“THE Sabbath of Redemption” composes Part III. of “The Abiding Sabbath,” and in it throughout the author still diligently pursues his course of systematic self-contradiction. The first division of this part is, “The Testimony of Jesus Christ” upon the subject of the Sabbath, a few sentences of which we quote. He says:—
“As already shown, the Sabbath contained moral elements; it belonged not solely to Israel, but was sanctioned by the primitive revelation to the race, being the first article in the law of the beginning; it was a part of that sublime code which by the mouth of the Eternal himself was spoken to his chosen people from the mountain of God; its violation had been surrounded, in the Mosaic legislation and in the prophetic instructions, with penalties, and its observance with blessings, such as could hardly be attached to a simple institution of ritual. The abiding Sabbath, belonging to the moral law, is therefore not repealed or canceled by Jesus, but rather confirmed with new uses, loftier meanings, and holier objects. The ceremonial Sabbath is indeed done away, but the moral Sabbath abides by the authority of the Sabbath’s Lord.”—P. 159.
Then in speaking of the “false strictness” with which the Jews had surrounded and obscured the real intent of the Sabbath, and how Jesus swept this all away, he says:—
“There is not in all this any hint of the abolition of the Sabbath, or release from its obligations. The words of Jesus become meaningless when they are applied to anything but the abuses and perversions of its purposes by the Rabbinical schools. Had he desired to abolish it altogether, nothing would have been easier than to do so in terms. His words are everywhere framed with the utmost care, and strictly guarded against any construction which would involve a denial of the real sacredness of the day blessed by the Creator and sanctioned by the moral law.”—P. 161.
Now the day blessed by the Creator is the seventh day; for “God blessed the seventh day” is the word of God, and “The seventh day is the Sabbath” is the declaration of God in the moral law. Therefore we submit that as Christ’s words are “strictly guarded against any construction which would involve a denial of the real sacredness of the day blessed by the Creator and sanctioned by the moral law,” then the word of Christ binds every man to the observance of the seventh day, and forever debars any application of his teaching to any other than the seventh day; for God never blessed any but the seventh day, and none other than the seventh day is sanctioned, as the Sabbath, by the moral law.105
Again he says:—
“Jesus confirms the Sabbath on its spiritual basis. ‘The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath; therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath.’ . . . Thus he at once rid it of all the false restrictions of Judaism, and, establishing it upon its primitive foundations, he brought forth its higher reason in the assertion of its relation to the well-being of man. ‘The Sabbath was made for man;’ not for the Jew only, but for the whole race of mankind; not for one age alone, but for man universally, under every circumstance of time and place.”—P. 165.
Then in another place Mr. Elliott says further:—
“The declaration in Genesis furnishes the best commentary on the saying of Jesus: ‘The Sabbath was made for man.’”—P. 17.
The “declaration in Genesis” is: “And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it; because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.” We agree perfectly with Mr. Elliott, that that “furnishes the best commentary on the saying of Jesus,” in Mark 2:27. It is the Lord’s own commentary on his own word; it is his own explanation of his own statement. Therefore when, by any statement in any way, Mr. Elliott or any one else attempts to bring the first day of the week into place as the Sabbath, it is simply doing violence to the word of God, and is in direct contradiction to the divine commentary.
Now, in accordance with his scheme throughout, after having, by every principle of logic, established the obligation of the seventh day as the Sabbath, he proceeds at once to contradict it all. He says:—
“‘The Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath.’ This is an assertion by our Lord of his right to make such modifications in the law of the Sabbath, and give it such new adjustments as should to him seem best for the religious culture of the race. As Lord of the Sabbath, he doubtless had the power to set it entirely aside,—a power which certainly he has nowhere exercised, either by himself or through his apostles. He had a right to change its day and alter or add to its meanings,—a right which he has exercised in giving us the Lord’s day, the Christian Sabbath, and in making it a monument of redemption as well as of creation and providence. Because he is ‘Lord of the Sabbath,’ we can rightly call the Sabbath the Lord’s day, and the Lord’s day our Sabbath. That which he has asserted that he had the power to do, we have the right to assume that he has done, and we have, moreover, the right to infer that the change which came over the Sabbath’s institutions in the early Christian centuries was not without his will, but by his authority and in fulfillment of his purpose.”—Pages 168, 169.
