REPLY TO MARY A. SEYMOUR.
By John Nevins Andrews
An article in the "Harbinger" for January 31, from the pen of Mary A. Seymour, seems to demand a brief notice. The cause of truth is the Lord’s; but this consideration does not excuse us from speaking out in its behalf. It is not pleasant to me to point out the errors or the faults of another, but I shall not on this account refrain from speaking. Some one, it seems, had been kind enough to send to the writer of the article in question, a quantity of publications on the subject of the “present truth,” for which the only thanks given, consist in a sneer.—The result of the investigation, she thus states: “The conclusion of the whole matter with us is as follows: First, God gave the Sabbath to the Jews and them only, as a distinctive sign betwixt them and himself, because that was his rest-day, and because he had brought them out of the land of Egypt. I do not learn that this rest-day was ever given to the Gentiles. And it seems to me that those who keep it might take to themselves the admonition of the wise man when he says, ‘Be not righteous over-much, neither make thyself over-wise: why shouldest thou destroy thyself.’ Eccl. vii. 16.” These inferences, which are all the testimony that she offers to justify herself in the violation of the fourth commandment, have been repeatedly exposed. It is nowhere stated in the Holy Scriptures that the Sabbath was a sign between God and Israel because that it was made “for the natural seed of Abraham.” Yet this inference is regarded by many, as “direct and positive” testimony. Read Eze. xx. When God took Israel by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, some of them were defiled by its idols, (while every nation around them was wholly sunk in idolatry.) “Hallow my Sabbath,” saith God to them, and they shall be a sign between me and you, that ye may know that I am the Lord your God. Look back upon that scene for a moment. See every nation under heaven, the Hebrew nation excepted, bowing down to the gods that their own hands had made, or else worshiping the host of heaven. But mark the Hebrews. Six days with patient industry, they labor, but on the seventh all is hushed; they rest from all their work. What meaneth all this? Could we call up one of those “holy men of old” and ask him, he would answer, “We worship not the idols of gold and silver, we worship not the work of our own hands, we worship not the Sun, the Moon, or the Stars, but we worship Him, who in six days created all these things and rested on the seventh. This sign, Jehovah’s rest-day from his work of creation, points us to the True God in distinction from all false gods; this sign designates us as his people in distinction from all around, who are idolaters.” This great memorial is a bulwark erected by Jehovah, which atheism and idolatry can never overthrow; it points us back to a God, it points out the True God. The Sabbath was a sign between God and Israel, for a certain period, as it designated the Hebrews as the worshipers of “the True God,” in distinction from the nations around them who worshiped “the gods that have not made the heavens and the earth.” Jer. x, 10—12. But this no more proves that the fourth commandment is now abolished, than the fact that the “Lord of the Sabbath” is now a sign that is spoken against, proves that he will be abolished, when he shall cease to be such a sign. Luke ii, 34; xi, 29, 30. It is very true that God says he had brought Israel out of “the house of Bondage,” and that he therefore commanded them to keep his Sabbath, but this text does not utter a word respecting the origin of the Sabbath. The text presents no objection, when we reflect that the children of Israel could not keep the Sabbath in “the iron furnace” of Egyptian Servitude. Ex. ii, 23, 24; iii, 7, 9; Jer. xi, 4. The fact that God in the most solemn manner made “known unto them his Holy Sabbath,” is far from proving that he then made it for them; it proves quite the reverse of this. The account of the creation of the man, the woman and the Sabbath, may be read in Gen. ii. Paul says the man was not “created for the woman, but the woman for the man.” 1 Cor. xi, 9. Christ says the Sabbath was “made for man, not man for the Sabbath.” Mark ii, 27. The principles of logic that would make the word “man” in these texts mean merely the Jews, (in the face of the fact that the Jewish nation did not exist for 2000 years,) would probably find no trouble in showing from Heb. ix, 27, that the Jews were the only persons appointed “once to die,” or from Job. xiv, 12, that they are the only persons to be raised from the dust of the earth. “But the Sabbath was given to the Hebrews.” Truth; so also were the other “oracles of God,” when Jehovah spake to them from the Holy Mount. Acts vii, 38; Rom. iii, 1, 2; 1 Pet. iv, 11. This fact in the estimation of many, may make the ten “lively oracles” all “Jewish,” and a “thing of naught;” for the first, fifth, or seventh, is quite as “Jewish,” as the fourth. But the Apostle extends his remarks respecting these oracles of God from Rom. iii, 1, 2, to verse 19, where he declares that this Holy Law condemns the whole world, and shows all men guilty in the sight of God. And in verse 31, that it is not made void by faith, but established by it. But I will submit the point in a tangible manner: The Gentiles were amenable to the moral law, or they were not. If they were not amenable to the moral law, then we must regard them as moral beings, but accountable to no