Review and Herald, Vol. 33, No. 23.
DISCUSSION IN SANTA ROSA TOWNSHIP, CALIFORNIAPage 1
Earlier text: DISCUSSION IN SANTA ROSA TOWNSHIP, CALIFORNIATHOUGHTS ON THE BOOK OF DANIEL.
VERSE 1. In the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon, Daniel had a dream and visions of his head upon his bed; then he wrote the dream, and told the sum of the matters. This is the same Belshazzar mentioned in chapter v. Chronologically, therefore, this chapter follows chapter iv. But chronological order has been disregarded in order that the historical part of the book might stand by itself, and the prophetical part, on which we now enter, might not be interrupted by writings of that nature. VERSE 2. Daniel spake and said, I saw in my vision by night, and, behold, the four winds of the heaven strove upon the great sea. 3. And four great beasts came up from the sea, diverse one from another. All scripture language is to be taken literally, unless there exists some good reason for supposing it to be figurative; and all that is figurative is to be interpreted by that which is literal. That the language here used is symbolic, is evident from verse 17. The symbols introduced are, the four winds, the sea, and four great beasts. We have now to inquire what they denote. Winds, in symbolic language, denote strife, political commotion, and war. See Jer. xxv, 31, 32. There the prophet speaks of a controversy which the Lord is to have with all nations when the wicked shall be given to the sword, and the slain of the Lord shall be from one end of the earth to the other; and what is the strife and commotion which produces all this destruction called? A great whirlwind. That winds denote strife and war is further evident from a consideration of the vision itself; for as the result of the striving of the winds, kingdoms arise and fall; and these events are accomplished through political strife. The Bible definition of sea, or waters, when used as a symbol, is peoples, and nations, and tongues. In proof of this, we have only to refer to Rev. xvii, 15, where it is expressly so declared. The definition of the symbol of the four beasts is given to Daniel ere the close of the vision. Verse 17: “These great beasts which are four, are four kings which shall arise out of the earth.” The field of the vision is thus definitely opened before us. VERSE 4. The first was like a lion, and had eagles' wings; I beheld till the wings thereof were plucked, and it was lifted up from the earth, and made stand upon the feet as a man, and a man's heart was given to it. As these beasts denote four kings, or kingdoms, we inquire, What four? Where shall we commence to enumerate? These beasts do not rise all at once, but consecutively, as they are spoken of as first, second, &c.; and the last one is in existence when all earthly scenes are brought to an end by the final Judgment. Now from the time of Daniel to the end of this world's history, there were to be but four universal kingdoms, as we learn from Nebuchadnezzar's vision of the great image in chapter ii. Daniel was still living under the same kingdom which he had declared in his interpretation of the king's dream, about forty-eight years before, to be the head of gold. The first beast of this vision must, therefore, denote the same as the head of gold of the great image, namely, the kingdom of Babylon. If, then, this vision covers essentially the same ground as the image of chapter ii, the query may arise why it is given; why was not the vision of chapter ii, sufficient? We answer, The ground is gone over again and again, that additional characteristics may be brought out, and additional facts and features be presented. It is thus that we have line upon line. Here earthly governments are represented as viewed in the light of Heaven. Their true character is shown by the symbol of wild and ravenous beasts. At first the lion had eagles' wings, denoting the rapidity with which Babylon extended its conquests under Nebuchadnezzar. When this vision was given, a change had taken place. Its wings had been plucked. It no longer flew like an eagle upon its prey. The boldness and spirit of the lion were gone. A man's heart, weak, timorous, and faint, had taken its place. Such was emphatically the case in the person of the imbecile and pusillanimous Belshazzar, with whom the Babylonian kingdom came to an end. VERSE 5. And behold another beast, a second, like to a bear, and it raised up itself on one side, and it had three ribs in the mouth of it between the teeth of it; and they said thus unto it, Arise, devour much flesh. As in the great image of chapter ii, so in this series of symbols, a marked deterioration will be noticed as we descend from one kingdom to another. The breast and arms of silver were inferior to the head of gold. The bear was inferior to the lion. Medo-Persia fell short of Babylon in wealth and magnificence, and the brilliancy of its career. And now we come to additional particulars respecting this power. The bear raised itself up on one side. This kingdom was composed of