In the theory of the millennium, as popularly held, it is assumed that wars will cease; that intemperance, and many other evils which destroy the race, will cease, and that this state of things, favorable to the increase and longevity of the human race, will continue one thousand years. Several years since a gentleman of Cincinnati published a carefully prepared estimate, showing that, under such circumstances, the earth would not hold its inhabitants at the end of five hundred years, and, at the end of a thousand years, counting the increase in the same proportion, the people must be literally heaped up on the face of the earth.
Newspaper paragraphers, and others equally wise in their own conceit, made themselves merry over the estimate; but no one, to our knowledge, ever tried to show that it contained any serious error. It was set aside with sneering—never answered by arguments and facts.
This question is pressing itself upon the notice of the people of the present century. Men, not wont to be carried away by their imaginations, are considering it seriously.
An article which we clipped from the San Francisco Chronicle some time since, entitled “England and India,” furnishes some important suggestions and calculations. It says:—
“It is now something over a century since Clive and Hastings completed the conquest of India. The population of that country was then reckoned at 117,000,000—rather less than more. It had been kept down by several causes. Infanticide was the chief one, no doubt. It was a custom among Orientals and in ancient Egypt, and even in some of the more crowded States of Greece, from time immemorial. As they could not find outlet by emigration, and as the doctrine of Malthus was constantly being verified, they had to choose between this cruel remedy and starvation. Another remedy was found in the immolation of the widow on the death of the husband, and another, in the constantly recurring wars between the different sovereign princes. Since the conquest, all these customs, so destructive to human life, have been set aside by British authority, under penalties severe enough to insure respect for the law. The result (by the census of 1875) is that the population of India is over 220,000,000—an increase of more than 100,000,000 in a century; and still the increase goes on without check, save by famine.
“It is hard for an American to conceive what a famine in India is. Our sparse population, fruitful soil and admirable means of transportation, by which any suffering section of the republic may be promptly relieved by supplies from other sections where there is no suffering, and an abundance of provisions, make famine here as it exists in India, impossible. The old Californian may get some idea of what an India famine is if he will call to mind the general failure of all crops in this State from drouth in 1864, and, for the average of three or four persons we then had to the square mile, substitute the Hindostan average of 200 to 220. That year most of our cattle perished, and we saved no grain. Had the population of the Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys been as dense as that of the famine districts of India we must have lost some millions of people by starvation.”
Here we find the population nearly doubled in a single century, while two famines have been quite severe within, comparatively, a few years. What would another century bring to India? The Chronicle farther says:—
“Where every part of the country is over-crowded, every acre must be made to yield a harvest or death ensues. It is therefore becoming a most serious question with England how in the future to provide against these fearful scourges. If the population increases in the next half century proportionately as in the last century it will reach 330,000,000; and it will increase unless the old restraining causes are again put in motion, which is a thing not to be thought of for an instant. The readiest remedy would be emigration; but where to? They cannot cross over into Siam, Anam, and China, because these countries are already as densely peopled as India. They cannot cross the Indus, because the country thither is too sterile. They might find an outlet into Africa and Indian Archipelago, but that is something that requires preparation.
“Of late years, availing themselves of the use of English machinery, the people of India have come into active competition in their home supply of cotton fabrics with the mills of Manchester. This promises in the future to give living employment to millions, and as has happened in England, to cause a large and regular exchange for and importation of foreign bread-stuffs. It may result in a check of famine, assisted, as it will be, by greater facilities for inland transportation; and it must inevitably curtail the market for English manufactures and cause a corresponding distress in that country. On the whole, viewing the subject in a political or commercial light, it is not so easy to determine whether the conquest of India has permanently benefited England or not. Sometimes it looks like an argosy, sometimes like a white elephant.”
At an increase no greater than that of the past century, another century would give British India a population of nearly 500,000,000. It is needless to say that she could not nearly contain it. What, then, would she do with the same ratio of increase for a thousand years?
