Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Feb 20, 1879
RELIGION OR DRESS, WHICH?
CHAS. G. FINNEY, long president of Oberlin College, in his advice to Christian women, says:—
“Are you going to walk in the street? Take care how you dress. What is that on your head? What do that gaudy ribbon, and those ornaments upon your dress, say to every one that meets you? They make an impression that you wish to be thought pretty. Take care! You might just as well write on your clothes, ‘No truth in religion.’ They say, ‘Give me dress, give me fashion, give me flattery, and I am happy.’ The world understands this testimony as you walk in the streets. You are ‘living epistles, known and read of all men.’ If you show pride, levity, bad temper, and the like, it is like tearing open the wounds of the Saviour. How Christ might weep to see professors of religion going about hanging up his cause to contempt at the corners of the streets. Only ‘let the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety, not with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array, but (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works;’ only let them act consistently, and their conduct will tell on the world. . . . But oh, let them display vanity, try to be pretty, bow down to the goddess of fashion, fill their ears with ornaments, and their fingers with rings; let them put feathers in their hats and clasps on their arms, lace themselves up till they can hardly breathe; let them put on their ‘round tires, and walk, mincing as they go,’ and their influence is reversed.”
IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.
By Dudley Marvin Canright
ELD. D. M. CANRIGHT.
THE GREEKS BORROWED THIS DOCTRINE FROM EGYPT.
The next point to be noted is that Greece, Rome, and other nations borrowed their systems of religion, especially the doctrine of the soul, from Egypt. To this fact all historians testify.
Enfield, in his well-known history of Philosophy, says: “Egypt is unquestionably to be ranked amongst the most ancient civilized countries, and was very early famous for wisdom. Many eminent philosophers among the Greeks, such as Orpheus, Thales, Pythagoras, Democritus, and Plato visited Egypt in search of knowledge.”
Saint Hippolytus says that the Egyptians “were the first to proclaim to all the rest of men the rites and orgies of, at the same time, all the gods.”
Bishop Warburton, who has studied and written so largely upon this subject, says of the heathen mysteries, that they “all have their common origin from Egypt.” Again: “It is very certain they came first from Egypt.” He declares, and truly too, that “the Magi of Persia, the Druids of Gaul, and the Brahmins of India,” were all “the genuine offspring of the Egyptian priests.”
Of the terrors of the infernal regions, Dr. Good says, “Egypt is generally said to have been the inventress of this important and valuable part of the common tradition.”
Rollin, the historian, says: “It is to Egypt that Pythagoras owed his favorite doctrine of the metempsychosis, or transmigrations of souls.”
Mr. Watson also says that it was from Egypt that the other nations borrowed many of their religious doctrines. Another says, “Pherecydes taught those opinions concerning the gods and the origin of the world which the ancient Grecian theogonists borrowed from Egypt.”
In harmony with this Alger writes: “It seems plain that the Greeks derived many of their notions concerning the fate and state of the dead from Egypt. . . . Besides, Herodotus positively affirms that they were derived from Egypt. Several other ancient authors also state this, and nearly every modern writer on the subject agrees in it.”
The evidence is clear and abundant that the Greeks obtained their first notions of the soul’s immortality from the Egyptians, though, as we shall soon see, they altered this doctrine and added to it. The doctrine of the immortality of the soul, as we have seen, was a leading notion in the Egyptian religion. The Greeks received this with the rest, but at a later date than most other parts of their system. Says Herodotus: “The Egyptians also were the first who asserted the doctrine that the soul of man is immortal. . . . Some of the Greeks have adopted this opinion, some earlier, others later, as if it were their own.”
This is very plain testimony as to where the Greeks obtained this doctrine; also that it was not known among them till learned from Egypt; and that even then all did not at once receive it. Pherecydes, who lived about six hundred years before Christ, was the first who taught the Greeks the notion. He received his learning and doctrine from the Egyptians. Josephus, in his book “Against Apion,” says: “But then for those that first introduced philosophy [among the Greeks], and the consideration of things celestial and divine among them, such as Pherecydes the Syrian, and Pythagoras, and Thales, all with one consent agree that they learned what they knew of the Egyptians and Chaldeans, and wrote but little. And these are the things which are supposed to be the oldest of all among the Greeks. And they have much ado to believe that the writings ascribed to those men are genuine.”
