Earlier text: The AlemanniTHE seventh chapter of Romans may be said to be Rom. 6:14 expanded. It is a masterly argument for the holiness and perpetuity of the law, and is all the stronger because the nature or the perpetuity of the law is not the subject under discussion. The apostle is showing, in the sixth and seventh chapters, what true Christian life is, and how one is brought to be a Christian. The references to the law are, we may say, incidental, and show how impossible it is to ignore the law when speaking of Christian experience. We shall give this chapter a brief exposition, dwelling only on the portions that are often misunderstood by the casual reader. We have already shown from Rom. 6:14; Gal. 5:18-23; 4:4, 5; and 4:21-31, that “under the law,” indicates a condition of condemnation on account of sin; and that persons are freed from the law, or redeemed from under the law, only through faith in Christ, by which they are thenceforth enabled to comply with its just demands. In this chapter the apostle carries out the figure of life and death, introduced in the sixth chapter, representing the one still under the condemnation of the law as alive, and the justified one as being dead. The relations of the man to his sins, to the law, and to Christ, are first indicated by an illustration, which we quote:— “Know ye not, brethren (for I speak to them that know the law), how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? For the woman which hath a husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.” Rom. 7:1-3. In this illustration we have four terms, namely, a woman, her first husband, her second husband, and the law. The law says, “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” and thus defines marriage as the union of one woman and one man. Such a union the law sanctions. Not only does the law sanction such a union, but it binds the parties during life. While her husband lives, the law binds the woman to him; but when the husband dies, then of course the union is at an end. Now, says the apostle, she may be married to another man, and she will be no adulteress, because she is freed from the law that bound her to her first husband. How was she freed from that law? By the death of her husband, which rendered further union impossible. But did the law itself change in any particular? Not in the least; it performs the same office that it did before. The law binds the woman to the second husband just the same as it did to the first; and if while her second husband lives she should be married to a third, the law will condemn her as an adulteress just the same as it would if she had married her second husband while her first husband was living. Thus we see that the law is the one thing that remains unchanged. Now read the application:— “Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to Him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God. For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead [or, “being dead to that”] wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.” Rom. 7:4-6.8 Here, as in the illustration, we have four parties, namely, the man, his sins, Christ, and the law. In the first place, the man is united to his sins. That is when he is “in the flesh,” under the law (Gal. 5:17, 18), and unable to please God. Rom. 8:7. Here is a union in which the law holds him fast. “For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.” The apostle says that the sins were “by the law.” This is the same as “where no law is there is no transgression.” If no law existed, there could be no such thing as sin, and therefore Paul says the motions of sins were by the law. “The strength of sin is the law.” Now we say that the law holds the man fast in this union with sin. That does not mean that the law delights to have the man a sinner; nothing of the kind. The law has no choice in the matter. By his own voluntary action the man has transgressed the law and thereby become a sinner, and now the law can do nothing else than declare him to be such. If the man, through fear of the consequences of his sins, or for any other reason, wishes to escape from this union, he cannot. The law still reiterates, “You are a sinner.” If the law could die, or could be made void, then the man would at once be free; but that cannot be. There is, however, a way by which the man may be freed from the galling bondage to sin, if he feels it to be a galling bondage, and that is through faith in the death and resurrection of Christ. He may be “justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in His blood, to declare His righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God.” Rom. 3:24, 25. When “the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ,” has been imparted to the man, the law no longer calls him a sinner. He is justified, freed from the body of sin. But this freedom from sin, and consequent deliverance from the condemnation of the law, has been accomplished only through Christ. “If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature; old things are passed away; behold, all things have become new. And all things are of God.” 2 Cor. 5:17, 18. Now the man is united to Christ, and by the same law which before held him to be a sinner. While he was in the flesh, the law would not for a moment allow that he was righteous; now that he is in Christ, the same law witnesses to his righteousness. The law remains the same; the man only has changed. Notice the parallel between the illustration and the application. The law binds the woman to her husband. She cannot escape from that union, even though it be disagreeable to her. But the husband dies, and she is a free woman, and may legally be married to another man. So a man is united to sin, and the law, true to itself, holds him to that account. But by Christ the body of sin is