Your ShelfYour Projects

Signs of the Times, Vol. 10, No. 37.

Happy and Unhappy Homes

Signs of the Times

Oct 2, 1884

International Tract and Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Oct 2, 1884

Happy and Unhappy Homes.

By Mrs. E. G. White

MANY are unhappy in their home life because they are trying so hard to keep up appearances. They expend large sums of money, and labor unremittingly, that they may make a display, and gain the praise of their associates,—those who really care nothing for them or their prosperity. One article after another is considered indispensable to the household appointments, until many expensive additions are made, that, while they please the eye and gratify pride and ambition, do not in the least increase the comfort of the family. And yet these things have taxed the strength and patience, and consumed valuable time which should have been given to the service of the Lord.
The precious grace of God is made secondary to matters of no real importance; and many, while collecting material for enjoyment, lose the capacity for happiness. They find that their possessions fail to give the satisfaction they had hoped to derive from them. This endless round of labor, this unceasing anxiety to embellish the home for visitors and strangers to admire, never pays for the time and means thus expended. It is placing upon the neck a yoke of bondage grievous to be borne.
Four walls and costly furniture, velvet carpets, elegant mirrors, and fine pictures, do not make a "home" if sympathy and love are wanting. That sacred word does not belong to the glittering mansion where the joys of domestic life are unknown. There are spacious parlors closed from the sweet sunshine and life-giving air, for fear these choicest gifts of Heaven might tarnish the furniture and fade the carpets. These rooms are sunless and damp, unlighted and unheated save when visitors are to be entertained. Then the doors are thrown open, and the beautiful rooms, too fine for the use and comfort of the family, are devoted to unsympathizing acquaintances.
These rooms are altogether too precious for every-day use; above all, the children must be strictly excluded from their precincts, for fear of soiling the furniture or the curtains. In fact, the comfort and welfare of the children are the last things thought of in such a home. They are neglected by the mother, whose whole time is devoted to keeping up appearances and meeting the claims of fashionable society. Their minds are untrained, they acquire bad habits, and become restless and dissatisfied. Finding no pleasure in their own homes, but only uncomfortable restrictions, they break away from the family circle as soon as possible. They launch out into the great world with little reluctance, unrestrained by home influence, and the tender counsel of the hearth-stone.
How different is it in the Christian home, where the mother is attentive to the wants of husband and children, and takes pleasure in the performance of her sweet home duties; where the father co-operates in all her efforts to make home happy, and to lay the foundation of a good Christian character by training the children in the way they should go. Such parents, while they win the affections of their children by their sympathy and tender care, will yet be firm and decided in their government, and will guard them with jealous care. They will exhort, reprove, and counsel their children when they rise up, and when they sit down; when they go out, and when they come in. It will be "line upon line, precept upon precept; here a little, and there a little." In such homes angels will love to linger; and who can tell what an influence for good shall go out from them?
It does not require costly surroundings and expensive furniture to make children contented and happy in their homes; but it is necessary that the parents give them tender love and careful attention. Parents should by their example encourage the formation of habits of simplicity, and draw their children away from an artificial to a natural life. Gentle manners, cheerful conversation, and loving acts will bind the hearts of children to their parents by the silken cords of affection, and will do more to make home attractive than the rarest ornaments that can be bought for gold.
There are but few true fathers and mothers in this age of the world, and this is owing more to the artificial lives that are so generally led than to any other cause. There should be less anxiety for external appearances, but more earnest effort to secure practical comfort in every room throughout the house. Less parade in the parlor, and more time devoted to the training of the children, to the preparation of simple, wholesome food, and to the general economy and comfort of the household, would make happy hearts and pleasant faces in the home. There are many who should live less for the outside world, and more for the members of their own family circle. There should be less display of superficial politeness and affection toward strangers and visitors, and more of the courtesy that springs from genuine love and sympathy toward the dear ones of our own firesides.
The very best part of the house, the sunniest and most inviting rooms, and the most comfortable furniture, should be in daily use by those who really live in the house. This will make home attractive to the inmates, and also to that class of friends who really care for us, whom we could benefit, and by whom we could be benefited. But those guests who are attracted to us by the prospect of sumptuous dinners and an extravagant luxury of style, are not the ones whose companionship will improve our minds and hearts. We have no moral right to spend our time and means in entertaining such visitors, while our precious, God-given children are suffering gross neglect.
But it is so flattering to the pride of some persons to exhibit a certain extravagant and fashionable style of living for the benefit of occasional guests, that they are willing to sacrifice the peace and comfort of the household for this empty gratification. The fine mansion, the costly furniture and ornaments, the toil in serving up dainty dishes to gratify the appetite, the expensive entertainments which swallow up money and time, and the dashing carriages designed more for show than comfort, bring no peaceful contentment. They have no connection with the real joys of life; they interfere with domestic quiet, and unfit the mind for the homely but pleasant duties of practical life.
As these extravagances fail to satisfy their possessors, they blindly seek to remedy the failure by adding new luxuries, and plunging deeper into the whirlpool of fashionable society. But the inevitable result is greater dissatisfaction, and an increase of care and anxiety. Decorations of dress and houses do not make people happy; but the lowliest dwelling may be beautified, and the poorest family be made rich, by the possession of meekness, kindness, and love. Pleasant voices, gentle manners, and sincere affection that finds expression in all the actions, together with industry, neatness, and economy, make even a hovel the happiest of homes. The Creator regards such a home with approbation; and the inmates, though they have not "that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, and of putting on of apparel," have that which is far better,—"the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price."
"Godliness with contentment is great gain." It is "profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come." We should open our hearts and houses to the Lord. The restraint which his word imposes upon us is for our own interest. It increases the happiness of our families and of all about us. It refines the taste, sanctifies the judgment, and brings peace of mind, and in the end, everlasting life.

