“FIRE! fire!” was recently the startling cry around a human dwelling. But soon the noble firemen extinguished the flames of the burning roof, and all was quiet and seemed to be safe again.
The next day the same alarm of fire was heard, and again the conflagration was subdued.
Then came the question, How happened it that the fire broke out the second time? Oh! a little spark was hidden away in the garret where the first was kindled, and suddenly fired the roof once more.
Sometimes we wonder why a young man or woman respected and loved is detected in crime, or disgraceful, ruinous vice. The fact is, good instruction and influences had apparently subdued the heart and formed a pure character, but the soul was unrenewed, after all: the precious blood of atonement had not cleansed it from secret sin. Impure habit, untruthfulness, or some other evil tendency, was hidden away from human view. God saw it; and soon the fire burst forth, laying the soul and body in ruins.
Look out for the spark of sin. Your only safety is in the sincere prayer David offered: “Create in me a clean heart, O God! and renew a right spirit within me.”
—Sel.
Tobacco.
By H. A. St. John
As an evidence of the corruption existing in many of the professed churches of Jesus Christ at the present time, I would present a few facts relative to the use of the filthy weed, tobacco.
At a conference of a religious society of considerable respectability in this country, one of the ministering brethren present offered a resolution looking to the abrogation of the use of tobacco among them, denouncing it as sinful. Remarks condemnatory of the resolution were made by several, and among others a presiding elder said in substance, as follows: “Dear brethren, in a few weeks you will assemble here for communion, and if this resolution be adopted by you, as truthful in sentiment, you will have the sacrament administered to you by an old sinner; for I have used tobacco for a long time, and expect to continue to use it.” After this, an expression was taken, whereupon all voted against the resolution, but one. Thus they could all go on their way rejoicing, snuffing, smoking, and chewing; even teaching, both by precept and example, that the filthy, injurious, and disgusting practice of tobacco-using is not opposed to the pure principles of Christianity. Why can they not see that the common use of this fetid weed is contrary to every principle of purity and holiness found in the word of God? How shameful! that professed followers of the holy Jesus should be guilty of such degrading habits.
Another sect of religionists, remarkable for their tenacious adherence to the rule of their discipline, had the following experience: One of the principles of decorum enjoined upon their members is, that the brethren shall always and invariably greet each other with a kiss. One man was brought to trial for neglecting this duty. It was certain he had passed a brother without giving the accustomed kiss. He confessed to the truthfulness of the charge, but stated by way of self-justification and defense, that the slighted brother, at the time referred to, had his external mouth and otherwise noble beard all besmeared with the vile spewings of tobacco, and that he could not and would not kiss such a man. In vain his plea. He was actually excommunicated! Now it is my judgment that they expelled the wrong man. It appears to me that here is an example of straining at something even smaller than a gnat, and swallowing something a thousand times more disgusting than a camel. Who of us would desire to press the lips of a being, even of the genus homo, whose mouth and beard were blackened with the foul slobberings of tobacco?
The things above mentioned are more than straws, showing how the tide of corruption, which will drown men in perdition, is sweeping over this world in these last days. I came near saying that a clean mouth and a pure breath were inseparably connected with a clean heart and a right spirit. Reader, if your mouth is polluted with tobacco, will you please read the following scriptures, and as you read, try to realize that it is the language of a pure and holy God addressed to you. 1 Cor. 9: 25–27; 6: 19, 20; 3: 16, 17; 2 Cor. 7: 1.
H. A. St. John.
A Word of Kindness
A WORD of kindness is seldom spoken in vain. It is a seed which, even when dropped by chance, and springs up a flower.
Good Language.
YOUNG people should acquire the habit of correct speaking and writing, and abandon as early as possible any use of slang words or phrases. The longer you put this off the more difficult the acquirement of correct language will be; and if the golden age of youth, the proper season for the acquisition of correct language, be passed in its abuse, the unfortunate victim will most probably be doomed to take slang for life. You have merely to use the language which you read, instead of the slang you hear, to form a taste in agreement with the best speakers and poets in the country.
THE TEMPLE.