Only two methods are suggested whereby she can be able to maintain her present population or at least the increase of a brief period. One is, that of emigration. But that is not feasible, because her neighboring empires are as largely overstocked as herself. They also must find room for their constantly increasing surplus of inhabitants. The other is, the introduction of English machinery and manufactures. But the result of this, as shown, would be to cause the troubles to recoil upon England, and reduce her home population to starvation:—a fate which is even now staring many of them in the face. If India could dispense with England's manufactures, instead of being a jewel in the British crown, she would soon become the means of her prostration.
Slight or temporal relief might be given to England by cutting up her large estates and distributing the lands; but this will never come unless by an entire revolution—an overthrow of the kingdom and abolition of the aristocracy. Unfortunately the tendency in all countries is to strengthen monopolies with increase of years. England is far from being any exception to this rule.
We scarcely appreciate the importance and magnitude of this subject, because it concerns a people and empire so remote from us. But it is a matter of life or death with some hundreds of millions of earth's inhabitants, and may be even now becoming a matter of interest to us whether or not we realize it.
While the presentation of these facts is yet fresh in our minds, another series of facts rises before us of equal magnitude, and perhaps to us, of more immediate interest. The recent terrible famine in the Chinese empire seems to have aroused that people to the necessity of more extended territory to sustain her over-crowded population. To what extent China is over-crowded none can understand who has not seen how Chinamen can live,—how they have been accustomed to live. The Wheeling, West Virginia Intelligencer gives a conversation with Gen. Garfield in which the General says:—
“I have seen in a space no greater than the length and hight of this sleeping-car berth, in a Chinese tenement quarter in San Francisco, the home of twelve Chinamen. In that space they actually lived—yes, actually lived most of their time. There they crouched (all doubled up), and there they cooked, ate, slept, and, in a word, lived. They cooked with a little lamp a mess of stuff that they import from China, which, like their rice food, is very cheap, and a mere pittance in the way of earnings on the street will supply them food and clothes for an indefinite time. A few cents per day is more to them than a dollar to the commonest American laborer.”
But the most important part of the conversation is the following, showing that Europe is even now troubled on the subject of population, especially that which relates to the Asiatics. Gen. Garfield said he derived his information from an intelligent man who has traveled much in the old countries, and who appeared to be much depressed with the prospect, which, he said concerns all the nations of the earth. The following are his words:—
“It is believed in Europe that one of those great historic movements of the Mongolian race, that in the remote past have dispersed their people into less densely populated countries than their own, is now preparing. For instance, the Russians, in pressing recently upon the Asiatic borders of their empire, developed by actual reconnoissance a Chinese army, of which they were totally ignorant, 250,000 strong, and armed, too, with all the effective enginery of modern war, including the Krupp guns. These guns have been made by their own skilled workmen, who had been sent to Europe and secretly taught the art, and Russian officers had drilled their armies in the use of them. No man knows to-day the strength of the Chinese military establishment. All we see or know of what is going on in China is on the shore edges. It is believed that the skeleton for an army of 20,000,000 already exists. It is believed, further, that the idea of conquest has once again taken hold of the Chinese mind, and that the great Buddhistic family of Asiatic races can be leagued for not only a wholesale raid upon Europe, but also a descent upon the Pacific coast of the United States.
“Such a movement means the possible wiping out of Caucasian civilization. England has mobilized these Asiatics as a defense against Russia's ambition in the east, but, as Count Schouvaloff said in the Berlin conference, what if the Asiatics, taught the art of war, should, like the irresistible Turks, once again look down upon the plains of Europe, bearing upon their banners the legend, ‘We come, we see, we conquer?’ Modern war is now a matter of effective arms, and of a simple and reliable commissariat system. The Mongolian race is capable of great personal prowess. Being fatalists, they dare everything for the end they have in view. Their food is simple, easily supplied and easily transported. Their endurance of fatigue is proverbial. Once organized and in motion they could swarm into Russia as irresistably as the locusts of Egypt, and upon the Pacific coast of this continent as numerous and destructive as the grasshoppers. Once started, where would they stop? Civilization would retire before them as from a plague. Look at the plague-spots in San Francisco to-day. Nobody lives in them but Chinese. Nobody else can live in them.”
