Loading...
Larger font
Smaller font
Copy
Print
Contents
  • Results
  • Related
  • Featured
No results found for: "".
  • Weighted Relevancy
  • Content Sequence
  • Relevancy
  • Earliest First
  • Latest First
    Larger font
    Smaller font
    Copy
    Print
    Contents

    March 5, 1901

    “The Keeping of the Commandments. The First Commandment” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald 78, 10, p. 152.

    “I AM the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.ARSH March 5, 1901, page 152.1

    “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” Exodus 20:2, 3.ARSH March 5, 1901, page 152.2

    The second of the three forms under which “the world” is embraced, and idolatry manifested, is—ARSH March 5, 1901, page 152.3

    “The lust of the eyes.”ARSH March 5, 1901, page 152.4

    The lust of the eyes can be summed up in one word, vanity; and vanity is simply love of display. Something is put on ourselves, or that which is ours, merely for display, to attract the attention and excite the lust of the eyes of others, and cause them to envy our condition.ARSH March 5, 1901, page 152.5

    Further, on our own part, this idolatry is indulged in our seeing something that somebody else has, and not being content until we have imitated him by obtaining for ourselves a like thing.ARSH March 5, 1901, page 152.6

    That which we see with others may be perfectly proper, and strictly becoming, to them; yet, when imitated by us, it may be altogether improper, and unbecoming in itself, besides our indulging idolatry in the use of it. Because, if our eyes had not seen that particular thing, no thought of our own, and no need of our life, would ever have suggested that we should have it. The only reason of our having it being solely that our eyes saw it in possession of some other one, the possession of it by us is sheer idolatry in the lust of the eyes.ARSH March 5, 1901, page 152.7

    This principle of idolatry is expressed in the one word, the worldly word, “fashion.” The world spends time in inventing particular styles of dress, or whatever else may be a part of the living. The world is expected to follow, and expects to follow, the fashion set by the world.ARSH March 5, 1901, page 152.8

    But we are studying how to serve God. We are studying how to be separate from the world; how to be “not of the world;” how to be completely divorced from the love of the world, or of the things that are in the world. And in this we are studying how to be separated from this lust of the eyes which follows the world, which accepts the dictates of the world, and which itself is “of the world.”ARSH March 5, 1901, page 152.9

    God has made no two persons alike. He has made each person with characteristics which single him out distinctly from all others in the universe. This is for a purpose. We are created for the glory of God; that is, the purpose of our creation is that each one, in the characteristics which make him himself alone, distinct from all others in the universe, shall be a means of making God manifest,—of reflecting a ray of the light of God, in a way that no other can possibly do, that by each one God shall be manifested as not by any other one. And, in order that this shall be so, it is essential that each one shall be joined only to God, and this with all his heart, and all his soul, and all his mind, and all his strength—the whole being.ARSH March 5, 1901, page 152.10

    This principle is expressed in the parable of the talents in Matthew 25. When the master took his journey into a far country, and delivered to his servants his goods,—to one five talents, to another two, and to another one, he gave “to every man according to his several [individual; not common to two or more; separate, particular] ability.” And from the master, at His returning and reckoning, each one receives according as he has used the gift of God, according to this “several ability.”ARSH March 5, 1901, page 152.11

    No one is to use, indeed no one can use, this gift of God in imitation of others. To attempt to use it in imitation of others is to separate from God, and put others in His place; it is to have other gods before the Lord; it is idolatry.ARSH March 5, 1901, page 152.12

    There are desires of the flesh which are not lusts of the flesh, in the wrong sense. While we are in this world, it will be necessary for us to eat and to drink—not to make a god of the belly, not for the satisfaction of appetite, not for the lust of the flesh, but for the glory of God. Those who serve God in the keeping of the First Commandment eat and drink that which, in every respect, enables them best to discern what is the will of God, and how best to serve Him according to that will.ARSH March 5, 1901, page 152.13

    While we are in the world, it will be essential to clothe ourselves—not to please the world; not to conform to some silly style that our eyes see, which is altogether of the world, and which we ourselves would never think of it our eyes had not seen it as displayed by the world—not that; but the glory of God.ARSH March 5, 1901, page 152.14