Again:—
“More subtly than Moses, yet as really as the lawgiver in the wilderness, he was instituting a new Sabbath.”—P. 172.
Here are several points, upon each of which we wish to dwell for a moment. We take the last one first: “More subtly than Moses, yet as really . . . he was instituting a new Sabbath.” How subtly did Moses institute a new Sabbath? Why not at all, subtly or otherwise. Moses instituted no weekly Sabbath either new or old. God spoke the word from heaven: “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work;” as Mr. Elliott himself says, “Not by the mouth of angel or prophet came this sublimest code of morals; but the words were formed in air by the power of the Eternal himself.”—P. 117. But go back even beyond Sinai, to the wilderness of Sin, at the falling of the manna, nor yet there was it left to Moses to mark the day that was the Sabbath, much less was it given to him to institute the Sabbath. Here, again, Mr. Elliott states the case precisely: “God himself provided the feast in the wilderness which marked for them the weekly recurrence of the holy day. . . . The connection of the miraculous supply of food with the seventh day was certainly calculated to strongly impress the Sabbath upon the thoughts and imaginations of the people, and thus was laid the sure foundation for the Sinaitic legislation.”—P. 110.
That seventh day which was singled out for Israel by the miracle of the manna in the wilderness of Sin, and which was so kept before them for forty years, that was the identical seventh day which the word “formed in air by the power of the Eternal himself” declared to be the Sabbath of the Lord. And that was the very seventh day which that same word declared was the one on which God rested from creation, the day which he, at creation, blessed and sanctified. That was the only weekly Sabbath that was ever known to Moses or to Israel; and with its institution Moses had nothing whatever to do, either subtly or otherwise. And when Mr. Elliott brings in Christ as, “more subtly, than Moses, yet as really . . . instituting a new Sabbath,” it is simply saying, as a matter of fact, that Christ really instituted no new Sabbath at all. And that is the truth.
“That which he has asserted that he had the power to do, we have the right to assume he has done,” says Mr. Elliott. Is, then, the authority of the “Christian Sabbath” to rest upon assumption? Is the first day of the week to be brought in by an inference? The day that has received “the highest and strongest sanction possible even to Deity;” the day which has been specified in the word “formed in air by the power of the Eternal himself;” the day that was pointed out by weekly miracles for forty continuous years,—that is to be supplanted by one that is brought in merely upon the assumption that what the Lord has asserted that he had the power to do, he has done! But any such assumption is wholly illegitimate. And we shall prove by Mr. Elliott’s own words that this his assumption is simply willful.
Christ said, “The Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath day.” Now in that declaration there is just as much of an assertion of his power to entirely set aside the Sabbath, as there is of his power to change it. Therefore, upon Mr. Elliott’s proposition, there is just as much “right to assume” that Christ abolished the Sabbath, as there is to assume that he changed it. Mr. Elliott says: “As Lord of the Sabbath, he doubtless had the power to set it entirely aside.” Therefore, if his assertion of his power to do a thing gives right to the assumption that he has done it, why is it not right to assume that he has set it entirely aside? But no; Mr. Elliott will not at all allow that. But in the very next sentence he says: “He had the right to change its day,” and, “That which he has asserted that he had the power to do, we have the right to assume he has done,” therefore the inference is that whatever change has come over it was “by his authority and in fulfillment of his purpose.” We repeat, and this Mr. Elliott’s argument allows, that in Christ’s quoted words there is just as much assertion of the power to set the Sabbath “entirely aside,” or do with it any imaginable thing, as there is to “change its day;” and Mr. Elliott’s argument is just as sound a basis for the assumption that the Sabbath has been abolished, or that any other wild scheme has been accomplished with it, as it is for his assumption that it has been changed. And when Mr. Elliott lays down this proposition, which equally allows any assumption that the imagination might frame, it depends simply upon the wishes of the individual as to what shall be assumed, and therefore the assumption is wholly willful. Christ has asserted his power to call from their graves, all the dead; by Mr. Elliott’s proposition we have the right to assume that he has done it. Christ has asserted his power to destroy death; under this novel proposition we have the right to assume that he has done it. Everybody knows, however, that such assumptions would be absolutely false; but they would be no more so than is Mr. Elliott’s assumption that Christ changed the Sabbath. Mr. Elliott’s proposition is simply absurd. The fact is that we have no right to assume anything in the premises.
