Your ShelfYour Projects

Signs of the Times, Vol. 21, No. 47.

WE MAY KNOW
Earlier text: SIGNS IN THE RELIGIOUS, SOCIAL, MORAL, PHYSICAL, AND POLITICAL WORLD

JOTTINGS FROM TURKEY.

By H. F. H.

THE Eastern Question is like the doctrine of the Trinity.—hard to settle. But the Armenians are evidently determined that so far as it concerns them it shall be settled soon. Since my last writing, times have been lively in Constantinople. The government has made vigorous efforts to preserve the peace; but it has a tremendous task on its hands; for when religious fanaticism once becomes inflamed, it is not easily quenched. This is not attributable to Mohammedanism alone, but is just as true of false Christianity. Constantinople itself has witnessed far worse riots and bloodshed than recently occurred, when the contending Christian sects argued the Trinity question on its streets and in its churches with sticks and stones and daggers.
It may be truly said to the credit of the Ottoman Government that under it Christians have enjoyed greater freedom than dissenting Christians enjoyed under the so-called Christian government of Rome when the Papacy had its way. Under Papal Rome people were hunted down and massacred because they were Christians; this is not true of the recent massacre in Constantinople; we may more correctly assert that the people were killed because they were not Christians. Had they been true Christians, obedience to God's word would have led them to respect the Turkish Government, although it might be as oppressive as Pagan Rome. Had the Armenians borne the Turkish yoke with Christian humility and forbearance, leaving to the Lord all vengeance for wrongs suffered, instead of seeking vengeance through the powers of Europe they would have enjoyed much greater freedom than it is possible to hope for now.
The Armenian troubles have not arisen because this people profess Christianity instead of Mohammedanism. Were they professed pagans, their condition would be the same; for it is national liberty that they aim at, and nothing short of this will satisfy them. They have used the fact of their professed Christianity to enlist the sympathy of Europe and America. Were they professedly Mohammedan and suffered precisely the same in their efforts to gain liberty, the powers of Europe would have paid little more attention to them than they at present pay to the struggling Cubans.
It is true that the powers of Europe covet the territory of Turkey, and this doubtless figures prominently in their motives for action; but they act professedly out of sympathy for their persecuted brethren. So on both sides Christianity is used as a cloak to cover up the real motives; and on both sides, the course taken is no more help to the cause of Christianity than is hypocrisy.
Were freedom from the Turkish yoke the only object desired by Armenia, she might have gained this by appealing to Russia; but this step has not been taken, because the Armenians would have less hope for national freedom under Russia than under Turkey. The reforms urged by England, if carried out, will not be accepted as final by the Armenians; they will be regarded only as one step towards their long-cherished goal,—national independence. The Armenians will continue to agitate and foment difficulty till their ultimate object is attained. They know the weakness of the Turkish Government, and as they see it being dismembered, they are impatient for their turn. The fact that Greece and Bulgaria enjoy national independence greatly inspires the Armenians in their cause.
The despatches which have appeared concerning the recent outbreak in Constantinople have in the main been true to the facts. Unless the powers of Europe exercise a strong influence, amounting almost to absolute control of Turkey, the condition of the Armenians will be worse than before. The Turks are thoroughly convinced that, while professedly Christian, the Armenian question is not religious, but purely political, that the leaders are unbelievers in Christianity, and that the movement is of the nature of socialism in Europe. They also believe that the powers are deceived as to the true issue; hence it is so difficult for the Turks to yield to Europe's demands. Turkey is certainly in a very humiliating position. With this dictation of the powers, which she regards as so unjust, with the discontent in Crete, the difficulties in Macedonia, and the deep-seated trouble with the Armenians, she has more than her debilitated energies can successfully manage. What the outcome of all will be depends on what the Lord permits, and not on what man may determine. Until the Lord's work is finished in the earth, he exercises a controlling influence over the nations.
The day on which I left Constantinople, it was reported that the sultan had signed the proposition of the powers, but as this has several times before been falsely reported, no one knew whether to believe it or not. Yet from general appearances it might be concluded that he had; but this does not settle the question. H. F. H.

THE LAST OF THE TRIALS IN RHEA COUNTY, TENNESSEE.

