Earlier text: The Importance of our Cause Being Properly RepresentedWashington Territory.
By S. Maxson
The Review is a weekly visitor at our humble home; and as it is so highly prized by us and our hearts are so often made to rejoice in reading reports from different churches and testimonies from brethren and sisters as to their Christian experience, I thought it might not be amiss for me to give you my Christian experience since living in this far-off, lonely land. With my family, I emigrated to this country in the autumn of ’59—the only family in this Valley that were trying to keep the commandments of God. And being raised a Seventh-day Baptist, and taking the Sabbath Recorder, I requested, through that paper, my brethren to send us a minister, that we might build up a Sabbath-keeping church; but this did not accomplish anything. After a few years, there was a great revival of religion here. Under the preaching of a United Brethren minister, our children embraced religion, and were zealous in the cause of Christ. I joined them and was elected their class leader, with the understanding that I would keep the Sabbath. After a while, one of their ministers, S. S. Costin, embraced the Sabbath; and sister Morehouse, a worthy Adventist lady, moving here, threw the Review into our hands; and the Sabbath question being agitated somewhat, I found I could not get along in the Brethren church, hence withdrew. Then J. F. Wood, my son-in-law, took his family and went to California, hoping, as he afterward expressed himself, to get where he would hear no more about the Sabbath. After traveling over a good portion of the State, he settled down near Healdsburg, where Elders Bourdeau and Loughborough were preaching, and embraced the Sabbath, and commenced a correspondence with me, advocating the doctrines as held forth by the Adventists. He soon returned to this Valley and went through with a course of lectures, creating quite an excitement among the people. While these things were going on, the Lord was preparing me to receive Bible truth. I had become an inveterate tobacco-smoker, from the advice of physicians, but becoming disgusted with the practice, I laid my case before the Lord, promising him, if he would assist me to leave off the vile practice, I would for some benevolent object give fifteen dollars a year—the lowest estimate of the cost of my tobacco—and from that day to this, I have never hankered after tobacco. So I entered, myself, into an S. B. plan, without knowing much about the plan as now carried out by S. D. Adventists. After Mr. Wood returned here, wanting tracts to distribute, I gave him eighteen dollars of the Lord’s money to procure them. They came, and fell into the hands of Mr. Rasmussen. Himself and wife embraced the Sabbath; and now one son has experienced religion. A year or two since, a Bro. Bunch moved here with quite a numerous family. Now I would say that, although we are considerably scattered, we have been holding meetings at three different points, once in four weeks; and have been praying the Lord to send us a preacher. We sent money once to Bro. Cornell, and he returned it; and again, last fall, we received letters from two or three sources that he was coming here. He did not come; and the Lord has been impressing upon our minds the necessity of laboring in his vineyard, and has crowned our labors with the conversion of six young persons; one Mr. Tilton, his wife, two young men, and two young ladies; and after visiting a week or two and consulting with the brethren and sisters, it was thought best to organize a church. Consequently, last Sabbath and first-day, May 17, 18, we had a two-days’ meeting. Eld. Coston preached two feeling sermons on Sabbath, with a conference meeting. The Lord was in our midst, and that to bless. He also preached two sermons on first-day. After the first sermon, we organized a church of nineteen members. Elected S. S. Coston for our minister; S. Maxson was chosen and ordained for deacon; J. F. Wood, church clerk; also extended to him a cordial invitation to improve upon his gift in lecturing on the Advent faith; J. C. Bunch, treasurer for S. B. Society. Then we retired to the river, and with singing and prayers and tears witnessed the baptism of six young converts. Returned to the house; heard a sermon on the near coming of Christ; after which, a social meeting, in which all the members participated, or nearly so, leaving the meeting with an increased interest. Our church is called the first S. D. Adventist church of Walla Walla. This little company of Christians is a unit in the Adventist faith, keeping the commandments of God and living in the faith of Jesus. In behalf of my brethren and sisters, I would say