Seventh-day Adventist Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Oct 19, 1882
General Articles.
By Ellen G. White
Bible Sanctification.
BY MRS. E. G. WHITE.
THE FIERY FURNACE.
In the same year that Daniel and his companions entered the service of the king of Babylon, events occurred that severely tested the integrity of these youthful Hebrews, and proved before an idolatrous nation the power and faithfulness of the God of Israel.
While King Nebuchadnezzar was looking forward with anxious forebodings to the future, he had a remarkable dream, by which “he was greatly troubled, and his sleep brake from him.” But although this vision of the night made a deep impression on his mind, he found it impossible to recall the particulars. He applied to his astrologers and magicians, and with promises of great wealth and honor commanded them to tell him his dream and its interpretation. But they said, “Tell thy servants the dream, and we will show the interpretation.”
The king knew that if they could really tell the interpretation, they could tell the dream as well. The Lord had in his providence given Nebuchadnezzar this dream, and had caused the particulars to be forgotten, while the fearful impression was left upon his mind, in order to expose the pretensions of the wise men of Babylon. The monarch was very angry, and threatened that they should all be slain if, in a given time, the dream was not made known. Daniel and his companions were to perish with the false prophets; but, taking his life in his hand, Daniel ventures to enter the presence of the king, begging that time may be granted that he may show the dream and the interpretation.
To this request the monarch accedes; and now Daniel gathers his three companions, and together they take the matter before God, seeking for wisdom from the Source of light and knowledge. Although they were in the king’s court, surrounded with temptation, they did not forget their responsibility to God. They were strong in the consciousness that his providence had placed them where they were; that they were doing his work,—meeting the demands of truth and duty. They had confidence toward God. They had turned to him for strength when in perplexity and danger, and he had been to them an ever-present help.
The servants of God did not plead with him in vain. They had honored him, and in the hour of trial he honored them. The secret was revealed to Daniel, and he hastened to request an interview with the king.
The Jewish captive stands before the monarch of the most powerful empire the sun has ever shone upon. The king is in great distress amid all his riches and glory; but the youthful exile is peaceful and happy in his God. Now, if ever, is the time for Daniel to exalt himself,—to make prominent his own goodness and superior wisdom. But his first effort is to disclaim all honor for himself, and to exalt God as the source of wisdom:—
“The secret which the king hath demanded, cannot the wise men, the astrologers, the magicians, the soothsayers, show unto the king; but there is a God in Heaven that revealeth secrets, and maketh known to the King Nebuchadnezzar what shall be in the latter days.” The king listens with solemn attention as every particular of the dream is reproduced; and when the interpretation is faithfully given, he feels that he can rely upon it as a divine revelation.
The solemn truths conveyed in this vision of the night, made a deep impression on the sovereign’s mind, and in humility and awe he fell down and worshiped, saying, “Of a truth it is, that your God is a God of gods, and a Lord of kings, and a revealer of secrets.”
Light, direct from Heaven, had been permitted to shine upon King Nebuchadnezzar, and for a little time he was influenced by the fear of God. But a few years of prosperity filled his heart with pride, and he forgot his acknowledgment of the living God. He resumed his idol worship with increased zeal and bigotry.
From the treasures obtained in war, he made a golden image to represent the one that he had seen in his dream, setting it up in the plain of Dura, and commanding all the rulers and the people to worship it, on pain of death. This statue was about ninety feet in height and nine in breadth, and in the eyes of that idolatrous people it presented a most imposing and majestic appearance. A proclamation was issued, calling upon all the officers of the kingdom to assemble at the dedication of the image, and at the sound of the musical instruments, to bow down and worship it. Should any fail to do this, they were immediately to be cast into the midst of a burning fiery furnace.
The appointed day has come, and the vast company is assembled, when word is brought to the king that the three Hebrews whom he has set over the province of Babylon, have refused to worship the image. These are Daniel’s three companions, who had been called by the king, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. Full of rage, the monarch calls them before him, and pointing to the angry furnace, tells them the punishment that will be theirs if they refuse obedience to his will.