two nationalities, the Medes and Persians. The same fact is represented by the two horns of the ram of chapter viii, of which it is said, the higher came up last. This illustrates the same thing as the bear's raising up on one side, that is, the Persian element came up last, but attained the higher eminence, becoming the leading division of the kingdom. The three ribs perhaps signify the three provinces of Babylon, Lydia and Egypt, which were especially ground down and oppressed by this power. Their saying unto it to arise and devour much flesh, is thought by some to refer to the stimulus given to the Medes and Persians, by the overthrow of these provinces, to plan and enter upon extensive conquests. The character of the power is well represented by a bear. They were cruel and rapacious, robbers and spoilers of the people. VERSE 6. After this I beheld, and lo another, like a leopard, which had upon the back of it four wings of a fowl; the beast had also four heads; and dominion was given to it. The third kingdom, Grecia, is represented by this symbol. If wings upon the lion signified rapidity of conquest, they would signify the same here. The leopard itself is a swift-footed beast, but this was not enough; it must have wings in addition. Two wings, the number the lion had, were not sufficient; it must have four. If we are correct in the application, this must denote unparalleled celerity of movement; and this we find to be the fact. The conquests of Grecia, especially under Alexander, for suddenness and rapidity have no parallel in historic annals. “The beast had also four heads.” The Grecian empire maintained its unity only during the life of Alexander. When his brilliant career ended in a drunken debauch, the empire was shortly divided between his four leading generals. Cassander had Macedon and Greece in the west; Lysimachus had Thrace and the parts of Asia on the Hellespont and Bosphorus, in the north; Ptolemy received Egypt, Lydia, Arabia, Palestine, and Coele-Syria, in the south; and Seleucus had Syria and all the rest of Alexander's dominions in the east. Thus accurately were the words of the prophet fulfilled. As Alexander left no available successor, why did not the huge empire break up into countless petty fragments? Why just four parts and no more? Because the prophecy had said that there should be four. The leopard was to have four heads, the rough goat four horns, the kingdom four divisions; and thus it was. VERSE 7. After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth; it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it; and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns. 8. I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots; and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking great things. The foundation for a volume is laid in the two verses just quoted; and we are disposed to treat them the more briefly here, because anything like a full exposition is entirely beyond the space that can be allowed in these brief thoughts. This beast of course corresponds to the fourth division of the great image, the legs of iron. Under chapter ii, verse 40, are given some reasons for supposing this power to be Rome. The same are applicable to the present case. How accurately Rome answered to the iron division of the image! How accurately it answers to the beast before us! In the dread and terror which it inspired, and in its exceeding strength, the world never has seen its equal. As with iron teeth, it devoured and brake in pieces; and it ground the nations into the very dust, beneath its brazen feet. It had ten horns, which are explained in verse 24 to be ten kings or kingdoms which should arise out of this empire. As already noticed, Rome was divided into ten kingdoms, enumerated by Machiavel as follows: 1. The Huns. 2. The Ostrogoths. 3. The Visigoths. 4. The Franks. 5. The Vandals. 6. The Suevi. 7. The Burgundians. 8. The Heruli. 9. The Anglo-Saxons. 10. The Lombards. These divisions have ever since been spoken of as the ten kingdoms of the Roman empire. Daniel considered the horns. Indications of a strange movement appeared among them. A little horn (at first little, but afterward more stout than its fellows), thrust itself up among them. It was not content to quietly find a place of its own and fill it; it must thrust aside some of the others and usurp their places. Three kingdoms were plucked up before it. This little horn, as we shall have occasion to notice more fully hereafter, was the Papacy. The three horns plucked up before it were the Heruli, the Ostrogoths and the Vandals; not that these kingdoms were destroyed. This was not necessary; but they must retire from the field before the arrogant claims of the Papacy, and seek their territorial limits in other quarters. And “in this horn were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking great things”—fit emblem of the shrewdness, penetration, cunning, foresight, and arrogant claims of the bishop of Rome. THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.
By R. F. COTTRELL.