that we still pray for, and ask of you an experienced minister in the Advent faith. We shall also ask of the S. D. Adventist Conference, to be admitted as a sister church, with all the privileges of other churches of your faith and order, holding ourselves ready to conform to the rules of the same. Pray for us, that this little church may be as a city set on a hill that cannot be hid; a bright and shining light in the world. God grant that we may be among those whom Christ’s sentence shall establish unblamable in holiness, and who shall go with him to Heaven. “Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O Lord, my strength and my redeemer. Ps. 19:14.” S. Maxson. Ohio Meetings in Eastern Morrow County
By H. A. St. John
FROM April 8 to May 31, I held a series of meetings in the eastern part of Morrow Co. The first seven meetings of the series were held in an old Presbyterian church called Harmony. The society having gone down, the house was seldom used. Although they chose to call the church Harmony, it was soon very evident that the harmony of some of the society belonging elsewhere was much disturbed by the truth which they would not hear, and we were notified to close our meeting. By earnest invitation, we went to a small school-house about a quarter of a mile distant, where we finished our meetings without further interruption. I never experienced a worse time for meetings than during this series. The roads were muddy, the nights very dark and generally rainy. This had much to do in making our congregations very small most of the time. Several times there were but five present. But having a few interested hearers, we were encouraged to hold on till we felt sure that the work was done. Eight souls publicly accepted the truth. Six of these were members of the Methodist church. Five were baptized. They unite with the Waterford church, and hereafter, for a time, the regular meetings and Sabbath-school of this society will be held in “Yankee Street” school-house. To my brethren in Ohio, I would say that I do not think it duty to pitch the tent at present. When the tent is pitched, it should be well supplied with laborers. Ohio has not the laborers. Oh! my dear brethren, should we not seek God earnestly for his blessing upon ourselves and our Conference? Should we not fervently pray the Lord of the harvest to send forth laborers, imbued with the Spirit of God and the last message, that we may behold the work of God prospering among us? If the General Conference Committee can use our tent in any part of the wide harvest field, may they not take it? Better be in use than lying still. I am now in the eastern part of Knox Co. Have commenced a course of lectures in a7 good-sized country school-house. Have had my first meeting, with a very fair congregation. I earnestly desire to be remembered. I want the glory of God and the salvation of souls to be paramount to everything else. My address, for the present, is Fredericktown, Knox Co., Ohio. “AND HAVING DONE ALL; TO STAND.”
By The Christian
Can you stand for God, though you stand alone,
With your heart at rest and your soul secure;
With your feet on the rock and your eye on the throne,
Can you stand and toil, and stand and endure? Can you stand for God ’mid the storm’s wild wail,
Can you stand when the tempests ride the air;
Can you stand when earthly hopes shall fail—
Can you stand for God and never despair? Can you stand for God when your heart grows faint,
When your sad soul looks through the blinding tears;
Can you stand without murmuring or complaint,
Through the tedious days and the toilsome years? Can you stand for God while the witching smile,
And the siren song and the world’s caress
Unite their charms with the serpent’s guile—
Can you stand with only God to bless? Can you stand in the faith, though the time be long,
Though the night be dark and the day-star dim;
Can you stand, and in his own strength be strong,
Till at last you are found in peace of him? Can you stand?—Then stand in the strength of God,
Through the waning years of this world of woe:—
When the golden streets are by pilgrims trod,
You shall stand within and his glory know.
—The Christian. New Hampshire.
By P. C. Rodman
I RETURNED to New Hampshire May 15. Have given thirteen lectures. We have a fair attendance evenings and Sundays. Sabbath day, I meet with friends in Campton Village; have good meetings and Bible-class, but have not been able to meet them all at any one meeting yet, for the reason, some are sick and others not able to walk to where our meetings are held. But the most of those keeping the Sabbath are advancing; we still hope all will hold fast and go forward. Pray for us. P. C. RODMAN. ELD. WAGGONER’S SECOND NEGATIVE.
