Earlier text: The Second CommandmentElder Grant’s Injustice toward S. D. Adventists.
Our Lord, during his public ministry among men, met with no more ungenerous and unreasonable enemies, to use no harsher epithets, than those who accused him of casting out devils through Beelzebub, the prince of devils. And he forewarned his disciples that the same opposition would fall to their lot; for said he, “If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of his household.” Matt. 9: 34; 10: 25; 12: 24. Satan, the prince of devils, the chief of the fallen angels, still works, as he did in the days of Christ, among the children of men; but his footsteps are unseen, and the manifestations especially attributable to his power are those which occur out of the ordinary course of nature, and beyond the reach of human agency. Wicked men, it is true, do evil deeds, and utter blasphemous words, which are inspired by Satan; but we speak now of the more direct exhibitions of his power. Why did the ungodly Pharisees accuse Christ of working by the agency of the devil? Because a work had been done which was above their philosophy and beyond their power. Had our Saviour performed those works only which lie within the range of human capabilities, the Pharisees would have had no occasion to attribute them to the interposition of the devil. If a person should perform an ordinary act, and claim that it was done by the Spirit of God, an objector, endeavoring to disprove that claim, would be under no necessity of saying, No, it was done by the power of the devil; for he could say, You could do the work any time, and so could I, without the special interference of either of the agencies in question. So, then, when they of Christ’s household, his disciples in all ages, are called Beelzebub, or are accused of working through satanic power, why are they so accused? But one answer can be given; it is because they have among them exhibitions of more than human power; and those who are determined not to admit these exhibitions to be of divine origin, take the other alternative, and attribute them to the power of the devil. This language of Christ to his disciples is therefore proof that they would have among them these evidences of the presence of the Holy Spirit, and that their opposers would endeavor to destroy the force of them, or turn them against the cause of truth, by calling them the work of the devil and his angels. We think every one must admit the correctness of this reasoning. Let us apply it to the visions as held among S. D. Adventists. In the World’s Crisis, of July 5, 1871, Eld. M. Grant, editor, in an article on “The Shakers,” goes far out of his way to visit upon the visions terms of the severest denunciation. After noticing many of the false theories and foolish positions of the Shakers, and the silly pretenses, blasphemous claims, and disgusting exercises, of Ann Lee, whom they styled their “spiritual mother,” Eld. G. says:— “It will be seen from the foregoing testimony that her ‘revelations,’ ‘visions,’ ‘tongues,’ and ‘prophesyings,’ evidently proceeded from the same source as those given to Swedenborg, the spiritualists, the Mormons, and Ellen White, the oracle of the Seventh-day Adventists. If one is from demons, they all are. To our mind, this is a clear case.” He then goes on to speak of “seducing51spirits,” and their dark and diabolical character, after which he says:— “In order to get an influence over the professed children of the Lord, they will pretend to great sanctity, and require their followers to practice much self-denial,” &c. Whether this refers to the “Shaker mother,” to the “oracle of the Seventh-day Adventists,” or to the “seducing spirits,” the ambiguity of the language renders it impossible to determine. But a few lines further on, he speaks in a manner clearly to be understood. He says:— “It is a sad fact that these seducers very often get the confidence of some of the most sincere men and women; just as a counterfeiter or a seducer has best success among honest and virtuous people, who are unsuspecting. This is true in relation to the systems we have previously named in this article.” Here Seventh-day Adventism is placed on a level with Shakerism and spiritualism, and compared to a counterfeiter and a seducer. Verily Seventh-day Adventism must have some very damnable features to stir Eld. G.’s spirit to the depth here exhibited. If its character is such as that of spiritualism, Eld. G.’s zeal in this matter may pass as righteous indignation; but if it is not, such bitterness of spirit can be excused by no system less lax than that which advocates the abolition of the moral law of God. How then does Seventh-day Adventism differ from that particular type of Adventism with which Eld. G. is identified? It differs chiefly in two particulars: 1. It advocates the observance