Earlier text: Is Slavery Sanctioned by the Bible?DOINGS OF THE BATTLE CREEK CONFERENCE, OCT. 5 & 6, 1861.
THE Conference convened for business purposes, evening after the Sabbath, Oct. 5, at 6,30 P. M. Elder Joseph Bates was chosen chairman, U. Smith secretary. Meeting opened by prayer by Bro. White. Brn. White, Loughborough, Cornell, and Hull, having consulted together in regard to the business to be brought before the Conference, Bro. White proposed that if the Conference would accept them as a committee to present business to the meeting, they were ready to report. On motion of Bro. Gurney these brethren were accepted as the business committee of the Conference. The first business presented was the organization of churches. Bro. Loughborough said: I consider it proper and necessary to consider here the organization of churches, as the subject has been agitated among us, especially for the last six months; and in order to bring the matter before the meeting, I move that we consider the proper manner of organizing churches. Seconded by Bro. White. Carried. Bro. White then presented the following resolution: Resolved, That this Conference recommend the following church covenant: We, the undersigned, hereby associate ourselves together, as a church, taking the name, Seventh-day Adventists, covenanting to keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus Christ. Seconded by Bro. Hull. Adopted. The vote not being full, Bro. White said: I hope that matters of so much importance will not be passed by without discussion, if any are disposed to question them. Nothing hurt my feelings more than the non-committal position of some at last full conference. I hope therefore that these subjects will have the benefit of a full and free discussion, and that the sisters will take part in the vote, and that the action may be unanimous. I would be in favor of trying this vote again. Moved by Bro. Loughborough that we re-consider the last vote. Carried. Bro. Hull said: I have but very few words to say on this subject. The covenant proposed is very nearly such a one as I have several times written out for churches who were about to organize. The need of some such covenant has been seen and felt. I believe it is according to apostolic custom to have our names signed to something; and this must be something written out. We pledge ourselves only to do one thing, to keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. There can be nothing more in christianity. We pledge ourselves to help each other along in the christian journey. No one can call this a creed or articles of faith. BRO. BYINGTON. If we carry out this matter, not only merely covenanting to do, but practically doing it, then it can be said of a truth, Here are they that keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. BRO. WHITE. If there is no one to raise any objections to this step, I have almost a mind to raise some myself, so that the subject may be discussed. Circumstances have driven me to an examination of this subject somewhat, and it is a very clear one to my mind; but perhaps it might be objected to on this ground: It will look like patterning after the churches around us; and what will be the influence? I would like to hear remarks upon this point. It will certainly be doing like those around us; and certain individuals will say that we are following after Babylon; and this may be an objection in their minds. BRO. LOUGHBOROUGH. It may with equal propriety be said that we are patterning after the churches in building meeting-houses. We call the churches Babylon, not because they covenant together to obey God. I am still of the opinion I advanced sometime since through the Review: The first step of apostasy is to get up a creed, telling us what we shall believe. The second is, to make that creed a test of fellowship. The third is to try members by that creed. The fourth is to denounce as heretics those who do not believe that creed. And, fifth, to commence persecution against such. I plead that we are not patterning after the churches in any unwarrantable sense, in the step proposed. BRO. CORNELL. The point in the covenant is to keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. I never heard of a people making such a covenant, and hence cannot consider that we are patterning after the churches in such a covenant as that. Again: We have Bible-classes, and Sabbath-schools just like the churches, but no one accuses us of patterning after them in these respects. BRO. WHITE. I am convinced: not by what the brethren have said: for I was convinced before. I wish to say a word now in favor of the resolution. I prefer that the brethren should be uniform in this thing. This would tend to unity in the church. Let us set a right example here, and let it go out from this meeting. This is one reason why I would vote for this covenant. On the subject of creeds, I agree with Bro. Loughborough. I never weighed the points which he has presented, as I have since I began to examine the subject for myself. In Eph. iv, 11-13, we read, "And he gave some apostles, and some prophets," &c. Here we have the gifts of the church, presented. Now I take the ground that creeds stand in direct opposition to the gifts. Let us suppose a case: We get up a creed, stating just what we shall believe on this point and the other, and just what we shall do in reference to this thing and that, and say that we will believe the gifts too. But suppose the Lord, through the gifts, should give us some new light that did not harmonize with our creed; then, if we remain true to the gifts, it knocks our creed all over at