destroyed; and now the man, being free from sin, is united to Christ, and the law sanctions the union. As the woman cannot legally be united to two husbands at the same time, so no person can be united at the same time both to his sins and to Christ. “Ye cannot serve God and mammon.” Matt. 6:24. Union with Christ while we are in sin is impossible; and if, while professing Christianity, a person still clings to sin, he is guilty of spiritual adultery. “Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God?” James 4:4. The law sanctions no such union as that. The reader may, however, think that he detects a flaw in our reasoning, because in the application the apostle tells us that we have to die in order to become united to Christ. This, he will say, is not an exact parallel to the case of the woman whose husband dies that she may be joined to another. The difficulty is only apparent, not real. The parallel is as close as it is possible for any parallel to be. In the illustration the husband dies, and thus the woman may be united to another. Now if you should suppose a case in which the woman died with her first husband, and then had a resurrection, and was thus united to another, we have an exact parallel to the case of the sinner being freed from sin and united to Christ. The case is of sufficient importance to warrant a more detailed investigation. The following verses contain the whole argument:— “What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death; that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection; knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. For he that is dead is freed from sin.” Rom. 6:1-7. “The wages of sin is death.” Rom. 6:23. The law demands the death of every sinner. But “God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” John 3:16. Christ “bore our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness.” 1 Peter 2:24. By baptism we show our belief in the death and resurrection of Christ, and our acceptance of him as a propitiation for our sins. Indeed, by baptism we are joined to Christ: “as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” Gal. 3:27. But we are baptized into Christ, by being “baptized into his death.” “We are buried with him by baptism into death.” And thus it is that we receive the penalty of the law; not in person, but in figure. Christ has suffered for sin; and if we are “in him,” we also are accounted as having received the penalty. And since it is by baptism that we become united to him, we become dead to the law and united to Christ at the same time. “Dead to the law.” What does the apostle mean by that expression? Simply that we have (in Christ) received the penalty of the law, and that it now regards us as dead. To illustrate: A man guilty of stealing is by the law sentenced to a term of years in the penitentiary. He serves his sentence and then is set at liberty. Now he has no fear of the law. He may go boldly into the court-room, and even into the prison; for he knows that, having received the penalty for his crime, the law will not molest him. Now carry the illustration a little further: A man commits murder and is sentenced to death. When he has been executed, the law is satisfied. Suppose now that it were possible for the man to come to life again. Having received the full penalty of the law, he is, so far as his past offense is concerned, thenceforth considered by the law as a dead man. So with the sinner’s relation to the law of God. It condemned him to death. In Christ he received the death penalty, and now that he is raised to walk in newness of life, the law considers him to be a dead man. He is now a new man; the man who sinned is dead, and the man who takes his place shuns those things which the former man did, and therefore the law declares him to be righteous. In harmony with the above quotation and explanation are the following words:— “If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth. For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God.” Col. 3:1-3. Read also the following statement by the same apostle: “I am crucified with Christ; nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.” Gal. 2:20. Now why was it necessary for us to go through this process of dying and being raised to new life? Because we had upon us a burden of sin from which we could not otherwise be free. Did we get rid of this body of sin by that means? Yes; hear the apostle: “Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. For he that is dead is freed from sin.” The body of sin was the first husband. We became disgusted with that union, and desired to become united to Christ, but could not as long as the first husband was living; and in order for that husband to die, we ourselves had to die. For the moment, both are dead; then we are raised to be henceforth joined to Christ in a new life, because the first husband, the old man, the body of sin, remains dead. So long as that body of sin remains dead, we, although alive in Christ, are dead in the eyes of the law. But if at any time the old man should come to life by our going back to our old sins, that moment the law would condemn us as adulterers. W. The Authority of the Old Testament.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
