p. 139 | Review and Herald, Vol. 24, No. 18. (9/27/1864)

Review and Herald

Sep 27, 1864

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Sep 27, 1864

Oath-taking.

By Eld. S. Pierce

BY ELD. S. PIERCE.

MANY of the most conscientious, doubtless have sincerely believed that Matt. v, 34, and James v, 12, are universal prohibitions of every kind of oath-taking. This would be so, if it could be shown that none was elsewhere authorized by the Bible. But as one kind, at least, is authorized, and its practice recorded for our learning, such scriptures as show this, either limit, qualify or restrict, such sayings as, "Swear not at all, Neither by any other oath;" &c., or else the teachings of Christ and James were designed to abrogate what was established and practiced in the Old Testament, and what was practiced by Jesus himself, and Paul, as recorded in the New.

If the last of the above instances is so, then the teachings and the practice of our Lord are at variance; and some of Paul's declarations are somewhat at variance with the teachings of our Lord and James, both. For Matt. xxvi, 63, 64, shows conclusively that Jesus answered the questions of the high priest after he had put him under oath. If any doubt this, let them ascertain the precise meaning of the word adjure, by reading carefully 1 Sam. xiv, 24-28, and also by consulting Webster's unabridged dictionary.

As proof of one point stated above, the reader will see by an examination of Rom. i, 9; 2 Cor. i, 18, and Gal. i, 20, that Paul, as a witness, did not hesitate to call on the name of the great God to confirm the truth of what he was about to publish for the benefit of future generations. Now if the teachings of Jesus and James were designed to abolish this kind of oath-taking established in the Old Testament, then the practice of Jesus and Paul would not have been as shown above. As our Lord remained silent when not under oath, while they accused, questioned, and even threatened him; as soon as the oath was administered, we do not see why he should then reply, if it were directly contrary to his own teaching.

We find this kind of oath-taking enjoined in Deut. vi, 13, Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and serve him, and shalt swear by his name. Also chap. x, 20: Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God; him shalt thou serve, and to him shalt thou cleave, and swear by his name. This is associated with the most excellent moral principle in both instances. Therefore this kind of swearing can be no species of profanity; else, in one paragraph, God has enjoined upon us to do good and evil: but we rather conclude it to refer to the testimony of a witness in relating some important truth; the true import of which, without the slightest deviation, is of great consequence, either in a judicial tribunal or elsewhere, as the case may be.

Some may wish to ascertain whether there is any evidence that the oath enjoined in Deut. vi, 13, and x, 20, is a judicial oath. We find in Num. v, 19, 21, thirty-nine years previously, that the judicial was positively instituted, and this is collateral evidence that the oath enjoined was a judicial oath. The latter scripture referred to, shows also that the rightful authority to administer this oath, especially in case of alleged criminality, was the priest, the same that administered it to the Son of God, which case all must understand was a judicial trial for his life. As the Jewish Sanhedrim was the highest tribunal of that nation to decide civil as well as ecclesiastical cases, of course it belonged to the high priest to administer the oath to witnesses, as was done in the case above. And that alleged criminals, in Jewish courts were put under oath as witnesses in their own case, we can find in Num. v, 19-21. Besides the judicial oath as already seen, we have a variety of scriptures to show that oaths of allegiance were administered by magistrates, and also that oaths of confirmation were freely engaged in by the parties. We now will introduce a few instances of the oath of allegiance: 1 Sam. xiv, 24. And the men of Israel were distressed that day, for Saul had adjured the people, saying, Cursed be the man that eateth any food until evening; so none of the people tasted any food. 1 Kings ii, 42-43. And the king sent and called for Shimei and said unto him, Did I not make thee swear by the Lord, and protested unto thee saying, Know for a certain on the day thou goest out, thou shalt surely die? Why then hast thou not kept the oath of the Lord and the commandment I have charged thee with? Speaking of Zedekiah, 2 Chron. xxxvi, 13, He also rebelled against king Nebuchadnezzar who had made him swear by God; but he stiffened his neck and hardened his heart from turning unto the Lord God of Israel.

In this instance as in the cases of Shimei and the people in Saul's day, the oath of allegiance was required and administered; and it is seen by these scriptures, that as far back as those days, the nations generally made use of such oaths.