It may be said that steps may be taken by the nations to prevent this wholesale raid; but granting that it might be checked or entirely prevented, the question is not thereby answered, What is to become of these over-crowded and constantly accumulating millions who cannot find a place on the earth to set their feet? America has boasted that she was the asylum for the poor and the oppressed of all lands. But lately, appalled at the prospect, she retracts her boast and invites the unwelcome Asiatic to depart out of her coasts and to come no more. We have considerable territory yet to be improved, but an influx of fifty millions of Mongolians—more than our present population—would be a startling event to contend with. And China must part with more than fifty millions to make life in her empire possible for the possible increased population of only a few decades.
It is no use to slight these facts, for they “will not down.” Statesmen look upon them with trembling. We would like to see some advocate of the theory of the conversion of the world, and of a thousand years peace among the nations of the earth, consider this question with the frankness which its magnitude and importance demand.
Satisfactorily Settled.
By Editor
The Christian at Work quotes approvingly the Presbyterian Weekly, speaking of the late Prophetic Conference, as follows:—
"If John Calvin, or Breckinridge, or Thornwell, or Alexander, or Hodge had been alive, they would not have been there."
We fear the Weekly is right, because important truths of all ages have been hidden from "the wise and prudent." Were "the rulers and the Pharisees" of olden time alive now, we doubt if they would have been there unless to deride, judging from their treatment of "present truth" at the first advent of the Lord. The Saviour came as the prophets had foretold, and their words were literally fulfilled at that time. But he did not come in a manner to suit the notions of the dignitaries of the church, and the scribes and the elders—the eminent among the professed people of God—rejected him. An eminent correspondent of the Christian Statesman proves satisfactorily to himself that there is no use of the Saviour coming to this earth again in person; that all the objects of the gospel can be better accomplished in his absence. So the Jews could find no use for him at his first advent, and their descendents occupy the same position to this day. But Jesus called them "fools and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken." How readest thou? Is it not written that "this same Jesus" will come again? that "the Lord himself shall descend?" Did not Jesus say, "If I go away I will come again"? Is this to be thrown aside with the flourish of a pen, or discredited by an array of eminent names?
Though the scribes and Pharisees rejected him, "the common people heard him gladly." And though the influence of the great religious bodies, and the great religious, or rather semi-religious newspapers are opposed to the object and the doctrine of the late Prophetic Conference, it is cheering to read that a large congregation of "the common people" eagerly listened from day to day to hear words concerning "that blessed hope." The doctrine of the near coming of the Lord in glory is abundantly taught in the Scriptures. It commands the respect of the reverent and the faithful, and it must be heard. It has a thousand times been disposed of to the entire satisfaction of those who oppose it, but with the motto, "It is written," it comes again to the front, every time brighter and more strongly fortified from the opposition it has received.
Patience Produces Consolation
DISPOSE thy soul to patience, rather than to seek consolation; for the first will surely produce the other.
Was Job A Myth?
THERE are different ways of discrediting the testimony of the Bible. Some boldly denounce it all as an imposition; but this has little effect in this age. The excellence of the Bible is too well known and too generally acknowledged to allow of its being brushed aside so unceremoniously. The arch enemy of truth is too wily to work largely by such inefficient methods. The now popular and more effectual method is to professedly accept the Bible as a whole, but to discredit some of its parts, or particular facts. Infidels seem to think they are entitled to great credit for their liberality and concession when they say they admire the teachings—the morality—of the Bible, and the character of Jesus; that they only object to the Bible as to some of its statements of history or of fact, and especially when its statements come in conflict with the facts of science.
This has greatly the advantage of the other method, for it not only disarms the believer in the Bible, but it is taken up by many professed lovers of the sacred word, and becomes an easy means whereby they may be led to reject the Bible as an authoritative revelation of the will of God.
