Earlier text: The Gifts and Offices of the Holy Spirit No. 1Review of Rev. B. T. Roberts.
By M. H. Brown
The April number of the Earnest Christian, published in the interest of the Free Methodists, contains an article on the Sabbath question, written by the editor, Rev. B. T. Roberts. The article was called out by a request from one of the patrons of the paper that the editor should show why we keep Sunday for the Sabbath. He replies:— “1. For the sake of public decency. People generally agree on keeping this day. Therefore, in the absence of any reason to the contrary we should keep it with them.” In the days of Christ, the people of God were all agreed in keeping the seventh day; why set up another Sabbath on another day contrary to the requirements of public decency? Would our first-day friends surrender their first-day observance if they should move into a neighborhood in which the seventh day is observed? Then why use such an argument against seventh-day observance in a first-day community? Under the same proposition, Eld. R. says:— “To shock unnecessarily the religious sensibilities of the great mass of Christian people, savors more of an overweening vanity and self-will than of true humility.” Does it savor more of vanity and self-will than of true humility for Free Methodists to refuse to conform to the world in matters of dress and adorning? We think not. Why should observers of the seventh day be required to conform to the great mass of the Christian world in Sabbath observance any more than Free Methodists in matters of dress? In each case there is a coming out from the world and a worldly church. How this savors more of vanity and self-will than of true humility I cannot understand. Again he says:— “The Sabbath is much more likely to be respected by the ungodly, if all professing Christians unite upon one day, than it will if some keep one day, and some another.” This is true. But if some keep one day and some another, is it not the exercise of that freedom of choice which the theory of an indefinite seventh-part-of-time Sabbath permits, a theory which, as we shall presently see, Eld. R. endorses? God is not the author of confusion, but of order, and hence is not the author of a Sabbath which comes on any day of the week according to the day upon which we choose to commence our six days of labor. His second proposition proves that his theory of the Sabbath allows every one freedom of choice as to the day he will observe. It reads as follows:— “2. In keeping Sunday we are keeping the original command.” The holy women, however, who rested on the Sabbath day according to the commandment, commenced their labors on the first day of the week, after having kept the previous day, which must have been the seventh day of the week. If resting on the first day of the week is keeping the original command, then it may be kept by resting on any day of the week we may elect. What a wonderful institution the Sabbath is! “Not once in all the Bible are we commanded to keep the seventh day of the week.” In Gen. 1 and 2, we have the origin of the week of seven days. The first six days of this weekly cycle were employed in the work of creation, and the seventh day of this first week of time was the day upon which God rested. This week of seven days is of divine origin, and has been retained by all the civilized nations of the earth by universal agreement. This proves conclusively that the weekly cycle which God established has come down to us unchanged. Eld. R. believes the change of the Sabbath was early made; for under proposition 4 he gives quotations to prove it; but certainly there was no need of a change according to his theory as stated in the following:— “We are commanded to keep the seventh day after six days of labor.” If those who kept the Sabbath according to the commandment observed the day on which Christ rose from the dead, they could not have been keeping the Sabbath; for the Sabbath, says Eld. R., “is the seventh day after six days of labor,” and no labor had been performed since the previous day. Luke 23:54-56; 24:1. If they kept the following Sunday it would be the eighth day after seven days of labor, and hence could not be the Sabbath. Does not the theory we are considering give every one the right of choice in his Sabbath to commence his labor on any day of the week he may elect, and keep the seventh day after six days of labor? We are quite certain that we are correct in drawing this conclusion; for, speaking of the change of the Sabbath under proposition 4, he says: “Do you ask by what authority? If our view of the Sabbath is correct, and we have no doubt of its correctness, it needs no authority.” Then as many Sabbaths may be kept as the whims of the people may dictate. Would not such a theory, if carried out, be totally destructive of law and order and the best interests of society? Certainly; but some theory must be framed to authorize the observance of a day God never commanded to be kept holy, and to excuse the desecration of the only day which God ever blessed and sanctified. Proposition 3 reads as follows:— “3. By keeping every seventh day, the most ignorant may know, in any part of the world, what day to keep.” When God established the weekly cycle, the six days of labor would inevitably fall upon the first six days of the week, and the “seventh day after six days of labor” would be the seventh day of the week. It must be admitted by all candid minds that it would be just as easy for Adam and his posterity to preserve the count of the days of the week as of the days of labor, and “the seventh day after six days of labor” would coincide with the seventh day of the week. This is a self-evident truth. Eld. R. refers to the case of the Alaskans who came east across the Pacific. He says that “what we call the first day of the week they call the seventh.” Now the truth is just the reverse of this. What we call the seventh day of the week they call the first. There is no fact better established among navigators and scientific men than that the day line is in the Pacific Ocean, and that in crossing