This has been a popular doctrine and regarded as orthodox ever since the bishop of Rome was elevated to the popedom on the strength of it. It is accounted dangerous heresy to reject it; but each person is permitted to explain the doctrine in his own way. All seem to think they must hold it, but each has perfect liberty to take his own way to reconcile its contradictory propositions; and hence a multitude of views are held concerning it by its friends, all of them orthodox, I suppose, as long as they nominally assent to the doctrine. For myself, I have never felt called upon to explain it, nor to adopt and defend it, neither have I ever preached against it. But I probably put as high an estimation on the Lord Jesus Christ as those who call themselves Trinitarians. This is the first time I have ever taken the pen to say anything concerning the doctrine. My reasons for not adopting and defending it, are 1. Its name is unscriptural—the Trinity, or the triune God, is unknown to the Bible; and I have entertained the idea that doctrines which require words coined in the human mind to express them, are coined doctrines. 2. I have never felt called upon to adopt and explain that which is contrary to all the sense and reason that God has given me. All my attempts at an explanation of such a subject would make it no clearer to my friends. But if I am asked what I think of Jesus Christ, my reply is, I believe all that the Scriptures say of him. If the testimony represents him as being in glory with the Father before the world was, I believe it. If it is said that he was in the beginning with God, that he was God, that all things were made by him and for him, and that without him was not anything made that was made, I believe it. If the Scriptures say he is the Son of God, I believe it. If it is declared that the Father sent his Son into the world, I believe he had a Son to send. If the testimony says he is the beginning of the creation of God, I believe it. If he is said to be the brightness of the Father's181glory, and the express image of his person, I believe it. And when Jesus says, “I and my Father are one,” I believe it; and when he says, “My Father is greater than I,” I believe that too; it is the word of the Son of God, and besides this it is perfectly reasonable and seemingly self-evident. If I be asked how I believe the Father and Son are one, I reply, They are one in a sense not contrary to sense. If the “and” in the sentence means anything, the Father and the Son are two beings. They are one in the same sense in which Jesus prayed that his disciples might be one. He asked his Father that his disciples might be one. His language is, “that they may be one, even as we are one.” It may be objected, If the Father and the Son are two distinct beings, do you not, in worshiping the Son and calling him God, break the first commandment of the Decalogue? No; it is the Father's will “That all men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father.” We cannot break the commandment and dishonor God by obeying him. The Father says of the Son, “Let all the angels of God worship him.” Should angels refuse to worship the Son, they would rebel against the Father. Children inherit the name of their father. The Son of God “hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than” the angels. That name is the name of his Father. The Father says to the Son, “Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever.” Heb. i. The Son is called “The mighty God.” Isa. ix, 6. And when he comes again to earth his waiting people will exclaim, “This is our God.” Isa. xxv, 9. It is the will of the Father that we should thus honor the Son. In doing so we render supreme honor to the Father. If we dishonor the Son we dishonor the Father; for he requires us to honor his Son. But though the Son is called God yet there is a “God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” 1 Pet. 1, 3. Though the Father says to the Son, “Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever,” yet, that throne is given him of his Father; and because he loved righteousness and hated iniquity, he further says, “Therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee.” Heb. i, 9. “God hath made that same Jesus both Lord and Christ.” Acts. ii, 36. The Son is “the everlasting Father,” not of himself, nor of his Father, but of his children. His language is, “I and the children which God hath given me.” Heb. ii, 13. R. F. COTTRELL. A QUESTION.
By John Harvey Waggoner
SABBATH LABOR AND CHEESE FACTORIES.
Several persons have sent questions to the Office on the subject of sending or taking milk to cheese factories on the Sabbath. Some time in April I received a letter from Ohio asking my opinion and advice, to which I replied that I would consult my brethren at the Conference. During Conference week I received another letter asking the same question, and stating some facts on the point. From this letter I copy as follows: “This year we have a small dairy, and we do not intend to send milk on the Sabbath. We cannot see that it is right to do so, as it is only a matter of gain; there is no necessity in it as we view it. There is no compulsion; a man may keep it at home when he chooses, and there is no need of waste. It can be taken Friday early enough not to infringe on the Sabbath, and then in the evening, after the Sabbath is past, as any time before nine o’clock will answer, thus keeping out only one milking. The morning milking can be set for butter, or made into cheese, after the Sabbath. I know it is attended with a little inconvenience, and more work, though not on the Sabbath, than to send it every morning; but is it right to labor for the sake of gain on the Sabbath, be it much or little, provided there is more gained by taking it away? Some of the Sunday-keepers in our vicinity keep it at home on Sunday; and the question was asked us, by that colporteur that you saw when here, if we carried milk to the factory on the Sabbath. We told him we did not, and he mentioned some friends that did not on Sunday. We hope it will be brought up and decided, and would it not be well to answer through the REVIEW.” I let Bro. Andrews read this letter, and asked his opinion. He replied that he thought the question was plainly set forth and answered there, and he fully agreed with it. I copy it, because, coming from a family who are in the dairy business and sell their milk, the testimony is more conclusive than anything I could say on the subject. Let us all seek wisdom from God, to understand how to “Remember the Sabbath-day to keep it holy.” WHAT ONE PARENTHESIS CONTAINS.
