p. 41 | Signs of the Times, Vol. 10, No. 3. (1/17/1884)

Temperance.

By Frances Ellen Watkins Harper

NOTHING AND SOMETHING.

"It is nothing to me" the beauty said, With a careless toss of her pretty head; "The man is weak if he can't refrain From the cup you say is wrought with pain." It was something when, in after years, Her eyes were drenched with burning tears, And she watched in lonely grief and dread, And startled to hear a staggering tread.

"It is nothing to me" the mother said, "I have no fear that my boy will tread In the downward path of sin and shame, And crush my heart and darken his name." It was something to her when her only son From the path of right was early won; And madly cast in the flowing bowl A ruined body and sin-wrecked soul.

"It is nothing to me," the merchant said, As over his ledger he bent his head; "I am busy to-day with tare and tret, And I have no time to fume and fret." It was something to him when over the wire, A message came from a funeral pyre: A drunken conductor had wrecked a train, And his wife and child were among the slain.

"It is nothing to me," the voter said, "The party's loss is my only dread." Then gave his vote for the liquor trade, Though hearts were crushed and drunkards made. It was something to him when, in after life, His daughter became a drunkard's wife, And her hungry children cried for bread, And trembled to hear their father's tread.

Is it something for us to idly sleep, While the cohorts of death their vigils keep? To gather the young and thoughtless in, And grind in our midst a grist of sin? 'Tis something, yes all, for us to stand Clasping by faith the Saviour's hand; To learn to labor, live, and fight On the side of God and unchanging right.

—Mrs. F. E. W. Harper, in Sabbath Recorder.

A Father's Pathetic Letter.

THE following letter, from a father to a dissipated son, should be deeply pondered by every young man who is given at all to dalliance with evil habits and companionship:—

MY DEAR SON: What would you think of yourself if you should come to our bedside every night, and, waking us, tell us that you would not allow us to sleep any more? That is just what you are doing, and that is why I am up here a little after midnight writing to you. Your mother is nearly worn out turning from side to side, and for sighing because you won’t let her sleep. That mother who nursed you in your infancy, toiled for you in your childhood, and looked with pride and joy upon you as you were growing up to manhood, as she counted on the comfort and support you would give her in her declining years.

We read of a most barbarous manner in which one of the Oriental nations punishes its criminals. It is by cutting the flesh from the body in small pieces; slowly cutting off the limbs, beginning with the fingers and toes, one joint at a time, till the wretched creature dies. That is just what you are doing; you are killing your mother by inches. You have planted many of the white hairs that are appearing so thickly in her head before the time. Your cruel hand is drawing the lines of sorrow on her dear face, making her look prematurely old. You might as well stick your knife in her body every time you come near her, for your conduct is stabbing her to the heart. You might as well bring her coffin and force her into it, for you are pressing her towards it with very rapid steps.

Would you tread on her body if prostrated on the floor? And yet with ungrateful foot you are treading on her heart and treading out its life and joy—so I needn’t say “joy,” for that is a word we have long ago ceased to use, because you have taken it away from us. Of course, we have to meet our friends with smiles, but they little know of the bitterness within. You have taken all the roses out of your sister’s pathway and scattered thorns instead, and from the pain they inflict, scalding tears are often seen coursing down her cheeks. Thus you are blighting her life as ours.

And what can you promise yourself for the future? Look at the miserable, bloated, ragged wretches whom you meet every day on the streets, and see in them an exact picture of what you are fast coming to, and will be in a few years. Then, in the end, a drunkard’s doom! for the Bible says, “No drunkard shall inherit the kingdom of God.” Where, then, will you be? If not in the kingdom of God you must be somewhere else.

Will not these considerations induce you to quit at once, and for all time? And may God help you, for he can and will, if you earnestly ask him.

Your affectionate, but sorrow-stricken father.

—Sacramento Union.

The Immediate Effects of License

Keep it before the world, that while under “no license” Rockford had only 78 arrests for drunkenness in 1879, and 56 in 1880, under “high license”; in 1881 there were 269 such arrests, and in eleven months of the current year, 317. This is a fair sample of the immediate effect of license. But what of the crop of new drunkards being made?—Golden Censer.

The Day of the Sabbath.

DR. TOMBES' ARTICLE.

