“AND there were certain Greeks among them that came up to worship at the feast; the same came therefore to Philip, which was of Bethsaida of Galilee, and desired him, saying, Sir, we would see Jesus.”
The desire of these Greeks was certainly a very natural one. They had come up to Jerusalem to worship, and had found the name of Jesus upon everybody’s lips. From the highest to the lowest, from the proud and courted Pharisee to the outcast leper, from the high priest and the chief priests, supposed to be the purest in the nation, to the abandoned sinner, all, all were talking about Jesus. Of course not all praising him, not all glorifying him; the chief priests and the Pharisees were most bitterly opposed to him, and were only waiting impatiently for an opportunity to kill him, while the common people were anxious to make him a king. But whether it was to praise or to condemn; whether it was to kill or to make a king, the sole subject of it all was Jesus, and it was the most natural thing in the world that these Greeks should want to see the Person about whom so much was made.
From that day to this, the name that has been used most in this world is the name of Jesus. The one Person about whom more has been said, and of whom more has been made than of any other person this world ever saw, is the Man Christ Jesus. True, as at the first, some have praised him, and some have cursed him; some have worshiped him, while others have sought to kill him, crying, “Crush the wretch,” and often he has been wounded in the house of his friends; still the name more than all others that is used in the wide world to-day, is the name of Jesus. And with those Greeks of old, we now say, “We would see Jesus.”
Not, however, as they, simply because much is said of him, either for or against him; not because there are even now those, as Ingersoll, who would kill at least his name out of the earth; nor yet because there are those, as the National Reformers, who would take him by force and make him king of the United States. Not because of any of these things would we see him. But we would see him as he is, for what he is. For even as saith the Scripture, Having not seen him we love him (1 Peter 1:8); and because we love him we would see him. Having not seen him we love him because he first loved us. We love him because he loved us and gave himself for us. We love him for his gentle pity for sinners such as we. We love him for his cheerful mercy to men so fearfully undeserving as are we. We love him because in “the great love wherewith he loved us” he, “his own self, bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness.” We love him for his lofty humanity. We love him for his “profound reverence for infinite goodness and truth.” We love him for the moral force and the benign influence of his mighty character. We love him for his perfect goodness. For this cause would we see him. We would see him because of
—“the character he bears,
And all the forms of love he wears.”
Yet we would not now see him as he was. We would not now see his visage so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men. We would not now see him a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. We would not now see him oppressed and afflicted. We would not now see him taken as a lamb to the slaughter. We would not now see him in his travail of soul. We would not now see him in his dreadful agony on the cruel tree. No; we would see him as he is. We would see him “that liveth,” though once dead, yet now “alive for evermore, Amen;” and who has “the keys of hell and of death.” We would see him as the disciples saw him—“his face did shine as the sun,” “and his raiment became shining,” “white as the light,” “exceeding white as snow, so as no fuller on earth can white them.” We would see him as Stephen saw him—in glory, “standing on the right hand of God.” We would see him as Paul saw him—shining in light “above the brightness of the sun.” We would see him as John saw him—“his head and his hairs white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes as a flame of fire; and his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters;” “and his countenance as the sun shineth in his strength.” We would see him as Isaiah saw him—“sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up,” and the train of his glory filling the heavenly temple; about him standing the bright seraphim shading their glorious faces from his ineffable glory, and crying one unto another, “Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory” (Isa. 6:1–4 with John 12:41). We would see him coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory, and would hear his mighty voice saying to his angels, “Gather my saints together unto me, those that have made a covenant with me by sacrifice.” And then and there, in the midst of the church, would we see him and hear his glorious voice singing that song of promised praise to the Father (Heb. 2:12). Oh, ’tis thus that “we would see Jesus.”
