Signs of the Times, Vol. 10, No. 40. (10/23/1884)

Signs of the Times

Oct 23, 1884

International Tract and Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Oct 23, 1884

General Articles.

By Mrs. E. G. White

Health and Religion.

BY MRS. E. G. WHITE.

THE wise man says that wisdom's "ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace." Many cherish the impression that devotion to God is detrimental to health and to cheerful happiness in the social relations of life. But those who walk in the path of wisdom and holiness find that "godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come." They are alive to the enjoyment of life's real pleasures, while they are not troubled with vain regrets over misspent hours, nor with gloom or horror of mind, as the worldling too often is when not diverted by some exciting amusement.

It is true that there are many professing Christians who have diseased imaginations, and do not correctly represent the religion of the Bible. They are ever walking under a cloud. They seem to think it a virtue to complain of depression of spirits, great trials, and severe conflicts. This course is not in accordance with the words of the Saviour, "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in Heaven." It is the duty of all to walk in the light, and to cultivate habitual cheerfulness of mind, that they may reflect light rather than gloom and darkness.

Godliness does not conflict with the laws of health, but is in harmony with them. Had men ever been obedient to the law of ten commandments, had they carried out in their lives the principles of these ten precepts, the curse of disease that now floods the world would not be. Men may teach that trifling amusements are necessary to keep the mind above despondency. The mind may indeed be thus diverted for the time being; but after the excitement is over, calm reflection comes. Conscience arouses, and makes her voice heard, saying, "This is not the way to obtain health or true happiness."

There are many amusements that excite the mind, but depression is sure to follow. Other modes of recreation are innocent and healthful; but useful labor that affords physical exercise will often have a more beneficial influence upon the mind, while at the same time it will strengthen the muscles, improve the circulation, and prove a powerful agent in the recovery of health.

"What man is he that desireth life, and loveth many days, that he may see good? Keep thy tongue from evil, and thy lips from speaking guile. Depart from evil, and do good; seek peace, and pursue it. The eyes of the Lord are upon the righteous, and his ears are open to their cry. The face of the Lord is against them that do evil, to cut off the remembrance of them from the earth. The righteous cry, and the Lord heareth, and delivereth them out of all their troubles."

The consciousness of right-doing is the best medicine for diseased bodies and minds. The special blessing of God resting upon the receiver, is health and strength. One whose mind is quiet and satisfied in God is on the highway to health. To have the consciousness that the eye of the Lord is upon us, and that his ear is open to our prayers, is a satisfaction indeed. To know that we have a never-failing Friend to whom we can confide all the secrets of the soul, is a happiness which words can never express. Those whose moral faculties are clouded by disease are not the ones to rightly represent the Christian life or the beauties of holiness. They are too often in the fire of fanaticism, or the water of cold indifference or stolid gloom.

Those who do not feel that it is a religious duty to discipline the mind to dwell upon cheerful subjects, will usually be found at one of two extremes: they will be elated by a continual round of exciting amusements, indulging in frivolous conversation, laughing, and joking, or they will be depressed, having great trials and mental conflicts, which they think but few have ever experienced or can understand. These persons may profess Christianity, but they deceive their own souls. They have not the genuine article.

Many have a self-complacent feeling. They flatter themselves that if they had an opportunity, or were more favorably situated, they could and would do some great work. These persons do not view things from a correct standpoint. Their imagination is diseased. Day-dreaming, castle-building, has unfitted them for usefulness. They have lived in an imaginary world, have been imaginary martyrs, and are imaginary Christians. There is nothing real and substantial in their character. Persons of this class sometimes think that they have an exquisite delicacy of organization, a refined and sympathetic nature, which must be recognized and responded to by others. They put on an appearance of languor and indolent ease, and frequently think that they are not appreciated. Their sickly fancies do not help themselves or others. Appropriate labor, the healthy exercise of all their powers, would withdraw their thoughts from themselves.