ACCORDING to his promise made sometime since, Dr. Tombes has published in the Herald of Truth, the Baptist paper of California, an article entitled "The Old Testament Sabbath." He begins it as follows:—

"Sabbatarians are making such special efforts, at the present time, to gain adherents, it is, perhaps, advisable to give the subject of the Old Testament Sabbath a careful consideration."

We are rather pleased than otherwise that our efforts are calling the attention of all classes to the subject of the Old Testament Sabbath. And we should still be more highly pleased if all classes would give the subject a careful consideration in the light of the facts and truths of the Scriptures, rather than as guided by theories and prepossessions.

We have before expressed the high esteem in which we hold Dr. Tombes. He is a man of years, and his lines of theology have doubtless become somewhat fixed, as is natural. But we cannot believe he has long held to the theory which he here sets forth. These are our reasons: 1. He says: "I am quite disposed to the belief that Christ restored the patriarchal Sabbath, by its change to the first day." These are not the words of one who is rooted and grounded in an established point of faith. 2. His position is a new one in the Baptist Church. We do not think that any Baptist author, at least of any note, has ever advanced it. 3. His method of reasoning on the subject, and his statements, give most decisive evidence that his views are not matured; that he has not taken time to carefully review the ground of his professed belief. Indeed, some of his statements are made with an unusual lack of caution; so much so that we are surprised that they should be made by a writer who could produce such a criticism as he furnished of Dr. Young. We believe that our readers will see that we are fully justified in coming to this conclusion when we have examined the several points in his argument.

1. He says: "The seventh-day Sabbath was declared by Moses (Deut. 5:15) to have been instituted on account of the deliverance from Egyptian bondage."

This statement, which is often made, we fully noticed last week. We will only recapitulate the points then shown.

(1) Moses did not give a literal version of the fourth commandment in Deut. 5. See verse 12.

(2) Moses frequently enforced universal obligations with local reasons. See Lev. 19:35-37; Deut. 24:17-22. This is often done by religious teachers.

(3) Moses did not, in Deut. 5, give any reason whatever for the institution of the seventh-day Sabbath. He said not one word about any reason why the seventh day was made the Sabbath, rather than any other day. He did not even refer to any ground for its being blest and sanctified.

(4) But, as opposed to the above declaration of Dr. T., we learn in the words of Jehovah himself, in the fourth commandment, Ex. 20, why the seventh-day Sabbath was instituted, namely, because God made the world in six days, and rested the seventh day. For this reason, and no other, he blessed and hallowed it. And this is exactly the reason given in Gen. 2:3, for sanctifying the seventh day. The two passages are parallel; they describe the same actions, and give the same reason. See also Ex. 31:15-17.

2. He says, of the weeks and "set days" of the patriarchal age:—

"We may consider that set day a Sabbath day; but it could not be the same as the subsequent Mosaic seventh day, as that was a positive arrangement under a different dispensation; as it also indicated a special historic circumstance."

This reasoning is not good. It would just as well prove that circumcision commanded to Israel through Moses was not the same institution given to Abraham. But it was. One might also affirm as well, on the ground of the differences of dispensations, that the seventh precept of the decalogue did not guard the same marriage institution that was given to Adam! Gen. 2. But, directly against his statement, the fourth commandment, Ex. 20, says that the seventh-day Sabbath commanded to Israel in the Mosaic dispensation was the same seventh-day Sabbath which God sanctified at the close of the week of creation. We wish that Dr. Tombes would compare Ex. 20, and Gen. 2, and point out the difference of the seventh day there spoken of, if any exists.

3. He says: "The moral law was in existence when Adam was created, but not the decalogue." This of course is aimed solely at the Sabbath, as he queries thus: "Where is the consistency, therefore of speaking of the fourth precept as a moral law?"

We earnestly wish that we knew what Dr. T. regards as moral law. Is the seventh commandment moral law? There was no woman, and no marriage institution "when Adam was created." Is the tenth precept moral law? "When Adam was created" he had no neighbor whose goods he could covet. Was the sixth or the eighth precepts moral law? "When Adam was created" there was no one in existence whom he could kill or from whom he could steal. What shall we regard as moral law according to the above distinction? The term "sanctify" means, to appoint, or to set apart to a sacred use. Therefore, according to Gen. 2:3, and Ex. 20:8-11, one of the very earliest relations which imposed duty on man was that embraced in the seventh-day Sabbath institution. And if the eighth precept is moral, because it guards man's right to the property which God has given to him, much more is the fourth precept moral, which guards the Creator's right to that which he never gave to man for common or secular use, but reserved it to himself as his own sanctified rest day, "the holy of the Lord." We repeat, the reasoning of Dr. Tombes on this subject of moral law is defective.

