Earlier text: The Babylonian Empire"Thy testimonies have I taken as a heritage forever; for they are the rejoicing of my heart." Ps. 119:111. The schools of the prophets were established by Samuel, to serve as a barrier against the wide-spread corruption resulting from the iniquitous course of Eli's sons, and to promote the moral and spiritual welfare of the people. In the accomplishment of this object, Samuel gathered companies of young men who were pious, intelligent, and studious. These were called the sons of the prophets. The instructors were men not only versed in divine truth, but those who had themselves enjoyed communion with God, and had received the special endowment of his Spirit. They deservedly enjoyed the confidence of the people.—Sel. DR. ARNOLD, of Rugby, said of the comparative worth of a scholar's co-work in the teaching process, that "the effort a boy makes is a hundred times more valuable to him than the knowledge acquired as the result of the effort." In the same line, Herbert Spencer adds: "The child should be taught as little as possible, and induced to discover as much as possible." As to the absolute necessity of the scholar's co-work to complete the teaching process, Professor Hart says: "The knowledge [you have laid before them] is really not theirs until they have reproduced it and given it expression. . . . They do not grasp it with a clear and lasting apprehension until they have expressed it in language. This is one of the laws of mental action. We fix a thing in our minds by communicating it to another; we make it plain to ourselves by the very effort to give it explanation. Or, to state the matter still more paradoxically, we learn a thing by telling it to somebody; we keep it by giving it away." Dr. Bushnell phrased this same truth bluntly, in the words: "We never know a thing until we have said it." And Professor Edward Olney has quaintly suggested that the mind of a child is best opened by way of his mouth. "You cannot fill a bottle with a cork in," he says. Counting every passive hearer as a corked bottle, he adds: "You may pour your stream of knowledge upon them till you drown them, or till they run away, and not get a drop of it into them, because their mouths are shut." The co-work of the scholar, in both thinking and speaking, is an essential element in the teaching process. It is true that there is a difference of opinion, among educators, as to the relative value of the class-recitation system, and of the lecture system, in the teaching of advanced scholars in our colleges and universities; but the most zealous advocate of the lecture system would never claim that the lecturer could impart instruction to a body of purely passive hearers. The idea of the lecture system in the realm of secular education, presupposes the readiness of all the hearers to make an intelligent effort at acquiring the knowledge which the lecturer proffers. In this effort, the taking of notes, and the submitting to a subsequent examination on the subject of the lecture, commonly play an important part; and always the hearer who is found to have learned most from a lecture is one who has exerted himself in co-work with his teacher in the teaching process by the lecture plan. And this lecture system is advocated by its partisans only for advanced pupils; for those who are already practiced in the habit of intelligent co-work with their teachers in the acquisition of knowledge. Who would think of attempting to teach the alphabet, or the multiplication table, or the rules of grammar, or the spelling and defining of words, by a series of lectures to a group of passive and listless children? Whoever would attempt this, would simply make the mistake that any teacher makes, who acts on the supposition that he can ever teach any truth to any scholar without that scholar's co-work with him.—Teaching and Teachers. Important Question.
By Editor
"I HAVE been reading with much interest your recent articles on 'The Church,' and would like to ask your advice as to the proper course to be pursued in some difficulties in our own church. "About a year ago the church expelled a member for what they and I thought good and sufficient reasons. This member has since given up the Sabbath and other points of present truth. There are three members of the same family as the one expelled, whose names are still in the church book, and who were all dissatisfied with the action taken. Two of them have refused to attend church since that time, and one has repeatedly made request to have her name taken from the church book, but all three are still keeping the Sabbath. What is the proper course to be pursued if they persist in their present course?" Such cases as this are very difficult to manage, and they strongly illustrate the truthfulness of our remarks on the prevalent error of setting light by church relations. In answering such questions we have to presume that the action of the church was right; that its expulsion of a member was for sufficient cause. But in all cases of complaint this point should be well established. If dissatisfaction is expressed in the church with the administration of discipline, the case should be referred to the Conference Committee or laid before some discreet minister who is in the employ of the Conference. Thus a decision will be obtained outside of the church, from those not interested personally in the case, as to the charges and the evidence of guilt. In this case, without any knowledge of the circumstances, the presumption is strongly in favor of the church, and against the party thus disciplined. First, we may presume in all cases that the church has acted justly, even as we would presume that a man was guilty when he was so declared by a jury of intelligent and conscientious men. Yet this presumption has its limitations, for churches do err, and therefore it is within the province of the Conference or its ministers to examine carefully all questions of discipline when requested to do so. But, secondly, the presumption in this case, in favor of the action of the church, is greatly strengthened by the fact that the one disciplined has turned away from God and from the truth. If an individual is true-hearted and conscientious in the service of God, he will not leave that service because his fellow-men do not please him in all things. This person's religion must have been superficial; he evidently lacked "depth of earth." We now come to the real point of the question. It does not relate to the case of the one disciplined, but to the action of his friends who are dissatisfied with the discipline of the church. We have