Your ShelfYour Projects

Review and Herald, Vol. 77, No. 28.

The Lord's Vineyard

Review and Herald

Jul 10, 1900

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jul 10, 1900

The Lord's Vineyard.

By Ellen G. White

Mrs. E. G. White.
“Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country.”
A description of this vineyard is given in Isaiah: “Now will I sing to my well-beloved a song of my beloved touching his vineyard. My well-beloved hath a vineyard in a very fruitful hill: and he fenced it, and gathered out the stones thereof, and planted it with the choicest vine, and built a tower in the midst of it, and also made a winepress therein.”
This figure represents the advantages and opportunities given to Israel. To them as his church God committed his oracles. Through Moses they received divine precepts and commandments. Guides and ministers were appointed them. God gave them riches and prosperity. They had every temporal and every spiritual advantage. They were hedged about by the law of ten commandments. This was what distinguished Israel from every other nation on the face of the earth.
The church is God's peculiar treasure, precious in his sight, and dear to his heart of infinite love. Christ gave the parable of the vineyard to set before his hearers the wonderful history of his church. The householder made every provision that the vineyard should receive the best of attention. Nothing was left undone that could be done to make the vineyard an honor to the one who owned it.
“Moreover, brethren,” Paul writes, “I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and did all eat the same spiritual meat; and did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.”
When the children of Israel were in bondage to the Egyptians, God revealed himself as a God above all human authority, all human greatness. The signs and miracles he wrought in behalf of his people show his power over nature, and over the greatest among those who worshiped nature, who ignored the power that made nature. God went through the proud land of Egypt just as he will go through the earth in the last days. With fire and tempest and death the great I AM redeemed his people, to make them glorious as his special representatives. He took them out of the land of bondage. He bore them as upon eagles' wings, and brought them unto himself, that they might dwell under the shadow of the Most High.
Christ was the invisible leader of the children of Israel in their wilderness wanderings. Enshrouded in the pillar of cloud by day and the pillar of fire by night, he led and guided them. In their behalf he constantly manifested the riches of his love and patience.
Moses was appointed by God to be the visible leader of the people. He received a special education for this work; and though he had little confidence in himself, he had confidence in God. But often the people whom he was leading lost faith in God. At one time, when Moses was in the mount communing with God, they went to Aaron, saying, “Up, make us gods, which shall go before us; for as for this Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is become of him.” Aaron had been left as the guardian of the church; and had he been faithful to his duty, had he held the people to their allegiance, this terrible record of idolatry need never have been written. But he yielded to the clamor of the people. He betrayed sacred trust; and had not Moses interposed in his behalf, death would have been his penalty.
When Moses came down from the mount and saw what the people were doing, he said to Aaron, “What did this people unto thee, that thou hast brought so great a sin upon them? And Aaron said, Let not the anger of my lord wax hot: thou knowest the people, that they are set on mischief. For they said unto me, Make us gods, which shall go before us: for as for this Moses, . . . we wot not what is become of him. And I said unto them, Whosoever hath any gold, let them break it off. So they gave it me: then I cast it into the fire, and there came out this calf.”
Once more the Lord showed his forbearance in dealing with his erring people. Opportunity was given for them to save themselves from the punishment that had been ordered. “Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who is on the Lord's side? Let him come unto me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him. And he said unto them, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate through the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbor.”
In calling for this division of the people, Moses exposed himself to the wrath of those who would not repent, the boldest and most obstinate, who might have fallen upon him in an attempt to take his life. But God was there to sustain his servant; he placed around him a bulwark of unseen angels.
“And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men.” It may seem to us that this punishment was severe. But God pronounced it an act of consecration to put to death all who justified their idolatry. It was not the choice of the children of Levi to do this fearful work; God had said that the unrepenting should be slain.
After the command of the Lord was obeyed, Moses said to the people, “Ye have sinned a great sin: and now I will go up unto the Lord; peradventure I shall make an atonement for your sin. And Moses returned unto the Lord, and said, Oh, this people have sinned a great sin, and have made them gods of gold. Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin . . .” Here Moses paused, as if not knowing what to say. He knew that the request he had presented was a great one. “And if not,” he continued, “blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written.” Moses was speaking to Jesus Christ, who had given himself as a propitiation for the sins of the world. As he pleaded before his Lord, the depth of his love for his people was revealed. God saw it all, and he was honored by his servant's love and compassion. “Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book,” he said. “Therefore now go, and lead the people unto the place of which I have spoken unto thee: behold, mine angel shall go before thee.”
The children of Israel were indeed given great privileges. They witnessed a most wonderful manifestation of God's power when they passed through the Red Sea. And day by day they journeyed under the pillar of cloud, the symbol of the divine presence. Why did they not value the privilege of being taught by the living God? Christ was their instructor. He was their guardian, their shield, their defense. He desired them to render perfect obedience to his commands. This would be a hedge about them, keeping them from destroying themselvesby sinful practices. With wonderful patience, Christ strove to educate the people to believe in him as the author and finisher of their faith. He intrusted to them the everlasting principles of truth, justice, and purity.
God desired his people to obey him because they realized that obedience would make them men and women of understanding. He drew the willing and obedient to him with cords of love. He desired his people to go forth conquering and to conquer. It was their privilege to reveal in their lives the character of their leader. The souls of men and women are of infinite value in God's sight, not because, as many declare, they have natural immortality, but because it is possible for them through faith in Christ to gain immortality. Christ only has immortality. Belief in him is to the repentant soul the germ of a new life.
With such a leader, with such manifestations of his greatness and power, the children of Israel should have been inspired with faith and courage to go forward. But they failed to carry out God's purpose. “With many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness.” Only two of those who crossed the Red Sea lived to go over into the promised land.
“Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted. Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.” In the place of offering praise and thanksgiving to God, acknowledging his blessings, calling the attention of those associated with them to him, they drew minds away from him by their wrong course of action.
“Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand. Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents. Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer. Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come. Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.”
We need to beware lest we suffer the same fate as did ancient Israel. The history of their disobedience and downfall has been recorded for our instruction, that we may avoid doing as they did. It has been written “for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.” If we pass by these cautions and warnings, developing the same traits of character developed by the Israelites, what excuse can we plead?