The reader will notice that the teachings of Pherecydes and Thales are among the oldest things taught the Greeks, and that they hardly knew whether to believe them or not. This was only six hundred years before Christ. Moses had legislated for Israel about one thousand years before that, and even David and Solomon had slept with their fathers for about four hundred years when this philosopher first taught the Greeks about the soul’s immortality. So this doctrine was not very ancient among them. Enfield says: “Another tenet which is by the universal consent of the ancients ascribed to Pherecydes is that of the immortality of the soul, for which he was, perhaps, indebted to the Egyptians. Cicero says that he was the first philosopher in whose writings this doctrine appeared. He is also said, and not improbably, to have taught the doctrine of the transmigration of the soul; for this was a tenet commonly received among the Egyptians, and afterwards taught by Pythagoras.”
This history points out the very first man who wrote in favor of this heathen dogma. Pherecydes not only borrowed the doctrine of the immortality and transmigration of souls from the Egyptians, and taught it to the Greeks, but he added to it a refinement of his own, which was unknown till he first broached it; this was the idea that the soul is a part of God.
Mr. Warburton has argued this point at some length, and shown that this doctrine was of Grecian, and not of Egyptian origin, and that Pherecydes and his contemporary, Thales, were the inventors of it. He says, “The Greeks having thus given the soul one of the attributes of the Divinity, another Egyptian doctrine soon taught them to make a perfect God of it.”
Here we find the date of another important step in the history of this doctrine. All agree that the Greek philosophers much improved the doctrines which they learned from Egypt. This was one of the first of these improvements.
PYTHAGORAS.
The next great name in antiquity that appears in the history of this doctrine, is Pythagoras. He was a Greek, born about B. C. 550; the exact date is not certain. He was a disciple of Pherecydes. He passed twenty-two years in Egypt, and used great diligence in learning the doctrines of the priests. After traveling through many cities of Greece, he finally went to Crotona, in Magna Græcia, where he established a flourishing school, which was attended by hundreds. The school, or sect, thus founded by him, was called the Italic or Pythagoric sect.
Of his visit to Egypt, and the result, Warburton says: “The last sort of people who went to Egypt for instruction were the philosophers, properly so called. . . . The first (as well as the most famous) of this class, and who gave philosophy its name and character, was Pythagoras. He and Plato, with others, traveled into Egypt, like their predecessors. . . . The ancients tell us of their long abode there; their hard condition of admittance into the sacred colleges; and their bringing away with them all the secret science of the priesthood. The result of all was, and it is worth our observation, that, from this time, the Greek sophists (now called philosophers) began to cultivate the belief of a future state of rewards and punishments.”
Yes, these observations are important. 1. Pythagoras went into Egypt. 2. There he and Plato learned the doctrines of the priests. 3. The result was, that from that time the Greek philosophers began to cultivate this belief. Then they had not cultivated that belief before, much less had the people. There is an abundance of evidence to show that he is correct in these statements.
We will now briefly inquire into Pythagoras’ doctrine concerning man and the soul. He seems to have made some advancement upon the doctrine of his master, Pherecydes. He taught that God was the great fountain, or the universal mind, from whence emanated the minds, or souls, of all intelligent beings; that the soul existed before it animated this body; that it will transmigrate through different bodies till it returns to God, its original source, and is reabsorbed into his essence. Like all before him, he still held the soul to be material. With regard to his idea of God, Enfield says, “He does not seem to have had the idea of a pure spirit.”