once. Making a creed is setting the stakes, and barring up the way to all future advancement. God put the gifts into the church for a good and great object; but men who have got up their churches, have shut up the way or have marked out a course for the Almighty. They say virtually that the Lord must not do anything further than what has been marked out in the creed. A creed and the gifts thus stand in direct opposition to each other. Now what is our position as a people? The Bible is our creed. We reject everything in the form of a human creed. We take the Bible and the gifts of the Spirit; embracing the faith that thus the Lord will teach us from time to time. And in this we take a position against the formation of a creed. We are not taking one step, in what we are doing, toward becoming Babylon. BRO. CORNELL. I think we have many examples in the Scriptures of the people of God entering into a covenant. It is always proper to covenant to do right; and there can be no more appropriate covenant than to keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. [Reads 2 Chron. xv, 12, and says] Here it seems the people of God were at one time together, and all entering into a covenant to do what the Bible commanded them to do. I think, in the step we propose, we are only entering into a covenant to do what the Lord commands us to do. BRO. BYINGTON. A covenant I understand is a promise or vow. The Bible requires us to pay our vows unto God. We could not pay them unless we had made them. BRO. WHITE. The 19th chapter of Exodus shows that there was a covenant entered into between God and the people to keep the commandments of God. God promises that if they would keep his commandments he would be their God; and the people say, All the words that the Lord has spoken will we do. Read also 2 Kings xxiii, 3. BRO. LOUGHBOROUGH. The greatest objection that rests in the minds of individuals, I presume, is having this thing set down in writing. I do not know as I ever went into a meeting, but there were some to express the determination to renew their covenant. Now there is the covenant; but to just put that down in writing, seems, in the minds of some, to be Babylon. You see at once that here is where the difficulty lies; for when I state a thing I endorse it; and all the difference there is between that and what we now propose, is that one is set down in writing and the other is not. The question was called for, and unanimously carried. 2. The next question being in regard to the proper manner of organizing churches, after some remarks by different individuals, the following resolution was presented by Bro. White: Resolved, That we refer this subject to the ministers present, instructing them to hold a Bible class on it and write an address to the brethren, to be published in the REVIEW. Unanimously adopted. 3. Organization of Conferences. On this subject the following resolutions were presented by Bro. White: Resolved, That we recommend to the churches in the State of Michigan to unite in one Conference, with the name of The Michigan Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. Adopted. Resolved, That the conference be composed of ministers and delegates from the churches. Adopted. Resolved, That the officers of this Conference consist of a Chairman, Clerk, and a standing committee of three. Adopted. Resolved, That our present Chairman and Clerk, act as officers of this Conference for the coming year. Adopted. Resolved, That John N. Loughborough, Moses Hull, and M. E. Cornell, be the Conference committee. Adopted. Resolved, That the first session of the Michigan State Conference of Seventh-day Adventists be held at Monterey, Mich., Oct. 5-8, 1862. Adopted. 4. Ministers' papers. On this subject the following was presented by Bro. Cornell: Resolved, That our ministers' papers consist of a certificate of ordination, also credentials to be signed by the Chairman and Clerk of the Conference, which credentials shall be renewed annually. Adopted. Resolved, That this Conference give credentials to the ministers of this State who are in good standing. Adopted. 5. Interests of Publishing Association. Resolution presented by Bro. White: Resolved, That we recommend to the brethren scattered abroad to remember in their liberalities the wants of the Association. Adopted. Adjourned to 8 o'clock in the morning. Meeting opened with prayer by Bro. Cornell. 6. The sixth subject presented for the consideration of the Conference was the recommendation of books, when the following resolution was presented by Bro. Loughborough:149Resolved, That we recommend to our churches and brethren the new Hymn Book. Adopted. Whereas, The press is a powerful means of disseminating Bible truth, and, Whereas, Many can be brought to the knowledge of the truth by reading our publications, therefore, Resolved, That we recommend to our brethren greater sacrifice and activity in circulating all our books; and that the brethren especially furnish themselves with the forth-coming History of the Sabbath, and Spiritual Gifts, volumes one & two. Adopted. 