Christ said: “When ye shall have done all these things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants; we have done that which was our duty to do.” Luke 17:10. No man can do more than his duty. But when we have done all that is commanded, we have but done our duty. Therefore nothing can be duty that is not commanded. No man ever yet cited a commandment of God for keeping the first day of the week; there is no such commandment. Therefore until a commandment of God can be produced which enjoins the observance of the first day of the week, there can be no duty in that direction, Mr. Elliott’s five-hundred-dollar-prize assumptions to the contrary, notwithstanding.
Want of space forbids any further notice this week. Next week we shall notice his theory of a change of the day.
What Is Faith?
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
THIS question presented itself very forcibly to our mind a few days ago, when we read in a religious paper the following quotation from an eminent minister: “Faith is the true anæsthesis of the soul.” We do not propose to enter into a fine-spun theological discussion as to the exact definition of faith, but simply to cite a few instances of true faith, that we may see how the possession of it affects people.
Let us first get the meaning of the quotation. An anæsthetic is something which is administered to produce insensibility, so that surgical operations may be performed without pain to the patient. Anæsthesis is the state of insensibility which is produced by the administration of an anæsthetic. The meaning of the quotation, then, is that faith is that condition in which the soul has no sensibility, no consciousness. That is, it is a state in which the individual feels perfectly secure, having no care for surrounding circumstances.
“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” Heb. 11:1. Faith is active; it is keenly alive to all the dangers that surround, yet is confident, because it has a clear perception of certain evidence. Take the case of Caleb and Joshua. When the ten spies brought back an evil report, and said, “We be not able to go up against the people; for they are stronger than we,” these two men said, “Let us go up at once, and possess it; for we are well able to overcome it.” Num. 13:26-33. Was it because Caleb and Joshua did not understand the danger, that they were so confident? No; they had seen the walled cities, and the giants, before whom they were as grasshoppers. But they had faith in God. They said: “If the Lord delight in us, then he will bring us into this land, and give it us; . . . and the Lord is with us; fear them not.” Num. 14:8, 9. This was true faith.
When David went forth to answer the challenge of Goliath, he knew that the giant had for forty days defied the army of Israel. He did not in the least underestimate the giant’s strength and skill. But he believed that the One who had delivered him in his encounters with the wild beasts of the forest, would help him now. So the stripling went boldly toward the giant, saying, “Thou comest to me with a sword, and with a spear, and with a shield; but I come to thee in the name of the Lord of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel, whom thou hast defied. This day will the Lord deliver thee into mine hand; and I will smite thee, and take thine head from thee.” 1 Sam. 17:45, 46. David knew the power of the giant; but he believed the evidence which he had received, that the Lord is stronger than all, and willing to help those who trust him. This was true faith.
But it is worthy of note, that although David said to Goliath, “This day will the Lord deliver thee into mine hand,” he did not sit down and wait for the Lord to deliver the giant into his hands. He made use of the means which the Lord had provided, believing that the Lord would bless them.
Take the case of Paul on his sea-voyage to Rome. Among the two hundred and seventy-six souls on board the vessel, Paul alone was calm and unmoved amid the terrible tempest. Could it be that he was insensible to the danger? By no means. He had many times been on the sea, and he realized the danger of the situation better than any one else did. When the sailors thought the prospect was favorable, Paul had told them that the voyage would end disastrously. Acts 27:9-11. What was the source of his courage? Hear his words to the passengers and crew: “There shall be no loss of any man’s life among you, but of the ship. For there stood by me this night the angel of God, whose I am, and whom I serve, saying, Fear not, Paul; thou must be brought before Cæsar; and, lo, God hath given thee all them that sail with thee. Wherefore, sirs, be of good cheer; for I believe God, that it shall be even as it was told me.” Acts 27:22-25.
