Signs of the Times, Vol. 27, No. 38.
CHARACTER, NOT FLESHLY DESCENTPage 1
Earlier text: God the TeacherSATAN'S FAVORITE MEDIUM.
By G.
In the beginning of the history of our race, when there was but one man and one woman, and they in a state of innocency, the adversary of God tried an experiment for their overthrow, which for the time was eminently successful. His scheme was to encourage a self-ambition through self-indulgence. His first subtle attack on their integrity was by the way of the woman's curiosity to her appetite. This citadel gained, the man also fell an easy victim, and their separation from God was complete. Although a permanent victory was frustrated by the plan of salvation devised in the heavenly council, Satan has been working ever since on the line of carnal appetite for the destruction of souls. With all his experience, all his cunning craftiness, all his evil ingenuity, he has not yet found a more effectual means of leading human beings into forbidden paths. The self-indulgent spirit, with all its inherent weakness, was imparted to the offspring of Adam and Eve, and perverted appetite continued to assert its demands. If the first pair failed to keep it down by their own will-power, the task of putting it down when once it had gained the ascendancy would be much more difficult on the part of their captive posterity. The power to overcome this medium of Satanic control was inconceivably lessened by the spirit of disobedience which had given it place. It was, evidently, in great measure, through the indulgence of perverted appetite that the spirit of self-seeking, which prevailed in Noah's time, had been fostered to such an extent. And inasmuch as drunkenness such as prevails in our day is not the only form of intemperance that will bring a people to destruction, it would appear that abstinence from intoxicating beverages is not the only essential temperance goal to which the world should be directed. Noah must have been an overcomer of the prevailing features of intemperance before the flood; for he “found grace in the eyes of the Lord,” and the Lord testifies that he was “righteous.” By faith he “prepared an ark to the saving of his house.” After the flood, however, it seems that the deceiver assailed Noah through the medium of strong drink. The first mention in the Bible of any individual's being drunk is the case of Noah. Then shall we assume that if so good a man as Noah got drunk, there is nothing so bad about it, after all? Men who want to drink, or who want to apologize for drunkenness, reason after this manner. But it would seem that the true reasoning would show the exceeding deceitfulness of the strong-drink evil,—the subtleness of the power behind it,—that it could overcome a man like Noah, even for a single instance. We are not given the details of Noah's failure, whether he came to the point of drunkenness gradually, or whether this was the first or the last time that he was drunk; and we have no right to judge or to speculate beyond that which is revealed. The record says that “Noah began to be a husbandman, and he planted a vineyard; and he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.” We know, too, from the further statement of the case, that through this circumstance there came a great curse upon one branch of Noah's family, and a very prolific branch at that. It must have been a great encouragement to the enemy of souls to see this head of the new world, who had withstood the evils of the old, humiliated in the sight of his children by just a little variation of the same means by which the head of the former dominion had been brought down. This point is pertinent and important, from the fact that God had given Noah a dominion of no small proportions, as the new head of the race. From that day to this, Satan has not allowed the strong-drink feature of his soul-destroying industry to languish. And a few striking instances are given in the Scriptures of his overcoming prominent representatives of the Lord's cause at most critical periods. We mention two. When the Lord brought His people out of Egypt, He had them build a tabernacle and establish the typical sanctuary service. This service daily pointed forward to the final victory of God's people through the atonement of Christ. What could do more to pervert this solemn service and debase its priesthood than to induce them to defile the sanctuary by entering upon their duties while in a state of intoxication? So the two officiating sons of Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, were tempted to drink wine, and they went into the sanctuary while under the influence of strong drink. Of course they were not so drunk but that they thought they were all right; they were not conscious of any special disqualification. But their spiritual discernment was so beclouded that in lighting their censers they used “strange fire,” which the Lord had strictly forbidden. “And there went out fire from the Lord, and devoured them, and they died before the Lord.” The exceeding sinfulness of this act of Nadab and Abihu is seen in the penalty of instant death, and in the fact that their father