Earlier text: White Robes: The Great Multitude of Revelation 7If Seventh-day Adventists and Seventh-day Baptists do not learn what is wise in reference to their relation to each other, it will not be because the question is not extensively discussed. In the Sabbath Recorder of Jan. 1 appears another article under this heading, this time by Eld. J. Bailey, containing some propositions which look to us like a singular sort of wisdom, to say the least of them. The opening paragraph reads thus:— “The fraternization with the Adventists involves an acceptance or endorsement of their faith. Are we prepared to do it in the following items?” The word “fraternization,” rigidly defined, may perhaps sustain this declaration; but we were not aware that any such fraternization had ever been proposed or sought by either denomination; but when taken in its obviously intended sense as commonly employed to signify merely friendly or cordial relations with each other, it will be news to most of Eld. Bailey’s readers to learn that they cannot sustain such relations to S. D. Adventists without endorsing all their faith! Having drawn out this extreme principle for a foundation, he proceeds to enumerate the items which they must “endorse” if they “fraternize.” The first is a quotation from Experience and Views, as presented in “Thoughts on Revelation,” p. 320, on which he comments in the following strain: “The prophetess of the Advent faith claims,” etc. The next is that “an adhering Adventist” told him “that Ellen G. White, the prophetess of Adventism, said that ‘if any one who had received the Advent faith apostatized from it, they could not be saved.’” The next is that a “good spiritual brother” told him, “that a leading Advent preacher taught that the visions of Ellen G. White were as sacred as the writings of Paul or John, and further that if he should go to the brother’s house and drink tea in which he had put poison, it would not hurt him if he did not know the poison was in it.” Isn’t this so far a beautiful showing? Isn’t here a peck of trouble with the “visions of Ellen G. White,” in reference to whom he is careful to ring the changes on the word prophetess? Where did he get that word in connection with her name? Did he find it in any of our published works? Did he ever see such a claim put forth by any of our writers, or ever see it from her pen, or hear it from her lips? It is not a word which we claim or use in connection with her work. But there is a class of opponents to the visions, wicked, no-Sabbath fellows, who, whenever they wish to raise prejudice, ring in the word “prophetess.” We are sorry Eld. B. has suffered himself to adopt the same style, as he thereby places himself in a false, or at least an unenviable, light. He, with all others, has every opportunity of knowing how the visions are held by this people; that they are regarded simply as manifestations of the gifts of the Spirit, which according to Paul were “set in the church,” and that in their matter they are to be tested by the Bible, Isa. 8:20; 1 John 4:1; 1 Thess. 5:19-21, and as to their nature and origin, are to be judged by their fruits. Matt. 7:15-20. Hedged about by such safeguards, there need be no serious cause of alarm, surely. Now as to the view of the tree of life, Thoughts on Revelation, p. 320, we see no contradiction, but rather an explanation, of the language of John. As to the statement about those who apostatize from the Advent faith, whoever reports it had better get it from the lips of Mrs. White herself. There is a world of gossip afloat in regard to her teaching which has no foundation either in reason or fact, for which she is in no way responsible. A report is no evidence. Where has she written it, or who has heard her say it? But it yet remains to be seen whether any of the class spoken of will be saved or not. It isn’t a subject on which any demonstration exists on either side, and hence is a poor subject for controversy. As to the sacredness of the visions compared with the writings of Paul or John, the reader can judge for himself which occupies the higher position: that which is the standard by which to test all other writings, or those other writings which are to be tested by it. And as to the tea with poison in it, all our “leading ministers” have taken the teetotal pledge, and do not drink tea, so of course they would not be hurt by any poison placed therein! But, seriously, does Eld. B. suppose that any one who fraternizes with S. D. Adventists is obliged to endorse what a good spiritual brother told him that he understood a “leading Advent preacher” to teach, and to believe that poison would not have hurt him if he had drunk it? Isn’t it possible that Eld. B.’s brother, “good and spiritual” though he be, might misunderstand what the “leading Advent preacher” taught, or be a little inclined to overdraw, and so give him an incorrect story to repeat? Or, on the other hand, isn’t it just possible that some may have come into our ranks who are ignorant, narrow-minded, and perhaps superstitious and fanatical, for whose rash assertions the body is not to be held accountable? But when it comes to gathering up these hearsay declarations, or taking what one supposes another25 to teach, and putting them in as argument, and representing that every one is required to endorse them, we ask, not only, Is it wise? but, is it a manifestation of that fairness and courtesy which gentlemen, to say nothing of Christians, have a right to expect from one another? Eld. B. continues: “They teach that man, made in the image of God, is material, and that he does not receive eternal life till after the resurrection. Christ says, ‘My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.’ If this eternal life is not received till the resurrection, we are yet unregenerated and in our sins.” Do we understand this last declaration? Are the unregenerate destitute of eternal life? and when a man is converted does he then receive his immortal soul? This is what the language asserts. And if the regenerate man backslides and is cast away, what becomes of his eternal life? And what about the person who ever remains unregenerate? He of course never has eternal life. This is coming to our side on the more weighty branch of this great question. We, too, believe that when a man is regenerated he receives eternal life, not in absolute possession, but where John says it is, in the Son of God. “And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life; and this life is in his Son.” John 5:11. We quote another paragraph as follows:— “A leading Advent minister, after persuading certain Seventh-day Baptists to unite with an Advent church, said to them, ‘You must give one-tenth of your income, or you steal from the Lord.’ Under this pressure one man pledged ten dollars who could not pay his debts, and had not bought his wife a dress in eight years. Another one, who had to borrow grain to sow, and go barefoot till he could sell his crop, was required to pledge one-tenth of his crop. These statements I had from an adhering Adventist. Did Christ direct the gospel to be preached to the poor in this way? I ‘trow not.’” These are interesting cases. We shall seek to learn more of them. But the assertion that one was required to pledge one-tenth of his crop, we venture to deny. The duty of paying a tithe is preached, but it is left to each one to act voluntarily in the matter. But it seems these persons had not succeeded very well before they adopted our faith. The one who as a Seventh-day Baptist had not bought his wife a dress in eight years, we anticipate will make a better record as a Seventh-day Adventist, paying both his debts and his tithe, and buying his wife a new dress perhaps as often as once in four years! We shall look with interest to see how the matter comes out. “In connection with a four months’ labor in a Seventh-day Baptist church to convert them to Adventism, they were told ‘all the honest would join them’ (the Adventists). Is honesty dead with all but them?” If we thought honesty was dead with all others, we should certainly expect no more accessions to our ranks. The fact that we do set before others what we believe to be truth, with the expectation that some will receive it, is a refutation of the inference, if not of the assertion. But who says this? Is it the action of any of our Conferences or the declaration of any of our books or papers? We would like to know, really, by what we are to be judged. And finally, Eld. B. refers to the “conjecture” concerning the seven thunders, in Thoughts on Revelation 10:3, 4, and asks, “Does that mean that God defeats his own purposes by revealing them to his people?” By no means. The object of the “conjecture” was only to show that where it would defeat his purposes he did not reveal. But we have never pressed any one to “endorse” a “conjecture.” And is this all? All. Or at least the best and strongest, which would of course be brought forward first. Let not these remarks be misunderstood. We are not pleading for S. D. Baptists to endorse our faith on points wherein we differ; neither do we propose to adopt theirs. But we think it would present a better appearance to the world and tend more to promote the best interests of the Sabbath cause, if the two bodies should maintain a friendly attitude toward each other than otherwise. But some on their side seem unwilling to do this; and we simply wish our readers to understand the reasons which they offer in justification of their position. We shall probably have no occasion to refer to this subject farther. Our Christmas tree was kept standing till the evening of New Year's, when another meeting was held in the Tabernacle. The object of the occasion was to bring in gifts, in money, clothing, or provision, for the poor. The exercises consisted of prayer, an address by sister White, choice selections of vocal music, and the gathering of the fruit of the tree. And this is what the tree bore:— Cash, $67.83; orders on groceries and provision stores to the amount of $14.50; and articles of clothing, including 25 coats, 2 overcoats, 21 pairs of pants, 22 vests, 30 shirts, 27 prs. of ladies' and children's hose, 12 ladies' sacks, 17 dresses, besides boots, shoes, hats, caps, mufflers, scarfs, sacks, items of provision, etc., etc., too numerous to mention, amounting in value to $169.92. The total contributions amounted to $252.25. Some of the citizens of the place, not connected with our denomination, added their offerings to the general store. It was left with the committee of the Maternal Association and the deacons of the church to see that the articles were judiciously distributed among the needy. UNDER the heading of “The Manners,” the Alliance of Dec. 20, 1879, uses the following severe language respecting the reduplication and republication of the Moody and Sankey hymns and hymn-books, and the unworthy course of those who produce this kind of literature professedly in the cause of Christ and for the good of the people. Who will say that it is not just? The avarice of the publishers is exhibited to a degree which well might cause even angels to weep, and which will meet at last its just recompense of reward. But what means this lamentation over widespread spiritual dearth right on the heels of the great excitement and so-called revivals raised by these modern traveling evangelists? It shows that the root of genuine Christian reform is not in that work. And the lack lies upon the very surface. There must be more of the law of God, and less of the merely sensational. The Alliance says:— “Our reference to the Moody and Sankey hymns evoked a reply from a correspondent who writes: ‘Be careful; these books are popular because they have many first-class hymns and tunes, and partly because of a general interest among Christians.’ He also states that only forty-eight hymns and twenty-seven tunes are reduplicated in volume second. That is only forty-eight hymns out of one hundred and thirty-three, or nineteen less than one-half, and twenty-seven out of one hundred and four tunes, or four more than one-fourth of the whole. We are told on authority that at least eight or nine millions of copies of these books have been sold, so that not less than three or four millions of these reduplicated hymns have been imposed upon the gullible American public, and still they continue to come like the added plagues of Egypt. Oh, for some new Moses to command them back to destruction and eternal silence!” ‘A new edition has just appeared which unites all three volumes without the reduplications, and now we are threatened with a new plague. A large army of these Moody hymnized people will be tempted to a repurchase, because of the added third volume. It is simply a new dodge of the publishers to scatter more of their light trash over the land. The third volume is relied on to sell the other two. As Bradbury said, ‘We publish a few good tunes to sell the trash!’ ‘The fraud of the whole affair appears when we consider that these hymns were written as revival hymns, and now that they have entered a multitude of Sabbath-schools and prayer-meetings, the few hymns which are adapted to prayer-meetings the publishers hold with an iron grasp of remorseless avarice. They have a truly Christian (?) interest in the public welfare. If the Sunday-schools or churches want the good hymns, they must buy the whole triple bundle of trash, or do without. The publishers even declare, ‘The Sunday-school Union has no right to publish a Sunday-school hymn-book.’ Therefore the whole truth is that the publishers are interested in bleeding the Christian public millions of dollars to gratify their over-reaching avarice. It is high time the public understood it. The reason why the few good Moody and Sankey hymns do not appear in Robinson’s collection is because the publishers will not sell them at any price. They have too good a thing to part with it, even to accommodate the millions of American Christians. Fellow-Christians, read and understand. It is well known that the present is full of spiritual dearth, and these hymns are largely accountable for it. They will kill the spirit of any prayer-meeting; there is no stimulation in them. Let any pastor try them a year, and he will find dearth has gradually settled over his prayer-meeting. If they are good and helpful, why, with the millions spread all over the land, is there so much spiritual dearth? Sweep out these books which teach so little truth, and that little under a perverted imagery, and the Spirit of God may again return to the land. Remove the plague, and the people may again live.’ THE following communication from Eld. A. E. Main, relative to the article, “Is the Sabbath Anything?” which appeared in REVIEW No. 25, last volume, we submit, at his request, to our readers:— TO THE EDITOR OF THE REVIEW AND HERALD: It has been neither my desire nor purpose to engage in a discussion of the differences between the Seventh-day Adventists and Seventh-day Baptists; for I believe that such discussions are generally without profit, particularly when there exist fundamentally different principles of interpreting the Scriptures. What I have written, therefore,26 was not with the idea of enlightening your people or of attacking their faith, but with sole reference to what seem to me to be the interests of our own cause. And my object in asking for a little space in your paper is to make this statement, and to correct one of your most important mistakes respecting my position. You quote from my article as follows: “We need not and do not fear to meet their errors in equal and open conflict; but if we shut our eyes to our danger, the conflict will, through our own fault, become an unequal one, and the battle may go against us;” and then add the following explanation of my meaning: “We know not how else this language can be taken only as an open challenge for public contests over our differences of opinion, and a recommendation to his brethren to enter upon an immediate and vigorous crusade against S. D. Adventists.” Your “deduction from the language” is as incorrect and groundless as it is strange. This was my meaning: Truth and error are always in conflict. The grave and practical errors of your faith, as I believe them to be, will in one way and another be placed before our people, and before those to whom we wish to carry the gospel; and the way of safety and prosperity is such a course as shall leave no room for doubt as to the practical and weighty significance we attach to the doctrinal differences between the two denominations. Yours truly, A. E. MAIN.