By John Nevins Andrews
The book of Deuteronomy is a rehearsal of the forty years’ wanderings of Israel in the wilderness. To the thoughtful reader of the Bible it is a record of remarkable interest. Indeed we can never exhaust its treasures of instruction, and its lessons of experience. The second verse of the book is worthy of much more attention than it usually receives. It is given in a parenthesis, as though breaking the connected story by an important explanatory clause. Thus we read, Deut. 1, 2: “There are eleven days’ journey from Horeb by the way of mount Seir unto Kadesh-barnea.” From Horeb, which is but another name for Sinai, or else another peak of the same mountain, to Kadesh-barnea which was close to the border of the promised land, there was a distance of eleven days’ journey for the host of Israel. They remained at Sinai nearly one year, receiving the law, constructing the tabernacle, and organizing the camp of Israel. Then in the second year (Num. x,) the pillar of cloud removing, they followed its guidance to Kadesh-barnea. There were some hindrances, and much that was evil in their conduct by the way, yet eleven marching days from Sinai brought them to the land which God had promised. That they were not fit for it, had been made painfully apparent. Rebellion flowed from their evil hearts of unbelief, as naturally as water from a fountain. So it was proper that they should be subjected to a trial that should show how far they had profited by the wonderful dealings of God with them; that should in a word show just what they were. The report of the spies at this point in their history, furnished just the trial that they needed. Num. xiii; xiv. So upon the very border of the land of promise, the people almost as one man, broke out in such rebellion against God, that with a solemn oath he swore that they should never set their feet upon the soil of that good land. The spies that had visited the land, had spent forty days in examining it, and God fixed the period of their wanderings in the wilderness, at forty years, each day of the spies’ examination of the land, being answered by a year of wandering in the wilderness. What a terrible sentence to be pronounced upon a people just ready as they supposed to enter the land! They must wander forty years. And that was not the worst of it. When that time should expire, it was not the purpose of God that they should enter the land. No by no means. On the contrary every one of that host of men and women, with almost the smallest possible exception, knew that they should die before that period expired. And so they did; the second numbering of Israel attesting the fact, that not one of the vast host of rebellious men and women remained alive. Num. xxvi, 63–65. And now at the end of their forty years’ sojourn, Moses rehearses their long and weary wandering in the wilderness. How much time had they spent, from Sinai to the promised land? About thirty-nine years. How far was it actually from the one point to the other? Only eleven days’ journey. No wonder Moses could not enter upon this forty years of needless wandering, without pausing to tell his hearers that it was a distance of eleven days’ march. What a significant statement that was. And how humiliating to those who heard him. Had every day been a day of overcoming, every night had witnessed their tents pitched a day’s march nearer the land of promise. A very brief period after the great work wrought at Sinai, was sufficient to have taken them to the land which they sought. But they did not profit by God’s dealings with them. They did not overcome. They went on, day after day, yielding to the power of Satan instead of resisting it, and so instead of a comparatively brief journey to the land of Canaan, they spent forty years of wandering in the wilderness, and every one of them, with two exceptions, failed of entering the land which God designed for them. How strikingly does this illustrate the religious experience of most professed Christians. In an experience of forty years, how many there are who have not traveled a greater distance than eleven days’ journey, of a faithful disciple of Christ. How many at the end of this long period, find themselves at the borders of Egypt and not of Canaan. How many whose heads are white for the grave, and who have been in name, the disciples of Christ almost their whole lives, have spent, like Israel in the wilderness, at least as much time in traveling from the promised land, as toward it! How awful this is to think of! Fitly do such persons say, “I have made many crooked paths.” They have indeed. And if they do not pay the penalty that Israel did, of coming short of the land of promise, it will be because godly sorrow works repentance unto life. Alas! what a miserable deception is much that is called Christian experience—what a dishonor to the cause of Christ, is such religion. Christian experience is nothing more nor less, than forming an acquaintance with Christ, which becomes every day more intimate and precious. It is following on to know the Lord. It is adding grace to grace. It is walking with God. It is resisting the Devil. It is humbling ourselves before God. It is overcoming temptation. It is keeping our face turned toward Canaan all the time. It is advancing always. It is retrograding never. It is bearing the cross of Christ. It is denying self. It is dying