FROM Chattanooga Times specials concerning the recent trials of Seventh-day Adventists at Dayton, Tenn., for Sunday labor, we cull some interesting items. These last cases were brought up November 4, and the results were quite different from those tried at the July term. The people have been receiving some wholesome education on the subject of religious liberty vs. tyranny. The despatch of November 4 says:—
Prior to the action brought against them at the July term of this court, very little was heard of the Adventists. They are proverbially hard-working, steady, sober, and industrious men, and it has been ascertained that not a single case of breach of the peace, or the commission of any offense whatever against the law of the land, has ever been committed by any member of the Adventist fraternity during their residence here.
It was also stated that when court was called in the morning a number of prominent attorneys were present, and a large number of the residents of the village of Graysville, where the Seventh-day Adventist academy is located. The population of this village is estimated at 450, half of whom are Adventists, most of them being farmers. The Times report continues as follows:—
In his address to the grand jury, Judge Parks described at length the nature of the various offenses that were likely to be brought before them. He remarked that there were too many frivolous cases presented by the grand jury, and the county generally had to pay the costs. More proof should be required in these minor cases than in cases of more grave import before they were brought into court. He called special attention to the nefarious traffic in grand jury witness tickets, and said that fee grabbers were in some places everlastingly hanging around the grand jury room; they seek to have certain witnesses summoned in order to speculate on their tickets.
In the afternoon several motions were heard, but no matters of special interest were brought forward. During these proceedings Elder Gillett and his wife sat in a far corner of the court room, surrounded by a number of members of the Adventist fraternity. Their dress, demeanor, and general appearance were shown up in marked contrast to the majority of those around them. Without exception, the Adventists were neat and clean in their attire, and had faces ruddy with the glow of health, while the average Rhea County court habitue is unkempt and has a Nebuchadnezzar look about him, and is bathed in an odor of moonshine whisky. He nevertheless makes a witness of far more intelligence than would be accredited to him by his appearance.
Elder Gillett is a great favorite in Dayton. There did not appear to be any reputable citizen who has a word to say against him; in fact, they all spoke in his favor. He is sixty-five years of age, and has resided in Graysville for eleven years, having removed from Monroe, Wis. He is a carpenter by trade, but works very little, as he is well off. He lives in a pretty farmhouse, and devotes his attention to the Adventist school and church.
Elder E. R. Gillett's case was next called, and he was ready for trial, but it appeared that the state was not. At the last term of court he begged that his case might be heard, but it was continued. Judge Lewis Shepherd, of Chattanooga, and Hon. Henry C. Snodgrass, of Sparta, appeared for the defense in this case, and urged immediate trial. This is the first Adventist case in which an attorney has appeared for the defense, and a great deal of interest was manifested. However, after repeated calls, the witness in the case, who is said to be a baker in Dayton, could not be found, and the case was continued until to-morrow morning.
Elder Gillett was asked what charges had been brought against him. He replied: “I really do not know exactly what it is. I have not farmed any on Sunday to my knowledge, as I am not a farmer. I believe, however, they will say that I actually planted one dozen raspberry slips on Sunday. That is the violation of the law that I think I shall have to answer to.”
It is the consensus of opinion that the decisions and sentence by Judge Parks at the last term of court were fair, impartial, and just, and that, while the majesty of the law was maintained in each instance, it was also evident that justice had been tempered with mercy. Attorney-General Fletcher appears to consider that any further prosecutions are unnecessary, as no more indictments have been found, although the number of Adventists has not decreased, and their methods continue to be substantially the same.
Of the proceedings on the following day (November 5), the Times says:—
To-day the last of the Adventist cases was swept from the docket, and appearances indicate that the wave of fanaticism and prejudice that has been sweeping over Rhea County has subsided.
The appearance of Ex-Congressman H. C. Snodgrass and Judge Lewis Shepherd, who volunteered in these cases, created marked interest. They both spoke at some length, dwelling on the unconstitutionality of the law. On this point Mr. Snodgrass is reported as follows:—
So far as I am concerned, the very law is obnoxious. I believe it is a violation of the organic law of the land. I believe that if the highest court in the land should ever have an opportunity to pass upon it, it would be repealed.
They have as much right if they believe that the seventh day is the day they ought to keep holy as you have to keep the first day. One man believes in sprinkling, another in immersion. These are the same things; it is simply a difference in opinion; it is simply the exercise of a judgment and a conscience.
Some governments said to which church you should belong and what money you should pay to the church; and to raise your voice against these decrees was certain death; and this statute on our books is a relic of the past; it is a part of barbarism—it is a part of the Dark Ages. Why, the idea of such a law in a free country like this, where a man believes he is serving God by keeping Saturday, and he is doing his duty to both God and man to rest on the seventh day. It is a violation of personal liberty to handicap him.
Continuing, says the report, Mr. Snodgrass argued that the law was a violation of the bill of rights, and concluded by telling the jury that, regardless of this question, they should acquit the defendant, as the one act proven was not sufficient to constitute the offense charged in the indictment.
Judge Shepherd followed in a forcible and logical address, taking the position that Sunday legislation of the character before the court was dangerous to the well-being of society, and that the principle actuating it was alien to the spirit and genius of our form of government. He illustrated how, under the protection of such illogical and illiberal laws, a portion of society might be made to suffer grievous wrong. The judge's address proved him to be a man of broad, catholic, and patriotic conceptions of the relations governing human society, and made a strong impression on the jury and audience. He charged the jury that a single act did not constitute a nuisance, provided it was not committed in an open, flagrant, and notorious manner. A verdict of “not guilty” was brought in.
The case of E. R. Gillett was then called. This case was continued from yesterday, on account of the absence of the witness. The witness again failing to appear, the case was thrown out of court.
The closing comment of the Times, though brief, is comprehensive and to the point:—
This ends, for the time being, at least, one of the most celebrated struggles for religious liberty ever waged on American soil. It has been a valuable object lesson to the people of Rhea County. The scenes and incidents attending the trial of these people, their submission to what has seemed the harsh and arbitrary operations of the law, the speeches made, the literature produced—all these things have tended to throw light upon the dark places, and a perceptible spirit of liberality and tolerance for other people's rights is now seen and felt.

