Publishing Committee · Battle Creek, Mich. · Feb 26, 1861
HOW SHALL WE MEET THEM?
By E. Goodrich
Meet whom? Why those who believe in modern Spiritualism. Shall we meet them by saying that there is nothing in it? That it is all a humbug? No, certainly not: that would be no meeting at all; it would only be a denial. And then there are so many creditable witnesses to the manifestations and ocular demonstrations, that to deny them, in toto, would only convince them that our prejudice was so great, that we could not look at the thing dispassionately.
Well, shall we meet them by saying that it is all the work of the Devil, and we will have nothing to do with it? No, certainly not; that would neither be courteous nor fair. There is no argument in railing accusations, neither can the christian condescend to use them without losing his dignity. Even angels cannot make them.
Again, if we, by taking the Bible (which they deny), prove the dead unconscious, and they, by some other standard, prove the dead conscious, that would be no real engagement; it would be simply the setting up of rival doctrines. But if they will come upon our grounds, or if we can pass over upon theirs, then we may meet and engage with them, and perhaps vanquish them. This is the way the Saviour met the tempter. He met him on his own ground. Yea, he met him on scriptural ground (it would not have been wisdom for Satan to have attacked him otherwise; that would have shown his hand); and he caused the cold blade of truth to fall upon his naked head in such a manner as to completely rout him; and the record says, And when the Devil had ended all the temptations he departed from him for a season. No wonder that he left! what should he stay for? He had chosen his own weapons, his own manner, place, and time of attack, and was honorably and completely beaten, yea, he was so driven from the field that he never attempted to occupy that sacred ground again. It would have been folly for him to do so. How important the lesson the christian may here learn; namely, that every temptation, fairly met, resisted and overcome, is an actual conquest. It is so much ground gained.
How then shall we meet them? Why, of course on their own admissions, when they take the Bible or any of its facts, as evidence of the truth of what they teach. In the first place, then, they teach that the dead are conscious, and that they are permitted to return and talk, or communicate with us through mediums. Well, suppose the dead are conscious, and do return and manifest themselves to those living? What then? Are we bound to hear them? Can we rely upon their testimony? Is it authoritative? and if so, where is the precedent? what is the criterion, or standard by which we are to be governed in our investigations of this matter? What is the rule by which we determine either the identity or responsibility of the spirit that claims to be speaking?
In receiving testimony it is always a very important matter to understand the ability, the authority, and circumstances of the witness testifying. Especially is this true in a case where there is much pending. Unless, therefore, the above questions can be answered so as to leave no reasonable doubt on the minds of those to whom the claims of Spiritualism are presented, surely no one can be considered better, or wiser, for heeding, or censurable for rejecting what they teach.
Again, admitting the dead conscious, we might vary our questions and ask, By whom are they sent back to earth? What is the object of that mission? And what is the plan of action by which that mission is to be carried out and developed?
Again, are their mission and manifestations of ancient or modern origin? If modern, then they are novel, and by every rule of reasoning it devolves upon their advocates to establish every point they claim, by the best of testimony. If ancient, then where is the record? Where do we find their parallels? If it is replied that we have these in the lives of the Old-Testament prophets, and in the lives and miracles of Christ and his apostles, we at once take issue and deny. It is true that there is some similarity between the prophets and miracles of the Bible, and the prophets and miracles of Modern Spiritualism (and herein is the deception); but when we come to the agencies employed by which they are inspired, there is a marked, a clearly defined, difference. No prophet of God ever yet claimed to be inspired by the spirit of a dead man: It is always by the spirit of the living God. And not only so, but every divine manifestation has been by the one self same Holy Spirit. See 2 Pet. i, 21. For the prophecy came not at any (margin) time by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. Again, 1 Cor. xii, 1–11: “Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant. Ye know that ye were Gentiles carried away unto these dumb idols even as ye were led. Wherefore I give you to understand that no man, speaking by the spirit of God, calleth Jesus accursed, and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord but by the Holy Ghost. Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same spirit; and there are differences of administrations but the same Lord; and there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all. But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal. For to one is given, by the Spirit, the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same spirit; to another faith by the same spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same spirit; to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another discerning of spirits, to another divers kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues; but all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.” It is true that we have recorded in the Bible, manifestations corresponding with those of modern Spiritualism; yet they come under the head of Witchcraft, Necromancy, or Demonology, and, as such, are everywhere denounced as being the work of man's enemy.