and brothers were forbidden to make any demonstration of mourning for them. But all the rest of the people bewailed this sad result of drinking intoxicating beverages. And the Lord gave commandment to Aaron, saying: “Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die; it shall be a statute forever throughout your generations; and that ye may put difference between holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean; and that ye may teach the children of Israel all the statutes which the Lord hath spoken unto them by the hand of Moses.” Lev. 10:9-11. Another prominent instance of the failure of representative men through intemperance is that of Solomon. He was endowed with special wisdom, and had been commissioned to build the temple of God at Jerusalem. Wealth and honor had been his portion. But he fell through the indulgence of appetite and an inordinate catering to carnal enjoyment. Telling of his experience in Ecclesiastes 2, he says, “I sought in mine heart to give myself unto wine, yet acquainting mine heart with wisdom; and to lay hold on folly, till I might see what was that good for the sons of men, which they should do under the heaven all the days of their life.” Verse 2. But his testimony is that it is all “vanity and vexation of spirit.” Of the wisdom given him, he leaves this advice: “Be not among wine-bibbers, among riotous eaters of flesh; for the drunkard and the glutton shall come to poverty; and drowsiness [the result of drunkenness and over-eating] shall clothe a man with rags.” Prov. 23:20, 21. “Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging; and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise.” Ch. 20:1. But Satan's success in the past through the power of perverted appetite need not discourage any seeker after eternal life. There is One whom Satan signally failed to overthrow, even after a forty-days' physical fast. That One was our Saviour, Jesus Christ, by whose grace and in whose strength even we may overcome every temptation. The apostle Paul has left us this rule, which, if faithfully observed, will keep us from all excesses: “Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.” I Cor. 10:31. G. A MISREPRESENTING CHRISTIANITY.
One of the curses of missions is in holding before the heathen,—and the evil begins at home,—the idea that the great so-called civilized nations of earth are Christian. They are not Christian in any sense, and as nations, can not be. It is cruel deception to persuade ourselves that it is so; it is crueler to deceive the poor native. A religious contemporary, in speaking of the evils of liquor-drinking in heathen lands, says: These social drinking usages also bring discredit upon the Gospel, and retard its influence in heathen lands. A Persian missionary relates that if a Mohammedan is seen drunk, it is a common remark that he has become a Christian. We recall, also, the illustration, which may be familiar to many. When it was urged upon the chief of a Mohawk tribe that he should allow a missionary to come and dwell among his people, he replied, “What you preach? ‘Preach Christ?’ ‘Yes,’ answered the missionary. The chief, towering to his full height, broke out: “We don’t want Christ! Once we were powerful. We were a great nation. Our young men were many. Our lodges were full of children. But Christ came, and brought the firewater. Now we are weak. Our lodges are empty. Our hunting grounds are deserted. Our council fires are gone out. No! we don’t want Christ. Go away!” Let the heathen all know who Christ is, and that all who follow Him are Christians, and only these; that His teaching, His life, are the standard, and nothing else; and that so-called Christian nations are to be tried by that standard as truly as heathen nations. Teach them that Christ has allied Himself with no earthly government; that His kingdom is not of this world, and that unregenerate men and women in the so-called “Christian” nations need to be regenerated by the power of God as truly as any heathen. Then Christ will not be so misrepresented, and greater, better fruits will appear. [From time to time we will reply under this head, if deemed advisable, to such candid inquiries as may be sent us. Correspondents wishing a reply to their questions must give their full name and address, not for publication unless they wish, but as an evidence of good faith on their part, and to give us opportunity to reply by letter if deemed best. It is always well to inclose stamp. Let the questions be short and pointed, and such as may be answered in limited space. The questions will be numbered continuously.] 1168. Biblical Chronology.
Is the chronology in the margin of our Bibles correct? X. In some cases, yes. In many cases, no. Archbishop Usher did the best he could; but from the creation to about the seventh century before Christ, it is very difficult to construct an exact chronological system. There is a little work published at this office entitled, “Sacred Chronology,” by S. Bliss, revised and edited by A. T. Jones, which every Bible student should possess. Price, cloth, $1.00; sheep, $1.50. 1169. To Restore and Build Jerusalem.
