CAMP GROUND, FOREST PART, OTTAWA, KANSAS, MAY 11.—The last few days have been cloudy, with occasional storms, which prevented many from coming to the various lectures and sermons, yet the attendance has been quite good. Mrs. White has decided to speak every other day at 2:30, beginning today. Two sessions of the morning institute are now being held, the interest growing needing this accommodation. Mrs. E. G. White continues to address the early meetings, but will speak in the afternoons at 2:30 only every other day. The large circle tent is now provided with seats and yesterday at the 5 o’clock morning meeting the young people took possession of it, and will hold separate meetings hereafter. Quite a number of new faces are met with and many new tents have been erected. F. E. Belden, instructor in canvassing, is expected Monday. Much regret is expressed that Elder Farnsworth is not to be present.TDC May 12, 1889, page 4.1

THE MORNING LECTURE

(A.T. Jones)

At the beginning of the fourth century the Roman empire was ruled by six emperors and the Christian church, divided into ninety different sects, the bishops of each striving for power. It was necessary for each of the emperors to obtain all outside help possible as the military power was about equally divided. Maximin and Constantine each realized the value of the supposed unity of the Christian church, and so each tried to obtain the support of the Christians, Constantine succeeding. The bishops desired to establish a theocracy, a government of God. There was such a government formerly, actually ruled by the Lord, not directly, but through Moses and the prophets ect. But the people asked for a king and He chose one for them, not abdication, but still retaining the government, hence it was still the throne of God, and no attempt was ever made by David or Solomon, the Lord promising that the throne should stand forever, in the line of David’s house, Zedekiah being the last one on earth, God declaring there should be no other until Christ, the heir, should come again to claim it. Now, then, in a theocracy, it is necessary to have someone to convey the word of God to the people. Now if the Reformers intend to establish a theocracy they must have prophets, so then this will open the way for all the false prophets the Bible speaks of. Dr. Crafts already declares that the preachers are the successors of the prophets to make known the will of God.TDC May 12, 1889, page 4.2

The bishops declared Constantine to be a second Moses, making themselves dependent on him to secure the power of the state to carry out their aims. Now when anyone places himself in such a position he makes himself a tool of the one whom he is dependent, politicians, as they are now called. Now all the time that Constantine was claimed as a bishop (of externals, i. e. the civil power) and the head of the church, he was never even baptized. Never has there existed so consummate a politician and hypocrite. From 307 to 312 no one could tell what he was—Pagan or Christian, he rode the two horses so well. As the Lord had in His theocracy a sign by which he might be known as the ruler, which was the Sabbath, so the new false one had one also, a counterfeit, not being willing to adopt the original, not wishing “to have anything in common with the Jews. So adopting the Sun-day, the day of worship of the sun, the pagan worship was grafted upon Christianity and paganized Christianity became supreme. The Sunday law was passed by Constantine to please the bishops who wanted the power of the government to compel the people to attend church. The first Sunday law compelling the closing of courts, ect. on Friday as well as Sunday is lost, but mention is made of it. The next enforcing Sunday worship is extant. Before these laws the pagans had festival days but no holy days until these laws were passed, so transferring the devotional work of the Sabbath to Sunday they attempt to make the first holy day Rome ever had known.TDC May 12, 1889, page 4.3

“The Camp Meeting. Discussion” The Topeka Daily Capital, 11, 113, p. 4.

ATJ

Elder A. T. Jones called attention to Isaiah 61:2. “The Lord has anointed me too.”TDC May 12, 1889, page 4.4

Why then should we think the day of vengeance of our Lord was preached when Christ came? Because it can not occur until after the day of the Lord comes. I introduce this to show that two events do not necessarily follow because mentioned together. I think the judgment is the one referred to in verse 10.TDC May 12, 1889, page 4.5

Jesus illustrates the manners of His coming by the parable of the fig tree in Matthew 24, and gives the signs that the generation seeing them should be living when all was fulfilled. Now the last of these signs was given in 1833, so it cannot be much longer. But is not “this generation” interpreted “this men” that is the Jews. No; for “this generation was not the Jews to whom christ spake, but the one seeing the signs.TDC May 12, 1889, page 4.6

Elder Jones said public sentiment must be moulded as Elder Sharp stated, but will it take a number of years? If we remember that the most intense public sentiment is moulded very quickly, it may not take long. Look at the rise of public sentiment in opposition to slavery. For years the abolitionist was looked upon as a criminal, but the sentiment, changing slowly at first, swept rapidly all over the country. This shows that public sentiment is developed according to the way the subject is introduced. The Sunday movement is in advance of what the slavery question was, and I can see no objection to the soon coming of Christ on this ground.TDC May 12, 1889, page 4.7

“The Camp Meeting. Church Government” The Topeka Daily Capital, 11, 113, p. 4.