it from America to Asia we must add a day to our reckoning, while in passing from Asia to America we must drop a day from our reckoning, to be in harmony with the rest of the world in commencing the week. This the Alaskans neglected to do, and hence the discrepancy referred to by Eld. R. The position of the day line has been so well known for years that all sea-faring men adjust their reckoning while crossing the Pacific. A person may travel from the eastern extremity of the eastern continent to the western extremity of the western continent and return, and his reckoning of the days of the week will at all times agree with the reckoning at any point through which he may pass. And here we would call the attention of our first-day friends to this very suggestive fact that all the blunders which have been made in keeping the count of the days of the week have been made by observers of the first day of the week; and by this error they have unwittingly become observers of the Lord’s Sabbath, whereas the Jews and other observers of the seventh-day Sabbath, who have been scattered all over the world, have never had any discrepancy arise among them as to which was the seventh day of the week. I do not know how our first-day friends account for these facts. A careful reading of Ps. 111:10, may throw light on the subject. Eld. R. speaks of the change in the length of the year made by the Jews and by Julius Caesar, and also of the change from Old Style to New Style in 1582 when Pope Gregory XIII. ordained that Oct. 5 should be called Oct. 15, and then asks, “In all these changes has there been any change in the day of the week? I do not know.” Such a confession of ignorance is astonishing, and if it is honest, why “darken counsel by words without knowledge” in an effort to quiet the consciences of those who have felt it their duty to observe the seventh-day? Will not such efforts cause “many to stumble at the law?” Malachi 2:8. Now the least reflection by any person of common intelligence must convince him that to change the length of the year or of the month, or to call the 5th day of any month the 15th, does not affect the day of the week in the slightest degree. Russia never made the change ordained by Pope Gregory XIII., and her seventh day corresponds with ours. Those nations of the earth which never adopted the Jewish or the Roman civil year retain the same numbering of the days of the week that we do. Suppose the U. S. government should decree that Aug. 2d of this year should be called Aug. 12th; that is, should drop ten days, just as was done in 1582. Now to-day is Monday, Aug. 2d; such a decree would make it Aug. 12th; but the day of the week would still be Monday. The universal agreement of all the nations of the earth concerning the reckoning of the days of the week is a standing rebuke to those watchmen who confess ignorance concerning a subject so plain. Can it be possible that Eld. R. is ignorant of these things? His fourth and last proposition is this:— “4. It is probable that the apostles and early Christians kept what they called the first day of the week.” Is it not more than probable that the apostles and early Christians kept what they called the Sabbath. We have plain and pointed testimony that the day after the crucifixion was observed by the disciples of Christ as the Sabbath; and the day following the Sabbath was called the first day of the week by Luke, when he wrote his gospel twenty-eight years after that event. The inspired evangelists and the apostles called that day the Sabbath which the Jews used for worship in their synagogues, and never called the first day of the week the Sabbath, the Christian Sabbath, or the Lord’s day, but plain first day of the week. These stubborn facts can never be reconciled with the theory that the Sabbath was changed by divine authority. Please read Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:1, 2; Luke 23:54-56; 24:1; Acts 13:14, 15, 16, 27, 42, 44; 15:21; 17:2; 18:3, 4. He quotes Acts 20:7, and then says, “This certainly implies that the first day of the week was their regular day of worship.” This inference is very unjust and far-fetched. The Scriptures are silent respecting the customary observance of the first day. It is never called the Sabbath, and we have no mention of any religious meeting on the first day, except the one recorded in Acts 20:7; and on the same day they partook of the Lord’s supper, and Paul started on his journey, traveling nineteen and one-half miles on foot to Assos. See verses 8-14. This shows that Paul did not observe the first-day Sabbath. He quotes 1 Cor. 16:2: “Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him.” This is a work to be done at home. Lay in store where? “By him.” It is not to be put into the contribution box of the congregation. “As God hath prospered him.” This involves a review of the business of the week, and a summing up of receipts and expenditures, &c. Is this a proper manner in which to spend the hours of the holy Sabbath? Who will claim it? “The first day of the week was called the Lord’s day, because on it Jesus rose from the dead.” The truth is, never, in a single instance, was the first day of the week called the Lord’s day by any Bible writer. This is conclusive proof that the title was never applied to that day by divine authority. Uninspired men have given it that title, and have given the reason mentioned by Eld. R.; but God never did. Is not the Bible a sufficient rule of faith and practice? or must we take the doctrines and commandments of men, in order that we may be thoroughly furnished unto all good works? 2 Tim. 3:16, 17. As is customary among first-day writers, he quotes the early fathers to prove that the Sabbath was changed at an early date. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, is quoted as follows: “Let us no longer sabbatize, but keep the Lord’s day on which our life arose.” This is a false translation. The literal rendering of the decisive sentence is as follows: “No longer sabbatizing, but living according to the Lord’s life.” Eminent first-day scholars have testified explicitly that the term Lord’s day has no right to appear in the translation; for the original is not Lord’s day, but Lord’s life. Eld. R. quotes Justin Martyr where he says: “And on the day called Sunday is an assembly,” &c. According to Mosheim and Heylyn, both eminent church historians who observed the first day, Wednesday, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, were days of assembly among the early Christians. Were these all Sabbath days? They were if the above quotation has any force whatever. Again, Justin Martyr was a no-law and no-Sabbath man. He did not believe in a change of the Sabbath. He believed the Sabbath and law of God were abolished. Why does he suppress this portion of Justin’s testimony? Eld. R. quotes Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, as follows: “To-day we celebrate the Lord’s day, when we read your epistle to us.” This makes no mention of the first day, and hence is no proof whatever for first-day sanctity. He then speaks of the change having been made quietly and peaceably. If he speaks from a Bible standpoint, it is sufficient to remark that no inspired writer ever mentions the change of the Sabbath, and hence it is without divine authority. If he speaks of the change from the standpoint of church history, it is exactly opposite the truth; for every student of church history knows that there was a long and bitter controversy concerning the seventh-day Sabbath and the pagan festival of Sunday. The edict of Constantine in A. D. 321, and the decree of the Council of Laodicea, A. D. 364, abased the Sabbath of the Lord and elevated the pagan Sunday to the honored title of Lord’s day. Dr. Peter Heylyn, an eminent first-day writer, says that the term Sabbath was never applied to any day but Saturday by any writer for upwards of a thousand years after Christ; and he further testifies that the first day was never called the Christian Sabbath till the beginning of the twelfth century. These facts may be found in his History of the Sabbath, Part 2. It may seem schismatical and pernicious in the eyes of Eld. R. to unsettle weak consciences in regard to the Sabbath; but Isaiah says, “Hear the word of the Lord, ye that tremble at his word.” Isa. 66:5. Persons with weak, tender consciences, who tremble at God’s word, make humble, devoted, self-denying, truth-loving Christians. They are more susceptible to the claims of the Lord’s Sabbath when it is presented than those who fear God less and man more. He then asks, “Do those who keep Saturday give any evidence of superior piety?” We answer, Only so far as they show a greater willingness to be circumspect in all that God has commanded. Again he asks, “Does the blessing of God rest upon them in any remarkable degree?” It does. “Do they ride upon the high places of the earth?” The Lord has promised that they shall. Isa. 58:13, 14. He then refers to a neighborhood settled by observers of the seventh day, and says the first generation were a devout, holy people. Their children learned from their parents not to reverence Sunday, and from the neighboring children not to reverence Saturday, and the result was a very godless community. Did they not all “keep the seventh day after six days of labor”? This theory of Eld. R.’s may be very beautiful on paper, and may quiet some weak consciences, but it works very disastrously in practice. In the case cited by Eld. R., the responsibility of such results rests upon those who refused to rest on the Sabbath day according to the commandment, and upon those who teach that the Sabbath may be kept on any day of the week, if it is only “the seventh day after six days of labor.” He says, “Do not suffer yourself to be brought into bondage.” If any feel in bondage while obeying the law of God, which Paul calls holy and spiritual, it must be because they are still under the condemnation of sin, and have not availed themselves of the cleansing blood of Christ. Perhaps Eld. R. can explain why observing the seventh-day Sabbath brings bondage, while first-day observance gives liberty. He closes by quoting Col. 2:16. This has no reference to the Lord’s Sabbath, which came weekly, but to the annual Sabbaths, which are associated with meats and drinks, new moons and holy days or festivals, an account of the institution of which will be found in Lev. 23. By reference to verse 38 of this chapter, we shall find that these annual sabbaths and holy days were “beside the Sabbaths of the Lord;” that is, they were separate from, and should not be confounded with, the Lord’s Sabbath which was written by the finger of God among the commandments of the moral law. Our first-day friends who advocate the theory of the Sabbath which we have been reviewing, claim that it is very desirable and necessary that all should observe the same day, but their theory is so flexible in its nature that when the liberty it gives is exercised it produces those disastrous results which they so much deplore. The interests of society demand the observance of the same day. Our Creator, in his wisdom, has done his part toward meeting this demand by blessing and sanctifying a definite day, namely, his rest-day—which was the seventh day of the week. This week has come down to us unchanged, as we have conclusively proved. “The seventh-day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God.” Dear reader, shall we “remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy,” and thus do our part toward securing uniformity in Sabbath observance? or shall we refuse to obey the Lord in keeping his holy day? Be entreated not to grieve the Spirit of God by delaying obedience. We need no theory of the Sabbath. The commandment is plain. It needs no explanation; for the child can understand it when not confused by the contradictory theories of human invention. We write this review not for controversy but that the humble child of God who loves the truth may be enlightened, and precious souls saved in the kingdom of God. May the Lord bless it to this end is my sincere prayer. Sanford’s Corners, Jeff. Co., N. Y. Saving Faith.