Enfield has thoroughly discussed the whole subject, so I glean the following facts from him: 1. We learn that Pythagoras retained all the advance steps which his master, Pherecydes, had made on the ancient faith. 2. He added much of his own theorizing. 3. He introduced a subtile mode of philosophizing, which confused the mind more than it enlightened it. He used many subtile divisions and distinctions, which were unknown before. He was the first one who assumed the name of philosopher. 4. He began to decry “gross matter” as corrupt, and far removed from God. 5. Yet he still held God, demons, and souls to be material; but they were of subtile, ethereal substance.
ANAXAGORAS.
The discovery that mind is entirely independent of matter was reserved for another philosopher, born about 50 years later than Pythagoras. This was Anaxagoras, one of the successors of Pythagoras in the Ionic school. Of this fact Enfield testifies thus:— “Plutarch confirms this account of the doctrine of Anaxagoras, and shows wherein it differed from that of his predecessors. ‘The Ionic philosophers,’ says he, ‘who appeared before Anaxagoras, made fortune, or blind necessity, that is, the fortuitous or necessary motion of the particles of matter, the first principle in nature; but Anaxagoras affirmed that a pure mind, perfectly free from all material concretions, governs the universe.’ From these and other concurrent testimonies, it clearly appears that Anaxagoras was the first among the Greeks who conceived of mind as detached from matter, and as acting upon it with intelligence and design in the formation of the universe. The infinite mind, or Deity, which his predecessors had confounded with matter, making them one universe, Anaxagoras conceived to have a separate and independent existence, and to be simple, pure intelligence58capable of forming the eternal mass of matter according to his pleasure.”
The learned Cudworth says, “Anaxagoras was the first who affirmed a pure and sincere mind to preside over all.”
These facts are worthy of our notice. They show the gradual tendency among the ancients to condemn matter, separate the mind from all dependence upon it, and finally to arrive at the conclusion that it is purely spiritual and immaterial. But it required ages of philosophizing to arrive at this conclusion. Anaxagoras broached his opinion, as above stated, about 450 B. C. Even he did not arrive at the notion that the soul of man is purely spiritual and immaterial. This was reserved for another great philosopher, as we shall soon see. These things show what thorough materialists all the ancients were, and how long it took to philosophize them out of it. It was not till common sense and reason were laid aside for “vain philosophy” and subtile sophistry, that they arrived at this sublime conclusion!
DEPENDENCE
“I rejoice at thy word, as one that findeth great spoil.” Ps. 119:162.
Give me, Lord, the grace I need,
To thyself my heart incline;
As thy holy word I read,
Let me gather strength divine.
Not my reason, but my faith,
I desire to exercise,
So that what thy Spirit saith
I may ever dearly prize.
There the deeper lessons learn
Of thy wisdom, love, and skill!
There with readiness discern
What thy purpose—what thy will!
That the movements of my heart
May be under thy control,
Let thy holy word impart
Health and vigor to my soul.
Till thy loved ones thou shalt raise,
Be thyself my heart’s delight;
Rule that heart, and all its ways,
By thy truth’s unerring light.
—Selected.
THE PROSPECTS OF THE CAUSE.
By S. N. Haskell
ELD. S. N. HASKELL.
There never were such indications that the special providence of God is going before us, as now. Italy, down-trodden by the Man of Sin, is furnishing such evidences of the reigning of Omnipotence as we see nowhere else. Entire churches are embracing the truth and standing firm, while their ministers are led in chains to the jail, confined in convents, and their lives are threatened, because of teaching the Sabbath of the Lord. Four companies are now witnesses to the perpetuity of the law of God in the very shadow of the temple of him who thought to change times and laws.
Egypt also, the birth-place of Moses, and the nation that cradled our Saviour and guarded him from Herod’s wrath, is testifying to the truthfulness of the Saviour’s words, “Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled.”
Direct communication from Greece shows that there are Sabbath-keepers there. The isles of the Mediterranean send forth the Macedonian cry, “Come over and help us.” The Baltic Sea has the living preacher of present truth upon its waters. The Hollanders say, “Give us help;” and thus we might say of Germany, France, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and many other places that have not been visited by the living preacher. Russian representatives in our own land send forth a cry for help which should move the hardest heart.