7. Tent operations in Michigan. Resolution presented by Bro. White: Resolved, That this Conference instruct the tent committee to purchase a tent for the State of Michigan, and secure the labors of two efficient ministers and a tent-master for next tent season. Seconded. BRO. WHITE. I have been dissatisfied for a few years past with the course we in Michigan have been pursuing. I do not know why Michigan is not as good a field of labor as can be found anywhere on this globe. Again: I would say I believe there are encouragements to labor in Michigan, which do not exist in any other State. There is union to a great degree in the State; and that union may be attributed partly to the influence of our general conferences. Our large gatherings where our meetings are thrown open to all the testimony which we believe that God, in his providence, designed to bless us with, and where under a uniting influence we have been enabled to stand to a very good degree in union—these have had a powerful influence on our brethren scattered abroad. It is true we have had at some of our large meetings, some little discord. A few years since there were some little difficulties which arose from sentiments written out by Bro. Woodhull, and hastily published in the REVIEW. But that was entirely an imported difficulty. We had some little difficulty, too, in regard to organizing a Publishing Association. That difficulty was also an imported one. It came up from Ohio and New York. All in Michigan were united. Now I do not want to praise you, brethren, but I must speak of these facts. Where people are brought out on the truth in this State there seems to be a warm influence exerted in favor of the truth; and it seems to me that there is more encouragement for messengers to labor in such a State, than in those places where distracting influences are liable to bear them down. There is another fact: Notwithstanding there has been a good degree of union in this State, we have sent our ministers out of the State. I would not give this as a reason why we have prospered, by any means; but to bring out the fact that while the brethren have stood alone, with efficient ministers out of the State, they have enjoyed a good degree of prosperity. Now is this right? It seems to me it is working for the advancement of the cause rather at arms' length. There are sinners in Michigan as well as in other States, and many places where the truth has never been preached. After we get over the Publishing Association (and I suppose Michigan will do a large share of that: you pledged more than all the rest put together, and your donations are coming up accordingly), after we get through with the establishment of the Association, then we are ready to take hold of tent operations. I would not exhort our brethren against selfishness; for we have not been selfish. We have loved our neighbors a great deal better than ourselves. And while the Lord may look with approbation upon this, I believe there are duties for us here. We ought to go into tent operations strong next spring. BRO. LOUGHBOROUGH. My mind has been stirred up for labor in Michigan, especially since my return from the West, and since I have seen how little excitement there is here on the war question, in comparison with other places. I would also endorse the remarks of Bro. White in regard to the union existing here. It would not be here as in Wisconsin where we labored hard for six weeks to raise up a large church, and an influence came right in from a neighboring church, to scatter them all to fragments. It would be encouraging to labor in a State where there is union. The question was here called for, and the resolution adopted. Moved by Bro. Loughborough that the present tent committee, Bro. G. W. Amadon, William Hall, and Myron J. Cornell, act as committee for the coming season. Carried. 8. The interests of the cause in Ohio. This subject was introduced by Bro. White with remarks respecting the present condition of things in that State, the discouragements under which the brethren there are laboring, and their calls for help. He read before the meeting a letter from Bro. Baker, and offered the following resolution: Resolved, That Brn. Loughborough, Cornell and Hull be a committee to consider, and, as far as possible, supply, the wants of the cause in Ohio. Adopted. Moved by Bro. White that the minutes of this Conference be published in Review. Carried. JOSEPH BATES, Chairman.
URIAH SMITH, Secretary. MICHIGAN GENERAL CONFERENCE.
THE Michigan General Conference was held with the church at Battle Creek, Oct. 4-6. There were none at this meeting from other States, and not a large gathering of the brethren in Michigan. The short notice, the busy season of the year, and the lack of means with some to pay their pledged shares of stock in the Publishing Association, kept many from this general gathering. The house of worship was comfortably filled with the friends of the cause, who came to act their part in the work. This week's receipts give some idea of the activity of the working hands who attended the conference. Our ministers had unusual freedom in preaching the word, and the social meetings were excellent, especially the general conference meeting on Sunday evening. This meeting held three hours with increasing interest. The time was filled up with short testimonies from many brethren and sisters. A calm, sweet, melting spirit pervaded this meeting making it the best of the kind we ever witnessed. We heard many brethren remark in regard to the conference that it was the best ever held at Battle Creek. With the sweet influence of the meeting upon the minds of the brethren and sisters, they parted Monday morning to go to their several homes. The unity existing among the brethren at this conference, the eagerness to take a decided position upon organization, and the general readiness to sustain the Publishing Association, have greatly encouraged us. We are not, in point of hope, faith and courage where we stood prior to the trials of the last eighteen months, and perhaps we never shall be; but we certainly made rapid progress during the three days of our conference. EAGLE HARBOR DISCUSSION.