THE PRESENT CRISIS.

By Arthur Cleveland Coxe

BY BISHOP ARTHUR CLEVELAND COXE.
WE are living, we are dwelling, in a grand and awful time, In an age on ages telling to be living is sublime. Hark! the waking up of nations, Gog and Magog to the fray. Hark! what soundeth?—'Tis creation groaning for its latter day.
Will ye play, then, will ye dally, with your music and your wine? Up, it is Jehovah's rally; God's own arm hath need of thine.
Hark! the onset, will ye fold your faith-clad arms in lazy lock? Up, O up, thou drowsy soldier! Worlds are charging to the shock.
Worlds are charging—heaven beholding; thou hast but an hour to fight; Now the blazoned cross unfolding, on—right onward for the right. On! let all the soul within you for the truth's sake go abroad. Strike! let every nerve and sinew tell on ages, tell for God.
—Reformed Church Messenger.

Zulu Preacher Raised Up at Umzumbe

MR. BRIDGMAN, of Umzumbe, in writing of the five Zulu preachers who have been raised up under his care, speaks specially of one of them, who is now the leading man among the Zulu preachers, saying: “When I first came to Umzumbe this man was a naked, scrofulous, hard boy, with a dirty sheepskin thrown over his shoulders. We cured him of his scrofula; then the Lord cured him of his sin-sick heart, and to-day he stands up among our churches a leader of men.”—Missionary Review.

Hair and Dignity Among Korean Boys and Men

The Korean boy at first sight can easily be mistaken for a schoolgirl out-of-doors without her hat. His hair is parted in the middle and hangs in a heavy braid down his back. When he is married, his hair is twisted in a topknot on the crown of his head, and adds much to his dignity. You may see a boy with his hair curled on top of his head making mud pies by the roadside, and feel sure that here, at least, is an exception to the custom, but on inquiry you learn that he is a married man. He enjoys his sport none the less for the dignity of his topknot.—Missionary Review.