daily. It is not living ourselves, but having Christ live in us. Eleven days of such Christian experience is worth more than forty years of such as most persons are satisfied with. Why is it that men can never learn that the service of self and Satan, is not the service of Christ? That progress made with our back toward Canaan and our face toward Egypt, will never bring us to the land of promise. And even to journey in the right direction for a time, and to offset this with an equal or greater retrograde march, is to make no progress in the right direction. Can we find nothing in all this for solemn admonition? How much progress have we made in the five, or ten, or twenty, or forty years that we have been on the road? How far are we from the point where we set out to gain the kingdom of God? Are we even now gaining ground day by day? If not, it may be set down as a moral certainty that we shall never enter the land of promise. We cannot afford to lose one day. ’Tis time we all awake; the dreadful day draws near. THOSE who overcome sin are to have eternal life. Now we must not suppose that all who are merely skirmishing with the enemy, are overcoming him. It is one thing to enter the lists as combatants, and another to come off conquerors. We are engaged with a fearful foe. He who places his person in the sweep of a lion's paw, does it at his peril. Christ was not using a figure of speech when he said, Behold I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves. This is indeed a dangerous battle-ground. Many are falling who were once valiant soldiers; Satan is doing his worst now; and his art and cunning are to be feared. None but those who are protected by angels can stand. What do we gain by merely gaining a little now, and again losing a little ground at another time? Now we advance; again we retreat. Are we gaining ground? We need something more. We need a complete conversion. With us, let old things pass away, and all things become new. Let us gain not merely one victory, but such an arming, such a preparation as shall insure us every victory. Paul was converted at once. He went forth a mighty man, because his conversion was thorough. Many of us have been content with a partial work. It has not been fully understood in the nominal churches from which many of us have been rescued; and the spell is not broken, the spell of a fearful delusion. The nominal churches place a great deal of confidence in what, with them, is termed conversion. Is it conversion? Do the fruits prove it such? But the idea has taken hold of the public mind, and it is not easily eradicated. Once converted, and name enrolled182on the church book, and you are safe. So says the practical religion of the day. This idea has not been fully dispelled from the minds of the church. Thousands sleep from the effect of this opiate. Ideas which we drink in in childhood and youth, are a part of our organism, almost. What shall break this terrible spell, and arouse us from this heavy stupor? As the convicted multitude on the day of Pentecost cried out to know what they must do to be saved, so may we cry out to God for such a work to be done in our hearts as shall fit us for translation; a complete and thorough work; a refitting of the heavenly armor, such as shall fit us to triumph every time; and sufficiency of help from the armies of Heaven, so that no foe shall turn us from the path. Do we realize our danger? Sheep in the midst of wolves! Do we believe this is the literal truth? Then can we sleep? Awake, O my soul, and arouse from this stupor. Could we obtain such a work done upon our hearts, a full and complete conversion of soul, a work of the Spirit deep and permanent, then indeed, it would be easy and natural to do right. Filled with heavenly light and wisdom from God, we should not err. Did Philip make any mistake when he shared a part of the seat in the chariot of the Ethiopian eunuch, and preached to him Christ? or when he led him down into the water? or when he was found at Azotus? We need not merely a few rays of light, but a constant fountain, a never-waning light in our benighted hearts. Our knowledge of the Bible and of the graces there commended is far ahead of our experience in the things of God. We do not fully believe in the direct influence of the Spirit. O God! dispel this unbelief, this hardness of heart. Break up our stony hearts, with power enter these dark abodes, dispel, yea, expel every foe which there claims the right of possession. We sigh, we long for thee. Our hearts cry out for thee. We are like dead corpses. Awake us, O thou who didst awake the sleeping Lazarus. Let our cry ascend to thee. O Jesus, our high priest and king, present our petition to the Father. Oh! the terrible delusion of peace which we have loved. A false, a carnal peace. O God, thou alone canst deliver us from these hard and obdurate hearts. Thou who didst give to Bartimeus his sight, give us spiritual eyesight, and wisdom from above. Oh! we need a waking, such as thou alone canst give. Awake us, thou who canst awake the dead. Awake us, we are as dead men. We can hardly get life enough to cry to thee, we are so far gone in spiritual death. Where is the power once delivered to thy saints, O our God? Where is the life of the church in early days? Hast thou departed from us? We see that God is helping some of his people. Help us, O God, who cry to thee.
