THE high indorsement which the then-existing law received from the Saviour, in his "Sermon on the Mount," ought forever to shield it from the assaults of those who strive to exalt the gospel of the Son above the law of the Father. The two must be in harmony. It should be borne in mind that the gospel is of the Father as well as of the Son. As Peter says, it is "the gospel of God." Christ himself was the gift of God to save a fallen race. When the love and mercy of God would devise a way to save man, it must be a plan which his justice could approve, otherwise these attributes in the divine character would stand in conflict with each other. That could not be. When God set forth Jesus to be a propitiation for the remission of sin, it was that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus." Rom. 3:24-26. No greater reproach can be cast upon the divine character and the divine government, than to assert that God's justice has been lowered, and that his law has been displaced, by the gospel. That assertion places the Son against the Father, and actually on the side of the rebellion which has been waged against the law and government of God ever since "the fall."
Before examining the words of the Saviour it may be well to meet an objection which is often urged, that no one can be justified by the law. We admit it. But what is the reason? It is solely because all have broken the law. It is not, and cannot be, the province of law to justify transgressors. And while that is a truth recognized in all legal matters, we ask, Is it any disparagement to the claims of a law that it will not justify sin? To the contrary, Is it not a refutation of the charge against its morality, that it condemns all wrong-doing, and will not justify any departure from morality? They who oppose the law are not just in their reasonings against it, nor are they always consistent with themselves. On this point we copy the following remarks from our work on the Atonement:-
Let it be distinctly noted that a moral duty, whether it be called law or gospel, cannot justify a sinner. That law which points out sin, which is therefore the rule of right, will not justify. This is the teaching of Rom. 3:20. It is singular indeed, that those who teach the abrogation of the original law, and its insufficiency to justify, and who hold that all that is binding in the law is incorporated in the gospel, really teach justification by law—by the same system that points out sin, which Paul calls "the law." This is contrary to reason, and to the apostles' words in Rom. 3:20. The truth is evidently this: The gospel upholds the law, and enforces it upon the conscience, and incorporates it into the life of the believer. But it does not abrogate law, nor release the believer from obedience to it; nor does it incorporate law into itself so as to have a blending of the two in one. The difference between the law and the gospel is as distinct now as it was in the days when the gospel was preached to the sinners in the wilderness. Heb. 4:1. The law is moral; sin is immorality; the gospel is the remedy. Medicine may restore health, but health is not medicine. This matter may be tested by the following plain statement: The blood of Christ, the blood of the covenant, is that whereby we have remission of sin. See Heb. 9:22; Rom. 3:25. And this is freely and exclusively by faith or grace. Hence, baptism may be a gospel condition of justification, because it is not any part of the original obligation or moral duty. If it were moral duty it could not be performed for remission of sin, simply because as such it would be required on its own account. So the commandment which says, "Thou shalt not steal," cannot be incorporated into the same system and take part in the work of remission, being itself a moral duty. How reasonable is the conditional plan which says, "Repent, and be baptized for the remission of sin." And how absurd it would be to read, Thou shalt not kill for the remission of sin; or, Honor thy father and mother for the remission of sin. It appears absurd, as I have stated, whether these be called law or gospel, to claim justification or remission through them. But they who teach the abrogation of the law, and the incorporation of these commandments into the gospel, are responsible for this absurdity. It belongs to their system.
We shall have more to say on this subject when we come to the letter to the Romans.
It is a fact worthy of note that the Saviour, at the commencement of the Sermon on the Mount, after pronouncing the blessings, began to guard his hearers against the idea that his mission would place him in conflict with the law. It was important that they who were to go forth to preach his gospel should be well instructed on this point; that they should thoroughly understand what effect his work was to have on the government of God. "Think not," said he, "that I am come to destroy the law." In the face of this prohibition, why will men declare that he did destroy the law? If he did, then he did that which he never came to do. And he proceeded to command those who shall keep the law and teach it to others, and to denounce those who do not keep nor teach it.