But, says one, Does not the Bible say something about ministering spirits? Yes, to be sure it does; but there is not so much as an intimation that they are the spirits of our departed friends, that watch over us and guard us. On the contrary the Bible plainly teaches (Heb. i, 7, 14, and in many other places) that God's own angels are the ministering spirits that are sent forth to minister to those who are to be heirs of salvation; so that we need not be deceived here.
And if they say unto us, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, for they can reveal many wonderful things concerning the past, concerning our departed friends and concerning the future, we may say unto them, Should not a people seek unto their God? And as to the wonders that they may declare, these we will compare with the law and the testimony of God. For if they speak not according to this word it is because they are not like the Bible prophets, and because there is no light in them. And that they are familiar spirits is manifest from the fact that they communicate readily with all, without respect to age, condition in life, or character. The spirit that communicates with the innocent child, the strictly moral or even religious man, will quite as readily speak through the vulgar debauchee. And they are equally ready to suit themselves to the time and to the occasion; either to tell fortunes, to encourage love matters, or to play a dancing tune upon the violin. It is not so with the Spirit, by which the prophets of God are inspired; for it will neither communicate with all classes and characters, indiscriminately, neither will it suit itself to every time, place and occasion.
Again, although the prophets of God are mediums114(and speak as they are moved upon) as well as those of modern Spiritualism, yet there is a plain difference between them; for while the prophets of modern Spiritualism may be anything and every body, the prophets of God are holy men of God, whose lives correspond with what they teach. By their fruits we may know them. So that if any persons come to us claiming a divine commission, unless their lives, their daily walk and conversation, correspond to and sustain the dignity of pure and undefiled religion, we may be sure that God has never sent them.
Again, we may notice that while the prophets of God may be, and are accompanied by angels, by whom and through whom they receive visions and revelations, yet it is always the same angel, or angels; whereas the prophets of modern Spiritualism may have any variety, and receive communications by a thousand different spirits.
From the above it is evident that there is no essential analogy existing between Bible prophets, and the prophets of modern Spiritualism. But, on the contrary, we find that the latter correspond with the specifications of the prophecy (1 Tim. iv, 1–3), which says, “Now the Spirit (the Holy Spirit) speaketh expressly that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their conscience seared with a hot iron, forbidding to marry and commanding to abstain from meats,” and so on.
It is undoubtedly the working of Satan (2 Thess. ii, 9–12), 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. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusions, that they should believe a lie that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
Having the above signs by which to distinguish the true from false prophets, and having the above warnings against heeding the latter, let us take heed to ourselves and the word of God, that in the end we may be saved with an everlasting salvation through Christ. Amen.
Edinboro, Pa. E. GOODRICH.
SPEED THEE, CHRISTIAN.
SPEED thee on thy christian course,
Never weary, never tire;
Faith within thee ever glows
Like a radiant, burning fire.
Faith thou hast, aye, humble trust
That the Saviour died and rose;
Faith that he will from the dust,
Raise thee up when time shall close.
Though the tides of sin arise,
As the ocean billows high,
Hope within thee never dies;
Thine an anchor in the sky.
Though the world should on thee frown,
Though the scoffer's voice be heard,
Christ hath called thee for his own,
Thou reliest on his word.
Love within thy bosom swells,
Love for him who died for thee;
Him, for whom no Sabbath bells
Ever tolled on Calvary.
Love thou hast, yes, love for those
Who may err in life's rough way;
Love for those who are thy foes,
And for them thou oft dost pray.
Speed thee—thine a glorious crown,
When life's weary race is run;
Speed thee—heaven is all thine own;
Speed thee, Christian, speed thee on.
CHRISTIANITY UNIVERSAL IN ITS REQUISITIONS.
By Hannah More
It is not unusual to see people get rid of some of the most awful injunctions, and emancipate themselves from some of the most solemn requisitions of Scripture, by affecting to believe that they do not apply to them. They consider them as belonging exclusively to the first age of the Gospel, and to the individuals to whom they were immediately addressed; consequently the necessity to observe them does not extend to persons under an established Christianity, to hereditary Christians.
