The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, Vol. 54 (1879)

December 18, 1879

"The Death of Saul" The Advent Review And Sabbath Herald 54, 25, p. 195.

THE death of Saul did not occur on the morrow after is visit to the woman of Endor. Notice first, the phrase "to-morrow" signifies the day following the night during which it is spoken. See 1 Sam. 19:10, 11: "And Saul sought to smite David even to the wall with a javelin; but he slipped away out of Saul's presence, and he smote the javelin into the wall; and David fled and escaped that night. Saul also sent messengers unto David's house, to watch him, and to slay him in the morning: and Michal, David's wife, told him, saying, If thou save not thy life to-night, to-morrow thou shalt be slain." And Acts 23:31, 32: "Then the soldiers, as it was commanded them, took Paul, and brought him by night to Antipatris. On the morrow they left the horsemen to go with him, and returned to the castle." Also Acts 20:7-11: "And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight." Then Eutychus fell out of the window and was killed, and Paul brought him to life again, etc. "When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed." This text says that he preached till midnight, ready to depart on the morrow, and that he departed at break of day.

So it is plain from these scriptures that the term "to-morrow" means the day, or light part of the time following the night, or dark part, and that it begins in the morning, or even at "break of day." Therefore, when the spirit told Saul, through the woman, "to-morrow thou and thy sons shall be with me," that is, that they should be dead, he meant by the word "to-morrow" the daylight division of time following that night.

In the second place, we want to understand the position of the two armies at that time, and their movements afterward; and to assist the reader in understanding this, I give a plan here of the places named, their relative positions and distances. There are five places named in the narrative; viz., Shunem, Gilboa, Endor, Aphek, and Jezreel; and they lay as indicated in this diagram.

Now, 1 Sam. 28:4 says: "And the Philistines gathered themselves together, and came and pitched in Shunem; and Saul gathered all Israel together, and they pitched in Gilboa." Thus the first day Israel is in Gilboa and the Philistines in Shunem, seven miles apart. That night Saul went to Endor, ten miles, and inquired of the spirit; the spirit told him that he and his sons should be with him "to-morrow." Verse 19. Then Saul and his servants "rose up, and went away that night" (verse 25), back to Gilboa, making in all twenty miles that Saul traveled that night.

Second day (the to-morrow of verse 19). Chap. 29:1: "Now the Philistines gathered together all their armies to Aphek [three miles from Shunem]; and the Israelites pitched by a fountain which is in Jezreel" (four miles from Gilboa). Now they are about four nmiles apart, for Aphek is about that distance from Jezreel. But while the Philistines were moving from Shunem to Aphek, passing "on by hundreds, and by thousands," their princes saw David and his men in the rearward with Achish, and objected to their going to the battle with them. Chap. 29:2-5. Then Achish ordered David and his men to return to their homes; but it was too late in the day for them to start that day, so Achish said to Savid: "Now rise up early in the morning with thy master's servants that are come with thee; and as soon as ye be up early in the morning, and have light, depart." Verse 10.

Now the second day, the to-morrow of the spirit, is past, the battle has not yet been fought, and cannot be; for the two armies are four miles apart, and Saul and his sons are yet alive upon the earth.

Third day. Verse 11: "So David and his men rose up early to depart in the morning, to return into the land of the Philistines. And the Philistines went up to Jezreel."

At Jezreel was where Saul and the Israelites were, and there was where the battle was fought, and the Israelites "fled from before the Philistines, and fell down slain in Mount Gilboa." Chap. 34:1. And it was not on the morrow after Saul inquired of the familiar spirit, as the spirit said it would be, so the "thing did not follow, nor come to pass," as it had said. Therefore the Lord did not speak by that spirit, and we are not afraid of him. Deut. 18:22.

If you want to see a prophecy spoken by the Spirit of the Lord concerning "to-morrow," and fulfilled to the very letter, read 2 Kings 7.

So we find that on that point, as well as on every other, the Scripture proves to an absolute certainty that it was an evil, lying spirit, even one of the "spirits of devils," (Rev. 16:14), that appeared to the woman of Endor and communicated with Saul.
ALONZO T. JONES.

The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, Vol. 55 (1880)

March 25, 1880

"A Review of Paine's 'Age of Reason'" Advent Review and Sabbath Herald 55, 13 , pp. 195, 196.

BY ELD. A. T. JONES

"Come now, let us reason together, saith the Lord." Isa. 1:18.

IN this brief review I do not propose to enter upon the evidences nor the defense of Christianity, nor on the truthfulness of the Bible, only so far as shall be necessary in showing the weakness of the opposition as represented by what is called the "Age of Reason." For "though a doctrine should be maintained or admitted on the strength or correctness of its principles, yet in the mind of the inquirer its strength is more readily appreciated by a discovery of the weakness or defects of an opposite view." And as the "Age of Reason" is held and flourished by many of the opponents of the Bible as one of their most effective weapons, we wish, in this brief notice, to maintain our position by an exposure of some of the many weaknesses and defects of that book, and at the same time to inquire whether the "age of reason" did not begin before the time when Mr. Paine wrote his book, I shall not have a word to say against Thomas Paine as an individual. Whatever his private character may have been, it shall have no bearing in this instance against the strength of his arguments. We shall present every argument fairly, and examine it fairly, proving all things holding fast that which is good; for even in this work we shall find some things which are comparatively good. As long as he reasons upon evidence, he reasons justly, as far as he will go; but when he rejects evidence, we see the natural result,–he is at sea and his reasonings are sadly at fault.

Paine was a Deist, and therefore he did not, as some do, who profess to have learned from him, deny all possibility of there being a God, and attribute everything to chance. He says on page 1, "I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life." My faith and hope are precisely the same.

Again, on the same page he says, "I believe in the equality of man; and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy." I also believe all this, and more; I believe in the remainder of the verse. Micah 6:8: "He hath showed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God." He, of course, does not believe all this; and here the singular anomaly is presented of a man writing a work against the Bible and against all revelation, and using, in one of his first sentences a plagiarism from that very book.

On Page 27 we read: "It is only by the exercise of reason that man can discover God. Take away that reason, and he would be incapable of understanding anything; and, in this case, it would be just as consistent to read even the book called the Bible to a horse as to a man." That is true; but he makes a sad mistake in supposing that we reject reason (see same paragraph) when we accept the Scriptures. So far from this, it is entirely to the reason that the Scriptures appeal. Isa. 1:18: "Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord." Rom. 12:1: "I beseech you therefore, brethren, saith the Lord." Rom. 12:1: "I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service." Acts 17:2: "And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three Sabbath days reasoned with them out of the Scriptures." Again, chap. 18:4: "And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks." 2 Tim. 2:16: "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable. . . . that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." Now compare with this Job 32:8: "But there is a spirit in man; and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding." These two instances are the only ones where the word "inspiration" is used in all the Bible. One says that the Scriptures are given by inspiration of God, and are profitable for man; the other, that the "inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding." Then is it not self-evident that the Scriptures are submitted, and appeal, to the understanding, the reason? And by this it is clearly evident that they mistake utterly who say that the Scriptures reject reason.

