Earlier text: SPECIMENS OF ARGUMENTSIt has been observed by some one, we cannot recollect who, that there is only one instance in the whole history of England of a woman making her appearance at Westminster Hall, and before the Judges of Assize, in order to make a formal defense in favor of the unfortunate. That woman was the young and interesting wife of John Bunyan, who had become the sacrifice for conscience’ sake. Although Elizabeth stands alone among her sex as an advocate, yet there never was offered a more eloquent and unsophisticated defense than that which she made in behalf of her husband. She, first of all, had the courage to appear before the house of Lords, to ask the Supreme Court of Appeals to relax the rigors of persecuting law. Their Lordships, it is said, rudely told her to go to the Judges of Assize who condemned her husband, and without fail she did so. At the Assize Court Sir Matthew Hale presided, and he was accompanied by Judge Twisden, a magistrate of ferocious temperament, whose countenance strangely contrasted with the mildness and placidity of the Lord Chief Justice. We are indebted to John Bunyan himself for a description of the conduct of Judge Twisden on this memorable occasion. He says, “Judge Twisden snapt at my poor wife Elizabeth, and angrily told her that her husband was a convicted person, and could not be released unless he would promise to preach no more.” But Elizabeth, however much she loved her husband, was more enamored of the gospel, and she gave the court to understand that her husband could not purchase freedom at the expense of keeping silence about the mercy and compassion of God. “It is false,” continued Elizabeth, “to say he has done wrong; for at the meeting where he preached they had God’s presence with them.” “Will he leave off preaching?” roared Twisden. “My Lord,” said Elizabeth, “he dares not leave off preaching as long as he can speak. But, my Lords,” she proceeded with tears in her eyes, “just consider that we have four small children, one of them blind, and all of them have nothing to live on while their father is in prison, but the charity of Christian people.” This was too much for Sir Matthew Hale, who now interposed with the ejaculation, “Alas! poor woman!” He then inquired what was her husband’s calling. “A tinker, please you, my Lord,” said his wife, “and because he is a tinker and a poor man, he is despised and cannot have justice.” Law is stronger than tears. The Lord Chief Justice told her that her husband had broken it; he told her that there was but one person in the realm who could pardon her husband, and that person was the king. But how was the broken-hearted wife of a tinker to find her way to the footstool of a monarch? “Alas! poor woman,” he said, “I am sorry for your pitiable case.” Elizabeth now became convinced how vain it was to expect justice and mercy from an earthly tribunal; and with a heroic glory which can only be found in the annals of the Christian faith, she pointed to her tears as she departed, and uttered words that never should die as long as the English language exists:— “See these tears, but I do not weep for myself. I weep for you when I think what an account such poor creatures as you will have to give at the coming of the Lord.”—Sel. Promises should be made only with carefulness. Our word, especially if we profess to be God's children, should be sacred. It is impossible for God to lie, and if we are truly his children, we shall be very particular to keep our promises. But is it telling a lie to break a promise? It can be no better, unless an unavoidable hindrance arises; and the Bible gives a rule; so we need not get into that difficulty even. Instead of saying we will do thus and so, we should say, “If the Lord will.” Please read James 4:15. Many say, “Oh! I don't think it is necessary to say that;” or, “I mean that, of course.” But nobody knows what you think unless you tell your thoughts, and we have direct counsel what to say; besides, if it really is in your heart, why not say it? This rule is important, or inspiration would not have given it. “By thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.” No person can have a good influence without a sacred regard for his or her word. Nobody will trust you after you have two or three times made and broken a promise; and when people lose confidence in you, how can you have an influence with them? We, as S. D. Adventists, need to be especially careful to preserve a strictly upright walk and conversation before all. Let us break up the habit, if we have fallen into it, of saying while under a kind impulse, “Yes, I will help you;” “I will see what I can do,” and never doing anything. It is better not to vow than to vow and not pay. S. A. BOWEN. What is the exact