BLESSED are the poor in spirit; for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven.” Matt. 5: 3.
A ladder, if it is of any use, must have its first step near the ground, or feeble climbers will never be able to mount. It would have been a grievous discouragement to struggling faith if the first blessing had been given to the pure in heart, for to that excellence the young beginner makes no claim, while to poverty of spirit he can reach without going beyond his line. Had the Saviour said, “Blessed are the rich in grace,” very few of us could have derived consolation therefrom. Our divine instructor begins at the beginning, with the very A B C of experience, and so enables the babes in grace to learn of him; had he commenced with higher attainments, he must have left the little ones behind. A gigantic step at the bottom of these sacred stairs would have effectually prevented many from essaying to ascend, but encouraged by the lowly step, which bears the inscription, “Blessed are the poor in spirit,” thousands are encouraged to attempt the heavenly way. To be spiritually poor is the condition of all men; to be poor in spirit, or to know our spiritual poverty, is an attainment specially granted to the called and chosen.
The kings among mankind, the happiest, and most powerful, the most honorable, will one day be seen to be, not the Alexanders, Cæsars, and Napoleons, but the men akin to him who washed the disciples’ feet, those who in quietness lived for God and their fellow-men, unostentatious because conscious of their failures; unselfish because self was held in low esteem; humble and devout because their own spiritual poverty drove them out of themselves, and led them to rest alone upon the Lord. The time shall come when glitter and gew-gaw will go for what they are worth, and then shall the poor in spirit be seen to have the kingdom.
The dominion awarded by this beatitude to the poor in spirit is no common one; it is the kingdom of heaven, a heavenly dominion, far excelling anything which can be obtained this side the stars. An ungodly world may reckon the poor in spirit to be contemptible, but God writes them down among peers and princes, and his judgment is true and far more to be esteemed than the opinions of men.
“Poor in spirit!” The words sound as if they described the owners of nothing, and yet they describe the inheritors of all things. Happy poverty! Millionaires sink into insignificance, the treasures of the Indies evaporate in smoke, while to the poor in spirit remains a boundless, endless, faultless kingdom, which renders them blessed in the esteem of him who is God over all, blessed forever. And what must be their blessedness when they shall shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father, and in them shall be fulfilled the promise of their Master and Lord, “To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne?” —Christian Weekly.
OSAGE CITY, KANSAS.
By Geo. Kennedy
I am holding meetings in this place, and am now in the midst of the Sabbath question. There is a great interest here; the people are very much stirred. I called for an expression Sunday night, Jan. 28, and about fifty testified in favor of the Sabbath and not one for Sunday. I have had great freedom in speaking here. The interest is increasing every day; what the result will be cannot yet be told.
My courage is good, and faith in God strong. I expect to remain here till the work is completed, and the coast clear. Pray for me, brethren.
GEO. KENNEDY.
Jan. 30.
MISSOURI
By C. H. Chaffee
While at Avilla, Jasper Co., we received a telegram that our aged mother was at the point of death. Immediately we started home, where we arrived in time to see and converse with her before her death. We trust she sleeps in hope.
The 9th of January we commenced a course of lectures in Utica, in the Congregational church. We have given seventeen discourses. Congregations range from 100 to 350. The interest is good. Several have said they will keep the Sabbath. The people are mostly friendly, and help in the singing. The minister of the congregation has done all he could to have the house closed, but to no avail as yet. We hope for an ingathering of souls here. To this end we ask the prayers of all of God's people. C. H. Chaffee.
MINNESOTA
By C. Nelson
I HAVE tried during the last three weeks to present the truth before my countrymen in Albert Lea. One family, who had kept the Sabbath before, and given it up, have now started anew to serve the Lord. Several others are interested, and to some degree anxious to know the truth. The Lord willing, I shall go back there in a few days. Will my brethren still remember me in their prayers?
C. NELSON.
Meriden, Steele Co., Jan. 29.
OUR CANVASSERS.
By H. A. St. John
Some of our canvassers and missionaries report encouragingly. In Springfield, O., where Sr. Gates is working, hundreds of families are reading with deep interest, and some are embracing the truth, rejoicing in the observance of the true Sabbath. Springfield now appears to be an excellent field for the living preacher. May the Lord bless Sr. Gates.