But the objector says he set it aside by contrasting his teaching with that of the law. This objection, though raised by men who are looked up to as teachers, is founded on a sad want of consideration of what our Saviour really taught. It is true that he contrasted his teaching with some things which they had heard and been taught, but those things were not in the ten commandments. Two commandments, the sixth and seventh, are quoted, and instead of being negatived, are strongly confirmed. Thus, instead of saying-"but I say unto you, ye may kill," or, "I say unto you, ye may commit adultery," he shows that, not only killing, but hatred is a violation of the sixth commandment; and that, not only the open commission of the crime, but the indulgence of impure desire is a violation of the seventh commandment. In this the Lord not only confirms the law, but proves its spirituality and the depth of its morality, in asserting that the wicked thought of the heart is condemned by, or counted as a violation of, the law. This shows how God regards the claims of this law. Men say it is a law destitute of the purest morality, taking cognizance only of the outward actions. But God says that it are condemned those who indulge wrong feelings and desires. All this is in strict keeping with his declaration that he came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it. He came not to make it void, "but to establish." (Diaglott.) Compare Gal. 5:2, and others.
But especially has the "golden rule" been held up as an exposition of the morality of the New Testament in contrast with that of the law. And in this we say, again, there is a great lack of consideration of the full scope of the Saviour's words. He says: "All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: [why?] for this is the law and the prophets." "The law and the prophets" are often thus connected in the Scriptures, for the prophets were instructors in the law. He did not come to destroy the law or to reverse the teachings of the prophets. And the golden rule was presented, not to reverse the law and the prophets; not as something superior to the law and the prophets, but as a synopsis of the law and the prophets, and enforced by their authority.
The truth is that the golden rule of the Saviour lives and breathes in the atmosphere of the law. The law lies embosomed in the golden rule. "All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you," is in the law; and to do the same to them is the injunction of the law to you. This is a very desirable law, indeed; one in which we have reason to delight, as David and Paul said they did. If we even very briefly analyze the law, we shall find a confirmation of the words of Christ, and a vindication of the words of Solomon in Eccl. 12:13, 14. We will examine the last table first, giving the several precepts their proper numbering.
5. The fifth commandment takes us up in our childhood; and as parents stand in God's stead to the young, who cannot yet be led by arguments and reasoning, it regulates the conduct of the child toward the parent. Our whole life should be a life of trust toward God. So must the lives of children be those of trust in their parents. They should yield the same cheerful and unquestioning obedience to their parents that we should all yield to God. This, of course, lays a great responsibility upon the parents. They are God's ministers of the household, to train their young in the way of right and truth; to fit them for that service here, and for glory hereafter, for which they were created. And if the367parents do their duty, there is little fear of failure on the part of the young. Let the parents command respect-let them win it by deserving it-and the children will learn to yield it in love. Wherever we find a failure in the children, if we had the power and wisdom to trace back, we should find a foundation for their failure in a failure of one or both of the parents. It is truth, however much it may be disregarded, that if a child be trained up in the way he should go, "when he is old he will not depart from it." Prov. 22:6.
But the extent and perfection of the commandment is shown in this fact, that though it takes us up in childhood it does not leave us there. It recognizes no time when we are "of age" to disregard the pleasure and honor of our parents. It does not command us for a period of twenty-one years only. Its authority is over us through life. To this degenerate age it sounds strange that a prophecy of the last days should say that "men shall be . . . disobedient to parents;" 2 Tim. 3:1-5. But to them who were raised under the influence of the law, who realize that the golden rule was but the out-breathing of the law, it no doubt seemed strange that such a state of things should ever exist, especially where the truth and law of the Most High were known. This is a great subject, but we must leave it here. Who realizes the full extent, the length and breadth of this commandment? Who realizes the happiness which God laid up in store for us in the family relation, which is to a very great extent forfeited, lost, by our losing sight of the importance of the precept which was given in love as its safeguard? The more we look at this law, the more we appreciate and love it, the more we will feel like praying with the devout psalmist: "Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law. Ps. 119:18.
6. In classifying those commandments which relate to our duties to our neighbor, that which serves as a safeguard to life must come first. Life is the greatest blessing which man can possess. It is true, no matter who said it, that "all that a man hath will he give for his life," for all possibilities are in life. Man may lose many things in life, but when he loses his life he has no more to lose. It is the supreme, final loss. Therefore the taking of life is the highest of all crimes. And the penalty of death is well called "capital punishment," because it is the chief or greatest of all penalties. It is of no use to talk of preserving other rights where the right to live is disregarded. The more we examine the decalogue, the more reason we shall find to admire the wisdom of, and to adore, the framer of this wonderful instrument which is so well calculated to preserve our rights, and thereby to secure our happiness.