    It is proper, indeed it is essential, to our glorifying God, that we shall dress neatly; that we shall wear as good clothing as we honestly can; that it shall be made to fit us becomingly, that is, that it shall conform strictly to our own individuality; that it shall be a proper expression of our own several selves, as God has made us. But to imitate the dress of others, to put something on ourselves simply because we have seen it on others, to adopt a style for ourselves which we have seen adopted by others,—all this is of the lust of the eyes; all this is not of the Father, but is of the world; it is idolatry.ARSH March 5, 1901, page 152.15

    A long coat is strictly becoming to a long man, but not at all so to a short man. A high collar is entirely proper for a man who has a long neck; but for a man with a short neck to wear a collar so high that it throws up his head as if he were constantly gazing at the moon, is not at all proper. A blue dress, or one of some other color, may be exactly becoming to the one whom you saw wearing it; but it may be the last color in the world that you should wear in a dress.ARSH March 5, 1901, page 152.16

    Now, all this imitating of others, all following of fashion, is but the lust of the eyes, is of the world, and is idolatry.ARSH March 5, 1901, page 152.17

    Ask God what He will have you do. It can never be a proper question with you, as to whether anybody else in the wide universe does it. You are to glorify God, not others.ARSH March 5, 1901, page 152.18

    Study, in the fear of God, your own self as the workmanship of God; and study, in the fear of God, asking Him only what you shall wear, what you shall eat, what you shall drink, what you shall do, that shall most fully glorify Him, that shall most fully represent the talent which He has given you to be used for Him only, according to your “several ability.”ARSH March 5, 1901, page 152.19

    In every way it means much to love God with all the heart and all the soul and all the mind and all the strength. It means much to be not of the world; to love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. Yet that which it means is simply the keeping of the First Commandment.ARSH March 5, 1901, page 152.20

    “I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.” “Out of Egypt have I called my son.” “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” “For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.” “Here are they that keep the Commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.”ARSH March 5, 1901, page 152.21

    “Sunday-law Hearing in Massachusetts” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald 78, 10, pp. 153, 154.

    BEFORE a committee of the Massachusetts Legislature, February 7, there was held a hearing on “a bill to provide a weekly rest-day for employees of transportation companies.” As always, the petitioners for the bill, and those who pleaded for it before the committee, were preachers.ARSH March 5, 1901, page 153.1

    From the employees of transportation companies there were present more, it would seem, to oppose the bill, than there were of the preachers to advocate it. Yet the preachers insisted to the committee that “although the railroad men present were against the bill, it should be passed, as it is best for them.” But, “as most of the petitioners were ministers and representatives of organizations in no way connected with railroading, the conductors, brakemen, and engineers who were present demanded the privilege of running their own affairs, and claimed to know what they wanted as well as anybody else.”ARSH March 5, 1901, page 153.2

    One of the advocates of the bill, as usual, took pains to explain that the bill had “no relations to Sabbath-day observance. There is no objection to running trains on Sunday, but the bill attempts to make up to transportation employees for their loss of Sunday. The proposed law will furnish work for one-seventh more men. Mr. Buttrick then went on to show the great increase of Sunday travel, and the growing number of men who are compelled to work seven days in the week. He said that the continuous toil is causing men to deteriorate in many ways. General Bancroft told him that the motormen and conductors of the Boston elevated are better paid than the average clergyman. From this Mr. Buttrick concluded that they could better afford to give up a day than mill hands and others who can not work seven days if they want to.ARSH March 5, 1901, page 153.3

    “After several railroad men had tried to cross-examine Mr. Buttrick, he refused to answer questions, and Rev. G. G. Farwell was called. He said that for five years the committee of the Congregational general association had tried to get the bill. He stated that conductors and motormen of the Boston elevated do not dare to come and petition for a day of rest; moreover, they do not dare even to frequently ask for a day off, as, if they do, they will lose their places. The opposition to the bill, he said, came from steam-railroad men, who have a day off each week.ARSH March 5, 1901, page 153.4