OUR GIFTS.

By Rose Terry Cooke

“What shall I give to thee, O Lord? The kings that came of old Laid softly on thy cradle rude, Their myrrh and gems and gold.
“Thy martyrs gave their hearts’ warm blood, Their ashes strewed thy way; They spurned their lives as dreams and dust, To speed thy coming way.
“Thou knowest of sweet and precious things: My store is scant and small, Yet, wert thou here in want and woe, Lord, I would give thee all.”
There came a voice from heavenly heights: “Unclose thine eyes and see. Gifts to the least of those I love Thou givest unto me.”
— Rose Terry Cooke.

THE BOXERS.

New York Sun.
The Rev. I. T. Headland, professor of mental and moral philosophy and astronomy in Peking University, who is in this city at the present time, being asked yesterday the meaning of “Boxers,” the name of the society that has set all China by the ears, said that the name in Chinese is “I-Ho-Tuon.” The “I” means righteousness, “Ho” means peace, and “Tuon” means fist—a clenched hand. Professor Headland says that the entire title means that the Boxers will fight for righteousness and peace. The Professor said:—
“The Boxers appear to have sprung up in opposition to foreigners because of irritations largely growing out of the operations of the French Catholics. The French minister had secured for the French Catholic missionaries appointments as Chinese officials, in order to facilitate their operations in the settlement of litigation between the native Christians and outside Chinese. As the Catholic missionaries were officials of China, they generally outranked the sitting magistrates. Accordingly they usually settled the case in court themselves. When their rank proved to be lower than that of the magistrate, it amounted to nearly the same thing, as the influence of their official relations generally controlled the action of the court. The Chinese declare that a great deal of litigation, in consequence, went by favor, being thus unduly influenced by the Catholic-Chinese officials, and was not decided upon the merits. The irritation growing out of this has been very great, and extends over a large section of the middle kingdom.”

THE MELCHISEDEC PRIESTHOOD.