Paul’s belief in the promise of God, however, did not keep him from putting forth every possible effort for the safety of himself and his fellow-passengers. He exhorted them to eat, that they might retain their strength, and he hindered the sailors from leaving the ship, declaring that if they should leave, the rest could not be saved. The sailors were needed on board the ship, to do all that they could towards managing it. It is worthy of note, also, that because these people were saved in answer to his prayers, Paul did not set up in the life-saving business, and advertise that he would deliver from shipwreck all sailors who would take him along to pray for them.
The definition which we quoted is incorrect, because anæsthesis, indifference to danger, leads one to make no effort for self-preservation; and faith which is unaccompanied by works is no faith at all, for “faith without works is dead.” That which is dead has no existence.
Sometimes that which is called faith is only blindness or negligence. For instance, there are many professors who, no doubt, pray for their children, and who therefore have, as they think, faith that they will be saved. Yet they do nothing more than pray occasionally for the children, and leave them practically without restraint. Now is it a manifestation of faith for the parents to believe that their children will be saved? Not at all; for the “evidence” is all against such a result. “A child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame,” says the Bible. Self-deception and careless security are altogether different from faith.
Thousands have no thought but that they will enter Heaven at last. Under certain circumstances it is proper to have faith that we shall be saved; but if the conditions are not met, there is no ground even for hope. What are the conditions? “If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments,” says the Saviour. Again: “Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.” Rev. 22:14. We may believe in Christ after a manner, that is, we may believe that he is the Son of God; but unless our belief leads to obedience, it is not true faith in Christ, because Christ suffered for us in order “that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us.”
“Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works; show me thy faith without thy works, and I will show thee my faith by my works.” James 2:18. E. J. W.
The Missionary.
By Editor
Christian Tithing.
UNDER the above head a correspondent of the Watchman, a Baptist paper of Boston, speaks as follows:—
“Being a firm believer in the law of giving, as taught in the New Testament as well as in the Old, I have prepared the following figures with the hope that it may incite some to begin with the new year the practice of tithing their income. If all members of Christian churches should do this, every institution of learning would be amply endowed, every minister in the land would have a comfortable support, every church debt would be paid, every missionary debt would be wiped out, and the treasuries of all our benevolent societies would be overflowing.”
He then makes an estimate of the Baptist denomination. Considering the numbers and standing of the members of that body, we cannot say but that his calculation is within bounds:—
“In round numbers there belong to the Baptist family of the United States 2,500,000.
Suppose 50 have an income of $50,000 each ....$ 500,000.00
Suppose 100 have $25,000 each .... 2,500,000.00
Suppose 5,000 have $10,000 each .... 50,000,000.00
Suppose 10,000 have $5,000 each .... 50,000,000.00
Suppose 10,000 have $2,500 each .... 25,000,000.00
Suppose 10,000 have $1,500 each .... 15,000,000.00
Suppose 20,000 have $1,000 each .... 20,000,000.00
Suppose 50,000 have $500 a year .... 25,000,000.00
Suppose 1,000,000 $1.00 a day, or $250 a year .... 250,000,000.00
Total estimated income from 1,105,110 persons...$488,000,000.00
“Take 1,105,110 from total membership of 2,500,000, and it would leave 1,394,890, more than one-half, who are not calculated to give one cent.
“Ten per cent. on the estimated income would be $48,800,000, which is $37,000,000 more than is now contributed from all sources and for all objects! When will the Christian church awake to her duty and high privilege of giving?
C. W. G.”
On this the editor comments as follows:—
“It is unhappily too true that the majority of those who profess that they are Christ’s know very little of the truth of his remembered saying, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’ The number is very small who have any other system of giving than to give as little as they can and save appearances; and many do not try to save appearances. In these observations we do not include the payment of pew-rents. That is payment ‘for value received,’ not giving. The greater part of all that is given for missions and the various departments of associated benevolence is given by comparatively few. Divide the whole sum by the whole number of church members, and find the average; then deduct from the whole sum the larger donations; deduct the number of large donors from the whole number, and again divide, and see how small is the average gift. Thus, the churches of Massachusetts reported last year an average of eighty-four cents a member for foreign missions. But some doubtless gave thousands, some hundreds, some fifties, some tens of dollars. The remainder, the large majority, must have given much less than eighty-four cents each.