These exceptions are particularly applied to some of the leading doctrines, so forcibly and repeatedly pressed in the Epistles. The reasoners endeavor to persuade themselves that it was only the Ephesians “who were dead in trespasses and sins”—that it was only the Galatians, who were enjoined “not to fulfil the lusts of the flesh”—that it was only the Philippians who were “enemies to the Cross of Christ.” They shelter themselves under the comfortable assurance of a geographical security. As they know that they are neither Ephesians, Galatians, nor Philippians, they have of course little or nothing to do with the reproofs, exhortations, or threatenings which were originally directed to the converts among those people. They console themselves with the belief that it was only these Pagans who “walked according to the course of this world”—who were “strangers from the covenants of promise”—“and who were without God in the world.”
But these self-satisfied critics would do well to learn that not only “circumcision nor uncircumcision,” but baptism or no baptism “availeth nothing” (I mean as a mere form) “but a new creature.” An irreligious professor of Christianity is as much “a stranger and foreigner,” as a heathen; he is no more “a fellow citizen of the saints,” and of the household of God “than a Colossian or Galatian was, before the Christian dispensation had reached them.”
But if the persons to whom the Apostles preached, had, before their conversion, no vices to which we are not liable, they had certainly difficulties afterwards, from which we are happily exempt. There were indeed differences between them and us in external situations, in local circumstances, references to which we ought certainly to take into the account in perusing the Epistles. We allow that they were immediately, but we do not allow that they were exclusively, applicable to them. It would have been too limited an object for inspiration to have confined its instructions to any one period, when its purpose was the instruction of the whole unborn world. That these converts were miraculously “called out of darkness into the marvellous light of the Gospel”—that they were changed from gross blindness to a rapid illumination—that the embracing the new faith exposed them to persecution, reproach and ignominy—that the few had to struggle against the world—that laws, principalities and powers which support our faith opposed theirs—these are distinctions of which we ought not to lose sight: nor should we forget that not only all the disadvantages lay on their side in their antecedent condition, but that also all the superiority lies on ours in that which is subsequent.
But however the condition of the external state of the Church might differ, there can be no necessity for any difference in the interior state of the individual Christian. On whatever high principles of devotedness to God and love to man, they were called to act, we are called to act on precisely the same. If their faith was called to more painful exertions, if their self-denial to harder sacrifices, if their renunciation of earthly things to severer trials, let us thankfully remember this would naturally be the case, at the first introduction of a religion which had to combat with the pride, prejudices, and enmity of corrupt nature, invested with temporal power:—That the hostile party would not fail to perceive how much the new religion opposed itself to their corruptions, and that it was introducing a spirit which was in direct and avowed hostility to the spirit of the world.
But while we are deeply thankful for the diminished difficulties of an established faith, let us never forget that Christianity allows of no diminution in the temper, of no abatement in the Spirit, which constituted a Christian in the first ages of the church.
Christianity is precisely the same religion now as it was when our Saviour was upon earth. The spirit of the world is exactly the same now as it was then. And if the most eminent of the Apostles, under the immediate guidance of inspiration, were driven to lament their conflicts with their own corrupt natures, the power of temptation combining with their natural propensities to evil, how can we expect that a lower faith, a slackened zeal, an abated diligence, and an inferior holiness, will be accepted in us? Believers then, were not called to higher degrees of purity, to a more elevated devotion, to a deeper humility, to greater rectitude, patience and sincerity than they are called to in the age in which we live. The promises are not limited to the period in which they were made, the aid of the Spirit is not confined to those on whom it was first poured out. It was expressly declared, by St. Peter, on its first effusion, to be promised not only “to them and to their children, but to all who were afar off, even to as many as the Lord their God should call.”
If then the same salvation be now offered as was offered at first, is it not obvious, that it must be worked out in the same way? And as the same Gospel retains the same authority in all ages, so does it maintain the same universality among all ranks. Christianity has no bye laws, no particular exemptions, no individual immunities. That there is no appropriate way of attaining salvation for a prince or a philosopher, is probably one reason why greatness and wisdom have so often rejected it. But if rank cannot plead its privileges, genius cannot claim its distinctions.
That Christianity does not owe its success to the arts of rhetoric or the sophistry of the schools, but that God intended by it “to make foolish the wisdom of this world,” actually explains why “the disputers of this world” have always been its enemies.