1. In your answer to question No. 1167, in Signs issued August 14, you say, “This decree was issued in the seventh year of Artaxerxes, which was B.C. 457.” Please give us the day or month of the year B.C. 457, when this decree to restore and build Jerusalem was issued to Ezra. (2) What year was it that Ezra began “to go up from Babylon,” on “the first day of the first month”? Ezra 7:9. (3) Where in the Bible do we find that the prophecy points to the autumn of 1844, instead of the spring, as the time for the 2300 days (years) to end? T.J.L. 1. We do not know the day of the month when Artaxerxes placed his decree in Ezra’s hand. Presumably it was immediately preceding Ezra’s journey to Jerusalem. It may have been that “first day of the first month;” “for upon the first day of the first month was the foundation of the going up.” Ezra 7:9, marginal Hebrew. Young translates: “On the first of the first month [‘day’ is a supplied word] he hath founded the ascent from Babylon.” Certainly it is not a far-fetched conclusion to believe that the foundation of Ezra’s expedition was the decree of the king which the Lord moved him to make. This was the fifth month of the Jewish year. The first month nearly corresponded with our April. The fifth month corresponded with our August. How long after Ezra arrived there before the decree went forth, or was formally promulgated, we do not know. It may have been a month or more. 2. The year that Ezra came to Jerusalem was the seventh year of Artaxerxes Longimanus. Ezra 7:7, 8. This king began his reign in B.C. 464. The seventh year was therefore B.C. 457. 3. Ezra’s arrival was certainly in the last of our summer months, and before the decree was delivered into the hands of the king’s commissioners and properly published the autumn was at hand. Here began the 2300 days of Dan. 8:14; 9:23–27, which was to reach to the cleansing of the antitypical sanctuary, or the day of atonement, or the judgment. The type in this fell on the tenth day of the seventh month. Lev. 23:27–32. On that day the 2300 years naturally closed. On that day they naturally began, and while we have no specific declaration to this effect, the evident conclusion is that such was the case. Will you please answer the following: 1. How are we to interpret Paul’s language in 1 Cor. 15:32? 2. Was Moses fixing a time for the creation of the earth, when he states that it was “in the beginning”? 3. To whom are we to pray—to the Father, pleading the merits of His Son? 1. The apostle is stating in the strongest terms that it is useless to undergo sufferings here,—sufferings which by policy or self-seeking might be avoided if there were no future life. If the power and love of God do not reach beyond present trials and seeming disasters, why serve Him? It would be no advantage to risk life for the sake of one who is dead. It were better to take life easy, eat and drink, and selfishly enjoy the present. But Paul knew that Christ was risen, and that He was Lord of the life that now is and that which is beyond. 2. Moses was fixing no date that we can comprehend. See John 1:1. When God brought the material heavens into existence, we know not. He did this as a whole “in the beginning.” The formation and making of the earth in the six days seems subsequent from the language of Gen. 1:1, 2. The six days began with the speaking of light upon the dark waste. 3. Yes, to the Father in Jesus’ name (John 16:23; Acts 4:24–30); to the Son (Luke 23:42; Acts 7:59; John 14:14). Our great argument with God is His all-sufficiency given to us in Christ Jesus and our utter need. Coming with a sense of our need is coming in self-emptiness, is coming in Jesus’ name. He said, “I can of Mine own self do nothing.” So we will come to God as He came. And so coming, “my God shall supply all your need according to His riches in glory by Christ Jesus.” Phil. 4:19. Ask, “that your joy may be full.” “SECULARIZING THE SABBATH.”
By G.
The National Reform organ, the Christian Statesman, is still complaining about the “secularizing” of the Sabbath-day. Of course it means Sunday. But those who do secular business on that day do not “secularize” it. They have the authority of the law of God for their action. That law says: “Six days ‘shalt thou labor, and do all thy work; but the sev- enth day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it ‘thou shalt not do any work; . . . for in six days ‘the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all ‘that in them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath [or rest] day, and ‘hallowed it.” So it was the Lord who “secularized” the first day, and those who labor at their own work, if their own work be in itself a proper work, have the Lord’s example and precept as a precedent. If one’s own work be not proper work, it is wrong on any day. People who observe the Sabbath of the Lord have no worry about anybody’s secularizing it. It is still the Lord’s day, and a sacred day, no matter what men may do. The day is sacred, if all the people in the world should work or play during its sacred hours. No man can secularize what God has made holy, and all the people in the world can not make holy that which God has made common. The Sabbath of the Lord does not need any protection from the civil powers; for all of them combined can not add a feather’s weight to the power of God’s law, or the sanctity of anything that he has sanctified. The demand for protection of Sunday by civil law is a tacit acknowledgment that it is only a civil, or man-made, institution. No one ever asks the civil powers to enforce any institution that they really believe is of God. Who asks the government, or the State, or the city, to enforce the rite of baptism, or the ordinance of the Lord’s supper? If the Sunday rest-day is of God, why not let the Spirit of God impress people to observe it, just as we are willing to wait for the Spirit to move people to observe the other ordinances? God never blessed and hallowed any other weekly Sabbath than the seventh day. How do we know? We know because there is no record of it; and “surely the Lord God will do nothing, but He revealeth His secret unto His servants ‘the prophets.” Amos 3:7. THE SUPREME COURT DECISION.