In Warren, O., Sr. French began the work but a few weeks since, and has already obtained several subscribers for our excellent periodicals, and one soul has heartily embraced the truth by reading, while many others are reading with deep interest. Lord bless Sr. French.
In southern Ohio, Bro. J. W. Lucas is working vigorously in the good cause, and the Lord is blessing his efforts. He is meeting with greater success as a canvasser for our periodicals than any other one that we know of. Lord bless Bro. Lucas.
Brn. H. S. and O. F. Guilford have been doing missionary work at a point in Ottawa Co., O., and as a result, thirteen have embraced the truth, and are holding regular Sabbath meetings. Lord bless the Brn. Guilford.
Lord bless all our missionaries, and swell their numbers. H. A. ST. JOHN.
REPORT OF MAINE T. & M. SOCIETY.
By J. B. Goodrich; Amos Holt
The first quarterly meeting of the Maine T. and M. Society was held with the church at Norridgewock, Dec. 17, 1876. Called to order by the president. Opened in the usual manner by singing and prayer.
The report of the last quarter was read and accepted. Then there were remarks made by different ones on the subject of distributing almanacs, and the importance of taking hold of this branch of the work.
Voted, To send for 1500 more almanacs, which will make 2100 that the Society has had this year.
The president made some remarks on the subject of health reform, which were listened to with interest.
Moved, To adjourn to the call of the chair.
SECOND SESSION.
This was called by the chair, Dec. 31, 1876, with the church at Cornville. Prayer was offered by Bro. Stratton. Reports from each district were read. Also the working of the Society during the quarter was reported as follows:—
No. of members, 130; reports returned, 39; No. of families visited, 70; letters written, 37. New subscribers for REVIEW, 7; INSTRUCTOR, 3; REFORMER, 5; SIGNS, 1; LES SIGNES, 1. Periodicals distributed: REVIEWS, 44; REFORMERS, 4; SIGNS, 34. Tracts and pamphlets distributed, pages, 32,591; value, $40.33. Books furnished to libraries, pages, 5,316; value, $12.30.
Money received for membership, $4.00
Donations, 15.65
Book sales, 5.02
Total, $24.67
Remarks were made by the president and others on the importance of the missionary work, and what had been accomplished in this branch of the work in bringing others into the truth. This awakened a lively interest in the meeting.
Moved, To adjourn sine die.
J. B. GOODRICH, Pres.
AMOS HOLT, Sec.
A Dying Usurer and the Silver Crucifix
A FAMOUS usurer of Paris being on his death-bed, his confessor presented a silver crucifix to him, with a view to awaken him to a sense of his situation. The dying miser, after examining the cross with the most minute attention, suddenly exclaimed, “Sir, I can lend you but a very small sum on such a pledge.”
TRACT AND MISSIONARY QUESTIONS.
By Stephen N. Haskell
WHAT IS TO BE DONE WITH THE ONE-THIRD?
The plan of raising means for the tract and missionary work has been heretofore by donation. These pledges were usually made as the result of earnest appeals at quarterly meetings, camp-meetings, etc. It was found that great inequality resulted from the plan. (1) Many of our brethren who were able to pay liberally would not be at the meeting. (2) Often the most conscientious under these stirring appeals would go beyond their ability, and thus distress themselves, while the more able would fail to do what they ought. The apostle taught equality, “I mean not that other men be eased and you burdened, but by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want, that there may be equality.” 2 Cor. 8: 13, 14.
This matter was considered at the General Conference, and after much prayerful consideration it was recommended, first, that all our brethren and sisters come up on the Bible plan of Systematic Benevolence, which is based upon giving as God has prospered them. 1 Cor. 16: 2; Deut. 16: 17. This calls for one tithe of a man's increase and income. Lev. 27: 30; Matt. 23: 23; Luke 11: 42; Gen. 14: 26; 28: 22; Heb. 7: 4, 8. Secondly, that each member pay a sum for the tract and missionary work for 1877 equal to one-third of his s. b. This does away the old method of pledging for this purpose. Hence when this step is taken by each church, the one-third is paid into the Conference Tract Society to which the church belongs; and it is then entitled to that amount for the purchase of tracts and for such missionary enterprises as the Conference Tract Society may enter upon.45
HOW ABOUT THE ALMANACS?