Some are naturally devotional; but much of their life has been wasted in dreaming of doing some great work in the future, while present duties, though they may be small, are neglected. They have been unfaithful. If they would train their minds to dwell upon themes which have nothing to do with self, they might yet be useful; but the Lord will not commit to their trust any greater work until the duty nearest them has been seen and performed with a ready, cheerful will. Unless the heart is put into the work, it will drag heavily. The Lord tests our ability and faithfulness by giving us small duties first. If we turn from these with dissatisfaction and murmuring, no more will be given us; but when we cheerfully take up the small duties that lie in our pathway, and do them well, higher and greater responsibilities will be intrusted to us.

God gives liberally, and he expects corresponding returns. The talents intrusted to our keeping are not to be squandered, but to be used to good purpose, that, at his coming, the Master may receive his own with usury. These talents are not distributed indiscriminately. God dispenses his sacred trusts according to the powers and capacities of his servants, and thus has given to "every man his work." When their fidelity has been proved, their wise stewardship is evidence that they can be intrusted with the true riches, even the gift of everlasting life.

Despondent feelings are frequently the result of too much leisure. The hands and mind should be occupied in useful labor, lightening the burdens of others; and those who are thus employed will benefit themselves also. Idleness gives time to brood over imaginary sorrows; and frequently those who do not have real hardships and trials, will borrow them from the future.

There is much deception carried on under the cover of religion. Passion controls the minds of many who have become depraved in thought and feeling in consequence of "pride, fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness." These deceived souls flatter themselves that they are spiritually minded and especially consecrated, when their religious experience consists in a sickly sentimentalism rather than in purity, true goodness, and humiliation of self. The mind should be drawn away from self; its powers should be exercised in devising means to make others happier and better. "Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world."

True religion ennobles the mind, refines the taste, sanctifies the judgment, and makes its possessor a partaker of the purity and the holiness of Heaven. It brings angels near, and separates us more and more from the spirit and influence of the world. It enters into all the acts and relations of life, and gives us the "spirit of a sound mind," and the result is happiness and peace.

Said the apostle Paul to his Philippian brethren, "Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things

are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things." Adopt this as the rule of life. "Be careful for nothing; but in everything, by prayer and supplication, with thanksgiving, let your requests be made known unto God. And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus."

CHOICE.

By Charlotte M. Packard

ONE turning backward, though her heart delays, To the old sweetness of familiar ways; One faring on, with courage nursed through tears, To meet the unknown promise of the years.

Back tho' the sunshine, though with loitering feet, One to unlifted shadows doth retreat, And Fancy reads her tale in briefest lines: “Orpah returneth unto Baal's shrines!”

Little she dreams, the wise and tender Ruth, What dower is hers of an immortal youth; That into every clime, in days afar, Her life shall gleam like a pure Syrian star!

Life's still-recurring mystery of choice; One heeds, and one rejects, the inward voice; Dimly may mortal vision trace the end, How paths to glory or to blackness trend.

The hours of Destiny no louder strike, Yet wary souls hear not all hours alike. Two mountain streams, a pebble may divide; This shrinks to sand, that finds the eternal tide! —Charlotte M. Packard.

How to Honor the Reformers.

By Alonzo T. Jones

IN the Independent of October 9, 1884, Rev. David Macrae, of Dundee, Scotland, gives an excellent article on "The Scottish Covenanters, and How to Honor Them," in which he tells some wholesome truth to those "who claim to be the Covenanters' successors," which is as closely applicable to those who profess to be the successors of Luther, or Wesley, or any other of the Reformers, as it is to the would-be successors of the Covenanters. With much more that is good, he says:—

"Some people seem to think that the more rigidly they adhere to the Covenanters' doctrinal views, the more honor they do to the Covenanters themselves, and the more entitled they are to be regarded as their successors. But, in point of fact, such people are doing discredit to the spirit of the Covenants, while adhering to the letter; and, under the impression that they are honoring the Covenanters, are doing them the gravest injustice. For, to adhere to the theological dogmas and political tenets of the Covenanters, in the form in which they held them, is to make the monstrous assumption that, if the Covenanters had lived till our time, they would never have got beyond the point where they stood in the seventeenth century. It is to assume that, after two hundred years of prayer for more light, they would never have got any, or, getting it, would have refused to receive it. It is to assume that they would have studied the Bible for two centuries, and never have learned anything more of its character, its purpose, and its meaning than they did. It is to assume that they would have watched the operations of God's providence, and witnessed the struggle and the development of Christianity for two hundred years, without learning anything more of God's ways, or of man's duty, than they did at first. Such a supposition is far from complimentary. Truth remains the same, but not man's knowledge of it. The motions of the planets are the same now as in Ptolemy's time; but Ptolemy's view of their motion was a mistaken view. His system had to give way before a fuller knowledge of the facts. There is a similar change and progress in theology; not in the facts on which a true theology is based, but in man's knowledge and interpretation of these facts."

