Your ShelfYour Projects

Review and Herald, Vol. 29, No. 3.

The Sermon

Review and Herald

Dec 25, 1866

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Dec 25, 1866

The Sermon.

By J. H. Waggoner

Preach the Word. 2 Tim. iv, 2.

GOSPEL SERMON ON HEALTH.

BY ELD. J. H. WAGGONER.
TEXT. 1 Tim. iv, 8. “Godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come.”
All who have any correct idea of the principles of God’s government, and of the gospel of salvation, are ready to acknowledge that life to come—eternal life—is dependent upon our loyalty to that government, and the reception of the gospel as the only means of salvation. But very few, comparatively, seem to discover that any particular relation exists between the gospel and “the life that now is.” “The wages of sin is death,” is daily quoted and correctly applied to the second death, without a thought on the very evident truth that sin hastens the death of our mortal bodies, and carries us through this life in a groaning, suffering, and almost dying, rather than living, state. Many have doubted the truthfulness of the scripture which says of certain evil doers, that they “shall not live out half their days,” Ps. iv, 23, because the wicked seem to live as long as the righteous; but if we take a broader and more correct view we shall look upon all as a race of transgressors, who are continually, by neglect or violation of the laws of our being, proving the truth of another scripture declaration: “The years of the wicked shall be shortened.” Prov. x, 27. Though man was created “to be immortal,” Wis. of Sol. ii, 23, the Psalmist says, “Thou hast made my days as an handbreadth.” Ps. xxxix, 5. God does nothing without a reason, and by examining his word we shall learn why man’s days are “shortened,” or reduced to “an handbreadth.”
By our text we learn that the present life is matter of promise to godliness. That we may be prepared to rightly estimate the value of “the life that now is,” let us notice some of its privileges and blessings.
a. This life is our only probationary state; here alone can we make our calling and election sure to eternal life; and if the life that is to come be of infinite worth, so is the value of the present, with its privileges, above all computation, seeing that eternal life is made to depend on this.
b. In this life only can we follow our Saviour in cross-bearing and self-denial. Here we have sinful surroundings, and are subject to divers temptations, by resisting which, we prove our faithfulness and consecration to God. Being freed from these associations and besetments in the life to come, we cannot there give the same proof of our constancy and devotion.
c. Here only can we share in the afflictions and sufferings of Christ our Head, and here only realize the sweetness of his sympathy in the hour of temptation and of trial. How precious to know that his kind, benevolent heart is touched with the feelings of our infirmities; and how much of bliss we lose when we forget the promised presence of our Saviour, and murmur and complain at our sufferings, and count them as hardships instead of privileges. In this life alone we can have this experience.
d. In all these things we can glorify God in a manner which we cannot in any other state. As the glory of God should ever be the first great object of life, how should we prize that life on the events of which are suspended such awful responsibilities, such weighty duties, such inestimable privileges and interests!
Let us not, then, consider the present an unimportant part of our existence, but seek to understand and discharge its duties with faithfulness; and not, as the selfish hireling, long for the time when labor shall end and rest and reward be given. To unfold and impress the importance of this subject is the object of the present discourse.
The loving disciple in a most tender address to a well-beloved brother, said, “Beloved, I wish above all things that thou mayest prosper and be in health”—and here the objection is suggested that spiritual health is the only boon of the gospel, as Jesus is the Great Physician to cure the sin-sickness of the soul. But John adds, “even as thy soul prospereth.” 3 John, 2. Here is health and prosperity together with prosperity of soul; and the apostle desired that one might be “even as” the other; that there might be a balance of health and prosperity between body and soul. Examining this subject in the light of science or reason, we shall find that there is really a close relation between the two. It will be readily conceded that he who has strong intellectual powers will be able to develop more moral power than he who is deficient in intellect; that a sound mind can do more to glorify God than a weak one. And no one will deny that a strong, enduring, physical frame is capable of developing and sustaining more intellect than a weak one. A feeble, sickly, diseased body cannot impart much energy to the intellectual or moral faculties. True, some men of feeble frame have shown much strength of intellect, but such would have been the giants of their age with strong physical frames to have given the requisite force and power to their minds, and enabled them to endure in executing what their minds could plan.
We ought ever to regard any subject as God himself regards it. Now we have the plainest evidence that God regards health as a blessing, and disease as the fruit of disobedience. Said the Lord to the children of Israel, “If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of the Lord thy God, and wilt do that which is right in his sight, and wilt give ear to his commandments, and keep all his statutes, I will put none of these diseases upon you which I have brought upon the Egyptians; for I am the Lord that healeth thee.” Ex. xv, 26. And again he said, “And ye shall serve the Lord your God, and he shall bless thy bread and thy water; and I will take sickness away from the midst of thee.” Chap. xxiii, 25. These texts contain a two-fold promise, to take sickness away from them, and put no disease upon them; that is, to make them well and to keep them so. The same is again promised in Deut. vii, 15: “And the Lord will take away from thee all sickness, and will put none of the evil diseases of Egypt, which thou knowest, upon thee; but will lay them upon all them that hate thee.” And again: “If thou wilt not observe to do all the words of this law that are written in this book, that thou mayest fear this glorious and fearful name, THE LORD THY GOD; then the Lord will make thy plagues wonderful, and the plagues of thy seed, great plagues, and of long continuance, and sore sicknesses, and of long continuance. Moreover, he will bring upon thee all the diseases of Egypt, which thou wast afraid of; and they shall cleave unto thee. Also every sickness and every plague, which is not written in the book of this law, them will the Lord bring upon thee, until thou be destroyed.” Deut. xxviii, 58–60.