considered, and proved from the Scriptures, the fact that it is the duty of the church to discipline offending members; it has no option in the case; it must administer discipline, or deny its Lord. And the Saviour says that he who will not hear the church shall be considered as a heathen man and a publican; not only by the church itself, but its action shall be bound or ratified in Heaven. It is a very serious matter to reject the counsel of the church. And he who sets himself up against the church, and against its administration of discipline, makes himself an offender, and becomes thereby a proper subject of discipline. Then the query will arise: What shall be done if the church errs in discipline? Must we submit to wrong because the wrong is done by the church? There is abundant provision for this in our organization. Every church is a member of the Conference. By the constitution the Conference, and between its annual sessions, the Conference Committee, has charge of the work within its bounds. Of course it is the duty of the Conference to see that discipline is properly administered in all the churches. If any person or persons think that injustice has been done in the action of the church, it is their duty to appeal to the Conference for a re-hearing of the case. If they neglect to do this, but take steps to bring the action of the church into contempt, and utterly disregard its authority, then they become proper subjects of discipline, and it becomes the duty of the church to cite them to appear and answer for their action. This duty is often a painful one, but should not be neglected. The disaffected ones may do much injury if the disaffection be not promptly checked. False sympathy may be aroused, and the whole church may be tainted with the leaven of murmuring. If the church considers that it cannot successfully deal with the case, then its resort is to the Conference for assistance. In the case mentioned by our questioner, the church has doubtless been negligent of duty; and doubtless the difficulty is now greater than it would have been if it had been promptly and judiciously attended to. A similar case was presented to us some time since. Fellowship was withdrawn from a member because he habitually broke the Sabbath; whereupon his kindred denounced the action of the church, and threatened to leave it. Their plea was that he was working for the State; it was work which somebody must do; and therefore came under the head of works allowable upon the Sabbath. But this plea was not good. It was not of the nature of a work of necessity or of mercy, allowable to be done upon the Sabbath, for he was working for wages, and would not have done the work if wages had not been paid for it. The same plea might be made for almost any occupation, and Sabbath observance would fall into disuse. It is necessary that grain be ground, but a Sabbath-keeper may not therefore run his mill upon the Sabbath. It may be considered highly necessary to run a railroad locomotive every day of the week; but it is neither necessary nor proper for members of our churches to so run them. It is necessary for the farmer to harvest his grain; but the Lord says it shall not be done upon the Sabbath. Ex. 34:21. The plea that it is necessary that the work shall be done, is never good where wages is paid for the work, as there are plenty who are ready to do it for hire who have no scruples about the Sabbath. As for those who threatened to leave the church because one was properly disciplined for Sabbath-breaking, they proved that they were not true and valuable members. And any church can better afford to lose a few members than to bear the influence and the reproach of fellowshiping a persistent Sabbath-breaker. Another case. A member of a certain church became disaffected toward the elder, and his feelings became so strong that he reported that the elder had lied. What is the duty of the church in such a case? The duty of the church is clear. The member should be required to confess his wrong, and if he refused, he should receive a censure. And this should be done without any regard to the action or position of the elder. For, if the elder were guilty, there are proper steps to be taken, as already noticed. If the member has not taken these steps; if he has not brought his complaint before the church, and yet has raised such a report, he is, without any question, worthy of censure. He has offended, first, against his brother, in not taking the proper steps to reclaim him if he has gone astray. Secondly, against the church which elected the elder to his position. Thirdly, against the Conference which had the elder ordained to his office. And, fourthly, he has rejected the counsel of God, who has given express directions to treat with respect those in authority. Officers may be impeached for wrong-doing; but they are to be treated with due respect until they are impeached, or until they are heard in their own defense. Once more. Several members of a church were so far at variance with the elder that they decided that they could not enjoy meetings led by him, and therefore made arrangements to separate themselves and hold separate meetings. Suppose the majority of the church had united in this action, would their separation from the regular meetings have been allowable? No; it would have been disorderly, and must have brought them under censure. If they had cause of complaint, they could appeal to the Conference to hear their complaint. But if they separate themselves from the church in a disorderly manner, they could not justly ask a hearing until they returned and confessed their error. We have brought these cases together because they are all related to the question proposed in the letter herein given. In each case there was an attempt to subvert discipline by taking the case into their own hands, and both passing judgment and acting thereon without asking that their complaint be heard. This shows, what we have again and again asserted, that the duties of church-members, and the responsibilities of church membership, are not properly appreciated. The authority of the church is despised; and the administration of discipline is denounced as an injustice. The same false ideas are prevailing almost everywhere—in civil as well as in ecclesiastical matters. Criminals are turned into heroes, and the rights of society are overlooked in working up sympathy for evil-doers. There is no point of doctrine upon which our churches more greatly need instruction than upon this: the responsibilities of church membership, and the duty and importance of church discipline. Tobacco Nuisance.