It would have been unworthy of the infinite God to have imparted a partial religion. There is but one “gate,” and that a “strait” one; but one “way,” and that a “narrow” one; there is but one salvation, and that a common one. The Gospel enjoins the same principles of love and obedience on all of every condition; offers the same aids under the same exigencies; the same supports under all trials; the same pardon to all penitents; the same Saviour to all believers; the same rewards to all who “endure to the end.” The temptations of one condition and the trials of another may call for the exercise of different qualities, for the performance of different duties, but the same personal holiness is enjoined on all. External acts of virtue may be promoted by some circumstances, and impeded by others, but the graces of inward piety are of universal force, are of eternal obligation.
The universality of its requisitions is one of its most distinguishing characteristics. In the Pagan world it seemed sufficient that a few exalted spirits, a few fine geniuses should soar to a vast superiority above the mass; but it was never expected that the mob of Rome or Athens, should aspire to any religious sentiments or feelings in common with Socrates or Epictetus. I say religious sentiments, because in matters of taste the distinctions were less striking, for the mob of Athens were competent critics in the dramatic art, while they were sunk in the most stupid and degrading idolatry. As to those of a higher class, while no subject in science, arts, or learning was too lofty or too abstruse for their acquisition, no object in nature was too low, no conception of a depraved imagination was too impure for their worship. While the civil and political wisdom of the Romans was carried to such perfection that their code of laws has still a place in the most enlightened countries, their deplorably gross superstitions rank them in point of religion with the savages of Africa. It shows how little a way that reason which manifested itself with such unrivalled vigor in their poets, orators, and historians, as to make them still models to ours, could go in what related to religion, when these polished people in the objects of their worship are only on a par with the inhabitants of Otaheite.
It furnishes the most incontrovertible proof that the world by wisdom knew not God, that it was at the very time, and in the very country, in which knowledge and taste had attained their utmost perfection, when the Porch and the Academy had given laws to human intellect, that Atheism first assumed a shape, and established itself into a school of Philosophy. It was at the moment when the mental powers were carried to the highest pitch in Greece, that it was settled as an infallible truth in this Philosophy that the senses were the highest natural light of mankind. It was in the most enlightened age of Rome that this Atheistical Philosophy was transplanted thither, and that one of her most elegant poets adopted it, and rendered it popular by the bewitching graces of his verse.
It seems as if the most accomplished nations stood in the most pressing need of the light of revelation; for it was not to the dark and stupid corners of the earth that the Apostles had their earliest missions. One of St. Paul’s first and noblest expositions of Christian truth was made before the most august, deliberative assembly in the world, though, by the way, it does not appear that more than one member of the Areopagus was converted. In Rome some of the Apostle’s earliest converts belonged to the Imperial Palace.—It was to the metropolis of cultivated Italy, it was to the “regions of Achaia,” to the opulent and luxurious city of Corinth, in preference to the barbarous countries of the uncivilized world, that some of the first Epistles were addressed.115
Even natural religion was little understood by those who professed it; it was full of obscurity till viewed by the clear light of the Gospel. Not only natural religion remained to be clearly comprehended, but reason itself remained to be carried to its highest pitch in the countries where revelation is professed. Natural religion could not see itself by its own light, reason could not extricate itself from the labyrinth of error and ignorance in which false religion had involved the world. Grace has raised nature. Revelation has given a lift to reason, and taught her to despise the follies and corruptions which obscured her brightness. If nature is now delivered from darkness, it was the helping hand of revelation which raised her from the rubbish in which she lay buried.
Christianity has not only given us right conceptions of God, of his holiness, of the way in which he will be worshipped: it has not only given us principles to promote our happiness here, and to insure it hereafter; but it has really taught us what a proud philosophy arrogates to itself, the right use of reason. It has given us those principles of examining and judging, by which we are enabled to determine on the absurdity of false religions. “For to what else can it be ascribed,” says the sagacious Bishop Sherlock, “that in every Nation that names the name of Christ, even Reason and Nature see and condemn the follies, to which others are still, for want of the same help, held in subjection?”
