1 Tim. 4: 1. "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils."
Some suppose there can be nothing irreligious in Spiritualism, as its advocates profess to prove its claims by the Bible. Whatever their profession may be, it is easy to see they fulfill this prophecy of the apostle,—they deny the faith; they give heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils, or demons.
We offer some evidence—from the much we might offer—from their own writings.
THEY DENY THE BIBLE.
Mr. J. M. Peebles, a preacher of Spiritualism in Michigan, lately published a work on this subject, in which he says:—
"The policy of importing our religion from Asia, even though booked and labeled, 'Holy,' is exceedingly questionable."
A. J. Davis says that nature is "the true and only Bible."
Dr. Weisse read a lengthy paper before the "investigating class" of New York, to prove that the Bible is a mere transcript of heathen fables, and remarked:—
"If I am wrong in my views of the Bible, I should like to know it, for the spirits and mediums do not contradict me."
Dr. Hare exalts Spiritualism above the Bible, because the former teaches the immortality of the soul, and the latter does not; he says:—
"The Old Testament does not impart a knowledge of immortality, without which religion were worthless. The notions derived from the gospel are vague, disgusting, inaccurate, and difficult to believe."—Spir. Sci. Dem., page 209.
Again he says, page 138:—
"The Bible of the Spiritualist is the book of nature—the only one which by inward and outward evidence can be ascribed to divine authorship."
Deacon John Norton (a spirit), through Mrs. Conant, medium, says:—
"I can assure my friends on earth it is very hard for me to give up believing in the Bible."
"The Christian would say, You must not alter one word of that book. I once believed thus, and I do not blame the people of your day for doing so; for the tide is mighty, and the multitude is being borne that way. A few have stemmed the torrent, and are struggling against wind and water. When a majority of the souls shall perceive the new light [Spiritualism], the tide will flow the other way" [against the Bible].
Of this we have no doubt. We think "the spirits" are laboring for this end.
Says Warren Chase, in a lecture on the "Relation of Spiritualism to Christianity":—
"Say what you please, do what you can, your Bibles will get dusty, and the large old volumes will be sold for paper makers to work over into new, clean sheets for mediums to write communications from spirits on, to the living."—Gist of Spiritualism, p. 72.
Abraham Langworthy (a spirit who said he was formerly a Baptist) said:—
"I should like to speak with some of the friends I used to know. I don't think I shall do them any harm. If I should happen to say the Bible is not all true, they need not believe it if they do not want to. They will, though, when they come here. My son will think this is dreadful, but I'm going to say it—the Bible is no better than any other book."
Their denial of the Bible direct is not so frequent as their denial of its truths, which, of course, amounts to the same thing. But as they teach that man needs some instruction "from the spheres," they have set up their teachings as a substitute for the Bible. Sometimes they offer to get up more correct versions of the Scriptures, parts of which have at different times been published. But these have been abortive attempts to pervert the testimony of the word on points of vital importance, or a mere display of high sounding, unmeaning words.
Accounts of the greatest acts and events are given in the Bible in plain, simple language. Take the record of creation for an example: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light; and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night; and the evening and the morning were the first day." Gen. 1: 1-5.
Here are facts, the greatness of which the minds of the wisest can never comprehend, expressed in language that a child can understand. The whole history is a model of simplicity. With this, contrast this extract from a record of creation professedly given by an exalted spirit, under the imposing head of "Disclosures from the Interior," through the mediumship of Rev. T. L. Harris.
"1 In the beginning God, the Life in God, the Lord in God, the Holy Procedure inhabited the dome, which, burning in magnificence primeval and revolving in prismatic and undulatory spiral, appeared, and was the pavilion of the Spirit: in glory inexhaustible and inconceivable, in movement spherical, unfolded in harmonious procedure disclosive."
"2. And God said, Let good be manifest! and good unfolded andelar-mental germs, ovariums of heavens, descended from the Procedure. And the dome of disclosive magnificence was heaven, and the expanded glory beneath was the germ of creation. And the Divine Procedure inbreathed upon the disclosure, and the disclosure became the universe."