    “The next witness for the petitioners was Rev. Doremus Scudder, of Woburn. Dr. Scudder went on to explain how, although they work seven days in a week, lawyers, doctors, and ministers can get recreation by a very long vacation or by the variety of their work. He thought workingmen who do the same thing day after day should be compelled to rest.ARSH March 5, 1901, page 153.5

    “Rev. W. H. Allbright pictured a horrible future for labor which must work seven days in order to live, and claimed that it is the duty of the State to compel the transportation men to do what is good for them, whether they wish to or not.ARSH March 5, 1901, page 153.6

    “The principle of the State legislating for the good of the man, whether by his consent or not, was laid down by the next speaker, Rev. A. A. Beale, of Brighton.ARSH March 5, 1901, page 153.7

    “Rev. Daniel Evans, of Cambridge, stated that all great reforms do not come from the people to be benefited, but from those outside who are able to see what they need better than the beneficiaries themselves.ARSH March 5, 1901, page 153.8

    “H. M. Sweeney, representing the building trades council of Boston, said that the bill looks toward one great principle of organized labor; namely, to lessen the hours of labor. Men should not be allowed to work seven days a week, because they thereby prevent other men from getting any work. It is also necessary that a man shall not work too long, as thereby the public is endangered, as the motorman, engineer, or conductor is not alert and at his best if he has not rest.ARSH March 5, 1901, page 153.9

    “George E. McNeil told how he was grieved at this time, when the century is just beginning, to find intelligent men opposing the bill in question. Then Mr. McNeil brought up the old question of leisure promoting efficiency, and thereby increasing payment. ‘Wherever the Sabbath day is invaded by labor,’ said Mr. McNeil, ‘there civilization has deteriorated.’ We want not the religious seventh day, but a labor sabbath. We always find men willing to follow the boss wherever he may lead. Of ten thousand people employed on street railways, eight thousand are compelled to work seven days a week. The extra men make about two dollars and a half or three dollars a week. Make the regular men work one day less a week, and these extra men will have a larger income, because they will get more work. The American Federation of Labor stands for one day’s rest in seven, but railroad men think they are too good for association with carpenters and painters. As Mr. McNeil was generalizing to a considerable extent, the chairman of the committee, Senator Butler, reminded him of the subject at hand.ARSH March 5, 1901, page 153.10

    “Rev. M. D. Kneeland, secretary of the New England Sabbath Protective League, said he considered that the proposed bill would make a wise law.ARSH March 5, 1901, page 153.11

    “Rev. Carey, of the Methodist preachers’ meeting, said the bill would serve the workingmen, the community, and the commonwealth.ARSH March 5, 1901, page 153.12

    “C. D. Baker, president of the legislative board of railway employees, opened the opposition to the bill. He said that, except in emergencies, men of the steam railroads are not compelled to work on Sunday. If the bill were passed, Sunday would be cheapened and brought down like other days. Mr. Baker stated that it is fitting that clergymen should come here to try to get a day off for railroad men, as he was sure that the man who first agitated a Sunday train on the Boston and Albany railroad was a minister who wanted to get into town to his church. Regarding the employment of extra men, Mr. Baker said that extra men can not be employed indiscriminately on a steam railroad, as they are unable to protect the public. He said he knew that steam-railroad employees do not want legislation on this subject.ARSH March 5, 1901, page 153.13

    “J. Johnson said that for almost fifty years he has worked seven days a week, six days for the railroad and one for the church, singing in the choir and being paid for it.ARSH March 5, 1901, page 153.14

    “J. H. Parant said that the railway conductors’ association is against the bill. It would not call for the employment of extra men, and to the twenty-five thousand employees of the Boston and Maine not more than a handful would be added, but the regular men would have to lengthen their hours of work. About the only men who work Sunday are those who do it to get extra money. Not three per cent of the railroad employees in Massachusetts would want this bill. ‘We are not directed by any officials,’ said, he, ‘but we have no trouble in approaching the president, and without a committee. We know very well that all these clergymen want is Sunday observance, and that the present bill is only an entering wedge. We can now get off almost any time, and are sure of it; under the proposed law, we should never know when we should have any time to ourselves.’ARSH March 5, 1901, page 153.15

    “Chairman Butler then asked all the remonstrants to rise, and forty-three stood up, representing every division of the Boston and Maine, the New York, New Haven and Hartford, and Boston and Albany railroads.ARSH March 5, 1901, page 153.16