There are other instances of the like in the Bible. Ezra x, 5: Then arose Ezra and made the chief priests the Levites and all Israel to swear that they should do according to this word. And they swear again. Neh. xii, 25. And I made them swear by God, saying, Ye shall not give your daughters unto their sons nor take their daughters unto your sons or for yourselves. Nehemiah was governor, and Ezra a priest, consequently authorized to bind any of the people with an oath to a discharge of any important national duty. There is another class of scriptures which do not describe the kind of oath alluded to, but they show clearly the innocence of those who engaged in them. Ps. xv, 4. He that sweareth to his own hurt and changeth not. Whoever will take pains to read this whole psalm will see that this is the man who will abide in the Lord's tabernacle and dwell in his holy hill; and also that he is one that walketh uprightly; and worketh righteousness, that speaketh the truth in his heart, and other good works which show that he keeps all of God's commandments. Again, Ps. xxiv, 4, shows us that the man that hath clean hands, and a pure heart, who hath not lifted up his soul unto vanity nor sworn deceitfully, will attain to the same blessed destiny.

Isaiah lxv, 16, is a scripture which is peculiar. "He who blesseth himself in the earth shall bless himself in the God of truth, and he that sweareth in the earth shall swear by the God of truth; because the former troubles are forgotten, and because they are hid from mine eyes." This scripture has within itself strong evidence that it is fulfilled in the world to come, and its connection following, which is prophetic of the new creation, adds to the strength of this evidence. Truly if the inhabitants of that world into which there shall in no wise anything enter, that defileth or worketh abomination, can engage in any kind of oath-taking where it might seem to our finite minds there was no necessity for it; why should it be thought so wrong for us in this poor sinful world where it frequently becomes really necessary in order to do justly by our fellow men.

We see by the foregoing evidences drawn from the Bible, that the Lord gave the judicial oath by Moses, if it had not been in use before; Num. v, 19-21; and that the oath of allegiance existed in the days of Saul and Solomon and doubtless long before; and the oath of confirmation as far back as Abraham. Gen. xiv, 22.

But it will doubtless be urged by those who disbelieve, that if Christ and James prohibited all these, we have now nothing to do with them. This we admit. But before we admit that they did; we will briefly examine our Lord's teachings on this point. Thou shalt not forswear thyself but perform unto the Lord thine oaths. Prof. Whiting has "forswear," in his margin,—"violate thine oath." This throws great light upon this scripture.

To forswear oneself, is to swear falsely; to perjure oneself. Webster. Many considering the definition have thought it must especially refer to judicial testimony. But Mr. Whiting's translation of the text, and especially his marginal reading, relieves us from this necessity. Even more than this; it would be an impropriety in the use of language to apply his margin to the judicial oath at all; unless it were applied at the brief moment of testifying. To make this plain to all, we ask, How can we possibly violate a judicial oath before we testify? Every one must answer, It is impossible. Again, if we ask how we can violate such an oath after we testify; the answer must be the same. It stands there unalterable, and none of our future acts can in any way at all affect it. But we can violate an oath

of performance, at any time subsequent to the time set for its performance, by neglecting or refusing to perform according to the oath. Again, the word perform, which immediately follows in the scripture above quoted, could with still less propriety be applied to judicial testimony, although we may not be able to make this appear so evident to readers generally. How we can go to work to perform unto the Lord a judicial oath, I am unable to conceive; since there is nothing to be done in the matter, but just to testify. We cannot with propriety say, we performed to testify; or that we performed to speak the truth. All these would be a violation of the principles upon which the construction of language depends. Hence we see the word perform itself, prevents in this instance, the possibility of our Lord's teachings, having any reference to the judicial oath. Furthermore, the French translation, "Thou shalt render unto the Lord that which thou hast promised by oath;" which harmonizes fully with the English and also the Greek, must make it so plain to every class of minds, that there can be no necessity for introducing further argument upon this point.

We will now take up all our Lord's comments upon this subject, and see if in his sweeping declaration, "Swear not at all," any allusion is made to the oath enjoined in Deut. vi, 13; x, 20. "Neither by heaven, for it is God's throne; nor by the earth, for it is his footstool; neither by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white, or black."

In all these examples, he has not brought one, that in the least infringes upon the oath of allegiance, confirmation, or the judicial oath. We have brought already examples from the Bible to show that in all these oaths, they swore by the name of the exalted Creator; whereas in all the examples our Lord has given for the illustration of his subject of prohibiting oaths, not one refers to that great name; but instead of that, all refer to the name of some created object. Thus all can see, there is no fitness in bringing these teachings as an argument against those kinds of oaths which the word of God had long before instituted, and confirmed by frequent historical accounts of their being practically in use, both in the Old and New Testaments. If he meant to abrogate them, why was there not something either in his illustrations or language to show this?