By Eld. Waggoner
Eld. Vogel has turned his insinuation into a direct statement that some of my brethren have argued that the first covenant was not abolished. This I deny, and call upon him to point to a single accredited writer or speaker among us who has so taught. Were his statement true, it would have no bearing against my argument, but he knows the “effect” it will have on some minds. To add that he will believe on my “mere word” that I never held that view, may not have been designed to insult, but could never emanate, in such a connection, from a regard to the courtesies due to an opponent. I have not yet considered it due to anybody to offer even my “mere word” on that point. A man more reckless of his statements on the Bible, I have never met. He says Ps. 69, is “not a prediction”—does not apply to Jesus more than to “any one else of the present day.” (!) See verses 9, 21: “For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me.” “They gave me also gall for my meat, and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink.” Comp. John 2:17, and Rom. 15:3, &c. And so unreliable are his statements on Isa. 56. He says when the Lord’s supper was instituted they “did not commune, but merely ate bread and drank wine”! And that is all they do now, according to the true faith. I was aware that Eld. V. was raised in the “mother church,” but supposed he had got farther from her than he has. Jesus then said, “This is my body—this is my blood,” i. e., they represented his body and blood, and so they do now. His reference to Lev. 23, for the times of instituting and of observing their feasts, do not serve him, for there was a specific statement of the time of their observance—but not so of the Lord’s supper. It is amusing to see how strenuously he pleads for inferences in behalf of positive institutions. Campbell is not misconstrued by me. He does inveigh against that which (to use his own words) “is supposed to be logically inferred” in favor of a positive institution. I ask the reader to look again at my quotation from Campbell. He describes and condemns the very course Eld. V. pursues, to wit., taking a part here and a part there and connecting inferences, without direct statement or precept. The only real service Mr. Campbell did for theology, was to strip the veil of tradition and inference from positive institutions. Eld. V. complains that I said “he knows better.” I used the words justly. But if he does not yet know A. Campbell’s position, I will try to enlighten him. We will read again:— “A positive institution requires positive precept—a positive and express authority. No positive institution has ever been established upon mere inference. To attempt to found a positive Christian ordinance upon an inference, or upon a series of inferences, is, in effect, to stultify and make void its pretensions. . . . We have called upon its advocates times without number for such a precept—for such a positive injunction, but hitherto we have asked in vain.”—Baptism, p. 218. A man hung on circumstantial evidence is unjustly hung, if the evidence is not based on a series of undisputed facts. But Eld. Vogel not only violates every just principle, by trying to build up a positive institution by mere deduction, but even his supposed facts from which his deductions are drawn, are fallacies! 1. Rev. 1:10, does not hint of a new institution, nor point out the first day of the week. 2. Acts 20:7, does not speak of the Lord’s day, nor of the observance of any day, nor of any duty in that respect. 3. 1 Cor. 16:2, does not speak of the Lord’s day, nor of the observance of a day, nor of any assembling for any purpose on any day. Inference is all that he presents. On Rev. 1:10, he has done a needless work. No one denies that it is a day “of,” or “pertaining to,” the Lord; “the Lord’s day” expresses all that. He quotes Barnes; I accept it, and will quote it again. “So far as the word is concerned, it might mean a day pertaining to the Lord, in any sense, or for any reason—either because he claimed it as his own, and set it apart for his service, or because it was assigned to commemorate some important event.” Now all these particulars apply to the seventh day as the Lord’s day. (1.) He claimed it as his own. (2.) He set it apart for his service. (3.) He designated it to commemorate an important event. But neither of them applies to the first day. (1.) He never claimed it as his own. (2.) He never set it apart for his service. (3.) He never designated it to commemorate an important event. If this is disputed, we call for the precept—the “positive injunction!” They who love the pure word of God more than traditional fallacies, will be at no loss to determine which is the Lord’s day. He revives the question, and re-affirms his position that “Lord,” in the text, refers only to Christ. I should have exposed this before, only that he declared its “proper place” was in this proposition. We will examine the ground. (1.) He said, “Under this dispensation, the term, Lord, refers exclusively to Christ.” I proved the falsity of that by quoting such texts as Rev. 11:15, “Our Lord and his Christ.” To this, he replied:— (2.) “I do not mean that the Father has ceased in his