Letter from Dr. William S. Sadler to Ellen White, 1906
This letter, purportedly written by Dr. Sadler to Ellen White,
was taken from a Seventh Day Adventist information website
April 26, 1906Mrs. E. G. White,
Sanitarium, California
Dear Sister White:
A few days ago I saw a communication from you in which my name was mentioned, and in which you invited those who had difficulties regarding the testimonies to write direct to you.
There are many things that have come up recently that perplex me; many things which I find myself unable to explain to those who are perplexed; so while I do not have doubts concerning the "Testimonies," I do have many difficulties.In order to correctly state my present attitude, it will be necessary for me to go back ten or twelve years, to the time when I had just finished a systematic study of your writings, having made a large index of all your published papers, from back in the fifties. The study of your writings did wonders for me; my soul was ablaze with their value and power, and I conducted frequent public studies at the Sanitarium, at camp-meetings, and before the churches concerning the subject.
It was while conducting such a series of studies with the South Side Church in Chicago, taking the position that all your writings were from the same divine source, in harmony with what you state in Volume 5, page 57,
You might say that this communication was only a letter. Yes, it was a letter, but prompted by the Spirit of God, to bring before your mind things that had been shown me. In these letters which I write, in the testimonies which I bear, I am presenting to you that which the Lord has presented to me. I do not write one article in the paper expressing merely my own ideas. They are what God has opened before me in vision, the precious rays of light shining from the throne.
and was earnestly presenting these matters to the church at that time, that an older minister questioned the soundness of my position. But I read the passage above quoted, and took my stand firmly on that. So for years I have been holding that all communications from you were "Testimonies." Was I right? Or, as it is claimed, are some "letters" and only refer to and deal with that which is Testimony?
A short time after this, your letter to Dr. Kellogg concerning the buildings in Chicago, came, and of course it troubled me; but I took this position, -- I know that the Testimonies come from a source that is higher than human; therefore, although I have now encountered a thing that I can not explain, a thing which I do not understand, -- a matter which even appears to me to be without foundation, I held unswervingly to my position.
Later, I heard from you the explanation of this matter, which, so far as I was concerned, satisfied me, but left my mind in this trouble, which I now ask you to help me to understand, -- Since the Lord showed you those buildings in Chicago, and since you supposed they had been erected, and it afterwards developed that they had not, and that the representation was made merely to prevent their being, may this not be applied to other representations that have been made to you? That is, then the Lord gives you these views of things that are not, but which are likely to occur, for the express purpose of preventing their occurrence, as in the case of the Chicago buildings above referred to?
Accordingly, I find myself in a quandary, when I seek to understand certain things that you have recently written. I am often at a loss to know how to choose between the following two positions: --
(1) Am I to acknowledge the conditions or accusations which are stated in the Testimony as true, and as conditions which really exist at the present time, even though after prayerful search and careful inquiry I am still unable to recognize that these things do exist? Or,
(2) Is this another instance like the Chicago buildings, in which you presented a thing that does not really exist, but which the Lord is seeking to forestall?
With these two positions before me, concerning some matters, I do not know how to choose, and therefore have held the entire matter in abeyance, in my mind, watching and praying for light.
For instance, I recently read a communication from you to Dr. Paulson and his wife. From reading this, I would suppose that at the present time, Dr. Paulson was completely under Dr. Kellogg's influence; yet, having been associated with him very closely for years especially since my return from California, I have not seen this; in fact it had appeared to me that Dr. Kellogg exercised less influence over Dr. Paulson in recent years than over any other of his former colleagues and present associates. I could write at great length to show how in many important matters, Dr. Paulson has during the past two and a half years, stood stiffly by his convictions of right, and been unyielding to the end in various matters respecting Dr. Kellogg.
These matters I have not given serious attention to until recently, for I had settled it in my mind that I believed the Testimonies; I had a personal experience in and with them; and, so far as I know my heart, I had settled it that I believed them so well that I do not think anyone could unsettle my faith in them. But during the last few months such a denominational issue has been made out of your writings, and have been so sorely pressed for a statement of my position, that I saw it was necessary for me to go to the bottom of these difficulties, and, if possible, reach some definite position.
You must know, therefore, my joy when having reached this conclusion, I received this letter from you inviting me to come direct to you with my difficulties. I know your invitation is extended in good spirit, and I believe you will receive this letter as the questions of one who is honest, although perplexed.