4. He denies that the ten commandments are a moral law, because (he says) "that was a covenant, says Moses, made with us in Horeb." It is on this proposition that he bases his assertion that the fourth precept is not moral. But every one can see that, if the reasoning is good, then it follows that not one of the ten commandments is moral law. This is the inevitable conclusion from his premise, for his expression applies to every one as well as to the fourth. And if an exception is claimed for any one, we offer to take the reason given for the claim and show that it will apply to the fourth. Here is seen the justification of the statement which we have often made, and which can never be refuted, namely, that any reason which may be given for denying that the fourth precept of the decalogue is moral, may be used to prove that no part of it is moral.

But let us examine this part of Deut. 5. Two distinct things are spoken of by Moses in the first part of this chapter. (1) The covenant which he made with them, and (2) The law which he commanded to them, but did not make with them. Verse 4 says: "The Lord talked with you face to face in the mount out of the midst of the fire." Now the remark in verse 5, in parentheses, does not refer to verse 4, but to the preceding verses; for Moses did not stand between them and the Lord, to show them the word of the Lord, when the Lord spoke the ten commandments in their hearing. But, turning to Ex. 19:5-8, we find an agreement, a covenant, which the Lord made with the children of Israel, and Moses was the spokesman between the two parties. The Lord told Moses to speak to the people, and tell them the blessings he promised to confer on them if they would obey him. Moses told the words to the people, and they replied that they would obey; and Moses returned into the mount unto the Lord and reported their agreement to the conditions stated. In this agreement, or covenant (the word covenant has various significations), Moses acted as mediator between the Lord and the people. But when Jehovah gave the moral law, the ten commandments, he spoke directly to the people; Moses did not then stand between them to show them the word of the Lord. Every one who compares these texts must see that we are correct on this point. It is a great error to call the Law of God, "the ten words," a Jewish covenant. The expression, "made with us," implies that they had something to do with the making of the covenant. And so they had; that was the case with the covenant made in Ex. 19, and ratified in Ex. 24:3-8, after they had heard the voice of the Lord. But it was not the case in the proclamation of the ten commandments. The people had nothing to do with making that law, or giving it effect. It came from Supreme Authority; it rested upon, and for its force depended upon, nobody's will and action but those of the "one Lawgiver."

5. But again he says:—

"I wish now to refer to the fact that the eighth day, the period immediately succeeding the seventh day, in the circular week, was, as a religious day, to be observed with as much solemnity and consecration to God as was the seventh day. The Feast of Tabernacles continued eight days. On the eighth day was to be a 'solemn assemblage.' Moreover, this day was a 'sabbath day.'"

We think that every reader must participate in our surprise at this statement, and at what we shall further quote to the same intent.

(1) There is no eighth day "in the circular week." We have never known such a thing, and our memory takes in something over two thousand five hundred weeks. If ever there was a week known with an eighth day in it, we should be pleased to learn somewhat of its history.

(2) It is true that the feast of tabernacles continued eight days; and the "eighth day" of the text was the eighth day of the feast. It was not and could not be the eighth day of the week! The feast commenced on the fifteenth day of the month; "the eighth day" was the twenty-second day of the seventh month. And as the month commenced with the new moon, the twenty-second was not related to any one day of the week, as the Doctor intimates, unless the moon could be made to always change on Sunday.

(3) But the sheer folly of trying to perpetuate the eighth day of the feast of tabernacles and attach it to the first day of the week, is clearly seen in the fact that the feast came but once a year. They who find in this festival day an argument for Sunday would make the twenty-second day of the seventh month come fifty-two times a year, and always fall on Sunday! The unparalleled absurdity of the position ought to compel every one to pause and reflect on the weakness of the cause which has to depend on such props to bolster it up. But again he says:—

6. "God gave Abraham the covenant of circumcision; but by a positive ordinance it was to be performed on the eighth day."