Where are our brethren to whom God has intrusted talents of means and ability? One would think some of us believed in a temporal millennium. These openings are the voice of God, bidding us arise in the strength of the Author and Finisher of our faith, and show our anxiety to have a part in the closing work upon earth, ere the night cometh in which no man can work.
Education a Christian Duty.
By Sidney Brownsberger
PROF. S. BROWNSBERGER.
The strongest argument against general education is advanced by some of the friends of monarchical government. It is founded upon the apprehension that education will lift the lower classes above their sphere in life, and make them dissatisfied with their station. This very thing which they fear is the object that education is to serve in the world, especially among its degraded classes. We want them to become dissatisfied with their degrading ignorance and soul-debasing habits, and take a higher seat in the moral, intellectual, and business world.
This is the end for which many nations are laboring at the present day. Many States of our own country are attempting a compulsory education of their citizens. No less than eleven of our States and one of the territories (Arizona) have passed laws compelling parents to send their children to school during a specified number of years. These laws are based upon the principle of self-protection, and are, therefore, just and right. Nothing in reality renders legitimate governments so insecure as extreme ignorance in the people.
The State reasons as follows: “Ignorance in a republic is a crime against the State, and should be punished as well as prevented. A child is entirely dependent upon his parents. He has a right to his life, clothing, and food. If his parents should deny him any of these, the State would interfere for his protection. He also has a right to some kind of training which will enable him to live after he passes from the control of his parents. In this country a free education is offered him; and as education is continually improving in quality and is becoming more universal, without it he will be at a great disadvantage in the struggle of life. Therefore he has a right to demand that his parents shall not deprive him of it, either before or after he is old enough to appreciate its value. But if his parents should do so, some higher power should interfere in his behalf.”
And what is true of a State is true of the church and family. Ignorance breeds corruption. It is the most productive soil for prejudices and false alarms. No doubt the devil finds entrance into humble churches through the door of ignorance more frequently than through any other.
Still there are thousands of professed Christians in the church, and perhaps there has been a corresponding number during all its history, who believe that mental culture, derived from a close study of books or nature, forms no part of Christian duty. They would neglect the development of the purely intellectual faculties as unimportant, while they would recommend a thorough development of the moral powers.
If this avowed opinion were really based upon an error of judgment, with the motive still pure, a course of argument might suffice to convince them of their error; but there is no doubt that many of these are influenced almost wholly by selfish considerations. Not having the perseverance, the stamina, and the natural taste to undertake and complete the difficult work of obtaining an education, these persons must find some apology for their own ignorance and that of their children in depreciating the value of mental culture. Some are absorbed in the desire for money-making, providing temporal comforts, and administering to physical wants. These argue that they can make as much money without an education as with one, perhaps even more. With this saying they console their defrauded children. Argument will never molest such, unless it be of a purely selfish character. But the other class, who act from pure, though mistaken motives, may be led to correct views by appeals to reason and revelation.
Though the Bible is not a scientific treatise, even of morals and religion, it, nevertheless, embodies all the principles that may be taken as the basis of a complete and systematic treatise on the cultivation and development of man. The fact that the Omniscient God himself dictated this book for the alleged purpose of instructing man in all right-doing, that he may be thoroughly furnished unto all good works, is in itself sufficient evidence that no principle has been left out of the Bible that has any bearing upon the duty of man, though the development of these principles, the particulars in matters of conduct, and, in some things, the manner and time of doing, are all left to the judgment and discretion of man himself. In some way or other, whether by inference, precept, or by the example of men whose conduct has honorable mention in the Bible, the finger of God’s word points man to a perfect development of body and mind and moral principles. All the history of the church shows, beyond a doubt, that God is trying to lead men upward, step by step, to an heirship with his Son, and finally to a perfection no less in its sphere than that of God himself.