7. Next to life itself in importance is the institution of marriage. While all possible blessings are embraced in life, the marriage relation is calculated to bring more happiness to the human family than any other relation in life. We need not multiply words to prove this. They who do not realize it have not well considered the subject; perhaps have not sensibility to appreciate it. It is a truth of universal application that the greatest blessings, when abused, become the greatest curses. As marriage was calculated to bring to man more happiness than any other relation in life, so does its abuse bring the greatest suffering, the keenest anguish, which it is possible for the heart of man to endure. The presence of the murderer would often be preferred in a household, to that of the seducer, the adulterer. God only knows -man never could measure-the suffering which the human race has had to endure because of the abuse of this relation. How benevolent of God to establish the relation! how kind, how thoughtful of our well-being, to give a commandment to guard its sanctity! Compared to what it has been, what a Heaven of bliss this world would have been, if man had lived in perfect harmony with the revealed will of God concerning the relation of the sexes, and the institution of marriage!
8. Even life itself often becomes a burden because of the abuse of its privileges; often for want of the means of sustaining life. Next after the marriage relation, the right of property is recognized and guarded by a precept. Were the spirit of this precept duly regarded; were all men as mindful of the rights and interests of their fellows as they are careful for their own, there would be on the earth no suffering from poverty. There is property enough in the world to meet the wants of all, if it were properly distributed. But equality can never exist while some are improvident and wasteful. The distiller and the brewer, who turn the nutritious grain into a useless or poisonous liquid, rob the starving poor of their daily bread. He who plants tobacco, where the Maker of the earth intended that corn and wheat should grow, defrauds the inhabitants of the earth who are appointed to subsist on its productions. He who spends his money for whisky and tobacco, steals from his wife and children that to which they have an undisputed right. It is impossible to enumerate all the ways in which this commandment is violated; impossible to describe the sufferings which result from its violation.
9. Necessary as is property or its representative, money, to the enjoyment of life, we often find people willing to spend all they possess to defend their reputation. So dear is reputation to man. And it is right that it should be so. There could be no happiness in society in the entire absence of confidence; and confidence would be unknown if no value were attached to reputation. And not only man highly regards reputation, but God himself has shown his estimation of it by making it the subject of one of the precepts of "the royal law." And thus are all the interests of man kept in view by his Creator, and provision made for their security and preservation.
If any are so short-sighted, or so unmindful of the rights of others, as to feel that this law is burdensome-to feel that it restrains him where he would prefer to be left free to indulge his own inclinations,-let him remember that while it restrains him from injuring his neighbor, it also restrains his neighbor from injuring him. That which is your restraint, is also your security, your safeguard. Instead of having occasion to find fault with this law, you have every reason to be thankful that God has given it. Even though you may feel like deriding it, as some have done in their blindness, you have reason to bless Heaven that it yet exerts a restraining influence over the race. Without this, the earth would be literally "a habitation of demons."
Before we close this article let us look for a moment at the extent and beneficence of this law. Remember, we have noticed only five of its ten precepts. We find that in these are guarded the welfare of children, and the honor and happiness of parents; our rights of life, the chastity of our families, of property, and of reputation. And where these are guarded and respected, what more can we ask from our fellow-man? Consider what kind of society that would be wherein every one's life, chastity, property, and reputation, were conscientiously cared for. No murder, no licentiousness, no stealing, no falsehood. Police officers, courts of justice, jails -all would be useless. Everywhere peace and harmony between men. No need of bolts and locks; no means of defence required. Reader, do you not wish that all would keep this law toward you? That all would perfectly regard these precepts in their dealings with you? And can you think of anything that you could justly ask beyond this? Are not all your social rights therein provided for? Well, as this law binds your neighbor, so it binds you. As you wish that all should regard your rights in respect to these precepts, so you must obey these precepts in regard to their rights. This is what the law requires, and this is the golden rule. We shall consider this subject further.
How It Is Made to Appear That God Has Sanctified the First Day.
By John Nevins Andrews
[From Les Signes des Temps.]
WE have carefully sought to find the sanctification of the first day of the week in the New Testament. First we inquired in our number for February, whether God sanctified the first day at the resurrection of Christ as he sanctified the seventh day at the creation of the world. We were unable to find any declaration, like that in Gen. 2:3, that God had sanctified the first day. Nor could we find the fact recorded in any manner either direct or indirect.