True; but the eighth day of what? Was it the "eighth day in a circular week" also? Let us see. The ordinance was given in Gen. 17, and verse 12 says: "And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you." Accordingly, when Isaac

was born, we read in Gen. 21:4, "And Abraham circumcised his son Isaac, being eight days old, as God had commanded him." And this was the order respecting all the children who were circumcised. Luke 2:21. We are ready to admit that this ordinance stood related to Sunday, just as soon as it is proved that all Jewish male children were born on Sunday! But in all seriousness we say to our Baptist brethren, If you can draw a Sunday argument from the ordinance of circumcision, never again wonder at your neighbors for their drawing an argument from the same ordinance in favor of infant baptism. Their inference is a thousand-fold more plausible than yours.

Now we will briefly compare the honor which God attached to the Sabbath of the commandment, the seventh day, to that which was given to the eighth day of this feast, to which Dr. Tombes says "there was a peculiar sacredness attached." We will give them their numbers, 7 and 8.

Came every week in the year.
Came once a year.
On this no manna fell.
Nothing of this nature marked it.
It was distinguished from the festival days in Lev. 23. These were to be observed, "beside the Sabbaths of the Lord."
Such a title was never given to this day. It was not elevated above any other festival sabbath, of which there were seven.
In the fourth precept, Ex. 20:11, God himself said he rested on this day from all his work of making the heavens and the earth.
This day was not so honored.
The Lord blessed this day.
No special blessing was given to this day.
God sanctified this as his own rest (Sabbath) day.
Not so with this day.
When God spoke his law in the hearing of all the people, with a voice that shook the earth, he said: "The seventh day is the Sabbath [rest] of the Lord thy God."
God did not so proclaim this day, but gave it through Moses, with all other ceremonial, or purely Jewish laws.
God himself wrote on the stone: "The seventh day is the Sabbath."
This day was not placed there at all. Of it God never so wrote.
As part of Jehovah's law the precept for this day was put in the ark, and kept in the most holy place.
This was not placed there.
Over the precept for this day the high priest sprinkled the blood of the sin offering on the day of atonement.
Nothing of the kind for this day.

We have not exhausted the contrasts; but we leave it with the reader as to which of the two days had peculiar sacredness attached to it; which stands related to the work of creation; and which the Lord would most likely perpetuate. And the New Testament gives us emphatic testimony in its favor as does the Old.

Reader, which day will you honor? Please read Isa. 58:13, 14.

My Witnesses.

By Uriah Smith

"YE are my witnesses, saith the Lord." He says this to his people; and these witnesses he has had through all the rebellious ages of this world's history. The deeper the darkness of the age, the brighter has shone the light of God's truth in the lives of his followers. And he has never suffered himself to be outdone. He has matched evil with goodness every time. In the ages of the most fearful apostasy, some have ever been found who felt it incumbent on them to be as pre-eminently good as the servants of sin were pre-eminently wicked.

Noah among the antediluvians, Lot among the Sodomites, Ahijah in the days of Jeroboam, and Elijah in the days of Ahab, appear as notable examples.

The earth was full of violence, when Noah stood out in brilliant contrast with the dark background, as righteous before God. The wickedness of the Sodomites was such that God through his judgments made them an example to all who should after live ungodly, when Lot vexed his soul with their filthy words and unlawful acts. And the sinfulness of the age of Jeroboam and Ahab was such, that the lives of Ahijah and Elijah stand out as striking examples of godliness and virtue.

To realize the full wickedness of Jeroboam and the moral darkness that prevailed during the period of his reign, one must carefully read the record of his rebellious deeds, the frequent reference made throughout the Scriptures to him as a leader in sin, and the terrible denunciation of God's wrath against his iniquity. God expressly gave him the opportunity of following him. A prophet of the Lord announced to him his future sovereignty over the ten tribes which should revolt from the house of David, and promised him that if he would walk in the way of the Lord's commandments, his throne should be made sure like the throne of David. What a magnificent opportunity was presented before him. But he turned from it. Selfish considerations took supreme possession of his soul. He turned to idolatry. A powerful ruler of ten of the twelve tribes, he turned the people also into idolatry. He caused Israel to sin. He cast God behind his back, so that God testified of him that he had done iniquity above all that were before him, and determined in righteous indignation to root his house and posterity from the land of the living.

A fearful tide of apostasy thus swept over Israel. A monster of iniquity has the control of affairs. Will all be carried away by this flood of evil? Where are God's witnesses? Where are his agents to match this work of the enemy? Suddenly they appeared. A "man of God," we read, testified against the king, and Ahijah the prophet, the same who announced his elevation to the throne, announced his utter overthrow and rejection for all the iniquities which he had committed. Thus God had servants who were true to him and filled with his power; and the light of their life relieved in a measure the surrounding darkness.