"11. And God made two great lights to rule the Zodiac, and those for creative disclosure, disclosive manifestation, manifest glory, glorious radiation, interpenetrative aggregation; and thence vortices, vorticle suns, suns of vortices, solariums, vortical planetariums, planets, floral universes, universal paradises, paradisaical heavens, heavens of spiritual universes, celestial heavens, seraphic habitations, seraphimal universes, cities of heavenly seraphima, and final consociative universal intelligence in unity of innumerable individuality, in triunity of unfolding universes, adoring and ascending in beatification unto eternal life."
Such a piece of nonsense—such a stringing together of words without meaning, we venture to say, cannot be found beyond the limits of Spiritualism. And it is truly strange that any one that has capacity to pronounce these meaningless phrases should think it an improvement on the Holy Scriptures!
THEY DENY GOD.
To destroy all just ideas of God is surely to destroy his worship—to dishonor him. This is Satan's great aim, and the teachings of Spiritualism in this respect fully prove its Satanic origin. In the Banner of Light, Feb. 3, 1866, the "controlling spirit," through Mrs. Conant, medium, said:—
"It should be understood that there are as many Gods as there are minds needing Gods to worship; not only one, two, or three, but many. . . . The noble forest trees, sun, moon, and stars, all things are Gods to you; for they minister unto the needs of your soul. It is vain to suppose you can all bow down to, and truly serve, one God."
By the same medium, and in the same paper of Dec. 2, 1865, it was said:—
"We understand God to be life, simply life; that is everywhere, no more in one place than in another."
Spiritualists talk a great deal about the love and goodness of God, but when we examine their teachings, we find that they all tend to Pantheism or Atheism. Those who are most intimately acquainted with them, having been long connected with them, say that such is their tendency.
Joel Tiffany, a Spiritualist lecturer and publisher, in his Monthly of June, 1858, said:—
"In an article entitled 'Spiritualism,' published in the December number of the Monthly, among other faults and errors, I charged that its influence had tended to create a kind of moral and religious Atheism that awakened religious aspirations in the minds of those who had been the subjects of them. To this charge many took exceptions, as being too severe. I have carefully investigated its truth since that time, and find the charge to be just. My experience has been, go among Spiritualists where you will, and, as a general thing, they have no faith in a living, conscious, intelligent, Deity, possessed of love, volition, affection, etc., as an object of religious aspiration and worship. They feel no demand for worship themselves, and they denounce and ridicule its exercise in others."
On an examination, both of their theoretical and practical faith, in you will find that it amounts to nothing but an indefinite and incoherent Pantheism.
Dr. Randolph, after eight years' experience as a spiritual medium and lecturer, said:—
"Harmonialism robs God of personality, converts him into a rarefied gas many million times finer than electricity! according to Davis, and elevates Reason to the throne of the Universe by deifying human intellect. God, Nature, Love, Panthea, Rarefied Gas, and Sublimated Oxygen, and Ether, are, by this lexicon, convertible terms and essences."
The above charge is strictly true, and the standard works of Spiritualism will justify it.
The "Healing of the Nations" says:—
"If God is one, all must be fractional parts of him, and he alone be all." Page 297.
This is Pantheism, through the mediumship of Charles Linton, published by N. P. Tallmadge.
J. C. Woodman says:—
"I believe in one God, and that God exists in one person; that the universe is filled with an immense ocean of life or spirit, which is the body of God."—Reply to Dwight, page 81.
A spirit, in the Banner of Light, says:—
"God's face is seen in the violet, and man may well worship this tiny flower."