THE Disciples not long since issued a pamphlet entitled, “Our Position.” One part of their position is stated as follows:— “We accept the Old Testament as true; . . . but as a book of authority to teach us what we are to do, the New Testament alone, as embodying the teachings of Christ and his apostles, is our standard.” Upon this the Christian Intelligencer makes the following excellent comment:— “But they forget that in thus denying the authority of the Hebrew Scriptures they fly directly in the face of the teaching of Christ and his apostles. When the Saviour repelled the tempter in the wilderness it was by quoting the Old Testament. He said again and again, ‘It is written;’ but if the words written had no authority, why were they cited? In the Sermon on the Mount our Lord said that he came not to destroy (abrogate) the law and the prophets, but to fulfill them. But if the law and the prophets were not abrogated by him, then they are of binding authority still. When he was asked what was the great command, he answered, quoting the words of the Pentateuch which enjoin supreme love to God and to love our neighbor as ourselves, words which are unlimited either in time or place, and therefore are authoritative now and evermore. When he was asked about marriage, he quoted from Genesis the passage which settles the question for all time. When he was asked about the resurrection, he referred to the Old Testament as deciding the point not for Jews only but for all men. When he was asked about the way to eternal life, he gave the most explicit sanction to the decalogue, saying, ‘If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.’ It follows, then, that to deny the authority of the Old Testament is to deny the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ. “The apostle Paul throughout his epistles cites the old scriptures, not simply as illustration, but as confirmation of his utterances. Not only so, but he affirms that ‘whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope,’ and again, that ‘they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.’ He also said that ‘every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness’ [Revised Version]; but how could it be this unless it were authoritative? In the conference at Jerusalem the apostle James quoted from the361 prophets as a means of settling the question which caused the assembling of the council, and in his epistle he refers to ‘the royal law according to the Scripture’ as a decisive rule of action. The apostle Peter not only quotes the Old Testament as authority, but tells his brethren that they do well to take heed unto it as unto a lamp shining in a dark place, since they knew that its authors ‘spake from God, being moved by the Holy Ghost.’ “It is clear, then, that they who restrict authority to the teachings of Christ and his apostles run counter to those very teachings. And they cut themselves off from three-fourths of the rule of faith which God has given. They also greatly disparage the divine wisdom. It pleased the Most High to make his revelation of himself gradual. Through a long course of years the disclosures were made, the late never superseding but supplementing the earlier, and the whole together constituting the divine directory for men. The Bible, the whole Bible, is one book, and it is needful in order to accomplish its purposes; but to deny authority to the greater part of it is sadly to mutilate the inspired rule of faith and practice. If the Old Testament has and was designed to have no grip upon the conscience of Christians, its use and advantage to them is wofully abridged. In fact, it is reduced to the level of uninspired productions. It may contain many excellent things, but the reader is to sit in judgment upon their value to him just as he would in the case of any human production. Whatever it be, narrative, proverb, psalm, statute, or prophecy, he is to accept it if it commends itself to his mind, otherwise not. To all who hold such views one may well repeat the incisive words of our Lord, ‘Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures.’” Yet as plain as all this is, the Christian Standard seriously sets about to controvert it, and begins by asking the ever mistaken question of that denomination, namely:— “Who is now the Lawgiver in the spiritual universe? . . . That is the question. Moses or Christ—which? . . . Those scriptures were a standard to those who lived under the authority of Moses; but they cannot, in the nature of things, be a standard of authority to those who live under the authority of Christ.” We would ask the Standard, who, but God, has ever been the Lawgiver in the spiritual universe? Where was Moses ever a lawgiver in the spiritual, or in any other, universe? We challenge the Standard to show, from the hour that Moses saw the burning bush to the hour of his death, that he ever did anything upon his own authority, unless it be at the rock of Meribah, when he said, “Must we fetch you water out of this rock?” Num. 20:8-12. But as this forfeited his entrance into the promised land, we think that even the Standard would hardly present that as proof that Moses acted on his own authority. The calamity that came upon Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, and all their company, was to demonstrate that the authority by which Moses acted was the authority of God. “Moses said, Hereby ye shall know that the Lord hath sent me to do all these works; for I have not done them of mine own mind.” Num. 16:28. Then by what right is it that the Standard speaks of the “authority of Moses”? None whatever but an assumed right. It is directly against the word of Moses, to speak of what he did as being the authority of Moses. From Exodus 3:4 to Deuteronomy 34:4, from the burning bush to Pisgah, always the word is, “The Lord spake unto Moses, saying,” “And the Lord said unto Moses,” etc. So it is all through the Old Testament. The Lord spoke to Joshua, to the Judges, to Samuel, to David, to Nathan, to Isaiah, to Jeremiah, to Ezekiel, to Daniel, and to all the prophets. None of these spoke on their own authority, nor upon the authority of Moses, but ever by the authority of the Lord. None of these things ever purported to be the authority of Moses. Nobody ever obeyed them as of the authority of Moses, but always as of the authority of God. And this authority is the authority of Christ. It was the Spirit of