of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment, on the ground of the perpetuity of the moral law, while Eld. G. refuses to keep it because he holds that the commandments have been abolished; and, 2. It has that which it claims to be the promised spirit of prophecy in the church. Heartily as Eld. G. may dislike the Sabbath, we do not apprehend that it is this feature which has called forth his present invective; for we have never known him thus to speak of the Seventh-day Baptists, whose Sabbath theory and practice is identical with ours, nor to compare their system to a counterfeiter and a seducer. The chief trouble then is with the visions of sister White. Let us see, therefore, if they can be justly placed in the same category with the views and claims of Ann Lee, and the unhallowed teachings of spiritualism. Ann Lee claimed that Jesus appeared to her in person and baptized her into and with the Christ Spirit as John had baptized him. Does sister White put forth any such foolish claim? Eld. G. knows that she does not. Ann Lee claimed to be a “spiritual mother” to the Shakers. Does sister White make any such claim in reference to S. D. Adventists? He knows that she does not. Ann Lee claimed that God is dual, male and female, that Christ is in like manner dual, and that the second appearing of Christ was manifested through her; that she was baptized with what they call the “Christ Spirit,” and became the female counterpart of Christ. Does sister White put forth any such disgusting and blasphemous claims? He knows that she does not. Does she countenance the immorality, the licentiousness, the atheism, the infidelity, or any of the other corruptions and follies of spiritualism? Eld. G., if he has had the candor before thus passing judgment upon her, to acquaint himself with her writings, knows that with all her energy she labors to expose and condemn these evils from first to last, from the greatest to the least. Is it then just to rank her writings and her work with Shakerism and with spiritualism? If it is just to rank a person with drunkards who never partakes of intoxicating liquor, if it is just to assign a place among libertines to a person who maintains the strictest chastity of character, if it is just to confound with thieves a person who sacredly regards the rights and property of others, in short, if it is just to put no distinction between the innocent and the guilty in any practice of immorality and wrong, then it is just to class the works of sister White with Shakerism and spiritualism, and the course Eld. G. has taken in this matter can be justified, but not otherwise. To the visions as given and used among S. D. Adventists, Eld. G. cannot object on the score of their leading to fanaticism, immorality, or any evil; for their tendency is just the reverse. They aim invariably and persistently to lead to a higher type of morality, to a greater nearness to God, and to a preparation in heart and life, full and complete, for the soon coming of our Lord and Saviour. Yet Eld. G. compares them to a counterfeiter and a seducer, cold-blooded and heartless villains, the first of whom goes deliberately to work to rob honest people of their property, the second laboring to compass the ruin of innocent victims, both for time and for eternity, by robbing them of their virtue. To accuse the visions of thus seeking, designedly and maliciously, under a garb of piety, and a cloak of religion, to lead souls to utter and irretrievable ruin, is a terrible charge; and a man should have the very clearest evidence to sustain their diabolical character, before blistering his lips with curses thus hissing hot against them. And on what score does he object to them? He says they are contradictory. This is the only ground on which he condemns them. But on what reasons does he conclude that they are contradictory? Is it from a candid examination of the works themselves? or does he take the misrepresentations of partisan opponents? On this ground infidels condemn the Bible. And the conduct of Eld. G. suggests the query whether he is not pursuing the same course toward the visions. The prophet declared that in the last days the Spirit should be poured out, and there should be visions and prophesyings. Eld. G. believes that we are in the last days, yet he finds no place for these manifestations. But suppose that God in his providence should undertake to fulfill this part of the prediction, we ask how it could be done, and on what ground Eld. G. could accept it. To some person, either man or woman, for the promise includes both, a vision is given. Something is revealed for the instruction or comfort of the church. Could such person do less than to make that known to the church by all available means? seeking thereby no self-aggrandizement, and arrogating no position as ruler or leader on account thereof, but simply