“And the house, when it was in building, was built of stone made ready before it was brought thither; so that there was neither hammer nor axe nor any tool of iron heard in the house while it was in building.” 1 Kings 6:7. See also 5:7-18.
AND whither came these goodly stones ’t was Israel’s
pride to raise,
The glory of the former house, the joy of ancient
days;
In purity and strength erect, in radiant splendor
bright,
Sparkling with golden beams of noon, or silver smiles
of night?
From coasts the stately cedar crowns, each noble slab
was brought,
In Lebanon’s deep quarries hewn, and on its mountain
wrought.
There rung the hammer’s stroke among the echoing
rocks,
There chased the chisel’s keen, sharp edge the rude
unshapen blocks.
Thence polished, perfected, complete, each fitted to
its place,
For lofty coping, massive wall, or deep-imbedded
base,
They bore them o’er the waves that rolled their billowy
swell between
The shores of Tyre’s imperial pride, and Judah’s
hills of green.
With gradual toil the work went on, through days,
and months, and years,
Beneath the summer’s laughing sun, and winter’s
frozen tears;
And thus in majesty sublime, and noiseless pomp it
rose—
Fit dwelling for the God of peace, a temple of repose.
Brethren in Christ, to holier things the simple type
apply;
Our God himself a temple builds, eternal and on high,
Of souls elect; their Zion there—that world of light
and bliss;
Their Lebanon—the place of toil—of previous moulding—
this.
From nature’s quarries, deep and dark, with gracious
aim he hews
The stones, the spiritual stones, it pleaseth him to
choose;
Hard, rugged, shapeless at the first, yet destined
each to shine,
Moulded beneath his patient hand, in purity divine.
Oh, glorious process! see the proud grow lowly,
gentle, meek;
See floods of unaccustomed tears gush down the
hardened cheek;
Perchance the hammer’s heavy stroke o’erthrew some
idol fond;
Perchance the chisel rent in twain some precious,
tender bond!
Behold he prays, whose lips were sealed in silent
scorn before;
Sighs for the closet’s holy calm, and hails the welcome
door;
Behold he works for Jesus now, whose days went idly
past;
Oh, for more moldings of the hand that works a
change so vast!
Ye looked on one, a well-wrought stone, a saint of
God matured—
What chiselings that heart had felt, what chastening
strokes endured!
But marked ye not that last soft touch, what perfect
grace it gave,
Ere he was fitted for his home, across the darksome
wave?
His home, the place God’s grace designed that chosen
soul to fill,
In the bright temple of the saved, “upon his holy
hill;”
Home ’mid the noiselessness, the peace, of those sweet
shrines above,
Whose stones shall never be displaced—set in redeeming
love.
Lord, chisel, chasten, polish us, each blemish work
away,
Cleanse us with purifying blood, in spotless robes
array;
And thus, thine image on us stamped, transport us to
the shore,
Where not a stroke is ever felt, for none is needed
more.
—Family Magazine.
In Both Sides, pp. 55–58, is a brief exposition of Rom. 7: 1–6, in reply to some articles published by Eld. P. in the Crisis in 1864, wherein he endeavored to show that Paul teaches in Rom. 7, that the Christian is released from all obligation to keep the moral law, or the ten commandments, as written by the finger of God on the tables of stone.
In his so-called “Review of Both Sides” Eld. P. attempts a rejoinder to our argument, and a further exposition of that portion of scripture. We endeavored to arrive at an understanding of Paul’s language, by noticing particularly the parties he introduces in his illustration, showing what was represented by those parties, and drawing necessary conclusions from the premises given. To do less than this is to omit a portion of what Paul has taught. The apostle introduces four parties: the woman, the law, the first husband, and the second husband. In the application there must also be four corresponding parties. Three of these are directly named, so that there is no mistaking them. Paul is talking about the sinner, who, after conversion, is at liberty to be married to Christ. Hence, the sinner corresponds to the woman in the illustration, the moral law, to the law of marriage, Christ, to the second husband, and that to which the sinner is bound before conversion, to the first husband.
These points are made plain in Both Sides, as above noted; and now if the reader would like to look at a specimen of no-law logic, we refer them to Eld. P.’s reply to these points. After quoting our argument he says:—
“In order to make the more important points, in the foregoing extract, appear in their true light, we will prepare a few questions based upon the foregoing, and find the answers to them in the precise language of Both Sides, as quoted above.”
