubtless had an abundance of excuses with which to quiet their consciences, and we very much doubt if they could have brought the Lord over to their way of thinking by any such reasoning. But why should not the Lord be satisfied with that kind of obedience to the first commandment as well as to the fourth? We are certain that neither the Advocate nor the "Sabbath Committee," would be willing to allow that the first commandment justifies the Chinaman in his worship of Joss. And why not? Because it particularly specifies the God who is to receive our adoration. Very good. But the committee admit that the fourth commandment is as binding as the first; why then do they keep the first day when it enjoins the seventh? Can they give a satisfactory answer?
"But we have already given our authority," perhaps they will say. Let us look at it. They say concerning the decalogue that "the full force of its fourth section passed over to the first day of the Jewish week by the change which the Holy Spirit distinctly announced, and the apostolic church adopted immediately after the resurrection." We can only say that we have read the New Testament through more than once, and we never came across any such distinct announcement; and we have never seen any one that did. If that committee have some revelation from the Holy Spirit that other men have not, we think it is their duty to make it known. One thing is certain: Neither Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, nor James, ever made that "distinct announcement" known.
We think all candid persons will agree that the committee have not established their case. It must stand with the Scotch verdict of "not proven." To all who are inclined to accept their conclusions without proof, we would say, Be cautious how you proceed. God himself declares that he is a jealous God, and we are very sure that in the Judgment they will not be able to convince him that when he said one thing he meant something directly opposite. E. J. W.

Christians Need Not Become Yankees

PRESIDENT ANGELL, of Michigan University, said, in a speech at a missionary meeting, that, from what he had seen of missionary life in the far East, he thought some missionaries have gone too far in attempting to transform every converted Chinese and Japanese into a live Yankee. He thought that to add the shrewdness of the Yankee to the subtleness of the Oriental, would not be a very good combination. A man need not lose his individuality or nationality to become a Christian. There were Christians before there were either Englishmen or Americans.

The Missionary.

By Stephen Nelson Haskell

The New England Quarterly Meeting.

This meeting was held in connection with the dedication of the new school buildings. Combining the two, brought in a larger number of friends than would otherwise have assembled. About three hundred of our people were in attendance on the Sabbath and first-day. Some who were not observing the Sabbath, but who had become interested while working on the school buildings, were present at the meeting. The church was well filled. The influence of the dedication which took place on Friday at one o'clock had an excellent effect not only upon our brethren and sisters, but upon the leading educational men in the place who were present. There seemed to be an excellent religious interest from the commencement.
Quite a number who had become interested in the truth by reading took their stand at this meeting. One young man from New Hampshire, who came to the meeting with his uncle, embraced the Sabbath and went home to close up his affairs so that he might return in a few weeks, and attend the school the coming winter. A man who had been engaged to put in some work in connection with the school, also came, and we understand returned home to keep the Sabbath. In fact we never had a quarterly meeting at which so many took their stand to keep the Sabbath, as at this. The same might be said as to the results of the camp-meeting held in Worcester. One woman embraced the Sabbath at the camp-meeting, went home, and since then her husband has embraced the truth with her. They too were at this meeting and both were baptized. Nine are reported as taking their stand in favor of the Sabbath in the city of Worcester since the camp-meeting, and many more are interested.
There is no Conference that has distributed more reading matter without seeing individuals embrace the truth than the New England Conference. Thousands of dollars have been expended in scattering publications among the people, and now we are beginning to see the results of the missionary work. Sometimes we had almost questioned the propriety of carrying the distribution of reading matter so far and of paying out so much money as some of our brethren have done in this Conference, when so few results could be seen. But now in towns all through the Conference, there are individuals who are embracing the truth, and springing up in its defense, as plants grow out of the earth. Many of these have been receiving the Signs of the Times, and within a few months have been convinced in regard to the Sabbath, and have now commenced its observance. Some of them are individuals of influence and means. There are many very encouraging features in this respect, which give courage to the missionary workers.
The report of the missionary society showed that a greater amount of work has been done during the past quarter and during the past year than ever before in the same length of time. Our preachers in New England are few, but our laborers are increasing. Our brethren were much encouraged. Elder Whitney was here from New York, Elders Burrill and Hutchins from Vermont, Elder Smith from Michigan, and Elders Goodrich and Hersum from Maine. Taking all things together, we consider this meeting the most encouraging to the friends of the cause of any that ever was held in this Conference.
The school commenced on Wednesday, Oct. 22. Two are on their way from South America, having embraced the truth there. One is a teacher, and desires to learn our method of teaching, that he may go back and teach the same to his friends. Thus God is bringing within the range of truth, individuals from long distances. What the result of all this will be, Heaven only knows; but we are certain a great work is before us as individuals and as a people, and if we are faithful to our trust to let our light shine, God will go before us, and will work for us, and in a manner that it can be seen that there is a God in Israel, and that he cares for his people. S. N. Haskell.
South Lancaster, Mass.