By C. H. Keslake

C. H. KESLAKE.
CHRIST is high priest after the order of Melchisedec. Several times the apostle quotes the statement in the one hundred and tenth psalm, referring to Christ: “Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchisedec.” Why was this?
The first time where this is quoted is in Heb. 5:6. In order, however, to get the force of it, we must study the preceding verses. Here the apostle declares that “every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins,” “to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.” Verse 1; compare with Heb. 2:17.
Properly to fill the office of high priest, it must be necessary for such a one to be compassed with infirmity. This was in order that the high priest might “have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way.” Verse 2.
No one could be truly high priest except by the express appointment of God himself; and Aaron is referred to as an illustration of this fact. Verse 4. As in the case of Aaron and others, so with Christ. We read: “So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest.” Verse 5. Christ did not so much as turn his hand over to take this honor to himself. And to prove that God appointed Christ to be high priest, Paul quotes two scriptures in which God refers to him: “Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee” (Ps. 2:7); and, “Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchisedec.” Ps. 110:4. Thus it is seen from the highest authority—that of God himself—that Christ is our high priest.
Having, by reference to Ps. 110:4, proved that Christ is high priest, the apostle again refers to the text for another purpose; namely, to show particularly the office that Christ now holds. Thus: “Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; and being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him; called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec.”
It is necessary to notice that the word “called” in the preceding quotation has a different meaning from that of the word “called” in verse 4, being from an entirely different word in the Greek. In verse 4 the word is used in the sense of being called upon, requested, or commanded to fill the office of high priest; but in verse 10 it is used in the sense of being introduced, acknowledged, or declared high priest by the Father in the presence of those in whose behalf the high priest is to minister. The Interlinear Greek translates the word, “saluted.” The idea is this: Christ, having been called, by reason of his qualifications, to fill the office of high priest, is inducted into office, and before entering upon his duties, is declared, by the Father, in the presence of the people for whom Christ is to minister, to be the high priest. Thus it is written: “Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchisedec.”
And yet again this scripture is referred to for distinctly another purpose; namely, to show the duration of the priesthood of Christ. This is done in the seventh chapter of Hebrews. Contrasting the Levitical priesthood with that of the Melchisedec, the apostle shows that the priests under the former were men who died, and consequently of necessity the office of priest must pass to others; but not so under the latter. He who shall be high priest after the order of Melchisedec must be one “who is made [high priest], not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life. For he testifieth, Thou art a priest FOREVER after the order of Melchisedec.” Having assumed the office of priest, it never can pass to another. Not yet have we fully sensed the significance of that statement, “He ever liveth to make intercession for them.”
In the times of ancient Israel, God made provision for any one who should unwittingly slay another, by appointing cities of refuge. Of these there were six. To any one of these cities the slayer was to flee, and was to dwell there until the death of the high priest. If at any time the slayer should venture out of the city, he was in danger of being slain by the “avenger of blood.” Numbers 35; Joshua 20:1–9.
Those cities of refuge were a type of Christ, and the “avenger of blood” a type of God’s law. The law relentlessly pursues the sinner, demanding his life; but if he flees to Christ for refuge, he is safe. Fleeing to the real place of refuge, the sinner must remain there until “the death of the high priest.” But Christ “dieth no more;” he is “alive forevermore;” and seeing that “he ever liveth to make intercession for us,” the sinner abiding in Christ is eternally safe, and the law is satisfied to have him there.
Being a priest, therefore, “after the order of Melchisedec,” and seeing that “he ever liveth to make intercession for us,” “he is able to save to the uttermost all who will come unto God by him.”
Jesus my place of refuge is, My great high priest is he; His blood atones for all my sins, And now in him I’m free.
No longer need I roam afar, My Saviour Christ is near; As my high priest he intercedes, And saves me from all fear.
The law’s demands he satisfies, My debt for me he’s paid; No more I dread the avenger’s wrath; On him my mind is stayed.
As great high priest he ever lives, He is my offering; In song I’ll raise my heart and voice, My Saviour’s praise to sing.

FEAR NOT.

HART HALL.

(Williams, Col.) -
A voice from One to me most dear Says: “Child, be not concerned, nor fear About the morrow; only pray For bread sufficient for the day.
“The birds all warble songs of praise And thankfulness for life, and ways To gather that which God has given, And then receive it as from Heaven.
“The lily, too, can teach you how To live, and grow, and bloom, though now The earth be cold, and damp, and vile, And frosts attempt its life the while.
“The One who sees the sparrow’s fall Has pledged to keep and care for all His trusting saints; and as a friend, He’ll walk with them unto the end.”