By J. M. Aldrich
To. J. M. ALDRICH—Dear Sir: In your notice of the discussion at Eagle Harbor, in the N. Y. tent, on Sunday the 4th inst., you state in full the five points made by Bro. Hull in his opening address; and then you add, "Bro. H. drove his pins on the foregoing points so tight that Eld S. very wisely concluded to let them remain. Instead, therefore, of attempting to reply to the solid arguments of Bro. H., he led off in the discussion with nine propositions as the foundation and superstructure of his position on the question under debate." Did I not attempt to reply? Let me try to refresh your memory. Did not Bro. Hull in his opening address say he would present but a few of his points at that time, in order to give me a chance to reply, and have time besides to offer arguments in support of my side of the question? And did I not attempt to reply to his first point (which was that the Sabbath was made for man) by saying that if it was for the Jews only, it would be made for man; for a Jew is a man? Did I not attempt to reply? His second point was, The Sabbath was given to the children of Israel as a sign. Did I not attempt to reply by admitting it was given to them, but not to Christians? His third point was, The observance of the Sabbath was for a perpetual covenant. Did I not attempt to reply by saying you might take your Concordance and find the word perpetual, and you would find it was applied to things that have an end, as the word forever does sometimes? Therefore it did not follow that the Sabbath would always continue. His fourth point was, God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it. Did I not attempt to reply to it, by admitting it, and that it was to be binding as long as the old covenant lasted? His fifth point was, The covenant containing the Sabbath is a covenant of ten commandments. Did I not attempt to reply by saying that he saved me the trouble of proving that old covenant was the ten commandments, and that I admitted it, and did not Bro. H. refer to my admitting so much, when he came to reply? Now, if on reflection you should recollect that what I have called to your mind is correct, will you please make the acknowledgment through the same paper in which you attempted to give a notice of the debate? I would call your attention to the omission you made in not giving all the texts of scripture I supported my seventh and eighth propositions with. The following I gave with the seventh, in addition to what you gave. John v, 22; Mark ix, 7; Rom. vii, 22; viii, 1–21; John ii, 4. Also the following with the eighth: Rom. vii, 14; Rom. vii, 6,—very important supports to be left out of a pyramid that was so weak that "it fell to the ground by its own uncomely proportions." If it is true, as you say about it, why not give me the benefit of the quotations, while you gave Bro. Hull so full and explicit a report of his opening? But, by the by, will you tell us when it was that the "well-directed artillery of Bro. H. scattered that pyramid to the four winds?" Was it before it fell? If so, there could not have been anything to fall. But if the great slaughter was performed after it fell, I should think he would have saved his ammunition for another occasion. If that was so, I do not wonder that you say it was a "very interesting discussion." Perhaps you draw upon your imagination somewhat, as some think you did, when you stated that "hundreds had to stand outside the tent." I will close this by expressing the hope that while you are striving to keep the fourth commandment, you will have some respect for the sixth. Ex. xx, 16. Rochester, N. Y., Aug. 27, 1861. ELD. P. A. SMITH—Dear Sir: Through the courtesy of the Review I am here permitted to reply to the foregoing communication, wherein you complain so bitterly of my report of the discussion between yourself and Bro. Hull. Now, really, Eld. S. I deeply sympathize with you; and you will allow me to express the wish that I might do something to help your condition. Indeed, if the adage be true respecting the "wounded bird," also the proverb that "a drowning man will catch at straws," your case must be truly perilous; for the way you have "fluttered" since the discussion, and the desperate effort you now make to "catch at straws," shows that you were not only seriously "wounded," but that you are now in the very last stage of "drowning!" What shall be done? But hold! There is hope! That "old covenant of ten commandments"—that "old law"—forsooth, is doing its work! It slew Paul; possibly it may drown Smith! and he consequently be led to exclaim, "Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good!" Hoping that your seemingly perilous case may turn out thus favorably, I will pass to notice some of your principal items of complaint. You complain most bitterly of my saying that you did not attempt to reply to the arguments of Bro. Hull. I confess I am surprised that you should bring such a complaint. I did not suppose that you would claim that you did attempt to reply to the points he made in his opening address. I thought I was very modest in making the report in this respect as I did; for had I chosen other language I should have said that you did not only not attempt to reply to his points, but admitted nearly or quite all of them. But you try to refresh my memory by stating certain points which you say you did make in attempting to reply to the five points made by Bro. H. And I submit that your own version of the matter does not materially strengthen your case, unless you claim that your several admissions were "attempts" to reply. Let us notice the points in order. 