nature of sin? The word used by one of the New Testament writers signifies etymologically lawlessness. A sinner is called an outlaw. Sin is to be reckoned only by a standard, and that standard is the immutable enactment of God’s will. Sin may be best defined as “any want of conformity unto or transgression of the law of God.” That law is clearly revealed. We call to mind an exquisite statue of Law, as we once saw it in the area out before an Eastern court of justice. Fair and majestic the figure rose in stone out of its lofty pedestal. Her head was covered with a helmet, to show she was shielded when attacked. In one hand she held a sharpened sword, to make known she had power to punish. But with the other she scattered gifts among the people; and her kind eye was always on the horn of plenty rather than on the edge of her weapon. And oh! what gifts were these for human enjoyment and need,—peace and prosperity, arts and learning, commerce and manufactures, truth to men and purity to women and shelter to children. Under her reign all was beneficence and quiet; life was tranquil, joyous, and noble. Even this was beautiful—wondrously beautiful—only human law, gentle and just to all. But what marble could befit the image of divine law, or what skill could fashion the figure of its benignant majesty—Heaven come down bodily, with its serene order and peace on the earth, wearing the regalia of God! “The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul; the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes. The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring forever; the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.” “Blessed are the undefiled in the way, who walk in the law of the Lord.” Into this vision of celestial peace come the rush and tumult of war. Sin is defiance of divine law. Sin covets the sword rather than the horn of plenty. If each sin had its first wish and legitimate result, it would overthrow the order of the universe, raise insurrection, destroy government, and introduce anarchy through all the ranks of intelligent existence. It would debase truth, debauch honor, fire baleful passion, lash forward relentless desire, and kindle the world with the flames of hell. Hence sin is serious business. To mock at it is to trifle with life and death, time and eternity; it is to jest with things highest and holiest, things deepest and grandest. Let sailors look over the ship’s side and laugh at the mischievous insects which bore holes in the planks between them and the waves. Let miners smile at the children who pluck away the strands of the cable by which they hang over the unfathomable abyss of the shaft. But he that mocks when sinners defy the law of God is a fool. “Fools make a mock at sin.”—Christian Weekly. A STRIKING AND BEAUTIFUL TESTIMONY.
At the close of a meeting at Mudnapilly, in India, a well-educated Brahmin rose, and, to the astonishment of the missionary and all who were present, delivered the following very striking and beautiful testimony to the beneficent and self-denying character of the missionary’s labors:— “Behold the mango-tree on yonder road-side. Its fruit is approaching to ripeness. Bears it that fruit for itself, or for its own profit? From the moment the first ripe fruit turn their yellow sides toward the morning sun until the last mango is pelted off, it is assailed with showers of sticks and stones from boys and men, and every passer-by, until it stands bereft of leaves, with branches knocked off, and bleeding from many a broken twig. And piles of stones underneath, and clubs and sticks lodged in its boughs, are the only trophies of its joyous crop of fruit. Is it discouraged? Does it cease to bear fruit? Does it say, If I am barren, no one will pelt me, and I shall live in peace? Not at all. The next season the budding leaves, the beauteous flowers, the tender fruit, again appear. Again is it pelted and broken and wounded, but it goes on bearing, and children’s children pelt the branches and enjoy its fruit.” “That is a type of the missionary.”—Sel. The Robber and the Traveler: A Parable
A TRAVELER on his journey meets a robber in the woods. “Give me your money,” cries the highway-man, “or I’ll shoot you.” “It may be,” thinks the traveler, “the man is in want;” and he generously gives him six dollars. “Take this. God bless you. Farewell.” “Stop! stop!” cries the robber; “I see another dollar, and I must have that.” “O, sir,” replies the traveler, “be content. Of my all, seven dollars, you have six, and I have only one to help me on my journey.” “Give me that seventh dollar!” cries the robber, drawing his pistol. What do you think of the robber? “The meanest thief I ever could conceive of!” “What is his name?” Sabbath-breaker. HAS THE MILLENNIUM COMMENCED?