But that age of rebellion and apostasy went still deeper into sin. Soon Ahab appeared upon the throne of Israel; and wicked as Israel had been, wicked as Jeroboam had been, it is recorded of Ahab that "he did evil in the sight of the Lord above all that were before him," and that he "did more to provoke the God of Israel to anger than all the kings of Israel that were before him."

To match this monument of wickedness, as a witness for God's truth and an instrument of his power, appeared the illustrious prophet of Heaven, Elijah, towering, as a man of God, above the ordinary level of saints and righteous men, as Ahab towered above the masses of sinners, as an embodiment of iniquity and evil.

And thus it has been in every age. When the enemy has worked, God has worked. Evil has not been able to surpass the good. Whenever the enemy has put upon the stage a prime minister of sin, God has raised up servants of his own as eminent for righteousness and virtue as the former for corruption and crime. And as it has been, we may expect it will be.

Reader, do these thoughts suggest further comparison and present duty? How is it at the present time? Will it not be in these days as it ever has been? Does not God design to have living examples of his righteousness and truth, equal to the development of iniquity and evil in these days? But we all know that the last days are to be days of surpassing wickedness. Evil men and seducers are to wax worse and worse. Sin is to run riot, and the world be swallowed up in floods of unprecedented wickedness. What then may we, on the other hand, expect? That God will have a people eminent for piety and holy living. Who will they be? Those to whom he has committed his truth; those who are called out to look and prepare for his coming and kingdom. Do we, then, come up to the standard? Are we endeavoring to live as holy lives as the wicked around us are living abandoned ones? As the world is growing worse are we growing better? We must be doing this if we would be among his chosen ones at last.

To maintain the required standard of purity and devotion is our privilege, for God has promised all needed help; it is our duty, for God requires it; and it is our necessity, for without it we fall of Heaven at last. U. S.

The Call to the Christian Ministry

By J. N. Andrews

[THE following article was written by Elder Andrews in 1871, when he was editor of the Review and Herald. As our people are now making special efforts to increase the efficiency of the ministry, and add to the number of the workers, we trust this republication will prove timely. It is a solid article, well worthy the careful consideration of all. EDITOR.]

The Call to the Christian Ministry.

IT is the prerogative of the Holy Spirit to call men to the work of preaching the gospel of Christ. Unless men are thus divinely called they have no business to meddle with the work. It is too sacred a work, and involves too fearful responsibilities for men to enter upon it who have no warrant from the Lord of the harvest. It is however manifest that very few of all who call themselves ministers of Jesus Christ, are really entitled to that most honorable and sacred appellation. Many of the professed ministers of Christ have entered upon its solemn obligations, and its awful responsibilities, without ever being directed so to do by the voice of the Holy Spirit. Some of these persons were prompted to this step by vain ambition. The Christian ministry seemed to them the most promising path to distinction. Others entered upon the work because they expected to secure a handsome salary, and to acquire wealth in the business. Still others, because they hoped to live an indolent, self-indulgent life as the ambassadors of Jesus Christ. And even of those who have been truly called of God to the work, a very large part have lost sight of the sacredness of the calling, and though they have preached to others, they have themselves become castaways. When these several classes have been taken from the entire number of those who call themselves the ministers of the cross, there remains but a handful of faithful men. The Christian ministry, which is too sacred for self-seeking, unconsecrated men to even touch with one of their fingers, is nevertheless filled with men who have not the honor of Christ, nor the salvation of souls, but their own self-interest, in view. Such persons can never have the "well done" spoken to them. So far as any reward is concerned, they receive it all in this life; what comes at the Judgment will be the retribution of the evil servant; they shall be cut asunder, and appointed their portion

with hypocrites and unbelievers, where there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. But how are we to determine who are really called of God to this great work? Doubtless there are tests that meet the case. The possession of gifts and graces adapted to the work must really furnish the proof of such calls.

1. God sends no man to preach to others till he is first soundly converted himself. Unconsecrated, ease-loving, worldly-minded, vain, impatient, self-seeking men, are not called of God to the ministry of his word.

2. Even those who are truly converted to God, and that do in singleness of heart devote themselves to his service, may not be suitable persons to fill the office of a minister of Christ. Such persons may have zeal without discretion. They may not be at all fitted to counsel, admonish, or instruct. If men have no aptitude to teach, if they lack caution, and prudence, we may well doubt their call of God to a part in this work.