A. J. Davis, in his "Pantheon of Progress," says:—
"Yesterday I thought, with Paul, that God was hidden from me except through the medium of a particular 'Jesus,' and all at once I beheld immeasurable quantities of worthlessness in every direction. Of the swarming millions that had lived, are now on earth, and there will be, only a poor group here and there, and felt any faith adequate to the imperative demand. Death and destruction, like the demons of universal despair, went arm-in-arm into every part of the world. Gloom and dimmed glory filled the whole land with suffocating clouds. Amid all, I tried to behold the great mercy and wisdom of 'Our Father,'—to be thankful for love I did not behold, and for knowledge I did not possess. Presently, as I walked the fields, the curtain was lifted mountain-high. 'Incarnation' of an infinite Father was nowhere particular. His manifestations in material organizations, and in combinations, were like himself impersonal. The sun shone with a thousand-fold more splendor. The wave of barbarism had rolled away. My whole spirit breathed from the roots of the super-animal consciousness. Like a rose, I felt glad in the sunlight, and my thoughts swept like uncaged birds through the fragrant air.
Mysterious beauty held me as a psychological spell. Every tree from top to germ was a divine image; it was just so much true incarnation of the Infinite Duality. Animals, insects, creeping things, no longer offended and detracted from my soul's dignity and happiness. My fellow-men all were unfallen demi-gods. I beheld their spiritual interiorness, their susceptibility to the common divinity." Pages 129, 130.
It is difficult to tell whether the "interiorness" of this and the majority of spiritualistic writings is Deism, Pantheism, or Atheism. They are rather a strange mixture of all together.
The Scriptures reveal God as not only a kind Father, but a Supreme Ruler, and a just Judge. The attribute of Justice and character of Judge are entirely ignored by Spiritualism, which denies probation, and substitutes fatalism in an eternal and necessary progression.
As the "Healing of the Nations" says that every man is his own judge, weighed in his own scales, so it is said Paine was told on his arrival in the seventh sphere:—
"Your own minds are white thrones. As you are now pure, you can judge. But no mind will judge you. All judgment is with you. Each mind will judge itself, and not another. The judgment will be pure, because purity resides in you. The judgment will be right, because it is the judgment of the self. . . . The throne is within you. On that white throne determine your works. It is your inalienable prerogative. It belongs to no one else."—Pilgrimage, page 223.
Hon. J. B. Hall, in a lecture, reported in the Banner of Light of Feb. 6, 1864, says:—
"I believe that man is amenable to no law not written upon his own nature, no matter by whom it is given. . . . By his own nature must he be tried—by his own acts he must stand or fall. True, man must give an account to God for all deeds; but how? Solely by giving account to his own nature—to himself."
In the Banner of Light of July 23, 1864, the controlling spirit gives the following answers:—
"Q. Are all human beings parts of one great Spiritual Being?
"A. Yes, certainly.
"Q. From whence does the Infinite Spirit derive its principles of life?
"A. You are constantly giving to all things, and receiving from all things. This, then, proves that God, or the Great Infinite Spirit, has as much need of you as you have need of him."
Yet Dr. Hare praises Spiritualism because it gives exalted views of God!
The Western editor of the Banner of Light, J. M. Peebles, who once believed and preached the Bible, but now finds therein no higher object of worship than the spirit of a dead man, under date of April 4, 1866, says:—
"The 'God of Israel' that spake to Moses; the 'wrestling angel' of Jacob; the 'Redeemer' of Job; the 'Gabriel' of Daniel; the 'young man clothed in a long, white garment' of Mark; the 'faithful witness' of John on Patmos; the 'demon' of Socrates; the 'Apollo' of the Grecians; the 'My Father' of the Nazarene; the 'Lord' of Swedenborg; the 'guardian angels' of the Catholics, and other similar phrases, have, with slight shades of difference, the same primal meaning. In this age of Spiritualism, we term them 'ministering spirits,' 'spirit guides,' and 'spirits.'"
In the Banner of Light, Nov. 4, 1865, are the following question and answer; the answer by the "controlling spirit" through Mrs. Conant:—
"Q. Do you know of any such spirit as a person we call the devil?
"A. We certainly do. And yet this same devil is our God, our Father."
This is surely an honest confession. See John 8: 44. So it was not without meaning that the Spiritualist lecturess in Boston opened her meeting with a prayer to the devil!