HE DIED FOR ME.

By Dr. Bethune

WHEN time seems short, and death is near, And I am pressed with doubt and fear, And sins, an overflowing tide, Assail my peace on every side, This thought my refuge still shall be, I know the Saviour died for me!
His name is Jesus, and he died— For guilty sinners crucified; Content to die that he might win Their ransom from the death of sin; No sinner worse than I, can be, Therefore I know he died for me.
If grace were bought, I could not buy; If grace were coined, no wealth have I; By grace alone I draw my breath, Held up from everlasting death. Yet since I know his grace is free, I know the Saviour died for me.
I read God's holy word, and find Great truths which far transcend my mind; And little do I know beside Of thought so high, so deep, and wide. This is my best theology, I know the Saviour died for me.
My faith is weak, but 'tis thy gift, My helpless soul by thee uplift; And say, "Thy bonds of death are riven, Thy sins, by me are all forgiven, And thou shalt live, from guilt set free, For I, thy Saviour, died for thee." —Dr. Bethune.

Conscience and Sunday Laws.

By Alonzo T. Jones

LAST week we remarked that with the Sunday-law advocates "there is no recognition of the right of every man to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, but every man must worship according to the dictates of the conscience of the Sunday-law claimant. Yet even this is not the true statement of the case, but rather that every man must worship according to the will of the Sunday-law claimant. We say will, because in this case, as a matter of fact, "there is no conscience at all."
That there is no recognition of the rights of conscience in others, is proved by the following quotation from the organ of the National Reform party, the Christian Statesman, of Nov. 1, 1883: "If there be any Christian who objects to the proposed amendment on the ground that it might touch the conscience of the infidel, it seems to me that it would be in order to inquire whether he himself should not have some conscience in the matter." In the same article it is plainly shown that whoever does not keep Sunday stands in the same position as the infidel; and so it appears that whatever religious rites they may choose to have enforced by law, it must be so wholly out of respect for their wishes who will have it so, with no regard for the consciences of any who differ with them. And now as they so decidedly show that they will not respect our consciences, we propose to show that in this thing at least, their action does not spring from conscience at all, and that therefore, on their part, there is no conscience for us to respect.