    “J. R. O’Connell quoted statistics showing that the railroad men are the second longest-lived class of people, and doctors last.ARSH March 5, 1901, page 153.17

    “A. H. Brown said that on the Fitchburg division of the Boston and Maine a few men work twelve days and lay off two; most of them have Sunday.ARSH March 5, 1901, page 153.18

    “Mr. Stone, an engineer and member of the Congregational Church, said that the bill would take forty-three men out of his church. He had never worked Sundays, because he had scruples, and the trainmaster respected them.ARSH March 5, 1901, page 153.19

    “J. H. McDonald said he had worked for eighteen years at railroading, and many Sundays, and did not feel deteriorated. When he asked to be relieved of Sunday work, the request was granted.ARSH March 5, 1901, page 153.20

    “The hearing then adjourned.”ARSH March 5, 1901, page 153.21

    It has been observed that “where ambition can be so happy as to cover its enterprises, even to the person himself, under the appearance of principle, it is the most incurable and inflexible of all human passions.” And it is equally true that where professed leaders in morals have deliberately deluded themselves into maintaining a confessedly false issue upon false pretenses, “for righteousness’ sake,” they have committed themselves to the control of a passion that is as blind and cruel as that other is incurable and inflexible.ARSH March 5, 1901, page 153.22

    Every one of those preachers knows full well that to ask for legislation in behalf of “the Sabbath” or of enforcing Sabbath observance is unconstitutional, un-American, un-Protestant, and un-Christian. This is clearly shown by their being careful to disavow all intention of asking legislation enforcing a religious sabbath: “we want not the religious seventh day, but a labor sabbath.” Yet every one of them knows that there is no sabbath but a religious sabbath; and that their so-called “labor sabbath” which they demand is identically to the very minute the religious sabbath that they profess to exclude. Thus they shift the issue, and boldly demand the very thing which at the outset they profess to exclude, and so commit themselves to an utterly false issue.ARSH March 5, 1901, page 153.23

    Then, the easier to maintain their false issue, they put themselves forward as the champions of the “poor oppressed laboring man.”ARSH March 5, 1901, page 153.24

    Then when it is demonstrated that the “poor oppressed” ones whom they have championed “are better paid than the average clergyman,“—that is, that the “poor oppressed” whom they have assumed to champion are neither so “poor” nor so “oppressed” as are the average of the class who put themselves forward as the champions,—the fact is deftly turned in their own favor by the additional cool assumption that those can so much the better afford to have these as their champions, and submit to their will.ARSH March 5, 1901, page 153.25

    Then, further, when the ones whom they have especially championed appear, and openly and decidedly repudiate these self-constituted champions, and assert their ability to know what they themselves want as well as anybody else, and demand to be let alone to exercise the privilege of running their own affairs,—then they are met with the enormous proposition that “those outside are able to see what they need better than the beneficiaries themselves:” that “the State must compel these persons to do what is good for them, whether they wish to or not”!ARSH March 5, 1901, page 153.26

    All of this is the very philosophy and argument of the Inquisition. And in it all there is a terrible danger, though this danger is unperceived by those who are so zealously pursuing the dangerous course. Yet this great danger is especially to those who are so zealously pursuing that course. It has been presented by another, as follows:—ARSH March 5, 1901, page 153.27

    “No real supporter of these laws can persuade himself, even by trying to persuade others, that either he or his fellow Brownists of the past or present time care in the least for the physical benefits which may or may not result from the enforcement of the idle and cheerless Sunday. All Brownists know perfectly well that their idle and cheerless Sunday was originally established in England as a theological institution, and without any reference whatever to physical consideration; that wherever it is established in the United States, the motive of its establishment is a religious stimulus, and no regard for social and sanitary results inspires its advocates. They know that if it were demonstrated that their idle and cheerless Sunday is a positive injury to the bodies of men, and a disorganizing social influence, their zeal for ‘the day’ would not in the least abate, and that they would simply regard whatever inconvenience it might entail on the individual or the body politic, as ‘a suffering for righteousness’ sake.’ARSH March 5, 1901, page 153.28