Therefore the reasonable conclusion is, that our Lord by these four illustrations, refers to a loose, rough and profane manner, in addressing our fellow men in common conversation, and to oaths binding people to certain performances. These kinds of oaths in all their multiplied variety and forms, are here expressly prohibited.

The great reason why he prohibits profanity, is because the third commandment prohibits it. One great and good reason why he prohibits oaths of performance, is on account of the uncertainty of man's ability to perform what he purposes in the future. The Infinite Creator may take such an oath, because he has all ability to perform: but not so with finite man. This oath of performance is also with us, a breach of the third commandment. The reason why is, if we swear by that great name, and fail to perform, we in the most emphatic sense, take the name of God in vain. If we do not swear by the name of the Lord, it must come under a head similar to one of the four examples our Lord gave. Hence all the above examples are a violation of the third commandment, and not of the ninth.

It may not, at first, appear evident that any of them come under this commandment; but when we discover that our Lord was, from the 17th to the 37th verse, magnifying the law and making it honorable, according to Isa. xlii, 21; and that he had already so wonderfully magnified the 6th and the 7th commandments, as to show a variety of sins and wrongs coming under the breach of them, which doubtless never would have been discovered, without the aid of inspiration; we may also discover that in his teachings on swearing he has magnified the third commandment; although this part of his discourse was introduced in a more obscure manner than the other.

All of us, doubtless, have always believed that the third commandment prohibited all kinds of profane swearing. And our Lord makes it appear that there were many kinds which we had not before thought of.

They nevertheless all come under the same prohibition. Now these additional kinds of swearing cannot be made to rank under the ninth commandment. That was given to guard us against all false testimony and lying. But all can see that Jesus' sweeping declarations were not directed against falsehood but swearing. And an additional fact to the point is, that there is no civil oath or any other, having any connection with that commandment, the form of which harmonizes with any of the examples there given; but they all harmonize with the injunction, to swear by his name. Therefore it is hard to believe that our Lord in his comment here, meant to couple these two commandments; given for different purposes, and so apply his sayings to them both indiscriminately, as to establish the one and abolish the other. This would look like too disorderly a work for divine wisdom to perform. Might we not rather, therefore, conclude, that the Lord, in his expression "Swear not at all" and James by the phrase "By any other oath," did not even allude to the ninth commandment! If they did, then that command in its most primary sense is virtually abrogated.

If so then we Sabbath-keepers who have always professed to have ten, have only nine commandments. The same number the Catholic church would have, if she had not divided the tenth: and the same that Protestants have, after rejecting the fourth. If any wish for this position they are at liberty to take it: but many would wish to be excused. Having that position we will see what the result would be by supposing a case.

We will suppose on a certain day a murder occurs in a certain town; and circumstances appear to be altogether against Bro. A. a Sabbath-keeper.

Now it is known by all that men are more generally condemned and executed, by the strength of circumstantial than positive evidence. Therefore the case of Bro. A. looks very dubious if not nearly hopeless. At the same time Brn. B. C. and D. know of circumstances in the case, that would show conclusively to any impartial court, that Bro. A. is innocent. But he is arrested, imprisoned, and brought to trial.

Brn. B. C. and D. begin to feel in great trouble about the safety of Bro. A., and begin to talk the matter up between themselves; knowing that their testimony might secure him: but they cannot go into court hold up their right hands, and take solemn oath to the truth they know in the case: which the law requires they should do in order to become witnesses.

So poor Bro. A. is brought to court, has an ex-parte trial, is condemned, sentenced, and executed.

Dear, innocent, Bro. A. has died an ignominious death; his useful life is lost; his helpless family is left in want; and worst of all, a great reproach is brought on the cause of truth. At whose hands will all this be required?

From the above illustration, it is not difficult to see, that if our Lord meant to prohibit the judicial oath, and consequently destroy primarily the ninth commandment, it must also in many instances, prevent his followers from obeying the second great commandment of the law;—"Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." Who could wish for such a hindrance in their way as this? None could wish knowingly thus to mutilate the law of God unless it be those who do not delight in it.

Oh that his people might be saved from such a hurtful error.