It is easy to see that if the statement of facts recorded in the Bible are not reliable, then the word ceases to be, in our estimation, what it professes to be, the word of God. If its statements of fact are discredited, respect for its principles must be proportionately lessened. Its claim to authority depends entirely on its reliability; and if its authority be denied it is thenceforth no better than any other book of moral essays.
They who deny that the Book of Job is a record of facts, and that such a person as Job ever existed, may not be aware that they are taking steps to undermine the integrity of the Bible. But if they are not, it is proof conclusive that they have not sufficient reverence for and love of the Bible to carefully weigh their statements in regard to it. Let us notice a few points.
1. There is nothing in the book which is inconsistent with the idea of its being a record of facts. It is not necessary to regard it as an allegory or a fable.
2. Names and places are so mentioned as to lead us to accept it as a veritable history, unless there are good reasons for supposing otherwise, which there are not.
3. Though written in poetic style, it bears a striking resemblance to the writings of Moses when he records the most sublime facts, as those of creation and of God delivering his people from the power of their enemies.
4. The Lord by the prophet Ezekiel speaks of Job in connection with Noah and Daniel in such manner as to lead us to believe that he was a real person as much as they were real persons. And it is equally possible to project theories which would make the lives of Noah and Daniel to consist of fables. To consistently deny the personality of Job this reference in Ezekiel must by some means be set aside.
5. The apostle James speaks of Job as affording a worthy example of suffering and of patience. Therefore the apostle James as well as the prophet Ezekiel must be disposed of before a fair show can be made against the reality of Job as a citizen of the land of Uz.
These are some of our reasons for believing in the integrity of the Book of Job. It is not this book alone that stands or falls in the settlement of this question. We invite all, before denying the reality of Job's existence, to examine the importance of the question, in view of what is involved in the decision.
Courtesy at Home.
By courtesy at home we do not mean the courtesy which is shown at home to guests, but that which is exhibited to the inmates of home in every-day life. It is not a pleasant trait in people's characters that they should treat their acquaintances with less and less deference as they become more and more familiar with them, increasing their discourtesy in proportion to the increase of their intimacy; but unfortunately this is too commonly the case. It is usually assumed that a true gentleman is always courteous at home, but this assumption can only be accepted with certain reservations. We have known men perfectly unimpeachable in the matters of education, culture, and refinement, whose manners, though most charming on first acquaintance, relapse on intimacy into absolute unpleasantness. We admit that nobody whose apparent courteousness to strangers is only on the surface, and who thus seems to be that which he is not, can be a perfect gentleman in the highest sense of the word; but taking the expression in its ordinary social acceptance we fear it must be granted that, in the matter of courtesy, a great many gentlemen do occasionally seem to be that which they are not. These refined beings do not perhaps relapse into absolute rudeness among their relatives and intimates, but they replace their attractive manners with icy sarcasms, taciturnity, and irritability, which exceeds the border line of courtesy. They seem to take a pleasure in demonstrating the unhappy fact that the refinement of the agreeable has its counterpart in the refinement of the disagreeable.
In these days it is unfortunately true that, even in the highest society, there is too little courtesy either at home or away from it. In our opinion, the best test of the difference between courtesy and humbug, will be found in the observation of home-life. Humbug will assume the form of courtesy, but it cannot stand the strain of continual use; whereas true courtesy becomes more developed by constant habit, and thrives best in its native soil. People often confuse courtesy with humbug, because they imagine that it necessarily implies personal esteem and respect. Where therefore, they observe a deferential manner in the absence of personal esteem and respect, they immediately suspect humbug.
Then there are persons who are so utterly devoid of any innate courtesy, that they are incredulous of its existence in others; and when they meet with it, they mistake it for humbug. It must be admitted, however, that there are occasions when skepticism is quite legitimate. For instance, when we see ostentatious displays of affection and respect on the part of husbands toward their wives, or parents toward their children, in public, we are apt to form our own opinion of their private life, shrewdly suspecting that this profusion of good things is not an every day affair. To treat your children like servants or retrievers, whose highest duty is to fetch and carry is not the surest means of indoctrinating them with the virtue of courtesy. It may be considered a superannuated idea that husbands and wives ought to treat each other with any semblance of ceremony; but we are old-fashioned enough to fancy that the opposite tendency is carried rather to an excess just at present. It may be prejudice to think that there can possibly be anything objectionable in smoking cigarettes in ladies' drawing-rooms and boudoirs, but there always will be some people who lag behind their times.