“1. What does Paul represent under the figure of marriage?”
“Ans.—‘The condition of a person before and after conversion.’”
“2. How many things does the apostle refer to in this illustration?”
“Ans.—‘Four. The woman, the law, the first husband, and the second husband.’”
“3. In the case illustrated, how many things are there?”
“Ans.—‘Four.’ (1) ‘The sinner represented by the woman; (2) the moral law, represented by the law of marriage; (3) something [?] to which the sinner is bound; (4) and Christ represented by the second husband.’”
“4. When the first husband dies, what can the woman do?”
“Ans.—‘She is free to marry another.’”
“5. What ‘alone’ dies?”
“Ans.—‘In the case of the sinner, that also which is represented by the first husband.’”
“6. But in answer to our third question, did you not say that ‘the sinner’ is ‘represented by the woman?’ and now in answer to the fifth, why do you say ‘the sinner’ is ‘represented by the first husband?’”
“Ans.— ——”
It is no doubt very amusing to Eld. P. to put the matter in this light. Having asked us why we said what we never have said, it is well to put the answer in blank. There is another reason for his so doing; for if such an answer was inserted there as his course in this matter would justify, it would be complimentary neither to his head nor his heart. So far as its having any connection with our position is concerned, he might just as well have accused us of saying that the sinner is represented by “Jack the Giant Killer.” If the accusation was made in good faith, it betrays an obtuseness of understanding marvelous to behold; for we have ever been careful to guard against confounding the parties Paul introduces in his illustration one with another; and the attempt to make this confusion is what we protest against in all no-law expositions of Rom. 7. They contend that the law is that which dies, thus making no distinction between the husband and the law of marriage which regulates the union between man and wife.
In this strain, Eld. P. continues, asking ten more false and absurd questions, to which he represents us as answering only with a long dash, followed by more or less exclamation points, according as his bewildered logic leads him to imagine he has made a more or less telling point. Into a particular exposure of these we do not intend to enter, as a mere mention is more notice than they justly merit.
Then follows a professed exposition of Rom. 7. This exposition occupies not quite eight pages of his book. Of this, nearly two pages consist of a rambling paraphrase of Rom. 6. Coming to chap. 7, instead of taking up the first part of the chapter and explaining Paul’s language, he strikes in on verse 22, and quotes on down to the 5th verse of chapter 8, from Emphatic Diaglott. Then, after stating that “when Paul was nothing but a sinner he was under the influence of but one law—‘the law of sin.’ But when he is a Christian, he is under, or influenced by, two laws: ‘the law of sin’ which still remained on his ‘FLESH;’ and ‘the law of God’ which he had in his ‘MIND,’” he quotes again verses 22–25 of chapter 7 from the common version! Following this comes a proposition to show by paraphrasing the chapter that Paul is speaking of himself before and after conversion. And “this,” says Eld. P., “will help us out of all our difficulties about the seventh of Romans.” Then he devotes nearly two pages more, of his eight, to giving twenty-three translations of verse 6, and Dr. Clarke’s comments on that verse; and sixteen of these translations plainly say that it is “we,” the person, not the law, that dies; while seven only of them afford any chance for quibbling by speaking of that being dead wherein we were held. Then, carefully avoiding the first part of the chapter, he commences with verse six, and devotes two pages more to a quotation verse by verse of the remainder of the chapter, interspersed with occasional words and phrases by way of explanation; concluding the whole with these words: “So much for the seventh of Romans. Is it not plain?”
Yes, it is plain that Eld. P. has tried to evade the reasoning of the apostle, and covering up and obscuring the real point of his argument, has tried to make it appear that we are released from obligation to keep the law, by emphasizing such expressions as “delivered from the law,” “freedom from the law,” &c. But what has he done towards explaining Paul’s illustration? Nothing at all; not even alluding to the first five verses of the chapter, but commencing with verse 6; because there he finds the expression. “We are delivered from the law.”
Turning from this painful attempt at perversion, let us give our attention for a moment to a careful and candid
EXAMINATION OF ROMANS SEVEN.