declaring in as plain terms as possible what had been shown? Does not the prophecy warrant as much as this? Could a person in fulfillment thereof do less? Sister White does no more. Yet to Eld. G. it is very clearly all of the devil. But what she sees, it is objected, does not agree with the Bible. With their views of the Bible, very likely it does not; but this is a very different thing. And such an objection can be admitted only from those who can show that they have outdone Pius IX., and possess in reality what he claims to have, infallibility in interpreting the word of God. Says Eld. G., “We have known these ‘seducing spirits’ to secure the confidence of their victims for weeks, months, and even years, before they were detected in the deception.” But was the devil ever known to continue the inculcation of all good principles and warnings against all evil for twenty-six years, as in the case of these visions, among those he had in his snare? Hundreds have already died in the belief of these visions, who, so far as they were influenced by them, were led to godliness and purity of life, and no effort was made from first to last by this means to instil evil into their minds and lead them away from holiness and God. Is this the way the devil treats people? If so, his kingdom is divided against itself. About twenty-three years spiritualism has been in the land. It began at first in a very pious manner, but it could not retain the mask for any length of time; and, behold, what a monster of iniquity it appears to-day! But here is a work dating back three years previous to the rise of spiritualism, and going forward at the same time, of an exactly opposite character, denouncing spiritualism at every step, exposing its evils, and warning people against its corruptions. And these apply not to the present only, but to the future, when it is predicted that spiritualism will manifest greatly increased power, and we are warned now to prepare to be able to stand against its influence then. Both these works, says Eld. G., are alike the work of the devil. Does the devil thus work against his own interests? If so, his kingdom is divided, and according to Christ’s own declaration, cannot stand. So all those who are interested to see the overthrow of Satan’s kingdom, ought on this ground alone to favor the visions rather than fight them; for they are in direct opposition to what every right-minded person has palpable evidence is the devil’s own work. Eld. G. concludes his article with these words: “By means of the counterfeit gifts practiced by the demons, through their mediums, they are able to seduce many into their artful snares. They call it a ‘display’ of the work and power of God.” It may be by an inadvertence, but Eld. G. here calls the work of the demons “counterfeit gifts.” By this he admits that there must be genuine gifts. Then we inquire where they are, and how he will test them. We also hold that the work of spiritualism with all its wonders, is a counterfeit of the work of the Spirit of God; but a counterfeit never exists where there is no genuine. We also believe that if we are not now having the genuine, according to the prophecy of Joel, as quoted by Peter in Acts, we are to have it; for this is to be in the last days. And when this fulfillment comes, how will Eld. G. regard it? Judging from his present position, this is not difficult to answer. That it is all the work of demons will be to his discerning and discriminating mind, a very “clear case.” “Paternal responsibility?” Yes, paternal—a correct term, I suppose, although to some expressing a novel idea. Change a single letter, and we are on a beaten track—familiar with the route. We can almost see the flowers that beautify that path, and so we are not weary with thinking of the steeps to be climbed in the journey; for appeals to mothers abound. Maternal associations are encouraged; mother’s magazines published; hymns for mothers scattered far and wide; and not one too many. The theme cannot be too carefully nor too prayerfully considered. And a fearful reckoning awaits those who carelessly or thoughtlessly assume a mother’s privileges. Thrice fearful their guilt who gladly relinquish to others the sacred charge assigned to them as mothers. But what of paternal responsibility? With few exceptions the Book of books furnishes the only specific admonitions to fathers as such. Are they then so strong that they will surely fulfill their high mission without these helps? Do their intuitions lead them to walk more carefully as parents than those endowed with maternal instinct? Or is their mission in the family so unimportant that they need no admonition? We think not. And upon this almost blank leaf in our religious literature we venture to inscribe one thought. It is this: In the paternal relation, the father, not less, if not more, than the