Christ that was in all the prophets from Moses—yes, from Abraham, from Enoch—to Malachi. It was the Spirit of Christ that testified in all their writings, “searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ, which was in them did signify, when it testified,” etc. 1 Peter 1:11. The Old Testament, then, is the testimony of Christ, and the testimony of Christ is the testimony of God. Therefore, to deny the authority of the Old Testament is to deny the authority of Christ and of God. But this will not suit the Standard at all; for according to it the authority of Christ did not begin till after his resurrection. It says:— “It was after his resurrection that Jesus claimed the possession of ‘all authority in Heaven and on earth,’ . . . and from that time men are under the authority of the Lord Jesus.” It is true that it was after his resurrection—in fact, on the day of his ascension—that Jesus said this; but to claim that he had not this authority till that time is more than the record will justify. Nearly the beginning of his ministry, before the imprisonment of John the Baptist, the record is, “The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand.” John 3:35. And before the death of John the Baptist, Jesus said, “All things are delivered unto me of my Father.” Matt. 11:27. “By him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers; all things were created by him, and for him; and he is before all things, and by him all things consist.” Col. 1:16, 17. “Without him was not anything made that was made.” John 1:3. Before he came into the world, he upheld “all things by the word of his power.” Heb. 1:1-3. Now if the Christian Standard can conceive how Christ could have all things delivered to him, how he could create all things, how he could uphold all things by the word of his power, and yet have no authority till after his resurrection, it has a power of conception that is truly phenomenal. Besides this, if the Standard's position were true, it would follow that no part of the New Testament even would be of authority except that which was spoken after the resurrection of Christ. For it was not till then that Christ “claimed the possession of authority.” In reply to the Intelligencer's instance of Jesus telling the young man, “If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments,” the Standard again lets itself out after this fashion:— “Let the reader carefully observe that this was the question of a Jew, propounded to one whom the questioner regarded as an expounder of the law; and therefore Jesus answers him out of the law. This certainly proves that the law of Moses was then authoritative. But does the Intelligencer mean to say that this is the way of life taught in the gospel? and that to deny this is ‘to deny the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ’? We have not so learned Christ.” Then we say that the Standard has not properly learned Christ. This was not all that Jesus said to the young man. He said also to him, “Sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in Heaven; and come and follow me.” Was it as “a Jew,” “an expounder of the law” to a Jew, that this was said by the Lord Jesus? No; it was said by the Saviour of the world, the One by whom comes eternal life, to one who honestly asked the way to eternal life, and one whom Jesus wanted to follow him. It was said to one whom Jesus wanted to be his disciple. Therefore, what Jesus told this young man to do is what his disciples must do that they may have eternal life. Had the young man done it, he would assuredly have been a disciple of Christ; therefore, to deny the commandments of God of the Old Testament, is to deny an essential part of the duty of a disciple of Christ. The Standard, and the “Disciples” whom it represents, need to learn more thoroughly what constitutes a true disciple of the Lord Jesus Christ. The Standard needs to so learn Christ. But aside from this special pleading, the Standard cannot make its own system work. In answer to the statement that “Jesus repelled the tempter by quoting the Old Testament,” it says:— “Those Scriptures had authority. Jesus was a Jew, ‘born under the law,’ and it was his office to ‘magnify the law and make it honorable.’ Not one jot or tittle of the law was to pass until all was fulfilled; and Jesus was then engaged in fulfilling it. What has that to do with the question concerning the present Lawgiver, whose authority we are to honor?” And yet in an editorial on the same page, in reply to a Catholic on the worship of Mary, it says:— “There are no hymns of praise, there is no worship, addressed to Mary in the Scriptures. ‘Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve,’ is what the Son of Mary uttered as true doctrine.” But hold, Mr. Standard. Why may not the Catholic answer you in your own words, that it was as “a Jew ‘born under the law,’” and “as an expounder of the law,” and while he was “engaged in fulfilling it,” that Jesus uttered these words? He was speaking to one who regarded him “as an expounder of the law, therefore Jesus answered him out of the law. This certainly proves that the law of Moses was then authoritative.” But “what has that to do with the question concerning the present Lawgiver whose authority Catholics are to follow?” Now why is not that argument as sound in behalf of the Catholics as the foregoing is in behalf of the Disciples? Or is it true that argument against the authority of the Old Testament is good for the Disciples alone, and is not to be used by other people? “It is a poor rule that will not work both ways.” And as the Standard's rule, by its own application, will not work both ways, we set it down that the argument against the authority of the Old Testament is a poor, miserable shift to escape the obligation of the Law of God. J. North Pacific T. and M. Society.