In vain were the king’s threats. He could not turn these noble men from their allegiance to the great Ruler of nations. They had learned from the history of their fathers that disobedience to God is dishonor, disaster, and ruin; that the fear of the Lord is not only the beginning of wisdom, but the foundation of all true prosperity. They look with calmness upon the fiery furnace and the idolatrous throng. They have trusted in God, and he will not fail them now. Their answer is respectful, but decided,—“Be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.”
The proud monarch is surrounded by his great men, the officers of the government, and the army that has conquered nations; and all unite in applauding him as having the wisdom and power of the gods. In the midst of this imposing display stand the three youthful Hebrews, steadily persisting in their refusal to obey the king’s decree. They had been obedient to the laws of Babylon, so far as these did not conflict with the claims of God; but they would not be swayed a hair’s breadth from the duty they owed to their Creator.
The king’s wrath knew no limits. In the very height of his power and glory, to be thus defied by the representatives of a despised and captive race, was an insult which his proud spirit could not endure. The fiery furnace had been heated seven times more than it was wont, and into it were cast the Hebrew exiles. So furious were the flames that the men who cast them in were burned to death.
Suddenly the countenance of the king paled with terror. His eyes were fixed upon the glowing flames, and turning to his lords he said, “Did we not cast three men bound into the midst of the fire?” The answer was, “True, O king.” And now the monarch exclaimed, “Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.”
When Christ manifests himself to the children of men, an unseen power speaks to their souls. They feel themselves to be in the presence of the Infinite One. Before his majesty, kings and nobles tremble, and acknowledge that the living God is above every earthly power.
With feelings of remorse and shame, the king exclaimed, “Ye servants of the most high God, come forth.” And they obeyed, showing themselves unhurt before the vast multitude, not even the smell of fire being upon their garments. This miracle produced a striking change in the minds of the people. The great golden image, set up with such display, was forgotten. The king published a decree that any one speaking against the God of these men should be put to death, “because there is no other god that can deliver after this sort.”
These three Hebrews possessed genuine sanctification. True Christian principle will not stop to weigh consequences. It does not ask, What will people think of me if I do this? or, How will it affect my worldly prospects if I do that? With the most intense longing, the children of God desire to know what he would have them do, that their works may glorify him. The Lord has made ample provision that the hearts and lives of all his followers may be controlled by divine grace, that they may be as burning and shining lights in the world.
These faithful Hebrews possessed great natural ability; they had enjoyed the highest intellectual culture, and now occupied a position of honor; but all this did not lead them to forget God. Their powers were yielded to the sanctifying influence of divine grace. By their steadfast integrity, they showed forth the praises of Him who had called them out of darkness into his marvelous light. In their wonderful deliverance were displayed, before that vast assembly, the power and majesty of God. Jesus placed himself by their side in the fiery furnace, and by the glory of his presence convinced the proud king of Babylon that it could be no other than the Son of God. The light of Heaven had been shining forth from Daniel and his companions, until all their associates understood the faith which ennobled their lives and beautified their characters. By the deliverance of his faithful servants, the Lord declares that he will take his stand with the oppressed,458and overthrow all earthly powers that would trample upon the authority of the God of Heaven.
What a lesson is here given to the faint-hearted, the vacillating, the cowardly in the cause of God! What encouragement to those who will not be turned aside from duty by threats or peril! These faithful, steadfast characters exemplify sanctification, while they have no thought of claiming the high honor. The amount of good which may be accomplished by comparatively obscure but devoted Christians, cannot be estimated until the life records shall be made known, when the Judgment shall sit and the books be opened.
Christ identifies his interest with this class; he is not ashamed to call them brethren. There should be hundreds where there is now one among us, so closely allied to God, their lives in such close conformity to his will, that they would be bright and shining lights, sanctified wholly, in soul, body, and spirit.
The conflict still goes on between the children of light and the children of darkness. Those who name the name of Christ should shake off the lethargy that enfeebles their efforts, and should meet the momentous responsibilities that devolve upon them. All who do this may expect the power of God to be revealed in them. The Son of God, the world’s Redeemer, will be represented in their words and in their works, and God’s name will be glorified.