Now if sickness be an infliction, and the result of sin, how reasonable, how consistent, to humble ourselves before God, to confess and forsake our sins, and ask him to stay the affliction, and heal us. David regarded the evident connection between the forgiveness of sin and removal of sickness. He said, “Bless the Lord, O my soul, and forget not all his benefits. Who forgiveth all thine iniquities; who healeth all thy diseases.” Ps. ciii, 3. The Psalmist did not bless the Lord for an imaginary benefit, nor come into his presence with presumption; for, as we have seen, the Lord had made health a subject of promise; and to claim his promise through obedience to his precepts is always our privilege, and always pleasing to him.
In Isa. liii, we find a most remarkable Messianic prophecy. The reference to our Saviour’s passion, and the objects of his sufferings and death, are here more clearly and directly stated than in any other scripture of the Old Testament. Verse 5 reads thus: “But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of ourpeace was upon him, and with his stripes we are healed.” The objection considered on 3 John 2, grows out of a misapprehension of this text; it having almost invariably been applied to a healing of the soul of sin, and to that alone. But that this is a misapplication of the text is made clear by the evangelist’s unmistakable reference to it in recording the Saviour’s miracles. He said: “When the even was come, they brought unto him many that were possessed with devils; and he cast out the spirits with his word, and healed all that were sick; that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias, the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses.” Matt. viii, 16, 17. These exact words are not found in our version of Isaiah; but the exact idea is found in the text quoted from that prophet; and it will be noticed that many other quotations from the Old Testament have this same peculiarity in the New, being quoted from the Hebrew into the Greek, and from that again rendered into the English.
The two ideas, forgiveness of sin and healing of diseases, were inseparably connected by our Saviour in his recorded expressions concerning his miracles. Thus, when one was brought to him sick of the palsy, he said to him, “Thy sins be forgiven thee.” When certain ones looked upon this as blasphemy, he said, “Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts? For whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise and walk? But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed and go unto thine house.” Matt. ix, 2–6. Thus it appears that to say, Thy sins be forgiven, meant precisely the same thing with him as to say, Thy sickness is healed, or, Arise and walk. As his mission was to “destroy the works of the Devil,” 1 John, iii, 8, this was certainly a part of that mission, for he said, when he healed a certain woman, that Satan had bound her. Luke xiii, 16. And the direction of the apostle James is strictly within the limits of the provisions of the gospel: “Is any sick among you? Let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.” Jas. v, 14, 15.
In the light of these scriptures, we may safely take the following positions: (1.) The healing of diseases is a provision of the gospel of Christ; and in the days of our Saviour on earth it invariably accompanied the forgiveness of sin, where the sinner was diseased; and the promise thereof is sure to all who come unto Jesus for salvation. But as he deals with us according to our faith, we do not often receive this blessing, for God will not give his glory to another; and we must ask in order to receive, and exercise that faith which it would be for the glory of God to bless. (2.) The importance of this subject is fully established. It is a gospel blessing, and the purchase of the Saviour’s blood; and, whosoever names the name of Jesus and yet disregards the matter of health, really disregards the Saviour’s offering, and, so far, makes the gospel a nullity, and thus dishonors God and his Son. To be careless or negligent of health is to be careless or negligent of life, and, of course, of all its privileges, duties, and responsibilities. Ill health not only destroys life, but disqualifies us for the service and glory of God even in life; and he who destroys his health by imprudence or neglect, robs God of his glory, and the cause of God and of humanity of a service which is their just due. “Ye are not your own; for ye are bought with a price.” God has a right to us; to our life; to our service; by creation and also by the purchase of Jesus’ blood; and he who deprives him of his right by destroying his own life, or disqualifying himself for service, cannot be guiltless. How often do the professedly pious and well-intentioned fatally err in this respect? A young man of good abilities felt called to the ministry. Desiring an education, he set about the preparation with great energy; day and night he studied; every consideration was lost sight of but the one—to go to college and fit himself for usefulness as a minister. His incessant attention to study showed its effects upon his health. Friends warned him, but in vain; and about the time he expected to enter college he was laid in the grave.
Pious people talked of the “inscrutable ways of divine Providence,” and the “unfathomable designs” of God in thus taking him away from promised usefulness. But all such expressions, under such circumstances, are wrong imputations and reflections on God’s providence—an abuse of the merciful provisions of a wise God and Father. He fell by his own action; a victim of ignorance and imprudence. We would consider it presumption to ascribe the “everlasting destruction” of a sinner to an “inscrutable Providence;” for God has said he has no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, and Jesus said they would not come to him that they might have life; the sinner is the author of his own destruction. And if a man by carelessness or neglect may throw away eternal life, shall we impute it to God and his providence when one throws away “the life that now is” by equal recklessness?