French Alarm Over English Mission Work in Algeria

There is considerable perturbation among the French authorities in Algeria, owing to the work of the North African Mission, which is chiefly carried on by English young ladies. The general council of the department of Constantine has addressed a note on the subject of the supreme authority, in which it states that the safety of Algeria is menaced by the work of the English Methodists (sic). “The English danger becomes from day to day more serious in Algeria, as its agents become more numerous. The Methodists and soldiers of the Salvation Army work under the guise of benevolence and charity, and thus attract the natives. They distribute money, clothes, medicines, Arabic books (among others, translations of the Bible), and in appearance they only occupy themselves with proselytism; but in reality a vast net of espionage is being drawn around us, and a propaganda of disaffection among our native subjects is being carried on.” The council, therefore, petitions the Ministry of the Interior to put an end to these maneuvers.—Revue des Missions Contemporaines.

LESSON XI.—SABBATH, DECEMBER 14, 1895

The Right of Dissent

1. What condition of things must exist before there can be religious persecution?
Before there can be religious persecution there must be a union of the civil and religious forces,—church and state must be united. The church must get control of and use the power of the state before she can punish those who dissent from her doctrines, dogmas, and dictation.
2. To whom are all accountable in religious things?
“Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth; yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.” “So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.” Rom. 14:4, 12. See also 1 Cor. 7:23.
3. Therefore, when men attempt to control us in religious matters, what have we a right to do? Ans.—To dissent.

Liberty vs. Toleration.

4. What is the meaning of the terms tolerate, tolerance, and toleration?
Tolerance—“The act of enduring.”
Tolerate—“To suffer to be or to be done; to allow or permit negatively, by not preventing.”
Toleration—“The allowance of that which is not wholly approved. Specifically, when contrary to or different from those of the established church or belief.”—Webster.
5. What does toleration imply?
(a) An established religion.
(b) The right to dictate in religious things.
(c) The allowing of that which is not approved.
(d) The right to prohibit and compel. See note .
6. What kind of rights do we exercise in worshiping God, working on Sunday, etc.? Ans.—Natural or inherent and inalienable rights. See note .
7. Can the state give men rights which inhere in the men themselves?
To give to men their natural rights is not in the power or province of the state. It has no such rights to give. Rights come from God. The Michigan Sabbath Watchman, of June, 1892, failed to comprehend this when it said: “The only legal right the Seventh-day Adventists have to do secular work in shop, in house, in field, or to run their presses, etc., in their publishing concern on the Christian sabbath, is a right given them by this state on religious grounds only.”
8. From whom do such rights come? Ans.—From God.
9. What is the province of the state? Ans.—To protect men in their rights.
“To protect liberty of conscience is the duty of the state, and this is the limit of its authority in matters of religion.”—Great Controversy, p. 201.
“Government exists for the protection of the persons and property of men.”—Macaulay on Mills’ Essay on Government.
10. How are governments controlled? Ans.—By majorities.
11. Where do the majority stand on religious questions?
“Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them; for this is the law and the prophets. Enter ye in at the strait gate; for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat.” Matt. 7:12, 13. See note .

A Wresting of Scripture.