WAIT PATIENTLY FOR HIM.
By Frances R. Havergal
God doth not bid thee wait,
To disappoint at last;
A golden promise, fair and great,
In precept-mold is cast.
Soon shall the morning gild
The dark horizon-rim;
Thy heart's desire shall be fulfilled.
"Wait patiently for him."
The weary waiting times
Are but the muffled peals,
Low preluding celestial chimes,
That hail his chariot wheels.
Trust him to tune thy voice
To blend with seraphim.
His "Wait" shall issue in "Rejoice!"
"Wait patiently for him."
He did not bid thee wait,
Like drift-wood on the wave,
For fickle chance or fixed fate
To ruin or to save.
Thine eyes shall surely see—
No distant hope or dim—
The Lord thy God arise for thee.
"Wait patiently for him."
-Frances R. Havergal.
The Sunday, the Sabbath, and the Change.
By Eld. W. H. Littlejohn
BY ELD. W. H. LITTLEJOHN.
(Concluded.)
SHOULD it be objected, right here, that it is just as impossible to prove from the New Testament the custom of seventh-day observance on the part of the early church as it is to prove that of the sanctification on their part of the first day of the week, we reply, that even though we were not able to cite a single instance in which it is declared in so many words that the disciples in the first century were convened on the seventh-day Sabbath for the purposes of Christian worship, still the obligation to hallow that day at the present time could be clearly made out. The difference between the two days lies in the fact that one is enforced by positive command, and the other is not. If the first day has any claim to sanctity whatever, that claim must be drawn from the practice of the early church; since, therefore, the practice of that church has been shown to be opposed to the idea of its sanctity, it loses all its claim to be honored as such.
If, on the other hand, we concede, as the majority of orthodox Christians do, that the fourth commandment is still binding, then, even though the day were not mentioned once by name, its obligation would be unquestionable, since it has for its enforcement a specific statute. Nay, more; the necessary presumption would be, in the absence of any positive statement to the contrary, that the early disciples habitually hallowed its hours upon its weekly return. To illustrate: We might ransack in vain the history of the United States for a positive declaration that George Washington ever paid a highway tax in his life; nevertheless, no reasonable person would question the fact that he did so, since there is no dispute that men were taxed for the improvement of the highway in his day, and therefore, as he was a man of property and a good citizen, it is fairly to be presumed that his property was assessed for that purpose, and that he paid the tax for the same.
But let us bring the argument to bear upon a portion of Bible history, where the facts and circumstances will not be denied. From the time that the Sabbath was given on Mt. Sinai to the reign of David (a space of 500 years), the Sabbath is not once mentioned, nor is it declared that the Israelites kept it at all during that period. Notwithstanding these facts, it is admitted by all that they were in the habit of Sabbath observance. But why, we inquire, such universal agreement in regard to the practice of the Israelites during the 500 years in question? The answer is, that the existence of the law creates the presumption that the Hebrews, to whom the law was given, observed the same in the absence of all testimony to the contrary.
Now that we have demonstrated the proposition that we are under no obligation to furnish a single recorded instance from the New Testament of seventh-day observance, in order to perpetuate that observance, so long as a positive law exists enforcing the same, we wish to glance at the subject for a moment from the stand-point of the hypothetical argument.
First, then, we inquire—granting for the moment that a change of days did really take place at the time of the resurrection—what would be the necessary result of such a transition? All, we think, must agree that it could not have taken place without bringing about the most serious collisions between the Jews and the Christians. If the latter had been actually instructed that the so-called Jewish Sabbath had been abolished, and that a new day had taken its place, it is undeniably true that their practice would have changed, so far as to enable them to conform to the new order of things. Two duties would necessarily have devolved upon them. First, it would be required that they themselves should uniformly and strictly observe the Sunday; and, secondly, that they should enforce by their teachings the same duty upon others. Another consequence of the transition in question would be the desecration of the old Sabbath on their part, since both pecuniary interest and that strict regard for moral ingenuousness, which would prevent them from treating a day as holy which they did not regard as such, would unite in compelling them to devote the old Sabbath to secular purposes. The result of such a course of conduct, however, is too manifest to leave room for doubt. Those fanatical Rabbis who sought to condemn Christ, because his hungry disciples ate of the standing corn through which they passed on the Sabbath, and again and again anathematized him because he healed on that day, would surely have made the Sabbath desecration of the early Christians the prolific source of constant collision and debate. At every turn they would have been watched, and for every desecration of the Sabbath they would have been subjected to trial and even violence. These collisions, resulting, as they must have done, in heated contests and frequent arrests, would necessarily have found recognition in the records which have come down to us. The perfect absence of everything of the kind, therefore, justifies an inference, almost as strong as demonstration itself, that these collisions never took place, and therefore that the early disciples were not Sabbath-breakers, as otherwise the book of Acts, covering as it does about thirty years of early church history, would have made them prominent.