ATJ

THE AFTERNOON SERMON

Mrs. White being unable to speak, Elder A.T. Jones continued his sermons on “church government.” Beginning at 1 Corinthians 14:11-25, when it is shown that the church at Corinth seemed to more earnestly desire the gift of tongues than any other; so Paul tells them rather to desire prophecy, because an unknown tongue was a sign to unbelievers, while prophecying was for edification of the church, speaking in tongues being of no profit to the hearers unless interpreted. Now read verses 26 and onward. Here we have the direction to keep silent if one has the gift of tongues and there be no interpreter. Then what is the use of the gift if it requires the two to make the gift available? Why not let the interpreter tell it at once? Because, verse 22, it is for a sign to unbelievers. Now, if all spoke with tongues the unbelievers would think all were lunatics, but if one prophecy his inmost secrets maybe revealed and he be convicted and repent. For an unbeliever to hear his neighbor whom he knows gets up and talks in an unknown tongue, and another of his neighbors arise and explains his words he is forced to realize there is some high power exercising all. This I introduce to show you how the gifts work together. Now, verse 27, 28 and onward—ye are members of the body and God has set them in the body as he pleases, illustrating the church and its members under the figure of the body, and has set the members not to please them, but to please himself. Therefore if you and I try to set the members in the church as it suits us, will it be likely to do good work as it would if we let God do it? If all are controlled by the Lord will my actions please him if I take out of his hands the control of the members? How has God set the members; apostles, prophets, teachers, after that miracles, helps, governments, diversity of tongues. The gift of teaching then is not to be counted as one of the least, standing third in the list and before miracles, so then it is a greater thing to instruct others in the word of God than it is to work miracles.TDC May 12, 1889, page 4.8

Now turn to Romans 12:6-8 and read of other gifts that are compliments to each other. One may have the faculty of teaching, yet he may not be able to exhort which another does possess without the ability to teach. They working together are a help to one another. God could and would bless each separately, but united they would become a power. That being so then there never ought to be room in the church of Christ for jealousy or envy. Paul carries these things further, 1 Corinthians 12:31. But he says “covet earnestly the best gifts.” Is not that then a commandment of the Lord? Are we doing it? If not why not? Read also 14:1, desire spiritual gifts; also chapter 12:1, who would not leave you ignorant—Christ. Are we ignorant? Do we study spiritual gifts? If we do not believe in them we shall be ignorant of them, because faith must always go before knowledge. If we believe, desire follows, and what next: covet earnestly the best gifts.” “Yet show I you a more excellent way.”TDC May 12, 1889, page 4.9

Suppose we could get all these gifts by desiring them, what good would it do us? None whatever. If a company in this place could speak with the tongues of angels and had all the other gifts, and had all benevolence and faith, they would be worthless. If then we could obtain all these gifts simply by coveting them they would be profitless without the love of God in the heart shed abroad by faith in Jesus Christ, we would be a tinkling cymbal. How then do we obtain them that they may be a benefit to us? By getting the love of God. If given to us because we want them simply, we would not appreciate them and use them to the honor and glory of God. What then is charity and what does it do? “Charity suffereth long, and is kind.” Will suffer and be kind while it continues, will not rebel or lose temper. If we are wrongly accused ought we to be glad that it is not true, and thank God that it is not? 1 Peter 2:19-23. It is no glory if we be corrected for our faults and submit, but if we exercise patience under wrong reproach then God is pleased with us, that is acceptable with God. That is the grace of God, which enables us to bear it. One who is in the right can afford to wait, and will never lose by doing it. Christ is an example of this to us. The man who knows he is right and innocent, can commit his cause to the Lord and wait patiently, he will never vindicate him, and in just the right way. That was Christ’s method and He was the embodiment of charity. Charity envieth not. Envy means; to see against, to look askance at pain, uneasiness or discontent excited by anther’s superiority or success, accompanied generally with a desire to see him unsuccessful. So then whoever envies another confesses his own unworthiness. Have we had such feelings? Very well, that is envy and not charity.TDC May 12, 1889, page 4.10

“The Camp Meeting. The Evening Lecture” The Topeka Daily Capital, 11, 113, p. 4.