mother, forms the model from which the little ones conceive of the character of their Heavenly Father. If this is true, let it be received as a motive, and what will be the influence on the character of the father! What purity will mark that life! what truth! What loving intercourse with the little flock, and yet what firmness and discipline! What sympathy with childhood’s trials, and yet what earnest lessons in enduring hardness! Where will be the winking at sin? where the indulgence in unmanly practices? where the inconsistencies, the self-indulgence, the petulance, the selfishness, which drive so many of our sons from home, and load so many of our mothers with untold burdens of care and grief? Where will be cast the false systems of family government—the codes so capricious that even the little ones mark inconsistencies revealed? “It is never a principle of the divine government to scare the sinful soul with eternal terrors.” So said, truly, a voice from one of our pulpits. Then why did that pastor-father select as an accustomed punishment for his timid little daughter, banishment to the lonely attic? And that other father, regulating his reproofs upon the scale of his ever-varying temper, instead of graduating them according to the offense—now giving a hasty blow, and an angry word, and to-morrow, perhaps, weakly yielding to the voice of entreaty when love required the firm hand of discipline—why will he continue to “chasten after his own pleasure,” and not model from Him who in all our chastenings seeks our profit? How many mothers have the difficult office of soothing a heart-broken child, and trying at the same time to secure its filial reverence for the father whose broken promise has caused a bitter disappointment! “What? Put myself to inconvenience to keep a promise to a child?” Yes; otherwise what attribute of your Heavenly Father do you reflect in your family? Surely not that which has all your life led you to sing: “How great is Thy faithfulness!” Then there is a throng of fathers entrapped by the “cares of the world, and the deceitfulness of riches”—no time to minister at the family altar, and too much engrossed to linger long in the family circle; no hour for unbending with the little ones—no frolic, no lesson, no pastime—nothing for them but money, and that which money can buy. Yet these fathers love their children. Their toil is for them. Why can they not see that to reflect the character of God into the family circle, the sympathy of God—the loving communion of God—the faithfulness of God—would be worth more in these homes than all the wealth of all the mines? Thus living, not to the child alone, but strange to say, to himself, also, will the father reveal the character of God in ever fresh and living light. In his own warm and loving heart, seeking first of all the real good of his child, how forcefully and touchingly will he see the reflection, though dim, of the wealth of his Father’s love to him! Thus living, too, even his failures in duty will but illuminate with brighter glory his Father’s faithfulness to him. Can it be that these tender lessons are for mothers only?—The Interior. Antiquity of Man.
By Dr. Saville
As REGARDS the antiquity of man, no scientific proof has ever yet been adduced of man’s existence on earth much more than 4,000 years ago. All evidence of the antediluvian world is dependent upon the statement of Scripture alone. What Champollion wrote in his work on Egypt—“They will find in this work an absolute reply to their calumnies, since I have demonstrated that no Egyptian monument is really older than the year B. C. 2200”—is true in the main, though recent discoveries may throw back the oldest monument of that country one or two centuries earlier. The only real scientific attempt to prove man’s antiquity greater than what Scripture allows, was made by the late Mr. Horner, when manufactured articles were discovered at a certain depth in the alluvial deposits of the Nile. Estimating the sinkage at the rate of three and one-half inches per century, the late Baron Bunsen hastily declared that it was sufficient proof of man’s existence on the earth at least as early as 13,000 B. C. But when Sir Gardener Wilkinson detected the figure of the Grecian honeysuckle upon these very ancient pieces of pottery, which limited their date to some period later than the conquest of Egypt by Alexander the Great, or three centuries B. C., it was seen that Bunsen’s anti-scriptural theory was at once blown to the winds. And if any further proof is needed of the untenableness of such a theory, it is seen in the fact that the late Sir Robert Stephenson, when engineering in Egypt, discovered in the mud of the Nile, at a greater depth than was ever reached by Mr. Horner’s diggings, a brick bearing upon it the stamp of Mohammed Ali.—Dr. Saville. Harmony of Redemption in the Bible.