By Uriah Smith
We have been hearing a great many years of the good time coming when swords should be converted into plowshares and men should learn war no more; and thousands of voices have declared with the most positive assurance that the world is all the time growing better. We find in late papers a very impressive commentary upon this kind of preaching. It is an advertisement of a seven-shot revolver, figured down so as to cost only $3, offered as a premium for subscribers by several papers, and recommended as the weapon for police, bankers, and for household use. The advertisement says, “Tramps, burglars and thieves infest all parts of the country. Every one should go armed.” Therefore this weapon has been devised on a new model, of “long range and deadly accuracy,” and brought out at such a price as to be within the reach of all, to meet the necessities of the present condition of society, and everybody is now cautioned to go armed. That is to say, in brief, that the world has improved so fast, and men have grown so much better, and we are so near the millennium, that everybody should now carry about his person a deadly weapon to defend himself against the tramps, burglars, and thieves with which the country swarms! We think the inspired writers were a trifle more accurate than these peace and safety criers, when they stated that the last days should be like the days of Noah, when “the earth was filled with violence,” that iniquity would abound and the love of many wax cold, and that evil men and seducers would wax worse and worse even till the coming of Christ, who at his appearing would scarcely find faith upon the earth. How much more is needed to complete the prophetic picture? U. S. It appears from the following article that some people begin to “see men as trees walking,” in reference to the difficulties which beset the practical application of the Sunday theory. The observer of the Bible Sabbath on Bible grounds listens with immense satisfaction as he hears Sunday-keepers exclaiming, “We need either a better theory of the Sabbath or more consistency,” and hears them confessing that they have an “immense contract” on their hands in trying to make their theory and actions agree. The article is from The Independent, of June 7, 1877, and will explain itself:— “The General Assembly may have settled the Sewickley case; but it has not settled the Sunday question. And no more difficult question to settle could have come before it. Mr. Nevin, an elder of the church in Sewickley, Pa., was the chief proprietor of a Sunday paper in Pittsburgh, Pa. No complaint was made against its character; but it carried on its face the date of Sunday. It was probably neither edited nor printed on Sunday; but it was called a Sunday paper, and was distributed on Sunday by newsboys, just as The Messenger, or The Sunday-school Times, or The Wellspring, or The Missionary Record is distributed Sunday in church by the deacons or the librarian. There was much less Sunday work done on it than is done on an ordinary Monday newspaper. Complaint was made to the Allegheny Presbytery against the Sewickley church for harboring a desecrator of the Sabbath, and the Presbytery required the Sewickley session to discipline the offender. The church refused, and appealed to the Synod of Erie. The Synod sustained the Presbytery. The church then appealed to the Assembly.” “It was a somewhat difficult case to decide without saying more than it was desirable to say. If publishing a Sunday paper is wrong now, was it wrong during the war? Then everybody got a Sunday paper who could. If wrong, is it wrong to publish a Monday paper, which requires much more Sunday work? Yet how many church-members feel religious scruples about buying a newspaper Monday morning? Is it wrong also to own stock in a daily paper which issues a Sunday edition? Is it a disciplinary offense to own stock in such a paper? Take the case of Deacon Bross, which was in the minds of the Assembly. He owns a large but not a controlling interest in the Chicago Tribune. He votes, perhaps, in the meetings of the stockholders against issuing a paper on Sunday and Monday; but he keeps his stock and accepts the profit on it. Shall he be disciplined? Is it an offense to own stock in a railroad which runs a Sunday train? Shall a man be disciplined who rides to church in a horse-car which makes a profit from Sunday travel? Shall a man be held to be a heathen who supplies a milk-route on the Sabbath? And are they all sinners who run to the street with their pails when the milkman disturbs the Sabbath stillness with what is not the church-going bell?” “The Sewickley church thought these were delicate questions all involved in the case which it was required to act upon; and it decided that these questions could best be settled by each church as they came up. But the Assembly was implacable, and by a large majority it voted that ‘any voluntary and responsible participation in the publication and sale of a Sunday newspaper is inconsistent alike with the decree of the law of God and with membership in the Presbyterian Church.’ It further declared that, if the session of the Sewickley church should disobey the instructions of the Presbytery of Allegheny, it should be put ‘under discipline for contumacy.’” “As Judge Morehead, of Pennsylvania, told the Assembly, it has ‘taken an immense contract on its hands.’ In its deliverance the word ‘responsible’ was inserted in the committee’s report, to protect Dea. Bross and others like him, who own less than a controlling interest in companies which make a profit on the Sabbath day. But the distinction is one not fit to be made. If the Assembly thinks it its duty to require the Sewickley church to expel Elder Nevin, it should equally require the First church of Chicago to discipline Dea. Bross. And even so the man who buys a paper which has a Sunday issue is ‘responsible’ for supporting that paper, and the General Assembly itself was ‘responsible’ for making an arrangement with a paper which appears seven days in a week for publishing the official report of its proceedings, part of which were issued in the Sunday Tribune. We need either a better theory of the Sabbath or more consistency.” A PLAIN TALK TO THE MURMURERS.