God, except those of their own creating. But if they were amenable to the moral law, we add that the fourth commandment was an important part of that law. “The Royal Law” has been abolished, or it has not. If it has been abolished, then no one of its precepts exist to hold men in “bondage,” or to destroy their “liberty,” for the man does not exist, that can show when, where, or by whom, any one of them have been re-enacted. But if it has not been destroyed, Gentiles as well as Jews are under the most solemn obligations to “keep the commandments of God.” We have now examined all the inferences by which the writer excuses herself in breaking the fourth commandment, and teaching men so; [Matt. v, 17—19;] will they avail her in the day when “the penalty of the law” shall be inflicted on every soul of man that doeth evil? She attempts, indeed, to make “the wise man” speak against those who keep the fourth commandment. But if he is capable of speaking for himself, she has sadly perverted his words. Having given what she calls “the conclusion of the whole matter,” she now calls on him to bear testimony in her behalf. He has spoken more to the point than she seems to perceive. We will abide his decision. It is as follows: “Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God and KEEP HIS COMMANDMENTS: for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.” Eccl. xii, 13, 14. “The conclusion of the whole matter” as stated by Solomon, is exactly the reverse of that stated by Mrs. S. “To fear God and to keep his commandments” is in her estimation to be over-righteous; in the estimation of Solomon, it is “the whole duty of man.” As the matter will soon be brought “into judgment, with every secret thing,” it will then be seen whose words shall stand, his or hers. We inquire however, what it is to be righteous, if to keep the commandments of God is to be “over righteous,” and to keep the “rest-day,” “made for man,” is to “destroy thyself?” The writer next declares that there is not a “shadow of a shade of proof,” that that Papal institution, the first day Sabbath, is the mark of the Beast. This is a “short and easy method” to dispose of an unwelcome subject. That that institution did originate with the great Papal apostasy, and that it is the most prominent mark of that power that should, in its arrogant, blasphemous assumptions, “think to change times and laws,” [Dan. vii, 25], cannot be denied. The mark of the beast stands in the message of the third angel in opposition to the commandments of God. Those who will show any other Papal institution universally observed by Protestants as well as Papists, which directly makes void one of the commandments of God, will do something towards disproving the point. It is the act of the dragon (or of the Two-horned Beast when he shall speak as a dragon, and make war on the commandment keepers) that will, I understand, bring this matter to a test, and constitute it emphatically the mark of the Beast, or mark of that power that should “THINK TO CHANGE TIMES AND LAWS.” When at the house of Mrs. S. I pointed to the open, and to the shut door of the Sanctuary, as represented on the chart, [see Rev. iii, 7, 8] and spoke a few words with reference to the ministration of our Great High Priest, at the end of the 2300 days in the most holy place by the Ark of God’s Testament. Rev. xi, 19. The first objection to this view she finds in the fact that when Christ commanded his disciples to go and “teach all nations,” he promised to be with them even unto “the end of the world.” Matt. xxviii, 18, 19. To this I answer that the three proclamations of Rev. xiv, 6—12, are a part of the gospel of Jesus Christ, or they are not. If they are not a part of that gospel, then the angel of verse 6, with “the everlasting gospel,” is literally the very being on whom the anathema of Paul rests viz: AN ANGEL FROM HEAVEN PREACHING ANOTHER GOSPEL. Gal. i, 8. But if they do form the closing part of that “great salvation,” then, unless the evidences of our position can be invalidated, which has not yet been done, we are right in proclaiming the solemn, and glorious truths of the third angel’s message to all “who have ears to hear.” Thus Christ preached. Matt. xiii, 9; Luke viii, 8. And to such is a great part of the Book of God addressed. Rev. ii; iii. And the blessing of Christ is promised to such only as at his coming he shall find giving meat in due season to his household. Matt. xxiv, 45, 46. Her next objection is this: Christ was to remain at the right hand of the Father “until his enemies become his footstool—not yet done.” Great stress is laid on the expression, “Sit on my right hand till I make thy foes thy footstool,” to disprove the ministration of our Great High Priest in the holy places. Now look at the point for a moment. It is said indeed [Mark xvi, 19; Luke xxii, 6, 9] that Christ “was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.” That much stress cannot be laid on the form of this expression is manifest from Acts vii, 55, where Stephen declares that he saw “the heaven opened and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.” And that the expression furnishes no valid objection to the ministration of the Lord Jesus in both the holy places, is manifest from the fact that when he shall descend from heaven he is represented as still “sitting on the right hand of power.” Matt. xxvi, 64; Mark xiv, 62. The fact that Mrs. S. was not able to give the name of Sister White correctly, is strong presumptive proof that in speaking