CONSCIENCE

Is defined by Webster's Unabridged to be "the moral faculty; the moral sense;" and, "the English word implies a moral standard of action in the mind." Now the only moral standard of action for the human mind that there is in existence, is the moral law, the law of God, the ten commandments. That this definition and this statement are strictly in accordance with the Scripture is readily seen by Heb. 10: 15, 16: "The Holy Ghost also is a witness to us; for after that he had said before, this is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will write them." "Written . . . with the spirit of the living God, not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart." 2 Cor. 3: 3. "So then," says Paul, "with the mind I serve the law of God." Rom. 7: 25.
Again, "For if the blood of bulls and of goats and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God." "Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience." Heb. 9: 13, 14; 10: 22. So then the blood of Christ cleanses the conscience "from dead works," "from evil," from sin. But how does the conscience discover that it is defiled by sin? Rom. 3: 20 answers: By the law is the knowledge of sin. And 1 John 3: 4. Sin is the transgression of the law.
Once more; Rom. 2: 14, 15: "When the Gentiles, which have not the [written] law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these having not the [written] law are a law unto themselves; which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness." When the Gentiles do the things contained in the law, their conscience bears witness. And by doing the things of the law, they show the work of the law written in their hearts, and to that their conscience bears witness. Observe, the conscience bears witness only to the things contained in the law. Therefore as much of the law of God as is in the heart so much conscience a man has, and no more. By these "proofs of Holy Writ," then, the definition above given is justified, and it is proved that the ten commandments are the moral standard of action of the human mind; that they are the detector of the stains of sin upon the conscience; that they are the great regulator of the conscience; and that, virtually, the law of God is conscience. And by these proofs it is clear that when, out of respect for the law of God, a person does what is commanded in the law, he acts conscientiously. And it is equally clear that when a person, with the law of God before him, chooses to go contrary to the plain reading of the text of the law, he does not act conscientiously, but willfully, and his own will becomes the standard of his mind, and so conscience is shut out.
The fourth commandment is the original and only moral standard of action that there is in the world regarding the observance of the Sabbath. It alone is the regulator of the conscience on that subject. By it alone can be detected Sabbath-breaking stains upon the conscience. Obedience to it, out of respect to the commandment and its Author, is conscientious obedience. Disobedience to it, even though we seek to substitute another day, cannot be conscientiousness.
"Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it." Ex. 20: 8-11. This commandment is just as plain as it can be written, even by the Lord himself. So that to every one who can read it, his duty is plain, and he is without excuse in disobedience. There is in it room for only one possible question; that is, What day is the seventh day? and having found it, honestly before God, to obey the word with all our God-given powers; and to such obedience, and to such only, conscience bears witness; such obedience is conscientious.
Sunday-keeping is no part of the law of God. The Sunday institution is not based upon the fourth commandment, nor is it sanctioned by it. No man can read the first day of the week, the Sunday, into the commandment without destroying the commandment. And outside of the fourth commandment no one claims any commandment for Sunday-keeping in the Bible. They know there is no such commandment in all the Book. Therefore, as there is no commandment from God for the observance of Sunday, as there is no law of God on the subject, its observance cannot be a matter of conscience. Being not of God, there is nothing in it that can be recognized by the conscience, which is of God. Not resting upon the authority of God, it rests upon no authority that the conscience can respect. And there lies the weakness of the Sunday cause. If there were anything in it that would touch the conscience; anything that the conscience could recognize, if it rested upon authority that the conscience could respect, its advocates moving in the fear of God, would never have need to ask for human laws to compel people to observe it.
If, then, the Sunday institution and Sunday laws are not founded in conscience, from what do they spring? From

SUPERSTITION.