Candid reader, are we not right in saying that this "harmonial philosophy," instead of elevating, is awfully degrading? Under its influence, multitudes are relapsing into the grossest heathenism, even to worshiping 'the devil!' and that openly and confessedly. Sun, moon, stars, trees, self, everything is worshiped but the true and living God. Truly, the words of inspiration are being fearfully fulfilled; the truth is abhorred, and "doctrines of devils" are received with greediness.
EDITOR.
(To be Continued.)
THE MORNING COMETH.
Ho! watchman, standing on thy tower,
As years sweep onward in their flight,
What signs in Heaven attract thy sight,
Predictive of the coming hour,
When earth shall see the reign of Right?
What of the night? What of the night?
And pointing to the dim gray light
Just struggling up the Eastern sky,
A promise and a prophecy
That day shall chase the dark that gloometh
O'er Heaven to hide it from our eye,
The watchman saith, "The morning cometh!"
And angels sing, "The morning cometh!"
And earth repeats, "The morning cometh!"
And "God be thanked!" our heart's reply.
-Selected.
No Anchorage.
A GROUP of sorrowing friends surrounded the death-bed of a man who had been a prominent leader in an infidel circle. It was a dreary scene, for to the dying man his next step was emphatically a leap in the dark. The gloom and sadness pressed heavily on the sufferer, and it was a difficult task for his friends to say anything to him of a cheering character. At length one of them, as an appeal to what passes in such society as manliness, urged the dying man "to hold on." "I have no objection," was the reply, "to holding on, but will you tell me what to hold on by?"
A more embarrassing question it was impossible to conceive. A life spent in an effort to destroy the foundations of hope had left for him in that hour of solemn crisis no anchorage. Before him was a boundless ocean on which he must set sail; he had no chart, no compass, no rudder; he must drift out into the gloom hopelessly, for he felt he had nothing "to hold on by."
What a contrast to the death-bed of the humble Christian who can say, "I know in whom I have believed, and that He is able to keep that which I have committed unto Him against that day"! With a firm grasp on the Rock of Ages he can look out on the waters of Jordan unfalteringly, knowing that One who has vanquished death has promised him that He will be with him in the valley of the shadow of death, will never leave him nor forsake him.
Foreign Missions and Christian Duty
Mr. Spurgeon puts a home question to those who are in doubt as to the necessity for foreign missions: "Dear friends, you sometimes say, 'Will the heathen be saved if we do not send the missionaries?' I will ask you another question: Will you be saved if you do not send out any missionaries? because I have very dreadful doubts about whether you will. Do not smile. The man that does nothing for his Master, will he be saved? The man that never cares about the perishing heathen, is he saved? Is he like Christ?"
—Ex.
A Great Reputation, A Great Charge
A great reputation is a great charge.
Sabbath Controversy.
By Editor
THE Sabbath question, as a subject of controversy, has come to the front to stay; it "will not down." Only a few years ago we were blamed on every side for agitating it; then it was held as folly to make it prominent—to attach any importance to its investigation. But times are greatly changed. Now almost every religious paper engages in its discussion. The Christian Statesman has been established mainly to agitate it; and even the secular papers aid to "keep it before the people."
A striking fact in this discussion is the want of uniformity and consistency among the opposers of the seventh-day Sabbath, the advocates of the Sunday. If their success depended upon the perfect agreement of "two or three," we think that condition alone would insure their failure. And the same papers and persons are continually changing front. The Christian Statesman, which proved so conclusively to its own satisfaction that the commandment is moral and perpetual, and that the day has been changed, has lately published approvingly an article arguing that the obligation of the Sunday must be advocated on other grounds. In this it virtually admits that all its "strong proofs" from Scripture and from history, are a lamentable failure.