Some ignorant yet honest people suppose that the Son of God did not favor education because, 1. It was said of him that he had never learned his letters; 2. He chose those as his disciples who were afterward called unlearned and ignorant; 3. He treated with contempt the doctors of the law, and others, who professed such profound wisdom and knowledge. Answer: 1. Christ had no need to be taught of men, for his knowledge as the Son of God far surpassed that of any mortal. Though he had never learned his letters, as was alleged, he no doubt read better than any of the doctors. 2. He chose these fishermen, not because he despised learning, but to avoid error. The fact that he afterward chose Paul, a very learned man, as an apostle after the doctrine was fully established and attested, and the manner of making the choice, is sufficient proof of the truth of this assertion. The learned were, in all probability, steeped in the popular errors of the day, and these he treated with contempt. He sought minds untrammeled by the doctrines of man, which he would educate as only the Son of God could do. These he drilled three years in his school before he dared send them forth, a longer period than most of our young men, right from the farm, are willing to spend in close application to study before entering upon their vocation. 3. It was not the knowledge of the doctors which he despised, but their errors and insufferable conceit, their hypocrisy and deception of the people.
Moreover, every reference in the Bible to true mental culture and knowledge is made with respect and approval. But some are ready to assert that this wisdom and knowledge and understanding referred to in the Bible has to do only with a knowledge and understanding of moral duty. This assertion seems to carry with it the appearance of truth, inasmuch as man’s greatest errors arose from his moral degeneracy and ignorance, and, consequently, to correct this evil, more prominence is given to the instruction in morality and religious knowledge than to that pertaining to the general culture.
The parable of the talents is sufficiently broad to cover all that man has received from his Creator,—moral, mental, and physical capacities. If he does not improve these to the best of his ability, he will be held responsible to his God.
The excuse for neglecting opportunities for self-culture on the plea of fear that one would fare worse for the improvement of his talents, or that he has so few that it will hardly pay, or that he regards it wholly unnecessary, will not make him innocent before Him whose hired servant he is. God will never condemn a man because he is poor, for riches are a snare, and, exposed to fire, flood, or sword, often take wings and fly away; but true riches, which consist in the proper cultivation of the mind and the faculties of the soul, are permanent, and, if increased by proper using, will prove a sure anchor of the soul forever.
HEARTS OVERWORKED.
It is not by overwork so much as by worry and anxiety that our hearts are disorganized. “Laborious mental exercise is healthy, unless it be made anxious by necessary or unnecessary difficulties. Regular mental labor is best carried on by introducing into it some variety. New work gives time for repair better than an attempt at complete rest, since the active mind finds it impossible to evade its particular work unless its activity be diverted into some new channel.” Business and professional men wear out their hearts by acquiring habits of express-train haste, which a little attention to method would render unnecessary.
We speak now of the heart-breaking effect of passion; and first of anger. A man is said to be “red” or “white” with rage. In using these expressions we are physiologically speaking of the nervous condition of the minute circulation of the man's blood. “Red” rage means partial paralysis of minute blood-vessels, and “white” rage means temporary suspension of the action of the prime mover of the circulation itself. But such disturbances cannot often be produced without the occurrence of permanent organic evils of the vital organs, especially of the heart and brain.
Envy, hatred, and all uncharitableness, exercise almost as destructive an influence on a man's physical nature, and particularly upon the heart, as they do upon his moral character. To say that “sorrows grieve the heart” is more than a metaphor. Cromwell hears that his son is dead, and “it went clean to my heart, that did,” is his physiologically correct description of his experience. Whenever, from undue excitement of any kind, the passions are permitted to overrule the reason, the result is disease; the heart empties itself into the brain; the brain is stricken, and both are ruined.—Chambers' Journal.
THE PROPHECIES.
By Scott Kilgore
Many say the prophecies should not be interpreted literally, but “spiritually,” and especially those that refer to Christ’s second coming, which some say is at “death,” others at “conversion.” If the prophecies concerning his second coming are to be taken spiritually, how can you condemn the Jews for rejecting Christ at his first coming, which was in such literal fulfillment of prophecy? This is not consistent, and while we believe Luke 1:31 to be literally true, let us likewise believe verses 32 and 33. Luke 1:31–33: “And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest, and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David; and he shall reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there shall be no end.”