12. What scripture is sometimes cited to show that we are under obligation to obey whatever laws men may make?
“Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God; the powers that be are ordained of God.” Rom. 13:1.
13. What would such an application of this scripture imply?
To say that because we are told to be subject to the higher powers we are therefore bound to obey every law that men may make, would imply that if the state commanded men to murder, they would have to do it; or to steal, they would have to steal; or to lie, swear, dishonor parents, or worship idols, they would have to do all these things. Every person knows better than this. It is evident, therefore, that there must be some limit to human legislation and the duties which men owe to civil governments.
14. What must we therefore conclude? Ans.—That there is a limit to the rightful authority of the powers that be; that they have not a right to require men to do wrong.
15. Who was one of the “powers that be” anciently, and what did the Lord call him?
“Behold, I will send and take all the families of the north, saith the Lord, and Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, my servant, and will bring them against this land, and against the inhabitants thereof, and against all these nations round about, and will utterly destroy them, and make them an astonishment, and an hissing, and perpetual desolations.” “And now have I given all these lands into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, my servant; and the beasts of the field have I given him also to serve him.” Jer. 25:9; 27:6.
16. What did Nebuchadnezzar erect in the plain of Dura? and what command did he make respecting it?
“Nebuchadnezzar the king made an image of gold, whose height was threescore cubits, and the breadth thereof six cubits; he set it up in the plain of Dura, in the province of Babylon.” “Then an herald cried aloud, To you it is commanded, O people, nations, and languages, that at what time ye hear the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, dulcimer, and all kinds of music, ye fall down and worship the golden image that Nebuchadnezzar the king hath set up; and whoso falleth not down and worshippeth shall the same hour be cast into the midst of a burning fiery furnace.” Dan. 3:1, 4–6.
17. Was this command contrary to the law of God?
“Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.” Ex. 20:4–6.
18. Who refused to obey the king? and in what words did they address him?
“Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, answered and said to the king, O Nebuchadnezzar, we are not careful to answer thee in this matter; if it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king. But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.” Dan. 3:16–18.
19. Was this anarchy, or a resisting of the powers that be?
Anarchy is a disregard for all law. To disregard unjust laws that transcend the rights of conscience is not anarchy. The most loyal and patriotic can do this. Neither is it resisting the powers that be to disregard such laws. The resistance spoken of in Rom. 13:2 is a rising up against, or a resort to forceful means. This no Christian will do. He will firmly refuse to comply with laws that violate his conscience, and submit to whatever consequences such a course may entail. “Christ’s ambassadors have nothing to do with consequences.”—Great Controversy, p. 609.
“Conscientious men are not the enemies but the friends of any government but a tyranny. They are its strength and not its weakness. Daniel, in Babylon, praying, contrary to the law, was the true friend and supporter of the government, while those who, in their pretended zeal for the law and the constitution, would strike down the good man, were its real enemies. It is only when government transcends its sphere that it comes in contact with the consciences of men.”—Fairchild’s Moral Philosophy, p. 185.
20. How did God interpose, and set the seal of his approval to their course?
“Then Nebuchadnezzar spake, and said, Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, who hath sent his angel, and delivered his servants that trusted in him, and have changed the king’s word, and yielded their bodies, that they might not serve nor worship any god, except their own God.” Dan. 3:28.
21. What are we to conclude, therefore, respecting the “powers that be”? Ans.—That they have no right whatever to intermeddle in religious things.
22. When Daniel by a Medo-Persian decree was forbidden to worship the God of heaven, what did he do?
“Now when Daniel knew that the writing was signed, he went into his house; and his windows being open in his chamber toward Jerusalem, he kneeled upon his knees three times a day, and prayed, and gave thanks before his God, as he did aforetime.” Dan. 6:10.
23. What argument did his persecutors bring to bear on the king to secure his condemnation? Ans.—That it was the law, and must be enforced. Verses 13–15. See also note .
24. How did God show his approval of Daniel’s refusing to obey the law?
“My God hath sent his angel, and hath shut the lions’ mouths, that they have not hurt me: forasmuch as before him innocency was found in me; and also before thee, O king, have I done no hurt.” Verse 22.
25. What prohibitory command did the Jewish Sanhedrin place upon the apostles?
“But that it spread no further among the people, let us straitly threaten them, that they speak henceforth to no man in this name. And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus.” Acts 4:17, 18.
26. In direct conflict with this, what did the angel of the Lord command them to do?
“But the angel of the Lord by night opened the prison doors, and brought them forth, and said, Go, stand and speak in the temple to the people all the words of this life.” Acts 5:19, 20.
27. What religious Roman laws existed in the days of the apostles?
The following was Roman law in the time of the apostles:—
“Worship the gods in all respects according to the laws of your country, and compel all others to do the same. But hate and punish those who would introduce anything alien to our customs in this particular.”
“Whoever introduces new religions, the tendency and character of which are unknown, whereby the minds of men be disturbed, shall, if belonging to the higher rank, be banished; if to the lower, punished with death.”—Neander, Church History, vol. 1, sec. 1, part 1, div. 3, par. 2.
28. What did the great commission which Christ gave to the disciples require them to do? Ans.—Ignore these laws of Caesar.
29. Why had they a right to do so? Ans.—Because the Lord was first to be obeyed, and Caesar had no right to make these laws.
30. In any case, therefore, of conflict between the laws of men and the word of God, whom should we obey?
“But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.” “Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.” Acts 4:19, 20; 5:29. See note .
31. Mention the four examples in this lesson which show that obedience to civil governments is limited to civil things.