The almanacs taken by each Conference Tract Society are charged to it at the publishing house. The Tract Society charges each district with the number it takes, and the district charges each church. The almanac financial problem has been thoroughly solved this winter that wherever our brethren have cheerfully taken hold of the matter to sell them, they pay for themselves.
Will not the SIGNS AND REFORMER run the Tract Society hundreds of dollars in debt, as heretofore? We answer emphatically, No, if our brethren and sisters enter cheerfully upon the work of canvassing. The liberal offer which is now made by the Association,—of clubbing the Way of Life, Uses of Water, Sunshine Series, and Life of Urgos, leaves each Conference without excuse in reference to filling its apportionment of subscribers for our periodicals. The Way of Life takes everywhere, and not unfrequently have we seen subscribers obtained with the Way of Life before we have left the churches we have visited. Thousands of names can be obtained and are being obtained in this manner.
Sisters in each church should take from eight to fifty copies of the SIGNS to use in loaning to their neighbors and sending to friends far and near. These are paid for in monthly installments through the Tract Society or directly with the SIGNS Office. Thousands of copies should be taken in this manner.
HOW SHALL WE SELL THE WAY OF LIFE?
Always for one dollar and nothing less. The price of the REFORMER alone is one dollar. But to obtain new subscribers for the REFORMER, the Way of Life, Uses of Water, and Sunshine Series, are clubbed with it for the price of the REFORMER alone,—one dollar. These premiums are clubbed with the SIGNS OF THE TIMES for two dollars. When you send the SIGNS to your friends without a premium it is $1.50. When you send the REFORMER to your friends it is 60 cts.
Why those unacquainted with our views can have the premium with the SIGNS and REFORMER for the price that the brethren pay for them without the premiums. The Association could not afford these liberal offers were it not for the patronage of our brethren at full price. The justness of this must be seen by every one, and be appreciated by every Seventh-day Adventist who has any love for the cause of God and any desire for his neighbors to read on present truth.
S. N. Haskell.
MASSACHUSETTS SABBATH.
By C. W. S.
LAWS AFFECTING ITS OBSERVANCE.
“In reference to the observance of the Lord’s day the Supreme Court has just rendered an important decision in the case of the Commonwealth, by complaint, vs. Gehring Has. The defendant was complained of in the Roxbury District Court in June last for keeping an open shop on the Lord’s day. The case went to the Superior Court, and was tried at the September term, and the defendant was convicted upon the 18th of that month. Upon the 19th, Mr. George Sennett, the counsel for the defendant, filed exception, upon the ground that his client conscientiously believed that the seventh day of the week ought to be observed as the Sabbath, that he so observed it, and disturbed no one.
“The Court ruled that this was no defense; that Sec. 1, Chap. 84, of the General Statutes, contained two classes of offenders, so far as the ninth section was concerned, viz.: first, those who keep open a shop, warehouse, or workshop on the Lord’s day, and, second, those doing labor, business, or work, etc., on Sunday; and that Sec. 9 of the same chapter relieved only the second offense from punishment (i. e., doing business or work upon the Lord’s day), and made the first offense (keeping open shop for doing such business) absolute.
“The defendant acknowledged that he had committed this offense, and the jury was directed to find him guilty if the jurors believed that he kept an open shop upon the Lord’s day for the purpose of doing business with the public therein, whatever his conscientious scruples about the seventh day might be.
“To this ruling the counsel also excepted. The exceptions have now been overruled, and the following rescript has been sent down:—
“1. The ninth section, Chap. 84, of the General Statutes does not permit one who conscientiously observes the seventh day of the week as the Sabbath to keep open shop on the first day. “2. The chapter 84, General Statutes, is not unconstitutional.
“An abstract from the General Statutes follows:—
“Chapter 84, Section 1. Whoever keeps open his shop, warehouse, or workhouse, or does any manner of labor, business, or work, except works of necessity and charity, or is present at any dancing or public diversion, show or entertainment, or takes part in any sport, game, or play on the Lord’s day, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $10.00 for every offense.
“Sec. 3. Whoever, keeping a house, shop, cellar, or place of public entertainment or refreshment, entertains therein on the Lord’s day, any persons not being travelers, strangers, or lodgers, or suffers such persons on such day to abide or remain therein, or in the yards, or orchards, or fields appertaining to the same, drinking or spending their time idly or at play, etc., shall be punished by fine not exceeding $5.00 for each person so entertained.