By August Rasmussen
“AND He said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace.” Luke 7: 50. Many claim that this was a wicked woman, and that she was saved by faith only. Let us see. In verses 37-38 of the same chapter, we read: “And, behold, a woman in the city which was a sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at meat in the Pharisee’s house, brought an alabaster box of ointment, and stood at his feet behind him weeping, and began to wash his feet with tears, and did wipe them with the hairs of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment.” In this work, and in sorrowing for her sins, she showed her faith, and Jesus said, “Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace.” Many Christians in our time boast much of faith, but they have no works. They have never stood at the feet of Jesus; they have never washed, kissed, or anointed them; they have never wept bitterly for their sins as did this woman; they have never understood the deep work of repentance brought to view in her history. Faith and works are closely connected, like the two paddle-wheels in a steamer, and both are indispensable in the plan of salvation. The apostle James speaks as follows: “What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? . . . Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? . . . Likewise also was not the harlot Rahab justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.” May a saving faith be connected with works everywhere. Suppose that early in this year, the whole world had bent itself in supplication to the Infinite Ruler—every man and woman, from the Arctic Circle to the hot Equator, kneeling in the humility of conscious dependence, and lifting up from every zone the prayer, “Forsake us not this year, great Benefactor, but bless us in our helplessness from the treasury of thy goodness!” And suppose that, after such a verbal petition, the supply had come, and that in every house had been found the stores, the bounties of vegetable and animal food, how surprising would the miraculous mercy have seemed! But how much more surprising and inspiring is the real wonder than such a shower upon the barren globe would be! With few prayers for it, the great miracle has been wrought, and in the double way of beauty and bounty. Amusements and the Pursuit of Innocent Pleasure
Let amusements fill up the chinks of your existence and the great spaces thereof. Let your pleasures be those which need not cause a single blush on an ingenuous cheek. The New York Camp-Meeting.