By Dudley Marvin Canright
Some Facts for Those Who Are not in Harmony with the Body. The work of Carver against Mrs. White is in the hands of the opponents of God’s Sabbath from Maine to California. They use it as their best argument against the Sabbath. Time after time, where we have been at work in new fields, and have raised up a church of Sabbath-keepers, some of this party would come in to create doubt and distrust among the new converts, and perhaps turn some from the Sabbath entirely. Prominent writers in their papers denounce Seventh-day Adventists as the beast of Revelation, the followers of the apostate Jezebel, and as “guilty of greater crimes than any other Protestant church.” There is scarcely an article in their little sheet in which they do not in some way manage to make a thrust at Seventh-day Adventists. Frequently several whole articles in the same number are devoted to misrepresenting us. What do all these facts prove? Just what I have asserted, viz., that the sole object for which the party exists is to harass and hinder us in our work. In further proof of this I quote from the editorial of a late paper:— “It may not be very interesting to read the controversial matter relating to Seventh-day Adventists, as an organized body, to those who have known but little or nothing of them and their workings. But when it is remembered that many of our readers were once connected with that organization, and have suffered by the oppression that the leaders of that party bear over their people, and the mental thralldom they are under from that organization, and the many who are yet so bound, the duty of exposing them is apparent.” Yes, they claim that this is the burden which God has laid upon them. It is absolutely amusing to see them, after denouncing us in every conceivable manner, turn around and send to our Office for books upon present truth to help them in their work. Thus in a late paper to the inquiry, “What do you do for a hymn book?” the editor says, “In some other places the brethren use the small hymn book of the S. D. Adventists at Battle Creek, called Spiritual Songs. We have not been able to publish a hymn book.” Why do they draw water from our well if it is as corrupt and poisonous as they claim? Why do they send for our books? Because they have neither ability to write them themselves, nor means to publish them if they could write them. Let me illustrate their position: On the Western prairies, where water is very scarce and hard to obtain, able farmers bore for water. Sometimes by going down several hundred feet, they will strike a living fountain and have a flowing well. Bro. Brown, at a cost of $500, bores such a well, and from this well comes forth a continual stream of good water. After watering his own house and stock, it flows off over the country several miles into a river. Adjoining Bro. Brown lives Mr. Jones, a poor man who has no well of his own. He is not able to bore one, but as this stream from Mr. Brown’s well flows close by his farm, he digs a small ditch and takes a branch of water from this stream. He lets it run till it fills a little pond. Then he cuts off the connection and begins to curse Bro. Brown and denounce his well; tells what miserable water it is, how it makes everybody sick that drinks it. Then he points to his own little pond, and extols that water in the highest terms. He drinks from it, and urges it upon others. But soon his pond gives out. Then he lets in a fresh supply from Bro. Brown’s stream, and when his pond is full he cuts off the connection; and thus he works from time to time. This is just what these opposers are doing. From whence did they get the Sabbath, the Advent doctrine, the sleep of the dead, saints’ inheritance, and these other truths? They got them from Seventh-day Adventists. From whence have they obtained most of the publications which their preachers use? From S. D. Adventists. Where do they get the charts of the law of God and the prophecies, upon which they lecture? They get them from S. D. Adventists. From whom have most of their preachers and members come? From S. D. Adventists. Let them deny these things if they can. But time would fail to expose all the evil work of these men. Are there no good ones among them? Probably there are some,—some who have not had a chance to know the difference between that party and our people, some who are ignorant of their history and their object. We pity these poor souls. We would do nothing to hurt them. We would help them to open their eyes if we could. But now in conclusion: The real point which I wish to make in the minds of our brethren and sisters is this: If the third angel’s message, including the Sabbath, the second advent, the saints’ inheritance, the nature of man, and these important points of faith,—if this work is of God, and the time has come that these truths are to be preached, and yet if the visions of Sr. White and the position of Eld. White are not correct, but are really displeasing to God, I ask you this one question: Why is it that God does not prosper and build up these opposers who have gone off from us upon this very issue? Every time they have started out with simply leaving out the visions and opposing the work of Bro. White. Why does not God help them, and show that they are right and we are wrong? I maintain that the providence of God in the history of this work has settled the question that we