THE LIKENESS QUESTION AGAIN.
By D. T. Boerdeau
Though I have, from the power of example, transcended the bounds of propriety in a measure, in this matter, which I intend to do no more; yet I do not feel inclined to take an extreme view of the subject by denouncing picture-taking in a broad and unqualified manner, and go so far as to destroy the likenesses I have, or order others to do so, in imitation of the example of some East a few years since, against the teachings of the gift of prophecy (as I understand it), which afterward condemned such a rash and unwise course. I do not even understand that the last testimony to the church, a fragment of which I see in Sr. White’s acknowledgment in Review, No. 16, condemns picture-taking in every instance. If it does, why does Sr. W. say, “I was shown that picture-taking had been carried to too great lengths by Sabbath-keeping Adventists; and that much means had been spent in multiplying copies which was worse than lost?” If this was the mind of the Spirit in the matter, would not the production and testimony read something like this: “I was shown that picture-taking was wrong in every instance; that we should not go into it at all?” No, it is in carrying this matter “to too great lengths,” and in expending “much means” in “multiplying copies,” which “should have been invested in the cause of God,” that we have done wrong. Neither do I believe that taking likenesses within proper limits, is against the second commandment. If the first part of this commandment is to be taken in its broadest sense, without being limited by the latter part, then Jehovah himself is a violator of the moral law, of which we justly say that it is a duplicate of God’s holy character, because he keeps every precept of it in its strictest sense. For Jehovah has in many instances commanded likenesses to be made of things in heaven and things in the earth. Then God gave laws to his ancient people clashing against each other, and they could not obey him. Then you must say that Jehovah set a bad example in causing two cherubims of glory to be made over the mercy-seat, looking with interest and sacred approval and respect to the law in the ark containing the second commandment, etc. Then we all err in having charts, in harmony with an injunction to make the truth plain. Then we should not even make a pattern of any thing, and no one keeps or can keep the second precept of the decalogue. How plain it is that the first part of this precept is explained by the latter clause, “Thou shalt not bow down to them, nor serve them,” and that it is making these things to worship them that is condemned by the law of God. Thus the second command explains itself. We have a similar instance in the fourth commandment, a portion of which reads, “In it (the seventh day) thou shalt not do any work.” Who among us will take this part of the Sabbath law, disconnected from, and unexplained by, the rest of it, which shows that it is “thy work” which should not be done on the seventh day? But any blessing can be abused and be made a curse and a source of sin, by the use we make of it, and I do not wish to encourage by my remarks the spirit that has prevailed among us on the likeness question. I admit there is far greater danger in indulging in this direction, than there is in abstaining. Yet I do not feel to censure those who, for instance, would receive the likeness of an absent wife, or husband, or child, or who would accept a cheap and plain picture of aged and respected parents, whom they may never see, or of a dying Christian sister who has been especially drawn out to get her picture taken for her absent brothers, etc. I cannot condemn those who in such circumstances would think that there can be no more harm in looking at the shadow or likeness of an absent friend, than there is to look at the reality; and that to look at the simple picture helps the mind to call up and keep in remembrance the qualities and virtues of the individual, especially if there is a lack of memory of form and faces. But neither will I feel tried with any who should, through a desire to do right, deprive themselves of these privileges. I will respect such, as I should like to be respected by them. And I shall not get up a battle with those who are willing to deny themselves in that which is lawful to not have others do that which is unlawful; but will admire their love for the cause. It may be urged that this is the position Sunday-keepers take with us. But this is not a parallel case. It is assuming a point without evidence. It is, in our humble opinion, begging a question against the example of Jehovah, and that of his ancient people, and against the conduct of all now living, in lawful and necessary things. We repeat, we know there is danger of going to extravagance, as pointed out in prophecy, Isa. ii, and idolatry, while we should be examining our characters in the light of God’s law. There is danger of squandering means which we are responsible for, and which should be spent in the cause. And in conclusion we would say, let all move in the fear of God in this matter; and let those who do not see as we do, simply carry out their convictions. In doing otherwise, they would sin against their own consciences. But let us enjoy our liberty before God, and we will love you, and will hope to so carry out the principles of God’s law, that we may enjoy each other’s society where there will be no separation and no mental deficiencies, and consequently no room for those sublunary things, which have called forth these remarks. D. T. BOERDEAU.