In contrast with this is the fact, equally striking, that there is complete harmony and consistency among those who teach and keep the seventh day—"the Sabbath of the Lord thy God." Wherever found, they "all speak the same thing," just as the apostle commanded. They are well convinced that "God is not the author of confusion." Planted upon the plain and immutable word, the commandment of the Most High, they are all agreed in their reasons, and therefore never change one position for another. They draw nigh to God with "full assurance of faith," which is based upon the word of God, because they rest upon his word and his reasons, and not upon their own reasons or imaginings. As we write our heart rejoices that we need not be under the darkness of confusion; that God has so clearly revealed his holy will to the children of men, and assured us that we shall "delight ourselves in the Lord" if we follow it. Isa. 58:13, 14.
Messiah's Herald—late the Advent Herald—of Boston, recently published a communication from a Baptist minister in which he attempts to show that "the Seventh-day Sabbath is not identical with the Lord's Day." In the first paragraph he says:—
"There is much confusion of thought among many, even intelligent, honest Christians, as to the Jewish Sabbath; whether it is still in force, as a divine institution; has been fulfilled and repealed in the gospel, or not; or whether the time is changed and the institution thus modified is transferred and perpetuated; or whether in the Lord's day we have another and a new institution, in commemoration of that grand and sealing event of the gospel, the resurrection of our dear Redeemer."
Aside from the erroneous, unscriptural designation of "Jewish Sabbath," as applied to the seventh day, which is always and only spoken of in the Bible as "the Sabbath of the Lord thy God," this statement is quite correct. But we insist that the confusion is needless and inexcusable. Is not the commandment, which is the only rule of Sabbath observance in the Bible, plain enough to shut out this confusion? It is. But the difficulty is, that there is a strong inclination to leave the commandment of God, and to set up something more congenial to the feelings of poor fallen man. But, as each one wants to have his own way, confusion is the necessary result.
This writer says he has related "facts and important considerations" which, he thinks, "will set this whole matter right." After so many failures of so many authors, this man must have achieved a wonder if he has at length satisfied the friends of the Sunday.
This writer couples together all the sabbaths given to Israel, yearly and weekly, and with one stroke sets them aside as positive, and not moral. But we have only his word for it, for he does not give a single reason; but he undermines his theory, saying that the moral law "is epitomized in the Decalogue." We have thought, and still think, the moral law is the Decalogue. However, we shall find, no fault with this. If the moral law is epitomized in the Decalogue, to mutilate the Decalogue, as he does, is to do violence to the rules of morality.
The following is only the reiteration of an error which has been so often exposed that we should think a man would be ashamed to utter it:—
"The Sabbath was moreover given to the Jews . . . as a sign to distinguish them from all other people, as we learn from Ezek. 20:12-20."
The verses referred to above read as follows:—
"Moreover also I gave them my Sabbaths, that they might be a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am the Lord that sanctify them." Eze. 20:12.
"And hallow my Sabbaths; and they shall be a sign between me and you, that ye may know that I am the Lord your God." Verse 20.
Thus it is seen that, instead of the Sabbath being a sign to distinguish the Jews from other nations, it is a sign to distinguish Jehovah from false gods—"the gods that have not made the heavens and the earth." Jer. 10:10-16. We marvel that Messiah's Herald will herald such a statement to the world. In the present state of the Sabbath controversy it can hardly be ignorant of the reading of these texts. God has always given the work of creation as proof of his Godhead. Acts 17:23, 24; Rev. 14:6, 7; Rom. 1:20. The Sabbath is a memorial of this work; hence it is the sign of the Creator.
Then follows a strange medley, more of error, however, than of truth. He says:—
"The Decalogue is only one out of several compends of the moral law and contains one positive law, interjected because, probably, of its great importance, and affinity to the moral precepts."