nature to be Lord; i. e., Jehovah, the self-existent One, but in the official sense of head over all things to the church, Jesus is the only head, the one Lord, without a rival, with all authority.” He has reiterated this, but I quote this, in preference to his later statements, because it is more brief and explicit. The second (marked 2) is an evasion of the most marked kind. The question is not as to whether the Father has changed in his nature, which would indeed be a rare question for discussion; but whether his assertion is true that “the term, Lord, belongs exclusively to Christ in this dispensation.” This is too plain a point to dodge, and his first inference in his present argument is based on this assumption. What a ground for positive duty! When he undertakes to prove that the term Lord is used in Rev. 1:10, in a sense in which it is not used in Rev. 11:15, we shall note how it is done. But, were his first assumption conceded, it would not serve his purpose, unless he could establish the other, which is based on the nature of the authority of Christ in this dispensation. The relevancy of the following quotation will be seen as I progress. Thus, he said:— “Christ in his word-state was indeed present at creation, but only as agent, not as proprietor. . . . Hence, if the Sabbath had ever originated there, Jesus would no more be the Lord of it, than a carpenter is owner of the house which he builds for another.” Now I affirm that both Father and Son are “proprietor” of the Sabbath by virtue of creation; if, and it only, is “the Lord’s day,” whether the term refers to Father or Son, or to both. And such an indignity as Eld. Vogel casts upon the glorious Son of God, I dislike to repeat, even to expose it. Let the reader turn to those scriptures which speak of the work of creation, and see if the above is not an insult to the Maker. See Col. 1:16, 17. “For by him were all things created, that are in Heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers; all things were created by him, AND FOR HIM.” No; not “for him,” says Eld. Vogel; he was only like the carpenter who builds a house “for another!” And such a monstrous perversion of Scripture as this is to show that Jesus is not the Lord of the Sabbath day—that it is not the Lord’s day. He continues to assert that Jesus is the only “Lord” in this dispensation, but evades the full result of his statement by adding—“in an official sense.” Did he carry this limitation through his argument, there would be no dispute between us. But he does not; he makes him not an agent, but proprietor, in the New Testament, in a sense that he was not in the work of creation. Thus he quotes that he is “head over all things to the church,” but only that part of the text which does not say that the Father gave him to be that head. He is Lord and Christ; but the Father “made him” such. Has he more independence or proprietorship in this than in creation? When he shows that his present “authority” was not conferred by the Father, and is not of a special kind for a special purpose, and that he is not yet “expecting till his foes be made his footstool,” which will be done by the Father (Ps. 110:1); that God was not in Christ reconciling the world unto himself; that eternal life is not the gift of God through Christ; that Christ is not “mediator between God and man;” that he does not act as “advocate,” and that the Father did not send the Spirit in answer to the prayer of Christ; that his doctrines were his own, and not his Father’s; and that Christ came to do his own will, and not the will of the Father; when such and a score of other Scripture truths are reversed, then will be shown that Jesus has an independent proprietorship in the gospel, which he had not in creation! I said (first negative) that “the Sunday is no part of the spiritual (moral) law written in the heart in the new covenant.” This he denies; and as it is closely related to the question of “proprietorship,” I notice it here. And first, I raise the question, Who made the new covenant? Who is the covenant maker “with Judah and Israel?” Is it the Father or the Son? I say it is the Father—the same that made the first covenant. Hear his words: “Behold the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah; not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers.” But if Eld. Vogel is right—if the “proprietorship” of the new covenant is in Jesus, then, I ask, Who is the mediator? The Catholics would answer, the virgin, or the pope; but what should we say? And this forever settles the question as to whose law is put in the hearts of the “Israel of God” in the new covenant. Jehovah, the covenant maker says, “I will put my laws in their hearts.” “The commandments of God” are distinguished from “the faith of Jesus;” and all the positive institutions of the gospel are a part of the faith of Jesus, not of the moral law of the Father. And as the Son does the will, or law, of the Father, nothing in the faith of Jesus can conflict with the law of God. But the Sunday tradition “makes void the commandment of God,” and is, therefore, inadmissible. Christ never proclaimed it, and the law of the Father does not permit it. Thus much for the ground of his