“Sec. 9. Whoever conscientiously believes that the seventh day of the week ought to be observed as the Sabbath, and actually refrains from secular business, travel, and labor on that day, shall not be liable to the penalties of this chapter for performing secular business, travel, or labor on the Lord’s day, or first day of the week; provided that he disturbs no other person.”—Boston Traveler.
The above shows the decision of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts in the case of the Commonwealth vs. Gehring Has, noticed in REVIEW, No. 3, present volume.
In consideration of Sec. 9 of the above abstract, we are led to wonder at the decision of the court. That section exempts any conscientious observer of the seventh day from penalty “for performing secular business, travel, or labor on the first day of the week; provided that he disturbs no other person.”
In the name of common sense, how is a man who keeps a shop going to do secular business on Sunday with his shop closed? And the law allows him to do secular business. Now is not that a very fine distinction which the court made when he ruled that Sec. 1, Chap. 84, refers to two classes of offenders? It reads thus: “Whoever keeps open his shop, warehouse, or workhouse, or does any manner of labor, business, or work—;” and the division is made right in that clause, thus: “First, those who keep open a shop,” etc., and second, “those doing labor, business, or work, etc., on Sunday;” and the Court says that Sec. 9 relieves only the second class from punishment.
With two good eyes, any one ought to see that the clause, doing “any manner of business,” which is sliced off into the second and pardonable part of Sec. 1, covers as much as the whole of that first clause, “whoever keeps open his shop, warehouse, or workhouse,” which the court has dissected from the body of the section, and declared unpardonable. The Court rules that Sec. 9 exempts a certain class of persons from penalty for doing “any manner of labor, business, or work,” on Sunday, but it will not exempt them from penalty for keeping open a warehouse.
If an observer of the seventh day keeping a dry-goods store opens his door and sells goods to customers, he is doing business. If he does this on Sunday, is he not exempt from penalty as coming under the second division which the wise court has made,—that of doing business on Sunday? Leaving the Court, is he not exempted by the legislative voice of Sec. 9, which says, he “shall not be liable to the penalties of this chapter for performing secular business . . . . on the first day of the week”?
We do not expect to change the decision of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, but we must be allowed to think that the decision is a little warped. Let the warm sunlight of the fourth commandment shine upon the mind of the Court for a season, and we think the “warp” would straighten, and the difference between doing business on Sunday and doing business on Sunday would not be so apparent.
We are particularly interested in this case because we are looking for the time when the law will be clear in its protection of Sunday; and we think of the assurance with which decisions will be rendered then, when we see how easily the thing is done now, though the law has to be bent. C. W. S.
SHALL WE PRAY IN THE FAMILY?
By Uriah Smith
[The following question comes to us from a brother in Washington, Iowa: “Is there any command or example in the Bible for family worship?”
As an answer we commend to the brother a careful consideration of the following remarks on this subject by Nevins. U. S.]
There are families that call not on the name of the Lord. Nor is it a new thing. There were such so long ago as when Jeremiah lived. He takes notice of them. He has a prayer about them. It seems he was divinely inspired to call down the indignation of the Lord upon such families. “Pour out thy fury,” he says, “upon the families that call not on thy name.” I would not like to have been a member of one of those families; and much less the head of one of them. It must have been very offensive to the Lord that there were families in which he was not acknowledged and worshiped. And if there were such families among the heathen nations that offended him, how much more must it have displeased him that there should be such families even among his people Israel! Families that did not in the family capacity invoke him! I do not know why it should be less offensive now. I do not believe it is. Families are now under as great obligations to God as ever they were.
Some persons ask why we insist on family prayer as a duty. They say we cannot produce any precept enjoining it. That is true enough. But I wonder if that is not a duty, the omission of which is the subject of prophetic denunciation. I wonder if that is not by implication commanded, the neglect of which brings down the wrath of God on those guilty of the neglect. There are some things so manifestly reasonable, and of such self-evident obligation, that they need no law expressly enjoining them. It is not necessary that they should be taught in so many words.