And we thank God, not only for the hope that we shall see him as he is, but also that the signs are abundant all about us that soon this “blessed hope” shall be fulfilled. And the blessed promise is that we shall not only “see him as he is,” but “we shall be like him.” “Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be; but we know that when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.” We would see Jesus. In this hope we live. For its fruition we wait. But while so living and waiting, we would never for a moment forget that he “that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as He is pure.” 1 John 3:2, 3. And, even so, we would indeed see Jesus.
Angels Not Dead Men.
A NEW Spiritualist paper published in Oregon quotes the Bible in support of that deception as follows:—
“After the clairvoyant and clairaudient John had heard and seen the matters recorded in his revelations, he fell down to worship his angel informant; but the latter quickly stopped this superstitious obsequiousness, by saying: ‘See thou do it not; . . . for I am of thy brethren the prophets.’”
“Though this prophetic spirit did not give his name, these clear words would warrant me in claiming this as the fifth human being of Bible record who returned, after the death of the body, and identified himself.”
There are many who do not call themselves Spiritualists,312who give Rev. 22:9 the same application. But that application can be made only by garbling the text, as is done above. The text reads: “See thou do it not; for I am thy fellow-servant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book.” Some people honestly suppose that the word “one” must be supplied, so as to make it read, “I am thy fellow-servant, and one of thy brethren the prophets.” But the construction of the text will not allow that. In this case, a literal translation, according to the Greek idiom, gives the exact meaning. Literally it reads thus: “I am the fellow-servant of thee, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book.” Here we see that the word to be supplied is fellow-servant. The angel declared that he was not worthy of worship, because he was only a servant. This agrees with Paul’s statement that they are all “ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation.”
Angels do the commandments of God, “hearkening unto the voice of his word;” but they are not immortalized dead men. Angels were created such. Their nature is different from that of men (See Heb. 2:16), and men never become angels. There is a promise that the just shall be made “equal unto the angels;” but that very promise shows that men never become angels; for “equality” can exist only when there are two distinct classes.
Some One-Thousand-Dollar Reasons for Keeping Sunday.
By J.
Our readers have seen Mr. Waffle’s, and the American Sunday-school Union’s, one-thousand-dollar reasons for disregarding and abandoning the plain precept to observe the seventh day, the Sabbath of the Lord. There yet remains to be noticed the reason why the first day of the week is kept. Mr. Waffle tells us that the apostles “were led to observe the first day of the week as the Sabbath, and gradually to abandon the seventh by a variety of occurrences which seemed to them to warrant the change, and which, when carefully studied, leave no doubt in our minds that they acted in accordance with the divine intention.” But how Mr. Waffle knows that these things seemed to the apostles to warrant the change, he nowhere tells us. And, as the apostles themselves have nowhere said a word on the subject, we have no confidence in Mr. Waffle’s imagination of motives which he attributes to them.
Of these “occurrences” he says:—
“The first of them was the resurrection of our Lord. Each of the evangelists mentions very particularly the fact that this took place upon the first day of the week, showing that they felt it important to mark the day. . . . But they might not have given the day the prominence they did if Christ had not distinguished it, by choosing it for most of his appearances to them and other disciples. On the same day on which he arose, he appeared no less than five times. . . . But the fact that Christ rose on that day and manifested himself so often to the disciples, would not necessarily imply a purpose on his part to honor it, had it not been for subsequent occurrences.”—Pp. 192–194.
Here it is admitted that our knowledge of the purpose of Christ to honor the first day of the week depends upon occurrences other than his resurrection, and upon occurrences after those of that same day. Therefore, if these “subsequent occurrences” should not be what Mr. Waffle claims, then the fact stands confessed that we have nothing that implies a purpose of Christ to put honor on the first day of the week. Now the first of these subsequent occurrences he relates as follows:—
“For six days he did not appear to them at all, so far as the record shows; but on the eighth day, or, as we should say, on the seventh day afterwards, he appeared to the eleven as they were gathered in a closed room.”—P. 194.