The decisions of the supreme court deciding the status of the recently acquired insular territory of the United States are, to say the least, remarkably confusing. It is doubtful if, since the days when Chief-Justice Marshall delivered his masterful expositions of the Constitution, a case fraught with graver and more far-reaching consequences than these has been passed upon. In the most important case the court was divided five to four, and never was one opinion more diametrically opposed to another than is that of the minority to the majority’s findings. Even the justices composing the majority, though they reach the same conclusions as to the constitutionality of the Porto Rican tariff act, do so by widely diverging lines of argument, which conflict on some of the most momentous principles involved. In brief, the finding of the court is that, while the islands ceded by Spain are not foreign territory and never were after the ratification of the treaty of Paris, they are not a portion of the United States, but merely possessions, whose relations to the United States are much the same as those of the British colonies to the mother country. To reach this conclusion the majority were forced to set aside decisions by Marshall that never before in the history of the court have been so much as questioned. Justice Brown goes so far as to hold that in the control of the new territory Congress is superior to the restrictions of the Constitution, and may invoke its aid or ignore it, as the legislators see fit. Three of his colleagues, who agree with him in holding that Porto Rico does not come within the scope of the Constitution when it prescribes that all duties and taxes shall be uniform throughout the United States, emphatically state their belief that in dealing with the islands Congress is limited by those clauses in the Constitution which safeguard the life, liberty, and property of the people. The four minority judges, while they concur in upholding this limitation, argue that it is absurd to grant this, and at the same time claim that9 Congress may legislate unrestrained by the restriction against inequality of taxes and imposts. The two controversies that brought out these conflicting opinions are known as the De Lima and the Lowndes cases. The former is an action brought by De Lima to recover duties paid by him under protest on goods shipped into the United States from Porto Rico subsequent to the cession of the island to this country by the treaty of Paris and prior to the passage of the Foraker bill, placing a special duty on articles imported from the newly-acquired territory. The contention of the government was that Porto Rico was still foreign territory within the intent and meaning of the Dingley tariff bill.—The Salt Lake Herald. REVIVAL IN BUDDHISM.
By S.
WITHIN the last few years Buddhism has been arousing itself and making unusual efforts at proselyting in Europe and America. This course was taken to offset in a measure the work of Christian missionaries in the strongholds of Buddhism. Buddhists from India and Japan have sought to stem the tide of Christian progress by teaching their religion in the homeland of the missionary. The result of this propaganda is now beginning to manifest itself. Converts to Buddhism in both Europe and America are now going to India to act as missionaries against Christianity, and to undo, so far as they are able, the work of the Christian missionaries who have preceded them. This reflex movement on behalf of heathenism is acting as a stimulant to the followers of Buddha, who appear to be greatly elated over having pongyis from “Christian lands” to expound their doctrines and denounce Christianity. What is the significance of this revival of a heathen worship at this present time? The answer is plain. It is found in Rev. 12 : 12: “Wo to the inhabitants ‘of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come ‘down unto you, having great wrath, because he ‘knoweth that he hath but a short time.” The Scriptures also bring to view a time when Satan should work “with all power and signs and lying wonders, ‘and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in ‘them that perish; because they received not the love ‘of the truth, that they might be saved.” 2 Thess. 2 : 9, 10. This, the same scripture tells us, was to take place just before the second coming of Christ. Verses 8, 9. Thus the Lord has revealed to us beforehand what we might expect to see in the earth just before He came; and we are seeing it now as never before. The resuscitation of Buddhism is only one of the many deceptions which Satan is planning for the ruin of souls; but it is one of them, and thus becomes one of the signs that the coming of the just One draweth nigh. A FEW years ago, a stockholders' meeting of the Baptist Publication Society adopted a very logical and consistent resolution denouncing the persecution of certain parties in some of the Southern States for working on Sunday. The society took a consistent Christian stand on the subject at that time. But in a recent issue of the Examiner, the society's leading organ, there is a decided change of tone. Referring to the prevalent tendency to lawlessness, a special reprimand is directed against the authorities of New York City for not enforcing the Sunday laws. It states a well-known truth