By Editor
ABOUT a year ago, after a trip to Washington Territory and return, we wrote an article under this head, in which we spoke of the sufferings of those who were subjected to the fumes of filthy tobacco on the lines of travel. Recent experience and observation lead us to republish the article, with some additions:— We have long thought of calling the attention of steamer and railroad officials to an evil, which amounts to a nuisance, and which we think, in justice to travelers of decent habits and correct tastes, they ought to abate. We refer to the nuisance of tobacco smoke. By this we do not mean that smoking should be abolished on steamers and railroad trains. This ought to be done, but we know it is too much to ask. But we do mean that such regulations should be adopted as will protect those to whom smoke is offensive and injurious. We will point out what justice demands, in a few particulars. 1. When a "smoking-car" is attached to a railroad train, smoking should be confined strictly to that car, and no one be permitted to smoke on the platforms of the coaches. By smoking on the platforms the smoke is constantly driven into the cars, to the great annoyance of those who dislike it, and, as is often the case, are seriously injured by it. When a smoking-car is put on a train for the special accommodation of the devotees of the nuisance, is it too much to ask that smokers confine their filth to that car, and not defile the atmosphere of every car on the train? We think our request is reasonable, and that officials ought to enforce a rule that smoking on railroad trains shall be confined to the smoking-cars. 2. We have a yet more serious complaint to make521in behalf of those who pay extra fare for palace car or "sleeper" accommodations. These generally have a wash-room at each end; and often, and we may say invariably on some roads, these wash-rooms are turned into smoking-rooms, and being small they are filled with smoke at short intervals, and when the inner door is opened, the smoke is emptied into the body of the car. We once took a "sleeper," which proved to be such in name only, as even in the night the wash-room was filled with smoke, which we were driven to our berth at intervals, so that instead of quietly sleeping, a privilege which we had purchased at a very dear rate, we were subjected to a process of choking, much to our discomfort for that night and the following day. Recently we heard a lady, who has traveled much, refuse to take a ticket on a certain line, because she had found that on that line the sleepers were constantly filled with tobacco smoke. We contend that travelers of pure tastes and correct habits have rights which the lines of travel are justly bound to respect, if they are not respected by other travelers. 3. And still more urgent is our demand for justice to travelers by sea. On the steamers is always to be found a "smoking-room," yet comparatively few smokers indulge their perverted tastes and offensive habits in that room. On land we may often change our position so as to be comparatively free from the nuisance; we may suffer the discomfort of sitting up in a coach on an "overland" trip, which is preferable to the discomfort of trying to sleep in a palace car filled with tobacco smoke. But on a steamer there is no retreat. Tobacco smokers are everywhere, on every deck from one end of the ship to the other. We have seen two or three smokers, each puffing the fumes of a vile cigar, or a still viler cigarette or pipe, take their position by the open window of a state-room occupied by ladies, where the wind drove the smoke directly into the room. We have seen ladies under such circumstances, who were bravely trying to keep up from sea-sickness, make a vain effort to avoid the disgusting and nauseating smoke, and in a few minutes become deadly sick; and it was imputed to the sea! It was no such thing. The same ladies would have been sick on land, at their own homes, if they had been subjected to such dense fumes of filthy tobacco. Now we appeal to all in authority; to superintendents, general agents, conductors, captains, and all others concerned,—is this right? Must decent passengers always and everywhere be subjected to such outrages? The nuisance is increasing. The selfishness and arrogance of smokers is becoming more and more asserting and annoying. We have actually seen young animals—we suppose they would like to be called young gentlemen, but they must go elsewhere for compliments—take their position to the windward of ladies on a steamer, and watch with glee the annoyance and speedy sickness occasioned by the smoke that issued from their foul mouths. We well remember the time when a man (need we say gentleman?) would have been ashamed to puff a pipe or cigar in the presence of a lady. We fear we shall never see those times again. We lose much of our respect for a lady who smiles at her companion in the street, who walks by her side puffing tobacco smoke in her face! Recently a young lady was dangerously burned by fire from a cigar which her escort was smoking while they were riding together in a buggy. The papers reported that the young man was much distressed over the accident. We doubt whether he will reform, and break away from his indecent and dangerous habit; for a confirmed tobacco smoker has all his sensibilities hardened. As far as the rights of others are concerned, we would sooner trust to the whisky drinker. We