must either accept the testimonies, and Bro. and Sr. White as God’s servants, or give up the third angel’s message entirely. We warn you who are inclined to find fault and murmur and draw off. Be careful what path you are entering upon. If you proceed in that direction, you will land just where all others have who have tried it before you. What risk do you run by remaining with the body of Seventh-day Adventists? What danger is there in receiving the visions and living them out? What do you gain by enlisting among these murmurers or the party of open opposers? Are these murmurers or the members of that party any better Christians than they were when with us? Do they live any more blameless lives than Seventh-day Adventists? Do they keep the law of God better? Do they keep up the family altar more sacredly? Are they more devoted in their worship? Do they regard the Sabbath more strictly? Are they more cleanly in their habits? Do they sacrifice more for the cause of God? Are they doing more to advance its interests, or to build up the present truth? How will you advantage yourself by leaving us and joining them? Do you not know that Seventh-day Adventists in general, to say the least, are God-fearing men and women, persons who believe the Bible, and are trying hard to be Christians? Do you not believe that if they live up to the doctrine they profess they will be very sure of salvation? Are these murmurers ahead of us in any reform, physical or moral? Indeed, are they not far behind Seventh-day Adventists in these reforms? Are they not far behind even many worldlings in this respect? And would you not be dropping down instead of coming up in reform, in going from us to them? Are they more particular about the Sabbath, more careful about their devotions, more conscientious in their walk? If you know them as well as I do, you know that their practice in all these things is far below that of Seventh-day Adventists in general. I appeal to you to look among our churches anywhere, and tell me who are the most devoted, sacrificing, conscientious, Bible-loving, God-fearing persons in our ranks? Are they not the very ones who have the strongest confidence in the visions, and are in the closest union with the body? You know that they are, I know they are, and our enemies know it. See the confession of W. H. Ball, published last week. Brethren, you who believe these testimonies, do you read them and follow them as closely as you should? Do you love them and remember what they say? Do you try to drink in their spirit? Do you have them in your houses? Do you refer to them frequently? I know that nothing would be more profitable to you than these, next to the Bible. But how should they be treated among our people? Perhaps a few words of instruction upon this point may be in order. These testimonies are for the church, not for the world. It would be very foolish and wrong to quote them as authority to outsiders who have no faith in our message, or have not embraced it. It would do them no good. They must first come to believe them before they can be authority with them. Neither should they be obtrusively urged upon those just embracing the truth. But they should very soon be placed in their hands with a recommendation to read them candidly, and thus become acquainted with them. How can they judge of that of which they have no knowledge? and how can they become acquainted with the testimonies without reading them? No candid person will reject them without having first carefully read them and examined them. How should we treat those in the church, or those who wish to come into the church, who do not yet believe the testimonies? I answer, Just as you would receive them were they in some doubt with regard to other parts of our faith. A person who has not embraced the Sabbath would have no desire to unite with us; hence we need not consider that. But suppose a person has embraced the Sabbath and some other points of our faith, but does not believe in the sleep of the dead, the destruction of the wicked, or something like that, shall we reject him on that account? Certainly not, if we find that in other things he is a Christian, seeking for the truth, and in sympathy with our work; but he must understand, of course, that he must not stop our mouths upon this question. The sleep of the dead, for instance, is an established doctrine of our church. Knowing this, if he wishes to come among us, though not yet believing it, we shall not make this an objection, provided that he does not make it a subject of contention himself. We shall advocate that doctrine in our books, our papers, our sermons, and in our social meetings; we shall sing about it. If he can bear that without being offended, all right; but we shall never close our mouths upon it to please him; nor shall we allow him to come into our meetings and get up arguments against it, and oppose those who do believe it. We simply treat his unbelief with forbearance and toleration. If he is willing to come among us on these conditions, very well; but we shall not consent to be bound on so important a doctrine for anybody’s fellowship. This position we believe to be reasonable and consistent. Just so we say with regard to the visions. Belief in them is the established doctrine of the S. D. Adventists in all our churches. We shall advocate them in our papers, our books, and our sermons. We shall talk about them in our