By Uriah Smith
1. THE location. This meeting was held Sept. 9-14, 1875, about two miles north of the city of Rome, N. Y., according to appointment in REVIEW. 2. The place. This was a beautiful beech and maple grove, level and excellently shaded, skirted by a lively stream of pure running water, proceeding from a boiling spring a few rods distant, affording ample provision in this respect. 3. The arrangement. The tents were arranged in a perfect square. A well-executed plan of the grounds showing the location of each tent according to its number, the position of large tents, speakers’ stand, &c., was posted at the entrance. The stand was constructed after a new model, and was a convenient, comfortable, elegant, and pleasing structure. 4. The attendance. There were thirty-four tents pitched, one sixty-foot and one forty-foot; and there were between three and four hundred brethren and sisters present. This was considered a good attendance under the circumstances. 5. Social meetings. These passed off with a good degree of activity and freedom; though here, as elsewhere, that depth of feeling was not manifest which would lead to such rending of heart, and humiliation before God, as would be appropriate to the church of Christ in these days of danger and peril. A portion of the time usually allotted to social meetings was taken up in appropriate and timely remarks from Bro. White relative to matters in the N. Y. Conference. 6. The speakers. Bro. and sister White were present according to the change of appointment made at the earnest solicitation of the brethren in New York. They, and others who spoke, enjoyed a good degree of freedom in the presentation of the truth, and the word was listened to with eagerness and was cordially received by the people. 7. The Sabbath. In the afternoon of this day a victorious season was enjoyed. A call was made for backsliders and sinners to come forward for prayers. About thirty responded. A season of prayer followed. Bro. White was led out in great freedom. It was thought best to continue the meeting. A spirit of exhortation came upon the ministers. And when Eld. Whitney said he felt like putting himself among those who had come forward, and invited as many as felt likewise to join him in the move, there was a break in the congregation. They came pressing forward till all distinction was lost between them and the rest of the assemblage. There was deep feeling; and the testimonies that followed were of the greatest interest. A woman recently rescued from Catholicism gave the story of the work of the Spirit of God upon her heart, to lead her from that delusion. She was powerfully convicted of sin, and the need of forgiveness. Instructed as she had been, the confessional was the only way of relief that came into her mind. She repaired on three successive Saturdays to the house of the priest, but did not find him at home. She turned to the Bible, and learned that she could go to God for herself, and joyfully accepted the privilege. Her husband became alarmed and sent for the priest. Listening to the story of her experience, he urged her to the confessional. She told him she had found a better way, and asked him to pray for her. He would not do it. This opened her eyes still more to the fraud and deception of that system of religion. In the midst of persecution she has followed on in the truth till now she is rejoicing in the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. 8. Sunday. On Sunday the attendance was large, estimated at about three thousand. The attention was good, and the impression made very favorable, judging from remarks which many were heard to make. The speaking was with freedom and power, and, taken as a whole, the day was one of very gratifying success. Some of the citizens assured our brethren that if the meeting should be held there another year the turnout would be double what it was at this meeting. On Monday, sister White spoke with great freedom in a most impressive manner. Bro. W. spoke on the subject of baptism. After his discourse, Brn. Buell L. Whitney and Jacob Wilbur were ordained to the work of the ministry. This also was throughout a good day. Elds. Rogers and Davis, and a number of other Seventh-day Baptist brethren, were present on Monday, whom we were happy to meet. Such is a general outline of the outward features of the meeting. But much cannot be reported. The relief brought to the meeting and to the Conference by the presence and labors of Bro. and sister White can be appreciated by those who experienced it, but cannot be put upon paper. Heavy as was the disappointment to the brethren in Kansas on account of their absence, we believe they would themselves say, when apprized of all the circumstances, that it was well they tarried in New York. The cause needed help there which nothing else could bring. Now, courage has taken the place of despondency, and hope of fear. We trust the cause will move forward in strength in that good State. So be it. U. S. Editorial Correspondence.
By John Nevins Andrews
I HAVE no word of discouragement to write from this mission. God is here by his Holy Spirit to help in the accomplishment of his work. I am certain of this, though I have plenty of things to try my faith. I see the hand of God in the work, but it does not follow that there are no obstacles to be surmounted. I find as many as Satan is permitted to throw in the way, but hitherto the Lord has helped me. What he has done in the past he will still do in the future. And with his help nothing is impossible. In Germany things go well. The Lord is blessing the labors of Bro. Ertzenberger not only for the instruction of the Sabbath-keepers but for the benefit of the public. He is at work in an entirely new field, the city of Solingen. His first congregation was 300 persons, and it has continued to increase. There seems to be deep feeling among the people. With God’s blessing there is reason to hope for important results from this series of meetings. I feel that God is truly with Bro. E. I hope for cheering reports for the REVIEW. But I will say that he has had to meet the cruel working of Satan in Germany. It is here as in America. If there is anything to do for the Lord Satan will do all in his power to injure and to defeat the work. The first object which I am now seeking to accomplish is the publication of a paper in French. I cannot express the intense anxiety of my heart to bring this to pass. Nor can I well state to those not here the difficulties in the way of the undertaking. This work will not be delayed an hour after it is possible to begin. Suitable help is lacking; those that