“Then they that feared the Lord spake often one to another.”
From Bro. Davis.
BRO. SMITH: The Review and Herald of 3d Mo. 24th, is before me, containing an article headed “Bootless Reform,” upon which I feel it my duty to make some remarks. Firstly, what am I to understand by the expression “Bootless Reform?” Bro. Waggoner pleads for the Dictionary for the definition of terms; and says if we reject their authority, we have no means of judging. Those Dictionaries to which I have access leave me about as much in the dark about the meaning of the term, as I should suppose from his writing that Bro. Cornell was about the meaning of some of the revelations of Spiritualism. I might perhaps by examining in what sense cant phrases of the world are used, get at the signification of the above. But as the maxims and customs of this world are not recommended for us to pattern after, I must of necessity drop that part of the subject.
Secondly, the article refers to a class “who think it their duty to discard the names of the month as they stand at present in the calendar, and also to return to the Bible method of reckoning time. Such seem not to have understood the difficulty of the task they have undertaken.
“For instance, we have received letters during this present month, (March,) dated third month, 1859.” As a letter that I wrote to the Office during the present month was similar to those instanced, I do not feel free to let the subject pass as it now stands. Of those that would return to the Bible method of reckoning time, I have nothing to say. They would probably choose to defend their own position.
Thou appearest to think that those who have undertaken this “Bootless Reform” as instanced above, have not calculated the cost. If they have not counted the cost, they ought most certainly to have realized it by this time; as this “Bootless Reform” was commenced by a religious society from one to two hundred years since, and which has contained many able writers and profound thinkers, also those who have ranked among the first as philanthropists in the ages in which they have lived. I saw the statistics of this society a year or two since, and they then numbered 144,000. I refer to the society of Friends, deridingly called Quakers. It has been said of William Penn, (a member of this society and consequently engaged in this same reform) that he made the only treaty that was not ratified by an oath, and the only one that never was broken. I think that if we were able to ask the poor Indian from what society he had received the most kindness, the response would be, from this very society who are engaged in this—reform. I might mention a Fry, a Wilberforce, and others who like Howard made it a great business of their lives to ameliorate the condition of their suffering fellow men. In the city of New Bedford, near which I formerly lived, and where I did the most of my business, very many of the first business men use only the number of the month. The bills of several of the Banks are also dated in the same manner. Most of the calendars that have come under my observation contain both name and number of the month.
But perhaps thou wilt say I want to see some argument from the Bible on the point. I do not know as I have any to offer except such as are used by the society referred to. They are the same as those used against the present heathenish names of the days of the week. In referring to the society of Friends as those who have long acted under a sense of duty in designating the month by its number rather than by its name, I do not do it as forming a basis or ground of my duty, or of any one, whose guide is the word of God; but to show that it is a subject that has long engaged the attention of a respectable religious body; and as one that is therefore, if for no other reason, entitled to at least a courteous consideration.
The names of the months are derived from several sources. Some named in honor of heathen deities, (and which must certainly be objectionable to those who discard the names of the days of the week for a like reason,) some significant of the seasons, and some derived from the Latin numerals. Of those significant of the seasons, I have no objection to make. Of those derived from the Latin, as September and October, as they do not designate the ninth and tenth months they are not now correct.
The number of the month is free from the above objections, simple and definite. Now my dear brother, to which of the above positions does the Spirit of truth direct?
In Hosea ii, 17 we read, “For I will take away the names of Baalim out of her mouth, and they shall no more be remembered by their name.” Is it not clear from this text, that remembering heathen deities by their names is offensive to God? Jesus has taught us to pray “Thy kingdom come, thy will be done in earth as it is in heaven.” I know not how to avoid such a conclusion. I might quote further, but I think I have written enough to show a sufficient reason for the style I feel it duty to adopt.
I think I have some knowledge of the subjects referred to in the last two paragraphs. I felt it my duty to examine the evidences upon which the doctrine of our soon coming Saviour (and its associate truths) are based, and this necessarily leads to some understanding of those subjects. I might further add that to comply with the injunction to give a reason of our hope has also led me to feel it my duty to examine the grounds of my faith. It is not long since I was invited to attend a religious meeting, appointed by a minister in the Friends’ society who was an intimate and dear friend of mine in our younger years. In the course of his remarks he referred to the second coming of the Lord and the people who taught it, in a way that I thought required of me some reply. After he had finished his discourse, I replied to him. After the meeting I had a conversation with him, and arranged a correspondence between us on our difference of faith. The last communication I sent, covered19134 closely written pages. I had sent several previous. My last has not yet been answered. Now my brother, I presume thou well knowest that to defend and explain our position, an investigation of symbolic, Jewish and Roman time is necessary.
I might write much more on this subject, and relate the Lord's dealings with me when first called to examine the obligation of the Sabbath. I will simply say that first law I was not at liberty to discard. I think I have related the matter to Bro. Bates and some others.
In love, thy brother in Christ,
O. DAVIS.
North Berwick, Me., 3d. mo. 27th, 1859.
NOTE. We do not know what dictionaries our brother has access to; but all that we have in possession, very promptly define the term “bootless,” as “unavailing, unprofitable, useless;” neither do they set it down as a “cant phrase” or a vulgarism. But our brother has entirely mistaken his mark. We had no reference to him in the remarks to which he refers. Nor do we object to a person's designating the months of the year as they now stand, according to their number, first, second, third, and so on, if they are so disposed. But there are some who think it their imperative duty to return to the ancient Jewish mode of reckoning time, and they seem to think they are doing this by simply dropping the names of the months now in use, and designating them by their ordinal numbers. Our design was to correct the misapprehension under which such labor, and also to show that all attempts to carry out in reality such a reform as that, would be utterly impracticable and useless.—Ed.