But there is no such record as that he appeared to his disciples “on the eighth day.” The reference here is, of course, to John 20:26, which reads: “And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them; then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.” And when Inspiration has written “after eight days,” we should like to know by what right, or rule, it is that Mr. Waffle reads “on the eighth day,” and then, not satisfied with that, gives it another turn and reads, “as we should say on the seventh day afterward.” “On what meat doth this our Caesar feed that he is grown so great” that he can thus boldly manipulate the words of Inspiration? And what can a cause be worth that can be sustained only by resort to such unworthy shifts? It is true that Mr. Waffle quotes the clause from Canon Farrar, but we deny the right of Canon Farrar, or any other man, just as much as we deny the right of Mr. Waffle, to so manipulate the word of God. And it is one of the strongest evidences of the utter weakness of the Sunday cause that, to sustain it, such a consummate scholar as Canon Farrar is obliged to change the plain word of God. But some one may ask: Will not the Greek bear the construction that is thus given to the text? We say, No, emphatically. The words exactly as John wrote them, using English letters in place of Greek letters, are these, “Kai meth, hemeras okto,” and is, word for word, in English, “And after days eight.” These are the very words that were penned by the beloved disciple, exactly as he penned them, by the Spirit of God; and when any man, we care not who he may be, changes them so as to make them read “on the eighth day,” or “on the seventh day afterward,” he is guilty of deliberately changing the word of God, as it was written by his own inspired apostle. And no cause can be the cause of God that is dependent for its support upon a change of the truth of God.
The next occurrence is the claim that Pentecost was on the first day of the week. But even though it were admissible that Pentecost was on Sunday, the word of God is still silent about the first day of the week being thereby set apart and made the Sabbath. And so long as we have only the opinions of men, and these opinions only the fruit of their own wishes, and these wishes supported only by their own imaginations, that Sunday is the Sabbath, or the Lord’s day, so long we have the right to deny the truth of it, and to stand upon the “plain precept” of God, which, as Mr. Waffle says, “directs” that “the seventh day of the week” shall be kept holy.
Again Mr. Waffle says:—
“The Christians, at a very early date, were accustomed to hold their religious meetings on that day. The custom seems to have been begun a week from the day of the resurrection (John 20:26), though a single instance of the kind would not make this certain. But there can be no doubt concerning their habit at a later date. We read in Acts, ‘Upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them.’ The plain implication of these words is that it was the custom of Christians to meet on that day for the Lord’s Supper.”—Pp. 197, 198.
Notice that he says of this “custom” that “a single instance of the kind would not make this certain.” Now it is a fact as clear as the word of God can make it, that the instance in John 20:26 was not on the first day of the week. It is likewise a fact that, so far as the word of God tells, the meeting recorded in Acts 20:7 is the only religious meeting ever held on the first day of the week. This, then, being the one single instance of the kind, and as “a single instance of the kind” would not make it certain that it was the custom; therefore it is plainly proved that there is nothing that would make it certain that it was the custom for the apostles to hold meetings on the first day of the week. Well, then, it seems to us that service that has for its authority only a custom about which there is nothing certain, is most certainly an unsafe foundation upon which to rest the reason for disregarding the plain precept of Jehovah. Reader, we want something more substantial than that to stand upon when every work shall be brought into the Judgment.
Next Mr. Waffle quotes 1 Cor. 16:2: “Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store,” etc., and says:—
“It is evident that Paul desires them to bring in their offerings week by week and leave them in the hands of the proper church officers.”
It is certainly evident that if that is what Paul desires he took the poorest kind of a way to tell it. Just think of it, Paul desires that Christians shall bring their offerings week by week and leave them in the hands of the proper church officers. And so, that his desires may be fulfilled, he tells them, “Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store.” That is, each one is to lay by him his offerings, by leaving them in the hands of somebody else! And such are these one-thousand-dollar reasons for keeping Sunday.
There is one more; he says:—
“John speaks of this as ‘the Lord’s day.’ He says, ‘I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day.’ If he had meant the Sabbath, he would have called it by that name. His expression is analogous to ‘the Sabbath of the Lord,’ which we find in the Old Testament; but it cannot mean the same day.”—P. 199.