The inconsistency of interpreting verse 31 literally and spiritualizing verses 32 and 33 is clearly illustrated by the following account of a conversation between a Christian minister and a Jew. Opening a New Testament at Luke 1:32, the Jew asked, “Do you believe that what is here written will be literally accomplished, ‘The Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David; and he shall reign over the house of Jacob forever’?” “I do not,” answered the clergyman, “but rather take it to be figurative language, descriptive of Christ’s reign over the church.” “Then,” replied the Jew, “neither do I believe literally the words preceding, which say that this Son of David should be born of a virgin; but I take them to be merely a figurative manner of describing the remarkable character for purity of him who is the subject of prophecy.” “But why,” continued the Jew, “do you refuse to believe literally the 32d and 33d verses, while you believe the far more incredible statement of verse 31?” “I believe it,” replied the clergyman, “because it is a fact.” “Ah!” exclaimed the Jew with an inexpressible air of scorn and triumph, “you believe Scripture because it is a fact, I believe it because it is the word of God.”
And now, dear reader, was not the argument of the Jew candid and forcible? Think of the many prophecies descriptive of the Messiah which we have seen literally fulfilled, and upon which we rest the proof of our hope of salvation. The following are prophecies concerning his first coming:—
The Messiah was to be born of a virgin, Isa. 7:14; at Bethlehem. Micah 5:2. He was to be called out of Egypt. Hosea 11:1. He was to be preceded by a messenger, John. Malachi 3:1. The Spirit of God was to rest upon him. Isa. 11:2. His entry into Jerusalem was predicted. Zech. 9:9. He was to be betrayed by a friend. Ps. 41:9; 55:12–14. His disciples were to forsake him. Zech. 13:7. He was to be sold for thirty pieces of silver. Zech. 11:12. The potter’s field was to be bought with the money paid for his betrayal. Zech. 11:13. He was to be spit upon and scourged. Isa. 50:6. Not one of his bones was to be broken. Ex. 12:46; Ps. 34:20. He was to be given gall for his meat, and vinegar to drink. Ps. 69:21. His hands and feet were to be pierced. Ps. 22:16. His garments were to be parted, and for his vesture lots were to be cast. Ps. 22:18. He was to endure poverty, suffering, and death patiently. Isa. 53.
All these predictions were literally fulfilled when Christ came. Do not, then, reject the literal fulfillment of those numerous prophecies which describe his future coming, and his59glorious reign upon the earth; viz., that he shall come himself, 1 Thess. 4:16; that he shall descend from Heaven with a shout, 1 Thess. 4:16; that the dead will hear his voice, John 5:28; that the raised and changed believers will be caught up to meet him in the air, 1 Thess. 4:17; that he will receive us unto himself, John 14:3; that he will come to the earth again, Acts 1:11; that he will come bodily, Acts 1:11; that he will be revealed in flaming fire, 2 Thess. 1:8; that he will come in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory, Matt. 24:30, 31; that he will stand upon the earth, Job 19:25; that every eye shall see him, Rev. 1:7; that he shall sit in his throne, Matt. 25:31–34; that the people of the earth will not be prepared to meet him, Rev. 6:14, 17; that his church, a chosen few, will be prepared, 1 Thess. 5:4; that his throne will be upon the earth, Jer. 23:5, 6; that he will have a kingdom, Dan. 7:13, 14, and rule over it with his saints, Dan. 7:18, 22, 27; Rev. 5:10; that the kingdoms of this world shall become his kingdom, Zech. 9:10; Rev. 11:15; that every knee shall bow to him, Isa. 45:23; that his throne shall be in Jerusalem, Jer. 3:17; Isa. 33:20, 21; then the wilderness will be a fruitful field, Isa. 32:15; and the desert will blossom as the rose, Isa. 35:1, 2.
We might mention many other predictions, but surely there is no symbolism in those plain prophecies which gives us any authority to “spiritualize” them; rather let us expect that these will be as literally fulfilled as were the others at his first coming.