A constant repetition of the assertion that the Sabbath is a positive institution, and that the fourth commandment is a positive law, does not make it so. If it is a positive law, on what ground is it of "great importance" above other positive laws? And may it not be that that ground, which was sufficient to place it in the moral law, apart from all positive laws, was sufficient to keep it among moral laws, and apart from positive laws when the latter were abolished? But it has also a great "affinity to moral precepts." Why has it, if it is itself positive? We see no great or necessary affinity of positive law to moral law. But we do see a striking affinity of the precept of that Sabbath, which God sanctified to his own glory; which he set apart from secular days; which he reserved to himself as his own day, to that moral law which says, Thou shalt not steal. It is the Sabbath of the Lord God; he calls it "my holy day," and "the holy of the Lord." As we have no moral right to appropriate to our own use that which belongs to our neighbor, so we have no moral right to appropriate to our own use that which God calls his own, and which he has peremptorily forbidden us to use in that manner. We invite all to read a pamphlet on the subject of the "Morality of the Sabbath," published at this office.
Again we wonder that individuals, in this age of Sabbath controversy, will quote Col. 2:16, 17, and apply it to the weekly Sabbath of the fourth commandment. Will some one read the fourth commandment and point out the "things to come" to which it refers? Its foundations were laid far back of types. It points, not to the work of Christ in redemption, but to the work of creation, and to that alone. We have often called attention to the following distinction, and wish our opponents would show that it is just and necessary, or else recognize it. All moral law has its origin in the action or will of God alone. All positive law is made necessary by the action or condition of man. And thus we find that all the types of the Saviour—the positive laws of the Old Testament—grew out of the fact that man has sinned; they represent a system of recovery from a terrible loss on account of transgression. But God made the Sabbath when he created the heavens and the earth; before man sinned, and therefore before types could have had any significance.
It would be better, also, to give a reason for applying Gal. 4:8-10 to the Sabbath, even to the Levitical yearly sabbaths, than to rest it simply on an assertion. It certainly needs proof. Did they who "knew not God," observe the seventh-day Sabbath, or even the yearly sabbaths of the Mosaic law, in doing "service to them which by nature are no gods"? Did not the God of Israel establish all these observances? Such references, given as this minister gives them, may confirm prejudices, but they will never lead to a correct understanding of the word of God.
The following is offered as a very decisive point. The italics are those of the writer:—
"Another fact, not to be forgotten, is, that the seventh-day Sabbath is never spoken of, or referred to by Christ or any of his apostles after the resurrection of Christ, as a day binding on Christians."
Suppose we give another fact which is still more striking, which ought not to be forgotten, yet seems to be, quite too often. It is this:—
Sunday, or the first day of the week, was never spoken of, or referred to by Christ, or by any of his apostles, or by any body else, after the resurrection, nor at any other time, as a day binding on Christians, or on any others. No mention was ever made of it, in any dispensation, as a day sanctified, blessed, commanded, or even hinted at as a day of observance. Of course we are speaking of Scripture authority. We know it was honored by that magnificent worldling and criminal, Constantine, lauded as "the first Christian emperor." It was commanded under severe penalties by the "man of sin." It grew strong under the fostering care of "the holy Inquisition." Custom, prejudice, and human laws still uphold it. But the word of the Most High honors the seventh-day,—the day blessed by Jehovah. If it is so good an argument against the seventh day that the fourth commandment was not repeated at a certain time, why not be candid enough to admit that it is a decisive argument against the first day that a commandment for its observance was never given at all. Inspiration steadily refuses to afford any sanction to this Sunday innovation.
That would be a terrible life in which no good were blended, and that must be a sorry writing which contains no truth. Our author, in his endeavors to establish safe ground for his innovation, writes as follows:—
"The common ground taken by theologians, that the seventh-day Sabbath was transferred to Christianity, but changed to the first day of the week, is without authority, and based on mere assumption. The law designates the identical day of the week, as well as its design, and expressly says: 'The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord, thy God,' not that one-seventh part of time is Sabbath, but the seventh day of the week."
Here he has found unalloyed truth, for it is the word of God. And seeing that "the law designates" the seventh day, will this writer, or anybody in his behalf, please to point out any other law, which designates any other day, prior to that of Constantine? All references to human authority are idle words with us. We do not fear "the judgment of the great day" because of what man has spoken. It is enough for us to "Fear God and keep his commandments."
This writer, with great self-complacency, thinks he has pointed out a remedy for the confusion. We think he has only added one to the great list of the confused and confusers.