3. Not piety alone, but good, sound, practical common sense is also indispensable. Men who are good for nothing else, are certainly of little worth as ministers of the gospel.

4. Nor does it appear that men who can do only some great thing, and are incapable of seeing or attending to things of comparatively small importance, are likely ever to be of service in the work of the ministry. The work of God is made up largely of deeds which make no display before men. Those who can take no interest in that which is to be seen and appreciated only by the God of Heaven, will never be fit to enter upon such things as seem to themselves of great importance. God never bids us do great things till he has proved us in those which are smaller. "He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much."

5. Fluency of speech may be of great service to a minister of Christ. Yet this is by no means a decisive proof that a man is called of God to preach. If this gift exists without other gifts to balance it, it is a positive evil. Readiness of speech where there is nothing of value to communicate, inflicts a torrent of words, but gives nothing that edifies those who hear.

6. The men called of God to do his work must have singleness of purpose. They cannot, under pretense of honoring God, and advancing his cause, seek their own honor or their own self-interest. They must not preach themselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord. Self will not stand out in their labors, but in the forefront of all their preaching will stand Christ and his truth.

7. Before God calls men into his work, he gives them humbling views of themselves. They are not prepared to go out in his employ till they have had their self-sufficiency removed. God's strength is never made perfect with them except in their weakness. Paul preached at Corinth "in weakness and in fear and in much trembling." But his preaching was in the "demonstration of the Spirit." It would have been hard for him to tell whether he was most sensible of his own weakness or of the power of God by which he was sustained. Moses prayed God to excuse him, and to send a more suitable person. Jeremiah tremblingly shrank from the awful responsibility of his mission. "Those who are really called of God to the sacred ministry," says Dr. A. Clarke, on Jer. 1, "are such as have been brought to a deep acquaintance with themselves, feel their own ignorance, and know their own weakness. They know also the awful responsibility that attaches to the work; and nothing but the authority of God can induce such to undertake it."

"How ready is the man to go, Whom God hath never sent! How trembling, diffident, and slow, God's chosen instrument!"

8. When men are really called of God to labor in his vineyard, it may be said with safety, (1) That they have some good measure of genuine Christian experience. (2) That they have some knowledge of divine truth. (3) That they feel their own need of future help from him, and of more enlarged views of his word. (4) That they think soberly of themselves. (5) That they are fully determined that self shall die daily. (6) That they have in view the honor of God and the salvation of souls, as the grand object of their ministry. (7) That they have some degree of aptitude to teach. (8) And finally that they be inwardly moved of the Holy Spirit to this most solemn work. "Woe is unto me," says Paul, "if I preach not the gospel."

9. But even the most manifest call of God's Spirit to this sacred work, does not excuse men from diligent and faithful efforts to prepare themselves for the work. Timothy was signally called to the ministry of the word. He had such advantages in personal intercourse and association of labor with Paul, as none of us possess. Yet Paul bids him use all diligence in the effort to prepare himself for the work. Thus he says: "Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine. Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery. Meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them; that thy profiting may appear to all. Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them, for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself and them that hear thee." 1 Tim. 4:13-15. And again he says: "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." 2 Tim. 2:15. Those, therefore, who teach others must be diligent students of the Holy Scriptures themselves. They cannot pour out to others unless they continually renew their stock of good matter from the fountain head. The possession of great natural talents, or the special gifts of the Spirit of God, does not excuse men from a diligent, faithful effort to fill their own minds with the clearest knowledge of divine truth.

10. The minister of Christ must be a man of humility. If this excellent grace be wanting, he will be only a curse to those who share his labors. He must therefore be a man of real Christian experience, for if he be only a novice, i. e., newly come to the faith, he will be very certain to fall into the condemnation of the devil.

11. Who, then, is sufficient for these things? Here is the most responsible and sacred calling that men can enter. Those who enter it must be men of patience, of humility, of self-sacrifice, of singleness of purpose, of consecration to the work, of prayer, of faithful study of the Bible, and fervent love for Christ, and earnest zeal for the salvation of men.

Not eminent talent, but genuine piety, good, practical common sense, a teachable spirit, a willingness to spend and be spent in the work, an unselfish heart, a mind ever desirous to learn the things of God, a willingness to labor faithfully where no display is to be made, a self-forgetful, disinterested spirit, a tender love for perishing men, and a genuine consecration to the service of the Redeemer; these are the real requisites for a minister of Christ.