Again, the second coming of Christ is not at death. Jesus makes a clear distinction between death and his coming in John 21. He told Peter how he should die, and then, speaking of John, he said, “If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?” And from this remark the disciples understood and reported that John should not die.
Death is an enemy. 1 Cor. 15:26. At Christ’s coming the dead are raised, and shout victory over death and the grave. “O death, where is thy sting? O grave [hades], where is thy victory?” 1 Cor. 15:23, 54, 55. If we are faithful unto death, we are promised a crown of life, Rev. 2:10; but we do not receive it until Jesus comes. 2 Tim. 4:8; 1 Pet. 5:4. Nothing is promised us at death except to be at rest, Rev. 14:13; Job 14:6, 13, 14; but we are promised all things at the resurrection, when Jesus comes. Luke 14:14; Rom. 8:32; 1 Cor. 15:23. Paul’s great hope was that he might be accounted worthy to appear at the resurrection of the just. Phil. 3:11. He did not want to be unclothed by death, 2 Cor. 5:4; but clothed upon by the resurrection. 2 Cor. 5:4; 1 Cor. 15:53, 54. And when the time for his departure had come, he expected, as a reward for his faithful service, to receive his crown when Christ should come to reward all those who love his appearing. 2 Tim. 4:6–8.
The grandest fact in history is that Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, has been in this world. The most important fact of the present is that he is now in Heaven, making intercession for us. Heb. 7:25; Rom. 8:34. And the greatest prophesied event of the future is that he is coming again.
These three appearings are beautifully set forth in the 9th of Hebrews. First, he appears upon earth “to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself,” verse 26; then he enters “into Heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us,” verse 24; “and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.” Verse 28. While he was here he said, “It is expedient for you that I go away.” John 16:7. He said, “I go to prepare a place for you.” But he promised, “If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself, that where I am, there ye may be also.” John 14:2, 3. He gave us this promise as our hope and comfort while he is away, “and he that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.” SCOTT KILGORE.
ONLY A SUNBEAM.
By D. Denison
I had been sad and heavy-hearted That dull November day, When suddenly the dark clouds parted— A sunbeam found its way Into my room. My heart grew lighter in a minute; I thought, There's still some joy left in it; 'Tis not all gloom.
Strange that a little sunbeam, shining Into my heart's dark night, Should bid me cease my sad repining, Look up, and see the light Of God's own sun; Remind me of the God in Heaven, Who has the blessed sunlight given To every one.
O messenger, Heaven-sent thou comest, Thou dost my faith renew; God speed thee, as o'er earth thou roamest With message sweet and true, Telling to me That “though to-day be dark with sorrow, Hope's cheering ray still gilds the morrow With joy for thee.”
—D. Denison, in Westerly Weekly.
QUESTIONS ON S. B.
By Dudley Marvin Canright
At the present time a change is taking place among our people in reference to the plan of giving for the support of the ministry. The plan now recommended is the tithing system as set forth in the Scriptures, which evidently possesses many advantages over any other system that has ever been in use. If properly carried out, it will give each, according to his ability, a chance to help send the truth to the nations. Each individual adopting it pledges himself to conscientiously place in the Lord’s treasury a tenth part of all his income. But without a proper understanding of things, will there not still be room for inequality?