Then we inquired in our number for March, whether Christ sanctified the first day in a gradual manner and by successive acts during the forty days between his resurrection and his ascension. We sought to find evidence that Christ met with his disciples on each of the six first days of the week during that forty days, but we could not find it. We sought to find that he met with the disciples generally on that day, but we found that he oftener chose some other day. We could not be certain that he met with them on any first day of the week except the one in which he arose, and even in this case it was only with some individuals. We sought to find that Christ even mentioned the day, but we found no place in which it is recorded that he ever so much as once made mention of the day. We concluded therefore that the day was not sanctified by God the Father at the resurrection of Christ, and that it was not sanctified by the acts of Christ during the forty days preceding his ascension.
Then in our numbers for April, May, and June, we sought to find whether the apostles sanctified the day during the period recorded in the book of Acts. We sought for some grand act of sanctification in which all united, or if this could not be found we sought for a succession of minor acts by which they gradually accomplished the work of sanctifying the day. We examined minutely each chapter of the book of Acts, and found that the apostles knew nothing of the sanctification of the day. We even found that Acts 20 contains direct proof that Paul did not regard the day as one that had been sanctified to God. We therefore concluded that though the Bible begins with the sanctification of the seventh day, it ends without speaking of the sanctification of the first day to take the place of the seventh.
In our number for January we showed that the Lord's day is not the first day of the week, for God has not claimed that day, nor has Christ claimed it. The Lord's day therefore which is mentioned in Rev. 1:10, without being there defined, must be that day which the Lord has claimed as his, which is the seventh day and no other. Gen. 2:3; Isa. 58:13; Mark 2:28. If any of these statements are disputed, we respectfully request those who deny them to turn to the numbers of our journal which we have named, and to examine anew the facts there presented.
Now we come to a question of the highest importance. How can the sanctification of the first day be maintained when the Bible speaks only of the sanctification of the seventh day? This is a hard question, but we will answer it by stating the facts. The most usual means of establishing the sanctification of the first day of the week is to quote what the Bible says of the sanctification of the first day of the week. Thus Gen. 2:3 is quoted: "God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made." This is applied to the first day of the week with such assurance on the part of those who make this application, that the world receives this passage as a decisive testimony that the first day is the day which God has made holy to himself. It does not seem to be very honest, however, to apply what God said concerning the day of his rest, not to that day, but to the day on which he began his work.
But there is a way, however, that this difficulty is obviated. It is the following: The seventh day, which God sanctified, was not the last day of the seven, but the seventh part of time, or one day in seven. The first day of the week is the seventh part of time, or one day in seven, therefore the seventh day, which God sanctified, is the first day of the week. But this explanation is not as truthful as it ought to be, for the day which God sanctified is the day on which he rested, and God rested only on the last day of the week. To say that the first day of the week has been sanctified by the act of God in sanctifying the day of his rest, is to say that the day on which God commenced his labor and the day on which he rested from all his work are one and the same day.
So also when the advocates of the observance of the first day wish to teach men that they ought to observe that day, they say to them very solemnly and with great assurance: "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy." Ex. 20:8 The multitude suppose that these words were spoken by God for the purpose of enforcing the observance of the first day of the week. Yet the commandment tells us that this day of rest is the seventh day, and that it is the day on which God rested after creating the heavens and the earth in six days. This proves that the commandment relates to the last day of the week and not to the first day. And it is confirmed by the fact that the women who rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment rested on the day which preceded the first day of the week, that is to say the seventh day. Luke 23:56; 24:1.
Now how are these facts set aside by those who use the fourth commandment for the enforcement of the observance of the first day? Generally there is no effort to set them aside. The commandment is brought forward as though it were given by God with reference to the first day, and the facts which show that it relates to the day on which the Creator rested are passed over in silence, and, if possible, kept out of sight.
But what do they say when the commandment is shown to relate to the seventh day and not to the first day? Do they attempt to set aside these facts which are so decisive? Every man who has studied the subject knows that they cannot be set aside without doing violence to the Bible. So it is very frequently the case that instead of attempting to set aside these facts we are told: "You observe the old Jewish Sabbath, but we observe the Christian Sabbath." This reply satisfies many persons who do not seem to be aware that God has said that the seventh day is the rest-day of the Lord, and that God sanctified that day more than 2,000 years before the first Jew existed. Nor do they seem to know that the first day is never called the Christian Sabbath, nor is it ever called Sabbath of any kind.