"Those, therefore, who are the true successors of the Covenanters, are not those who stand where the Covenanters stood two hundred years ago, but those who, advancing in the lines which the Covenanters struggled to keep open, stand now where the Covenanters themselves would have stood had they enjoyed the advantage of two centuries more of thought, and research, and Christian experience, such as the Christian commonwealth has had since their time."

"The mistake of those who claim specially to be the Covenanters' successors is that they cleave to the Covenanters' errors, and allow the living principles by which these errors would have been rectified, to escape."

"There is much, indeed, that our Christian churches of to-day have yet to learn from the Covenanters of two hundred years ago. Had they more of the Covenanters' loyalty to truth, we should not see so many doctrines maintained in the creed professed, which are no longer believed. We should not see churches professing to be Protestant, paying to antiquated confessions of faith, and catechisms, the same homage which Catholics pay to the pope, only more shameful because less sincere."

"With such trust in the truth and fearless loyalty to conviction as the Covenanters had, we should see in the churches more men dealing with arrogance and error as Luther did when he nailed his theses to the church door at Wittenberg; as Cameron and Cargill did, when, with life at stake, they affixed their declaration to the market cross at Sanquhar, two hundred years ago. We should see the churches themselves entering more boldly upon the path of progress and reform, which such men kept open, and striving to do for this generation, with its new wants, what the Scottish Covenanters did so nobly for theirs."

We are glad of these words from such a source, for we see the spirit which they reprove, so persistently manifested in the churches of the present day, whenever the claims of the fourth commandment are presented. They act as though what the Reformers did not hold and practice, must be rejected as, prima facie, false, and as though all that was ever to be learned of doctrine and progress in Bible truth, had been learned by the Reformers, and that the churches as their true successors are therefore the repositories of all truth, and the utmost limit of Christian progress; and that whatever arises that differs from what they believe, must be heresy just because it so differs. But as Dr. Macrae says, such are not the successors of the Reformers, but they are rather the successors of those who persecuted them.

It has ever been so. The Lutherans were ready to pour out their furious invectives against Melancthon, only because, after Luther's death, he made some advances; and there stand the Lutherans yet, just where Luther left them, and where the advancing truth left them, and they still profess to be the true successors of Luther, and seek to honor him, by seeing no more in the noonday of the nineteenth century than Luther saw in the dimness and mist of the early dawn of the sixteenth. It would be only to repeat the same story, to tell of the other reformers and churches which have successively arisen, each of them persecuted in its turn by the one which had gone before; all, after becoming established and popular, resisting vigorously any advance in the knowledge of religious truth; all seeking to honor the leaders in their reform, by knowing no more truth than they did, and treating as heretics all who urge upon the attention of the people any Bible truth, however plainly expressed, which the leaders of their particular reform did not see. Yet all these reformers, Luther, Melancthon, Zwingie, Calvin, Arminius, and the Wesleys, were without exception heretics each in his time; but each one was a reformer. The reformer is always a heretic. He is always counted an enthusiast, and very often a fanatic. Such is the heritage, in his day, of every reformer, and such he must expect to be counted, if he will do the work of a reformer. In the very nature of things it must be so. For he goes squarely against the established customs and order of things. He cries out against the popular ideas and practices of the day. And human nature is not going to be disturbed in its popularity, its pleasures, and its pleasant dreams, and take it all calmly. The waters of that immense stream are not going to be turned from their accustomed channel without resistance.