Ashaway, R. I., December, 1879. The Signs of the Times of Dec. 4, 1879, calls attention to the fact that all no-Sabbath teachers agree exactly in the enunciation of their theories to the extent of the following four words: “The Sabbath was abolished,”—but then comes a long and perplexing blank as to the other questions which immediately follow; namely, when? how? and by whom? “The Sabbath was abolished”—all agree so far; but to the question, when? a multitude of answers are given. How? more difference still. By whom? still more confusion. So far as to say that the Sabbath was abolished, they all run together; on the other questions necessary to the complete presentation of the idea, they spread out like a fan. In contrast with this, look at Sabbath arguments from Maine to Oregon, in America, Europe, and Africa; a unit from beginning to end. Here is the stamp of divinity. This is one of the great facts which the truth presents as its credentials. When will our opponents agree on some line of argument? We have been calling for this for years. We call still. Until they do this, would it not be more consistent for them to confine their efforts to the conversion of each other. And until this is accomplished, can they with any very good grace attack a system all the adherents of which see eye to eye? CONFOUNDING POSTERITY.
By Editor
WE read with immense satisfaction anything which tends to prick the bubble of conceit and assumption in which so many self-styled scientists encase themselves while delivering their turgid disquisitions on science falsely so-called. The New York Times reads them a good lesson in the following paragraph, showing how people in the year 3,000 (if, we are compelled to add, that year was ever to come) would be scientifically accounting for what is taking place to-day on the most absurd hypotheses. Just so absurd would many of the present theories of past geological changes appear to one who lived in those ages, could he be permitted now to visit the earth. “While, as a matter of taste, there cannot be two opinions in regard to the removal of the Egyptian obelisks from Egypt, very grave objections may be made to it in the interests of archæology. In the dim future, the wide distribution of obelisks will give rise to a variety of conflicting but equally erroneous theories. No one in that remote and presumably intensely scientific age will believe that the Romans, the French, the English, and the Americans were guilty of carrying off obelisks. In the year 3,000 there will be archæologists who will insist that the obelisk builders were a race that at one time extended over Europe, Africa, and America, and erected obelisks as mile-stones. Others will claim that the obelisks were not the work of human hands, but were produced by crystallization in the polar regions, and were distributed over the earth by the action of glaciers during the glacial period. Reams of arguments will be written by the defenders of these rival theories, the former of which will doubtless be upheld by the believers in religion, while the latter will be supported by the positivists. The religious archæologist will trace resemblance between the hieroglyphics of the engraved obelisks and the scratches made by the small boy of the present age on the sides of the school-house and its contiguous fences, and will thus strengthen his theory of the wide distribution of the obelisk-building race. The positivists will, of course, deny that hieroglyphics prove the existence of conscious hieroglyphic cutters, and will persist that crystallization determined the form of the obelisk, and that the grinding of their surfaces during the slow motion of the glaciers marked them with the so-called hieroglyphics.” THREE THOUSAND SUBSCRIBERS EACH FOR REVIEW AND HERALD AND GOOD HEALTH.
By S. N. Haskell
We have reached an important time in the history of this work. The enlargement of the REVIEW marks a new era in its history. I have before me one of the first numbers of volume one of Present Truth, what is now the ADVENT REVIEW AND SABBATH HERALD. It is an eight-page sheet, six by nine inches, with two columns on a page, and was published semi-monthly. The first number was sent out in July, 1849. The REVIEW is now issued weekly in its present enlarged size. The question we wish to propose is, Shall its circulation be increased during the first quarter by six thousand new subscribers? Every one we have heard speak concerning this matter since it has been decided to enlarge the REVIEW, has thought that it might be increased by more than that number. We firmly believe that it can and will be done. HOW THIS CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED.