Another matter which I find is perplexing many, is your words to Dr. Kellogg at the General Conference five years ago in which you stated that you had probably written too strongly to Dr. Kellogg. If you wrote too strongly concerning any matter which the Lord presented to you, might you not also write too weakly? Again, it is asked, if you wrote too strongly then, how are we to know that you are not writing too strongly now? The part of your talk referred to, is as follows: --
I thank God that Dr. Kellogg has not sunk into despondency and infidelity. I have been afraid of it, and I have written some very straight things to him; and it may be, Dr. Kellogg -- if he is here -- that I have written too strong, for I feel as though I must get hold of you, and hold you by the power of all the might I had. But I have seen the work, I have seen the work that has been carried on, and how can anybody see it and not see that God is at work? That is a mystery to me; I cannot understand it; I cannot explain it.
Are all of the things specified in your writings actually in existence, or are some things prophecies of the dangers that are ahead, and which we are to avoid?
I cannot afford to be wrong, whichever way it is: I must be right, and I expect the Lord to help me into the light on all these matters, although they seem very perplexing now, and they seem more perplexing as I continue to investigate. I turned a deaf ear to these things for years, but now, since our attitude on the Testimonies is becoming a test throughout the denomination, I realize that I must go to the bottom of all these things, and know just where I stand on all these points.
Some four years ago, when my wife and I were having one of those pleasant and profitable occasions in your upper chamber at St. Helena, you stated to us that you were "not a prophet," but simply "little Ellen White, a messenger with a message." On returning to San Francisco, my wife and I had considerable prayer and discussion concerning this. I had always supposed you were a prophet, but I could not maintain that you were after hearing from your own lips that you were not. However, I resolved to say nothing about this to anyone. My wife, however, did tell someone about your statement, and in some way it was told by Sr. ------- that Sr. ------- had made this statement; so, upon returning to Battle Creek, the first thing that was handed us upon alighting from the carriage at the Sanitarium, was a letter from Bro. W. C. White, criticizing Mrs. ------- for having made this statement, and stating that such an idea would greatly hinder your work; and that if it really had been stated, it would be necessary for him to issue a denial.
This greatly perplexed my wife. She knew she had heard you say it, and she did not see any reason why it should be denied; but her perplexity was relieved at the time you stated in public, in the tabernacle at Battle Creek, that you were not a prophet, and it was subsequently published in the Review; but, in the same Review, there was an article by the editor directly contradicting your statement, and proving that you were a prophet.
Now, Sr. White, what am I to believe? Until I get more light from you, I shall take your word. I have confidence that you know more about your gift than anybody else in the world. My personal contact with you and your work at St. Helena and in California, satisfied me, not only of the gift which God has given you, but of your sincerity and earnest faithfulness; and I have therefore purposed in my heart that no man nor any set of men, shall explain to me what you meant when you said you were not a prophet. I will taken an explanation from no one but you.
Another matter: that is, Willie's influence over the Testimonies. I came into this truth about 20 years ago, and just before I was baptized by Elder Wm. Covert, (about 18 years ago) I thoroughly made up my mind concerning the Testimonies. In short, I accepted them; but from that day to this, especially the last ten years, and more especially since your return to this country from Australia, I have been hearing it constantly, from leaders, ministers, from those sometimes high in Conference authority, that Willie influenced you in the production of your Testimonies; or, as they would often designate it, the "letters" you sent out.
This talk made little or no impression on me. I resolutely refused to believe it, year after year. I have been given a copy of the communication written by you under date of July 19th, 1905, addressed to Brethren I. N. Evans and J. S. Washburn, and I have since then not known what to do or say concerning this matter. I refer to the following quotation: --
After seeing the representation, I awoke, and I fully expected that the matter would take place as it had been presented to me. When Elder Haskell was telling me of the perplexity that they were in to carry forward the Southern work, I said, 'Have faith in God; you will carry from this meeting the five thousand dollars needed for the purchase of the church."
I wrote a few lines to Elder Daniells suggesting this be done, but Willie did not see that the matter could be carried through thus, because Elder Daniells and others were at that time very much discouraged in regard to the condition of things in Battle Creek. So I told him that he need not deliver the note. But I could not rest. I was disturbed, and could not find peace of mind.