Among brothers and sisters a little harmless banter is perfectly admissible, and even, perhaps, desirable; but a family whose members are always snapping at each other, in the style at present approved as clever, both in fiction and reality, can scarcely be upheld as a model of courtesy at home. Both among brothers and sisters, and husbands and wives, a great deal of talk, which begins with chaff, ends in rudeness. In society, conventional politeness sets certain limits to repartee, but at home there are no such barriers. In private life, when the more refined weapons of conversational dispute fail, the combatants are apt to resort to vulgar personal abuse. Servants could sometimes tell curious stories about the courtesy of their employers at home, or rather their want of it. There are ladies renowned for their charming manners in society, who use their maids as safety valves for innate rudeness which they contrive to repress and conceal in public. Doubtless they are hurt when, in dressing their heads, their maids drag the hair with the brush! but that is no excuse for pretty mouths permitting ugly words to escape from them. The master may be very fond of his horse, but after speaking to it in tones of the gentlest affection, it is scarcely the sign of a gentleman to swear at the groom because his stirrup leathers are too short.
Courtesy at home, like other virtues, cannot be practiced too constantly, or be too well fortified by undeviating habit. Even when a man is alone, it is not well to throw aside too freely the restraints and observance of social usage. We do not hesitate to say that no one can, when alone, discard all customary forms and ceremonies in dress, meals, or the like, without incurring danger and self-degradation. A man who neglects his toilet when he is going to spend the evening in his own society, is decidedly wanting in self-respect, and the bachelor who only makes his rooms comfortable and attractive when he expects visitors, must be pronounced unworthy of promotion to the more dignified state of life to which all bachelors presumably aspire.—Sel.
What Devotion Can Do.
Some time ago, a lady in London was trying to get a girl to help her in doing housework. Her name was Mrs. Levy. One day while walking in the street she met a friend, and asked if she knew of any good girl that she could get. Said her friend, "Why don't you get one of Aunt Betsy's children?"
"Aunt Betsy's children? Pray who is Aunt Betsy?"
"She is an old Scotch woman who lives in Bird's Alley. She adopts poor, homeless children; teaches them, takes care of them, gets them into good habits, and then puts them out in good places. I have had one of her children a good while, and she is the best girl I ever had."
"That is very singular," said Mrs. L. "This woman must be a curiosity. I would like to see her for her own sake. I'll go."
The next day Mrs. Levy went to Bird's Alley to find Aunt Betsy's home. As soon as she entered it, she saw a large, tidy looking room. The floor was as clean as hands could make it. She saw eight or nine girls from three years old to fifteen. They were all busy. Some of the girls were ironing clothes, others were sewing or knitting, and the youngest were twisting up slips of paper to make lamplighters.
While she was looking at them, an elderly Scotch woman came in. She wore a plain gingham dress, with a white apron, and a large broad frilled cap. She made a courtesy to the lady, and her face lighted up with a smile that made it look quite beautiful.
"I am looking for a girl, my friend," said Mrs. Levy, "and your home has been recommended to me as a good place to get one. Are these your children?"
"Oh, no! ma'am, I'm not so rich as that. But let me see; there's Lizzie, she's been here long enough for a recommend. She's a strong hearty girl, ma'am, and never will trouble you with any mean, low ways. Come here Lizzie. Now look in her face, ma'am. That's how I choose my children."
"Then, are none of them yours?"
"Never had one in my life, ma'am," said Aunt Betsy with a smile.
"You are paid, then, for taking care of these children, and providing them with a home?"
"Not a stiver, ma'am; who's to pay me? They are all poor orphans; not one of them has a father or mother except me, and I am both to them, they think," she said, as she looked around affectionately at them. "Sometimes I feel half sorry that I took the wee things, but what could I do? They had honest parents as was taken off with heavy sickness, and I couldn't see them suffer. True, its but little I do, for there are thousands of such poor creatures in the world, but I'll do what I can. I've put thirty-one into good places."