A co-operation on the part of our ministers and tract societies could easily do this, and also give us six thousand permanent subscribers for Good Health. The report of the General Conference shows that we have one hundred and forty-four ministers and five hundred and ninety-nine churches. This does not include unorganized companies. We also have over twenty regularly organized State tract societies, with about one hundred and twenty-five districts. Estimating that only one hundred of these ministers are laboring in the field, and that they secure but ten subscribers for each of these periodicals, this would amount to one thousand each for the REVIEW and Good Health. Should the librarians from each of the five hundred and ninety-nine churches send in five subscribers each, and the two hundred and fifty district officers each ten more, for each of these periodicals, we should, during this quarter, have increased the circulation of both the REVIEW and Good Health by six thousand and five hundred subscriptions. Now, is it unreasonable to expect this much from these parties? We are making an effort to encourage canvassers in every part of the field, and will not our ministers and T. and M. officers pledge themselves to secure, either personally or through the T. and M. members, the number of subscribers we have suggested for both the REVIEW and Good Health? If a man with a worldly object in view can in a few days instruct and inspire five men out of twenty-five to be successful canvassers, should not the officers in our army of missionary workers be able to encourage conscientious men and women to work for God and the salvation of precious souls, by obtaining at least twenty subscribers for these periodicals in three months? In any worldly business, if a man could not accomplish as much as this he would not be employed forty-eight hours. The time has come when we should look upon this matter in a different light from that in which we have heretofore regarded it. Is there a minister or T. and M. officer who will not labor to obtain subscribers himself, and to interest and instruct in the same work others among whom he is daily mingling? Shall we have the three thousand subscribers as above suggested? I know our brethren and sisters are willing to do what they can, and if our ministers and T. and M. officers will heartily respond to this call, as we believe they will, a larger number of subscribers than we have called for will be obtained before April 1, 1880. CAN'T AFFORD IT.
By Stephen N. Haskell
ALL over the field, special efforts are now being made to extend the circulation of our periodicals, so that they shall be taken by every family among S. D. Adventists, and by others who may be interested in the progress of the work. There is not a single family that can read the English language and that observe the commandments of God, but that should have the REVIEW, Good Health, and the Youth's Instructor. But in our efforts to obtain subscribers, we are frequently met with—“I can't afford it; would be glad to take the papers if I were able.” They manifest great interest in the papers and in the truth, and yet their limited circumstances prevent their subscribing. Now, could it be shown that a family is too poor to pay for the paper, there are scores of our people to every such family who would gladly pay the subscription price. But who are those who can't afford to take these papers? How much sacrifice have they ever made to take them? Have they ever deprived themselves of one luxury? Have they in any degree practiced self-denial that they might take these periodicals? When a family has gone as far and practiced as much self-denial as a tobacco-inebriate will for his tobacco, or the tea and coffee drinkers for their idols, and then has failed, our tract societies will pick up every such case, and send them our periodicals free. But it may be said, We do not use tobacco, tea, nor coffee,—which cannot always be said where they plead poverty,—then we ask, Are there not other luxuries which can be dispensed with? There are families that do not feel able to have our publications and take our periodicals, and yet they can purchase a musical instrument at an expense of hundreds of dollars, and pay their regular installments on it. In many families that do not feel able to take our periodicals, is there not a sufficient amount unnecessarily expended upon the wardrobe of the sisters and children to pay for them? Neither does family extravagance lie altogether in dress and music; but not unfrequently we find individuals who cannot afford to take our periodicals or even to pay S. B., who yet pay annually more money for candy and such nicknacks than would be necessary to furnish them with all our periodicals and the three volumes of Spirit of Prophecy. But this money has been paid out by littles, and so the amount expended is not realized. Many articles that help to swell the table expenses are not needful for health, but are used simply for the gratification of taste; and by curtailing these so little that they would hardly be missed, sufficient could be saved to pay for the REVIEW, Good Health, and the Instructor. If one cent a day were laid aside during the year, it would pay for the REVIEW, Good Health, and the Instructor at club rates, and leave fifteen cents for Sabbath-offerings. Is there any family that could not deny themselves this much without suffering? Would it not be well to consider the real reason why our periodicals are not taken? Is there not danger of our feeling that we are poor, and cannot afford it, when the fault is wholly in ourselves? Do we really want these publications? Do we desire them as our daily food? If so, we believe the families are very few that cannot pay for them. There are hundreds of our more able brethren, to say nothing of our tract societies, who would gladly help every worthy poor family to this reading matter; but there should first be a willingness manifested to sacrifice those things indulged in simply for the gratification of appetite or pride, for the sake of taking these periodicals. We hope that these things will be properly considered, and viewed in their moral bearing. It is not a question of personal convenience, and of that which relates alone to this life, but it is a question which pertains to our eternal interest. DEFEATED, YET NOT DEFEATED.