Again he says, on page 27, "Almost the only parts of the book called the Bible that convey to us any idea of God, are some chapters in Job and the 19th psalm. I recollect no other." He did well to take the precaution to say that he recollected not other; for there are many others. See Ps. 8:3; 33:6, 7; 65:1-13; 89:11, 12; 102:25; 104:1-35; 146:5, 6; Isa. 40:12-17, 22-26; 42:5; 44:24; 45:12; 51:13; Jer. 10:10-13; and multitudes more. Of course there is not space to quote all these texts here; and I would ask to quote all these texts here; and I would ask every one who reads the article to read it Bible in hand, and turn to every passage to which reference is made. He says of these passages in Job and the 19th psalm, "Those parts are true deistical compositions; for they treat of the Deity through his works. They take the book of creation as the word of God; they refer to no other book, and all the inferences they make are drawn from that volume."

Then he gives Addison's paraphrase of the first six verse of the 19th psalm; for he says on page 28, "I keep no Bible." (! ! !) If he had kept, or even borrow, a Bible and read the rest of that psalm, he would have found that David did refer to another than the book of creation. In verses 7 and 8 the psalmist says, "The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul; the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes." Now verse 11: "Moreover by them is thy servant warned; and in keeping of them is great reward."

It is clear that by "the law," "the commandment," "the judgments," of the Lord, David means the ten commandments, which are abundantly proven to be the law of God (Ex. 34:12; 31:18; 32:15, 16; Deut. 10:4, 5), by which the servants of God are "warned," and in keeping of which is "great reward." The "warning," the second commandment: "Visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me." Now the reward: "Showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments." The promise of reward is confirmed by Jesus, and Mr. Paine admits that he "preached most excellent morality," page 10; for he said to him who asked how he might obtain eternal life, "If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." Matt. 19:16, 17; Rev. 22:14. Now search your "book of creation," hunt through all the forms of nature, and not the least hint of any reward can be found. Then what is the ground of his "hope for happiness beyond this life." He has none. But the servant of the Lord looks at his holy law, by keeping of which he receives great reward, through faith in the adorable Redeemer, and his "hope for happiness beyond this life" is "an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast." Heb. 6:19. David, in the last verse of the psalm already referred to, says: "Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O Lord, my strength and my Redeemer." Thus it is evident that David did refer to some other solume than the book of creation, and that other volume revealed to him the law of God, the Redeemer, and the reward.

Nor is Mr. Paine any more fortunate in his statement concerning Job. Job argues the case as follows: "How should man be just with God? if he will contend with him, he cannot answer him one of a thousand." Job: 2, 3. [sic.] "If I speak of strength, lo, he is strong; and if of judgment, who shall set me a time to plead? If I justify myself, mine own mouth shall condemn me: if I say, I am perfect, it shall also prove me perverse." Verses 19, 20. "For he is not a man, as I am, that I should answer him, and we should come together in judgment. Neither is there any daysman betwixt us, that might lay his hand upon us both." Verse 32. In chap. 16:21, 22, he says: "Oh that one might plead for a man with God, as a man pleadeth for his neighbor! When a few years are come, then I shall go the way whence I shall not return." He is brought "to death, and to the house appointed for all living" (chap. 30:23), but before he enters, he asks, "If a man die, shall he live again? all the days of my appointed time will I wait, till my change come." Chap. 14:14. His mind reaches forward to the time when his "change" shall come, and he exclaims with rapture, "Oh that my words were now written! Oh that they were printed in a book! that they were graven with an iron pen and lead in the rock forever! For I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: and though after my skin worms destroy this

196

body, yet in my flesh shall I see God: whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not a stranger [margin]." Chap. 19:23-27.

Ay, Job, your words have been "written," yea, they have been "printed in a book;" and there they stand, an everlasting refutation of the statement of Thomas Paine, that the book of Job is a true deistical composition. Far be it from either Job or the psalmist ever to have written a deistical composition.

On page 65, Mr. Paine would convey the impression that he understood the Bible; but I have to doubt it. On pages 28, 29, he purses a line of reasoning which is sound and good, and which will compel him to admit all that it claimed for the Bible. His own reasoning drives him to it. He says:–

"I recollect not enough of the passages in Job to insert them correctly; but there is one occurs to me that is applicable to the subject I am speaking on. 'Canst thou by searching find out God? Canst thou find out the Almighty to perfection?' I know not how the have printers have pointed this passage, for I keep no Bible; but it contains two distinct questions, that admit of distinct answers:–

"1. Canst thou by searching find out God? Yes; because in the first place, I know I did not make myself, and yet I have existence; and by searching into the nature of other things, I find that no other thing could make itself; and yet millions of other things exist: therefore it is that I know, by positive conclusion resulting from this search, that there is a power superior to all these things, and that power is God.

"2. Canst thou find out the Almighty to perfection? No; not only because the power and wisdom he has manifested in the structure of the creation that I behold is to me incomprehensible, but because even this manifestation, great as it is, is probably but a small display of that immensity of power and wisdom by which millions of other worlds, to me invisible by their distance, were created and continue to exist.

"It is evident that both of these questions were put to the reason of the person to whom they are supposed to have been addressed; and it is only by admitting the first question to be answered affirmatively, that the second could follow. It would have been unnecessary, and even absurd, to have put a second question, more difficult than the first, if the first question had been answered negatively. The two questions have different objects; the first refers to the existence of God, the second to his attributes; reason can discover the one, but it falls infinitely short in discovering the whole of the other."

This is sound reasoning. In fact, I know not how it could be improved. But when he admits that "reason falls infinitely short in discovering the attributes of God," he admits all that is claimed for the Bible. For in that he admits the necessity of a revelation, and this very necessity, we claim the Bible supplies, therefore his argument admits all that is claimed for the Bible; that is, the revelation of the attributes of God, and of his will to men.

He says further: "Religion is the belief of a God and the practice of moral truth; or, in other words, a practical imitation of the moral goodness of God."–p. 51. But as man's "reason cannot discover the attributes [the moral goodness] of God," how is it possible for him to imitate it? On page 33, Mr. Paine would have "the Almighty lecturer say to the inhabitants of the globe, . . . Learn from my munificence to all, to be kind to each other." And again, page 28, "Let him [man] believe this with the force it is impossible to repel, if he permits his reason to act, and his rule of moral life will follow of course."

But suppose that men will not be "kind to each other." Suppose they should do as they are doing every day before our eyes, "the libertine mocking over the grave of blighted hopes; the priceless treasure of virtuous purity, around which cluster the fondest hopes of earth, sported with as a mere toy; the vain rolling in wealth accumulated by fraud and oppression; vice exalted to the pinnacle of fame; to hear the praises of him whose very presence is loathsome by reason of the filthiness of his iniquities;" the red-handed murderer walking at liberty, while his innocent victim lies cold in death; the artful seducer exulting over the ruin of fated innocence; the embezzling bank officer living in ease and luxury upon the scanty savings of poor widows and orphans; am I to look upon all this and say, with a complacent smile, This is right? in this I rejoice? this is the imitation of the moral goodness of God? God forbid.