How many a useful life has thus been destroyed! My mind now rests on more than one young lady of intelligence who has been brought to the grave, or doomed to a life worse than death itself, by neglecting her health because it was “only a cold.” Will any one say that the great object of life is accomplished in these cases? Is God glorified and humanity benefited by such a course? Can it be pleasing to God that the provisions of his gospel should be thus slighted, and all the responsibilities of life thus lightly laid aside? I cannot believe it.
I hope no one will look upon this subject as of a mere physical nature—a means merely to make us strong to do a great day’s work, and gather riches faster; far from it. It is a question of morals; and so must be, and will be yet regarded by God’s chosen people. Said the apostle: “I beseech you, therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.” Rom. xii, 1. We are commanded to glorify God in our body and spirit which are God’s. 1 Cor. vi, 20. Then it cannot be an unimportant duty to present our bodies a living, holy, sacrifice; for it is the temple of the Holy Spirit; verse 19; and should be preserved in purity and holiness, for it is written again, “If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy.” 1 Cor. iii, 17. How few seem to realize that purity of body in any wise pertains to godliness, though it is plainly enjoined upon us to “cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.” 2 Cor. vii, 1.
We have not enjoyed the blessing of the gospel in this respect as was our privilege, because we have occupied Antinomian ground; that is, we have sought the blessing of God while violating the conditions, or laws of our being, and thus work against our prayers, even where we have realized that this was a privilege. By our habits of eating and drinking, or by imprudence in labor or exposure, we have fastened disease upon ourselves; and cultivated wrong habits whereby we weakened all our powers, and were rendered incapable of self-control, of exercising self-denial, and so of serving God acceptably. Peter enjoined to add to our “temperance, patience;” 2 Pet. i, 6; and this order was stated evidently because temperance naturally precedes patience; because an intemperate person cannot be a patient one. Whatever stimulates, and thus irritates and inflames the system, destroys our self-governing power, and so destroys our Christian character; and this is done by wrong habits of eating and drinking more than by any other means. And no one can fulfill the injunctions of the scriptures above quoted as to cleanliness, purity, and holiness of body, who defiles his body with irritating poisons, as alcohol and tobacco, or with gross stimulating food and condiments. A writer, who is celebrated as a shrewd observer (Sidney Smith), said; “I am convinced digestion is the great secret of life; and that character, talents, virtues, and qualities, are powerfully affected by beef, mutton, pie-crusts, and rich soups. I have often thought I could starve or feed men into many virtues and vices, and affect them more powerfully with my instruments of cookery, than Timotheus could do formerly with his lyre.” By instruments of music the feelings and passions of men may be swayed for the time; but by instruments of cookery, their passions may be moulded into fixed habits of disposition and of character.
One who had observed, perhaps, more than any other, the relation existing between habits of appetite and of morals (Sylvester Graham), said:
“About eighteen years ago I visited a family of considerable distinction for their wealth, refinement, and piety. The lady seemed to me to be a very paragon of Christian propriety in almost every respect, and especially as a mother. She had three small children, the oldest being about five years old, and the youngest three months. She was unremitting in her maternal care and efforts to imbue the young minds of her children with sentiments of virtue and piety. She daily prayed with her children, and taught them to pray as soon as their lisping lips could articulate sounds. Her eldest was a daughter. Long before this child could speak with sufficient distinctness to be understood by any but the mother, she was taught to repeat, morning and evening, and on various other occasions, little prayers and hymns adapted to her age. As she grew older, she was successively introduced into religious infant, and Sunday-Schools, and Bible Classes. In short, all that a pious and devoted mother, and pious teachers, could do, by way of religious instruction, was done, to train her up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. I was charmed with the character and conduct of the mother, and named her with admiration whenever I had occasion to speak of maternal duties. She pursued the same course with all her children; and to protect them from the contaminating influence of other children, she employed private teachers, who co-operated with her in all her pious plans and measures; and great confidence was entertained that the happiest results would be experienced from such a system of education.
“Two years since, I visited the same family again, and remained with them several weeks. But most sadly was I disappointed in the character of the children. I found them irritable, passionate, contentious, quarrelsome with each other, and exceedingly undutiful and disrespectful toward their parents. They manifested little regard for religion or religious institutions, and seemed to feel exceedingly impatient under parental or religious restraint. The eldest daughter was peculiarly unhappy in her temper and disposition. Scarcely a day passed when she did not get into a violent passion with her mother, or some other member of the family; and her extreme peevishness and jealousy made her almost continually wretched in her own breast. But what surprised me most was her excessive lasciviousness. Wantonness manifested itself in all her conduct when in the company of males; On further inquiry, I found that this lasciviousness was not confined to the oldest child; all the children were more or less affected with it according to their age.