ATJ

THE EVENING LECTURE

(by A. T. Jones)

In continuing this part of my subject, I want to show further that Constantine was a Christian only from political motives and a pagan always from convictions. He read from Milman’s Christianity to show that up to the time of his acceptance of the head of the church he was outwardly pagan, that the statues erected by him to Apollo show him to have his favorite god. In 312 he claims to have seen a vision of the cross, and he erected a holy standard in honor of this vision and Christ. You remember I told you about the dreaming of Maxentius and its comparison to the dreaming of Pharaoh. It was at this time Constantine assumed the garb of a Christian. But, as Milman says, it was “the Christianity of the warrior,” and he said his barbarities showed the same pagan hearts as before. In the labarum he erected the blended symbols of both Christianity and the images of himself and family; because the image of the emperor was always worshiped by the Romans, so that both Christians and pagans could worship at it.TDC May 12, 1889, page 4.11

One of his titles was Pen itix Maximus. The superstition of his youth, says Millman in substance, clung to him, and speaking of the prophecy pillar, the head of Constantine was substituted for that of Apollo, and then asks, “is this paganism approximating to Christianity or Christianity degenerating to paganism?” Dr. Schaff says Constantine adopted Christianity as a superstition. In fact, the bishops were afraid to compel him to be baptized for fear he would renounce Christianity and turn pagan again, and become very jealous of a pagan philosopher, Sapates, who was a friend of Constantine, fearing he would turn pagan under his influence, so trumped up a charge against him and he was hastily executed. After his death no one could tell if he had been a Christian. Milman says that he did not want to alienate his heathen friend, while the Christians did not dare to proceed too far in their efforts to force him to excel his authority in abolishing pagan-ism, so that all the time paganism was openly professed and was the religion of the empire confronting Christianity, so that after his death both religions vied for Constantine. He was deified by the pagans and worshipped by the Christians. Stanley, in his “History of the Christian Church,” says: “So passed away the first Christian emperor, the first defender of the faith—the first imperial patron of the Papal See, and of the whole eastern church the founder of the holy place—pagan and Christian, orthodox and heretical, liberal and fanatical, not to be initiated or admired, but much to be remembered, and deeply to be studied.”TDC May 12, 1889, page 4.12

Now these are some of the authentic records of history, so you can judge to some extent what kind of man Constantine was.TDC May 12, 1889, page 4.13

Now the Sunday legislation of Constantine. Reading from Neander, quoting from Sozomen, read the second of the first Sunday law to show it was in behalf of both pagans and Christians. This is the law that was not preserved, only the second remaining. This one embodied Friday as well as Sunday. The date of this law is unknown. The purpose was that the day might be devoted to devotion. Now remember that the Romans had festival days, but no day set apart for worship. So it is not correct to say that Sunday was a day of worship among the pagans. That is a papal idea, solely setting it apart for worship, separate from the other days. This is why Constantine called it the venerable day of the sun, because he did not dare to offend the pagans. The Christians Ulm were worshipping the sun. The church would first receive a person as a catacumen, and these would turn first to the west, the realm of Satan, and then turn to the east to worship “the sun of Righteousness,” changing the pagan worship of the sun to the sun of righteousness. The law of 321, you are familiar with, compelling town people to rest on Sunday. Milman says the rescript for the religious observance of Sunday, “which enjoined the suspension of all public business and private labor... was enacted for the whole Roman empire, yet unless we had direct proof that the decree set forth the Christian reason for the sanctity of the day, it may be doubted whether the act would not be received by the greater part of the empire as merely adding one more festival to the Fasti of the empire.”TDC May 12, 1889, page 4.14