“It is not wonderful that this state of things should excite anxious concern, not for the cause106of Christ so much as for our brethren's sake. Andrew Fuller remarks that covetousness is the ruin of more souls than almost any other sin; for it is the only sin that one can cherish without forfeiting his Christian profession.”
In the calculation of C. W. G. there is no account taken of “offerings,” which, if properly made, would largely swell the amount.
The editor, while enforcing the remarks of the correspondent, dissents from his view that the law of tithing is in force. We believe that to this lax view is to be attributed the barrenness of the churches of this age. If the duty of tithing had been continuously taught and enforced by Scripture testimony, the treasuries of the churches would not be empty, missionary efforts would not be left to suffer, and the influence would be felt in the quickened consciences of the members, and in a greatly increased interest in Christian effort.
If all Christians could be brought to believe and realize that Mal. 3:8-12 speaks to them, no one can conceive the influence which it might have on the work of the church. Read it again and again. EDITOR.
NEHEMIAH was cupbearer to Artaxerxes Longimanus, king of Persia, who reigned B. c. 464-425. It was in the twentieth year (B. c. 444) of Artaxerxes Longimanus, that Hanani and "certain men of Judah" came to Susa, the winter palace of the kings of Persia, and Nehemiah inquired of them "concerning the Jews that had escaped, which were left of the captivity, and concerning Jerusalem." And they said, "The remnant that are left of the captivity there in the province are in great affliction and reproach; the wall of Jerusalem also is broken down, and the gates thereof are burned with fire." It was now fully ninety years since the laying of the foundation of the temple, as recorded in last week's lesson; and although the temple had been finished some time, yet the walls still remained in ruins as they had been left by Nebuchadnezzar.
AS WAS learned in the lesson of last week, about 50,000 people returned to Jerusalem under the decree of Cyrus in 536 B. c. They had no sooner got the temple under way than serious opposition arose. The people who had been sent into Samaria by Sargon (2 Kings 17:24-33) and Esar-haddon (Ezra 4:2, 9, 10), kings of Assyria, and who had thus inhabited the land of Israel since the captivity of the ten tribes, came and proposed to help the Jews in building the temple. But as these were really heathen, though pretending in a manner to fear Jehovah, "Zerubbabel, and Jeshua, and the rest of the chief of the fathers of Israel, said unto them, Ye have nothing to do with us to build an house unto our God; but we ourselves together will build unto the Lord God of Israel." It would be an immense benefit to both the church and the world, if this spirit were found in the work of the church at the present day, instead of so many fairs, festivals, grab-bags, fish-ponds, ring-cakes, raffles, and gambling enterprises generally, by which the world is inveigled into the support of the church. True, the opposition of the world would be greater, but so would the devotion of the church.
WHEN these people found they could have no part in the building, they employed every possible means to hinder it. They hired counselors against them at the court of Cyrus, but to no purpose; and as soon as Cyrus was dead, and Cambyses reigned, they wrote to him "an accusation against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem" (Cambyses, B. c. 529-522, is the Ahasuerus of Ezra 4:6); but their accusation was of no avail with Cambyses, and so the work went on in spite of their opposition. But Cambyses was no sooner dead, than they renewed their efforts and wrote a letter to his successor, Smerdis (the Artaxerxes of Ezra 4:7-23); and he, being an enemy to the religion of Cyrus and Cambyses, was glad of an opportunity to oppose a work which they had favored, and so he issued a decree that the work should stop; and the Samaritans hurried up to Jerusalem, and made the Jews "cease by force and power." The reign of Smerdis only continued from the spring of B. c. 522 to the end of the year. January 1, B. c. 521, Darius Hystaspes (Ezra 4:24) came to the throne of Persia, and in the beginning of his second year Haggai and Zechariah the prophets stirred up the people to carry forward the work, and the building began again.
THE work had no sooner begun again than the Samaritans renewed their opposition, and wrote a letter to Darius, but as they were different men from those who had written the other letters, they gave a very fair account of the matter, as they had received it from the Jews. They told him that the Jews claimed to be working under authority of a decree of Cyrus, and asked him to look among the records and see whether there was any such decree. Darius did so, and found the original decree; whereupon he made a decree commanding the Samaritans to not only let the Jews alone, but to give them expenses from the king's tribute to help in building, and animals for burnt offerings, and wheat, salt, wine, and oil. And so the house "was finished on the third day of the month Adar, which was in the sixth year of the reign of Darius the king." Ezra 5; 6:22.