There is another class of evidences found in the Bible, which should be introduced, to show us what heavenly examples we have as a defense for this institution. The Infinite One in a number of instances confirmed his promise with an oath. And it is said "Because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself." Being willing to show unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel. That by two immutable things in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have strong consolation who have fled for refuge to lay hold on the hope set before us. It is said in the same connection, "Men verily swear by the greater; and an oath of confirmation is to them an end of all strife." See Heb. vi, 13-18. We wish to know why inspiration left these scriptures on record if all kinds of oaths had been abolished more than thirty years previous? Since "whatsoever was written aforetime, was written for our learning," why was God's and man's manner of oath-taking both here described? Who can have the least disposition to believe that Paul here encumbered the word of God with a mere superfluity? May we not rather think there was something here for our instruction in both instances?

1. In the first instance we have the example of the infinitely wise, and good; and inspiration, through Peter, enjoins on us,—Be ye followers of God as dear children. We are also informed that Enoch walked with God three hundred years. Shall we understand by this, that he followed God so closely, that it might with propriety be said he walked with him? In moral virtues he doubtless imitated his divine example.

It has already been proved by Matt. xxvi, 63, 64, and by the definition of the word adjure, that our Lord when here on earth, gave in his testimony in relation to himself, after being put under oath by the proper authority, in a judicial tribunal.

Now within the history of his course here, we find seventeen times recorded, the injunction, "Follow me." In view of this, what must our conclusion be? Is this within the limits of moral action? And if so, are we at liberty to follow him in this respect when the wants of our fellowmen require, and our knowledge of facts enables us so to do? Let us decide this as candid professed followers of God and his Son.

But an objection has here been raised by some, that he does prohibit our following him in some respects, such as governing and judging:

True we should not attempt to follow him in his prerogatives, which are the consequence of his distinguished or infinite capabilities. We have nothing to do in these; but follow him in everything so far as moral action is concerned.

We read of those of whom it was said, "They wholly followed the Lord." Num. xxxii, 12; Deut. i, 36. But this expression, we might suppose, is restricted to moral, virtuous action, only.

Now if it is morally good for the great God to swear by himself for the benefit of men; and for his Son to testify after being put under oath by human authorities, as our example; why is it not good for man to do the same when there is a prospect of benefiting others by it, by bringing about the execution of justice between man and man?

We now come to the family of Heaven,—the holy angels. Dan. xii, 7, will show us whether they have ever had anything to do in this matter: And I heard the man clothed in linen which was upon the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto Heaven, and sware by him that liveth forever, that it shall be for a time, times and an half. This shows, that one, at least, of the higher, yet subordinate order of intelligences who keep God's commandments, did take oath to the truth of what he then revealed.

Again, Rev. x, 5-6, gives a similar instance. And the angel which I saw stand upon the sea, and upon the earth, lifted up his hand to heaven and sware by him that liveth forever and ever, that there should be time no longer.

Here is another example of a holy angel taking oath to the truth of what he said, even down in the gospel age, more than sixty years since it was supposed that every kind of oath was forever abolished by a twofold authority of divine inspiration.

Is it to be inferred that the family on earth are required to be more holy than the family in Heaven? Can any one reasonably come to such a conclusion? Does not a part of the Lord's prayer, "Thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven," impel us to a different belief? Angels do his commandments, hearkening to the voice of his word. Can we do better than they? It is in vain for us to try to be more holy than the great God, his Son, and the holy angels; or even than the blessed Bible requires us to be.

Roxbury, Vt.

Faith, Hope, and Love. 1 Cor. xiii, 13.

FAITH, how it clings to the God we adore! How it rests on the promises, asks for no more! Oh, so precious to us, who the truth can receive, That we cannot deny, we can only believe.

Hope, 'tis the anchor that is cast from above; And it holds, thank the Lord, in the depths of his love. No storm shall unloose it, or tempest assail, That will cause it to drag, or o'er it prevail.

Love is the theme! Who its praises can tell! It is high as high Heaven, it is deeper than hell. It will bring us true joys, while on earth we may stay, And nothing but joy, in eternity's day.

Faith let us nourish it yet while we may; Hope—let us cherish it, while it is day; Love—oh let love in our bosoms yet swell; And we shall with saints in eternity dwell.

Faith, hope, and love! Yes these are the three That are dear to the heart, and bring gladness to me. Oh say if on earth, or in Heaven above, There is anything better than faith hope and love?

Fools in High Stations

A fool in a high station, is like a man on the top of a monument—everything appears small to him, and he appears small to every body.

Idleness and Industry

For a fit of idleness, count the tickings of a clock. Do this for one hour, and you will be glad to pull off your coat the next, and work like a hero.

My Experience. No. 2.

By P. C. RODMAN

I SUGGESTED to one brother, my being most persuaded to keep the seventh day as God commanded, calling it the Sabbath. Said he, "I am afraid of you." Why should he be? He was not, when I kept only nine of the commandments. Surely to obey all that is just and good, cannot make a man bad.