are most competent to assist are so situated that they need to spend nearly all their time in their own business. But I hope with the help of God’s providence we may soon make a commencement. This may seem to our friends in America like a small thing, but it will be to us a great event. It will be as though we had ascended one hard hill, though we are well aware that other hills not less difficult are before us. But with God’s help all things are possible. I cannot doubt that God will grant success. What could be done in America if we had no papers? Comparatively little. And here in Europe, if possible, such instrumentality is even more necessary than in America. Our people in Switzerland have never been thus favored. As they cannot read English, they have not the means of knowing the progress of the work by the weekly visits of the REVIEW. I should correct the statement that they have never had a paper. For a time Eld. M. B. C. published a paper, but he long ago departed from God. His case has given me great pain. He has been for several years a resident of Roumania, a province of the Turkish Empire. His course has been such that I know of no way to help him. In fact, though he is a very unhappy man, I have no reason to think that he is in a state of mind in which he would accept faithful counsel, however tenderly given. Though he accomplished good in this country and in Italy, yet he eventually brought much pain and sadness to the people of God. Nor have our people recovered, even yet, from the discouragement which he brought upon them. The earnest zeal, the spirit of sacrifice and consecration, and the warmth of their first love, have all been abated by the saddening trials to which they have been subjected. This is not strange, though it is greatly to be regretted. It is the work of time, and the result of earnest and untiring effort, to retrieve such loss if it be retrieved. I have witnessed the blight, and have found it no light matter to accomplish the needed change. Our brethren and sisters stand firm in the truth as far as they have learned it. But their courage and their missionary spirit are less than they were before their troubles came upon them. I have no doubt but they will regain the lost ground, and yet stand far in advance of their past attainments. But the brethren in America know well that this is not accomplished without earnest effort, and that even then time is necessary. I have sought by every means in my power to change this state of things. But I have not found the task an easy one. I have found very kind friends, but I cannot say that they know the value of reproof, even as fully as do our brethren generally in America. The German brethren were cut to the heart and melted to tears by words of admonition and reproof which would by no means produce the like effect among the Swiss. It is my conviction, and I think it proper to state it here, that the good accomplished in Europe by Eld. M. B. C. was largely due to the wise counsel and valuable assistance of sister A. E. Butler, at that time a member of his family, but now sleeping in death at Tramelan. Her services as translator and general assistant were such that he could not have done without them. Indeed, when her labor ceased and other helpers took her place the work of Eld. C. soon ended in sorrow to the people of God. It will give pain to those who knew the family in America to learn that Ludomir, the eldest son, died the past week. He was accounted one of the best printers in the city of Neuchatel, but I fear that he had no interest in religion. He leaves a wife (a Catholic) and one child. The funeral services were held in the Catholic hospital where he died. I will speak of them to give the manner of such services in this country. They were conducted by the pastor of the Independent church who offered a very appropriate prayer, and pronounced the benediction. This was all that he said or did. But the coffin was not in the room, nor was the wife, nor any of the mourners. On going to the door we found the hearse standing near it and the coffin already therein; there were quite a number of men and boys to follow the hearse on foot to the cemetery, but not a woman nor a girl was to be seen in the procession. The coffin was a plain box painted a dark color, and was not opened to show the corpse. There was no service whatever at the grave, the coffin being placed in the ground without the protection of a box. The cemetery is beautifully situated in the east part of the city, and commands a pleasant view of the lake and of the Alps. I have learned that Eld. M. B. C. has recently lost the sight of one eye, and his hearing in part. He has suffered much affliction; may it cause him to return to God with all his heart. I have received from the Office a generous supply of Health Reformers. I have taken some pains to procure the names and address of those who have some interest in Christian temperance, and who are able to read the English language. I shall therefore, if God will, send them to every person of this class whose address I can procure. I have already sent to persons in Paris, Geneva, Lausanne and Basel. With these also I have sent Reviews, Voices, Signs and Instructors. I intend also to send them to Germany and to Holland. Though I have received many papers from our Office since coming here, I have only a very few on hand; for I have freely distributed them wherever I could find readers. I hope to report good fruit from the seed thus sown. Yesterday another person was baptized; she has become a Sabbath-keeper since our first baptism. We have here several persons who might make valuable laborers in the cause of God; but the most are so circumstanced that I know not how to get them into the work. My anguish of spirit is very great to see the work thus hindered. I long to witness the great salvation of God. I have had to labor under great difficulties. I think God is about to work in power in Switzerland, and to place in my hand greater facilities for the advancement of his work. I want men who can and will throw their whole energies into the work. I think I am willing to labor and to suffer. If I am not, God give me a heart that shall be thus willing. Hereafter, no doubt, we shall need some money; at present we need the converting power of God that shall make missionaries of our brethren here who are capable of becoming such. My anxiety for the work in America is intense, but I must give my time and strength to the work here. Brethren, pray for us, that God will help us to break through all the obstacles in the way of his work. La Coudre, Neuchatel, Aug. 29, 1875.