Once more: The change of Sabbath must have occasioned either the transfer of the name Sabbath from the old to the new one, or else it would have insured the creation of a new title for the new day, by which its sacredness would have been signified. Neither of these two conditions, however, are met by the Sunday. It is never called the Sabbath in the Scriptures, and there is nowhere applied to it any sacred title whatever. It is mentioned eight times in the New Testament, but in every instance it bears the secular title of first day of the week. Should it be replied that in Rev. 1:10 it is called Lord's day, we answer that such cannot be demonstrated to be the case. The Apostle John, who wrote the book of Revelation, wrote the Gospels also, about two years subsequent to the time when he penned the former. If, therefore, the Holy Spirit had designed to signalize the day of Christ's resurrection by styling it the Lord's day in Rev. 1:10, it would be impossible to explain why the same Spirit, when resting upon the same apostle, two years later, should have uniformly referred to the same day in the use of the purely secular title first day of the week. Again; the term Lord's day was the common appellation of the ancient Sabbath. Isaiah, in speaking of the latter, employs the following language: "If thou wilt turn away thy foot from the Sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on MY HOLY DAY, and call the SABBATH a delight, the HOLY of the Lord, HONORABLE," &c. Isa. 58:13. (See also the language of the commandment in Ex. 20:8-12, and the words of Christ in Mark 2:27, 28.) Now, therefore, the natural if not necessary inference of all unprejudiced minds, when reading Rev. 1:10, would have been that the day referred to was no other than the one alluded to by Isaiah, i. e., the Sabbath of Eden and Sinai. To overcome such a tendency it is quite certain that inspiration would have been more explicit had the allusion been to a new day, which had received a recognition as sacred in no other place in the Bible.
But to return to the hypothetical argument. The seventh day of the week is called the Sabbath fifty-six times in the New Testament. The weight of this circumstance in the argument can hardly be overrated, when we consider the uniform agreement among Christians in regard to the perpetuity of the Sabbath command of the decalogue. It would be strange indeed if a day which is not such should be called the Sabbath fifty-six times in the New Testament, and the day which is in reality the true Sabbath should never be thus styled even once. Nay more; it would be incomprehensible,—if it be true that the first day of the week is really the Sabbath at the present time,—that the New Testament writers, as in Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:1, 2; Luke 23:54-56 to Luke 24:1, should not only fail to call it the Sabbath but should actually style the day before it the Sabbath; thus contrasting the one with the other in this particular. Should our opponents, with an ingenuity which sometimes characterizes them, attempt to parry the point of this argument by explaining away the difficulty on the ground that the first day of the week is never properly styled the Sabbath, but should always be called the Lord's day, we would reply as follows:—
1. As shown above, the seventh day of the week is the Lord's day.
2. That if the first day of the week cannot properly be called the Sabbath, then there is no law for its enforcement, since the day commanded in the fourth commandment is styled therein the Sabbath.
3. That as they agree with us in the perpetuity of the fourth commandment, there must be a Sabbath-day properly so styled, which it enforces in this dispensation, and that the seventh day must be the one in question, unless it be admitted that inspired men improperly applied that title to it fifty-six times, a thing which is in the highest degree improbable to any one who has any knowledge of human nature; for nothing would be more natural, when there was a conflict of opinion as to which of two days was the Sabbath, than that the advocates of each should persistently apply the title to the day which they favored, and stoutly refuse to apply it to the one which they opposed. If the reader would have a practical illustration of the correctness of the above proposition, let him try his hand in an effort to induce Sabbatarians at the present time to designate the Sunday in the use of the sacred title, The Sabbath. Our word for it, he would either conclude that men are different now from what they were 1800 years ago, or else he would decide that his former theories in the matter under consideration were at fault.