first inference. But he says: “With reference to the binding force of a sacred day in this dispensation I have something clearer than inference.” That is not a point of dispute between us. I have argued the same thing for the Sabbatic institution. But that this sacred day is a new institution, or is the first day, he has only inference in his favor. Thus on all the ground of difference he stands on inference only. 1 Cor. 16:2, does not speak of the Lord’s day, nor refer to it, nor to any observance of any day. Remember that an inference, when admissible, must rest upon facts beyond dispute; otherwise, it is utterly worthless. Fortunately for my argument, the ground of his inference is denied by his own partisans. The testimony of an opponent, in my favor, is the strongest evidence; therefore, I first give the testimony of authors who were strongly traditionized to Sunday-keeping:— “Let him lay it up at home, treasuring as he has been prospered. The Greek phrase, ‘by himself,’ means, probably, the same as at home. Let him set it apart; let him designate a certain portion; let him do this by himself when he is at home, when he can calmly look at the evidence of his prosperity.”—Barnes. “Some are of the opinion that the sums thus set apart were brought to the treasury of the church at the time; but the words do not seem to admit of that interpretation; and if each separately laid by the sum which he proposed to give, the whole would be brought together at once when necessary, without any trouble in soliciting contributions.”—Comp. Com. “Every one was to lay by in store, have a treasury or fund with himself for this purpose. . . . Some of the Greek fathers rightly observe here that this advice was given for the sake of the poorer among them. They were to lay by, from week to week, and not bring into the common treasury, that by this means their contributions might be easy to themselves, and yet grow into a fund for the relief of their brethren.”—Matthew Henry, Com. “The apostle only meant that there should be no private and petty gatherings, then first to be made, when he came, but only one suneisphora [joint contribution] formed, containing all the sums which had been gradually laid up in private.”—Bloomfield. Notes on Greek Text. And of the “gatherings,” he says: “The word logia is nowhere else found in the scriptural, and very rarely in the classical, writers; and seems to have been confined to the language of common life. It properly signifies a gleaning, and then, as here, a slight gathering.” “Certainly it may not be inferred from this passage that collections took place among the congregations on the Sabbath, for it was Paul’s intention that each should make a suitable contribution at home.”—Olshausen, Com. “Lay by him in store; at home.”—Justin Edwards’ Notes. “Par’ heauto, by or with oneself; in one’s house; at home, Fr. chez soi. 1 Cor. 16:2. So Xen. Mem. 1.13.3.”—Robinson’s Lexicon. “Par’ heauto, at one’s home or house. Lat. apud se, Hdt. 1.105, cf. 1.86.”—Liddell & Scott’s Lexicon. These were Sunday men; some of them of the most rabid kind. What but the most evident facts could lead them thus to remove the foundation for a popular Sunday inference? I copy also a few translations:— “Let every one of you put asyde at home, and laye vppe whatever he thinketh mete.”—Tyndale. “Let each one of you lay by himself in store.”—Sawyer’s. “Let each of you lay by him and treasure up.”—Anderson (Disciple). “Let every one of you lay aside and preserve at home.”—Syriac. To the above, I add a summary given by J. W. Morton, in his address to the Synod of the Ref. Pres. church:— “I marvel greatly how you can imagine that it means in the collection box of the congregation! Greenfield, in his Lexicon, translates the Greek term, par heauto, ‘by one’s self, i. e., at home.’ Two Latin versions, the Vulgate and that of Castellio, render it ‘apud se,’ with one’s self, at home. Three French translations, those of Martin, Osterwald, and De Sacy, ‘chez soi,’ at his own house, at home. The German of Luther, ‘bei sich selbst,’ by himself, at home. The Dutch, ‘by hem selven,’ same as the German. The Italian of Diodati, ‘appresso di se,’ in his own presence, at home. The Spanish of Felipe Scio, ‘en su casa,’ in his own house. The Portuguese of Ferreira, ‘para isso’ with himself. The Swedish, ‘nacr sig sjelf,’ near himself. I know not how much this list of authorities might be swelled, for I have not examined one translation that differs from those quoted above. Now if your premise is false, your inference is not only unnecessary, but wholly inadmissible.” Had not so much stress been laid upon this inference I would ask pardon for spending so much time in exposing it. If inferences were admissible on the subject, what could the inference be worth based on a supposition so extensively denied by the most able of Sunday-keepers? And such is the whole foundation of the Sunday argument; the basis of a proposed positive institution of the gospel. Eld. Vogel further infers that Sunday was a sacred day because they were to give on that day, and giving is an act of worship! Good, perhaps, for those whose worship is necessarily confined to Sunday—Sunday Christians! But my brethren all follow this injunction of 1 Cor. 16:2, yet not one of them regards it as the Lord’s day. This shows to what a strait he is reduced to make inferences for Sunday. His position on Acts 20 is not fully developed, but I will offer a few proofs to show that here, also, he has no foundation for his inference. Prof. Bush, an eminent scholar, said:— “The evening is probably mentioned first because the darkness preceded the light. On the ground of this recorded order of things in the sacred narrative, the Jews commenced their day of twenty-four hours from the evening.”