And are these all to "hope for happiness beyond this life? the murderer to receive the same reward as the murdered? the seducer the same reward as his victim? the robber the same reward as the robbed? the bad with the good? Is this the justice of God? No! No!! So far as the "book of creation" is concerned, it is forever silent on this subject. But can it be possible that the "Supreme One, who has so nicely arranged the material world, and subjected it to certain laws," has left man, the supreme intelligence of the world, wholly without law? That would not be reasonable.

And this also Mr. Paine admits in his argument. On Page 155 he says: "Here we are. We cannot conceive how we came here ourselves, and yet we know for a fact that we are here. We must know also that the power that called us into being, can, if he please, and when he pleases, call us to account for the manner in which we have lived here; and, therefore, without seeking any other motive for the belief, it is rational to believe that he will, for we know beforehand that he can." Now, reader, I ask in all soberness, Is it reasonable to suppose that God holds us responsible, and will "call us to account, for the manner in which we have lived here," and at the same time withholds from us all rules, all directions, as to how we ought to live? In all reason the answer must be, No.

We have all read or heard or the king who made strict laws and had them posted throughout his kingdom, but so high that no one could read them, and then punished the people for not obeying them. The world justly holds that he was a tyrant. Yet Mr. Paine's position and arguments charge God with just such folly. It is not "common sense," nor is it in accordance with "the rights of man." It is not justice. And Eld. J. H. Waggoner, in his work on the Atonement, says: "Can any one dispassionately reason and reflect on this subject, and accept the idea of a God of even partial justice? The idea is alike repugnant to reason and to reverence. God must be strictly, infinitely just. I should choose to be annihilated rather than to possess immortal existence in a universe governed or controlled by a being of almighty power, but lacking justice." And as justice is and must be one of the attributes of God, and as the "creation" does not reveal it, and as "reason falls infinitely short of discovering it," it must be revealed somewhere else. And it is. Job 37:23: "Touching the Almighty, we cannot find him out ["to perfection," of course]; he is excellent in power, and in judgment, and in plenty of justice." As he will call every man "to account for the manner in which he has lived here," and as Justice requires that he should give them directions how to live, we find that he has done this also. We quote Paine's own authority, the 19th psalm, verses 7-11: "The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul; the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandment of the Lord is pure enlightening the eyes. . . . The judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether. . . . Moreover by them is thy servant warned; and in keeping of them there is great reward." See also Isa. 48:17.

Now I have proved plainly and conclusively from these positions of Mr. Paine, that his reasoning demands just such a revelation as the Bible supplies.

(To be continued.)

April 1, 1880

"A Review of Paine's 'Age of Reason.' (Continued.)" Advent Review and Sabbath Herald 55, 14 , pp. 211, 212.

BY ELD. A. T. JONES

(Continued.)

ON page 29 he says, "I recollect not a single passage in all the writings ascribed to the men called apostles, that conveys any idea of what God is."

He may not recollect, but that does not prove that there is not a single passage that conveys any idea of who God is. We find in Rom. 1:19, 20 that "that which may be known of God is manifest in them [margin]; for God hath showed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse." "And when they heard that, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, Lord, thou art God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is." Acts 4:24. Paul and Barnabas said, "We also are men of like passions with you, and preach unto you that ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God, which made heaven, and earth and the sea, and all things that are therein; . . . he did good, and gave us rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness." Acts 14:15-17. "God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of Heaven and earth." Acts 17:24. "Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power; for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created." Rev. 4:11. His memory must have been very poor.

Again, on page 28, he says, "As to the Christian system of faith, it appears to me as a species of atheism–a sort of religious denial of God. It introduces between man and his Maker an opaque body, which it calls a Redeemer, as the moon introduces her opaque self between the earth and the sun, and it produces by this means a religious or irreligious eclipse of light. The effect of this obscurity has been that of turning everything upside down." How much alike infidelity is in all ages! See Acts 17:5, 6. When Paul and

212

Silas preached Jesus, "The Jews which believed not, moved with envy, took unto them certain lewd fellows of the baser sort, and gathered a company, and set all the city on an uproar, and assaulted the house of Jason, and sought to bring them out to the people. And when they found them not, they drew Jason and certain brethren unto the rulers of the city, crying, These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also."

On page 39 we read, "But the Christian system laid all waste; and if we take our stand about the beginning of the sixteenth century, we look back through the long chasm, to the times of the ancients, as over a vast sandy desert." This was not the Christian but the Anti-Christian system. "It is an inconsistency scarcely possibly to be credited, that anything should exist, under the name of a religion, that held it to be irreligious to study and contemplate the structure of the universe that God had made." That is true; and it is an inconsistency no less surprising, that a power professing to believe the Bible should hold it to be irreligious to study the Bible. Yet this also is a fact; and it was this very fact of that power "casting down the truth to the ground" (Dan. 8:12; John 17:14) that caused that "long chasm" reaching from the beginning of the "sixteenth century to the times of the ancients."

On page 37 Mr. Paine says, "Had Newton or Descartes lived three or four hundred years ago, and pursued their studies as they did, it is most probable they would not have lived to finish them." True; but was not Newton a Christian? Most assuredly. But on page 39 he again makes a most important statement: "The event that served more than any other to break the first link in this long chain of despotic ignorance, is that known by the name of the Reformation by Luther. From that time . . . the sciences began to revive, and liberality, their natural associate, began to appear."

This is true, every word of it, and how plainly it illustrates Ps. 119:130: "The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple." Mr. Paine's intense infidelity would not suffer him to allow this, of course; yet the revival of the sciences, liberality, and enlightenment was nothing else than the result of Luther's work of printing and scattering Bibles through Europe. By the light of the Scriptures the nations saw the despotic power that had kept them in ignorance, and they arose with Luther in the strength of the Lord, and burst the fetters that had bound them so long. They found and learned the truth, and the truth made them free. John 8:32; 17:17.

On page 43 he says: "Though it is not a direct article of the Christian system that this world that we inhabit is the whole of the habitable creation, yet it is so worked up therewith, from what is called the Mosaic account of creation, that to believe otherwise, that is, that God created a plurality of worlds, at least as numerous as what we call stars, renders the Christian system of faith at once little and ridiculous, and scatters it in the mind like feathers in the air. The two beliefs cannot be held together in the same mind; and he who thinks that he believes both has thought but little of either."

So far from this being the truth, it is directly the contrary. And I shall show that the two beliefs not only can, but must, "be held together in the same mind;" and that he who does not believe both "has thought but little of either." "Through faith we understand that the worlds [plural] were framed by the word of God." Heb. 11:3. "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds [plural]." Heb. 1:1, 2. "To whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal? saith the Holy One. Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things, that bringeth out their host by number; he calleth them all by names by the greatness of his might, for that he is strong in power; not one faileth." Isa. 40:25, 26. Also Ps. 147:4; Job 9:9; 38:31, 32; Ps. 33:6.