But it is now time to bring this article to a close. That a change of the Sabbath has actually taken place, there can be no dispute. That such a change has been brought about either by Christ or anti-Christ, will be equally obvious. That the former did not accomplish the work, has, we think, been made evident by the considerations offered heretofore. We read in John 12:48, that we are to be judged by Christ's words. But in all the utterances which ever emanated from him, there is not one which favors first-day sanctity. On the other hand, his example, as well as that of the apostles, positively contradicts such a theory. Not only so, but the general tenor of the New Testament, recognizing, as it does, the obligation of the Sinaitic Sabbath law, both by the record containing the example of Christ, and by positive statement bearing upon the subject, as well as by the practice, uniform among the New Testament writers, of styling the seventh day of the week the Sabbath, is such that the unbiased reader would necessarily conclude that the Sabbath of Adam and of Christ is still obligatory upon the followers of the latter. Thus much for Christ and his relation to the subject.
Now we turn to anti-Christ. Is it possible that he is the author of the change in question? On this branch of the subject we must be exceedingly brief, contenting ourselves with a few sentences, where chapters would be required to do the subject justice. In Dan. 7:25, the prophet, in speaking of the papacy under the symbol of the "little horn," says that he would "think to change times and laws." This prediction has been literally fulfilled by the Pope of Rome. On repeated occasions he has asserted his ability to change even the law of God. Nor has he been content with claiming the power merely, but he also claims to have put it into practical operation. In the various catechisms of the Romish Church, it is asserted, again and again, that Catholics have changed the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week, and Protestants are charged with recognizing their power to do so by sanctifying the Sunday which they claim has no other authority than the decrees of the hierarchy.459The following from a Catholic work entitled, "Plain Talk About Protestantism of To-day," will furnish the only citation which we can introduce here. (For further information on the subject, the reader is requested to refer to a tract entitled "Who changed the Sabbath?" published at the office of the SIGNS OF THE TIMES.) "It is worth its while to remember that this observance of the Sabbath—in which, after all, the only Protestant worship consists—not only has no foundation in the Bible, but that it is in flagrant contradiction with its letter, which commands rest on the Sabbath, which is Saturday. It was the Catholic Church which, by the authority of Jesus Christ, has transferred this rest to the Sunday in remembrance of the resurrection of our Lord. Thus the observance of Sunday by the Protestants is an homage they pay, in spite of themselves, to the authority of the church." (Plain Talk about Protestantism of To-day, p. 225.)
Reader! Where do you propose to stand henceforth in the battle of Sabbath observance? Will you hallow the day which God blessed, rested upon, and sanctified in the beginning of the world; which he enforced on Mt. Sinai, by the only Sabbath law which is contained in the Bible; a day which is uniformly styled the Sabbath in both the Old and the New Testament; or will you persist in hallowing a day which God never blest, never rested upon, never sanctified, and never commanded any man to observe? The case is before you. Judge, I pray you, and act as becomes one whose only rule of conduct is that written word whose teachings will furnish the standard of judgment in the great day.
Allegan, Michigan.
What Is the Use?
By Louise Henry
A GROUP of girls were talking one day of a girl acquaintance whose acquirements were uncommon for her age and sex. As some one named over the list of languages, ancient and modern, in which this young woman was versed, one of the listeners exclaimed: "Well, what is the use of it all?" Various replies came: "The same use that your flower painting is," "Because she likes it," and so on. The questioner was silenced, yet scarcely satisfied. Many another girl, the writer inclines to think, might put the same query, which needs and deserves a fuller answer than it received on this occasion; for the particular question immediately suggests the larger one: What is the use of any intellectual pursuit?