AFTER this for sixty years we have nothing further in regard to affairs in Jerusalem. In the seventh year of Artaxerxes Longimanus, B. c. 457, he issued a decree under which Ezra led up from Babylon about 7,000 people. But though Ezra and his company went up there to help build the city and the wall (Ezra 9:9), yet the people had so intermarried with the nations around them, in taking strange wives from among them, that all Ezra's time was occupied in reforming these things, and re-establishing and regulating the worship of God and the service of the house of God, and in bringing back the people to obedience to the word of God. And on this account the building of the wall was neglected for thirteen years longer, till the time of Nehemiah, as given in the lesson of to-day.
NEHEMIAH received letters from Artaxerxes Longimanus to the governors beyond the Euphrates, and so departed and came to Jerusalem. But "when Sanballat the Horonite, and Tobiah the servant, the Ammonite, heard of it, it grieved them exceedingly that there was come a man to seek the welfare of the children of Israel." When Nehemiah had been there three days, he arose in the night and viewed the ruins of the wall round about the city; then he called upon all the people, and said, "Come, and let us build up the wall of Jerusalem, that we be no more a reproach." "And they said, Let us rise up and build. So they strengthened their hands for this good work." The work was apportioned among the people and the priests, and every one built over against his own house. "So the wall was finished in the twenty and fifth day of the month Elul, in fifty and two days." Neh. 6:15. If each one would, over against his own house, build up the wall of Christian character, the troubles in the church would all cease, and the work of God would prosper.
NEHEMIAH remained there twelve years as governor, at his own charges; and at his table were supported "one hundred and fifty of the Jews and rulers, beside those that came to" him "from among the heathen; . . . yet for all this required not the bread of the governor, because the bondage was heavy upon this people." "But the former governors that had been before me were chargeable unto the people, and had taken of them bread and wine,107beside forty shekels of silver; yea, even their servants bare rule over the people; but so did not I, because of the fear of God." Neh. 5:14-18. Nehemiah is one of the most entirely unselfish men mentioned in the Bible. He sought the good of the people always, "in everything acting always in the fear of God."
Idaho Territory.
By D. T. Fero
I ARRIVED in this Territory with my family December 25. The first two weeks were passed in making a home for the winter, and in getting acquainted with the situation of the cause, and laboring for the brethren as the way opened. We found some hindrances to the growth and influence of the cause here; but by the help of the Spirit of God there has been awakened a general desire on the part of the brethren and sisters to see all obstacles removed and the work built up. The two Sabbath-schools have united, the tract and missionary work has been revived, and an outside interest seems to be developing. Altogether, the cause in this vicinity presents a more encouraging aspect, for which we feel thankful to God.
Sunday, January 10, I commenced meetings at Franklin school-house, about twenty miles down the river from Boise City, where an interest had been previously awakened. Since then several have commenced Sabbath observance, a Sabbath-school has been started, and a club of ten Instructors ordered.
I am now in the midst of a second series of meetings at Fairview, a school-house about four miles from Franklin. We hope for fruit here.
There are calls for meetings coming in from different places faster than I can fill them, and altogether, the outlook is encouraging. We hope to be led by the Spirit of God in building up the cause in this new field. D. T. FERO.
Boise City failed to report. CARRIE E. MILLS,
Secretary.
Good Inclinations and Good Actions
God never accepts a good inclination instead of good action, where that action may be done; and so much the contrary, that if a good inclination be not seconded by a good action, the want of that action is made so much the more criminal.—Sel.
Mason Valley, Nevada.
By E. A. Briggs
HAVING closed the meetings at Empire with an addition of five names to the church covenant, I began meetings at Mason Valley. I here find a people who are willing to give the truth a fair hearing; and the school-house in which I speak is crowded each evening. Dozens admit that we have the truth; and five adults have begun the observance of the Lord's Sabbath. We have strong hopes that the good work here will continue to go forward.
My post-office address, until March 18, will be Mason Valley, Lyon County, Nev.