"What!" cried Mrs. Levy, "do you mean to say that you have taken care of and provided for thirty-one children besides these that are here now?"
"Yes'm, and the Lord's blessed me to do it with my own hands, for more than fifteen years back. I've never wanted, neither have they; and whether its knack in me or goodness in them, I don't know; but they'll all mind me, that they will, ma'am, with lifting up a finger."
What a beautiful sheltering cloud Aunt Betsy was! She was working for Jesus, all alone in that little alley, while nobody in the busy world knew what she was doing. But God knew it all. Without husband or children of her own, without any church or committee to help her, without any means but what she earned with her own hands, she had been a bright, sheltering cloud to thirty-one poor children, besides the eight or nine then in her house. She had clothed them, and fed them, and taught them the best she knew how, and then had found good homes for them where they could be useful and happy.—Sel.
Sunderlinville, Pa.
By B. L. Whitney
In company with Brother J. G. Saunders I visited this place December 7-15, for the purpose of organizing the company of believers here into a church. The company here were brought into the truth through the labors of Brother Saunders during the past summer. We organized a church of eighteen, fifteen of whom I had the pleasure of burying with Christ in baptism. The scene at the baptism was one of the most pleasant I ever witnessed. The best of order prevailed, and the exercises were characterized by the presence of the Spirit of God.
An elder was ordained, and all the other officers were duly elected. By vote, they adopted the tithing system as recommended by the General Conference Committee, and every member joined the tract society. They have an interesting Sabbath-school.
B. L. Whitney.
The Home Circle.
By Hellen Rich
If only Mothers Knew.
If only mothers knew, she said,
How hungry children are for love,
Above each virgin little bed
A mother's lips would prove
How sweet are kisses that are given
Between a rosy mouth and heaven.
If only my mamma would kneel,
As your dear mother, every night,
Beside her little girl, to feel
If all the wraps are folded tight,
And hold my hands, her elbow fair
Between my cheeks and her soft hair.
And looking in my dreaming eyes
As if she saw some lovely thing,
And smiling in such fond surprise
On all my hopes of life that spring
Like flowers beneath her tender gaze,
I could not stray in evil ways.
I would not wound the gentle breast
That held me warm within its fold;
My mother's love would still be best,
However sad, or plain, or old;
And, even though the world forsake,
I'd love her for her love's dear sake.
—Hellen Rich.
Reports from the Field.
By John G. Matteson
Norway and Denmark.
The interest in Christiana is still good. There is a desire to hear on the different subjects pertaining to present truth, and many are searching the Scriptures. There is no lack of opposition. Many are trying hard to keep the people away, yet our places of meeting are well filled. We have obtained eleven subscribers for the Advent Tidende this week.
Brother K. Brorsen has held meetings in Ærsø, Asaa, Hellum, and Tylstrup, Denmark. He has obtained three new subscribers for the paper, and others have renewed. Two Christian friends have commenced to keep the Sabbath. Many oppose, and are trying to hinder the work, but others are reading and investigating the truth. The brethren in Ring (near Horsens) are faithful and united in the truth. One sister has been baptized there.
John G. Matteson.
Christiana, Norway, Dec. 2.
Greenwood Prairie, Minn.
By George M. Dimmick; John Hopkins
DECEMBER 11, we commenced meetings at Greenwood Prairie, where we remained nearly two weeks. The church seemed much encouraged, and resolved to live nearer to God. Two families commenced to keep the Sabbath; others are interested.
GEO. M. DIMMICK,
JOHN HOPKINS.
Wisconsin.
By S. S. Smith
November 24, I commenced a series of meetings in the “Warner District,” five miles south of Stevens Point. Eleven covenanted to obey the truth, all but one heads of families. Three were converted to the message from as many different churches; the others had never made a profession.
S. S. Smith.
December 25.
Clinton, Illinois.