And why not, pray? “Analogous” means “correspondent; similar; like.” Now if the expression “the Lord’s day” is correspondent to; if it is similar to; if it is like the expression “the Sabbath of the Lord,” then why is it that it cannot mean the same day? Oh, we have Mr. A. E. Waffle’s one-thousand-dollar fiat that it cannot. Christ said, “The Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath day.” The day of which Christ is Lord, and that day alone, is the Lord’s day. But the day of which he was speaking, when he said those words, is the seventh day. He had not the slightest reference to any other day. He was speaking of the day which the Pharisees regarded as the Sabbath, which everybody knows was the seventh day of the week. Therefore, when “he said unto them,” “The Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath day,” it was with sole reference to the seventh day. God had said, “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord,” and now when, with sole reference to the seventh day, Christ says, “The Son of man is Lord of the Sabbath,” it shows that the seventh day, and that alone, is the Lord’s day.
Here we shall present a series of syllogisms, and anybody in this wide world is at full liberty to find any flaw in them.
FIRST SYLLOGISM.
MAJOR PREMISE: “The Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath.” Mark 2:28.
MINOR PREMISE: “The seventh day is the Sabbath.” Ex. 20:10.
CONCLUSION: Therefore, the Son of man is Lord of the seventh day.
Just as surely as the Scripture is true so surely is this conclusion true. Then using this conclusion as a major, we form a
SECOND SYLLOGISM.
MAJOR PREMISE: The Son of man is Lord of the seventh day.
MINOR PREMISE: The day of which he is Lord is the Lord’s day.
CONCLUSION: Therefore, the seventh day is the Lord’s day.
Now with this conclusion as a major, we form our
THIRD SYLLOGISM.
MAJOR PREMISE: The seventh day is the Lord’s day.
MINOR PREMISE: John says, “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day.” Rev. 1:10.
CONCLUSION: John was in the Spirit on the seventh day.313
There, if there is any flaw anywhere in that, we shall be glad to have some one point it out. We shall not, however, offer a prize of one thousand dollars to have it pointed out, because we haven’t a thousand dollars; but we will, and by these presents we now do, offer a one-thousand-dollar-prize—essay, to the Committee of Publication, or to the Board of the American Sunday-school Union, or to Mr. A. E. Waffle, if they, or either of them, will point out a flaw in the above series of syllogisms. We promise to give their manuscripts “a painstaking and protracted examination,” and to send the grand prize—essay by return mail. We can assure them that the essay which we offer is worth $1,000, especially to the Union, for the Union paid $1,000 for it. J.
There has been a long-continued controversy over this chapter, between the Universalists and those of “evangelical” faith. Universalists well understand the importance of the contest on this field, for if it can be proved that this refers only to the destruction of Jerusalem, and not at all to the future advent of Christ in person, then the second and personal advent of the Saviour may be discarded altogether, and the doctrine of a future Judgment falls to the ground.
Many reasons may be given for applying this chapter to the second advent. A few we will notice:—
1. Before “the end” here referred to, nation should rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes should be in divers places. No such state of things intervened between the time when our Saviour uttered these words, and the revolt which resulted in the overthrow of Jerusalem.
2. There was to be the greatest tribulation (upon the elect, see verses 21, 22) which ever was or ever should be. If we say the Jews were the elect, then we find tribulation equally great under the Babylonians. See Lam. 2 and 4; especially chapter 4: 3-10; Dan. 9:11-13. But Christ said (John 8:44) that the unbelieving Jews were of their father the devil; therefore they were not the elect. But the greatest tribulation did not come upon the true people of God at the destruction of Jerusalem. They were mercifully delivered at that time.
3. Those who “spiritualize” this chapter say that “the coming of the Son of man,” means the coming judgments upon Jerusalem, through the Roman army. But it cannot appear reasonable to make the Roman army the Son of man and the “abomination of desolation” in the same scripture.