are not making our appeal to smokers; that would be useless. We speak for justice, for rights, to those who can and ought to protect those who purchase passages on their lines of travel. In a recent trip on a steamer we saw three ladies in one room, all sick. For this room they paid an extra price, hoping, from its situation, to have the privilege of pure air. But a company of men were constantly near the door, and as constantly smoking, and scarcely an hour in the day was this room free from a cloud of smoke. In the morning we came to their door and asked them concerning their welfare. One of the ladies answered: "We were quite comfortable through the night, after the men left this part of the deck, and we could breath the pure air. But this morning, since smoking about our door is resumed, we are all deathly sick." We pointed out the situation to the men, and remonstrated with them; but this secured only a partial and temporary respite. We invite the traveling public to unite with us in demanding an abatement of such a nuisance. Let all religious papers join in the demand that the comfort and health of decent passengers shall be respected. As a general thing smokers look upon it as an infringement upon their rights to be requested to cease smoking in any place; but those who suffer from tobacco smoke have rights which they ought to assert. We have confidence that a change might be effected if they who desire it will unite in their demands. Both railroad and steamship lines provide places where smokers may indulge their habit without interruption or hindrance; but they fail to provide any place where a person of cleanly habits and pure tastes can be free from the nuisance. It is not right. We shall continue to protest as long as the evil continues, and we are able to travel. And in this appeal and protest we invite all travelers who love pure air—to whom the filth of tobacco smoke is offensive—to unite with us. Sabbath and Sunday.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
THERE are only a few more things in Dr. Dobbs' Sunday article which we wish to notice at present, and these are all of a favorable nature, that is, favorable to the Lord's Sabbath. In article five, we find the following statement, every clause of which he thinks is worthy of emphatic iteration:— "The Holy Spirit never calls the first day of the week the Sabbath. Wherever that word is found in the New Testament, it is the name of the Jewish institution, and refers to the seventh day—Saturday. We ought not to be wiser than the Scriptures." Amen. With the exception of the term "Jewish institution," as applied to the Sabbath, we could heartily say to the above, amen and amen. We need not stop to argue concerning that objectionable term, for all our readers know that the Sabbath is the Lord's, that he claims it as his own (Ex. 20:10; 31:13; Isa. 58:13; Mark 2:28); and that it was observed in Eden, centuries before there was a Jew, and while "the whole earth was of one language and of one speech." With the exception of that single expression, the above quotation would seem to be the language of an earnest Sabbatarian. No one would suspect that it is from one who hates the Sabbath of the Lord. Our readers will of course understand that the Doctor's emphatic statement concerning the seventh day as the Sabbath of the Bible, is not because of any love for the Sabbath, nor disregard for Sunday, but simply because he would have Sunday called the "Lord's day," and would not have men observe any day as a Sabbath. Now let us see how his theory and practice agree. He is a Baptist preacher, and therefore whatever we find in the Baptist "Confession of Faith" may be quoted as his own words, since they have his endorsement. Following is the first article of that document:— "The Scriptures.—We believe that the holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired, and is a perfect treasure of heavenly instruction; that it has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter; that it reveals the principles by which God will judge us; and therefore it is, and shall remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and opinions should be tried." The twelfth article reads as follows:— "The Law and the Gospel.—We believe the Scriptures teach that the law of God is the eternal and unchangeable rule of his moral government; that it is holy, just, and good; and that the inability which the Scriptures ascribe to fallen man to fulfill its precepts, arises entirely from love of sin; to deliver them from which, and to restore them through a Mediator to unfeigned obedience to the holy law, is one great end of the gospel, and of the means by grace connected with the establishment of the visible church." Doctor Dobbs, having subscribed his name to these articles, says that according to the Scriptures, the seventh day,—Saturday,—and that alone is the Sabbath, yet refuses to obey the commandment which says, "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy;" "in it thou shalt not do any work." Now if we accept him as our guide in matters of religion, how shall we know by which of his utterances we are to be guided? Our Saviour said: "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses's seat; all therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works, for they say, and do not." Matt. 23:2, 3. He could say this with safety, for whatever their practice, the scribes always taught