Allowing, however, that Plato and Antoninus seemed to have been taught of heaven, yet the object for which we contend is, that no provision was made for the vulgar. While a faint ray fell on the page of Philosophy, the people were involved in darkness which might be felt. The million were left to live without knowledge and to die without hope. For what knowledge or what hope would be acquired from the preposterous though amusing, and in many respects, elegant Mythology which they might pick up in their poets, the belief of which seemed to be confined to the populace.
But there was no common principle of hope or fear, of faith or practice, no motive of consolation, no bond of charity, no communion of everlasting interests, no reversionary equality between the wise and the ignorant, the master and the slave, the Greek and the Barbarian.
A religion was wanted which should be of general application. Christianity happily accommodated itself to the common exigence. It furnished an adequate supply to the universal want. Instead of perpetual but unexpiating sacrifices to appease imaginary deities,
Gods such as guilt makes welcome,
it presents “one oblation once offered, a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world.” It presents one consistent scheme of morals growing out of one uniform system of doctrines; one perfect rule of practice depending on one principle of faith; it offers grace to direct the one and to assist the other. It encircles the whole sphere of duty with the broad and golden zone of coalescing charity, stamped with the inscription, “a new Commandment give I unto you, that you love one another.” Christianity, instead of destroying the distinctions of rank, or breaking in on the regulations of society, by this universal precept, furnishes new fences to its order, additional security to its repose, and fresh strength to its subordinations.
Were this command, so inevitably productive of that peculiarly Christian injunction of “doing to others as we would they should do unto us,” uniformly observed, the whole frame of society would be cemented and consolidated into one indissoluble bond of universal brotherhood. This divinely enacted law is the seminal principle of justice, charity, patience, forbearance, in short, of all social virtue. That it does not produce these excellent effects, is not owing to any defect in the principle, but in our corrupt nature, which so reluctantly, so imperfectly obeys it. If it were conscientiously adopted, and substantially acted upon, received in its very spirit, and obeyed from the ground of the heart, human laws might be abrogated, courts of justice abolished, and treaties of morality burnt; war would be no longer an art, nor military tactics a science. We should suffer long and be kind, and so far from “seeking that which is another’s,” we should not even “seek our own.”
But let not the soldier or the lawyer be alarmed. Their craft is in no danger. The world does not intend to act upon the divine principle which would injure their professions; and till this only revolution which good men desire actually takes place, our fortunes will not be secure without the exertions of the one, nor our lives without the protection of the other.
All the virtues have their appropriate place and rank in the Scripture. They are introduced as individually beautiful, and as reciprocally connected, like the graces in the mythologic dance. But perhaps no Christian grace ever sat to the hand of a more consummate master, than charity. Her incomparable painter, St. Paul, has drawn her at full length in all her fair proportions. Every attitude is full of grace, every lineament, of beauty. The whole delineation is perfect and entire, wanting nothing.
Who can look at this finished piece, without blushing at his own want of likeness to it? Yet if this conscious dissimilitude induce a cordial desire of resemblance, the humiliation will be salutary. Perhaps a more frequent contemplation of this exquisite figure, accompanied with earnest endeavors for a growing resemblance, would gradually lead us, not barely to admire the portrait, but would at length assimilate us to the divine original.—Hannah More.
WHAT SHALL I DO TO BE SAVED?
By Sol
AMID the civil commotions about saving the Union, or saving the cause of freedom, is there no awakened sinner crying out, “What shall I do to be saved from the wrath to come?”
1. Remember, my anxious friend! in the first place, that simply to feel anxious is not enough. You may have great depth and intensity of feeling; it may sometimes amount to agony. If that feeling is the legitimate contrition of a conscience awakened to the enormity of sin, then thank God for it. But do not be content with mere feeling. Tears never yet saved a soul. Your Bible does not say, weep and be saved. It says, believe and be saved. Faith is better than feeling. Even faith in the abstract is not enough; without “works,” without action, faith is dead. “The devils believe and tremble.” The devils believe, but do not obey God, or love God. You must obey as well as believe. Begin, then, to practice on your first promptings of duty. Try to walk; if not able to walk, then creep; but do not lie still, vainly longing to be a Christian, without trying to be a Christian. Do not wait for more emotion. Act out your present feelings. Begin to discharge duty from principle and with a purpose to please Christ. We will not dictate what it shall be; but let us ask a suggestive question or two. Have you ever prayed with your family? Or if you have no family, have you ever prayed with your room mate? Try it. No matter if there is some staring, or even some smiling. People sometimes smile to keep from crying. You need to pray where your prayer will do yourself good at the same time that it does others good. Have you an intimate friend or kinsman that is living without God? Then take him by the hand and invite him to Christ. Helping others you will help yourself. And it is well to begin practicing the generosities of the Gospel at once. Christ will rejoice in the honor you bring to him by trying to lead a sinner unto him.