Please won't you help me to understand this? It is the most serious of all the difficulties I have encountered in my experience concerning the Testimonies; and I have it frequently presented to me, and I don't know what to say in answer.
Until recently, I had but little difficulty in answering all the objections I ever met against the Testimonies, but I am now encountering things which I am not fully able to meet.
When I returned to Battle Creek from California, I brought with me a large number of your recent communications, to read to the family there. In the course of my reading I read a statement reprimanding the manages of the Battle Creek Sanitarium for making their workers sign contracts. Then I was immediately confronted with a communication from you stating that the Mangers should place workers under contract. In this case, I refer to the communication found in the General Conference Bulletin (1895) pages 162, 163, which says: --
Before persons are admitted to our Missionary Training Schools, let there be a written agreement that after receiving their education they will give themselves to the work for a specified time. This is the only way our missions can be made what they should be.
Now, what could I do to explain this? I did say that this might be an instance similar to that in the Scriptures where Christ told his disciples at one time, to take no purse nor provision, and in another He told them to take scrip and a cover of raiment. I said, 'Maybe the conditions have changed, therefore the instruction changes.' What is your explanation of this?
I would like to see from your pen a statement of what you mean in your writings along the line of God in nature, etc. I refer to the following passages, and others: --"Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are." No man can of himself cast out the devil throng that have taken possession of the heart. Only Christ can cleanse the soul temple.
Desire of Ages, p. 161.They have taken a rigid course, and lived so very plain that their health has suffered, disease has strengthened in the system, and the temple of God has been weakened.
Testimonies, Vol. 1, p. 205.I know many honest souls who are in confusion respecting these passages, in view of your recent writings.
Another thing I want help on, is with reference to the use of the Testimonies.(1) Do you approve of sending personal testimonies which the Lord has given men broadcast to other people?
(2) Is it not the Bible rule that when we have any criticism of a brother, it should be presented to him, then afterwards to two or three, and then, if he reject it, to the church? That is why I am now writing direct to you. Does the Lord follow a different rule from this with regard to the Testimonies?
For instance, the letter to which this is an answer, although it has my name in it, I have not received personally. It was shown me by one who did receive it, but whose name is not mentioned in it at all; and I have in mind many instances of this kind. It does not seem right to me that personal testimonies should be multiplied and scattered broadcast unless they have been rejected by the individual to whom they were given, and further, that they were of general interest to the church. Am I right in this?
Again, is it right for me to use a testimony given to Bro. A. in my efforts to get Brother A. to do the thing I think is referred to in the Testimony which the Lord sent him? Are the Testimonies for men to use upon the souls of their fellow-men; or are they messages from God for the Holy Spirit to send home to the human heart with convicting power? I had supposed the Lord intended the latter to be the case; and it has been a great trial to me to see the public and private use that has been made of your writings during this present difficulty between the General Conference and the Medical Missionary Work.
Another matter that has bothered me since it happened, although it did not at the time, is that during the Conference at Berrien Springs, when Prof. Prescott was preaching against Pantheism, you sent for Doctor Paulson and me one morning, to come and see you; and during our conversation you presented to us many things that had been shown to you during the night, and gave us to carry away a copy of a letter addressed to Bro. Prescott, forbidding them to make these public attacks, etc.
We read this, and supposed the matter would stop, but that evening and the following, things continued as they were and when the matter developed further, it appeared that you had given the Testimony to Willie to give to Brother Prescott, but that he had failed to do so, as he publicly stated before the Conference, thinking that the purpose of the Lord would be better served by his withholding it, and allowing matters to proceed as they were. I have never been able to fully see through this. Do you give the directions as to when, how, in what order, and to whom, your writings shall be sent, or is it left for others to decide?
Near the close of this meeting at Berrien Springs, I was talking with Brother J. E. White, concerning the unpleasantness that had arisen there, and he spoke very positively against his brother Willie and his relation to you, and how Willie was seeking to manage things in his way, and make them come his way, by his influence over you. When I asked him what this all meant, he answered that it meant one of three things -- either
(1) That you would be removed from the midst of this confusion, so that your gift could not be used to further the purposes of your son Willie and others; or
(2) That the gift would be taken from you, because men were perverting it; or
(3) That it would be necessary for him to expose his brother, and others who were doing those things.
He further told me that it was almost impossible for him to see you alone, in California, when he went to see you; that Willie denied him the privilege of a private interview with his own mother.