social meetings and among ourselves. We shall read them in our houses and in our churches whenever we like. We shall regard Sr. White as a dear sister in Christ, and a beloved laborer in the work. Now if any come among us having embraced the Sabbath and other leading points of our faith, and wish to unite with our churches, though they do not yet believe the testimonies, we shall not refuse them on that account, provided that they do not bind us upon this subject. If, knowing our position upon this question, they can walk with us in fellowship, then we shall not make a test of it with them. But if they feel opposition to the testimonies, if they feel called upon to oppose them, and argue against them, and object to others’ reading them, talking about them in social meetings, and drawing comfort and instruction from them, then we protest. If they must bring wrangling and division into the church upon this subject, if they treat Sr. White as a deceiver, then we object again. We would not allow anybody to treat our other faithful ministers and laborers in that manner, and we shall not be less particular with regard to Sr. White or Bro. White. We love them and honor them as highly as any of our dear brethren. Their reputation and character are sacred with us the same as are those of all our accredited ministers. We would very soon reprove any one who would abuse Eld. Andrews, Waggoner, or Haskell; and we shall do just the same with regard to Bro. and Sr. White. We say that this position is reasonable, nay, it is the only consistent position we can take. We must either maintain this or abandon our work entirely. Hence we say to our brethren everywhere that they should be free in all their ordinary prayer and social and Sabbath meetings to read from the testimonies, or quote from them, or refer to them just as they like. They should never suffer themselves to be bound by any unbeliever in this matter. Persons who would take offense at this, and feel hurt by it, and opposed to it, are not enough in harmony with our work to be a benefit to us or be benefited by us. If God has given us light, we have a right to it and should not be bound in this matter. Rome, N. Y., March 1, 1877. CLOSING MEETINGS IN CALIFORNIA.
By Uriah Smith
May 29, we left California for the East, and proceeding by slow train reached Battle Creek, Thursday, June 7. The latter portion of our stay in California was spent in visiting some of the churches. We enjoyed precious seasons with the churches of St. Helena, Napa, Santa Rosa, Healdsburg, Petaluma, San Jose, Woodland, and the brethren in the vicinity of Dixon, where Brn. Healey and Stephens were engaged in tent labor with a growing interest, besides more frequent meetings of interest with the churches of San Francisco and Oakland. We find the foundations for a permanent and extensive work upon the Pacific coast laid broader and deeper than we had anticipated; and we have come away feeling a new interest in the cause there, and the noble men and women who stand as its supporters. The cause has had its necessary trials, and the moral atmosphere has been purified by the separation of unworthy members from the ranks, while new laborers have come up to take upon themselves the burden of the work, and enter whole hearted into the field. With great interest we marked the workings of the publishing house, which has in so short a time risen to a self-sustaining position; and we look for the cause of the third angel's message to make henceforth rapid and healthy progress on that coast. We are frequently asked what we think of California. Physically, it is a peculiar and wonderful land. To an eastern man it seems somewhat strange to find the thunder and lightning all under ground, and to see the winters exhaust themselves wrestling with the towering summits of the Sierras, so that they never find their way into the valleys below. Here are presented some of the loveliest landscapes imaginable, embracing the richest and most fertile lands. But like all other places it has its drawbacks. When the curse fell it did not skip this section. Disease, suffering, death, are here also. The climate is slowly changing, and the seasons are sometimes erratic; now unseasonable rains, then too fervid droughts. The present season the drought is rendering the crops in some sections worthless, and in others of half value. This is shutting off thousands from employment and bringing distress upon many. Twenty-five thousand men in San Francisco are reported as being out of employment. And still hundreds are pouring in weekly from the East, with no means to return. What they are to do is a problem the solution of which is involved in utter darkness. It is a hard country for the penniless; for a person is not allowed to beg without taking out, and paying for, a license; and if he seeks shelter for the night in a barn or any deserted building, he is arrested for vagrancy. How cheering is the Christian's prospect as he looks away from the darkness of this earth to a land where sin will never be suffered to bring in its wild disorders. To us, our brief sojourn in California was very pleasant. We shall ever gratefully remember the kindness of many friends. They were eminently successful in their efforts to make our stay with them agreeable; and we hope to meet them when the warfare is over, among the victors on the sea of glass. Rev. 15: 2. U. S. THE OHIO CAMP-MEETING.