Again, on page 43: "A world of the extent of ours may, at first thought, appear to us to be great; but if we compare it with the immensity of space in which it is suspended, like a bubble in the air, it is infinitely less in proportion than the smallest grain of sand is to the size of the world, or the finest particle of dew to the whole ocean." I suppose Mr. Paine thought, when he penned this, that he was announcing to Bible believers something they had never known, or thought anything of; but he was grievously in error. More than twenty-five hundred years before he wrote this, it was announced and written in words far more forcible and sublime. Isa. 40:16, 17: "Behold, the nations are a drop of a bucket, and are counted as the small dust of the balance. . . . All nations before him are as nothing; and they are counted to him less than nothing, and vanity."

The following, on mystery and miracle, pages 50 and 52, is sound and good, therefore we hold it fast: "With respect to mystery, everything we behold is, in one sense, a mystery to us; our own existence is a mystery; the whole vegetable world is a mystery. . . . But though every created thing is, in this sense, a mystery, the word mystery cannot be applied to moral truth, any more than obscurity can be applied to light. The God in whom we believe is a God of moral truth, and not a God of mystery or obscurity. Mystery is the antagonist of truth. It is a fog of human inventions, that obscures the truth and represents it in distortion." Every Bible believer, every Christian, can indorse this; for the Bible is a revelation, and not a mystery.

He continues: "In the sense that everything may be said to be a mystery, so also may it be said that everything is a miracle, and no one thing is a greater miracle than another. The elephant, though larger, is not a greater miracle than a mite; nor a mountain a great miracle than an atom. To an almighty power it is no more difficult to make the one than the other; and no more difficult to make a million of worlds than to make one. Everything, therefore, is a miracle, in one sense, while in the other sense, there is no such thing as a miracle. It is a miracle when compared to our power, and to our comprehension; it is not a miracle compared to the power that performs it."

This is all true. At the marriage in Cana of Galilee it was in reality no more of a miracle for Christ to turn the water into wine, than is performed before our eyes every season. The vine which he has created draws sustenance from the moisture of the earth and air; it buds, blossoms, bears grapes, they ripen, we extract the juice, and, lo, we have wine. So the only difference is, that there he did in an instant what here is done in a season; and the one required no greater exertion of his power than the other, for his power is almighty. The first was only a miracle in that it was "contrary to the established constitution or course of things." Dr. Horne gives this as the definition of a miracle: "A miracle is an effect or event contrary to the established constitution or course of things, or a sensible constitution or course of things, or a sensible suspension or controlment of, or deviation from, the known laws of nature," etc. "Thus, the production of grain by vegetation is according to a law of nature; were it to fall like rain from the clouds, there would be a miracle." Yet even in that case, it would be no more of a miracle to the power that performs it, than it is in the present case where it is produced by vegetation; for it would be the Almighty Power which performed both.

(To be continued.)

April 8, 1880

"A Review of Paine's 'Age of Reason.' (Continued.)" Advent Review and Sabbath Herald 55, 15 , pp. 226, 227.

BY ELD. A. T. JONES

(Continued.)

AS Part First of the "Age of Reason," which we have just been examining, was written to show that there is no need of a revelation, so Part Second was written to show that the Bible is not true. And as we showed conclusively that his arguments in part First demand a revelation, we shall find also that Part Second fails to disprove the truth of the Bible. In Part First he said he had no Bible. But now he has a Bible and Testament; he says on page 64, "They will now find that I have furnished myself with a Bible and a Testament."

The first thing that we find worthy of note in this connection is on pages 73, 74: "I come now to speak of historical and chronological evidence. The chronology that I shall use is the Bible chronology. I beging with the book of Genesis. In the 14th chapter of Genesis, the writer gives an account of Lot's being taken prisoner in a battle between the four kings against five, and carried off; and that when the account of Lot's being taken came to Abraham, he armed all his household, and marched to rescue Lot from the captors; and that he pursued them unto Dan." "I now come . . . to show that there was not such place as Dan till many years after the death of Moses; and, consequently, that Moses could not be the writer of the book of Genesis.

"To establish this in proof, it is necessary to refer from Genesis to the 18th chapter of the book called the book of Judges. It is said (verse 27) that the (the Danites) came unto Laish to a people that were quiet and secure; and they smote them with the edge of the sword, and burned the city with fire; and they built a city (verse 28) and dwelt therein, and called the name of the city, Dan, after the name of Dan their father; howbeit the name of the city was called Laish at the first. Therefore the writer of the book of Genesis must have been some person who lived after the town of Laish had the name of Dan, and who that person was nobody knows; and consequently the book of Genesis is anonymous, and without authority."

Now, it is an historical fact that there was just such a place as Dan, not only at the time when the book of Genesis was written, but at the time that Abraham pursued after the kings and rescued Lot. Josephus says: "When Abraham heard of their calamity, he was at once afraid for Lot his knsman, and pitied the Sodomites his friends and neighbors; and thinking it proper to afford them assistance, he did not delay it, but marched hastily, and the fifth night fell

227

upon the Assyrians, near Dan, for that is the name of the other spring of Jordan."–Antiquities, book I, chap. x. sect. 1. Therefore, this argument of Mr. Paine's is false. Jordan comes from the words "zhar-dan," which signify "the river of Dan," first mentioned in Gen. 13:9-11.

On page 74 he again says: "There is a striking confusion between the historical and the chronological arrangement in the book of Judges. The five last chapters, as they stand in the book, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, are put chronologically before all the preceding chapters; they are made to be 28 years [It should be 286–a typographical error, I suppose.] before the 16th chapter, 266 before the 15th, 245 before the 13th, 195 before the 9th, 90 before the 4th, and 15 years before the first chapter."

Here is a shameful fraud. The date at the head of the last five chapters of Judges, beginning at the 17th, is B. C. 1406, while the date at the head of the first chapter is B. C. 1425. Anybody who knows enough to subtract one number from another, can see that the difference between 1425 and 1406 is 19. And therefore, so far from the last five chapters being place "fifteen years before the first chapter," they are placed nineteen years after.

Mr. Paine was not an ignorant man; he professed to understand the sciences, especially astronomy. Nor can this discrepancy be excused by saying that the chronology has been changed since his day; for all his other figures are correct, except the 195, which should be 197. Then what can we say of this but that it is the invention of a shameful fraud, and is palmed off upon the credulity of those who are greedy to swallow anything that is opposed to the Bible. But, above all, what shall we say of those profoundly learned (?) infidels who have read and studied, printed and re-printed, the "Age of Reason," for nearly a hundred years, and hurled it against the Bible; yet have never read, or compared it, with the Bible sufficiently to discover a fraud so glaringly apparent that the veriest school-boy could see it, who would take the pains to make the comparison. And this is the king of reasoning (?) that is to overthrow the Bible! We showed in the former part of this review, that they who reject the Scriptures, reject reason; and in this, and many other instances which we shall find before we get through, it is verified.

On page 90 he condemns the books of the Kings and Chronicles, because the one does not repeat everything recorded in the other. Keep this in mind; we shall have use for it soon.