I have since learned, Sister White, that this was told to many others besides myself, and can you wonder at the trouble and confusion that is abroad in the land, when your own son takes such a view of the matter?
I don't know what to make of such as this, but since you asked me to come direct to you with all that is bothersome, I could not be a Christian man and could not pray with my eyes upturned to heaven, unless I told you the whole story. I am writing in this letter all that bothers me personally, and in addition, these other things that I am constantly meeting, and I don't know how to explain.
Are the letters you write to the leaders in our work, in answer to letters they write, Testimonies? Must I receive everything you write, as from the Lord -- just as it is, word for word, -- or are there communications you send out, which are your personal letters, -- personal communications from Sister White? In view of all that has happened and is happening, before my eyes, I am becoming unsettled with reference to this, and I ask for word direct from you that will clear up this confusion, and state the exact facts and truth.
In this connection, I will explain why I have never written to you or consulted you on any matter, even when so near you in California. I have wanted to, scores, yes hundreds of times, but years ago I took the position -- and I know you will be free to tell me whether I am right or wrong -- that men had no business tampering with God's messenger. I observed that when David went to Nathan seeking information concerning building the temple, he was told to build a temple. He knew Nathan was a prophet; he had confidence in the messages he gave. But immediately after, Nathan was instructed by the word of the Lord to forbid David's building the temple. From this, I concluded that God's messengers were for God to use, and not man; they were not to be used as Intelligence Bureaus, Courts of Appeal, or anything of that kind; therefore, I had no right to go to you for information. If it were human information and counsel I sought, I had better be on my knees seeking counsel from God; and if it were divine counsel I wanted, I reasoned that I would get it any way without going to you for it; for when the Lord had shown you aught for me, you would write it out, and send it to me, without my writing to you. That is why, although I have so highly appreciated your counsel and advice, which you often gave me in California, and which I can never forget, -- I say, this is why, though often perplexed, I did not write to you for advice. I have often written to Brother W. C. White, asking him if he knew anything that had been shown you along a certain line, and if he knew you had any light along that line, to send it to me; and occasionally he has sent me manuscripts and copies of your writings, in answer to such requests.
For one, Sister White, I would like to see an earnest effort to get this matter straightened out among us. I know many who will stand up in public and say they believe the Testimonies, and try to drive other people into believing them as they do; yet I know, from personal conversation with some of these men, they do not believe these Testimonies. Some who are now talking so loudly for the Testimonies, are the very ones who first told me, in past years, that Willie influenced you, etc., and I see these people eating meat, and engaging in other things that are certainly contrary to the light you have so plainly given in the Testimonies. What am I to think?
Moreover, I have frequently been advised to "lay low", and be quiet; to say to the people "These things are all right," and smooth them over; but Sister White, I can't do that. I have got to meet God before the Judgment bar. I want to be right. I want to get out of this confusion into the clear daylight, and then stand like a man in defense of that which I know to be right; but I can't possess a double personality in this matter, as it seems to me many are doing. I have kept still for many years, for I believe the Testimonies; and the only reason I am making a diligent effort to get to the bottom of these things, and get to the bottom now, is that I am pressed on all sides to define my attitude concerning the Testimonies, and these difficulties that have arisen.
Another question -- I would like to know from you, as a minister, what use am I to make of the Testimonies as a test of fellowship? Is it right for me to baptize and receive people into the church, who have not positively accepted the Testimonies? I refer not to those who have rejected the Testimonies, but those who have not yet felt able to take their stand, yet are otherwise in harmony with the Third Angel's Message. What is my duty in this respect?
It has been reported to me -- in fact was told me by a brother before I left San Francisco, -- that you sent certain manuscripts to the Pacific Press, to be published, and after they were set up, in type, you recalled and materially changed them, so as to give them an entirely different meaning, and then they were published. Is this so? I did not believe it when it was told me. The brother who told me said he could prove it, but I told him I was not looking for that kind of evidence. I have heard this many times since, and would like to know if this is so.
I have no inclination to go into these things, but in the fierce contention that is raging over these matters, it is necessary for me to go to the bottom of these things, in order to tell my brethren where I stand, that they may know whether they will choose to fellowship me or not.I will not be a hypocrite. I will never say to my brethren that I believe all these things, unless I do; and I cannot conscientiously not consistently say I do believe them all, till I have gone to the very bottom of every feature of our present misunderstandings.