By Stephen Nelson Haskell
It has been my practice while visiting churches, especially of late, to ascertain the spiritual standing of its members, to learn if any are using tobacco, tea, coffee, or indulging in any habit contrary to the principles of health and temperance as held by S. D. Adventists. Such evil practices, as well as the neglect of family prayer, are cancers which consume the vitals of piety in any believer in present truth. If indulged in by prominent members, whole churches not unfrequently languish, die, and become extinct, in27 consequence. God’s Holy Spirit will not continue to dwell in a body saturated with alcohol, tobacco, or any poison which enslaves the God-given powers of the mind, which distinguish man from the brute creation and connect him with the Infinite. Here lies the moral wrong of these injurious practices. I visited a small town in California where there were but a few who regularly met on God’s holy Sabbath. Some of these had habits which were a source of weakness to them. These habits were more the result of carelessness and a lack of realizing the evil of these things than wilfulness on their part. One of the brethren was a tobacco-user. We spent some time trying to prevail upon them to sign the teetotal pledge, for any S. D. Adventist should be ashamed to sign either one of the others, and some of the brethren did so. One brother who used coffee said he would sign, if the brother who used tobacco would. The wife of the coffee-drinker would leave off the use of tea if her husband would give up coffee. My interest in the matter became great, as these persons were the most influential members in the church. I used every argument, and urged as much as I thought proper, but did not succeed. With an indescribable distress of mind I preached two sermons during the remaining portion of the day, and retired at night feeling that it was only a question of time when that company would become extinct, unless others should be raised up to take their places. My rest that night was much disturbed; but in the morning before I had arisen, this tobacco-using brother, who lived half a mile or more distant, opened my bedroom door, his face beaming with happiness, and cried, “Halloo! I have come to sign that pledge and stop that tea and coffee.” He did sign it, and went away a happy man in God. I should here state that the only reason why he refused to sign it the day before was that he feared his inability to keep the pledge. I thanked God, and took courage. SIGNS OF THE TIMES TO ENGLAND.
By W. C. W.
MUCH good has been done by our T. and M. workers in sending the Signs of the Times to Eld. Loughborough, who has remailed them to all parts of the British dominion. This work has been hindered of late by the new and oppressive postal law which requires two cents postage for each paper not exceeding two ounces in weight. “We have just received an inquiry from one of our tract-society members in reference to transferring copies of Signs from clubs here, to Bro. Loughborough in England. I write to ask what the extra charge would be per copy, or what would it be for five copies?” ADDIE S. BOWEN. “Rome, N. Y.” We have just completed arrangements with Maurice’s European Express Co., by which we can send the Signs and other papers to Southampton at one-half of the rates of postage. Let those who wish to send clubs of the Signs, REVIEW, and Good Health to Eld. Loughborough, order them mailed, “Eld. J. N. Loughborough, care REVIEW AND HERALD, Battle Creek, Mich.” Here they will be made up weekly into a small package, and forwarded by express. The yearly expense per copy of forwarding our papers to Eld. Loughborough would be on the Signs, 50 cts.; REVIEW, 75 cts.; Good Health, 25 cts.; Youth’s Instructor, 15 cts. Let those wishing to send clubs of these papers to Eld. Loughborough add the sums named to the price of the papers to American subscribers. W. C. W. OUR GERMAN PAPER.
By W. C. W.
By mistake, in the Review Supplement of Dec. 11, 1879, the club rates on the Stimme der Wahrheit were given as 30 cents a copy, and the price to subscribers in Europe 75 cents. Our terms should have been given as follows:— Terms to subscribers in America, 50 cents. In clubs of 5 to 10 copies, 40 cents each. Ten or more copies, 35 cent each. Three months, on trial, 10 cents. “Please explain about the German paper. The clubs we ordered were paid for at 15 cents a copy. Some are asking how long it will be sent. M. A. KERR.” The Stimme was a quarterly, and we offered it to clubs at 15 cents a year,—four numbers. All who have paid this sum will receive four numbers in addition to the first, which we furnished free. Those who subscribe for clubs at the rates given above, will receive twelve numbers. W. C. W.