On pages 96 and 97, speaking of Ezra and Nehemiah he says: "But even in matters of historical record, neither of these writers is to be depended upon. In the second chapter of Ezra, the writer gives a list of the tribes and families, and of the precise number of souls of each that returned from Babylon to Jerusalem." "The writer begins his enrollment in the following manner: Chap. 2:3: 'The children of Parosh, two thousand an hundred seventy and two.' Verse 4: 'The children of Sephatiah, three hundred seventy and two.' And in this manner he proceeds through all the families; and in the 64th verse, he makes a total, and says, the whole congregation together was forty and two thousand three hundred and threescore. But whoever will take the trouble of casting up several particulars, will find that the total is but 29,818; so that the error is 12,542."

Then, after speaking of Nehemiah's record, chap. 2:8, etc., in the same way, he says, "These writers may do well enough for Bible-makers, but not for anything where truth and exactness is necessary." But is his statement concerning Ezra's account true? Is there an error of 12,542? If it be true that there is such an error as that, we might well doubt. But it is not true. See Ezra 2:2, 3: "The number of the men of the people of Israel: the children of Parosh," etc. Nehemiah the same. Neh. 7:7: "The number, I say, of the men of the people of Israel was this: The children of Parosh," etc. So the truth is that the number of men was 29,818; and then (verse 66) with the women and children, "The whole congregation together was forty and two thousand three hundred and threescore, besides their manservants and their maidservants." Had he told the whole truth, he could have shown no objection to the books; but in harmony with the rule that he has adopted, he leaves out just enough to make the account falsify itself.

On page 98 he says of the book of Job: "The astronomical names, Pleiades, Orion, and Arcturus, are Greek, and not Hebrew names; and as it does not appear form anything that is to be found in the Bible that the Jews knew anything of astronomy, or that they studied it, they had no translation of those names into their own language, but adopted the names as they found them in the poem." It is true "that the Hebrews had no translation of those names into their own language;" for the very good reason that they had names for them in the Hebrew 844 years before Cadmus introduced letters into Greece, and 1934 years before the Greek language was complete. In Hebrew the name of Arcturus was Ash, of Orion Cesil, and of Pleiades Cimah. See Job 9:9, margin.

Mr. Paine does not say plainly, but he insinuates in this, that the book of Job was not written in Hebrew, but in the Greek; and by this he would convey the idea that the book was not written as anciently as the Bible chronology places it. He says further of it on page 99, "It contains no one historical circumstance, nor allusion to any, that might serve to determine its place in the Bible."

Admitting, for the sake of the argument, that there is no "historical circumstance or allusion that would determine its place," yet had he honestly allowed and investigated the claims of the book, he would have found astronomical allusions, by which, had he been as accomplished in the science of astronomy as he seems to indicate on page 44 to 49, he could have fixed to a certainty the date of the events recorded in the book of Job. I quote from Horne's Introduction, "Analysis of the Book of Job:"–

"Dr. Hales has adduced a new and more particular proof, drawn from astronomy, which fixes the time of the patriarch's trial to 184 years before the birth of Abraham; for, by a retrograde calculation the principal stars referred to in Job by the names of Chimah and Cbesil, or Taurus and Scorpio, are found to have been the cardinal constellations of spring and autumn in the time of Job, of which the chief stars are Aldebaran, the bull's eye, and Antarea, the scorpion's heart. Knowing, therefore, the longitudes of these stars at present, the interval of time from thence to the assumed date of Job's trial will give the difference of their longitudes, and ascertain their positions then, with respect to the vernal and autumnal points of intersection of the equinoctial and the ecliptic; which difference is one degree in 71Ω years, according to the usual rate of the precession of the equinoxes. 'In A. D. 1808, Aldebaran was in two signs, 7 deg. east longitude; but since the date of Job's trial, B. C. 2338 added to 1800, makes 4138 years, the precession of the equinoxes amounted to 1 sign, 27 deg., 53 min., which, being subtracted from the former quantity, left Aldebaran in only 9 deg., 7 min. longitude, or, distance from the vernal intersection, which falling within the constellation Taurus, consequently rendered it the cardinal constellation of spring, as Pisces is at present.

"'In A. D. 1800, Antarcs was in eight signs, 7 deg., 58 min. east longitude, or 2 signs, 6 deg., 58 min. east of autumnal intersection; from which subtracting, as before, the amount of the precession, Antares was left only 9 deg., 5 min. east. Since, then, the autumnal equinox was found within Scorpio, this was then the cardinal constellation of autumn, as Virgo is at present.

"'Since, then, these calculations critically correspond with the positions of the equinoxes at the assumed date of Job's trial, but disagree with the lower dates, of Moses, and still more of Ezra, furnishing different cardinal constellations, we may rest in the assumed date of the trial as correct. Such a combination and coincidence of various rays of evidence, derived from widely different sources, history, sacred and profane, chronology, and astronomy, and all converging to the same common focus, tends strongly to establish the time of Job's trial as rightly assigned to the year B. C. 2337 (2130 of the common computation), or 816 years after the deluge; 184 years before the birth of Abraham; 474 years before the settlement of Jacob's family in Egypt, and 689 years before the exode, or departure from thence."

On page 102 he says of the book of Isaiah: "Whoever will take the trouble of reading the book ascribed to Isaiah will find it one of the most wild and disorderly compositions ever put together; it has neither beginning, middle, nor end; and except a short historical part, and a few sketches of history, in two or three of the first chapters, it is one continued, incoherent, bombastical rant, full of extravagant metaphor, without application, and destitute of meaning; a school boy would scarcely have been excusable for writing such stuff." I only give this as the most decent specimen of some of his reasoning (?) which I do not notice at all.

On pages 104, 105, he says: "The king of Syria and the king of Israel made war jointly against Ahaz, king of Judah, and marched their armies toward Jerusalem. Ahaz and his people became alarmed, and the account says, chap. 7:2, Their hearts were moved 'as the trees of the wood are moved with the wind.' In this situation of things, Isaiah addresses himself to Ahaz, and assures him in the name of the Lord, that these two kings should not succeed against him. . . . But to show the imposition and falsehood of Isaiah, we have only to attend to the sequel of this story, which is related in the 28th chapter of Second Chronicles; and which is, that instead of these two kings failing in their attempt against Ahaz, as Isaiah had pretended to foretell in the name of the Lord, they succeded! Ahaz was defeated, and destroyed; a hundred and twenty thousand of his people were slaughtered; Jerusalem was plundered, and two hundred thousand women, and sons of daughters, carried into captivity."

This is sufficiently astonishing to overturn a dozen books, if it were only true. But I say emphatically, It is not true. Proof: 2 Kings 16:5: "Then Rezin king of Syria and Pekah son of Remaliah king of Israel came up to Jerusalem to war: and they besieged Ahaz, but could not overcome him." This was in the year B. C. 742; but as Ahaz would not be reformed by this signal manner in which God had helped him, but continued in his wickedness, the next year, B. C. 741, those same kings came against him, defeated him, slew 120,000 of his people, and carried captive 200,000.