Have we this direct proof? No. I read what Milman says: “The rescript commanding the celebration of the Christian Sabbath, bears no allusion to its peculiar sanctity as a Christian institution.” When this Sunday law was made it embraced the whole Roman world, and Constantine had a prayer written that both Christians and pagans could apply to the God they worshipped, and the soldiers were drawn up in line and forced to repeat it in unison. This law was given solely to please the bishops who had transferred the sanctity of God’s Sabbath to the counterfeit of their theocracy, prevailing upon the emperor to enforce their desired observance of it, so the day as a day of worship is papal entirely. Milman calls this “the new paganism,” because pagans could acquiesce without scruple in its observance. Now all this shows that Sunday has no civil basis. It was religious in every particular. Did God ordain it? No. Did Cesar ordain it? No. It sprang from the church, having its basis in paganism, so then it is never to be rendered to God, to the state, or to anyone in heaven or earth. The bishops had to have this institution to complete their theocracy and to compel the people to act in conformity with their idea, now there were people living then that knew this was in opposition to all known rights, and the bishops knew it too.TDC May 12, 1889, page 4.15

The speaker read again from Alexander to show that the custom in the church was established by a synodal law that all Christians should abstain from labor on Sunday, but it was made more effective by the use of the power of the state, through the making of the Sunday law. The same twenty-ninth canon that established this custom is the same one who cursed anyone for keeping the Sabbath of the Lord. Can there be any better fulfillment of the prophecy that says, “He shall think to change times and law?” There is where the papacy made their effort to change the law of God.TDC May 12, 1889, page 4.16

Now for some of the reasons the bishops gave for obtaining these Sunday laws. Of course all the men compelled to be idle drifted into the circuses and theaters, and such vast crowds would attend that large numbers of men had to be employed, and so Christians were hired, so the bishops argued that the people going to such places made it necessary for the circuses and theaters to employ extra hands and so compel Christians to work “against their will,” so Manden says that in 326 all kinds of labor was prohibited, and so on festival days the circuses and theaters greatly interfered with the worship of the church, and argued that the people would be worshippers if it was not for the greater attraction of the shows, so they asked for laws that would compel them to observe the Sunday. Now the very arguments used then are now being used, almost word for word, and if we have access to the Vatican library the similarity would, no doubt, be more apparent. The bishops claimed then that the circuses and theaters were persecuting Christians by compelling them to work on Sunday, and they called it persecution. The very same thing is said now of the rail-roads, etc. Now having compelled men to be idle, that they might be devoted, they were compelled to take away their amusement to force them to be devoted, so will it be now. Not only that but they must put devotion in the place of amusement to keep them from hell and start them heavenward, and having started in this path that last must come, the inquisition to reach the heart to save them from ruin. Never forget the inquisition was never a punishment for wickedness but to save souls from hell. They did not torment a man because he was wicked but to get him to confess for that would bring pardon and to ensure his safety; they would then kill him while holy, that he could not have a chance to sin again. Then is not the inquisition the very theory of the Sunday observance? Now, I do not say that the inquisition in this country will be the same as in Rome, but the same practice will bring the same result here as in Rome, and the third angel’s message says that death will be decreed against all who will not observe Sun-day in opposition to the Sabbath. Now all who advocate Sunday laws do not see all this, or do all expect a theocracy, but all their arguments are theocratical ones, and lead to all the results I have enumerated. Many would be horrified if they thought their action would lead to this, but they will be led along step by step until they do not see the end just as it must come.TDC May 12, 1889, page 4.17

Now another thing. The canon of Laodicea cursed those who kept the Sabbath. Why was this necessary? Because there were people keeping the Sabbath, and they were warning the people against the fraud—so the bishops were compelled to stop belittling the Sun-day. Now, who do the national reformers say are the real opposers of the Sunday observance? Is it not the Seventh Day Adventists? This they admit, and say it is the hardest of all to meet, because the opposition comes from the Bible record. When the statement was once made that Adventists not only wanted to keep the Seventh Day but tried to break down the observance of Sunday and the question was asked what should be done, the reply was, “They must not be allowed to take such a course.” That is what they expect to do to us. God has given the message to us and the course we must take is to try to destroy all respect for the Sunday, because it is a day for which no man should have any respect.TDC May 12, 1889, page 4.18

May 11, 1889

May 14, 1889