The very fact that the Bible has but one great subject running through all its histories and prophecies that salvation by blood is the focal point in which all its various lines of light converge, is to me one of the strongest evidences that it came from God. When I consider that the writers lived hundreds and thousands of years apart, that they were found in all walks of life, and that they wrote in different languages, I can find no way to account for the unity which pervades it, but by admitting that these various writers were all moved and guided by the same high intelligence. No matter who held the pen, whether Moses in Midian, or David in the mountains of Israel, or Ezekiel lying on the river’s bank, or Daniel in the palaces of Babylon, or Paul in a prison at Rome, or John in the solitude of the bleak isle of Patmos, the records are all essentially the same, and blend together as one great whole. Just as the various notes and chords of the musician’s oratorio express the one great thought of the composer, so the grand hymn of revelation presents but one central idea; whatever chords in the harp of inspiration are touched by the chosen hands, they ultimately settle upon the key-note, “Salvation through the blood of the Lamb.” Anybody can soil the reputation of any individual, however pure and chaste, by uttering a suspicion that his enemies will believe and his friends never hear. A puff of the idle wind can take a million of the seeds of the thistle and do a work of mischief which the husbandman must labor long to undo, the floating particles being too fine to be seen, and too light to be stopped. Such are the seeds of slander, so easily sown, so difficult to be gathered up, and yet so pernicious in their fruits. The slanderer knows that many a wind will catch up the plague, and become poisoned by his insinuations, without ever seeking the antidote. No reputation can refute a sneer, nor any human skill prevent the mischief. Health Convention at Battle Creek.
By Joseph Harvey Waggoner
A VERY interesting hygienic festival has recently been held in Battle Creek, in the natural grove of the Health Institute grounds. As many even of the readers of the REVIEW are not acquainted with the history and position of this Institute, we will preface our report of the festival with a brief description of the Institute. The Health Reform Institute was incorporated and opened for the reception of patients in September, 1866. It is located on a beautiful piece of ground in the north-western part of the city of Battle Creek, Michigan. It was founded by the Seventh-day Adventists, whose office of publication is located a short distance south of the Institute. According to its charter, its stock is interest-bearing; but the original design was more benevolent than money-making, and this design is carried out by the Directors, who issue blank forms to stockholders, in executing which they donate to the Institution all dividends that may accrue to them; and most of the stockholders have complied with this arrangement, by which a fund is accumulated, when the Institute is prosperous, enabling it to receive more or less of the worthy poor to be treated at reduced rates. The people establishing this institution were not wealthy; they had no surplus means to invest in speculations. But being fully aroused to the sufferings of humanity, to the errors of the various systems of drug medication, and having the fullest confidence in the principles of hygiene now being taught and successfully practiced in the Institute, the funds were raised, some by donations direct, but most by the taking of stock with a donation of interest as above stated, with which seven acres of ground were purchased, being then the residence of Judge Graves. Since that time additions have been made to the original building, and by the purchase of others, so that the property now consists of fifteen acres of ground, with eight buildings, including the residences of physicians, having a capacity, when all are brought into use, of accommodating one hundred patients. The Institute is favorably located in every respect. No State offers advantages superior to those of the State of Michigan. The soil is quick and certain, crops very seldom failing; producing the finest quality of wheat; fruit good and abundant; with timber plenty of every kind; and privileges of water unequaled. And no part of this State possesses advantages superior to those of Battle Creek. It is noted for the intelligence and enterprise of its citizens, manifested in its general business, its manufactures, and its schools; the largest and best-finished school-house in the State has recently been opened here. The Michigan Central Railroad passing through the city, is an old reliable road, one of the best equipped and best managed in the country, forming with the Great Western of Canada a leading through line between the East and West. The Peninsular, lately opened from Lansing to Battle Creek, is fast being laid to Chicago, which will soon give another through route from East to West by way of the Grand Trunk. And, another line of equal importance to either of these is now under construction, connecting with the Pennsylvania Central by the Pittsburgh and Fort Wayne at Mansfield, Ohio, and from Battle Creek proceeding northward into the pine regions. This will at once give us a shorter route to the seaboard, and bring together the