—Notes on Gen. 1:5. Lange, on the same text, says: “Evening and morning denote rather the interval of a creative day, and this is evidently after the Hebrew mode of reckoning; the day is from sunset, the morning that follows stands for the second half of the day proper. In the same manner was the day reckoned among the Athenians, the Germans, and the Gauls. It is against the text for Delitzsch to put as the ground here the Babylonish reckoning of the day, namely, from the dawning of the morning.” And so Kitto, Cyclopedia, Art. Day:— “The earliest measure of time on record is the day. ‘The evening and the morning were the first day.’ (Gen. 1:5) Here the word ‘day’ denotes the civil or calendar day of twenty-four hours, including the ‘evening,’ or natural night, and the ‘morning,’ or natural day.” The reader will bear in mind that in exposing these inferences, I do not admit that an inference is any just reason for a positive institution. I protest against the whole course of Eld. Vogel, and am glad to put myself on the record as fully committed against inference and tradition. With Alexander Campbell, I demand “positive precept”—“express authority,” for a positive institution. Eld. Vogel said a “formal proclamation” was necessary to make a positive institution binding. But that was only meant to apply against the Sabbath: with Sunday, the case is immensely different! His remark that I wish to dictate as to the kind of evidence to be received, and that a pope could do no more, is deserving only of contempt. He did not think it popery in him to ask for the “formal proclamation” of the Sabbath; nor did he ever think it was popery for A. Campbell to demand a “precept” or “positive injunction,” for positive institutions. I will yet show him that I stand upon the ground clearly marked out by the great body of writers, of all denominations, on the nature of and evidence for positive institutions. Tract Society Meeting.
By C. K. Ackley
THE first meeting of the Missionary and Tract Society of Dist. No. 4., Wisconsin, was held in connection with our quarterly meeting, the last Sabbath in May and first day of June. Bro. Decker was with us and gave us some instruction how to proceed with our society. The reports show $14.00 for membership; donation, $1.00; subscribers for REVIEW, 1; Instructor 2. Tracts and pamphlets given away, pages, 3249.
Books loaned, “ 3045. Napoleon, Mich.
By I. D. Van Horn
We have our tent pitched on the public square, in this beautiful little village, and have been carrying on the work for ten days. We have held fourteen meetings, with an average attendance of two hundred. Last evening, full three hundred and fifty were present. We have brought the people down by the lines of prophecy to the present day, have introduced them to the three messages of Rev. 14, and in the last two discourses we have presented for their consideration the Sabbath in the New Testament, and the claims of first-day observance. The interest to hear is as good, for the short time we have been here, as in any place I ever pitched the tent. Our meetings, and what is heard at the tent, is the chief topic of conversation. Books go off quite freely. Our work is calling the attention of some noble minds. The truth is certainly taking hold of some good people. What is best of all, the Lord grants his rich blessing, and we have good freedom in speaking. Bro. Charles Russell is now with us, and we hope to accomplish much good in the name of the Lord. We hope to be remembered at a throne of grace by all who love the cause. Our address is Napoleon, Jackson Co., Mich. Waushara Co., Wis.
By P. S. Thurston
The quarterly meeting of Dist. No. 7, Wis., was held in Plainfield, May 10 and 11, 1873, in connection with the quarterly meeting of the Fish Lake church. The Spirit of the Lord was present, we believe, to encourage and strengthen his people and convict sinners of their sins. There is an increasing interest in the work of the Lord. The T. and M. Society in this Dist. reported for two quarters: No. of families visited, 37.
Received for membership, $15.00
By donation, 1.00
Total amount of money rec’d, $16.00
Number of new subscribers for REVIEW, 1; Instructor, 1; Reformer, 3.
Tracts given away, pages, 8089
Pamphlets, 1001
Total, 9090
Books loaned, pages, 700
No. of members in this district, 25. The quarterly meeting of Dist. No. 11, Wis., was held in the Cady school-house, Poy Sippi, May 31 and June 1, 1873, in connection with the quarterly meeting of the Poy Sippi church. Held seven meetings, which were profitable. T. and M. Society in this district reported as follows: No. of families visited, 31.