THE first meeting of the North Pacific Tract and Missionary Society was held on the camp-ground at East Portland on Tuesday, May 18, 1886, at 9:30 A. M. After the usual opening exercises, and the reading of the last annual report, the chairman appointed committees as follows:— On Nominations, Brother O. Dickenson, and Sisters F. Kingsbury and A. B. Starbuck. On Resolutions, T. H. Starbuck, S. Brownsberger, and Chas. Holt. Auditor, H. W. Reed. The second meeting was called the 20th at 9 A. M. Questions were asked by the president in regard to the duties of the different Tract Society officers. After some interesting remarks on the subject by Brethren Dickenson, Burden, and Butler, final reference was made to the constitution to define the duties of each officer. The financial standing of the Society, with the report of labor performed during the past year, was called for and read. Brother Butler expressed himself pleased with the standing and work of the Society. At the third meeting, May 21, 5 P. M., after the report of the Nominating Committee, the following officers were elected: For President, Elder C. L. Boyd; Vice-President, J. A. Burden. Directors: District No. 1, Frank and J. C. Bunch, Coquille City, Coos Co., Oregon; No. 2, J. W. Will, Corvallis, Oregon; No. 3, E. D. Hurlburt, St. Johns, Oregon; No. 4, Charles Holt, Sumner, Pierce Co., W. T. The nomination of Mrs. C. L. Boyd for State Secretary, was referred back to the Committee. Brother Butler spoke of the necessity of the Review finding its way into every Sabbath-keeping family, and hoped the SIGNS might still be used as a pioneer paper to introduce the truth where it is not known. A letter was read from our brethren in Switzerland enlisting our interest in the spread of the truth among the German, French, and Italian-speaking people of the United States. The plans were talked over, and further consideration of the matter referred to the Board of Directors. At the fourth meeting, the Nominating Committee presented the name of H. W. Reed as Secretary, who was duly elected. Due from Societies on Tract Fund ……… $ 71.77
“ “ “ Periodicals ……… 243.14
“ “ Individuals ……… 378.36
“ “ Colportage ……… 317.14
“ “ General Expenses ……… 272.03
“ “ N. P. Conference ……… 16.62
“ “ Tent and C. M. Fund ……… 309.10
Books on hand ……… 685.37
Reading-room and Furniture ……… 406.75
3 Congregation Tents ……… 350.00
12 Family Tents ……… 150.00
Total ……………………………… $3,200.28 Due the SIGNS Office ……… $338.63
“ Review “ ……… 333.32
“ Good Health Publishers ……… 22.61
“ Wm. Potter on loan ……… 30.00
Total ……………………………… $724.56
Present standing of the society ……… $2,475.72 Cash on hand June 1, 1885 ……… $ 87.23
Received on Tract Society Fund ……… 1,154.89
“ “ Periodical “ ……… 666.68
“ “ $5,000 “ ……… 572.30
“ “ Educational “ ……… 525.50
“ “ Tent & C. M. “ ……… 221.93
“ “ Reserve “ ……… 80.25
“ “ Foreign Missions ……… 353.50
Total ……………………………… $3,662.28 Cash paid SIGNS Office ……… $853.60
“ “ Review “ ……… 465.03
“ “ Good Health Publishers ……… 100.00
“ “ International Society ……… 5.15
“ “ Foreign Missions ……… 353.50
“ “ on New Tents ……… 149.00
“ “ Per order of Camp Meeting Com. ……… 255.31
“ “ for Labor ……… 577.40
“ “ for Store Room ……… 30.35
“ “ for Sundries at Reading Room ……… 17.55
“ “ Books, Stationery, etc. ……… 127.56
“ “ to Healdsburg College ……… 609.00
“ “ on General Expenses ……… 118.84
Total ……………………………… $3,662.29 REPORT OF LABOR FOR YEAR ENDING MARCH 31, 1886.