DIPLOMACY

In the North American Review of June, 1900, there was published an article entitled “British and Russian Diplomacy.” The following portion of the article on diplomacy in general is of peculiar interest just now, and to the people of the United States, since the one world-problem is now, and is for some time expected to be, wholly one of diplomacy. This article can be accepted as authoritative; for it was written by “A Diplomat” who is officially “attached to the legation in the capital of one of the great Powers,” who “is an authority on international law, and has made a special study of Asiatic affairs, especially of their relation to the purposes and ambitions of the nations of Europe.”—
That part of statesmanship called diplomacy is the art employed by governments in their dealings with one another, or against one another, to obtain the most for the least; to secure, over and above such conditions as are guaranteed by natural law, or by treaties, or by the possession of superior power, advantages which may be won by resourcefulness in bargaining and skill in finesse, re-enforced by unscrupulousness when necessary.
This is not the official definition, I know, but the sole or even principal object of diplomacy is not, as some maintain, the defense of the members of a state in their rights and interests. This task is the routine and drudgery of diplomacy. It is performed mechanically, as it were, and without serious hitches, under the tutelary wing of international law—unless, indeed, one party is very inferior to the other in civilization, in which case the restraints of right and law are conveniently ignored. In its vital and essential aspects, what I must be pardoned for calling its higher flights, diplomacy is still to-day, as it has been from the time of its origin during the struggle of the Italian republics with the transalpine powers down to Talleyrand and Bismarck, the art of deceiving and overreaching.
If, as has been asserted, the American commonwealth enjoys the privilege of possessing a diplomacy which has never stooped to the tortuous ways employed by others, it is not, as is implied, because the exercise of the craft can be, if its adepts be so minded or educated, directed solely by principles of directness, frankness, and tact. It is because, until lately, the United States has not been implicated in international politics, and its action abroad has been limited to the consideration of its commercial or social interests, whose defense is a task which can be performed in the light of day. By inaugurating an imperial policy and annexing the Philippines, the United States has plunged into the field of international rivalry, and will soon feel the necessity of adopting the occult weapons of other Powers.
Diplomacy may achieve its ends, if they are frank and honest, through the instrumentality of a man like Franklin, who was guided throughout his foreign career by truth and common sense. Many a diplomatist reaches a venerable age in his profession without having practiced it otherwise than in the form of learned discussions with secretaries of state, and references to texts and jurisprudence or appearances at stately balls and dinners. But even these must admit that, at least potentially, every diplomatist contains an agent committed to cunning and unscrupulousness, whose calling must find him ready to accomplish, when national interest claims it from him, acts which in private life would be considered immoral or criminal.
If it were necessary to adduce proofs in support of the view given here of diplomacy, the disposal of secret funds, sometimes enormous, by most diplomatic agents, and the scandals connected with the activity of military attachés in different capitals, could be quoted as conclusive ones. Politics are governed by a special code of ethics—that which is contained in the maxim “the end justifies the means;” and, although nations keep up the comedy of virtuous pretenses, they subscribe to acts of injustice or fraud performed in their behalf, and secretly condone them. It is quite as much as humanity can do to create in its midst a sincere feeling of reprobation against private villainy. This is not stated as an apology for vice, but to show that the ethics of humanity, like everything else in the world, are a relative and conventional quantity, and that we shall always find our infirm nature ready to seek relief from the restraints of conscience in the reservation of spheres of action where our primitive instincts can have full play.
With nations, it is the field of politics; with individuals, it is the field of love. If, for instance, the strewing of a battlefield with thousands of human corpses in the name of national interest is a meritorious and even glorious action, while, on the contrary, the willful destruction of one man by another in the name of private interest is condemned and punished as a crime, why should the practices of diplomacy entail reprobation and odium, though the same practices in private life be destructive of reputation?
Diplomacy is essentially a game of observation and cleverness; one in which patience and caution alternate with boldness and promptness of action; in which intelligent management neutralizes the disadvantages of a naturally unfavorable situation, or even snatches victory out of the conditions of defeat. . . . It follows that success in diplomatic enterprises depends mainly on agility and suppleness of thought, on elasticity of political conscience, on the powers of adaptability and assimilation, and not on any of the transcendent qualities of mind and character, which are too unwieldy and heavy to be of much use on the quicksands of international politics, where, indeed, they are likely to do more harm than good unless allied with great address. They will provoke admiration and esteem, but they will seldom lead to practical success.
Among the qualities indispensable to a good diplomatist, the most important are knowledge of human nature, and skill in putting that knowledge to account. Psychology is the source of inspiration of diplomacy. An intelligent and, when occasion demands, unscrupulous use of the insight psychology gives into the workings of the brain and soul, is the triumph of diplomacy. Personal attractions and social accomplishments are among its most powerful adjuncts.