4. When they saw this abomination of desolation, then if any man should say, “Lo, here is Christ,” they were not to believe it. But if the coming of Christ was only a figure to represent the Roman army, then they were to believe and escape when they saw it. To apply this to the Roman army would be to cut off their warning and their escape.
5. The coming of the Son of man shall be as the lightning, shining from the east to the west. This well represents the advent of the Saviour in the glory of the Father, with all the holy angels. See Mark 8:38; Matt. 25:31; 2 Thess. 1:7-9; 1 Thess. 4:16, 17. But it does not at all represent the coming of the Romans to Jerusalem.
6. At the coming of the Son of man the elect are to be gathered unto him. Matt. 24:29-31; 2 Thess. 2:1. But at the coming of the Roman army the servants of God left the city and fled away.
7. Paul said, before the Lord comes and the saints are gathered unto him, there should come a falling away and the man of sin would be revealed. What fulfilled that prophecy if Christ came when Jerusalem was overthrown?
8. The signs of verse 29 are supposed to be figurative, and the darkening of the sun is made to mean the removal of the civil power of the Jews, as the moon is referred to the ecclesiastical. We will not say that they who argue thus are ignorant, but they must be very thoughtless to make the Saviour prophesy the loss of civil power to the Jews so many years after it was totally lost! Themselves confessed they had no king but Cæsar. They were in complete subjection to the Romans when this prophecy was uttered.
9. It is argued that wonderful signs were shown before Jerusalem was destroyed. Admitted, and what then? The text says that after the tribulation of those days the signs were to appear. If the tribulation were the destruction of Jerusalem, and the signs occurred after that, of what were they signs? There is no harmony in that view. But let the tribulation be upon the elect, the greatest that ever was would include the terrible persecution under the papacy; immediately after that, 1780, the sun was darkened, and the moon did not give her light; the stars fell in 1833. Thus the signs were not signs of the tribulation, but they were after the tribulation, and are signs of the Saviour’s coming. Here is the harmony of truth.
10. The instruction of this chapter was not given to prove that Christ will come again (though it does prove this), for this is abundantly proved by other scriptures, and on this point the questioners had no doubt. But it was given especially to teach the church when that event is “near, even at the doors.” They did not ask him if he was coming again, but, what should be the sign of his coming and of the end of the world. He gave them the information they desired.
11. He informed them that when he comes he will find some faithful servants giving the household “meat in due season,” while evil servants will be saying in their hearts, if not with their tongues, “My Lord delayeth his coming.” One class shall be made rulers in the kingdom of the Saviour, and the other shall be cut asunder and appointed their portion with the hypocrites. Matt. 24:45-51. O fearful doom of self-deceived ones! Reader, on which side will you be in that day? Where do you stand now? J. H. W.
Final Freedom for the Waldenses.
By Eugene Lawrence
With the restoration of 1814-1815, Victor Emanuel IV. came to the throne of Sardinia, and the Vaudois once more sunk to the condition of a subjugated race, alien and oppressed. They were known to be advocates of freedom and advance; the Pope and the Jesuits again ruled at Turin; the Church and State again united to destroy the church of the mountains. From 1814 to 1848 the Vaudois suffered indignities and deprivations scarcely surpassed in the earlier persecutions. All the ancient oppressive laws were revived. They were forbidden to hold any civil office, to pursue their labors on Catholic festivals, to hold land beyond a certain limit, to make proselytes, or build new churches except in the least favorable locations, to marry into papist families, or to give, sell, or lend their Bibles to Catholics. Romish missions were established in their midst, and a convent and a church were built at La Tour to complete the conversion of the people. When Doctor Gilly visited the valleys in 1822 he was struck by the beauty of their landscape, the simplicity and purity of the people; he was touched and grieved to find that they still labored under a rule of persecution, and that liberty of conscience, for which they had ever sighed, was still denied them by unforgiving Rome.