To the questioner the girl linguist's occupation seemed strangely uninviting and profitless. By her own crewel work and china painting she not only pleased herself, but, as she believed, gave pleasure to others, who could appreciate these reproductions of the lovely forms and colors of natural things. What pleasure could any one either take or give by delving among the roots of language? To answer her in a word, one might say: My dear girl, the pleasure and the profit of all mental effort is in the effort itself; in the fact that by it the mind grows as it was meant to grow, expands to the full measure of its own capacity. You may take it for certain that, just as the muscles of your body would become lifeless and useless if you should cease to work them, in the same way any of your mental or spiritual faculties will become paralyzed if they are not actively used. The mind seldom wears out from overwork; it often rusts out from want of work. Nothing that is worth having can be had without labor. There is no royal road to learning; neither is there to any other thing one cares to possess. If one wants to be loved, he must himself love, and give, if he wishes it to be given to him, of material or immaterial goods.
Think for a moment what you are, or, rather, what your Creator intended you to be. A thinking, feeling, willing person—that is what you are; and, unless you are ready to remain a nonentity in God's universe, you would like to think, feel, and will to some purpose, not feebly and aimlessly, but strongly, fully, nobly, gladly.
To be less than what we were meant to be, to consent to stay a smaller, more insignificant creature than we might be, who wants that? God meant us to be a good deal, and so many of us are content to be so little. It is as though some one came and said to us: "Look! Here is a spacious palace. You are free to wander through its countless rooms and enjoy its splendid treasures of art; from its broad windows you may gaze over the vast surrounding domain and delight your soul with its never-failing, never-wearying abundance of beauty." And some of us reply: "Thank you; but I am content to stay where I am, in my one dark little room. It is rather plainly and scantily furnished, it is true; but then, you know, I am used to it, and its bareness doesn't distress me." Open wide every window of the soul, if you want to know what living means and the highest enjoyment of your life. Every added interest for the heart and for the mind, adds a new reason for living. What is the use of living as the animals do, to eat, to sleep, to work when they are driven to it, to stumble through the days in stupid, senseless fashion?
We are not all born alike. We have our differing gifts and tastes. We need not all labor for the same things; only labor for something, enjoy something. If you prefer not to study languages, but to do something else, you are free to choose; but do not ask what is the use of such study. It is the opening of another window for the mind. No doubt there is some difference in the value of various tastes and pursuits, and some nobler, finer, more truly satisfying and elevating than others; but the main thing, after all, is to care for something that feeds the mental and spiritual life. The greater the variety of our tastes the more possibilities of enjoyment we have, and we were meant to enjoy all that can be enjoyed in a pure, unselfish way. The more we labor, whether in one direction or in several, the greater will be our ability to work, and the more of a man or of a woman we become, the less of an unintelligent animal. To think of how much there is to enjoy and how careless we are of our happiness—of all there is to know and how little we in this life attain to; how much to do; how little gets done, with all our effort—the thought might sadden and discourage if we had no hope of continued life beyond of learning, doing, and enjoying.
—Louise Henry, in Independent.
Man's Age.
Few men die of age. Almost all die of disappointment; passion, mental or bodily toil, or accident. The passions kill men sometimes, even suddenly. The common expression, "choked with passion," has little exaggeration in it, for even though not suddenly fatal, strong passions shorten life. Strong-bodied men often die young; weak men live longer than the strong, for the strong use their strength, and the weak have none to use. The latter take care of themselves; the former do not. As it is with the body, so it is with the mind and temper. The strong are apt to break, or, like the candle, to run; the weak burn out.
The inferior animals, which live temperate lives, have generally their prescribed number of years. The horse lives twenty-five; the ox fifteen or twenty; the lion about twenty; the dog ten or twelve; the rabbit eight; the guinea pig six or seven years. These numbers all bear a similar proportion to the time the animal takes to grow to its full size.
But man, of all the animals, is one that seldom lives this average. He ought to live a hundred years, according to physical law, for five times twenty are one hundred, but instead of that, he scarcely reaches on an average, four times his growing period; the cat six times; the rabbit even eight times the standard of measurement. The reason is obvious; man is not only the most irregular and the most intemperate, but the most laborious and hard worked of all the animals. He is also the most irritable of all animals; and there is no reason to believe, though we cannot tell what an animal secretly feels, that, more than any other animal, man cherishes wrath to keep it warm, and consumes himself with the fire of his own secret reflection.—Sel.