International Sunday School Lessons

“If any man will do His will he shall know of the doctrine whether it be of God.”—John 7:17.

Lesson XI.—Sunday, December 15, 1895.

David and Jonathan

Lesson Scripture, 1 Sam. 20: 32-42.
32. And Jonathan answered Saul his father, and said unto him, Wherefore shall he be slain? what hath he done?
33. And Saul cast a javelin at him to smite him; whereby Jonathan knew that it was determined of his father to slay David.
34. So Jonathan arose from the table in fierce anger, and did eat no meat the second day of the month: for he was grieved for David, because his father had done him shame.
35. And it came to pass in the morning, that Jonathan went out to the field at the time appointed with David, and a little lad with him.
36. And he said unto his lad, Run, find out now the arrows which I shoot. And as the lad ran, he shot an arrow beyond him.
37. And when the lad was come to the place of the arrow which Jonathan had shot, Jonathan cried after the lad, and said, Is not the arrow beyond thee?
38. And Jonathan cried after the lad, Make speed, haste, stay not. And Jonathan’s lad gathered up the arrows, and came to his master.
39. But the lad knew not anything: only Jonathan and David knew the matter.
40. And Jonathan gave his artillery unto his lad, and said unto him, Go, carry them to the city.
41. And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded.
42. And Jonathan said to David, Go in peace, forasmuch as we have sworn both of us in the name of the Lord, saying, The Lord be between me and thee, and between my seed and thy seed for ever. And he arose and departed: and Jonathan went into the city.
Golden Text: “There is a Friend that sticketh closer than a brother.” Prov. 18:24.

Suggestive Questions.

(1) What principal events took place between the slaying of Goliath and the present lesson? Note 1. (2) How did Jonathan answer Saul? Ver. 32. (3) What response did the king make? Ver. 33. (4) What did this act reveal to Jonathan? (5) What did he think of? Ver. 33. (6) What was his state of mind? Same verse. Note 2. (7) What did Jonathan do in the morning? Verse 35. Note 3. (8) What command did he give the lad, and what did he do? Verse 36. (9) What sign did he give to David? Verse 37. See note 3. (10) How did he indicate the danger? Verse 38, first clause. (11) What part did the lad act? Verses 38, 39. (12) What disposition was made of the boy? Ver. 40. Note 4. (13) Describe the meeting of the young men. Verse 41. Note 5. (14) With what words did they part? Verse 42. Note 6.

Notes.