By C. H. Bliss
I CLOSED meetings at the Texas meeting-house last evening. Have held in all about thirty meetings. The attendance has been rather poor; however, a few have embraced the Sabbath reform, and regular meetings are appointed. C. H. BLISS. December 16.
Elivon, McPherson Co., Kan.
By Daniel T. Bourdeau
IN two weeks I have given twenty-three discourses and nearly as many more at different points among the French, besides visiting. About fifteen are obeying. Most of these are French, as I have given them more of my time; yet Americans are receiving the truth, and we look for more.
I have obtained six subscribers for our French paper, and two for the Review.
D. T. BOURDEAU.
December 23.
Santa Rosa.
By William M. Healey
AFTER an absence from this church for two Sabbaths we met with them for their quarterly meeting, and preached four times, administered the ordinances, and had baptism, burying four willing souls into the faith of the burial and resurrection of Jesus.
We also ordained Brother G. D. Hager as elder of this church, elected John Morrison and Isaac Watts as deacons.
If this church remains true and faithful, we shall expect others to be added to their number, as there are many in this place who are convinced that these things are true.
January 5, 1879. W. M. HEALEY.
The Cause Among the Russians.
By Eldon H. Pullen
IN company with Brethren Nelson and Frederickson, I have just visited the Russian settlement near Milltown, Dakota. We found to our joy that seventeen more had taken hold of the Sabbath of the Lord, making in all twenty-one at that place, nine men and twelve women, all adults.
One brother we visited is placed under very trying circumstances. He is opposed by his wife. She makes home as unpleasant for him as she can. His father, a wealthy Russian, recently came to this country to visit him, but learning that he is keeping the ancient Sabbath, he refuses to enter his son's house, and has disinherited him, claiming that he has disgraced the family name and is no longer worthy to be called a son. I am sorry to say that others are somewhat similarly situated; but like this brother they confide in the Lord, trust in his promises, and are desirous to honor his name by forsaking all and following the Lord Jesus.
I did not remain at Bon Homme, as I anticipated doing.
ELDON H. PULLEN.
Howard, Turner Co., D. T., Dec. 18.
An Urgent Call.
By Editor
THE following is the translation of a German postal card received at this Office from Lone Tree, Bon Homme County, Dakota :—
BELOVED BRETHREN IN THE LORD: If it be possible, send to Dakota a German preacher, for here the German nationality is well represented, and we wish to become better acquainted with your views. It is our sincere wish that a German should come here, with whom we could converse in our own language. There are a few Americans here with whom we are acquainted ; but having but a limited knowledge of the English, we cannot converse with them as freely as we should like to. To-morrow, Sabbath, we shall visit Bro.——. Bro. Eldor, and Bro. H. Bullen from Sweden, were here last Sabbath. We are here a company of four who keep the Sabbath ; and on Beautiful River are twenty more, and in Alewed four more, who also keep the Sabbath. And we hope the Lord will turn many more hearts to a knowledge of the truth. We should be pleased to receive a visit from a German S. D. Adventist preacher.
Your brother in the Lord. Dec. 10, 1878.
Bangor, Me.
By James Sawyer
Nov. 25, I went to Presque Isle, thence to Bangor. A few days were spent in distributing Swedish publications, selling books, and soliciting subscribers. The Swedish friends then hired a hall and fitted it up, and we held meetings every evening for about two weeks. There was some opposition when we presented the Sabbath. This was because in some Swedish Bibles, in the four gospels, in some texts the word which should have been translated first-day has been rendered Sabbath. This was shown to be an error by other Swedish translations as well as by the English. Two have declared their determination to keep the Lord's Sabbath, and others acknowledge its obligation. Some rejoice that they have made an advance step in health reform. In the meantime, I held two Sabbath meetings with the brethren in Brewer and Eddington. I was glad to find at Eddington an interesting Sabbath-school, conducted by Bro. Geo. W. Field.
I obtained one subscriber for Les Signes des Temps, one for the SIGNS OF THE TIMES, one for the Reformer, and twelve for the Swedish paper.