No. of members ……… 190
“ reports returned ……… 553
“ members added ……… 32
“ “ dismissed ……… 3
“ letters written ……… 1,174
“ visits made ……… 2,497
“ pp. of tracts and pamphlets distributed ……… 172,540
“ periodicals distributed ……… 27,964
“ periodicals taken in clubs ……… 540
“ new subscribers obtained ……… 292 I have thoroughly examined the books, and found them correctly kept. H. W. Reed. Shortly after the close of the meeting, Brother Reed resigned his position as Secretary in favor of Brother J. A. Burden, whose health is such that it was thought not expedient for him to enter the field with a tent. All business of the Society should be addressed to J. A. Burden, Box 18, East Portland, Oregon.
CHAS. L. BOYD, President.
MRS. C. L. BOYD, Secretary. Warning Against the Beast’s Mark
"If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb." Rev. 14 : 9, 10. Hawaiian Islands.
By L. A. Scott
SINCE the close of the tent-meetings, and Elder Healey's departure for California, we have endeavored to follow up the work here by visiting, and by the distribution of such reading matter as would tend to awaken a deeper interest in the near coming of the Lord, and the preparation of heart necessary to meet him with joy. A well-known business man of this place has lately taken his stand for the truth as it is in Jesus; and has, through the press, informed the public of his convictions. He thanked his customers for past favors, asked for a continuation of their patronage, and notified all that, in future, his place of business would be closed on the Sabbath (Saturday). His course in the matter commands, at least, the respect of the right-minded portion of the community, and we trust that his manly action will give courage to others who are also convinced that God still requires obedience to all the precepts of his perfect, holy, just, and good law. The Sabbath question is still agitating the minds of some in the churches here, as evidenced by the fact that one of the pastors of the leading denomination has felt called upon to spend two Sunday evenings in trying to show how the change was made from the seventh day, and that God now requires the observance of the first day of the week. His argument, however, did not prove the requirement, nor show that Christ or the apostles had anything to do with the change. The weakness of the Sunday cause is never quite so apparent as when its devotees undertake to defend it. The admissions which they are forced to make invariably show the observance of the first day to be of human origin, and the substitution to have been the work of "the man of sin." We hope that the agitation will continue till the honest in heart see the force of 2 Tim. 3:5, and follow Paul's injunction therein; for the end of all things is at hand. Three weeks ago I visited the island of Kauai, said to be in all respects the most lovely of the group. The climate, judging from my short stay, is indeed delightful, and much of the scenery grand. The soil is rich, and rice and sugar cane are quite extensively cultivated. I went to nearly or quite all of the sugar plantations, finding some at all but one who were willing to read our publications, buying books and subscribing for the periodicals. There are but few English-speaking people on the island. I obtained, in all, thirty-one subscriptions, mostly for the SIGNS; took orders for about thirty-five dollars' worth of books, and held three Bible-readings. The past quarter Brother LaRue has taken thirty-five subscriptions for our different periodicals, visited seventeen foreign ships and a number of local schooners, selling quite a quantity of books to the officers and men, and supplying each vessel with more or less free reading matter. We are both of good courage in the Lord, and rejoice to have a part in the work of our soon-coming Master. L. A. SCOTT.