The first day of the week was never sanctified, that is, set apart from ordinary labor, to be devoted only to the worship of God. This remark is true not only with respect to the sanctification of the first day by God, which cannot be found in the Bible, but it is equally true with respect to Christ and to his apostles. We have carefully traced the subject through the New Testament, and can say in the strictest truth that neither Christ nor his apostles sanctified the first day, or set aside the sanctification of the seventh.
The first day of the week has no commandment requiring men to remember it and to rest upon it from ordinary labor. The fourth commandment relates explicitly to the day of the Creator's rest, and makes no reference to the first day of the week. The tradition of the elders has changed the fourth commandment as effectually as it changed the fifth commandment in the former dispensation. Matt. 15:1-9. This tradition has taken out of the commandment the seventh day and inserted the first day in the place of the seventh. God has never given to man the right to change his law, and has never sanctioned what the elders have done to his commandment.
But it will be said that the custom of observing the first day in place of the seventh is of such long standing that even if it was not according to the commandment of God when it commenced, it is now become very acceptable to God. Hear the word of the Lord on this point, and you will see that the longer men persist in making void the commandments of God by the traditions of men the more aggravating is that sin in the sight of God. Thus Malachi says: "Even from the days of your fathers ye have gone astray from mine ordinances, and have not kept them. Return unto me, and I will return unto you. But ye said, Wherein shall we return?" Mal. 3:7.
But how should such persons return unto God? Hear the words of Jeremiah: "Thus saith the Lord, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old path, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein." Jer. 6:16.
Those who make this response when invited to return from the traditions of men to the commandments of God should read what Christ has said on the subject of worship: "But in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." Matt. 15:9.
But it will be asked: Should not the resurrection of Christ be commemorated? We answer: "Certainly it should be commemorated." In our next number, if God permit, we will show what the New Testament teaches with respect to that commemoration. J. N. A.
Methodist Theology and Practice
By Editor
But the Methodist Church is tainted through and through with that which would have been considered rank heresy by Wesley and Fletcher and their associates. Great and important changes have taken place in that church in the last half century.—Signs of the Times.
That is possible; but the Methodist preachers who are doing the chief work of the church still hold to the theology taught by Fletcher and Wesley. The defection is greatly overstated.—California Christian Advocate.
Oh, yes; the preachers subscribe to the theology of Fletcher and Wesley—to a large extent. But do they preach it? Does not the editor of the Advocate know that the preaching of the Methodists is as different from what it was fifty or forty years ago as the defection is great among the laity? It is not alone the modern church fair, where the minister tries to say funny things to keep pace with the fun-loving crowd, that would make Wesley groan. A minister, as we have actually seen, in good standing in the Conference, with a Masonic badge of gold on his breast, would not have been accepted in one of Wesley’s classes. And Fletcher would have strengthened his "Checks" had he heard a Methodist minister preach that the Ten Commandments were a law for the Mosaic dispensation, from which we are freed in Christ, as we have known Methodist ministers to do when trying to meet the arguments of Seventh-day Adventists. And the editor of the Advocate himself has recommended Methodist literature tinctured with the same heresy.
The Influence of the Bible on Woman.
By Dr. Isaac G. Bliss
THE following well illustrates what is occurring in all parts of the land in these days. Recently a very aged woman, who has long been sad and depressed over the loss of most of her children, was urged to learn to read, that she might be cheered in her loneliness by the words of the divine Comforter. Consolation she had not, and her sorrows grew upon her. At last a primer was obtained and placed in her hands, and she began her long toil. The way was weary and difficult, for her vision, even with the aid of her spectacles, was very dim. The effort was a benefit to the sad old woman, and so she persevered. After much hard work she reached that part of the primer where short texts of Scripture and prayer are found. These she read and re-read, and finally learned them by heart, and the comfort she needed came. Afterward a Testament in large print for the aged was purchased for her, and now her delight is in the law of the Lord, and in that law doth she meditate day and night.