that the strictest obedience was to be rendered to the law. But we cannot say this of our modern teachers, for they do not always "say;" they give an uncertain sound, sometimes teaching strict conformity to the Bible, and again teaching that it is not to be obeyed. In such a case, we prefer to listen to the Bible alone. "We ought not to be wiser than the Scriptures." We cannot refrain from noting one other point, to show the inconsistency of calling the seventh day "the Jewish Sabbath." As correctly stated above, the Holy Spirit never calls Sunday the Sabbath. Wherever that word is found in the New Testament, it refers to the seventh day, Saturday. Now it is not only admitted, but zealously claimed, that the New Testament was written for the purpose of teaching Christianity. Its language is the language for Christians to use, and those who accept it indeed, are Christians. (We also believe the same in regard to the Old Testament.) Then it necessarily follows that the Sabbath is just as much a Christian as it is a Jewish institution. As a matter of fact it is neither Jewish nor Christian; it belongs to no race nor age; it is the Sabbath of the Lord. But the law of God, which the Baptist "Confession of Faith" justly calls "the eternal and unchangeable rule" of God's moral Government, says, "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work" (Ex. 20:8-10), and the Holy Spirit teaches emphatically in the New Testament that there is no Sabbath day but the seventh day. In the same paragraph we find the following, from the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia, quoted with approval: "The Lord's day [Sunday] was not a continuation of the Jewish Sabbath, which was at first also observed, but a substitute for it." This is a fact. Sunday, improperly called Lord's day, was substituted for the Sabbath of the Lord, just as the bishop of Rome was substituted for the Lord, and sprinkling was substituted for immersion. We have the same authority for substituting sprinkling for baptism, or regarding the pope as the vicar of Christ, that we have for substituting Sunday for the Sabbath. One more quotation, from Dr. Dobbs's sixth article:—522"It cannot be repeated too often that there is no Scripture authority for the transfer of the Sabbatic obligation from the seventh day to the first day. Of such 'change of day,' not only the New Testament, but also the Christian literature of the early centuries, is absolutely silent. It was several hundred years after Christ before Christians began to identify the Lord's day [Sunday, not the Lord's day] with the Sabbath, and to adduce the authority of the fourth commandment in support of its sanctity. Surely it is suggestive that such is the case." Very suggestive indeed. Let every Baptist read the above paragraph, and then ask himself if he can consistently continue to keep a day which has no warrant from Scripture. The Doctor says that the fact that several hundred years after Christ, Christians began to adduce the fourth commandment in support of Sunday sanctity, is suggestive. Suggestive of what? It shows that they knew that the fourth commandment is of eternal obligation, and that being determined not to give up their Sunday for the Lord's Sabbath, they found that the only way to satisfy people who wanted to be loyal to God, was to make them believe that the fourth commandment enjoined the observance of Sunday. This they largely succeeded in doing; but as the end approaches, the light cannot be hid; truth will be fully manifest to all the honest in heart; and soon every individual who holds the faith of Jesus will also keep the commandments of God. E. J. W. Handling the Word Deceitfully.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
A FRIEND who is quite active as a canvasser for the SIGNS, tells us that in the place where he is now working there is among the people quite a deep interest on the Sabbath question. In consequence of this interest, the Presbyterian minister in that place, is troubled, fearing that some of his flock will keep "the Sabbath of the Lord" instead of "the venerable day of the sun." To satisfy the people that their previous custom of keeping Sunday is correct, and to make them believe that the seventh day is no longer the Sabbath, he resorts to a trick that is worthy of a Jesuit. He tells them that, in the original, the word in the New Testament for Sabbath, is an entirely different word from that which in the Old Testament is translated Sabbath, and that they do not have the same meaning. To some, the sophistry and the falsehood contained in such a statement would be apparent at once, but many honest persons would be thrown into confusion by a statement concerning languages with which they have no acquaintance. We think that we can easily relieve the minds of such, so that if the objection of that clergyman is all that troubles them, they need have no hesitancy in obeying the commandment. It is true that the word for Sabbath in the original of the New Testament is different from that translated Sabbath, from the original of the Old. How is this? Simply because the New Testament was written in Greek, and the Old Testament in Hebrew. As a matter of course, the word for Sabbath would not be identical in both languages. Yet the thing mentioned is the same. A parallel to that minister's statement would be to claim that because the word for "horse" is not the same in France that it is in