Nevertheless, knowing all this, and expecting it all, and knowing also the truth and the virtue of the principle which he advocates, the reformer as he really is, but heretic as he is held, out of pure love of the principle, urges it always, everywhere, and against all opposition, until finally he achieves its success, and compels its recognition. Just then the reform encounters its greatest danger, the discussion of which we reserve for another occasion.

Clothed in Humility

An Irish preacher named Thady Conellan, who greatly assisted Dr. Monck Mason in his labors connected with the revision of the Hibernian Bible Society's Irish Bible, was eminent not only as an orator, a wit, and a humble, unostentatious Christian, but was unmoved by the splendor and gayety which surrounded him, and retained his simplicity amid it all.

A magnificent duchess having one day asked him, "Pray, do you know Lady Lorton?" was quickly answered:—

"Yes, madam, I do, and she is the best-dressed lady in Ireland."

"How very odd! Best-dressed lady in Ireland! What a strange man! Pray, how is she dressed?" But her grace's surprise was converted to satisfaction when Thady rejoined:—

"Yes, madam, Lady Lorton is the best-dressed lady in Ireland, or in England, either, for she is clothed in humility."

Here is a hint for those who are looking for new and seasonable clothing.

Learning.

By Lyman Abbott

THERE is a difference between learning and wisdom. Learning is intellectual wealth; wisdom is intellectual power. Learned men are not always wise; wise men are not always learned. Learning tends to give wisdom, but wisdom is by no means always the accompaniment of learning. Abraham Lincoln was not a learned man, but he was a very wise man. James I. of England is said to have been a learned man, but he certainly was not a wise man. F. W. Robertson states admirably this distinction:—

"Let us distinguish wisdom from two things; from information first. It is one thing to be well informed; it is another thing to be wise. Many books read, innumerable books hived up in a capacious memory—this does not constitute wisdom. Books give it not; sometimes the bitterest experience gives it not. Many a heart-break may have come as the result of life errors and life mistakes; and yet men may be no wiser than before. Before the same temptations they fall again, in the same ways they fell before. Where they erred in youth they err still in age. A mournful truth! 'Ever learning,' says St. Paul, 'and never able to come to a knowledge of the truth.' Distinguish wisdom, again, from talent. Brilliancy of powers is not the wisdom for which Solomon prayed. Wisdom is of the heart rather than of the intellect; the harvest of moral thoughtfulness reaped in through years. Two things are required—earnestness and love. First, that rare thing, earnestness, which looks on life practically. Some of the wisest of the race have been men who have scarcely stirred beyond home, read little, felt and thought much. 'Give me,' said Solomon, 'a wise and understanding heart'—a heart which ponders upon life, not in order to talk about it like an orator, nor in order to theorize about it like a philosopher, but in order to know how to live and how to die."

Learning comes by studying; wisdom, by thinking. Learning comes from without; wisdom, from within. Learning is an acquisition; wisdom is a development. Learning may be forgotten, and so lost; wisdom is a part of the character, and so will abide forever. These two possessions are the greatest which any man can possess. These two gifts are the greatest which any man can bestow upon his children. And in our times and country they are, in some measure, within the reach of every child. The poorest parent can give to his children, the poorest child can make for himself, the choice of Solomon.—Lyman Abbott.

The Troas Meeting.

By N. J. Bowers

Acts 20 : 7-11 is considered by those holding to Sunday holiness as supplying the evidence that the first day of the week was the day of assembling and worship among the early Christians, and therefore it should be considered the holy day of the Christian church now. I wish to make some observations relative to the Troas meeting, which will aid in deciding the truth or falsity of these positions.

1. The record does not state that the brethren met together for religious worship, to sing, to pray, to exhort, and to hear preaching, but, to break bread. Verse 7. This should be borne in mind.

2. This was probably a special and parting meeting with the brethren. The apostle did not expect to see them any more. Verse 25. If the breaking of bread here mentioned means the Lord's supper, how appropriate for the apostle to celebrate it with them on such an occasion. When they had come together for this purpose he improved the opportunity to preach to them his farewell sermon. Having spent the Sabbath in religious exercises, and the apostle expecting to leave in the morning, the intervening time was spent doubtless in warning, advising, encouraging, counseling, and instructing personally for the last time, as was then designed.