and a wholesome principle in the following paragraph:— Respect for law lies at the foundation of our Anglo-Saxon civilization. Destroy that, and the whole fabric will tumble like a house of cards. It is only the public sentiment behind them that can give vitality and force to our laws. There needs to be, therefore, a recrudescence of public conscientiousness, which shall no longer condone, with good-natured indifference, the prevalent lawlessness, and which shall hold to a sterner responsibility those whose duty it is to enforce the laws. But there is an utter failure in the argument as a whole to recognize that there are bad laws that never ought to have been enacted, and that, having been enacted, would better be allowed to lie dormant than to be made a further disgrace to the people by enforcement. When the persecutions in the South were on, against which the Baptist Publication Society so strongly protested, they were the logical outcome of the enforcement of law, the principle now so earnestly upheld without reserve by the Examiner. Those persecutions were all predicated upon that principle, and officials who were compelled by complaints of prejudiced persons to prosecute good citizens for doing little acts of secular labor on Sunday, frequently deplored their own acts, but claimed that they had no alternative but to enforce the law. Protestant, and especially Baptist, doctrine is theoretically opposed to all religious legislation; and all Sunday laws are religious legislation, regardless of the pretext for their existence. True, the Examiner's plea for enforcement of the Sunday laws is especially aimed at the closing of saloons on Sunday, but its unqualified law-enforcement argument does not stop there. Every one who will give the subject a moment's thought knows that Sunday-closing of saloons never had any other real foundation than religious sentiment. No one has ever suggested the closing of saloons on any other one particular day of the week. So when the Examiner pleads for enforcing any law that specially recognizes the Sunday institution, because it is law, it logically advocates any other measure having that end in view, because it may happen to become law. And when it urges the enforcement of any species of special Sunday law, it is logically committed to any other religious requirement that may become law. It is not safe to even leave ajar the door to religious legislation by any secular legislative body. Sunday-closing of saloons that are kept open all the rest of the week never yet produced any perceptible results as a temperance measure. This change of position on the part of the Publication Society's organ, may be in a measure unwitting, but is a decided change nevertheless. There are a great many people being unwittingly drawn into the net of civil-law religion in these last days. A PARALLEL IN CRIME.
By Roswell F. Cottrell
At the time of the failure of the Roman Republic it is said that, “with all his wealth there were but ‘two things the Roman noble could buy—political ‘power and luxury.’” “And the poor Roman had ‘but one thing he could sell—his vote.” “Money was ‘the one thought, from the highest senator to the ‘poorest wretch who sold his vote in the Comitia. ‘For money judges gave unjust decrees, and juries ‘gave unjust verdicts.” The spirit of the times is well illustrated by the career of Jugurtha. This prince having usurped the throne of Numidia, long maintained his position by conferring lavish bribes upon the senators; and his gold conquered every army sent against him. He was at last captured by treachery, and taken to Rome. Here he witnessed court life in all of its corruption; he saw the power and influence of money; and, although himself a monster of vice and crime, he exclaimed, “O venal city! thou ‘wouldst sell thyself if thou couldst find a purchaser.” At this time Rome was passing from republic to empire. To-day our nation is rapidly following in the same course. A striking parallel is also presented in what we term our “courts of justice.” Read the following as quoted in “Public Opinion.”— Startling indeed was the statement made last week before the Iowa State bar association by its president, J. J. McCarthy, touching the prevalence of perjury and bribery in American courts of justice. And the most lamentable feature of the arraignment is that abundant proof of its truth does not appear to be wanting. . . . In substantiation of this he cited one judge of long experience on the bench who gave his opinion that one-half of all the evidence received on behalf of the defense in criminal cases is false; another who believes that 75 per cent. of the evidence presented in divorce cases approaches deliberate perjury, still another who says that perjury is committed in a majority of important lawsuits and that the crime is rapidly increasing. Surely this is the time spoken of by Isaiah when “judgment is turned away backward, and justice ‘standeth afar off.” When Rome fell, other nations planted themselves upon her ruins. But not so with our country; the United States is the last nation noticed in prophecy; and when its measure of iniquity is full, the angel of mercy takes its flight from this doomed world. Let us then seek the Lord for grace and power to stand; for “the great day of the Lord ‘is near, it is near and hasteth greatly.”