Note and Comment

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Jun 6, 1907

FATHER SEARLE, rector of the Paulist Fathers' Catholic church, New York, in a recent sermon is said to have startled his congregation by declaring his belief in spiritism. This priest is a member of the Society for Psychical Research, and has made considerable investigation of spiritistic phenomena. In an interview following his sermon, he stated plainly that while these phenomena were supernatural, he believed them to be the work of devils. Speaking of the failure of spirit testimonies to agree with one another, he said: “It appears that these intelligences are not what they claim to be; and it seems more probable that they are deceitful than that they are ignorant. Besides, their control of a medium, when habitual, has been known to culminate in what is called diabolic possession; and in no case does it seem to have had a good moral effect.” He stated his positive belief that spirits can be communicated with through mediums, but that “these spirits are evil ones—fallen angels—who have never inhabited a human body.” Another part of his testimony is interesting because of the closing sentence. He said: “The overwhelming probability is that the spirits communicating are either devils or lost human souls subject to devils in hell. These devils are not confined in their operations to a local hell. Such may be the case after general judgment, but not now.” The idea of a future general judgment seems hardly to harmonize with the existence of “lost human souls” in hell “subject to devils,” at the present time before that general judgment has taken place.

A SUBSCRIBER to the Christian Herald sent in the following query to the editor:—

If we keep the first day of the week as the Sabbath, when God commanded us to keep the seventh, are we not transgressors of the law?

The editor makes the following astounding reply in the issue of May 15:—

Are you desirous of keeping the law? It is a step backward, and involves an extensive change in your habits, but there is no reason why you should not do it if you wish. Do not, however, try to persuade other people to follow your ridiculous example.

The reply is an astounding one, coming as it does from a professed Christian. A Christian is a follower of Christ. Christ said: “I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.” John 15:10. Christ was our example. Would the editor call this example of the One whom he professes to follow, a “ridiculous example”? Christ said: “It is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one tittle of the law to fail.” Would the editor brand that as a “ridiculous” teaching? That law fails that is not kept. If God's law is not to be a failure, it must be kept; and if the keeping of it is “ridiculous,” then it certainly is “ridiculous” to teach that it should be kept. Nevertheless Christ not only taught that the law of God should be kept, but he made it a part of the business of his followers to teach that it should be kept; and those who teach otherwise will rank very low in the kingdom of God, if indeed they ever enter there, for thus declares our Saviour again: “Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whosoever shall do and teach them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” Matt. 5:19. This editor holds that the resurrection of Christ made such a complete metamorphosis in God's work in the earth that the keeping of God's law is a “ridiculous” act; that the law was abolished in Christ. Christ says: “Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfil.” Matt. 5:17. He who would set Christ forth as a destroyer of God's law has failed to discern the first principles of the plan of redemption. How easily our Saviour could have escaped death for man's sins if the theory of an abolished law were true. Christ need only abolish the law, and then there would be no sentence of death hanging over the human race. With the law gone, there could be no transgression, hence no sin, hence no need of redemption, hence no need of a Saviour. Christ's death on Calvary proves the abolition of the law an impossibility. He paid the penalty for man's transgression of God's law, tasted death for us, and in our place, that his righteousness might stand in the place of our sin. Now shall we declare that law abolished because Christ's death paid for our transgression of it? Such teaching is more than “ridiculous.” It is a complete misrepresentation of Christ's mission to this earth, and is doing a terribly ruinous work in the world. Inspiration says: “He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer is an abomination.” Prov. 28:9. Again: “He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.” 1 John 2:4. Let no characterization of our course as “ridiculous” cause us to falter in following the example of our Saviour.