A missionary lady in Northern Mesopotamia, in recounting some of her experiences on a recent tour in that region, gives most delightful testimony to the changes effected, and still going on among the women of that field as the result of the wide dissemination of the Bible. She speaks of finding many poor, hard-worked village mothers who had surmounted the greatest obstacles in learning to read, that they might with their own eyes read the words of Christ, their Saviour. Not only was she surprised to find so large a number of this class, but greatly encouraged by it. In one town, where a few years ago the people were ready to stone the first man who dared to declare himself a reader of the gospel, she visited a large number of houses. Although it was the busiest season of the year, the women left their work most gladly to hear the words of Christ, never allowing her to leave them without offering a prayer in their behalf. In the same town a mother, unwilling herself to be called a Protestant, speaking of her son, who recently died in the prime of manhood, gave as the highest tribute she could pay to his memory, that he so loved to read the Bible. A few years ago that mother, and many others in that town, would have preferred that their sons should be thieves, liars, and even murderers rather than be known as readers of the gospel. In one village, so great was the desire to hear the word of God, that young brides (contrary to all propriety in the customs of that region), recently brought from other villages, and who could read, were drafted into the service of teaching others, and even holding prayer-meetings with others. In another town, this missionary found a woman who had never attended school, had learned to read by herself, and, taught of the Spirit, she sat in that circle of women expounding unto them most acceptably the word of God. In another place she found twenty women learning to read. In another, a Bible-class, meeting every Sabbath with sixty women in attendance. One poor woman, whose work pressed her so constantly that she could get no time during the day to look at this best of books, every night put her Testament under her pillow, so that with the first beams of the morning light she could rise in her bed, and read enough to fill her meditations the whole day. Well does this missionary sister ask: "Would the desire to read any common book lead ignorant women to make such efforts?"
This same loving and beloved Christian laborer gives expression to the great cheer which filled her heart at seeing such large numbers of women, once ignorant, debased, and most superstitious, now living sweet Christian lives, and eager to have their daughters educated in all that develops and crowns true womanhood. One large village is referred to, where the Protestant pastor, realizing that in order to elevate the people as a whole, special efforts must be made for the women, had succeeded in persuading nearly all to learn to read, and make the Scriptures their chief source of instruction. This town seems to be the banner town in this respect in all that region. A visit to it always stirs the feeling of joy and thanksgiving in the heart of the missionary. She speaks of one woman so filled with the words and spirit of the gospel that she herself counts it a privilege and a joy to sit at her feet, and learn of divine things. This woman is the mother of a large family, and one whose life has been one prolonged series of trials, whose burning severity has only made her graces shine with increased brightness. Never from her lips have words of complaint or murmuring been heard. Indeed, such has been her experience that the darker the night and the keener the sorrow the more cheerfully can she say, "The will of the Lord be done;" for that will is always best. Often in their visits from house to house the missionary laborers are accompanied by this sister, and it is a noble tribute they pay to her that whenever they hear her explanations of scriptures they are filled with admiration and delight, and ask: "Whence hath this woman this wisdom?"
In the same field, another missionary lady responds to the question, "What has the Bible done for the women in your part of the great vineyard?" in these words, "Come with me to a little prayer-meeting, and listen for yourself. The room is well filled. A blind woman has crowded close to the missionary lady who is speaking, and, sitting at her feet with upturned face, is drinking in every word. Now and then a silent tear rolls from under the lids where the sightless eyes are hid, and falls as quietly on the bosom below. The missionary is sure that one heart at least is touched. She finishes the 'Old, old story,' and blind Marion says, 'Lady, these are sweet words. I think it is because they are Bible words. I love these words. I have a nephew who comes to the mission school, and he has learned to read the Bible, and daily he reads to me. I have learned four chapters. May I come and recite them to you some day?' She needed no prompting. This blind Marion is now bending every energy to learn to read the portions of the Bible in raised letters. She is spoken of as one of the brightest of Christians, and an excellent Sabbath-school teacher. She belongs to an Armenian family hostile to our work, the only Protestant in the large household. She is praying, and we are waiting to see the whole family turn to Christ.
"Come to a village where only a few years since the women were the most degraded in our field. What mean the songs that meet our ears? Yonder the women and girls are going out to gather in the harvest. Listen, and you will hear them singing:—
'What is it shows our feet the way
To realms of everlasting day?
It is the precious Bible.'