Do you owe an old debt, that was outlawed long ago? Then go, and astonish your quondam creditor by paying it up in full. Let him see that you are beginning to practice that divine code which says, “Owe no man anything—but love.” In some way, and in every possible way, crystallize your religious feelings into religious acts. You never will be saved by works; but let us tell you most solemnly that you never will be saved without works. You must “keep the commandments,” or the love of Christ cannot be within you.
2. Do not ask God to save you precisely as he has saved some others of whom you have read or heard. Do not judge your feelings by theirs. Judge yourself by the Bible, and do not say, “Why am I not wrought upon just as my friend A—— was?” “Why do I not get those views of Christ which Mr. B—— has?” God is a sovereign, and will save you in his own way—not in yours. He no more requires you to pass through the same experience with A—— and B——, than he requires you to look like them or to dress like them. His commandment is—repent and believe on Christ. Are you honestly and prayerfully struggling to do that? Then you are beginning to have a spiritual experience of your own; and one of its beauties will be that it resembles exactly no other human experience under the sun. Oh, how rich God is! He does not need to copy himself. He loveth to please his own sovereign skill. Some hearts he opens with the gentlest touch of love; others he pryeth open with the heavy bar of arousing judgments. Some sinners are sweetly and quietly won to Christ; others are driven to him through the hail-storm of threatenings and the thunderings of an upbraiding conscience. Spurgeon pithily remarks, “When the lofty palm of Zeilan puts forth its flower, the sheath bursts with a report which echoes through the forest; but thousands of other plants of equal beauty open in the morning, and the very dewdrops hear no sound; so many souls blossom into grace and the world hears neither whirlwind nor moral hurricane.”
3. Let me entreat you not to be discouraged if your searchings after the Saviour do not bring an immediate assurance of pardon and of peace. Christ parried the Syrophenician woman’s entreaties in order to test the sincerity of her faith. If a heart’s happy hope were gained too easy, it might be valued too lightly. Give not up, my friend! if every hour were required to be spent in search for Jesus until your dying day. But no such protracted experience need be yours. I fear that you do not grasp the full meaning of God’s permission to come “with boldness” to the throne of grace. Ask what you want, and all you want. You are not a stranger at the door of the Great King. The King’s Son is ready himself to take in your petition, and intercede with his Almighty Father for you, and to press your suit. Despair never saved a sinner yet. We are “saved by hope.” You lose everything by discouragement and retreat. You gain everything by pressing on. Suppose that Columbus, when within a few leagues of the West Indies, had yielded to despair, and sailed homewards. It was the last league sailed over that gave immortality to him, and a new continent to civilization. So it will be the last decisive step of surrendering your whole soul to Christ that unlocks to you the eternal glories of the heavenly inheritance.
I will not insult you by hinting even that you are not to be deterred by fear of ridicule. Only a fool is thus pushed back by a straw. He who is more afraid of the empty laugh of a trifler than he is of the indignant frown of a holy God, surely deserves to be cast off for ever. There is but one way to manage the nettle of ridicule; touch it timidly and it shall prick thee, but grasp it with a firm hand and it crushes into a handful of down. Those who laugh at you to-day will love you to-morrow, when they see you are too earnest to be trifled with.
4. Our last brief counsel is to cherish the Holy Spirit. He may be visiting you for the last time. His agency is indispensable. If he leaves you, you are lost. You need him to conquer your stubborn will, to change your affections from hatred to love of God, and to purify the heart. He may be easily grieved. Quench not the Spirit. Lay down this paper, inquiring friend, and betake yourself to prayer. Delay not an hour.116On the delay of an hour—so insulting to the waiting Savior—hangs guilt enough to sink a soul. Life and death are set before you. Nothing is more certain than the uncertainty of human life. To-morrow you may be wrapped in your shroud. What thou doest, do quickly.—Sol.
Sunday the Original Sabbath.