3. There is no evidence that the brethren ever met before or afterward on this day.

4. We are not informed that it was their custom, manner, habit, or practice to meet together on this day. In this same book of Acts we are informed that it was the "manner" of Paul to preach on another day, and that was the Sabbath. Chap. 17 : 2. Others assembled on this day, where prayer was "wont to be made." Chap 16 : 13.

5. There is no more evidence that the brethren at Troas regarded the first day of the week holy, than that the brethren at Jerusalem regarded the fifth day of the week holy, although they all continued "with one accord in prayer and supplication" (Acts 1 : 13, 14), and Jesus "assembled together with them" (verse 4), and holy angels proclaimed his coming again to them (verses 10, 11) all on this day.

6. This was an evening meeting (verses 7, 8, 11), and on what we call Saturday night. Read the statements of Hackett, Kitto, and Prynne, in the "History of the Sabbath," by J. N. Andrews, p. 181.

7. If the brethren had come together on what we call Sunday night, it would have been on the second day of the week, and not on the first. The day began at sunset, Bible time. Lev. 23 : 32; Deut. 16 : 6; Josh. 8 : 29; 10 : 26, 27; Mark 1 : 32, show when the evening is. Saturday at sunset would be the time when the first day of the week began, and it would of course end at the next sunset, when the second day of the week would begin. This order had its beginning at creation. Gen. 1 : 5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31. So this meeting began not on Sunday morning, but on the evening preceding.

Again, if the present mode of reckoning time was in use by the Christians of the time in question, and if they came together on Sunday evening, then the meeting closed on Monday morning. The apostle "talked a long while, even till break of day." Verse 11.

8. Question.—If a meeting held on Sunday evening up to midnight proves that the day is holy, and that Christians ought now to regard it, will not this same meeting continued after midnight into Monday and on to daylight prove the same for Monday? If not, why not? Or, if a meeting begun and continued on a certain day proves that it is a holy day, why will not this same meeting continued and ended on the next day prove as much for it?—Or, if a meeting held on the last six hours of Sunday proves that it is the "Christian Sabbath," why will not this same meeting held on the first six hours of Monday prove the same for it?

9. The apostle traveled on Sunday to Assos, about nineteen miles. See Conybeare and Howson's "Life and Epistles of St. Paul."

10. This, the only religious assembly held on the first day of the week mentioned in all the New Testament, was an all-night meeting. Do the Sunday-observing churches follow this apostolic example?

11. Suppose it could be proved positively that this meeting was held in honor of Jesus' resurrection, would that fact prove that the day was to be devoted to rest from our daily duties? Or, does holding a special meeting on a certain night prove that a certain day is the Sabbath of the Christian church?

12. Do not the facts and particulars of the Troas meeting show that the Sabbath character of Sunday, sought to be derived from it, is of a negative kind?

N. J. BOWERS.

Bull City, Kansas.

The Tabernacle of the New Covenant.

By I. I. Leslie

THE tabernacle of the Old Covenant was a literal tent, made by God's command for his worship. It was built according to a pattern given by him to Moses at Mount Sinai. The Lord charged Moses to make everything by that pattern. Ex. 25 : 40; Heb. 8 : 5. In the account of the making of the tabernacle, we do not learn that the pattern or the tabernacle itself was a miniature of things in the Heavens; but Paul in his letter to the Hebrews distinctly says the tabernacle and its appurtenances were copies (New Version) of things in the Heavens. This language, and all pertaining to this subject in Heb., chaps. 8 and 9, is very explicit and literal, and need not be misunderstood.