This is a matter which circumstances have forced upon me and although it is exceedingly unpleasant, and though I would have much preferred to have gone about my work, and let the Lord work these things out in his own good time; yet I could not do this, in view of the situation in which I find myself, and more especially after you yourself personally addressed me, and straightly directed that all these difficulties should be sent direct to you. I am now fully and honestly complying with that request, and hope to get the desired and much needed light.
Another matter: What shall be my attitude toward those who hesitate in accepting a Testimony, or apparently reject the Testimonies? Shall I leave them alone with God and their Bibles, or shall I publicly denounce them, and make war upon them? Or shall I give them a little time in which to be led of God [line or lines missing] . . .
Another matter, the one that is most confusing of all to me, is your recent writings concerning the Battle Creek Sanitarium. I cannot possibly arrive at a conclusion as to just what you mean with reference to the helpers at Battle Creek, etc. From what the Lord has shown you, is it right for any Seventh-day Adventist to labor in the Sanitarium? Is the institution to be turned over to the world? What attitude should I take toward the situation that I find it in today? I fully understand that young and inexperienced workers are not to go there, and I fully agree with it; but does that mean experienced workers are not to go? I am perplexed to know what really is your present attitude toward the Sanitarium with reference to these matters.
Is it true that your testimonies of recent date are any more of the Lord than older ones? Does a later Testimony abrogate all former communications touching the same theme?
Another thing: with reference to the American Medical Missionary College. The impression is going throughout our ranks that it would be better for students to go outside Medical Schools than to this School. Now, Sister White, I don't believe this. I am willing to be convinced, if I am wrong; but I have been in two outside medical schools, and cannot conscientiously advise any of our young people to go to these outside schools: and I have in my possession a communication from you, written ten or twelve years ago, in which you forbid Doctor Kellogg and others to advise our students to go to Ann Arbor or other worldly medical schools. How am I to understand this former communication in which you forbid students to go to outside medical schools, and later ones which are interpreted as forbidding our people to go to the American Medical Missionary College? Where would you advise me to recommend Seventh-day Adventist young men and women to go to obtain a medical education? In view of what I have seen and heard in worldly medical colleges, I certainly could not conscientiously advise my sister to attend such schools, as long as our medical College is in existence. Now please help me to know what I am to do in this situation. This just how it looks to me -- I am ready to be set right if I am wrong.
Several years ago you sent a Testimony to the Conference concerning the Mount Vernon Sanitarium, in which you stated that the Conference should not engage in establishing and conducting Sanitariums, yet now I observe that our entire denominational policy is that none but conference committees and Conference organizations should own and conduct Sanitariums. Is it wrong for earnest and well-meaning individuals to engage in private medical missionary work? Can I not be a part of the work of this Message along medical lines unless my work is owned and immediately supervised by the Conference? In view of the Mt. Vernon communication, I took my position on the subject: now on what grounds am I to change?
Concerning the use of the word "denominational", I think there is great misunderstanding on the part of some as to exactly what you mean by this word. You have recently said concerning our medical work that it should be "denominational"; yet I have before me a communication addressed to "Dr. Kellogg and all who are connected with him in the Sanitarium Board and Council," dated Mar. 11, 1899, in which you speak of the medical missionary work as being "undenominational." If some knew just what you mean by the word, and in what sense it was used, I think it would clear up considerable confusion. The passage referred to, reads: --
Our brethren in America who are engaged in Medical Missionary work can, by appealing to the outside people, obtain help, because theirs is not a denominational work.
Concerning Reform Dress and the change of instruction concerning its length, you wrote in the Review and Herald that the apparent discrepancy was due to the fact that the objects were presented to you, and you were left to describe them in your own language. Is your position today any different from that which you took then, and which is stated in the article above referred to?
The article I refer to, is an answer to a question asked you, and appeared in the "Advent Review and Sabbath Herald", October 8, 1867, and is as follows: --"Does not the practice of the sisters in wearing their dresses nine inches from the floor, contradict the Testimonies No. 11, which says that they should reach somewhat below the top of the lady's gaiter boot? Does it not also contradict Testimony No.10, which says that they should clear the filth of the street an inch or two without being raised by the hand?"