Now Mr. Paine had no excuse for this either; for he admitted before that he had a Bible with the "chronology printed in the margin of every page" (page 73). Therefore the margin of his Bible showed, at Isaiah 7, and 2 Kings 16:1-7, the figures B. C. 742, while in the margin of 2 Chronicles 28:1-19 were the figures B. C. 741.

Here we are forced to one or both of the following conclusions: either Thomas Paine did not understand the Bible, or he falsified the record. And it is my opinion, that, under the circumstances, both conclusions would be justifiable.

(Concluded next week.)

April 15, 1880

"A Review of Paine's 'Age of Reason.' (Concluded.)" Advent Review and Sabbath Herald 55, 16 , pp. 244, 245.

BY ELD. A. T. JONES

(Concluded).

ON page 108 Mr. Paine from Jeremiah 37:11-14: "And it came to pass, that when the army of the Chaldeans was broken up from Jerusalem for fear of Pharaoh's army," that "Jeremiah went forth out of Jerusalem to go into the land of Benjamin, to separate himself thence in the midst of the people. And when he was in the gate of Benjamin, a captain of the ward was then, whose name was Irijah; . . . and he took Jeremiah the prophet, saying, Thou fallest away to the Chaldeans. Then said Jeremiah, It is false; I fall not away to the Chaldeans." And he says that Jeremiah, being thus stopped and accused, was, after being examined, committed to prison, on suspicion of being a traitor, where he remained, as stated in the last verse of this chapter, chap. 37:21.

"But the next chapter gives an account of the imprisonment of Jeremiah, which has no connection with this account, but ascribes his imprisonment to another circumstance, and for which we must go back to the 21st chapter. It is there stated (verses 1-10) that Zedekiah sent Pashur, the son of Malchiah, and Zephaniah, the son of Masseiah the priest, to Jeremiah to inquire of him concerning Nebuchadnezzar, whose army was then before Jerusalem; and Jeremiah said to them (verses 8, 9), 'Thus said the Lord: Behold, I set before you the way of life, and the way of death. He that abideth in this city shall die by the sword, and by the famine, and by the pestilence; but he that goeth out, and falleth to the Chaldeans that besiege you, he shall live, and his life shall be unto him for a prey.' This interview breaks off abruptly at the 10th verse of the 21st chapter, but the continuation and event is in the first verse of the 38th chapter.

"The 38th chapter opens with the words of this conference; then these men say to Zedekiah, 'Therefore we beseech thee, let this man be put to death; for thus he weakeneth the hands of the men of war that remain in this city, and the hands of all the people, in speaking such words unto them; for this man seeketh not the welfare of this people, but the hurt;' and in the 6th verse it is said, 'They then took Jeremiah, and put him in the dungeon of Malchiah.'

"These two accounts are different and contradictory. The one ascribes his imprisonment to his attempt to escape out of the city; the one to his being seized by the guard at the gate; the other to his being accused before Zedekiah, by the conference."

Now that these two accounts are different I admit, because they relate to different circumstances. But that they are contradictory I deny; for both accounts are necessary to properly explain the manner in which Jeremiah was treated. Let us compare Jer. 37:21, and see if this is not so.

Jer. 37:21 says, "Then Zedekiah the king commanded that they should commit Jeremiah into the court of the prison. . . . Thus Jeremiah remained in the court of the prison." But chap. 38:6 says, "Then they took Jeremiah, and cast him into the dungeon of Malchiah; . . . and they let down Jeremiah with cords. And in the dungeon there was no water, but mire; so Jeremiah sunk in the mire." Now without the account of chap. 21:1-10 and 38:1-5, the narrative would be contradictory; for then it would have been left so that one verse said that he was in the court of the prison, while the very next verse declared that he was sunk in the mire in the dungeon of Malchiah. So it is readily seen that the words which he declares make the account contradictory, are the very ones that prevent such contradiction. Did not Mr. Paine know this? I believe that he did; but he would not suffer anything to stand as it really is, if there was any possible means of showing it in a false light.

245

See again page 111: "In the 34th chapter is a prophecy of Jeremiah to Zedekiah in these words (verse 2), 'Thus saith the Lord: Behold, I will give this city into the hand of the king of Babylon, and he shall burn it with fire; and thou shalt not escape out of his hand; and thine eyes behold the eyes of the king of Babylon, and he shall speak with thee mouth to mouth, and thou shalt go to Babylon. Yet hear the word of the Lord, . . . Thou shalt not die by the sword, but thou shalt die in peace; and with the burnings of thy fathers, the former kings which were before thee, so shall they burn odors for thee,' etc." "Now, instead of Zedekiah's beholding the eyes of the king of Babylon, and speaking with him mouth to mouth, etc., . . . the reverse, according to chap. 52:10, was the case. It is there said that 'the king of Babylon slew the sons of Zedekiah before his eyes,' then he put out the eyes of Zedekiah, and bound him in chains and carried him to Babylon, and put him in prison till the day of his death."

I should like to know how Zedekiah could be brought to the king of Babylon at Riblah, and the king of Babylon give judgment upon him, slay his sons before his eyes, and then put out his eyes, and yet Zedekiah's eyes not behold the eyes of the king of Babylon. Perhaps he, by his method of reasoning, could discover or invent some way; but I cannot. And it is likewise true that although Zedekiah was carried a prisoner to Babylon, yet he died in peace, and was buried with the burnings of his fathers, and they burned odors for him." Proof: "When the king was come to Babylon, he kept Zedekiah in prison till he died, and buried him magnificently."–Josephus: Antiquities, book x. chap. viii. sect. 7. And a magnificent burial was nothing less than one accompanied with a grand display of pomp and grandeur, and with great burnings.

On page 110 he says: "In the 39th chapter [of Jeremiah] we have another instance of the disordered state of this book; for notwithstanding the siege of the city, by Nebuchadnezzar, has been the subject of several of the preceding chapters, particularly the 37th and 38th, the 39th chapter begins as if not a word had been said upon the subject; and as if the reader was to be informed of every particular respecting it." "But the instance in the 52nd chapter is still more glaring; for though the story has been told over and over again, this chapter still supposes the reader not to know anything of it, for it begins by saying," etc.

Compare with this, the following, from page 127: "But . . . the presumption is, that the books called the Evangelists, and ascribed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; and that they are impositions. The disordered state of the history in these four books, the silence of one book upon matters related in the other," etc. Also on page 90. Mark the inconsistency. He condemns the book of Jeremiah as an imposition, because, as he petulantly exclaims, "the story has been told over and over again;" "as if the reader was to be informed of every particular respecting it;" and then turns around and condemns the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, because they do not tell the "same story over and over," and because each one does not inform the reader of "every particular." (On page 90, the books of Kings and Chronicles are condemned for the same reason.)

Cannot the reader, whoever he may be, see by this time that Mr. Paine is determined not to be satisfied with anything that is stated in the Bible? And this fact becomes still more apparent as we go on through the New Testament.

On page 10 he says: "That such a person as Jesus Christ existed, and that he was crucified, which was the mode of execution at that day, are historical relations strictly within the limits of probability. He preached most excellent morality, and the equality of man."