JOS. CLARKE. REPORT FROM BRO. MATTESON.
By John Matteson
In the latter part of April I spent a short time with the Danish friends in Montcalm. We organized a small church of thirteen members, and Bro. Jensen was ordained elder. Systematic Benevolence was pledged to the amount of $82.16. Five candidates were baptized, and in the afternoon we administered the ordinances. These were very solemn and interesting scenes. One fact that heightened the interest was, that one of the sisters who was baptized came very near dying a short time ago. Last fall she opposed her husband very much when he was baptized. Although convinced of the truth, she rose up in rebellion against it. Last winter she was taken sick, and after having suffered much from many doctors, was given up to die. She thought, herself, that she was dying. Her friends stood around, expecting her death. She could not speak, but she thought she was not prepared to have a part in the first resurrection, although she had repented of her sins and embraced the truth on her sick bed. From her inmost soul she sent up a prayer to the Lord to spare her, and make known her duty, then she would obey. She commenced to breathe again, and the duty that rested most on her mind was baptism. When I came there she had been confined to the bed for about three months. How could she be baptized? We prayed earnestly to the Lord for help and strength. She rode one mile and walked quite a little distance to the water, was baptized, and took part in the afternoon services. We all felt a deep sense of awe before the majesty of God, and of thankfulness to him, who, for his dear Son’s sake, still remembers his poor, failing creatures. From here I went to Alaidon, where I labored again till the Conference with good success. Twelve more united with the church, and thirteen were baptized. Two elders and a deacon were ordained, and S. B. arranged to the amount of $208.26 a year. When we attended to the ordinances we were much blessed. The Lord remembered us from the heavenly temple, and gave us a spirit of tenderness, meekness, and love. The number of members is now forty-three. I shall ever remember these dear friends with respect and love. May the Lord bless and build up and save you when the Son of God shall appear. During the meetings of the Conference I have received much instruction from the servants of God, for which I am thankful, and by which I mean to improve. The Lord is in this work, and I, for one, am thankful that we have received some rays of light from Jesus, while thick clouds have been surrounding us on all sides. The Lord willing, I will be found at home for a few weeks to come, and then arrange for future labor, which will probably be in Missouri for some time. May the Lord direct and bless in this important work. Battle Creek, May 25, 1869. On a dark, wild night, many years ago, a train of cars under rapid motion was approaching the steep bank of the Connecticut river, where the stream was deep and swollen, and many rods in width. Will they cross it? The tempest swept over the track and went shuddering and wailing by. Suddenly, when within a mile of the river bank, a quick cry of alarm from a human voice at the roadside sounded in the ears of the engineer, who immediately gave the signal to put on all the brakes and stop the train. Hundreds of startled men and women were awakened from their dream of fancied security, and springing from their seats breathlessly inquired, “What is the matter?” And their hearts leaped into their throats, and the blood ran chill, when they were told by the excited conductor that the wind had in its might lifted the long railroad bridge across the stream from its piers and fastenings, and carried it away off on the surging river, and that a few minutes more, and the noble train with all its living, precious freight would, but for that sudden, earnest cry, “The bridge is gone!” have been dragged over the precipitous bank into the black, deep, swift waters! Words were too feeble to express the thanks of those eager and tearful travelers as they crowded about the side of him who had proved their deliverer. And was not he, too, happy? Years afterwards, when the saved and scattered company that were on board that train sat by their quiet firesides to tell the story of that fearful night, and the almost miraculous escape from instant death, their hearts would throb with gratitude toward God and that solitary watcher, who, when death threatened them with swift destruction, heeded not the storm, but ran quickly to their rescue, and rang out his friendly warning voice on the midnight air—“The bridge is gone!” Just so the innumerable multitudes that throng the highway of human life, heedless of peril and staying themselves in seeming safety, are rushing on with hot haste, amid the darkness of nature and time’s waning night, toward the precipitous banks of the terrible Jordan of Judgment, in the vague expectation that all is well, and that the bridge that “Vain Hope” hath builded to span the awful waters is all right for them, and will bear them in safety over to another and better shore; forgetful of the stern fact that none will ever cross into the Canaan of immortality and glory, save those whose sins are washed away in the atoning blood of the Lamb. The whirlwinds to which they have sown have carried their bridge away, and they know it not. Divine mercy, that bridged for Noah the watery chasm which rolled between the world that perished and the world that now is, has for the good alone constructed a safe passage-way over the fiery vortex that lies between this world and that which is to come. All others, like Pharaoh and his hosts, will perish in the avenging flood. And he whose bark goes down then, will never rise again. That is the