Secret Societies
By Editor
WE are requested to give our opinion of secret societies, because some of our brethren are uniting with them. We think if those who unite with them would give the true reason for their doing so, it would be our sufficient answer. If they will examine their motives, and do not find them founded in selfishness we shall be greatly surprised. We cannot imagine any good reason why a Seventh-day Adventist should unite with them. And we have one reason to offer why no Christian should unite with them. It is this:—
They captivate the senses by their show, and are seductive in their influence, so that in time a relation to the church is not valued so highly as a relation to these societies. We do not guess at this. We have watched the progress of this work in too many cases. If the claims of the church and the society come in conflict, that of the society is honored, and that of the church is disregarded. This is true to such an extent that we always consider a person's loyalty to the cause of his religion somewhat lessened the moment he joins a secret society. If any one thinks we are mistaken in this he will only prove, to us, that his observation has not been as extensive and close as ours.
We are aware that some will think we are trespassing on forbidden ground to speak our mind so freely on this subject. But in this they will prepare the way for another objection, namely:—
Secret societies do not consider that any body has a right to investigate their claims or call them in question. We disagree with them. We are not ultraists. With us nothing is too sacred to be investigated. We have often been astonished at the presumption of those who freely canvass, and express their opinions of, the claims of the Christian religion, and who will resent it as a personal injury if you call in question the claims of their favorite secret society. We cannot see any reason or justice in this. We distrust the influence of any association which thus affects the minds of its members. And we deeply regret that any of our brethren are entangling themselves with such alliances.
If our views of "the present truth" are correct; if we are in the last days, and if "the coming of the Lord draweth nigh;" if the word of God commands us to withdraw ourselves from worldly associations which are calculated to distract our minds and divert our affections from the Saviour and his cause, then all alliances with such associations must be unwise and imprudent. A lack of faith in God, in his promises of care and protection, is too often at the bottom of such associations.
Sunday Not the True Seventh Day. (Continued.)
By John Nevins Andrews
WE now call the reader's attention to the remarkable changes which each of these writers makes in the reckoning of the week. We present the week of Mr. Fuller at three grand epochs, viz : at the creation, the exodus, and the resurrection of Christ. We also present the week, as reckoned by Dr. Akers, at each of these three points. As Dr. Jennings uses precisely the same week as Dr. Akers, except at the fall of the manna, we simply give Dr. J.'s week at that point.229
FULLER'S WEEKS AT CREATION.
The reader will observe that his first week of time is framed on the theory that the six days of creation belong to eternity, and that God's seventh day is the first day of time, the first day of the week, and the first day of Adam's life—four remarkable falsehoods. Observe that Mr. F. has here one period, we cannot justly call week, which has only six days in it. This feature has to appear once in each of the several theories. Observe next.
FULLER'S WEEKS AT THE EXODUS.
Here are two of his weeks at the exodus. The first one has two Sabbaths in it, being that week in which the Sabbath was changed from Sunday back to Saturday. The second week is simply the ordinary week of the Jews, thenceforward having its Sabbath upon the seventh day instead of on the first day as it had had down to that time, according to Mr. F. Next we give
FULLER'S WEEKS AT CHRIST'S RESURRECTION.
Observe, two Sabbaths come together! One week ends with a Sabbath, and the following week begins with one! If he says, Not so, for the Jewish Sabbath was abolished at the cross, then we give an illustration of this view :-
FULLER'S WEEKS AT CHRIST'S RESURRECTION.
Observe, this time we have a week which has no Sabbath in it. As he had a week in Egypt which had two Sabbaths in it, he has a right to give us one this time with no Sabbath at all! On an average, we hold our own on Sabbaths at Mr. Fuller's hands; so we must try to stand it! Now we illustrate
AKERS' WEEKS AT CREATION.
With Dr. Akers' division of time from eternity, we perfectly agree; the only error being the serious falsehood of calling the first day of the week Monday. And Dr. A. does this, although he acknowledges that the New Testament first day of the week is Sunday. How he brings this around will appear in the diagram of
AKERS' WEEKS AT THE EXODUS.