"These bronzed peasant women have learned to read God's precious word, and it lightens their incessant toil. Go to the home of the richest man in one of the villages (on the great Harpoot Plain), and there you will see his strong wife, the giantess of the region, tossing from side to side on her couch. Fever has crimsoned her cheek, and almost maddened her brain. She gazes strangely on the missionary lady, glad to see her, but feeling that she is holy, and cannot pity a sinner like her. She asks her to pray, and at once is quiet. The missionary has taken with her from the city a sister, one of God's purified ones. Listen while she calmly leads this awakened sinner to the Lamb on Calvary, and you will say she has not only read and learned God's word, but has hidden it in her heart."
Such are some of the incidents gathered from the different quarters of this great Bible field. The testimony from all the departments is one. Improvement, elevation, intelligent piety, consecration to, and hard work for, Jesus, are what the Bible is giving to the women of Turkey. It has blessed thousands. Out of the depths others still cry for deliverance. How earnest our faith, how burning our zeal should be to give to the tens of thousands that are still in darkness this glorious light which has come down from heaven!—Dr. Isaac G. Bliss, Constantinople, in Christian Statesman.
The Missionary.
By Isaac Morrison, F. T. Lamb
Gonzales, California.
Our meetings in this place closed August 6. Gonzales is a small town of nearly one hundred inhabitants, and about one-half of these are Spanish. The attendance at our meetings has not been very large, but those that were interested came regularly. On account of the busy time of harvest, those living near Gonzales could attend only on Sundays.
There are eight that have taken their stand with us, and have made arrangements to meet on the Sabbath for worship. Others are deeply interested, whom we think will sometime take their stand for the truth, but who are hindered at present by opposition in their families.
We have had considerable opposition, but most of it has been in private. One morning about three o'clock some one set fire to the straw around our tent, but we noticed it before it burned the tent. At another time near midnight some men, who were probably drunk, attempted to let the tent down by cutting the ropes. Tent ropes were cut at several different times, but no great harm was done.
We gave Elder J. W. Webb, of the Grand Lodge, the use of the tent one evening to hold a temperance meeting as there was no other convenient place.
We have been encouraged by the blessing of God, and feel our need of a closer walk with him.
ISAAC MORRISON, F. T. LAMB.
Stayton, Oregon.
By Charles L. Boyd; E. W. Barnes
The attendance and interest in the tent-meetings continue good.
We have now come to the Sabbath question, which has become the topic of general conversation.
Our bundles of Signs of the Times are hailed each week, and then distributed, attended with missionary labor, throughout the town and surrounding country.
We trust some honest souls will accept of this present truth.
Chas. L. Boyd,
E. W. Barnes.
IT MAY NOT BE.
By John G. Whittier
It may not be our lot to wield
The sickle in the ripened field.
Not ours to hear, on summer eves,
The reaper's song among the sheaves.
Yet where our duty's task is wrought
In unison with God's great thought,
The near and future blend in one,
And whatso'er is willed is done.
And ours the grateful service whence
Comes, day by day, the recompense:
The hope, the trust, the purpose stayed,
The fountain, and the noonday shade.
And were this life the utmost span,
The only end and aim of man,
Better the toil of fields like these
Than waking dreams and slothful ease.
But life, though falling like our grain,
Like that, revives and springs again:
And early called, how blest are they
Who wait in heaven their harvest day!
—John G. Whittier.
Dying of Respectability.
A MAN who in the midst of his family receives a bill larger than he expected, may walk up and down the room and tear his hair, and rave in his excitement, and no one blames the extravagance of his conduct. Men in the stock room may be wild with excitement as the prices are going up or down, and they are making or losing money, and this is only a reasonable diligence in the pursuit of business. But the moment a man wakes up to the necessity of seeking the kingdom of God, or the church begins to be earnest about the salvation of souls perishing in sin at her gates, we are told that this is enthusiasm, fanaticism, madness. The fact is, brethren, we are dying of respectability! Afraid to be in the great work of the world's salvation, lest we be reproached for our zeal and earnestness, as if it were possible for us to be too much in earnest when the immortal interests of ourselves and our fellow-men are at stake. Our churches are DYING OF RESPECTABILITY!
Oh! for the voice of one crying in the wilderness to awaken such people from their repose, and warn the carless multitude to flee from the wrath to come!—Ex.