Superstition is defined by Webster: "Extreme and unnecessary scruples in the observance of religious rites not commanded." In the zeal and the efforts of the National Reform party and of those who demand laws compelling the observance of Sunday, this definition is not exactly. The keeping of Sunday religiously is the observance of a rite absolutely not commanded by the Lord in any place in all his revelation to men. Let them show us a commandment from the Lord for the observance of Sunday and we will willingly and gladly keep it, and do all that we possibly can to get all others to observe it; and thus on our part at least they will have no need of the enactment of laws enforcing its observance. Let them show us from the Bible, Old Testament or New, any such expression in favor of Sunday as that "ye ought" to keep it, or that "I have given you an example that ye should do" it, or that "happy are ye if ye do" it, and we will obey the injunction, and thenceforth will keep Sunday. We will keep it conscientiously. And until they shall open the Bible and show us a command for it, that we may see it and say, This is the word of God, until then we utterly refuse to keep it, civil law or constitutional amendment to the contrary notwithstanding. But they never can produce such a commandment, and they know it, and therefore they will have civil enactments and constitutional amendment to supply their want, and thus seek to remedy the fatal defect.
More, as we find in the Bible, in the moral law, that great regulator of the conscience, a plain commandment enjoining the observance of the seventh day as the Sabbath of the Lord, our consciences oblige us to keep it so, out of conscientious regard for the authority of the Author of the law. And so long as that commandment stands, and they fail to produce from the word of God a commandment for us to keep the first day, just so long we refuse to give up the observances of that which is commanded, to adopt the practice of that which is not commanded. In other words, and according to the definitions given above, we refuse to yield our conscience for their superstition.
By some this may be thought strong language. But the question is not, Is it strong? but, Is it true? And the answer must be, according to the Scriptures, and the highest authority in the English language, It is true. And it being also true that for the sake of this superstition, its advocates will annul the chartered liberties of this whole liberty-loving people; liberties which were bought with much blood and untold suffering; liberties for which our fathers pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor; liberties which have been the vital principle in the work of every reformer from the day of Arnold of Brescia, to our own; liberties which are the legitimate outgrowth of the Reformation as a whole, and consequent upon the spread of its enlightenment,—when all these must be ruthlessly torn away, and relentlessly crushed out, for the establishment of a superstition, we know of no words that would be too strong by which to characterize it. We cannot sit idly by and see all our so dearly-bought rights so cruelly taken away. They urge the contest upon us, and in the name of civil and religious liberty, in the name of human rights, in the name of conscience, in the name of Him who alone can cleanse the conscience from all stain, and in the name of Him who alone is Ruler of the conscience, we accept the issue. We accept the issue, and in conscience reject the superstition. ALONZO T. JONES.

God’s Providence in Affliction

GOD does not willingly afflict or grieve the children of men. We read that he is very pitiful—that "as a father pitieth his children, so the Lord pitieth them that fear him." He has borne our griefs; he has carried our sorrows; he has known our estate; for he "was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." We are not to suppose that God cares nothing for our experience in this world. He holds these things in his hands, and administers them for the good of men. We shall in time see the wisdom of his unerring providence.—Sel.

What Has Passed Away?