Here, then, would seem to be a case in which the very best efforts of a pious mother had entirely failed of their object; but a further examination will show a radical defect in the education of these children, which had completely nullified every good measure. This mother, with all her maternal affection, piety, and faithfulness, wholly disregarded the relations between the bodies and the souls of her children; between their dietetic habits and their moral character. She truly “made the table a snare to them;” and they literally “fared sumptuously every day.” Indeed, she prided herself in setting the best table in town. Highly-seasoned flesh-meat, rich pastry, and every kind of rich and savory food, and condiments in abundance, together with strong coffee and tea, and perhaps occasionally a glass of wine, were set before these children for their ordinary fare. The result was just what was reasonably to be expected; and sorrow and tears were the reward of the afflicted mother. Alas! how many parents thus unwittingly afflict themselves, and become active agents in the destruction of their children and their race.”
The apostle Paul said that he kept his body under and brought it into subjection, lest when he had preached to others, he himself should be a castaway.I Cor. ix, 27. If it be a truth (and who can deny it?) that stimulating food and drinks destroy the power of self-control, and thus stand in the way of the subjection of our bodies, they, of course, prevent our obedience to the scriptures which require the sacrifice of our bodies in holiness, and place us in danger of being cast away. Let us not, then, suppose this is a subject unworthy of the serious, prayerful attention of God’s children, since God himself has condescended to give us so much instruction upon it. Let us bear in mind that the first sin, which brought so much sorrow, and misery, and death, into the world, by which man fell, and for which the earth was cursed, was the unlawful gratification of appetite. The children of Israel were brought from under the rod of the Egyptians, passed safely through the Red Sea, saw the glory and power of God at Sinai and had the sacred oracles committed to them; were led by the pillar of fire, which was a guide and defense; feasted on the bread of heaven, and had all needful things supplied by the Lord without care or labor for their own support; yet incurred the displeasure of the Almighty and fell by thousands under his curse, because they lusted for flesh to gratify their perverted appetites, and murmured against the simple fare which God saw fit to provide for them. Had they denied self, and trained their appetites to love plain, simple food, they would have enjoyed God’s favor and lived before him. The same sin, the same gratification of taste, has multiplied sorrows upon the earth, and to this day is slaying its thousands in many ways. “Cookery,” at the present time, is not a system for supplying our wants, but for perverting and gratifying our tastes. Cooks and methods of cooking must be imported from France, and French licentiousness follows in their train. And this question is impressively enforced by our Saviour upon us who regard this as a necessary reform preparatory to meeting our coming Lord, and being translated into his everlasting kingdom. In warning of the dangers of that day, he said: “And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares.” Luke xxi, 34. It has been well remarked that, while the Saviour said it would be as it was in the days of Noah, that day should come as a snare or as a thief in the night upon all the wicked, and they should not know what hour it would come, so will it come upon all who suffer their hearts to be overcharged with the “cares of this life.” But if to let worldly care creep into our hearts at such a time be fatal, so, according to our Saviour’s words, “surfeiting” is equally fatal. Surfeiting begets stupidity, carelessness, and indifference; it destroys the watchfulness that our Saviour enjoins on us in order to be prepared for the coming of the Son of man. How many there are who profess to be looking and preparing for that day, who live in this world under a burden of anxiety and care how to pamper the stomach and gratify a perverted appetite! More foolish than Esau, who sold his birthright at the point of starvation, they reject the idea of laboring for that simplicity of habit and appetite which would build up healthy bodies and present them as living, holy sacrifices to God, and more nearly “count it pleasure to riot in the day time;” 2 Pet. ii, 13; and lay themselves under the charge of the apostle, who, speaking of the dangers and errors of the last days, said: “Ye have lived in pleasure on the earth, and been wanton; ye have nourished your hearts as in a day of slaughter.” Jas. v, 5.
It is not and has not been my purpose in this discourse to state particularly in what this reform consists: to lay out the various points wherein reform is necessary: these are properly subjects of lengthy and patient study, observation, and experiment; but rather to call attention to the subject in outline. And we have seen
1. That this life is an important part of our existence, replete with great privileges and responsibilities.
2. That God has made health a matter of promise to obedience, and threatened the disobedient with sickness and disease.
3. That Jesus died to carry out his promise; he bore our sicknesses on the cross, to purify our bodies and present them a holy offering to his Father.
4. That self-denial is an important gospel duty: and we must keep our bodies in subjection, and cleanse them from all filthiness, that they may be fit temples for the Holy Ghost.
5. That these important considerations demand simplicity of living, as in all ages the gratification of a perverted appetite has led to much sin and evil.
6. The surfeiting, or wrong habits in diet, will leave us unprepared for the coming of the Son of man.
Obedience is the test of love; if we walk in the ways of God he will hear our cry and remember us in the time of trouble. That time is near to come; and in view of it we earnestly pray that “the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” 1 Thess. v, 23.