But if we have no express precept on the subject, we have pretty good examples in favor of it. I suspect Abraham, who was so careful to instruct his household in the way of the Lord, did not neglect to pray with them. And David, I am quite confident, prayed in his family. It is said of him on one occasion, that “he returned to bless his household.” No doubt there were both prayer and praise in that family. Certainly Joshua must have prayed in his house. How otherwise could he have fulfilled his resolution that his house, as well as himself, should serve the Lord? What! resolve that his house should serve the Lord, and not join with them in supplication for the grace to serve him! That is not at all likely.
Now I would ask if it is not proper and right that every head of a family should adopt the resolution of him who said, “As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord”? But can there be religion in a house without prayer? Is there not inconsistency in saying, “I and my family will serve God, but we will have no family altar nor offering”? Is not prayer an essential part of the service of God? I wonder if any one ever lived who supposed that family prayer was not more pleasing to God than the omission of it? I wonder if any one ever omitted it for fear of being guilty of will-worship, or through dread that it might for some reason offend God. I wonder if the practice of family prayer ever distressed any conscience. The omission of it has troubled many.
It is admitted, I believe, to be the will of God that we should pray to him socially. The Lord’s prayer was constructed for social use. The disciples were directed to use it when they should pray together; and it is accordingly in the plural number: not “my Father,” but “our Father.” Now, is God to be socially worshiped, and yet not worshiped in that first, most permanent, and most interesting form of society—the form of society instituted by God himself—the family? Is that to be believed? But the Lord’s prayer seems not only intended for social, but for daily use. “Give us this day our daily bread” is one of its petitions. It does not contemplate the morrow. It asks supplies but for one day. Now if, as it appears from this reasoning, social prayer should be daily, where, but in the family, the society which is abiding, and which a single roof covers, can it with propriety be daily? Should there be public religious services daily, or daily prayer-meetings for this purpose? Then, how suitable it is that those who together share their daily bread, should together daily ask it!
How reasonable and comely is household religion—family worship! Common blessings, such as families daily share, call for common thanksgivings. Common wants, such as families together feel, call for common supplications. Is it not fit that families, in retiring to rest at night, should together commit themselves to the Divine keeping; and in the morning unite in praising the Lord for having been their protector? It is a clear case, it seems to me. Besides, fathers are directed to bring up their children “in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.” But can they do this, while they pray not with them and for them? I do not know how we are to comply with the apostolical exhortation to pray “everywhere,” unless we pray in the family, as well as under other circumstances.
Is any one in doubt whether the practice or omission of family prayer will be the more pleasing subject of retrospect from the dying bed, or the eternal world? Parents should not forget that presently may come the long deferred and greatly dreaded season of taking the last look, and the last leave, of those whom their decease is to make orphans. Oh! then, what a sweet thought it will be to enter into the dying meditation, that they have been in the daily habit of bowing down with their children in prayer, and commending them to the care and grace of their heavenly Father, and that they may now indulge the confident hope that he will infinitely more than supply the paternal place which they are to leave vacant!
But what need of more argument? I suspect everybody secretly admits the obligation of family prayer. I judge so from the trouble many are at to apologize for the neglect. It tries them not a little to satisfy even themselves with an excuse. The usual plea is inability. They have not the gift, they say. What gift? Can they not collect their family together night and morning? Have they not so much authority in their own house as that? And then can they not read a portion of Scripture to them; and kneeling down express their common desires to God? But what if it be hard at first, it will soon be easy if persevered in. The beginning of almost every good habit is difficult. The most of those who make this apology presume on their inability. They say they cannot before they have tried. But until they have tried, they do not know whether they can or not. What if some have tried once and failed. One failure should not dishearten them, nor two, nor even twenty. Demosthenes tried speaking many times before he became an orator. Besides, how do those who presume on their inability to conduct family worship know what assistance they might receive from God, if they were to make an humble and faithful experiment.
If any one shall condescend to read this who does not pray in his family, I advise him to commence immediately. He knows that he will never be sorry for it, if he does; but he is not so sure that he may not be sorry for it, if he does not. If there were no other reason in favor of the practice, this alone would be sufficient. I think it is Jay who says that a family without prayer is like a house without a roof—it has no protection. Who would like to live in such a house?
THE “ONE-THIRD.”
By C. W. S.