Received for membership, $10.00
By donation, .25
From book sales, 2.39
Total, $12.64
No. of new subscribers for REVIEW on trial, 12; for Danish Monthly, 2.
Tracts given away, pages, 3618
Pamphlets, 1225
Total, 4843
Books loaned, pages, 1615. P. S. THURSTON, Pres. T. & M. Society. Appointments: Tract and Missionary Society Meetings
And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of Heaven is at hand * * Services in Chicago, every Sabbath (seventh day), at 269 West Erie St. All Sabbath-keepers spending a Sabbath in Chicago, are invited to attend. TRACT and Missionary Society meetings will be held:—
Jay, Saginaw Co., June 21, 22.
Watrousville, “ 24, 25.
Lapeer, “ 28, 29.
Potterville, July 5, 6.
Will Brn. Corliss, Haskins, and Weeks, meet us at Jay? Each of the directors is expected to attend some one of these meetings.
S. N. HASKELL,
E. H. ROOT. I now design to attend the general quarterly meeting at Clyde, Ohio, according to appointment in this week’s REVIEW; also the one at Bordoville, Vermont, July 19, 20. We expect a general attendance at both of these meetings. The above meetings, also those in Michigan, are expected to commence Friday evening, and there will be a social meeting Sabbath morning at 9 A. M.
S. N. HASKELL. THE general quarterly meeting for the Ohio Tract and Missionary Society will be held at Clyde, July 12 and 13. Eld. S. N. Haskell is expected. A general attendance is desired. Provision will be made to care for all that may come.
O. F. GUILFORD, Pres. A GENERAL State quarterly meeting will be held at Bordoville, Vt., July 19, 20. A general attendance of the brethren and sisters is requested, as important matters in reference to missionary work will be attended to at this meeting, which will commence Friday evening. Eld. Haskell expects to be at this meeting.
A. C. BOURDEAU, Pres. THE next quarterly meeting for the churches of Greenville, Orleans, Vergennes, Orange, and Bushnell, will be held at Orange, July 5 and 6. A general attendance of all is requested.
F. HOWE. THE next monthly meeting for Western New York will be held at Lancaster, Erie Co., the fourth Sabbath in June, the 28th, the Lord willing.
W. H. EGGLESTON. THE next quarterly Tract and Missionary Society meeting of each district will be held as follows:—
Dist. No. 4, West Bolton, June 28, 29, 1873.
“ 5, Jamaica, July 5, 6, “
A. C. BOURDEAU, Pres. Hillsdale, Mich., June 28, 1873.
Ransom, “ July 5, 6, “
C. STODDARD. No providence preventing, there will be held a quarterly meeting with the church at Hundred Mile Grove, Wisconsin, July 5 and 6.
N. M. JORDON. QUARTERLY meeting in Locke, Mich., July 5 and 6. Sister churches and scattered brethren are invited to attend. Come, brethren, and bring your children with you. It is expected to be a good meeting.
T. T. BROWN, Clerk. LEIGHTON, Sabbath and first-day, June 21 and 22. Let all the friends in this section meet with us.
A. S. HUTCHINS,
CHARLES JONES. THERE will be a two days’ basket meeting at the Gregory school-house, June 28 and 29, at eleven and two o’clock of each day. Will Bro. B. F. Merritt try to attend? Also a meeting of the M. and T. Society, June 29. Let all come prepared to stay through all the meetings, if possible.
WM. H. SLOWN. QUARTERLY meeting for the Ulysses church of S. D. Adventists will be held at Kibbeville school-house, June 28, 29. All the members of the Ulysses church are earnestly requested to be present. Sister churches are invited.
A. D. GALUTIA, Clerk. MONTHLY meeting for the Soldier Valley, Iowa, church of S. D. Adventists will be held at the grove of Bro. D. M. McWilliams, July 5. The brethren from Onawa and vicinity of Crabb school-house, Monona Co., are invited to attend.