The subject upon which Paul is here treating is conversion and its relation to law. The problem to be solved is, how the sinner can be united to Christ, which is the end to be gained. Verse 4. The change which takes place in the sinner, and the parties between whom a change of relation is effected, is illustrated by the figure of marriage: A woman has a husband. So long as that husband lives, the law of marriage binds her to that one man; she is not at liberty to be married to any other man. Her husband dies. Now she is no longer bound to that husband; for he is taken out of the way. Now she can form a new union; and the same marriage law which held her to her first husband, now sanctions her union with the second, and holds her to him. Here then are four parties; the woman, the first husband, the law, and the second husband.
In the application we must also have four corresponding parties: three of them are expressly mentioned: the subject of conversion, answering to the woman, the law of God, to the marriage law, and Christ, to the second husband. There must be something corresponding to the first husband; and with this first husband the person is united while in a state of sin; and this first husband must die, or be taken away, before the person can be united to Christ, the second husband, just as the woman’s first husband must die before she can lawfully form a union with the second.
What, then, constitutes a person a sinner? And what change must take place in him, to enable him to form a union with Christ? These are easy questions; for they are fully answered in the word of God; and the answer shows us plainly what constitutes the first husband. A person is a sinner because he is united with the “carnal mind,” Rom. 8: 7, “the body of sin,” Rom. 6: 6, “the old man,” Rom. 6: 6; Eph. 4: 22; Col. 3: 9. And what must take place before the sinner can unite with Christ? This “old man,” this “body of sin,” this “carnal mind” must be slain, “crucified” and “put off;” Rom. 6: 6; Eph. 4: 22; Col. 3: 9; and then the “new man,” “Christ in you the hope of glory,” Col. 1: 27; can be “put on,” Eph. 4: 24; Col. 3: 10. And this putting off the old man, to be no longer the servant of sin, and putting on the new man, to occupy henceforth a new relation, and lead a new life, is the release from the first husband and the marriage to the second, which Paul designs to illustrate.
Mark now the fitness and accuracy of Paul’s illustration: The woman is bound to a husband; the sinner is bound to the old man of sin: the woman’s husband must die before she can marry another; the old man of sin must be crucified before the sinner can become free from that relation: the woman’s husband being dead, she can marry another; the old man of sin being crucified, the sinner, now no longer a sinner, can unite with Christ: the law of marriage regulated the condition of the woman, both with the first and second husband: so the law of God, the moral law, determines the moral condition of a person, both before and after conversion; for while a person is a sinner, the law, by which is the knowledge of sin, holds him as a sinner so long as he continues his unholy life; but when the body of sin is destroyed in him, and he turns to a new life of service to Christ through whom he has obtained forgiveness of his past transgressions, the same law shows him to be a Christian, by showing his life to be in accordance with its requirements. For who is a Christian? A Christian is he in whom the righteousness of the law is fulfilled through the intervention of Christ. Take away the law, the standard of righteousness, and it would be impossible to show a person to be either a sinner, or a Christian.
But how does this affect the law? Does it destroy it? Does it release us from obligation to obey it? By no means. But does not Paul say that we are delivered from the law? Yes; and what does he mean by it? Look at the illustration. Does he not say of the woman, when her husband is dead, that “she is free from that law?” Verse 3. But does any one suppose that she is then at liberty to disregard the marriage law from that time forward, and commit any of the crimes which it forbids, or take any number of husbands she may choose? No one in his right mind. In what sense then is she free from the law? Answer: The law no longer shows her to be a married woman, so prohibiting her from forming any other union. So when the sinner is converted, the law of God no longer holds him as a sinner, united to the old man of sin, but stands ready then to sanction his union with Christ.
Does the law die? Our no-law opponents say, Yes. Then the law is the first husband; for it is the first husband which dies. Then Paul’s illustration should read like this: Verse 2. “The woman which hath a law, is bound by the law to her law, so long as the law liveth; but if the law be dead, she is loosed from the law of her law.” Or substituting the word husband for law, if the law is the husband, we have this beautiful picture of domestic felicity: “For the woman which hath an husband, is bound by her husband to her husband so long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead she is loosed from the husband of her husband.” There would seem to be no excuse for such folly as making the husband and the law mean the same thing.