1. You admitted with respect to the first point, that the Sabbath was made for man in the garden of Eden. You also admitted that the term "man" in the proof text [Mark ii, 27] represented the whole human family. Now under this point, with these admissions, what was there left for you to "attempt" to reply to? Bro. Hull claimed no more. But do not these admissions rather take the wind out of what you now say you offered as an "attempt" to reply to this point? viz., "If the Sabbath was made for the Jew only, it would be made for man; for a Jew is a man." By your admissions you conceded that the Sabbath was made for "man," the representative of the whole human family, over two thousand years before there was a Jew in existence! hence it could not have been made for Jews only. Do you see? With reference to the second point, you said you admitted the argument drawn by Bro. H. from his proof text. Ex. xxxi, 13. The argument was that the Sabbath being given as a sign to the children of Israel, to run throughout their generations, and their generations being still in existence, therefore the sabbath is yet binding on them; but the middle wall of partition being now broken down that the Gentiles may become fellow-heirs, &c., therefore the Sabbath obligation also rests upon Christians. So having admitted his argument thus made, there was nothing left under this point for you to attempt to reply to. 2. You claim that you attempted to reply to his third point by showing that the word perpetual was often applied to things that have no end, &c. My notes assure me that you did show such was the fact; but that showing did not meet the case; for Bro. H. had not put that point in issue. He showed that the Sabbath as a perpetual covenant was based on the fact that the Lord made heaven and earth in six days, and rested on the seventh day. Ex. xxxi, 16, 17. But the fact, or basis, still remains, and will ever remain; therefore150from your own reasoning, the word perpetual, when relating to, and connected with, such a fact, cannot be limited as to duration; hence from your own testimony there was nothing in issue between you and Bro. H. under this point. 4. As to the fourth point, my notes are silent as to anything said by you; and I have no recollection of your making the attempt that you claim. It is my impression that you waived this point entirely. But under this head you now claim as your "attempt," &c., that "the Sabbath was to be binding as long as the old covenant lasted." Let us bear this in mind as we proceed to examine the next point. 5. As to the fifth and last point, you admitted that the ten commandments were the covenant commanded to a thousand generations. 1 Chron. xvi, 16. No issue then here! But under this point you claim as your "attempt," &c., that "the old covenant was the ten commandments." Now put these admissions together, and see what will be the conclusion. 1. "The old covenant is the ten commandments." 2. "The ten commandments were the covenant commanded to a thousand generations." 3. "The Sabbath is to be binding as long as the old covenant lasted." I submit that you have fairly convicted yourself. If you do not keep the Sabbath now, the fault will lie at your own door. You next complain that I left out of your pyramid some very important props! This should not have been. It was not intentional. It was a very difficult thing to prop up, and I trust you will excuse me if I did my part of the work in a bungling manner. But you complain of me for not giving you the benefit of the quotations named, while I gave Bro. H. "so full and explicit a report of his opening." If you will look at the report you will notice that I gave you the benefit of eleven proof-texts, while I gave only four to Bro. H.! But about the "slaughter" of that "pyramid!" Were you not there? Have you forgotten so quick? Did you not see how it was done? Did you not witness its fate with your own eyes? Still do you ask for information? How slow of perception! Let me then again assure you that your "pyramid"(!) did fall, and must have fallen for the very reason stated, and which you have quoted. And I therefore confess that the work performed by the "artillery" was hardly necessary under the circumstances. There was in fact, as you have intimated, a needless waste of "ammunition." Though doubtless it was deemed expedient that a little powder should be burned on your account, and perhaps a very few others, who like yourself imagined there was something about that mis-named structure that was truly formidable! But as you draw your article toward a close, you wax very sarcastic. Did you count the persons "outside of the tent?" I confess that I did not; therefore in forming my judgment as to the number, perhaps I am somewhat guilty of the charge you insinuate, to wit, "drawing on my imagination." Possibly it was overdrawn. I do not claim any particular skill in the matter whereof you charge. Your closing remark, though the most cutting and wicked of all, contains a redeeming quality worthy of note. You acknowledge thereby the utility and binding force of what you term the "old covenant"—"the ten commandments." I am glad of such acknowledgment from you, though made thus indirectly. May I not therefore in response to the "hope" you expressed for me, cherish a similar hope for you: that you will yet establish yourself upon the law of God, and thenceforth strive faithfully to obey all its precepts. Sincerely desiring that your convictions may thus lead you, EAGLE HARBOR DISCUSSION.