By H. A. St. John
The executive committee of the Ohio Conference have at last fixed upon Newark, the county-seat of Licking County, as the most available site for our next camp-meeting. We have looked at several places, but the opening and inducements at this place were far better than at any other point. Newark is a city of about twelve thousand inhabitants, and is surrounded by a good farming country, in almost every direction. It has three weekly papers. It is situated at the junction of the Baltimore and Ohio, and Pan Handle railroads, one running north and south, and the other east and west, thus making it quite accessible from all parts of the State. Among the privileges and inducements offered by Newark, we mention the following:— 1. An interest to hear the reasons of our faith and hope is manifested by the citizens, and also by the people in the country for many miles around. 2. Both the railroads above mentioned have already agreed to give us excursion rates (two cents per mile), and we have good hope that we can get half fare. 3. The Agricultural Society offer us the free use of their fair-ground, which is pronounced by many one of the finest in the State. It consists of an inclosure of about one hundred acres, perhaps, all covered with a nice green-sward, and finely shaded. There is an abundance of good water, with wells and pumps on the ground; and, besides, there is a canal, and the Raccoon River running hard by. Within the above-mentioned inclosure, there is another inclosure, familiarly known in these parts as “The Old Fort.” It consists of about fifty acres of ground inclosed by an embankment of earth, about ten feet above the level, in the form of a perfect circle, just one mile in circumference, with an opening toward the city of perhaps sixty feet. This embankment is the work of a people now entirely unknown. It has all been worked up from the inside, making it about twenty feet from the bottom of the mote to the top of the ridge. This ditch and embankment are sodded, and when I was on the ground, were literally covered with spring flowers, filling the air with perfume. Trees growing out of the embankment compare in size and age with any on the ground. Within this second inclosure will be our encampment. Outside of it are all the stables, and other conveniences for horses. 4. The Society not only offer us the free use of the grounds as above mentioned, but also of nearly all buildings that appertain thereto. Plenty of good stables free to our brethren that may come with teams. Within the embankment stands a well-constructed amphitheater with seats for fifteen hundred people; also, a Floral Hall that will seat about fifteen hundred more. Besides there are other smaller structures that may be made very useful. 5. The Society agree to furnish police for the ground, day and night, free. 6. A portion of the officers of the Society, desiring to be on the ground all the time, in return for all they offer us, ask only the privilege of running the provision stand, readily agreeing to sell nothing but what we are willing they should sell. Judging from what I know of the financial results of some of our provision stands in the past, this arrangement may prove even a blessing to our Conference. With the responsibility of feeding the people taken off from our hands, it is my thought that we might give ourselves more fully to the real objects of the meeting. These should be: first, our own best good; second, the spiritual and eternal welfare of the people. If we understand the General Conference Committee correctly, we are to appoint our own best time, and hold as long as we think for the best good of the cause. We have therefore appointed the meeting to begin on Friday, A. M., Aug. 10, and continue till Monday morning, Aug. 20. We hope the General Conference will remember us liberally in the matter of providing efficient ministerial aid. With the help of the R. R. companies and the Agricultural Society to advertise, we expect to make it by far the largest meeting of the kind ever held in the State. We trust the Lord is opening the way. SIGNING NOTES.
By Dudley Marvin Canright
Everywhere I go, even among our people, I find many cases of persons who have lost, some more, some less, and many, all they have, by signing notes with some friend. They did it because he was a friend, not with any idea of paying the note themselves, but simply as a recommendation. Then something happens that that friend cannot pay his note. Now it comes on the indorser; and he who never had one cent’s profit from it, has to take his own hard-earned means to pay. This is very distressing. Frequently our brethren get involved for life in this manner, and some of them lose their homes in their old age. More than that, it is not unfrequently a positive injury to the man with whom they sign. It may be the cause of his venturing more than he otherwise would have done, of contracting debts which he would not have contracted had it not been for this friend’s encouragement. It would have been better for him to have kept out of the business entirely and gone at something within his means. It would have saved trouble all around. It is astonishing that men will do this when they know that the Bible is so positively against it, and when they know the risk there is in it, having seen so many others bitten by it. Brethren, you had better keep out of it. There is only one way to do it—never to sign with anybody for any consideration. If your friend must have help, and you feel bound to help him, hire the money yourself right out, and then lend it to him and take his note for it. Then it is all understood. You, yourself, owe that debt now, and your creditor will look to you for it and to nobody else. These hard times are cramping many, and some who ventured in this manner are now suffering for it.