1. The time of this lesson is some time, perhaps a year, after the slaying of Goliath by David. After that event, Saul kept David with him at his court, where he behaved himself wisely, gaining the friendship of the people, and playing before Saul as had been his custom on similar occasions before the war. Now, however, the king looked upon the young man with a jealous eye, because of the greater praise ascribed to David over the results of the battle described in the previous lesson. It will be remembered that the people went forth to meet the conquerors with songs and dancing, as was the custom of those times, shouting, “Saul has slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands.” Three times after this Saul, in a fit of jealous rage, hurled a javelin at the musician performing before him, the last occasion being after he had recalled David from banishment, and reinstated him in his former position. Before this latter event, however, and not long, evidently, after David’s permanent call to the court, the king made David captain of a thousand, removed him from his immediate presence, and gave him his daughter Michal to wife. David’s increasing popularity only increased the king’s unreasoning hatred, and finally led to the king’s open declaration to take his life. During this time a remarkable friendship had existed between David and Jonathan, Saul’s son, which quite likely had its beginning when David was first called before Saul in the capacity of musician, but was sealed after the battle in which David acted so leading a part. Thereafter Jonathan stood bravely for his friend against every plot of the king, and once persuaded the king to extend his favor to his son-in-law. Chapter 19:6. After this David fled to Samuel, in Ramah, where he was pursued by the king. This brings us near the text of the present lesson. The feast of the new moon was at hand, at which time Saul hoped David would appear in his place at the king’s table. David feared to present himself, and arranged a secret meeting with Jonathan, where the matter was discussed, and Jonathan agreed to learn the king’s intention concerning David. After pledging anew their friendship, a meeting place was appointed at the rock Ezel, where David was to remain hidden; a plan was arranged for making known the king’s purpose at another meeting in the near future, and Jonathan betook himself to the feast. On the second day the king inquired for David. His faithful friend excused his absence, but was at once accused by the enraged king of aiding his alleged enemy. He was commanded to fetch him, that he might be slain. Here the lesson text begins. Chapters 18, 19, and 20 are necessary to the full understanding of the lesson story. The court of Saul, the royal palace, was at Gibeah, four miles north of Jerusalem.
2. It is stated that Jonathan arose from the table “in fierce anger,” but that “he was grieved for David” because of the insult to him. This reveals the cause and nature of his wrath. It was not anger towards his father on his own account, but because of the king’s unreasonable hatred of David, his friend. His anxiety was for him; it was David who filled his thoughts. This was indeed a love that sought not its own welfare. In his love for David he exemplified that love which loves its neighbor as itself, even as it is written of him, “Jonathan loved him [David] as his own soul.” 1 Sam. 18:1.
3. This was in accordance with the plan already agreed upon between Jonathan and David. See verses 18-23. Jonathan was to proceed to the field as though for archery practice. He would then shoot arrows near David’s hiding place, and when the lad accompanying him was sent for them, he would make known to David the king’s purpose by the words spoken to the boy, as already outlined. If he should say to the lad the arrows were on “this side,” it meant peace and safety; if “beyond” him, danger and exile.
4. Bows and arrows and other weapons were called artillery long before the invention of firearms.—Webster.
5. The whole evil design of the king had been made known, as David had foreboded. There was no need for further explanations, and, bowed down by grief, and oppressed by the king’s wrath, the two brother-friends wept upon each other’s necks, for they knew that henceforth, far more than heretofore, their paths must diverge. One was a refugee, an outlaw; the other, the prince of the realm, whose services would be demanded by the king in hunting down the former. For the special part he had taken in warnings of and friendship to David, God had raised him up,—to help preserve his anointed. “David exceeded,” that is, could not control his emotions, but wept aloud.
6. Two times before this these friends had pledged themselves to an everlasting friendship. At their parting this covenant is again referred to, and once again, at the only recorded meeting of David and Jonathan after this time—in the wilderness (chapter 23:16)—it was again confirmed. We may well look with admiration upon the noble character displayed by the young prince Jonathan. Had he possessed aught of the disposition manifested by his father, his ambition must have led him to fear and hate one whom he knew to be destined to occupy the throne after Saul. Although he was solicitous for the safety of his family in the land (chapter 20:14, 15), yet there is no evidence that his friendship was professed for hope of personal gain. David himself, lamenting for Jonathan after the death of the latter, testified, “Thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.” 2 Sam. 1:26. The love that thus knit together the souls of these friends is typical, so far as earthly love can be, of the love of Christ our Saviour for every soul, and of the friendship he longs to establish with every one. The words of the memory verse, “There is a Friend that sticketh closer than a brother,” reveal only the beginnings of this enduring love. “I have loved thee with an everlasting love,” says the Lord. Jer. 31:3.

STOCKHOLDERS' MEETING.

By M. C. McClure; J. A. Burden

A SPECIAL meeting of the stockholders of the Rural Health Retreat (incorporated), will be held at the Rural Health Retreat, near St. Helena, Napa County, Cal., on Thursday, the nineteenth day of December, 1895, at 12 o'clock m., for the purpose of considering the advisability of placing the institution under the management of the General Conference Association of Seventh-day Adventists, and also for the transaction of such other business as may come before the meeting.
M. C. McCLURE, President.
J. A. BURDEN, Secretary.
November 19, 1895.

General Conference District No. 6 First Meeting

By A. J. Breed

GENERAL CONFERENCE DISTRICT NO. 6.

The first general meeting of General Conference district No. 6 will be held at Walla Walla, Wash., December 10-16. Delegates will be present from the various conferences and mission fields in the district. It is expected that Elder O. A. Olsen, president of the General Conference, will be present.
A. J. BREED, Supt. District No. 6.

BIBLE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CONCERNING MAN.

By Alonzo T. Jones

By Alonzo T. Jones. Bible Students' Library, No. 76. Pacific Press Pub. Co., Oakland, Cal. 16 pp.; 2 cents.
Continue reading: PUBLICATIONS ON THE SECOND ADVENT