. . . distance from the bottom of the dress to the floor was not given me in inches. Neither was I shown the ladies's gaiter boot; but three companies passed before me with their dresses as follows with respect to length: --
The first were of fashionable length, burdening the limbs, impeding the step, and sweeping the street and gathering its filth; the evil results of which I have fully stated. This class, who were slaves to fashion, appeared feeble and languid.
The dress of the second class which passed before me was in many respects as it should be. The limbs were well clad. They were free from the burdens which the tyrant, Fashion, had imposed upon the first class, but had gone to that extreme in the short dress as to disgust and prejudice good people, and destroy in a measure their own influence. This is the style of the "American Costume," taught and worn by many at "Our Home," Dansville, New York. It does not reach to the knee. I need not say that this style of dress was shown to me to be too short.
A third class passed before me with a cheerful countenance, and free and elastic step. Their dress was the length that I described as proper, modest and healthful. It cleared the filth of the street and sidewalk a few inches under all circumstances, such as ascending and descending steps, etc.
As I have before said, the length was not given me in inches, and I was not shown a lady's boot, and here I would state that although I am as dependent upon the Spirit of the Lord in writing my views as I am in receiving them, yet the words that I employ in describing what I have seen are my own, unless they be those spoken to me by the angel, which I always enclose in marks of quotation. As I wrote upon the subject of dress, the view of those three companies revived in my mind as plain as when I was viewing them in vision, but I was left to describe the length of the proper dress in my own language as best I could, which I have done by stating that the bottom of the dress should reach near the top of the lady's boot, which would be necessary in order to clear the filth of the street under the circumstances before named.
I put on the dress, in length as near as I had seen and described as I could judge. My sisters in Northern Michigan also adopted it, and when the subject of inches came up, in order to secure uniformity as to length everywhere, a rule was brought, and it was found that the length of our dresses ranged from eight to ten inches from the floor. Some of these were a little longer than the sample shown me, while others were a little shorter.
Numerous letters came to me from all parts of the field, inquiring the length of the dress shown me. Having seen the rule applied to the distance from the floor of the several dresses, and having become fully satisfied that nine inches comes the nearest to the sample shown me, I have given this number of inches in number twelve, as the proper length of the dress in which uniformity is very desirable. If it is said that a lady's boot is not nine inches high, and when I have walked before my sisters with it uncovered, as those properly dressed walked before me in the vision, they could not see the top of my boot.
In your writings you have stated that all the twelve disciples were present at the last supper; but in Christ our Saviour it is stated that but eleven were present, Judas being absent. A number of years ago, I was told that your son made this change in the manuscript. Is this so? Does anyone have authority to in any way change your writings? To what extent and in just what way are the Testimonies edited after they leave your pen before they are crystallized into type?
Now, Sister White, this is all I have to write. Of course there are scores of rumors in the air at this time, but I am not concerned with rumors. My wife and I are concerned, either personally or in the case of very dear friends, with all I have written in this letter. The questions I have raised are those which must be speedily settled in our own minds. The situation we find ourselves in, demands it. Our souls desire it. But we cannot settle them until we know we are settling them rightly.
I stood unmoved for years in the face of many of these objections, but now the whole matter has taken such a peculiar turn that we find ourselves sorely perplexed, and are so persistently questioned concerning these matters, and in view of your invitation to write direct to you, if we had difficulties, I feel it is my duty as a Christian and a minister, to send you things I have noted in this letter, and await from you that which the Lord may direct you to offer as a means of answering, explaining, denying or otherwise making clear these things; and I shall forever appreciate anything you may do in this direction, and promise to give it careful and prayerful attention.
We have been made sad to learn of the terrible and disastrous earthquake in San Francisco; and just to think, we ourselves lived there but two short years ago! I see many evidences of the approaching end in the earth, not the least of which is the confusion that has come into our own ranks, and the unsettled condition in which I see many minds. I pray the Lord will guide his own people and bring them once more into unity.
It has saddened our hearts to see these difficulties and perplexities descend upon you in your declining years, and we would not add the least thing to your burdens if we could possibly help it, and would not lay these perplexities before you at this time, but for the reasons that you have requested it; that we must have them settled and that we know of no other way in which they may be explained, and finally disposed of.
---------------- joins with me in wishing you much of the sustaining strength and blessed ministry of our Master's good Spirit, and I remain
Most faithfully,
Your brother in the Work,W. S. Sadler