By E. B. Saunders
THE following statement is called out by the fact that Eld. P. A. Smith is circulating the report that Bro. Hull was unfair and ungentlemanly during his debate with him in the tent at Eagle Harbor. I have not permitted a Sabbath-keeper to sign it. We, the undersigned, citizens of Eagle Harbor and vicinity, attended the discussion of the Sabbath question in this place, Aug. 4, and we are free to say that we heard no language used by the disputants that savored of blackguardism or scurrility. Moderators. { J. M. JACKSON.
ISAAC V. SAUNDERS.
I. YOUNGS. O. S. WATTERS. M. HOUGHTON.
J. M. D. MAY. A. M. MORGAN. H. NOBLE JR.
EDWIN WILSON. UNWILLING FAITH.
By John Norton Loughborough
THE apostle James tells us "faith without works is dead, being alone." This we sometimes call a "dead faith." But I have thought of late there was a kind of faith that might with more strict propriety be called an unwilling faith. That is a case in which the force of testimony is such that persons cannot reasonably reject the conclusion, and yet they do not perform the act which their faith necessarily calls upon them to perform. For instance, a man says, "I believe the seventh day is the Sabbath." Do you keep it? No; it is not convenient for me. This is an unwilling faith. Persons believe because there is no way to shun the force of testimony, yet would almost doubt if they thought that they must obey after they had believed. And those who stand and parley with duty often become unbelievers. And why? Because it is so inconsistent to say they believe what they do not obey. So it is with those among us who say they believe the Lord has spoken to us through the gift of prophecy, and yet go on for months in the practice of those things which are directly reproved by that gift. I find a brother, for instance, who is in the habit of using tobacco, and say to him, Do you believe the gift of prophecy is now in the church? Yes. Do you believe the testimonies which have been given, reproving wrongs, all the way along since the rise of this message? Most certainly, I do. Well, do you know that these testimonies have spoken in the most pointed terms against the use of that filthy weed, tobacco? Yes; but then I do not see how I can give it up, and I do not use only a little. Ah! here is unwilling faith, which is in reality just no faith at all. You need not tell us again that you believe the testimonies, unless you undertake to live them out. Is using "just a little" laying it aside? Well, I use so little the brethren do not know it. Well, if you could deceive your brethren you cannot deceive God. But we inquire of the sister who is perhaps rejoiced to see the tobacco-mongers plainly dealt with. Do you believe these testimonies? O, yes, I always believed them. Do you know they declare it a shame to wear hoops? Yes, but I do not think that means moderate-sized hoops. That means the large ones, and I always thought they looked bad. Is not this unwilling faith again? Does your conscience feel clear when you thus reason? Do you know what kind of example you set? You virtually sanction the practice, and leave the size to be ranged by the taste of the wearer. Again, by your example you deny the testimony you profess to believe. You have perhaps been in the truth for years. Others who are just embracing the truth look to you for example, and whether they have a right to do so or not, it is perfectly natural that they should do so. What estimate, think you, will they put on testimonies you treat thus? To show that I am not mistaken I will copy a little of the experience of my natural sister, as given in a letter received a short time since. She says: "I hope I am profiting by sister White's testimonies. It shows me what an awful sinner I am, and when I can see myself as I am, I am encouraged to make greater efforts to secure Christ's friendship. I did not realize that I was so proud until I came to question the propriety of wearing hoops. I laid them aside a week since, and Friday was the first time I went into the street without them. I went to the post office. I wished I could get rid of going, but after I started my conscience felt so much at rest I was glad I went, and now the cross is becoming very light. Perhaps you think it strange that I have worn hoops so long. I do, too, and profess to believe the present truth. Before I came out on this truth, I had decided to leave them off if I should embrace it. But about that time I became acquainted with a young lady who wore them, and she had been a Sabbath-keeper some time. She always wore a skeleton-shirt, something I never felt justified in buying. But I was influenced by her to have one, and I never put it on without feeling guilty. If I had been among Sabbath-keepers who did not wear them, I presume I should not. But since I have been here, the weather has been so hot I have excused myself in that way. I conclude I can get along as well as I could before they were worn." Dear brethren and sisters, may the Lord give us all willing hearts to obey what our faith readily assents to as truth, so that we may not have an unwilling, but a willing and living faith. TENT MEETINGS IN MINNESOTA.