But the church of the Alps was now to rise from its desolation, and to shine out with new luster in the eyes of all Europe. The free principles it had always inculcated, the liberty of conscience it had ever defended, were become the ruling ideas of every cultivated Italian. Turin and Sardinia had learned to look with wonder, admiration, and remorse upon the lovely valleys they had so often desolated, and the innocent people they had so constantly tortured and oppressed.
The Sardinian king, Charles Albert, stood at the head of the Italian reformers. He was resolved to give freedom to the Vaudois; to atone, if possible, for the crimes of his ancestors; to make some faint return to the people of the valleys for their long lesson of patience, resignation, and truth. Amidst the acclamations of his subjects, he prepared (1847) to extend freedom of conscience to the churches of the Alps. A patriotic excitement arose in their favor. A petition was drawn up at Turin urging the king to enfranchise the Vaudois and the Jews. Its first signer was the poet, artist, and statesman, the Marquis D'Azeglio; and his name was followed by a long list of professors, lawyers, physicians, and even liberal ecclesiastics and priests. Cheers were given for the Vaudois at public dinners in Pignerol and Turin, and all Piedmont wept over their history and rejoiced in their approaching triumph. On the 17th of February, 1848, the royal decree was issued giving freedom to the valleys.
It was received by the simple and generous Vaudois with a limitless gratitude. A thrill of joy ran over the beautiful vales, and Lucerna, San Martino, and Perouse resounded with hymns of thanksgiving upon the return of that stable freedom which had been ravished from them eight centuries ago. In every village there were processions of the young, with banners and patriotic songs; the blue colors of renewed Italy shone on every breast; the gentle race forgot all their injuries and their woes, to mingle freely with their Romish brethren, and to celebrate their victory in unbounded love. At night the wonderful scenery of the valleys was set off by a general illumination. Pignerol glittered with light; St. John and La Tour shone at the opening of the defiles; far up, ascending toward the Alps, every crag and cliff had its bonfire, and the gleam of a thousand lights startled the wild mountains, and flashed in caves and ravines where Janavel and Henry Arnaud had once hid in perpetual gloom. The snow-clad peaks and the icy torrents glowed in the illumination of freedom.
But a still more remarkable spectacle was witnessed at Turin. There for three centuries the Jesuits had labored and waited for the extermination of the Vaudois. In the public square, amidst its splendid palaces, had died a long succession of martyrs, the victims of its priests and kings. In its dreadful dungeons, noisome with disease, thousands of the people of the valleys had pined and wasted away. What unuttered woes had been borne in its prisons for freedom's sake no tongue could tell, no fancy picture. Its convents had been filled with the stolen children of the Vaudois; its stony walls had heard the vain complaints of parents and brothers without relenting. From its gates had issued forth those dreadful crusades, whose hosts of brigands, soldiers, priests, inquisitors were so often let loose upon the valleys to do the work of fiends. From Turin had come the impalers of women, the murderers of children; the Spaniards, who flung old men over beetling crags; the Irish, who surpassed even the enormities of the Italians; the Jesuits and Franciscans, who urged forward the labor of destruction; the nobles and princes, the pillars of chivalry, who looked on and applauded crimes for which Dante could have found no fitting punishment amidst the deepest horrors of his pit.314
And now all Turin, repentant and humble, resolved to do honor to the Alpine church. A day of rejoicing had been appointed for liberated Piedmont, and a deputation from the Vaudois was sent to the capital. As they issued from the valleys, they were saluted everywhere with loud vivas for “our Vaudois brothers,” for “liberty of conscience.” The citizens of Turin received them with unbounded hospitality, and the gentle Vaudois took part in the grand procession; they were preceded by a group of young girls, clothed in white, adorned with blue girdles, and each bearing a little banner. Six hundred persons composed the Vaudois deputation, the most noted in the stately pageant. To them, as a mark of especial honor, was assigned the first place at the head of the procession as it moved through the streets of Turin.