THE LOSS OF THE SOUL.

“What shall it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?”—Mark viii, 26.
What though I revel in each earthly joy, And dance, and sing, and quaff the festive bowl, The nectar-cup and pleasure’s self will cloy— What is it all, if I must lose my soul?
What though I run in honor’s dusty race, And foremost reach ambition’s splendid goal; What are the proudest palms my brow can grace If I miss Heaven’s bright prize, and lose my soul?
Can even beauty’s smile and soft embrace My boding doubts and trembling fears control? What is the loveliest form, the fairest face, To me, alas! if I must lose my soul?
Can houses, acres, heaps of glittering gold, Grim death disarm, and my sad heart console? What are broad lands, proud piles, and wealth untold, If I must leave them all, and lose my soul?
O Holy Spirit, help me to resign Whate’er of earth obstructs thy bless’d control; Help me to lay my heart upon thy shrine, And lose my all, so I may save my soul! —Church Magazine.

Short Lectures

SHORT LECTURES.—When a man begins to find fault, note his spirit. If he is bitter, harsh and vindictive, don't listen to him. He will either grieve your heart, or infect you with his own spirit. If he comes cursing like a Shimei, pass him by; but if he comes weeping like a Jeremiah, you may weep with him, and mourn over the desolation of Jerusalem.

Which Way Does the Tree Lean?—

By J. J. Gurney

“If the tree fall toward the south or toward the north, in the place where the tree falleth, there it shall be.” (Eccl. xi, 3.) There is a solemn meaning couched under this metaphor. The tree will not only lie as it falls, it will fall as it leans. And the great question which every one ought to bring home to his own bosom, without a moment’s delay, is this: “What is the inclination of my soul? Does it, with all its affections, lean toward God, or from him?”—J. J. Gurney.