By George W. Bliss

The Saviour taught his disciples and the multitude that they must not think he had come to destroy the law or the prophets. They must not think so because they now hear him confidently affirm that one jot or one tittle shall in no manner pass from the law until all things be accomplished.
But all things spoken by the prophets were not accomplished at the time of Christ's crucifixion. For the stone cut out of the mountain without hands did not then become a great mountain and fill the whole earth. Dan. 2:35. The kingdom and dominion and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven was not given to the people of the saints of the Most High. All dominions did not then serve and obey the Most High. Dan. 7:27. The day of the Lord has not yet come, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger to lay the land desolate. And the sinners have not been destroyed out of it. Isa. 13:9. The wicked have not all been burned, and their ashes trodden under foot. Mal. 4:13. The land has not been, since the creation, formless and void. The lights of heaven have not been removed. The earth has not been emptied of human beings. The birds have not all disappeared from the heavens. Jer. 4:23, 25-27. The general resurrection has not been accomplished. The full length of everlasting life has not been enjoyed.
Because not one jot nor one tittle shall pass from the law until all things are accomplished, therefore, says the Master, "Whosoever shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of Heaven." From this we understand that the whole of the law is binding upon both believers and unbelievers to the end of time and throughout eternity.
If the divine Teacher classed the ten commandments and the typical and national law all together and called them the law, then we find his apostles teaching, differently from himself, that more than a jot or tittle has passed from the law, even before heaven and earth have passed away, and before all things are accomplished. For the apostles and elders, under the sanction of the Holy Spirit, burdened the Gentile believers with only these necessary things, that they abstain from meats offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from fornication.
By this some understand that all the other things of the law are unnecessary and need not be observed. If this be so, it is not necessary that Gentiles give up their profanity, nor cease their work on the Sabbath. They may bear false witness if it best serves their purpose. They may kill a hated person if they wish. And whoever teaches that they must obey these non-essentials is putting a yoke of bondage on their necks.
Paul taught the Ephesians that Christ had abolished in his flesh the law of commandments contained in ordinances. Eph. 2:15. And he taught the Colossians that the handwriting of ordinances was blotted out, having been taken out of the way by being nailed to the cross. Col. 2:14.
We do not believe that this is a contradiction of the words of Christ. For there is a plainly marked distinction between the law of which Christ speaks, and that to which the apostle refers.
The Lord spoke the ten commandments with his own voice to the people (Deut. 4:12, 13), and wrote them with his own finger on the tables of stone. Ex. 31:18; Deut. 10:4. The tables of stone were put into the ark. Deut. 10:5. There was nothing in the ark but these two tables. 1 Kings 8:9.
The Lord spoke precepts and judgments to Moses (Ex. 21:1), which Moses spoke to the people (Ex. 24:3), and which he wrote in a book. Ex. 24:4. The book was put in the side of the ark. Deut. 31:24-26.
If the ten commandments and the precepts written by Moses were all one law, and of equal importance and duration, why did not the Lord write it all on stones, and have it all placed in the ark together?
It is plain that Christ, in Matt. 5:17-19, spoke of the ten commandments, for he calls attention to some of them, as, "Thou shalt not kill," "Thou shalt not commit adultery."
In Ephesians 2:15 the law mentioned is "the law of commandments contained in ordinances," which is called in Col. 2:14, "the handwriting of ordinances," and which treats of meat, drink, feast days, new moons, and sabbaths. Meat, drink, feast days and new moons are not found on the tables of stone.
There were sabbaths which are not mentioned in the ten commandments, but are found in the law of Moses, and in connection with meat, drink, and feasts. The first day of the feast of unleavened bread was a sabbath. Lev. 23:7. The seventh day of that feast was to be a sabbath. Verse 8. The day of pentecost was to be a sabbath. Verse 21. The first day of the seventh month was a sabbath. Verse 24. The tenth day of the seventh month was a sabbath. Verse 27. On the fifteenth day of the seventh month began a feast; the first day of this feast was a sabbath, and also the eighth day was a sabbath. Verse 39. These were shadows of things to come, and of course ended when the body (Christ) was reached; but they were entirely distinct from the Sabbath of the Lord (see Lev. 23:38), which were enjoined by the law written on the tables of stone, of which our Saviour said that not one jot or tittle should pass away.
GEORGE W. BLISS. Syracuse, New York.

The "Facts" of Some Scientists.

THE Sunday School Times pays its respects to what is commonly called "science," in the following vigorous manner:—
"How rare it is for a scientist to keep his scientific observations distinct from his personal fancies and theories! How common it is for a scientist to build up a personal theory on his own limited knowledge of facts, and then to count every opponent of his theory as an opposer of science! Indeed, what is commonly called "science" is a succession of blunders and of changing theories, tending gradually toward knowledge, through the battlings of opposing visionaries and skeptics; and the so-called "conflicts of religion and science" are the conflicts of ignorant religionists on the one hand, and, on the other hand, of wild theorizers under the name of science—'falsely so called.' There is, for example, at the present time, no opposition to the scientific discoveries of Darwin and Huxley; and, practically, there is no denial of any facts claimed by them as proven facts. But there is a great deal of opposition to their wild theories in matters quite beyond the realm of their claimed discoveries. Nor is it fair for such a man as Professor Huxley to claim special respect for his opinions on theological dogmas, either vital or fossil, merely because of his familiarity with fossil horses. Yet just here is where most of the 'conflicts of religion and science' have their origin. A good illustration of the tendency of scientists to dogmatize beyond their knowledge even in their own realm of research, was given in a discussion among the geologists at the recent sessions of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, as reported in the daily press. Two well-known geologists referred to two fossil shells as found, sometimes, side by side in the same rocks. Thereupon the State geologist of New York, who had never seen those two fossils side by side in the same rock, and whose pet theory of geology would not admit the possibility of their being there, rose and dogmatized, in behalf of his theory, after the type of the narrowest theological bigot.
'If any one will show me the two spirifers side by side in the same rock,' he exclaimed, 'I will sacrifice my life's work. I will give up my reputation, eat my hat, and make the person who shows me the rock a present of my coat and boots.' Instead of dogmatizing on the other side, the defied geologist who was thus charged with geological heresy took the first train to his university, and shortly there came back a heavy box addressed to the defiant dogmatizer, containing a piece of rock with the two fossils imbedded side by side, and a note reading somewhat as follows: 'The inclosed rock contains the spirifer disjuncta and spirifer mesostrialis side by side. You can have it. Please eat your hat, and send me your coat and boots by express.' And this gives a good opportunity for the State geologist of New York to compare himself with the persecuted and maligned Galileo; while the entire skeptical world can groan in chorus over the bigoted hostility to men of science."