The persecuted of a thousand years walked the leaders of Italian freemen. The city rang with cheers for the Vaudois; flowers were showered upon them from the balconies; men rushed from the crowd to salute, to embrace the patient mountaineers; even liberal priests cheered them as they went by; the women of Turin smiled upon the daughters of the valleys. Yet, as the Vaudois moved through the squares hallowed by the torments of their early martyrs, beside the prisons where their ancestors had died by thousands, the palaces where Jesuits and princes had often planned their total extirpation, they were amazed at the startling contrast, and listened with grateful hearts to the glad congratulations of the people of Turin. They breathed out a silent thanksgiving, and prayed that the blessing of Heaven might ever rest upon their pleasant native land.
Their modest prayers have been fulfilled. The festival of their liberation was followed by a wave of revolution that swept over all Europe. The Jesuits and the propaganda were banished from Turin; France became suddenly a republic; the Pope was exiled from Rome, to be restored only by the French armies to his ancient tyranny; and Italy was for a moment free. If for a time the cloud of war rested over the valleys, yet the victories of Napoleon and the swift triumph of Garibaldi have given freedom to the peninsula, and safety to the Alpine church. To-day Lucerna, Perouse, and San Martino shine forth in perpetual beauty. The torrents gleam through the sweet vales of Angrogna, and roar against the cliffs of Balsille. In Pra del Tor, the citadel of the Vaudois has become a cultured field, and the chestnut groves where Henry Arnaud and his pious soldiers celebrated their holy rites are still rich with abundant fruit; the landscapes of Lucerna glow with the soft products of the Italian clime; in the wilder valleys the avalanche leaps from the snow-clad mountains, the chamois feeds on his icy pastures, the eagle screams around the peaks of Guinevert. To-day the primitive Christians assemble in peace in churches that were founded when Nero began his persecutions, or when Constantine gave rest to the tormented world. The Vaudois moderator gathers around him his humble pastors in their sacred synods, as the elders of the Middle Ages assembled at Pra del Tor. The schools of the Vaudois, from which the Bible has never been excluded since the dawn of Christianity, flourish with new vigor; their colleges no longer hide in the caverns of Angrogna. The long struggle of centuries has ended, and the gentle people of the valleys have found freedom to worship God.
Thus the moderator of the Alps has triumphed over the persecuting Pope of Rome, and liberty of conscience reigns from the valleys to the Sicilian Straits. Yet one dark scene of tyranny still remains—one blot on the fair renown of Italy. In the city of Rome the Jesuits and the Pope still rule. Still they point with menacing gestures to the people of the valleys; still they would snatch the Bible from their schools, and crush their consciences with medieval tyranny. In Rome alone persecution for religion's sake still continues; Rome alone, of all European cities, cherishes a shadow of the Inquisition, and still asserts its right to govern the minds of men by brutal force. Enthroned by foreign bayonets over a murmuring people, the vindictive Pope proclaims his undying hostility against the wise and the good of every land. But should the Holy Father and the society of Loyola turn their eyes to the Vaudois Alps, they may read their doom graven on each heaven-piercing peak. There may be seen a spectral company of the hallowed dead writing with shadowy fingers a legend on the rocks; the tiny babe crushed beneath the soldier’s heel; the fair mother hewed to pieces on the snow; the old man of ninety burned to ashes on the fatal pyre. They write, “Whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea!”—Eugene Lawrence, in Historical Studies.
A Faith That Works.
By Roswell F. Cottrell
WHAT is demanded at the present time is a faith that works. As a people we are not doing what we ought to do. Our publications are the most efficient agents to spread the truth everywhere. Hence all may be efficient laborers in the cause. All things have been made ready, in the providence of God, so that all may be laborers who will. All can do something in the work of spreading the truth and saving men. Do you realize it? Or do you think it is no use to try? Are you discouraged because your past efforts are fruitless? Are your friends and neighbors callous to all your endeavors to do them good? Extend your efforts to a wider circle. In due time you shall reap, if you faint not.