Sunday.

[A CORRESPONDENT sends us this article with the following note: The enclosed article on Sunday, from The United Presbyterian, Wis., is good proof that the Papists have attempted to change the name. It is to be lamented that the writer had not been a little better informed, and gone a little further and admitted that the Papists had also attempted to change the day.]
Why is it that so many Christians still persist in the practice of adopting the Popish name of Sunday for the Lord’s day? It can be viewed by right thinking minds in no other light than as an irreverent profanation of a day that God has made sacred to his own service, and commemorative of the greatest event that ever transpired in our world—the finished work of redemption. The day has several Scriptural names, such as Sabbath, the first day of the week, the Lord’s day, &c.; each calculated to inspire in the mind a respect for its sacred and commemorative character. Why throw these aside and adopt one of heathenish origin, and the adopted child of Popery? It is well known that in their view the sacred character of the Sabbath has ceased, and therefore its very names—the Sabbath, and the Lord’s day—names of a peculiarly solemn significance, have been laid aside, and a heathen name adopted as more in accordance with the way and manner they desired this day of sacred rest, sacred to the Lord, to be observed. That the worldly and profane should follow the evil example, is not wonderful; but it is passing strange that Christians, who profess to regard it as holy to the Lord and honorable in his sight, should still persist in calling it by this Popish nickname.
In regard to the other days of the week the name is, of course, a matter of indifference; but it is not so with the Lord’s day. Sunday was the festival observed by the heathen in honor of Sol, whom they blindly worshiped as God. The Christian mind should instinctively revolt against the double profanity of robbing God’s holy day of the name he has given it, and calling it by the name of a heathen deity. How hard it is to rid the Church of Popish influences. We have seen it sometimes published that such a one would lecture on the evils of Popery, on such a Sabbath? no, but on such a Sunday! and involuntarily have we felt he had better begin by freeing his own mind from its cunning device of robbing the Lord’s day of its sacred character, by robbing it of its good name.
We hope ere long to see the terms, Sunday Schools, Sunday School Unions, &c., banished from the Protestant churches. These great and good institutions are designed to disseminate the pure light of the Gospel, and to dispel, not perpetuate, the superstitions and idolatries foisted into the church during the dark ages.

Licentiousness and Fashion.

Customs of Women of Rank in England.—A lady’s maid, one of those not-to-be-envied persons, (a race which may be classed with that of governesses,) has lately made disclosures, throwing some light upon the women of rank in England. “Much is required from us in London,” one of them writes: “We must, above all, be very punctual, for fashionable ladies change their dresses at least five times a day during the season. We must have polished manners, be no older than thirty-five years, and always be cheerful and good-tempered, although for weeks we are kept without sleep until four o’clock in the morning—a practice which is equally injurious to eyes and lungs. We are expected to cut, and fit, and to use the most improved machine, and to dress hair for the morning, evening and court costume, as well as for the drive; to iron well, to read, write and cipher; to speak French and German, and, if possible, to have traveled. There is still another function of a lady’s-maid which is supposed to be a modern introduction, but which is, in fact, merely a revival of an ancient custom. We must be able to paint in pastel, not, indeed, after nature, but upon her. To beautify our mistresses we must redden the cheeks, put antimony upon the eye-lids, pastel upon the brows, introduce bella-donna into the eyes in order to enlarge the pupils, paint blue veins upon the temples, and use Ninon paint and pearl-white upon the rest of the skin. We must change the hair to a reddish-brown by means of a corroding material, or of ‘palma vecchio,’ which is now used in preference, for that purpose; and we must be possessed of great skill in applying all these ingredients, as their use is universal with the old as well as with the young.”
Dupin as to the Women of Paris.—The venerable Dupin, who held office under the great Napoleon, and whose long and useful life has just closed, lately made a speech in the French Senate on the “unbridled luxury of women,” to which a number of senators could not refrain from responding, “It is true; it is true.” An able editor in New York, presenting the substance of this speech as fearfully applicable to the extravagance and licentiousness of our own cities and country, says:
“This may be considered as Dupin’s last warning against that extravagance of fashion which is bringing in its train a general profligacy of morals, and corrupting the whole body of society. He ascribes the inundation of vice to the rage for luxury and extravagance, born of wild speculation.”
“They speak,” says Dupin, “of courte[z]ans who display themselves in public places. Such a one appears in a brilliant equipage, which attracts universal attention. Now what does the fashionable world do? It looks on; it takes this very creature as a model of style; and these are the characters who set the fashions to women of the world. They are the ones whose flaunting style it tries to copy.”
“You are pointed to some indecent photographs which are circulated at five sous a copy. But go to your theaters; there you may see performed a piece in which there is an exhibition on the stage of two hundred figures more offensive to modesty than the poor photographs of which you complain.”
“There are formed societies of temperance; for myself, I wish that there might be a society of mothers of families, who, without ceasing to appear in a style which is becoming the decency and even the elegance which suits their rank and their fortune, would yet give an example of retrenching without pity all superfluity, and thus come to the relief of those other classes who, drawing nearer and nearer from imitation, are always striving to attain a height which is beyond their reach.”