The first of these weeks has only six days in it, though its last day is made into the so-called Jewish Sabbath! But this sixth-day period is as essential to Dr. A. as to Mr. F. Observe that at the exodus Dr. Akers changes, not only the Sabbath, but, unlike Mr. F., even the week also. Sunday now, by means of this six-day week, becomes the first day.
Next we give Dr. Akers' weeks at Christ's resurrection, though they are precisely identical with those of Mr. F. at that point. But we do it to show that, having changed his reckoning of the week at the exodus in order to change the Sabbath from Sunday to Saturday, now when he changes the Sabbath back from Saturday to Sunday, his week refuses to change. It seems strange that it changed so easily in Egypt!
AKERS' WEEKS AT CHRIST'S RESURRECTION.
The reader will observe that the upper line in this diagram shows the days of the New Testament week, as reckoned by Dr. Akers. So that if he is correct in the reckoning, our present week begins with the seventh day of the original week, and ends with its sixth! But if the evangelists are correct in the numbering of the week, then his order of the days in the week is false.
These illustrations must suffice for the theories of Mr. Fuller and Dr. Akers. The theory of 'Dr. Jennings is precisely that of Dr. Akers, except with reference to the place where he declares that the day of the Sabbath was changed the first time. Therefore we have simply to illustrate his weeks when this change is said to have occurred.
JENNINGS' WEEKS AT THE FALL OF THE MANNA.
Though we give Dr. Jennings only one illustration, he contributes his full share toward interesting and edifying the reader.
Here is a period of thirteen days from one Sabbath to another! But the reader will observe the indispensable period of six days neatly hidden under the ample robe of this thirteen-day week! That is to say, here is a week and six days with only one Sabbath for the whole period! And here is a theory, which, to prevent a journey on the Sabbath (which did not occur on that day), has the children of Israel gather manna for the first time on the Paradisaical Sabbath! Dr. J. here robs us of one Sabbath day in the count, and never makes up for it like Mr. F., by giving us a week with two Sabbaths in it! And let it be observed that, whereas Dr. Jennings uses a week from the fall of the manna to this time, which begins with God's seventh day and ends with his sixth, Dr. Akers adopts such a week on the day of the exodus, while Mr. F., by assigning the six days of Gen. 1 to eternity, has such a week as this from the beginning!
Thus it is evident that while each one of these able writers is anxious to prove that Israel had another Sabbath besides the Sabbath of the Lord, they do not agree how they came by it, nor when it was given! The truth is, they are all wrong; and the reason why they do not agree as to the time and manner of the change is because no change of the kind was ever made! Each sees the weakness of the arguments used by his predecessors, and each attempts to place a firm foundation under the Sunday-seventh-day, though to do it, he must remove that which those before him have laid.
But we have no disposition to dwell upon the peculiarly ridiculous character of the work which these men have wrought. There is another aspect of the case that demands our attention, and in the light of that all other things pertaining to it are, comparatively speaking, of small account. What we now call attention to, is the inherent and palpable wickedness of this work, more especially as exhibited in the effort of Dr. Akers and Mr. Fuller.
J. N. A.
(To be Continued.)
Note from Eld. Andrews.
By Editor
Bro. J. N. Andrews, over date of Southampton, July 3, reports an improvement in his health, for which his many friends will be truly thankful. He gives the following interesting item of news:—
"One circumstance which has just come to my knowledge gives me much encouragement. When we first began to publish our French paper, some one sent me the name of a merchant in the Turkish empire, who could read French. As he was the only person in that empire who received our paper, we continued to send it to him, though we feared that he cared nothing for it. Recently he has written that himself and several others have embraced the Sabbath in consequence of reading the paper, and that he desires to be baptized. So we see that the Lord is at work."
"Bro. Loughborough's work seems to be making steady progress. There are some very encouraging cases, for which we feel to give thanks to God."