The Value of Honorary Degrees.

IN a timely article in the July Century, on Academical Degrees, especially Honorary Degrees in the United States, ex-President Theodore D. Woolsey, of Yale, thus comments on the present system of conferring titles:—
"We have also a right to say that this distribution of honorary degrees is to a great extent unmeaning. It fails of selecting the most worthy; it disappoints many, as is probable, and gratifies a few, and those few not, of course, the best fitted to fill the place; it by no means selects the most learned and useful scholars, but rather those who have an artificial or undeserved prominence. The desire to obtain the honor is a desire which no man should indulge, and yet the uncertainty and unreasonableness of the rules of selection provoke such a desire, especially in persons who have no good claims by which it can be justified. If the honor of a doctorate in theology is given to ministers of one denomination, it will, in the end, be given to those of another—not in order to discourage a learned ministry, but owing, in part, to the sway of the spirit of equality, and because, in part, it gives a title which is as good as if the largest university had conferred it, as well as a standing in the upper section of one's fellow-ministers. Perhaps, too, it may help him in getting a good parish. The social distinction conferred on a man by an academical honor, whether deserved or not, is not an inconsiderable motive for desiring and even for seeking it; and the value of titles is, perhaps, nowhere more highly esteemed than in a democratic country like ours. Thus the official title which attaches itself to a person in a civil, military, judicial, or political sphere is commonly given rather than the Christian name, not merely because it is shorter to say Colonel or Mayor, or Mr. Smith, but also because it is supposed to afford pleasure to the person so addressed. It is owing to these causes that addresses by word of mouth, or on the covers of letters, have gradually fallen down from their original honorary meaning, so as to be open to almost all men—such titles, we mean, as Esquire, Master or Mr., and Honorable. In this widening of the use of titles they come to mean, at length, little or nothing, and, instead of distinctions, are bestowed on all men. Who that adds the title of Esquire to a name on a letter ever thinks of the aristocratic employment which it once denoted? It is getting to be very much the same in regard to doctorates in theology. They carry with them no evidence of learning, but only a certain indefinite superiority above others in the same sacred calling."

Miracles Not Unreasonable.