By John Nevins Andrews
We are not able to report as large a measure of success as our brethren in other States. We have had to contend with difficulties, however, which can hardly have stood in the way of others as they have in ours. Nevertheless, the whole is known to God. The meeting at Orinoco, in Olmstead Co., has been already reported. I am happy to say that it resulted in raising up a small church of steadfast believers, who now bid fair to go through to the holy city. I did not join the tent until the last week of this meeting. The tent was pitched at Lake City, Wabasha Co. Our meeting was one continued struggle with adverse circumstances, which effectually defeated our efforts to do good in this place. When this meeting closed some time was spent in selecting a new location. As we had no tidings from the brethren, and as Bro. Allen and myself were pretty much entire strangers in the State, this caused considerable delay. Grain harvest had just opened, and the people of each locality thought they could not attend a tent-meeting until that was passed. At length we received a letter from Bro. Morse inviting us to pitch the tent at Medford, Steele Co., on the same spot where it was pitched last year. We were glad to accept the invitation. Here, though we failed to call out that portion of the community that last year rejected the truth, there was nevertheless a good work wrought. The church were revived and quickened, and several heartily embraced the truth, and it is believed that quite a number of others will likewise step out upon it. From this place we removed to Cleveland, Le Seur Co., where the tent was pitched Aug. 30. Of this meeting I can safely that it was one of the best, if not the very best, tent-meeting that I ever attended. The interest was deep and wide-spread through the community, and continued to increase as the meeting progressed. I was obliged to leave, Sept. 18, in order to attend the Ashland conference. Bro. Allen, however, remained to finish up the work, and he will report the result. In conclusion I would say that I humbly trust that151God will accept our labors in this State the present season. They have been performed under great difficulties and discouragement, but with a sincere purpose of heart to please him and to declare his whole counsel. Steamer Flora, Mississippi River, Sept. 25, 1861. NORTHERN IOWA TENT REPORT.
By M. E. Cornell
As near as we could ascertain, about one hundred and twenty-five embraced the truth. Our expenditures were $94,03, and receipts $109,65. By vote of the conference the $15,62 on hand was applied toward our traveling expenses to Michigan, which, with other donations, brought us home, and we have about $15 left towards necessary clothing for winter. The friends of truth have our thanks for their kind remembrance of us in time of need. May the Lord reward them. At the conference at Marion we read 2 Chron. xv, 12-15, after which about one hundred took a solemn vow to be more zealous in living out this great truth. The church at Fairview, and others assembled with them, passed the same resolution. Seven were baptized at Anamosa. Two discourses were given during the meeting on spiritual gifts, and for the most part they were well received. Our impression is that the standard should be raised on that subject. We were happy to labor with Bro. Shortridge a few weeks, and to see that he was growing in the truth. He anxiously desires to be fitted up for the great work. We parted with Bro. S. at the Mississippi river, and he went to see his family at Mt. Pleasant, and we came on safely to our home. Battle Creek, Oct. 3, 1861. LETTER FROM BRO. COTTRELL.
By R. F. Cottrell
DEAR BRO. WHITE: I am not permitted the privilege of meeting with the Conference at your place, to participate in the business of the Publishing Association, and confer upon the form of church organization; but I have an interest in these things, and I pray God that his wisdom may guide those that shall assemble, and that measures may be adopted which may aid in bringing the church into unity of faith and action. You know I have ever been in favor of order in the several churches, as taught in the New Testament, and I see no objection against different churches co-operating in the spread of the truth, as, for example, in sending out a tent. If this co-operation is right, then it is not wrong for individual churches to represent themselves in general conference to aid such purpose. I have been waiting in this matter, not because I had any objections, but because I have felt that I did not know sufficiently what should be done; and for this reason I have hoped that some one else, more competent, would take this work in hand. But I have now come to the conclusion that it is for me to lead out in this in Western N. Y., and I wait to hear the recommendations of the Conference at your place, in order to gain what instruction I can so as to act in unison with the church generally. Then, the Lord favoring, I hope to see the churches in this part of the State organized severally, and prepared to send delegates and form a State Conference. I hope that preaching brethren in other parts of the State will organize the churches in their sections of the State, so that we may be fully prepared to form a State Conference before the commencement of another tent season. Yours for the cause. R. F. COTTRELL.