lightly of her visions, she is speaking “evil of the things that she knows not.” Though I would not speak against female preaching, I may yet be allowed to enquire whether there is not quite as much Bible to show that women shall “prophecy,” as there is to show that they shall act the part of public teachers? Joel ii, 28, 29; Acts ii, 17, 18; xxi, 8, 9; compared with I Cor. xiv, 34, 35; 1 Tim. ii, 11, 12. It would have been much more in place, had Mrs. S. then seen fit, to refute the few “arguments” which in a friendly manner we presented to her, than it is to come out now (with inferences which do not bear on the points we then discussed) in a paper where everything written against the fourth commandment is “unanswerable,” because (with all its professions of free investigation) the other side is excluded. There are more in Michigan who are willing to keep the commandments of God, than Mrs. S. is willing to believe. And we can assure her that whether she participates in the matter or not, “the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus” will yet be proclaimed with a loud voice. The opposition or the sneers of those who should be leaders in the proclamation of God’s truth, will neither daunt nor deter us from this work of God. And the good tidings of the third angel’s message which the writer counts a “strange thing,” will still continue “the power of God unto salvation.” In traversing the field of her labors, I have seen much to remind me of Eze. xxxiv. The sheep scattered upon every mountain and high hill and left to perish, by those, who, instead of feeding the flock, have fouled with their feet that which God designed his flock should eat. But were there no one in Michigan who would hear the words of life, I would not refrain or forbear until I felt able to say, as I do in the case of Mr. and Mrs. S., I am free from the blood of all men.102 Herself and Husband would have been converted to this truth it seems, had their “compass drawn that way.” The needle of the compass draws towards the object of attraction. My compass draws towards the Holy City, and I read, “Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the City.” It is but too manifest that many Adventists (I fear greatly that Mr. and Mrs. S. are in the number) have another object of attraction, and consequently sail another way. Death is the great theme, and “out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.” No wonder such are not converted. Let me read the matter to them from the Book of God. “The wages of sin is death,” and “sin is the transgression of the law.” Rom. vi; 1 John iii. As our friendly visit has been made the subject of public notice, it may now be duty that I should state the facts in the case. 1. In presenting in a very brief manner the claims of "the Royal Law," and urging them upon the consideration of Elder S. and wife, I was answered that the New Testament contains all the prohibitions binding upon us. (Or words to that effect.) I asked what prohibitions the New Testament contained against a man marrying his sister or his own daughter. To this Mrs. S. replied that she did not believe that such an act would be sinful! though it would bring evil upon posterity. Surprised at this answer, I told her that she had spoken in haste, and uttered words that she would not speak before a larger company. But she replied that she would. As she now writes, she does not expect to keep the fourth commandment "unless (her) reason runs mad." I think the reverse is the case. She will not keep "the Royal Law" until her reason returns, and God shall have given her the spirit of a sound mind. 2 Tim. 1, 7. 2. I presented them the subject of the Sanctuary in the following manner. (1) What was the Sanctuary of "the first covenant?" I answered by reading Heb. ix, 1—5. It was the tabernacle, the pattern of the true. (2) What is the Sanctuary of the "new covenant." This question was answered by reading Heb. viii, 1—5. It is the true tabernacle, of which the tabernacle made by Moses, was the pattern or representation. (3.) How much of the 2300 days pertains to the earthly Sanctuary? The whole or a part? On this point Dan. ix (the inspired commentary on Dan. viii) was read. Seventy weeks were cut off upon "thy people and upon thy holy city" &c. One of the last events noticed in the account of the seventy weeks is the anointing of the "Holy of Holies" as it is said to read literally. This brings to view the True Sanctuary, which then, and there succeeded to the pattern. (4.) That the earthly Sanctuary was cleansed because the sins of the people were there borne, I read Lev. xvi. (5.) That the heavenly Sanctuary must be "purified" or as Macknight renders it cleansed in like manner, I read Heb. ix, 22, 23. I do not recollect that any attempt was made to refute this. 3. I spoke, accidentally, respecting the assertion of P. A. Smith, made in the office of the Advent Harbinger, and in the hearing of Elder Marsh, that he (Smith) could heal people by Mesmerism, and do other "wonders," and to my surprise, Elder Seymour vindicated Mr. Smith. He justified the investigation of Mesmerism, by the text "Prove all things hold fast that which is good." He also declared that he had heard Smith explain the principles of Mesmerism, and he believed a knowledge of these principles was proper, and might be of great service. I have heretofore feared that the remarks made by brother Rhodes on this point were too strong—I now greatly fear that they were just. Jackson, Mich., Feb. 9th, 1852.