In the first verse of chapter 8 we read: "We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the Heavens; a minister of the sanctuary [hagion, place set apart], and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched and not man." We ask, (1) Who is this high priest? Who but Christ? Was he not the antitype of the high priest in the earthly tabernacle? (2) Into what sanctuary (place set apart) did Christ go when he became an high priest? Was it not into the very presence of the Father, to be seated on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the Heavens? (3) Was not Christ, the great high priest, as personal and as literal a being as the high priest under the law? (4) As a personal and literal being himself, and a minister of the sanctuary, must we not conclude, and with reason, that, in entering into Heaven, he went into a literal, real place? (5) Where but in Heaven is this "true tabernacle," which the Lord pitched, and not man? Where else can it be located? If it be where Christ now is, how can it be said that the sanctuary and true tabernacle are now upon the earth? or that the church of Christ is the sanctuary and tabernacle of the New Covenant? We aver that the sanctuary and tabernacle named in Heb. 8 : 1, 2 are where Christ himself now is. He himself went away. He said, I go to my Father. He went there really, truly, a personal, literal, high priest. He went there to offer that the high priest of the worldly sanctuary could not offer—his own blood.

In verse 5 we are told that they who officiated in the wilderness tabernacle "served unto the example and shadow of heavenly things." It does not read, the example and shadow of heavenly things on the earth. There is no evidence proving that the tabernacle itself was typical of anything here. The high priest under the law did not officiate apart from the tabernacle and sanctuary. Neither does Christ in his work of mediation leave the true sanctuary in Heaven. When he does leave it, his mediatorial work will be finished. He will be no longer a high priest after he comes out of the true sanctuary and tabernacle and blesses his people. When once he comes out, he never returns to mediate again between God and men. We affirm that there can be no mediation by Christ anywhere but in Heaven, in the very presence of God the Father. He does not mediate in the church here, but for it in Heaven. He is away from his church upon the earth. He has gone in beyond the veil, out of sight of the people. His work is there, in the sanctuary not made with hands. He carried not thither the blood of animals, but his own blood. He there makes intercession in the very presence of God.

In Heb. 9 : 8 it is declared that while the first tabernacle was standing "the way into the holiest of all was not made manifest." The "holiest of all" can be no other than the sanctuary in Heaven. The holiest of all in the earthly tabernacle was where the high priest only was permitted to go, and when he made the atonement. This earthly "holiest of all" was made manifest, but its antitype was not made to appear until Jesus, the greater high priest, ascended and entered into the greater sanctuary in Heaven. The entering into the earthly tabernacle by the high priest to make an atonement for the people, was the shadow of a greater mediator entering a greater and holier place. The Holy Ghost signified by the type that the way into that "holiest of all" would be made manifest. Is not this "way" now understood? Is it not made plain by the Holy Spirit through the word? Christ did not return with his church to offer gifts, but promised to bestow them after he had gone to his Father. He kept his promise; the gifts were dispensed, and are in possession of the true church of to-day.

But would it not be thought strange if one should now say the Christian church is the antitype of the tabernacle in the wilderness? that the tabernacle of the New Covenant is the body of believers in Christ? This would be saying that the pattern of the tabernacle given to Moses, and the tabernacle made by him, were both patterns, or copies, of earthly things instead of heavenly. If the tabernacle with all that pertained to it was a type of anything literal or spiritual here, where is there any representation of things in Heaven? for surely the earthly sanctuary cannot typify both earthly and heavenly things. How can the church now be the sanctuary, any more than the church then could be? Does not the church now hold the same relation to its High Priest, and the place where he is, that the church then did to its high priest and the place where he was when he made the atonement for the people? They were outside the tabernacle. They could not look where he went, even beyond the first veil. They beheld not the cloud of glory that filled the consecrated place, the inner sanctuary. They could not from the court of the tabernacle discern nor conceive the brightness of the shekinah, the symbol of the presence of God, which the high priest alone beheld. Where but in the antitypical court of the tabernacle is the church under the New Covenant? Is she not looking toward the place whither her High Priest has gone, and in expectancy waiting for him to appear? What meaneth this looking for the Lord, if the church is the sanctuary, and he is here in it? Can the church and the sanctuary be one and the same? Let us not mistake the plain teachings of the Holy Ghost, and be led to advocate what is not confirmed by the word of God.

The Counterfeit of Humility

A WISE author has written: “When you find a man whose religion is pretentious and vain-glorious upon Sunday, and obsequious and servile at the mid-week prayer-meeting, you had better do business with him upon a cash basis.” Humility is good, but its counterfeit is the basest of all metals.

Continue reading: Development of Indulgences in the Church