The question, “What is to be done with the one-third?” is one which is very easily answered. The only chance for a difference in opinion is upon the method of appropriating it. The answer to the question is this: The “one-third,” i. e., the sum equal to one-third of the person’s S. B. for the year 1877, is to “meet the demand for means to be used as far as necessary in the proposed increase of the circulation of the SIGNS, the REFORMER, and other publications.” This is the language of the resolution passed at the last session of the Gen. Conf., and recorded in REVIEW of Nov. 16, 1876.
The “proposed increase” embraced the circulation of “10,000 copies each of the SIGNS and the REFORMER,” east of the Rocky Mountains, the distribution by each Conference of a number of Almanacs that would compare with its membership as the number taken by New York compared with her membership. This was the special missionary enterprise, and the “one-third” was designed to support it and provide also for the circulation of “other publications.” See “Third Session” of Gen. Conf. as above.
Now for the application. Suppose the S. B. of a church is $900. It pledges to the T. and M. Society $300. This $300 was “to be paid, if convenient, the first of Jan. 1877, or, if more favorable, in four installments, the first to be paid Jan. 1; the second, April 1; the third, July 1; and the fourth, Oct. 1, 1877.” But the work of obtaining subscribers for these publications and readers of them must be done by the members. Take, then, an individual case. A certain man’s S. B. is $60. He pledges $20 to the T. and M. Society. He sits down and reckons. His State should circulate 334 SIGNS, 334 REFORMERS, and 5,000 Almanacs. These cost the Tract Society $501, $200, and $125, total $826. These are Vermont figures.
His $20 will pay for 8 SIGNS (12.00), 8 REFORMERS ($4.80), and 128 Almanacs ($3.20), at Society rates. Let him immediately take these Almanacs, and pay the Society for them, or, if he is perfectly responsible, the Society will let him pay in installments. Let him subscribe for 8 copies each of the SIGNS and the REFORMER, and pay the Society as for the Almanacs.
Now he has invested his “one-third” as pledged, and he must take none of it back. If he can sell the Almanacs, let him put the sum right into the T. and M. treasury, or else invest in more Almanacs to sell, putting the final receipts into the treasury, that none of his “one-third” that he pledged to the Lord come back into his own pocket.
As to the papers, let him send them to proper persons, ask them to read, and get them to subscribe if he can; and if he succeeds, let him with the money he receives from them order other copies, or put the money into the treasury for the wants of the Society.
At the present standing of the S. B. figures, one-third of the S. B. of Michigan would not be sufficient to pay for her apportionment of the SIGNS alone. One-third of Vermont’s S. B., as it stood last year, would pay for just half her apportionment of SIGNS, REFORMERS, and Almanacs. One-third of that of Ohio, whose S. B. is larger in proportion to her membership than that of any other Conference, would pay for three-fourths of her apportionment.
Therefore, to fill the quota, each Conference must furnish more subscribers than its one-third will pay for. This is easily done, partly by each member’s obtaining paying subscribers for the copies his pledge has paid for and with that money taking more copies, and partly by special canvassers who shall devote their time to the business.
Are there any who cannot find subscribers, and who have no friends to whom they wish to send these sheets, let them pay their “one-third” right into the treasury, where it can be used by the Society.
By this plan, the one-third is devoted to missionary work, and to the special object for which it was designed,—the increase in the circulation of the SIGNS, REFORMER, and Almanacs; and none of the one-third reverts to the one who pledges it, but, if received back from those who receive the papers, it is invested in other copies, or put into the treasury. C. W. S.
NEW YORK AS A FIELD OF LABOR.
By Dudley Marvin Canright
So far as I have opportunity to observe, I believe that New York is one of the most promising fields of labor that we have; indeed, I do not know how it could be any better. We have offers to-day of more than a dozen meeting-houses in good locations, standing empty, where we are not only invited, but petition after petition is made for us to come and occupy them. School-houses are open to us almost anywhere, and the country is thickly settled so that we can get an audience in almost any place.
Many of our churches are so old that a new generation has come up since they were established. These persons have never heard our faith; they have little or no prejudice, and are perfectly willing, and many of them anxious, to hear. One brother has fitted up a house of worship himself in a new place, at his own expense, and is pleading earnestly for help. As to new places there are hundreds of them in almost any section where they know no more about our faith than do the people of Australia.