By Dr. Channing

To a man whose belief in God is strong and practical, a miracle will appear as possible as any other effect, as the most common event in life; and the argument against miracles, drawn from the uniformity of nature, will weigh, with him, only as far as this uniformity is a pledge and proof of the Creator's disposition to accomplish his purposes by a fixed order or mode of operation. Now it is freely granted that the Creator's regard or attachment to such an order may be inferred from the steadiness with which he observes it; and a strong presumption lies against any violation of it on slight occasions, or for purposes to which the established laws of nature are adequate. But this is the utmost which the order of nature authorizes us to infer respecting its Author. It forms no presumption against miracles universally, in all imaginable cases; but may even furnish a presumption in their favor.
We are never to forget that God's adherence to the order of the universe is not necessary and mechanical, but intelligent and voluntary. He adheres to it, not for its own sake, or because it has a sacredness which compels him to respect it, but because it is most suited to accomplish his purposes. It is a means, and not an end; and, like all other means, must give way when the end can best be promoted without it. It is the mark of a weak mind to make an idol of order and method; to cling to established forms of business, when they clog instead of advancing it. If, then, the great purposes of the universe can best be accomplished by departing from its established laws, these laws will undoubtedly be suspended; and, though broken in the letter, they will be observed in their spirit, for the ends for which they were first instituted will be advanced by their violation.
Now the question arises, For what purposes were nature and its order appointed? and there is no presumption in saying that the highest of these is the improvement of intelligent beings. Mind (by which we mean both moral and intellectual powers) is God's first end. The great purpose for which an order of nature is fixed, is plainly the formation of mind. In a creation without order, where events would follow without any regular succession, it is obvious that mind must be kept in perpetual infancy; for, in such a universe, there could be no reasoning from effects to causes, no induction to establish general truths, no adaptation of means to ends; that is, no science relating to God, or matter, or mind; no action; no virtue. The great purpose of God, then, I repeat it, in establishing the order of nature, is to form and advance the mind; and if the case should occur, in which the interests of the mind could best be advanced by departing from this order, or by miraculous agency, then the great purpose of the creation, the great end of its laws and regularity, would demand such departure; and miracles, instead of warring against, would concur with nature.
Now, we Christians maintain that such a case has existed. We affirm that when Jesus Christ came into the world, nature had failed to communicate instructions to men, in which, as intelligent beings, they had the deepest concern, and on which the full development of their highest faculties essentially depended; and we affirm that there was no prospect of relief from nature; so that an exigence had occurred in which additional communications, supernatural lights, might rationally be expected from the Father of spirits. Let me state two particulars, out of many, in which men needed intellectual aids not given by nature. I refer to the doctrine of one God and Father, on which all piety rests; and to the doctrine of immortality, which is the great spring of virtuous effort. Had I time to enlarge on the history of that period, I might show you under what heaps of rubbish and superstition these doctrines were buried. But I should repeat only what you know familiarly. The works of ancient genius, which form your studies, carry on their front the brand of polytheism, and of debasing error on subjects of the first and deepest concern. It is more important to observe that the very uniformity of nature had some tendency to obscure the doctrines which I have named, or at least to impair their practical power, so that a departure from this uniformity was needed to fasten them on men's minds.
That a fixed order of nature, though a proof of the one God to reflecting and enlarged understandings, has yet a tendency to hide him from men in general, will appear, if we consider, first, that, as the human mind is constituted, what is regular and of constant occurrence, excites it feebly; and benefits flowing to it through fixed, unchanging laws, seem to come by a kind of necessity, and are apt to be traced up to natural causes alone. Accordingly, religious convictions and feelings, even in the present advanced condition of society, are excited, not so much by the ordinary course of God's providence, as by sudden, unexpected events, which rouse and startle the mind, and speak of a power higher than nature.
There is another way in which a fixed order of nature seems unfavorable to just impressions respecting its Author. It discovers to us in the Creator a regard to general good rather than an affection to individuals. The laws of nature, operating, as they do, with an inflexible steadiness, never varying to meet the cases and wants of individuals, and inflicting much private suffering in their stern administration for the general weal, give the idea of a distant, reserved sovereign, much more than of a tender parent; and yet this last view of God is the only effectual security from superstition and idolatry. Nature, then, we fear, would not have brought back the world to its Creator. And as to the doctrine of immortality, the order of the natural world had little tendency to teach this, at least with clearness and energy. The natural world contains no provisions or arrangements for reviving the dead. The sun and the rain, which cover the tomb with verdure, send no vital influences to the mouldering body. The researches of science detect no secret processes for restoring the lost powers of life. If man is to live again, he is not to live through any known laws of nature, but by a power higher than nature; and how, then, can we be assured of this truth, but by a manifestation of this power, that is, by miraculous agency, confirming a future life?
I have labored in these remarks to show that the uniformity of nature is no presumption against miraculous agency, when employed in confirmation of such a religion as Christianity. Nature, on the contrary, furnishes a presumption in its favor. Nature clearly shows to us a power above itself, so that it proves miracles to be possible. Nature reveals purposes and attributes in its Author with which Christianity remarkably agrees. Nature too has deficiencies, which show that it was not intended by its Author to be his whole method of instructing mankind; and in this way it gives great confirmation to Christianity, which meets its wants, supplies its chasms, explains its mysteries, and lightens its heart-oppressing cares and sorrows.
Continue reading: The Righteousness of the Nations