“Last night; the long, dark, dark, dark night,
That has no morn beyond it, and no star.” How, then, should we who are enlightened, and who stand but a little way from that awful river, and see the trains of human souls go careering by, cry like the faithful watcher quick, loud and long, in their drowsy ears, “The bridge is gone!” And shall we not be culpable, if we can by our feeble voice save even one, and failing to do so, that one through our neglect go down in the blackness of eternal night at last! And if once and forever saved, how will we both sing for joy amid the happy circles of the eternal home, when we remember the earnest note of alarm that stayed the sinner’s wild and wayward career. O watcher on the walls! brave the darkness and the storm, and cry again in the ears of the perishing thousands who rush madly toward ruin, “The bridge is gone!” and if they heed thee not, then fling out the lurid signal of danger, and once more lift thy voice louder yet on the midnight blast, and cry as one that would wake the dead, “The bridge is gone.”—World’s Crisis. ON GOING SURETY.
By H. W. Beecher
THERE are certain moral and prudential considerations which should always be borne in mind in going surety for a friend. You should make up your mind how much property you have, and how much you are willing to give away, absolutely, for that friend whom you indorse. For no blunder can be worse than to indorse on the supposition that you will not have to pay. Never indorse without saying to yourself, “This may come round upon me. I may have to pay it; and, if it comes to that, I am able and willing.” Nine out of ten of the fatal mistakes made by bondsmen arise from taking the opposite course to this. They consider the act of indorsing a friend’s paper as a mere commercial form. “There is no risk. I shall not have it to pay. He is abundantly able to take care of his paper. I shall help him without harming myself, and he is a stingy man who will not do that.” This is the calculation on which a man binds himself to pay a friend’s debts in case the friend cannot pay them himself. But how do these things turn out? One need not go far to ascertain! Every village has an illustration. The borrower was more involved than you supposed, or, perhaps, than he himself knew, and his creditors closed on him and wound him up, and were overjoyed to find such a good name as yours on his paper. Or, the sanguine scheme on which he had ventured, which seemed sure of success, almost without possibility of failure, suddenly, like a loaded wagon, slipped off a wheel and upset into the dirt!
Or, just as everything was at the point of success, your friend sickened and could not look after his affairs, some critical matter was neglected, or some dishonest person stepped in and crooked matters: your friend died, the estate went into executors’ hands for settlement, was badly managed, warped and crooked, and finally turned out insolvent.
And what became of you? Why, you were surety for the full amount of what you are worth! In an hour you find yourself confronted with a debt that sweeps away your home, your farm, your little sum in the bank, and leaves you just where you began twenty-five years ago, with this difference, that then you had only yourself to provide for, and now you have a wife and eight children. Then you were twenty-five years old, and life was all before you, and now you are fifty years old, and life pretty much all behind you! You have given away your children’s bread. You have not saved your friend, but have ruined yourself! Perhaps your friend had settled on183his wife a small property. So much the better for her, if he had. Of course she will divide with you, since it was to save her husband, that you were ruined. But, if she will not, (and human nature is made up of shaky stuff,) and her children go to school, while yours stay at home; and if they live in a comfortable house, pleasantly furnished, while you are hiring a few rooms in the cheapest quarter of the town, then I suspect that you will chew the end of a great many bitter reflections. When it is too late, you will be very wise. You will say to yourself, it may be, “A man is a fool who signs for any larger sum than he can conveniently pay.” Amen, say I! “Before a man puts his name down on another man’s paper, he should ask himself, Am I willing to give this person as much money as I sign for?” Amen, say I! “To sign a bond on the supposition that it is a mere form, and that you will have nothing to pay, is to put one’s head into a fool’s noose.” Amen, again, say I. There is no harm in signing for a neighbor if you have the property; if you are able to pay the amount without harming your own household; and if you love the man for whom you sign enough to be willing to give him outright the sum covered by your indorsement. Otherwise, to go surety for a neighbor is a folly, a sin and a shame.—H. W. Beecher.