Our brethren in the western States, in looking up a field of labor all consider they have struck a good field when they find a neighborhood largely composed of people from New York. They always have the best success among these people. Now I cannot understand why these same people should not be a good class to labor among at home. I believe they are. Then compared to our western States, such as Minnesota, Missouri, Kansas, &c., the people in New York know nothing about hard times and poor living. The poorest of our brethren here nearly all have comfortable homes, well furnished houses, and plenty to eat, while in the States mentioned, where I have been, such homes are an exception.
Neither is there any lack of means in this State to carry on the cause if the brethren will come up to the Bible plan of supporting the work of God. Indeed, there has been no lack in this respect even as it is. Why, then, should the cause languish in this State? Why should we not see from five to ten churches added to our Conference every year? There is no good reason why we should not.
We have had a good deal of encouragement the last season, and some this winter. Not only individuals here and there are embracing the truth from reading, but quite a number of companies have been raised up this year. We take this as an evidence that the cause is going to rise in this State. We hope we may not be disappointed.
But why are there not more ministers in this State, more young men offering themselves for the ministry? Our young people have the best of advantages for education in this State, and most of them are well educated too. We have scores of school-teachers, writing-masters, &c., and many of these are first-class. Why don't some of them give themselves to the cause of God? Why not? They say they have not ability. I don't believe a word of it.
In Michigan, Minnesota, Kansas, and other States, I know scores of young men who are making good, efficient laborers in the cause, who have not near the ability that some of these have. As to education, they are far behind them. Those young preachers have to go out with many disadvantages that these would not have. Brethren in New York, these things are not right. Perhaps there has not been sufficient encouragement held out to induce young men to step out. I am not certain but that this is the case. It does not do for us to be too nice and particular and over-cautious about the matter. We cannot always judge whom God can use. Michigan has turned out a greater proportion of successful ministers than any other State; and I believe that one reason is that young men have been encouraged there, who would not have been encouraged in any other States. In many cases licenses have been given to persons when their best acquaintances sneered at the idea of their accomplishing anything; but by the blessing of God they have done it, and now these friends are rejoicing in their success.
What should be the qualifications necessary to entitle a man to try to preach? If a man's reputation for honesty is not good, that ends the business with him. He has no business in the cause of God. If he is slack in his deal, shiftless at home, does not keep his word in his bargains, he should not be encouraged to preach. Let him learn to be straight in these things first. If there is anything against his moral character any way, of course that ends the thing with him. Again, some persons may be straight morally, but be so indiscreet, so void of judgment, as to do more hurt than good. They must be kept back. But simply supposed lack of ability should not hinder their trying. One of the most successful ministers the Lord ever had was utterly astonished at the mere proposal of becoming a mouth-piece for God. He pleaded that he was slow of speech, that he certainly had not the ability, but the Lord thought differently, and the event showed that the Lord was right. That man was Moses. How many there are among us to-day who have absolutely had to learn by the very hardest way how to talk, but they have gone at it with a will and a determination that they would succeed. A failure for once, or twice, or a half dozen times, has not discouraged them. They have tried and kept on trying, and sought God for help, and received correction from their brethren, until they have become efficient laborers in the cause.
I believe there is a large number of persons in this very State who ought to be engaged in the work of God. Brethren, what are we going to do about this? Shall we give up and settle down with the conviction that the cause in New York must languish and die? Shall we do this with hundreds of Macedonian cries in every direction; with empty meeting-houses, and open school-houses; with halls fitted up and waiting; with thousands of people anxious to hear, and begging us to come; with brethren willing to give of their means to help the cause? Somebody is asleep about this matter. It is time to awake. Let us not be more nice than wise, more particular than zealous, more anxious to find fault than to encourage. If any have anything encouraging, let us hear from them. Only think of it, some seven or eight hundred Sabbath-keepers in this State, and not more than a half dozen ministers actually doing anything! And quarter after quarter, if the question is asked, What is being done? we can answer only as they did when McClellan was before Richmond so long, “All quiet on the Potomac.”
Now, brethren, we have enjoyed this long enough. Let us make things start somewhere. Let us inform the people that we are here, and that we are alive, and that we have something to say. D. M. CANRIGHT.