J. W. McWILLIAMS. “Can ye not discern the signs of the times?” A farmer near Eddyville, Iowa, has lost several cattle by mad itch. The animals actually scratched themselves to death. The German Parliament has passed the law advocated by Bismarck to regulate and control the clergy. This is another victory over the Jesuits. In addition to her political troubles, unhappy Spain is bothered by strikes among her workingmen, some of them accompanied by riotous demonstrations. A remarkable phenomenon was witnessed recently in the town of San Ignacio, Mexico. There was quite a shower of quicksilver, fine drops of mercury falling everywhere and covering the plants. There is an old bachelor in Brownfield, Me., 102 years old on the 31st day of January. He remembers the dark day of 1780. He makes his own bed, and does many other things. Answers to Correspondents.
“I have recently had an opponent who denies that the word day is found in the original Hebrew in the first chapter of Genesis. If you think it worth while, I would be glad to have you give a true statement of the matter in REVIEW; especially the two words DAY, in Gen 1:5.” It is surprising that people will so misrepresent the word of God in order to maintain their own unscriptural views. Our common translation of Gen. 1:5, is as accurate as can be. The word day is as plainly there as it is in the English. QUESTION. Do you, as a people, deem it proper and right for an individual who is a professed Sabbath-keeper to wish an individual who does not keep the seventh day to plow upon his premises, and he still remain in the house as a Sabbath-keeper? The person sending queries on Acts 7:59, and Col. 3:3, is referred to the book published at this Office entitled, “The Nature of Man.” QUESTION. Did Jephthah carry out his vow, and sacrifice his daughter? Judges 11:39. W. S. E. ANS. We do not think that Jephthah vowed to sacrifice his daughter. The vow, as given in verse 31, includes two things, to wit., “It shall be the Lord’s,” and “I will offer it up as a burnt offering.” In our version, these are connected by the conjunction, and, but the Hebrew letter thus translated is also used as a disjunctive, and translated, or, as in the margin. By reference to the law concerning sacrifices, it will be seen that certain “clean beasts” only were accepted for sacrifice; the first-born of mankind and the first-born of unclean beasts were to be redeemed because they could not be sacrificed. If a “singular vow” were made by a man, and it concerned one of his household, it was to be redeemed according to the estimation of the priest. Lev. 27. As Jephthah did not redeem his daughter according to this law, it appears that his vow did not devote her any further than that she should “be the Lord’s,” which doomed her to perpetual virginity. See verses 37, 38. And his vow was this: “It shall be the Lord’s [devoted to his service], or I will offer it a burnt offering,” that is, provided it is something which the law permits to be so offered. Further reasons may be given for this vow, but this seems sufficient. QUESTION. Is it right to be baptized by a Sunday-keeper? ANS. Doubtful: we could not be at all satisfied with baptism administered by one who did not keep all of God’s commandments. QUESTION. Why is Christ represented as a reaper in Rev. 14:14, 15, when it is said in Matt. 13:39, that the reapers are the angels? L. M. A. ANS. Jesus Christ is the commander of the angels. They perform the work spoken of under the figure of reaping the harvest of the earth, under his direction, and by his command. Therefore, it is proper, that in the symbol of the Son of man on the white cloud, coming to gather his saints—the wheat of the earth—he should be represented as a reaper. We speak of Solomon building the temple. It was built by his command, and under his direction. One year in advance...............$2.00 “ “ “ when paid by Tract Societies, or by individuals, for the poor, or to other persons on trial......1.00. Address, REVIEW & HERALD, BATTLE CREEK, MICH. Medford, Minn., June 26–30, 1873.
GEN. CONF. COM. Minnesota Camp-Meeting.
By Dudley Marvin Canright
We expect this will be the most important meeting we have ever held in the State. Many things of deep interest to the cause must come up to be acted upon. We specially request that every S. B. treasurer and church clerk come, and bring their books and records with them. Do not fail to do this. If you cannot possibly come, send your books by someone else. We are determined to have a general straightening up of these matters in Minnesota. We ask and expect these officers to help us. Now is the time to do this. The Tract and Missionary Society has just been organized in this State. Only a few have been able to attend these meetings. Something further must be done at the camp-meeting. There we shall have books to be distributed to the members so that the work can immediately begin. Then we hope to have stirring, spiritual meetings, just such as we all need, and the labors of the leaders in the cause. Scattered ones should make special efforts to attend. The trouble is, those who need these meetings most, generally feel the least interest in them, and the greatest interest in home affairs. They can't think of leaving their work. The cares of this world are choking them. Come, friends, let us see you at the annual feast. Provisions for men and teams can be had on the grounds at cost.