Germany, therefore the animal has an entirely different nature in the two countries. It is on a par with the statement of the late Spiritualist "Professor" Denton, that the word "resurrection" is not found in the Greek Testament. Of course not, for resurrection is an English word; but there is in the Greek Testament a word corresponding to it and having the very same meaning. Even so we would not expect to find the Greek word for Sabbath in the Hebrew Old Testament, nor the Hebrew word for Sabbath in the Greek New Testament. Yet both words have the same meaning that the English word Sabbath has. When Martin Luther was before the Diet at Worms, he first made his defense in his native German, and afterwards, at the request of the emperor, who did not like the German, he repeated it in Latin. Does anybody suppose that his second speech had a different meaning from the first, because in the two languages things were called by different names? Of course not. These illustrations are sufficient to enable all to see through the trick to which the aforesaid clergyman resorted. The lexicons will show that the Hebrew, Greek, and English words for Sabbath have all one meaning. But one who knows nothing of either Hebrew or Greek may prove the fact for himself. The sacred historian, after describing the crucifixion of Christ, says, "And that day was the preparation, and the Sabbath drew on. And the women also, which came with him from Galilee, followed after, and beheld the sepulcher, and how his body was laid. And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment." Luke 23:54-56. The "commandment" is found in the Old Testament, in Ex. 20:8-11, and since the Sabbath on which the women rested was "according to the commandment," we have positive evidence that the Sabbath of the New Testament is identical with that of the Old. And the fact that the Sabbath mentioned by Luke, immediately preceded the first day of the week, shows that the Sabbath of the Old and the New Testament is the seventh day of the week. The requirements of courtesy make it impossible to characterize the course of that minister as it deserves. To say the least, it is dishonorable, and should at once deprive him of the respect and confidence of the people who know of it. And what should they think of a cause that requires its advocates to stoop to such mean evasions of truth? They must certainly conclude that the cause itself is the opposite of truth. For a man to adopt such methods of argument, is to confess in advance that the cause which he defends is a weak one, but that he is determined to win by deceit when he cannot by fair means. The course which he adopted to uphold Sunday is eminently worthy of an institution which owes its existence to fraud. Thank God, the truth does not require its advocates to resort to the tricks of the pettifogger. E. J. W. THE following paragraphs were not intended for publication, but are from a private letter written by Sister White to members of her family. We take pleasure in presenting them to the readers of the SIGNS, feeling assured that they will be interested in the success that is attending her labors:— We reached Worcester, Mass., about half past eight, Friday evening, July 31, and went directly to the mission rooms. In the evening we had a New England thunder-storm; but it cleared away before meeting time, and at the appointed hour the tent was filled with interested listeners. I spoke from the words of the Saviour found in Matt. 7: 24-27. The bitterest opposition and prejudice had been created against me here, and some who were the most prejudiced were out to hear me. The Lord enabled me to present the truth with such power that the people listened as if spell-bound, and many were deeply impressed. One, an infidel, took his stand for the Sabbath, and others expressed their intention never again to disregard God's holy day. On the Sabbath we had a congregation of about one hundred. I spoke from the fifty-eighth chapter of Isaiah, and had special freedom. In the afternoon several stated that they were keeping the Sabbath for the first time. It was cloudy all day Sunday, and in the evening it began to mist. We feared it would rain so that we should not have a congregation, but the tent was packed full, and there was a large crowd outside. The best part of the community was represented. I spoke from the third chapter of First John: "Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God," etc. I dwelt particularly on the binding claims of the law of God, and I never saw greater interest manifested. The police had been notified to see that there was no smoking or talking outside the tent. Three powerful men were placed on guard; but Elder Canright said they stood like marble pillars, never for a moment looking away from me. When the meeting closed, the people did not leave the tent, but lingered as if loth to go. A merchant who had attended the meetings and the infidel of whom I have spoken, came together. Said the merchant, "Henceforth the doors of my place of business shall be closed every Sabbath evening at sundown." The infidel responded, "I will never break another Sabbath." "Good," said the merchant, "give me your hand on that." And they there clasped hands, pledging each other to keep the Sabbath of the Lord. About twenty-five are keeping the Sabbath here. The work has but just begun, and we expect more fruit will be seen as the result of this effort.