Marching On.

By William Ings

IT is truly encouraging to see the advancement of the Third Angel’s Message in fulfillment of the announcement, “Thou must prophesy [or proclaim] again before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings.” Rev. 10:11. There seems to be more accomplished in one year now than in five years in the past. Should all who profess to believe in the near coming of Christ labor to the utmost of their ability, there would be seen a still greater advancement in the work.
Of late, some have had a burden for the people of foreign lands, and have seen good results from their labor. Everywhere there are souls hungering for something more substantial than what they have; and when their attention is called to the glorious truths now shining from God’s word, they feel that they have found the prize at last. While England, Switzerland, France, Norway, Germany, Roumania, and Sweden have had the message brought to them by the living preacher, other countries are calling for the same. Our able minister, the SIGNS OF THE TIMES, is stirring up the minds of the people.
We give below, extracts from a few of the many letters received by a lonely sister who has the cause of God at heart. It has been but a short time since her mind was directed to the work of sending the SIGNS to New Zealand. Although a school teacher, with a family to provide for, she undertook to mail thirty copies of the SIGNS each week to that country, and to write letters to accompany the same. By her efforts hundreds of persons have been made glad with the contents of our pioneer journal, and now the sender is more than paid for her labor of love by the interesting letters which she is constantly receiving. This work will prepare the way for the living preacher, who will, I hope, soon be sounding, in that far-off land, the proclamation of the advent near.
“Thanks for sending me the SIGNS OF THE TIMES. I read them, then hand them to others, so as to circulate them as much as possible. I send you the address of six persons who would like to receive your paper.”
“Your SIGNS OF THE TIMES is an excellent paper. I am a believer and will read the paper myself, and get others to read it also. We will subscribe for the journal from the time you first sent it to me, and will forward the subscription price to the publishers.”
“I have received the SIGNS you so kindly sent me. Please accept thanks for the same. We shall be most happy to receive a copy for our reading-room. I feel confident your paper will be kindly appreciated.”
“Please continue sending me the SIGNS OF THE TIMES, and state the cost for the paper and postage annually, and I will forward the same by post-office order.”
“I thank you for the papers sent. I have now sent them to the Seaman’s Mission and Sailor’s Home in Auckland, where they will be much appreciated.”
“I have laid the SIGNS before the Board of our Christian Association for their consideration, and have been requested to order a copy to be placed in our reading-room, and will forward the subscription price with postage for one year, I may be able to secure you some subscribers. It is no doubt a good work, and with God’s blessing the paper will do much good wherever it is read. May God prosper it and make it a blessing to many.”
“The copies of the SIGNS OF THE TIMES you so kindly sent me have been laid on the reading room table of our association, and have been read by many. There are many here who would read the paper, if sent to them. Inclosed are a few addresses. These persons will appreciate your journal.”
The secretary of a Christian association expresses his thanks for this valuable paper, and gives the address of another person who would be pleased to receive a copy.
A young lady writes that she has received a few copies of the SIGNS, and that not only herself, but her father and others are interested in them.
Another lady wishes to express her thanks for the valuable paper, and is sorry that circumstances prevent her from subscribing. The copies received have been sent to friends in different parts of Ireland.
May the Lord bless this dear sister in her continued efforts to spread the present truth, and may many more be found who will join the army of active workers in the Master's vineyard. WM. INGS. Healdsburg, Oct. 26, 1884.
Continue reading: Keeping Life’s Ship Sound