But does not Paul say, “That being dead wherein we were held?” So the common version reads. But in what were we held? Not in the law, but in sin. So this would not show that the law was dead. But what says the margin? “Being dead to that.” This puts the truth upon the brethren. And how reads the original? The expression “being dead” is a participle in the nominative plural, ἀποθάνοντες (apothanontes), agreeing with the pronoun “we,” not with the word “law.” This positively precludes the idea that it is the law which dies. We die, not the law. But it is the first husband which dies, and it may be asked, Do we then correspond to the first husband? Answer: Sin dying in us, and we dying to sin, are expressions which Paul uses to describe the same thing. This is shown by Rom. 6. Paul speaks in verse 6 of our old man (of sin) being crucified, and then we are “dead to sin,” as in verse 2. So our old man of sin being crucified or dying in us, and we dying to sin, are synonymous expressions. Rom. 7: 6, therefore, has the same meaning as if it read, But now are we delivered from the law, the old man of sin in us, the first husband to which we were held, having died.
In the remainder of chapter 7, Paul describes the death struggles of this body of sin; and in the eighth chapter states the condition of a person when conversion is fully accomplished. Then the body of sin is destroyed, no condemnation remains; and the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in the individual through Christ.
Thus the teaching of the apostle is so plain, that a poor wayfaring man, &c., has no excuse for erring therein.
An Acknowledged Failure.
By J. H. W.
It has been the confident expectation of the churches of this generation that the millennium was near at hand; that the world was fast growing better. And it has been their confident boast that they were going to “take the world.” So I heard a minister express it. They have boasted also of the greatest revivals within the last fifteen years, especially in 1858, that have been experienced in a long time. And now how do they stand?
Albert Barnes said the American churches were responsible for American slavery; that there was no power outside the churches that could have sustained that institution an hour, if it had not been sustained by them. Some of them ignored the question entirely; others connived at it, while others upheld it as a Bible institution, and a blessing to society! But slavery pushed them to the wall, and made most desperate efforts to destroy the government, which had so long been perverted to sustain the abomination. Then as a matter of necessity, a war policy, the government put forth its strength and crushed out the viper, when, lo! the churches set up a jubilee shout over the downfall of slavery. Even the American Tract Society, which had utterly refused to speak a word on the subject, mutilating valuable works of foreign authors, as was repeatedly charged against it, to get out all allusions to the sin of slaveholding, then issued books against slavery—when slavery was dead and gone! Why did not the churches put forth their moral power, and influence, to put down the evil? Simply because the evil was popular. Now they admit that slavery was wrong, and that its abolition was a great benefit to the world; but, instead of their being the light of the world, and moving out in advance against the evil, they wait till the world moves out, and they follow in the light the world offers to them.
But the abolition of slavery did not bring the millennium. Evil does not seem to be greatly on the decrease, according to their showing. And now what do they propose to do? Is it to renew their consecration to God, to humble themselves before him, to send forth men full of the Spirit of God, to reach the hearts of the people, and revive true religion and morality in the body of the nation? Nothing of the kind. Indeed, they have greatly lost their faith in these old-fashioned gospel means. Now they are calling for constitutional amendments and legal enactments to put “all Christian laws, institutions, and usages, on an undeniable legal basis in the fundamental law of the nation.”
A quotation from the Cincinnati Christian World, in the last number of the Christian Statesman, the organ of the National Association for the amendment, contains the following expression of the object of the movement: “The restoration of society from its demoralized condition, and its demoralizing tendencies, by the enactment of such a legal principle as shall give the State higher powers in the peculiar province of legislation, and so enable it to solve the difficult problems in the civil organization.”
The difficult problem in question is this: Sin is openly on the increase; irreligion, recklessness, and every evil work, are becoming so bold and out-breaking that many begin to see that the whole body is diseased and corrupt, and something must be done to check “the demoralizing tendencies” of society, as our very existence as a people is in peril. And what are the churches doing? Are not they “the light of the world,” and “the salt of the earth”? So they claim.109But alas! their light is gone out—the salt has lost its savor. Their influence is powerless for good, and legal enactments become their only hope in these days of peril.