Have we men of this class in our midst? Undoubtedly we have. There are a goodly number of those men in our ranks. We must call them out to enter the great harvest field. To meet the wants of the cause that are now very urgent, hundreds of these faithful men of God are needed. Isaiah heard the Lord inquiring who would go for him. He thought himself incapable of going to labor in so sacred a work. But when one of the holy beings before the throne had laid upon his lips a live coal from the altar, then he said, "Here am I, send me."

Brethren seek this hallowed fire. Consecrate yourselves to the service of God. Let your ear be set apart to hear the voice of God, and your lips to utter his words of infinite importance to perishing men. And here is your awfully solemn commission, which you are not left to execute or not, as you may choose, but which you must fulfill, at the peril of your soul. "So thou, O son of man, I have set thee a watchman unto the house of Israel; therefore thou shalt hear the word at my mouth, and warn them from me." If this awful commission be not faithfully executed, the blood of the lost shall be found upon you. And the great tribunal of the Judgment is to determine whether you have been a faithful minister of Christ, or a slothful and unprofitable servant. The decision will then be with the Judge of mankind. But the decision is now in your own hands. Shall it be, Well done, good and faithful servant? Or, shall it be, Depart from me into everlasting fire? J. N. ANDREWS.

A Great Fall.

LLOYD L. MAJORS was formerly a minister and a lawyer, but lately a saloon-keeper in Santa Clara County, Cal. Last year he was sentenced to the penitentiary for life from that county; was taken out to be tried on another charge; the case was transferred to this county, and it was tried in Oakland, and he is under sentence to be hanged the 18th of this month. A man who descends from the ministry to keeping a saloon can count on no certain stopping-place.

Death of Sister Anna M. Oyer.

By B. L. Whitney

It is with pain that we announce that death has again entered the ranks of our mission laborers, and our hearts are again bleeding under a blow which though long expected is none the less sad.

Sr. Anna Oyer was born in Springville, Erie Co., New York, in 1852, and died at Bale, Switzerland, Nov. 26, 1883, thus lacking four days of completing her thirty-first year. She became a member of the Presbyterian Church at the age of nineteen, and not long after this became interested in present truth. In the spring of 1877 it was my privilege to administer to her, with others, the ordinance of baptism. An older sister, the only member of her family who witnessed the rite, was with her during the last few months of her sickness, and was the only one of the family circle who was permitted to share in the last sad offices.

In the spring of 1879, Sr. Oyer decided to give herself more actively to the work, and went to Rome, N. Y., to assist in the work of the tract society. In May of that year she sailed for Europe, in company with Eld. Andrews and his niece, where she has, until the hand of disease was laid upon her, labored earnestly and untiringly in connection with the mission at Bale.

About a year ago she took a violent cold, which aggravated a catarrhal throat difficulty, from which she has suffered for years, and which finally settled upon her lungs. From this time, the disease made steady progress, which the efforts of anxious friends and skillful physicians were alike unable to check. She bore her sufferings with Christian resignation and cheerful patience, and though it was her earnest desire to continue her work in the cause where her services had been so efficient, she felt to resign all into the hands of the Lord, assured of her acceptance with him. Her death has left a large place vacant, and her labors will be greatly missed, but we trust that her sleep will be for but a little while, and her awakening near at hand.

Remarks were made on the occasion of the funeral by Bro. Ertzenberger, in German, from Job 19:25, and the writer, from Psalms 116:15. We laid her in the mission lot, near where Bro. Andrews sleeps, looking forward a little into the future when our loved ones shall come forth to meet the Lord.

Bale, Switzerland. B. L. WHITNEY.

A Printing Press for India

By Editor

WE learn from the Chicago Evening Journal, that David C. Cook, the well-known Sunday-school publisher, has given a $2,500 Cottrell steam printing press to the American Mission Publishing House, of India. This Cottrell machine will be the first and only machine except the ones used for English Government purposes, and will be of the same make as those in the Government Printing Office at Washington, and Mr. Cook's establishment. The machine will soon be on its way and serving the missions of various denominations.—Sabbath Recorder.

For a number of years these presses have been used almost exclusively in the Seventh-day Adventist publishing houses. This is our testimonial.

Continue reading: The Missionary