John Quincy Adams’s Punctuality
JOHN QUINCY ADAMS in his long service in Congress was never known to be late. One day the clock struck, and a member said to the Speaker, “It is time to call the house to order.” “No;” said the Speaker, “Mr. Adams is not in his seat yet.” At this moment Mr. Adams appeared. He was punctual, but the clock was three minutes fast.
Truth and Purity Shame Vice
TRUTH and purity, like so many gems in the life and example of the good man, cannot but shame and condemn error and vice in others.
Don't Depend on Father.
By Editor
STAND up here young man, and let me talk with you. You have trusted alone to the contents of "father's purse," or to his fair fame for your influence or success in business. Think you that "father" has attained to eminence in his profession but by unwearied industry, or that he has amassed a fortune honestly without energy and activity? You should know that the faculty requisite for the acquiring of fame and fortune is essential to, nay, inseparable from, the attaining of either of these. Suppose father has the "rocks" in abundance, if you never earned anything for him, you have no more business with those "rocks" than a gosling has with a tortoise. And if he allows you to meddle with them before you have learned their value by your own industry, he perpetuates untold mischief. And if the old gentleman is lavish of his cash towards you, while he allows you to idle away your time, you had better leave him; yes, run away, sooner than be made an imbecile or a scoundrel through so corrupting an influence. Sooner or later you must learn to rely on your own resources, or you will not be anybody. If you have never helped yourself at all, if you have become idle, if you have eaten father's bread and butter, cut a swell in father's buggy, and tried to put on father's influence and reputation, you might better have been a poor errand boy, the son of a chimney-sweep, or a boot-black—and indeed, I would not swap with you the situation of a poor, half-starved, motherless calf! Miserable objects are you, that depend entirely upon your parents, playing gentleman, alias dandy loafer. What in the name of common sense are you thinking about? Wake up there! Go work with either your hands or brains, or both, and do something! Don't merely have it to boast that you have grown in father's house—that you have vegetated as other greenhorns! but let folks know that you count one.
Come, off with your coat, clinch the saw, the plow handles, the scythe, the axe, the spade, the pickaxe—anything to enable you to stir your blood! "Fly 'round and tear your jacket," rather than be the recipient of the old gentleman's bounty. Sooner than play the dandy at dad's expense, hire yourself out to some potato patch; let yourself out to stop hog holes or watch the bars; and when you think yourself entitled to a resting spell, do it on your own hook. If you have no other means of having fun of your own, buy with your earnings an empty barrel, and put your head into it and hallo, and roll down hill. Don't, for pity's sake, make the old gentleman do everything, and you live at your ease.
Look about you, you well-dressed, smooth-faced, do-nothing drones! Who are they that have worth and influence in society? Are they those that have depended alone on the old gentleman's purse, or are they those that have climbed their way to their position by their industry and energy? True, the old gentleman's funds, or personal influence, may secure you the forms of respect, but let him lose his property, or die, and what are you?—A miserable fledgeling—a bunch of flesh and bones that needs to be taken care of!
Again we say, wake up—get up in the morning—turn round, at least twice before breakfast—help the old man—give him now and then a generous lift in business—learn how, take the lead, and not depend forever on being led; and you have no idea how the discipline will benefit you. Do this, and our word for it, you will seem to breathe a new atmosphere, possess a new frame, tread on new earth, wake a new destiny—and you may then begin to aspire to manhood. Take off, then, that ring from your lily finger, break your cane, shave your upper lip, hold up your head, and by all means, never again eat the bread of idleness, nor depend on father.—Sel.
Fortune and Poverty
THERE is nothing keeps longer than a middling fortune, and nothing melts away sooner than a great one. Poverty treads upon the heels of great and unexpected riches.
The Power of Saintly Living
ONE quiet example of saintly living has more power in any church, or in any community, than the loudest talker there about entire consecration.