lumber woods of Michigan and the coal fields of Ohio. And with all these advantages we have that of pure, soft water, with an elevated, healthy location, and the most pleasant surroundings. The system upon which patients are treated in this Institute is known as “hygienic.” “Hygienic,” says Webster, is “that department of medical science which treats of the preservation of health; a system of principles or rules designed for the promotion of health.” It is held by the conductors of this institution that any system of medical practice having in view the recovery of health, which does not also include the preservation of health, or which ignores any of the conditions of health, is radically defective. It must be conceded that all diseases originate in wrong habits or unfavorable conditions, and to cure the disease without correcting the habits or changing the conditions is as impossible as to change a sinner into a Christian without any change of life! Temporary relief may be afforded by a defective system; but more than that cannot be expected. Our appliances include air, water, diet, exercise, rest, &c., but no drugs, or “medicines” in the popular sense of that term. The Institute is under the management of a Board of Directors, the present Board consisting of the following persons: S. H. King, Orleans, Ionia Co., President; B. Salisbury, Battle Creek, Secretary; D. R. Palmer, Jackson, E. H. Root and S. A. McPherson, Wright, Ottawa Co., D. Carpenter, Battle Creek, and J. F. Carman, Potterville. At the present time there are four physicians connected with it: J. H. Ginley, M. D., Wm. Russell, M. D., Mrs. M. A. Chamberlain, M. D., and Miss P. M. Lamson, M. D. In the Institute are about fifty patients. The Convention, or festival, was held on the grounds of the Institute on the 27th of July last. There were singing and speaking both before and after noon, and dinner in the recess. The speaking was by Eld. James White and wife of this City, who presented some of the principles of the hygienic system, pointed out some of the errors of prevailing habits and customs, and Mrs. White, in the afternoon, made some forcible remarks on the subject of “Reform Dress,” in which she exposed the follies and wrongs of “fashions.” She appeared upon the stand illustrating her subject with a dress, such as she uniformly wears, reaching not nearer to the ground than eight or nine inches, with pants of the same material falling well on to the shoe. A further illustration by contrast was presented by calling on to the stand two little girls, one dressed as she herself was, and the other dressed in the fashionable mode, dress very short and limbs bare and exposed. Most of those who saw and heard were struck with the neatness and modesty of the dress she advocated, as well as with the force of her remarks and reasons. Many suppose that hygienists are “starving themselves on bran bread,” suffering for want of meat and other substantial aliment. This error, we think, was effectually removed from the minds of those who attended this Convention and partook of the dinner. For the information of those who were not there, and for all who think that a good dinner cannot be got up without meat or condiments, we give the bill of fare: 1. BREAD, CAKE, &c.—Raised bread, gems, hard biscuit, and buns; fruit cake, sponge cake, apple pie, all made of Graham flour; oatmeal pudding, manioca and rice puddings, with fruit. 2. VEGETABLES.—New ripe potatoes, beans, green and baked, green corn, beets, squash, and peas. 3. FRUIT.—Peaches, apples, prunes, figs, and dates. 4. BERRIES.—Blackberries and whortleberries. No grease, butter, tea, coffee, pepper, spice, nutmeg, nor ginger, were used in the cookery or on the tables. The tables were five in number, 128 feet in length, making a total length of 640 feet. At the first sitting about 625, and in all from 700 to 750 partook of the dinner, and there was provision left for a few hundred more! We have heard only unqualified commendations of the dinner, which we think is a recommendation of the cookery of the Institute. Yet it may be well to notice, that it was an unfavorable season for berries and fruits; good apples and good peaches could not be obtained in great quantities at that time, strawberries and raspberries were just gone, and blackberries but fairly beginning to ripen. Several dishes in common use at the Institute were not produced. And beside this, it will be remembered that the Institute is but young and not very extensive, and a warm dinner could be served to much better advantage to a company of 50 or 100 than to one of 800. The guests were seated at the table in order, and by professions, as first clergymen, then physicians, lawyers, city officers, &c. At the close of the exercises, Dr. I. J. Meacham, after a few remarks, offered a resolution of thanks, which was seconded by Hon. Geo. Willard, of the Battle Creek Journal, to those who had furnished the entertainment, and it was passed by a unanimous rising vote. In concluding these remarks, we would remind the reader that the object of this reform is not merely a good living, though we claim to have the best, nor is it health for merely the sake of being free from pain and enjoying good feeling; but it is health and strength to best accomplish the will of the “Maker of our frames,” and to fulfill his injunction to “present our bodies living sacrifices, holy, acceptable to God.”