It is said of Nero that he amused himself with fiddling while Rome was burning. Notoriously wicked as he was, many have doubted the correctness of such a statement of history, not believing it possible that any one could be so hardened as to look with indifference on such a calamity, especially as he bore a great responsibility in regard to the welfare of the nation. That a conflict is pending—a crisis is near, all admit. That the very existence of the nation is in peril, the association believes; and the representative men of almost every denomination are pleading for the Religious Amendment as the only hope. What are the churches doing to check the downward tendency, and save the moral world from utter demoralization? They are “eating and drinking with the drunken;” inventing new methods of frolic and fun to call in the rabble and get money! Neck-tie socials, sheet-and-pillow-case socials, oyster suppers, and all manner of silly and wicked amusements find patronage in these institutions of popular folly, while the prayer-meeting is neglected, and devotion becomes a thing unknown.
When we consider the great increase of crime, the danger impending, and the awful responsibility of these churches as professed servants of the Most High, and then behold their suppers and amusements, their church parties and socials, their flaunting advertisements of “fun for everybody,” we no longer look upon Nero as a sinner above all others! The Saviour said of the last days, “Because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.” Read 2 Tim. 3: 1–5, and see its fulfillment in our own times.
That the American churches have utterly failed to fulfill their mission cannot be denied. The reasons set forth to prove the necessity of the Religious Amendment are an acknowledgment of this fact. They well know that the people have not confidence in their preaching and their moral standing so as to be influenced by them. “A great revival” is no longer an index of a great reform. Their moral influence is not sufficient to check the “demoralizing tendencies” of society, and they call for laws to stay its downward progress! It is time they learned that human laws cannot make people religious. They may make bigots. They may make hypocrites, and gather into their folds dishonest politicians, and thus add to the worldliness and corruption of their own bodies. “God is a Spirit, and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.” But this end can never be brought about by legal enactments.
However specious the pretence for this amendment may be, all history attests this truth, that the nearer the church is allied to the State the more corrupt the church becomes. And were not the churches already blinded in regard to their duty, as well as to their condition, they would regard the success of this movement as the greatest calamity that could befall the cause of true godliness and vital piety.
The church of Rome tried the experiment of extending the influence of religion without the slow process of increasing religious sentiment, and Protestants are following in its footsteps. The result, if successful, will be “an image” to that which so long wore “out the saints of the Most High.”
The Saviour’s injunction to “Watch!” becomes his people now.
J. H. W.
Men and Things.
By Dudley Marvin Canright
MANNERS IN THE DESK.
On this subject the Methodist Monthly has the following good advice to ministers. A disregard of more or less of these just rules often spoils an otherwise good sermon and kills the influence of the minister. Let us read them, consider them, and observe them:
“1. If a brother preacher is in the pulpit with you, do not engage him in conversation any further than may be strictly necessary. Your auditors might think your message to them was not bearing with much weight on your own heart.
“2. When you desire the people to kneel for public prayer, do not throw up your hands and arms as though you would hurt somebody. It would seem more appropriate to say, ‘Let us pray,’ and make no gesture with arms and hands.”
“3. Read your text distinctly, and do not say, ‘You can find the text by reference to the twentieth verse and fifth chapter of the gospel according to St. Matthew’; but say, ‘Matthew, fifth chapter and twentieth verse.’ Everybody knows that Matthew is a saint, and that the book which bears his name is a gospel, that Hebrews was written by Paul, and that it is an epistle. Why then repeat it every time you announce your text?”
“4. Do not close the Bible after reading your text, but let it remain open before you during the sermon. To close it indicates a little egotism, and seems to say, ‘I don’t need you any longer.’”
“5. Avoid extremes in gesture. Do not be too stiff on the one hand, nor like a limber jack on the other; and remember that gestures are to be seen not heard.
“6. Do not try to tell all you know in one sermon. The art of condensing costs study, but when once attained its value is priceless. Never talk to hear yourself; if you do, others will get tired.
“7. Avoid levity in the pulpit. Once in a while something may be said to excite a smile, but let it be the exception. A common buffoon can make people laugh.