Dear Bro. Smith: The following argument for the institution of Sunday, I copy from a letter just received from a Methodist minister. The ground he takes is somewhat different from anything I recollect of ever having seen. Will you please notice it through the Review, as it may help the minds of some.
L. M. Jones.
Monterey, Mich.
“1. Have you any chronology of the Sabbath being kept regularly before the children of Israel were brought out of Egypt? The Sabbath was instituted, to be sure, at the end of creation, on the seventh day. Again, you know that the Jews kept different time after they left Egypt from anybody else. They left Egypt in the month of March, fourteenth day, and the Lord told Moses to keep that as the beginning of the year. In Deut. v, it is said, And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and the Lord thy God brought thee out thence, &c., therefore he commanded thee to keep the Sabbath-day. If the fourteenth day in which they left Egypt began new time, six days of the new time for work, would bring the next Sabbath on the twenty-first, and so on.”
“Now, 2. Can you convince me that Saturday in this new year of Jehovah’s time fell on the original seventh or sixth? I think that it was the first day of old time. If so, it was a Jewish Sabbath, to be done away with all the rest of the Jewish polity; and the resurrection by which we are delivered from the bondage of death, fell on Sunday, the original Sabbath restored to the whole world according to the original design.”
REMARKS.—No better evidence that the Sabbath was regularly kept from creation onward, could be required, than the fact, which the writer above quoted seems ready to grant, that the Sabbath was instituted at the end of the creation week. If the Sabbath was then instituted, it was designed of course to be kept from that time onward. And if God thus designed it to be kept, of course his people during those ages regularly kept it. The idea that the Sabbath was then instituted, but yet was not designed to be kept till 2500 years afterwards, when the children of Israel came out of Egypt, looks to us like too great an absurdity to be entertained by any reasonable man. The question is thus settled till the time of the exode. Let us now look at the change which there took place. This writer says that “the Jews kept different time after they left Egypt from anybody else;” and among the Methodists it is getting to be a prevailing view, or, at least, claim, that the change which then took place involved a change of the Sabbath. Let us then carefully and candidly inquire what change did here take place, and how much it involved. It is all recorded in the first two verses of Ex. xii: “And the Lord spake unto Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt, saying, This month shall be unto you the beginning of months, it shall be the first month of the year to you.” Here is the whole record. But is there anything said about the Sabbath? Not a word. Anything about a change in the numbering of the days of the week? Not a word. It only directs that a certain month should be to them the beginning of the year. And all who have recently sprung up to advocate a change of Sabbath at this point, have committed the singular oversight of not showing how a change in the commencement of the year, would affect the numbering of the days of the week, or a change of the Sabbath. This they must do, if they would save their theory from that contempt, to which, without this addition, it is certainly entitled. To illustrate this point, let us suppose that by universal consent the beginning of the year as now computed should be changed from Jan. 1, to March 1; that March should be the first month of the year instead of January. Would this affect the week? the numbering of the days of the week? or any institution celebrated upon any particular day of the week? Any one can see that it would not. Neither would a similar change in the days of the Israelites.
THE CAUSE IN SUTTON AND DUNHAM C. E.
By A. S. Hutchins; A. C. Bourdeau; D. T. Bourdeau
Bro. Smith: The cause in this section is still onward. Since our last report our hearts have been cheered by the addition of ten or twelve to the number who had previously decided to keep the Sabbath of the Lord. About twenty in all have taken their stand with the commandment-keepers. Others are fully satisfied that there is no evidence for Sunday-keeping in the word of God, and wonder why their preachers have not seen this light before this time. We hope that such will have moral courage and faith in God to take a stand with the remnant.
The Spirit of the Lord is evidently moving upon the minds of the people, and preparing them to receive the last message of mercy. In different places we find that the prayers of anxious inquirers for light and duty, have been ascending to God for some one to be sent to help them in the way to life. About fifty in this section and in a few towns on the frontier, have embraced the Bible Sabbath within one year; and the way is opening in every direction for the proclamation of the truth.
“Not unto us, O Lord, not unto us, but unto thy name give glory, for thy mercy, and for thy truth’s sake.” Ps. cxv, i.
A. S. Hutchins.
A. C. Bourdeau.
D. T. Bourdeau.
Feb. 14, 1861.