The golden age of diplomacy was in the time of absolute monarchs or ministers, when the action of states depended not on definitely fixed conceptions of national interest, but on the ideas and passions of one man; when kings were governed by fair favorites, and these in turn by lieutenants of the bodyguard; when a witty word or timely compliment turned the political scales, and when golden weights restored them to their former balance. To-day the opportunities of diplomacy have considerably decreased. Scientific conceptions of the nature of the state have, in most cases, transferred its center of gravity from the sovereign to the nation. Closely defined and rationally elaborated, commercial and political ideas have taken the place of the fumbling, empirical, and dishonest methods of the past. The mutual relations of most of the modern states are governed by fixed rules, which act, as it were, automatically, and leave little room for the display of diplomatic talent.
International negotiations are reduced to-day, in American and European capitals, to the solution of mathematical equations from which personal factors are nearly entirely eliminated, and in which hard facts and figures provided by statistics are opposed to one another by men responsible to public opinion, so that the possibility of one party’s gaining a marked advantage over the other is very small indeed. Mutual concessions, “give and take,” are the principles on which they are conducted. The discussions are carried on with the help of specialists, commercial, technical, and military, so that often only a nominal direction is left to the diplomatic agent.
But although in America and Europe the possibilities of diplomacy have narrowed down to the maintenance of mutual good will between nations, or the conclusion or prevention of alliances by appeals made to reason, national interest, or national feeling, in Asia a wide field of action exists for the higher arts of the craft. There, European governments meet the native authorities and one another on the ground of stealth, duplicity, treachery, and corruption. There, local conditions of weakness and putrefaction foster unclean ambitions in the foreign breast, and have established between the European Powers a deadly rivalry, which has recourse to every means suggested by unscrupulousness.
In a general way, the greater the corruption in a country, the weaker and more degraded the character of its people, the greater is the sway of diplomacy. Secrecy and the prohibition of discussion relating to public affairs, such as exist in autocratic countries, provide it with additional chances. Turkey, China, Persia, and all the other countries which make up the East, represent, with the exception of reformed Japan, the promised land of the diplomatist. There, humanity offers . . . an unusually abundant crop of weaknesses and vices to trade on. The diplomatist develops into perfection, and dominates most, in the midst of ignorance, degradation, and corruption. . . .
The Russian diplomatic service is one of the most formidable machines in existence, comparable in many respects to the Jesuit organization. It exhibits the same deeply planned and unswerving purpose, the same discipline, the same merciless elimination of worthless elements, the same spirit of sacrifice, the same resourcefulness. The Russian government knows exactly what it wants, forms plans for a distant future, and carries them out with a steadfastness and tenacity of purpose to be secured only by the conditions of autocracy. From its agents it demands success, and does not care how it is obtained.
The practice of Russian diplomatic agents in places where it pays to do so, as in the East,and in the Balkan countries, and maybe others, is to inquire not only into the political conditions of the state, but also into the workings of Society, written with a capital S. There is no household of importance into which his curiosity does not throw a searching glance. Domestic troubles, the relations of husband to wife, the morality of both, a loss at cards, the amount owing to the butcher,—all these items of information and many others are greedily collected, some by the agent himself, the greater part by his subordinates, whose mission it is to be watchful and report everything they see and hear. This information is classified, docketed, and combined so as to be turned to account for political purposes at a favorable moment. How far unscrupulousness of method is carried by these arch-diplomatists it is unnecessary to specify. Recent events in China and in the Balkan Peninsula are sufficiently eloquent.
The result of such an organization is evident. Russia triumphs everywhere. Her interests in Turkey are as important as those of England; and though she is in a far better position than her rival to carry out threats, she has recourse to this means only in the last extremity, always preferring the insinuating and unctuous methods of diplomacy, which spare pride and vanity, the two deepest motives of humanity. It is wonderful to watch her tactics in the East, where she knows that success is a question mainly depending on the art of ingratiation. With admirable skill she lays herself out to win the good graces, not only of persons in actual power, but of any and every individual whom a jerk in the balance of imperial favor may some day invest with important functions—that is to say, everybody. She neglects no one, and is aux petits soins [pays fostering attention to the smallest details] with every native, to whom her caresses and flatteries are all the more delightful because the European world is generally so contemptuous, indifferent, or brutal to him. She follows the careers of native officials with jealous attention, recommends and pushes those who show the dispositions that suit her, puts obstacles in the way of the others. Not only does she excel in taking advantage of opportunities, but she is unsurpassable in the art of creating them. In a word, she is masterful in the highest degree, and proportionately successful. . . .
The object of this is not to censure the methods of diplomacy, nor to approve of them. It is simply a statement of facts, meant to serve as a contribution to the comprehension of the political action of states in the busy and complicated struggle which secretly rages between them, until it breaks out into flames of war.
Continue reading: THE STARCH FAMILY