On page 20 he says: "The first four books, called Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, do not give a history of the life of Jesus Christ, but only detached anecdotes of him. It appears from these books that the whole time of his being a preacher was not more than eighteen months."

Had Mr. Pain understood the Bible, or had he taken the pains to read in John 2:13; 5:1; 6:1, and 11:55, or had he even looked at the chronology in the margin of his Bible, he could not have failed to discover that the time of Christ's ministry was more than three years. Nor can he make the excuse that this was written in Part First, when he had no Bible; for he repeats it in Part Second, when he had a "Bible and Testament." See page 124.

On page 128 we read: "The story of Herod's destroying all the children under two years old, belongs altogether to the book of Matthew; not one of the rest mentions anything about it. Had such a circumstance been true, the universality of it must have made it known to all the writers, and the thing would have been too striking to have been omitted by any."

Here, again, he demands that the evangelists shall tell the same story "over and over;" besides, he conveys a false impression when he speaks of "the story of Herod's destroying all the children under two years old." There is no such statement in the book of Matthew, nor in all the Bible. Matthew says (chap. 2:16) that Herod "sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof." But Mr. Paine took good care to leave this out.

Again he says, on the same page: "This writer tells us that Jesus escaped this slaughter because Joseph and Mary were warned by an angel to flee with him into Egypt; but he forgot to make any provision for John, who was then under two years of age. John, however, who stayed behind, fared as well as Jesus, who fled; and therefore the story circumstantially belies itself."

What shall we think of the man? Is it utterly impossible for him to reason truthfully? Surely it seems so. Now notice the facts. The record says (Luke 1:39, 40): "And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Juda; and entered into the house of Zacharias, and saluted Elizabeth." This city of Judah in the hill country was Hebron (see Joshua 21:9-11); and John was born, and was there, fifteen miles from Bethlehem, when Herod slew the children. Therefore, before that slaughter could have reached John, it would have had to sweep a compass of thirty miles in diameter, embracing twenty-nine cities and towns, and among them Jerusalem itself, which was only six miles from Bethlehem. If Mr. Paine's statement were true, he might well speak of the "universality of the slaughter." Call this the "age of reason!" A lunatic could do better.

On page 136 he says: "The whole space of time, from the crucifixion to what is called the ascension, is but a few days, apparently not more than three or four."

If Thomas Paine had ever read the first three verses of the Book of Acts, he would have found these words (Acts 1:3): "To whom also he showed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days." Therefore we are again left to the conclusion, either that he never read the first three verses of the Book of Acts, or that he glozed the record.

On page 148, he says of Paul's words in 1 Cor. 15:41: "'There is [says he] one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars.' And what then? Nothing, except that he says that 'one star differeth from another star in glory,' instead of distance. All this is nothing better than the jargon of a conjurer, who picks up phrases he does not understand."

Now we wish to inquire, Is Mr. Paine's position true, that one star differeth from another star in distance only? or is Paul's position true, that "one star differeth from another star in glory?" This question shall be answered by that science which Mr. Paine professed to know something about,–astronomy. "We have already noticed that the stars are of various colors. Sirius is white, Antares is red, and Capella yellow; while Lyra has a blue tint, and Castor a green one. In the pure, transparent atmosphere of tropical regions, the colors are far more brilliant. There, oftentimes, the nocturnal sky is a blaze of jewels, the stars glittering with the green of the emerald, the blue of the amethyst, and the red of the topaz. In our latitudes, there are no stars visible to the naked eye which are decidedly blue or green. [So it is true that one differeth from another in glory.] In the double and multiple stars, every color is presented in all its richness and beauty. We also find combinations of colors complementary to each other. Here is a green star with a blood-red companion; here an orange and blue sun; there a yellow and a purple one. The triple star Andromeda, is formed of an orange-red sun and two others of an emerald green. Every tint that blooms in the flowers of summer flames out in the stars at night. 'The rainbow flowers of the footstool and the starry flowers of the throne,' proclaim their common Author; while rainbow, flower, and star alike evince the same divine love of the beautiful."–Steele's Fourteen Weeks in Astronomy.

So just as surely as one flower differs from another in beauty, "one star differeth from another star in glory." And just so surely did the apostle Paul perfectly understand what Thomas Paine knew nothing at all about.

On page 150 he says: "Should the Bible and Testament hereafter fall, it is not I that have been the occasion." As I agreed with Mr. Paine in the first statement quoted, so also I agree with him in this, the last. For surely, if the Bible should ever fall, it will never be because the weak arguments, the shallow reasonings, and the shameless frauds, of Paine's "Age of Reason" have ever been the slightest occasion.

But that is not what he meant by this statement. He actually thought that the Bible would surely fall; and we can hardly repress a smile at the supreme self-conceit of the poor man. Would that he might have peace; but "there is no peace, saith my God, to the wicked."

Dear reader, have you been standing in doubt of the truth of the Bible? Let me beseech you in the words of the Lord, "Come now, and let us reason together." Oh! hear the call; take up the Bible; read it; study it; reason upon it. Love darkens no longer. Accept the Bible, even with the readiness with which you have been wont to accept the "Age of Reason." Accept it in faith, asking, "What is truth?" and when you know the truth, receive it in the love of it. "We pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God," that you may be saved. "For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil." Eccl. 12:14.

Mr. Paine expected the Bible to fall. He himself has fallen, and moldered back to mother earth; while the Book that he thought he had destroyed stands yet, its glorious rays enlightening many a benighted soul with the blessed hope of everlasting life and eternal glory.

"The grass withereth, the flower fadeth, but THE WORD OF OUR GOD SHALL STAND FOREVER." Isa. 40:8.

The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, Vol. 56 (1880)

July 15, 1880

"Upper Columbia Conference" Advent Review and Sabbath Herald 56, 4, pp. 61, 62.

BUSINESS PROCEEDINGS AT THE MILTON, OREGON,
CAMP-MEETING, MAY 20-31, 1880.

FIRST MEETING, MAY 25, 9 A. M.–Eld. I. D. Van Horn in the chair. Prayer by Eld. Jones. Credentials of delegates were called for, and the following were presented: From Walla Walla, A. T. Jones and T. Chabat; Milton, Wm. McCoy and J. A. Smith; Dayton, Ambrose Johnson. Moses Hunt, the delegate from Pataha Prairie, being absent, it was voted that Bro. Win. Gibson be accepted as delegate from that church, Bro. Nicholas. Ownbey was received as representative of the brethren in Grande Ronde Valley, and Bro. J. Cowles of the brethren of Klickatat Co., W. T.

Eld. S. N. Haskell, of the General Conference Committee, was invited to take part in the deliberations of the meetings. The invitation was also extended to all S. D. Adventists in good standing.

It was moved by Bro. Wm. McCoy, and seconded by by Bro. Ambrose Johnson, that the North Pacific Conference be divided on the line of the Cascade Mountains.

After considerable discussion, the meeting adjourned to call of Chair.