What is a man’s income? The business relations and circumstances of men now, are not such as they were in the Jewish age. The equality of the system depends very much upon the interpretation given to the word income. To illustrate, we will suppose that Bro. A. labors at some trade for daily wages, which amount to seven hundred dollars a year. This is a clear case. His tithe would be seventy dollars. But the case of Bro. B., a farmer, is not so clear. In order to work his farm to its full capacity, he must hire help. He employs young Bro. C. to work for him by the year. The yearly product of his farm amounts to one thousand dollars in value. Of this it takes three hundred to pay C. for his services, which leaves him seven hundred. Now, does B.’s prosperity differ any from A.’s, and should he pay a tithe of one thousand, or of seven hundred dollars? If B. tithes the one thousand, then it is evident that three hundred of it will be tithed twice; for the three hundred is C.’s income, and he is under obligation equally with B. to “lay by him in store as God hath prospered him.” If it is B.’s duty to tithe the gross profits of his business, then it is possible for a person’s business relations to be such that it will take a large portion of his real gain to pay the tithe. Suppose that Bro. D. is engaged in merchandising. It takes two-thirds of his profits in trade to pay rent and clerks. If he tithes the gross profits of his business, it will take three-tenths of his net gain to pay the tithe. If D. acts upon established principles, he would not tithe more than the net proceeds of his business. Why, then, may not B. have the same privilege? Judging from James 5:4, the three hundred dollars in B.’s case are not his in any sense. How, then, can he be required to tithe it? These are not exceptional cases; for there are persons among our people whose circumstances are similar to those of B. and D. And there are, doubtless, quite a number of our brethren at this time who would like an explanation of such points as these. If it is required to tithe the gross profits of one’s business, irrespective of circumstances, then it is possible to give good, scriptural reasons for the support of such a theory. The truth is what is wanted, and our love for the cause will lead us to put it into practice. T. H. Starbuck. Salem, Oregon.
ANSWER. Bro. Starbuck reasons correctly. A person should take out of his gross income what he has to pay to hired help, for interest on hired money, and the like. Then he should pay a tenth of what his own labor or his own property brings him.
A large number of such questions on S. B. have been received from all parts of the country. As they were put into my hands, I answered them the best I could and sent them to Eld. James White, Denison, Texas, for examination. D. M. Canright.
FEARFUL WASTE.
In 1794, with a view of raising public revenue, the United States Congress recognized and taxed the liquor traffic. From that time till the close of 1873, the beginning of the Woman's Temperance Crusade, the liquor business of the country gradually increased, till in that year the annual drink bill of the nation had reached the enormous sum of over $600,000,000.
We can hardly comprehend a sum so vast. Many of us never had one million of dollars in all our lives, and so cannot well comprehend how much six hundred million is; but we must try to count out the money. Suppose that this $600,000,000 was yours to invest, and you should buy flour with it at $6 a barrel. If you should load this flour into wagons—ten barrels in each wagon—and start the procession on a roadway, crowding two hundred wagons into each mile, the train of wagons would extend twice around the world; the procession would be 50,000 miles long.
And yet such is the obliquity of their vision that statesman cannot see this fearful waste. Mr. Grow, of Pennsylvania, accounting for the hard times, says that in the three years, 1871, '72, and '73, there were built in the United States 19,398 miles of railroad. But if we had the amount that passes over the liquor dealers' counters each year, we could build twenty thousand miles of railroad and stock the whole line each year.
Mr. Grow, speculating as to the causes of hard times, and with enough of the old Adam in him to try, as did his distinguished predecessor, to throw the blame on woman, says that, “in the three years preceding 1873, there were imported $98,432,165 worth of silks, which, to the consumer, would amount to not less than $200,000,000.” Two hundred millions of dollars in three years seems to us women a small sum as compared with the drink bill in those years, which was over one billion eight hundred million. It is astonishing that Mr. Grow and other statesmen can see the little sums, and pass by the larger ones.
But this is not all. The honest, hard-working people are taxed to support the thousands made paupers and criminals by this traffic. Nearly two-thirds of the amount collected in the shape of taxes is expended to take care of the results of the liquor traffic. Add two-thirds of the taxes to the $600,000,000.
The amount raised annually by taxation upon the people in several of the principal cities is as follows:—
New York ................................ $33,000,000
Boston .................................. 10,000,000
Cincinnati .............................. 3,000,000
Philadelphia ............................ 12,080,000
Chicago ................................. 4,000,000
New Orleans ............................. 1,800,000
Baltimore ............................... 4,100,000
Cleveland ............................... 1,800,000
With these facts and figures before us, is it any wonder we have hard times?—Christian Woman.