The SIGNS OF THE TIMES should be sent in every direction. All can share in this work. Some can help pay for them that cannot do much more. Others can take the labor of scattering them and finding interested readers, such as may be benefited. And frequently the bow that is drawn at a venture will hit the mark, though it may not be the mark that we aimed at. Well-directed efforts will not fail to accomplish good. Our labor is not in vain in the Lord.
Then let us press on and know no halting till the work is done, till the last sheaf is gathered in. Then what joy to the faithful315worker when angels join with men in the shout of the “harvest home.”
Shall we not consecrate ourselves to the blessed work of saving souls? Let no one be contented to let these precious opportunities pass unimproved. Think, O think, that in a little while it will be too late,—the harvest past, redemption’s work all done, and the fiat gone forth, “He that is filthy, let him be filthy still, . . . and, behold, I come quickly, . . . to give every man according as his work shall be.” R. F. COTTRELL.
Sacramento, Pleasant Grove, and Dixon.
By Wm. Ings
At our late meeting in Oakland, the question of the practicability of establishing a mission in Sacramento was discussed, and in harmony with that action it was thought advisable for me to make a visit to that place, to ascertain the feasibility of starting the work there. This city has a population of 25,000. Being the capital of the State, it is visited by many transient people. This would make it a desirable field for our work.
I visited all the leading hotels and lodging-houses, to ascertain if it would be agreeable to have our distributors placed in their reading-rooms, and it was evident that the Lord had sent his angels before me to prepare the way for them. All treated me with courtesy and were more than willing to grant the favors asked. We already have three distributors in use doing a good work.
Sacramento is a railroad center, and trains with their hundreds of passengers halt a sufficient time to place our publications in the hands of such as desire to read on their long journey East. Besides, there are hundreds of families in the city that ought to be visited, some of which have never heard the warning note of the Third Angel's Message. If two of our trained sisters could enter that promising field, good results would follow. And it does seem to me that the time has come for this to be done and the work followed up. The Lord has, by his providence, clearly opened the way. In order to accomplish this it will require an outlay of means, and this will be another test to prove us and see how much we love to see the truth advance. Sacrifices will have to be made clear through to the end. But our brethren have learned how to give, and I am satisfied that their noble hearts will be ready to give of their means to extend this branch of the work in that city. There are four Sabbath-keepers there who came together, with a few of their friends, to listen to some of the evidences of the near coming of our Saviour. I trust the meeting was profitable to all present.
May 14-16 I spent with the little company of Sabbath-keepers in Pleasant Grove, Sutter County, and found them making advancement in divine life. They have had no ministerial help since I was with them over two years ago, and they were glad to receive help. There are ten members, and every one has faithfully paid the Lord's tenth, which accounts for their spiritual prosperity. While with them I held five meetings. Our meeting on Sabbath was of unusual interest on account of the presence of God by his Spirit. Hearts were melted, and the Spirit witnessed to the excellent testimonies borne. There seems to be an ear to hear, in this place.
We were granted the use of the Methodist house of worship, and at all our public services we had a good hearing. Could I have remained to follow up the increasing interest, I have no doubt but that others might have been added to this little company.
The friends at this place have shown their love and desire to see the work carried forward in Sacramento, by their offerings, amounting to $140. I left this company, feeling that my visit had not been in vain, and that we were more strongly united in the bonds of Christian love.
May 18 and 19 I spent a few miles east of Dixon, with a lonely family who love the truth and who are doing all in their power to extend the message by mailing the SIGNS, and giving of their means. One other Sabbath-keeper is living near them, and they, with others, came together and we held two meetings with them. Here I sold one set of “Testimonies;” took orders for ten copies of the SIGNS, and an offering of $20 to assist in the work in Sacramento. This, with the amount above reported, and $25 from another source, will make $185 given by liberal hearts towards the work there, and I hope that others will feel it a privilege to send in their pledges and donations to the State Secretary, Anna L. Ingels, Pacific Press, Oakland, Cal.