SECOND MEETING, MAY 26, 9:15 A. M.–Eld. I. D. Van Horn in the chair. Prayer by Eld. Haskell. Minutes of last meeting read, corrected, and accepted. Discussion of motion to divide the Conference was continued. The question was finally submitted, and carried unanimously.

Moved, that a committee of three be appointed by the Chair on resolutions and nominations. Carried.

Moved, that the Chair be empowered to appoint two persons outside of the delegates, to act with said committee. Carried.

For this committee the Chair named, A. T. Jones,

62

Ambrose Johnson, and J. A. Smith; to act with these Wm. Goodwin and Wm. Nichols. Adjonrned to call of Chair.

THIRD MEETING, MAY 27, 5 A. M.–Eld. I. D. Van Horn in the chair. Prayer by Eld. Haskell. Minute of last meeting read and accepted.

The report of the Committee on Resolutions and Nominations being called for, the following was submitted:–

Whereas, It has been, by unanimous vote, deemed advisable to divide the North Pacific Conference on the line of the Cascade Mountains, therefore

Resolved, That we hereby respectfully request the regular session of the N. P. Conference, which is to be held at Salem, Oregon, June 9-15, 1880, to grant this our appeal, and to recognize us as an independent Conference to be known a the Upper Columbia Conference of S. D. Adventists.¹1

Resolved, That we adopt as a whole the Constitutions of the Conference, the T. and M. Society, and the Sabbath-school Association, that have already been adopted by the N. P Conference.

Resolved, That gratitude, thanksgiving, and praise are due to our Heavenly Father for his mercy and loving-kindness in allowing us the privilege of another camp-meeting; for the testimonies of his Spirit, in this meeting, and for the counsel of his servants.

Resolved, That we thank the General Conference Committee for their care, manifested for us in the assistance they have tendered us in the labors of Eld. S. N. Haskell and Sister E. G. White.

Resolved, That we thank the General Conference for the presence of Eld. G. W. Colcord; and that we hereby extend to Eld. and Sisfer Colcord our hearty welcome and support, and an earnest invitation to remain and labor among us in the great work of God.

Resolved, That we respectfully request that Eld. A. T. Jones be allowed to remain and labor among us.

Resolved, That we all, as churches and individuals, hereby pledge ourselves to work to the fullest extent of our ability to push the great work of the third angelís message to a successful issue in all its department.

Resolved, That we deem the paying of tithes a duty enjoined in the Scriptures, and therefore we recommend that every member in this Conference adopt the tithing system and carry it out faithfully in all things.

Resolved, That we deem it necessary for the efficient working of the T. and M. society that a reserve fund be raised of such amount as may be considered advisable by the Conference Committee, by means of which a stock of publications may be kept on hand.

Resolved, That we recommend that the ministers act as agents for the T. and M. society.

Resolved, That we recommend that each and every one of the scattered S. D. Adventists in this Conference be corresponded with for the purpose of getting them heartily enlisted in the work in all its parts.

Resolved, That we deem it essential to the success of the cause that vigilant missionary societies be organized in every company of Sabbath-keepers, wherever practicable.

These resolutions were taken up one by one, and adopted unanimously.

The committee placed on nomination the following persons as officers for the ensuing year, all of whom were elected unanimously:–

CONFERENCE.

President, G. W. Colcord; Secretary, A. T. Jones; Treasurer, Wm. Nichols, Executive Committee, G. W. Colcord, Wm. Goodwin, and Ambrose Johnson.

T. AND. M. SOCIETY.

President, G. W. Colcord; Vice-president, Wm. Goodwin; Secretary, Mrs. G. W. Colcord; Board of Directors, A. T. Jones, George Beck, and Ambrose Johnson.

SABBATH-SCHOOL ASSOCIATION.

President, G. W. Colcord; Secretary, Miss Adna Johns.

Moved by A. T. Jones that the officers of the T. and M. society be appointed a committee to district the Conference, their action to be final. Carried.
Adjourned to call of Chair.

FOURTH MEETING, MAY 28, 3 A. M.–Eld. I. D. Van Horn in the Chair. Prayer by Eld. Raymond.

On motion, the reading of the minutes of last meeting was waived.

The committee submitted the following additional resolutions: –

Resolved, That we hereby tender to the P. C. S. S. Co. and the O. R. & N. Co. a vote of thanks for their courtesy toward Eld. S. N. Haskell and his party on their visit to this place, to assist in establishing the missionary work in this field.

Resolved, That we hereby request the recognition of the Upper Columbia Conference by the General Conference.

Resolved, That we hereby tender a vote of thanks to Bro. Wm. Nichols for the free use of these pleasant grounds for our camp-meeting.

Resolved, That we tender a vote of thanks to the Camp-meeting Committee and the Milton church, for their kind labors in so pleasantly fitting up our camp-ground.

Voted, That this Conference pay quarterly to the General Conference one-tenth of all tithes received by the Conference Treasurer.
Adjourned to call of Chair.

FIFTH MEETING, MAY 31, 6:30 A. M.–The President, G. W. Colcord, in the chair.

Renewal of credentials was granted to Eld. G. W. Colcord, A. T. Jones, and Wm. L. Raymond, and it was voted that the granting of licenses be left to the Conference Committee.

Voted, That we have a camp-meeting next year, and general meeting in October of this year.

The Districting Committee presented the following report:–

We, your Districting Committee, hereby recommend that the Conference be divided into three districts, as follows:–

Dist. No. 1, to include Walla Walla county, with all of the territory north and west of the Columbia River, and east of the Cascade Mountains. Director, A. T. Jones.

Dist No. 2, with the exception of Walla Walla county, to include all of Washington Territory east of the Columbia River. Director, Ambrose Johnson.

Dist. No. 3, all of Oregon east of the Cascade Mountains Director, George Beck.
G. W. COLCORD.
WM. GOODWIN.
MRS. G. W. COLCORD.
A. T. JONES.
GEORGE BECK.
AMBROSE JOHNSON.

Voted, That a copy of these minutes be furnished to the Signs of the Times and REVIEW AND HERALD for publication.
Adjourned sine die. G. W. COLCORD, Pres.
ALONZO T. JONES, Sec.

September 23, 1880

"Upper Columbia Conference" Advent Review And Sabbath Herald 56, 14, p. 220.

Patit Creek, W. T.–We held tent meetings here nearly four weeks. One was immersed; two commenced keeping the Sabbath; a band of nineteen brethren and sisters was formed, and we organized a Sabbath-school of three classes. Our review of the Disciple minister on the law and Sabbath may result in a debate. We expect to effect a church organization here sometime this coming autumn. Three adult Sabbath-keepers, living near, have not yet joined the band.

We are now at Alpowa. Our pavilion is erected on one of the high ìfoot-hillsî of the Blue Mountain. We have been told that our elevation is 4,000 feet above sea level, but for this we cannot vouch. The attention is delightful. Our auditors are kind and attentive, and some have decided to obey.
G. W. COLCORD. A. T. JONES.

¹ This request was granted. See proceedings of N. P. Conference at Salem, June 9-15,1880.