Proverbs xxvi, 4, 5.

By Horne

“Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.”
“Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.”
A CHANGE of circumstances changes moral things; therefore contrary things may be spoken together in moral things, on account of the difference of circumstances.
Thus, in Prov. xxvi, 4, 5, we meet with two precepts that seem to be diametrically opposite to each other: Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou be like unto him; and, Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit. But if we attend carefully to the reason which the sacred writer subjoins to each precept, we shall be enabled satisfactorily to account for the apparent repugnancy in the counsels of the Israelitish monarch; and it will be evident that they form, not inconsistent, but distinct, rules of conduct, which are respectively to be observed, according to the difference of circumstances. The following observations on the two verses just cited will materially illustrate their meaning.
A fool, in the sense of Scripture, means a wicked man, or one who acts contrary to the wisdom that is from above, and who is supposed to utter his foolishness in speech or writing. Doubtless there are different descriptions of these characters; and some may require to be answered, while others are best treated with silence. But the cases here seem to be one; both have respect to the same character, and both require to be answered. The whole difference lies in the manner in which the answer should be given.
“In the first instance, the term, ‘according to his folly,’ means in a foolish manner, as is manifest from the reason given: ‘lest thou also be like unto him.’ But in the second instance they mean, in the manner in which his foolishness requires. This also is plain from the reason given, ‘lest he be wise in his own conceit.’ A foolish speech is not a rule for our imitation; nevertheless our answer must be so framed by it as to meet and repel it. Both these proverbs caution us against evils to which we are not a little addicted; the first, that of saying and doing to others as they say and do to us, rather than as we would they should say and do; the last, that of suffering the cause of truth or justice to be run down, while we, from a love of ease, stand by as unconcerned spectators. The first of these proverbs is exemplified in the answer of Moses to the rebellious Israelites; the last, in that of Job to his wife.—It was a foolish speech which was addressed to the former:—‘Would God, that we had died when our brethren died before the Lord! And why have ye brought up the congregation of the Lord into this wilderness, that we and our cattle should die there?’ Unhappily, this provoked Moses to speak unadvisedly with his lips; saying, ‘Hear now, ye rebels, must we fetch you water out of this rock?’ This was answering folly in a foolish manner, which he should not have done; and by which the servant of God became too much like them whom he opposed. It was also a foolish saying of Job’s wife, in the day of his distress: ‘Curse God and die!’ Job answered this speech, not in the manner of it, but in the manner which it required. ‘What, shall we receive good at the hand of God; and shall we not receive evil?’”
In all the answers of our Saviour to the Scribes and Pharisees, we may perceive that he never lost the possession of his soul for a single moment; and never answered in the manner of his opponents, so as to be like unto them. Yet neither did he decline to repel their folly, and so to abase their self-conceit.” Fuller’s Harmony of Scripture, pp. 17, 18.—Horne.

Apples of Gold.

Prov. xxv, 11. A word fitly Spoken is like apples of gold in pictures of silver.
APPLE TREES are mentioned in Song ii, 3; viii, 5; Joel i, 12. Many suppose the citron-tree to be here meant. The rich color, fragrant odor, and handsome appearance of this tree, both in flower and in fruit, agree well with the above passages. Thoughts of wise men, well expressed, are like “apples of gold in pictures of silver,” that is, like ripe and golden fruit in finely wrought silver baskets. Prov. xxv, 11.
Continue reading: Who Purchased the Potter's Field