“8. Be natural. Don’t try to ape the tone or gestures of some great man. Be great by being yourself. Guard against what is termed ‘heavenly tones,’ a tremulous voice, and ‘ministerial twang.’”
“9. Be in earnest. Let your hearers see that you believe what you are preaching. How can any preacher go with God’s awful message to dying men and women with feelings of indifference? How dare he trifle away the sacred hour on some dry metaphysical disquisition in which his own heart never becomes enlisted.
“10. Articulate plainly. Let every word be heard from the number of the first hymn to the Amen of the benediction. [This you cannot do with tobacco in your mouth.]
“11. Above all, and first of all, seek the baptism of the Holy Ghost.
“[We would add one or two other hints, which it may be useful to observe. The spirit of the pulpit should be high, holy, Godlike, and not combative, revengeful, or too scary. Fear may be appealed to occasionally; but love is more potent to move and soften the hearts of sinners. A clergyman with very large cautiousness and little hope will picture one’s future in colors dismal and dreadful. Fear is a good thing, but don’t use too much of it. One with large hope and less cautiousness will try to influence his hearers to look upward. . . . . . . . Clergymen with large self-esteem sometimes forget that it is the gospel they are expected to preach, and unconsciously—let us suppose—preach themselves. I did so and so, I am your guide, etc. This is also seen in those with small veneration and large approbativeness. The minister’s calling, which is justly regarded as the highest of all human pursuits, requires the best organization, the best culture, and the best spirit to do it in the best way. We have bunglers and imposters in the pulpit as well as elsewhere; still, here, much more than elsewhere, we should seek to put the right man in the right place.]”
A LOVELY SENTIMENT.
“The words which Walter Scott puts in the mouth of Jennie Deans in her memorable address to the Queen, are as true as they are beautiful: ‘When the hour of trouble comes—and seldom may it visit your ladyship—and when the hour of death comes to high and low—long and late may it be yours, O, my leddy—it is na what we have done for oursels, but what we have done for others that we think on most pleasantly.’”
A GOOD HIT.
“The man who is too poor to take a paper has bought a dog, a shot gun, and, two dollar watch. He educates his children in the streets, and boards his chickens on his neighbors.”
There is much truth in this little paragraph, as any one may prove by looking around him. It is with shame that I say that I know persons who profess to be keeping the law of God and looking for the end of all things, who fill the above bill, and in addition chew tobacco and drink tea and coffee. God pity them. Thank the Lord they are few. Wish they could see this. But alas! they are the very ones who won’t see it. D. M. CANRIGHT.
Reflections.
By R. F. Cottrell
THE appointed time is come, the days of humiliation and prayer. While I seek the face of the Lord to-day, my brethren, believers in the truth for this time, the true-hearted, those who feel the importance of the work of God and the worth of souls, all over this land and in other lands, are engaged in the same. The Lord will hear the united voice of his people. The harvest is big, and he will send forth laborers. It is laborers that are wanted, not ministers alone, but ministers and people. None are to be idle. All have a portion of work assigned them.
I cry to the Lord to send laborers into his harvest. Why? Because the field is great and the laborers are few. We that are in the field are few. There is a vast amount of work to be done. But while we cry for help, are we doing what we can? It is inconsistent for me to plead for help while I am not doing my best. What interest has the idler in the field to cry for help? He has not enough interest in the work to take hold of it himself. His cries for help will not be heard. They will not enter into the ears of the Lord. They lack faith—a faith that shows itself in works. Help, when sent, will not help the idler. It is the laborer only that can appreciate the help when it comes.
Then while we ask for laborers, because the work is too great for us, let us see to it that we are doing what we can. No other course is consistent. And is it not the design of the Lord in teaching us to pray for laborers, to awaken us as individuals to do our part of the work. What will avail our prayers, unless we work? This is the test of our faith. Then let it have this effect on me: to arouse me to labor in the Lord's harvest. While I cry to God for help, let me do what I can. If all will do this, a large number of laborers will immediately be in the field, and the work will go on as never before. Brethren, let us share in the answer of the prayer. Let each say, Here am I; send me. R. F. COTTRELL.