    “They will prate of the ‘secular sabbath,’ ‘the overworked laboring man,’ ‘police regulations,’ etc., etc., being all the while perfectly aware that they are guilty of false pretenses, and are throwing a mask on this dogma of Brownism, and seeking to keep it in the statute book by imposition, and by making it appear to others that it is a certain thing, and has a certain a purpose, when they know that it is no such thing, and has no such purpose; and that, if it were any such thing or had any such purpose, they would not care in the least either for the passage or the enforcement of a Sunday law.ARSH March 5, 1901, page 153.1

    “Knowing all this, are they not clearly guilty of a high and execrable degree of intellectual dishonesty when they pretend that the object of Sunday laws is the physical betterment of the race, and that they are supporters of these laws for any such reason? Cato wondered how one augur could look another in the face without laughing. It is difficult to understand how any intelligent Brownist can use this secular argument for the idle and cheerless Sunday without blushing at his own insincerity.ARSH March 5, 1901, page 153.2

    “But whether the red signal flag of the blush is flown or not, the corruption exists within. The man is false to himself. He has prostituted his intelligence. He has sold his soul. He has done evil that good may come. He has undertaken to obtain under false pretenses the ‘goods’ of idleness and cheerlessness on the first day of the week. And a soul that has once been bartered is ever thereafter in the market. A clergyman who is compelled in defense of a dogma or tenet of his sect to be intellectually dishonest, ought to resign; for nowhere does falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus [false in one, false in all] apply more absolutely than to such a case. If he once plays fast and loose with his own spirit, at the dictation of tradition or convention, he will do it again at the command of interest or desire. The consciousness of his own degradation will never leave him; no second baseness will lower him any further in his own esteem. He has lost his bearings on the ocean of morals. How is he safely to steer any longer, either for himself or others?”ARSH March 5, 1901, page 153.3

    Such is the beginning of a course which easily and inevitably leads to the office of the actual inquisitor, in the workings of the Inquisition itself.ARSH March 5, 1901, page 153.4

    “Why Not Use Sense, Instead?” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald 78, 10, p. 154.

    WE have received a booklet, and a circular letter calling attention to the booklet and its value, hoping that we will accept it. This booklet advertises a patent-medicine—a grand curse—“a perfect remedy for headache arising from the following causes:—ARSH March 5, 1901, page 154.1

    “Headache resulting from protracted mental effort and close confinement; nervous headache occasioned by excitement, excessive grief, or other causes; headache due to loss of sleep and rest; headache from indigestion and overindulgence.”ARSH March 5, 1901, page 154.2

    From this it is perfectly plain that, if ever there was a medicine invented as a sheer imposition upon the ignorance and thoughtlessness of the people, and to encourage dissipation and injurious practices, this must be the one. For it distinctly identifies certain causes of headache, and then recommends this drug, or whatever it may be, as a cure for the headache produced by these distinctly named causes; when the simplest thing in the world, and the only sensible thing, is for the individual to stop the causes.ARSH March 5, 1901, page 154.3

    Imagine the perfect thoughtlessness and the nonsense of taking a drug to cure a “headache resulting form protracted mental effort and close confinement”! All in the world that is needed in that case is for the sufferer to stop his protracted mental effort, and go out into the open air.ARSH March 5, 1901, page 154.4

    For headache that is “occasioned by excitement, excessive grief, or other causes,” all that is needed is to stop the excitement, to tone down the grief, and to put away whatever “other causes” there may be.ARSH March 5, 1901, page 154.5

    For headache that is “due to loss of sleep and rest,” why should it be thought that anything is needed but to take sleep and rest?ARSH March 5, 1901, page 154.6

    And for headache caused by “indigestion,” the thing to do is to eat only what will digest. And for headache from “overindulgence,” the sensible thing would seem to be to stop the overindulgence.ARSH March 5, 1901, page 154.7

    Yet this circular is a fair exposition of the present-day ideas of cure—continue causes, and then administer drugs to kill the effects? And, in all reason, what can the end be of such a course, but to kill the person?ARSH March 5, 1901, page 154.8

    Larger font
    Smaller font
    Copy
    Print
    Contents