Another says, I have no objection to one's keeping the Sabbath, think it would be a benefit to me, and many others that work themselves most to death; yet that very brother only waited until a faithful advocate for the only day God ever blessed, was out of the place, and he commenced to persuade men not to keep it, by endeavoring to prove the law abolished by Christ, when Christ says plainly that he came to do no such thing. Matt. v, 17. Who is wrong? To the law and the testimony, if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. Isa. viii, 20.

But after hearing Eld. Cornell in Rocky Brook and on Block Island last winter, lecture some three or four weeks on the perpetuity of God's law, and the messages of Rev. xiv, I decided to keep the Sabbath of the Lord and walk at liberty. I have only to regret that I was no more like David who made haste and delayed not to keep God's commandments. Ps. cxix, 60.

I now believe firmly the third angel of Rev. xiv, 9, is on the wing; and his message embraces the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. Solemn hour! The last message of mercy being given to this judgment-bound world! And when it is finished, then comes one like unto the Son of man, having on his head a golden crown, and in his hand a sharp sickle.

Oh for more of the Spirit to quicken and give all the life and power God's people should have in this important work! My prayer is, that God would raise up men that will obey him, and seek his precepts, not shunning to declare all his counsel; men that will be led by his Spirit, that leads into all truth. Let the cross be ever so mortifying, the men that will bear it meekly, patiently, and faithfully, God will own and bless. If all the world and backslidden churches forsake, the promise of God still is sure, I will never leave nor forsake thee.

Shall we not pray for a fresh baptism of his Spirit, while the mass are going deeper and deeper into the fatal snare? Shall not God's people draw nearer and nearer him, that we may feel his hallowed touch, and so be fitted for the work assigned us in this evil time, when to be living is indeed sublime?

Since embracing the truth of the Sabbath and third angel's message, I have endeavored to become acquainted with Seventh-day Adventists whose leading organ is the Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, and the more I learn of that people, the more I am persuaded that they have been misrepresented to me, both by a few that keep the Sabbath of the Lord, and quite a number that do not.

Why do men oppose the day God made for them, or gave them, by sanctifying it, thus preparing it for their holy or religious use? To me it is a rich blessing. Thank God for the Sabbath. I hail it with pleasure; I love its holy hours. Why, the fourth commandment is one of the essential truths needed to keep the people of God from being led to deny, as very many of professed Christians do, the record of creation as found in Gen. i, saying that it was six thousand years perhaps, when it is so explicit that the evening and the morning were the first day, second day, &c.

How unsettled men become, when they leave the old rock bottom of truth, for their sandy foundation. This will not do for me. God's word is truth. It needs no amendments.

I was once asked if I thought it was essential to man's salvation to believe that God created the heavens and earth and all that in them is, as recorded in Gen. i. I answered by saying that it was to me; for if I should deny it, I should grieve his Spirit and so step on the road to infidelity.

But I must close. I will say that there is a large field in this region for labor. Some few have come into the truth, and are keeping the Sabbath, others are reading to inform themselves. We wish some good brother could come this way and give lectures on present truth. We think good would be the result. The Lord speed on the message according to his good pleasure, and bring deliverance to his weeping, groaning, people.

These are evil times. Men will not endure sound doctrines. It is with them, conversion of the world, and "My Lord delays his coming," or no resurrection of the wicked, and no law. So the wicked are supported in their wrong. Truly it is time for the Lord to work; for they have made void his law. Oh that he may work in mighty power by his people that delight in his word and wait for his law, to do it. Amen.

P. C. RODMAN.

Ashaway, R. I.

Spiritualism: Its Modern Phase.

By Mary W. Howard

I THUS head this article, that I may plant myself upon the platform occupied by the earnest abbettor of Spiritualism; that it is not a modern manifestation. I do not propose to go back into the fruitful fields presented by the Egyptian magicians and astrologers, tracing it downward to our own time, by the waymarks of the witch of Endor and the like; but simply to set in motion a train of thought, which may be followed out with profit, by each, as occasion may present the opportunity in our coming conflict, with "wicked spirits in high places" (marginal reading of Eph. vi, 12,) or perchance in low, which sooner or later we are destined to meet.

It has been said truly, that "extremes often meet;" and thus may a zealous defender, and a strong opposer meet on the common ground, that it is in deed, a wonder-working power of the spirits. So too, that it is no new development—only, an advance movement of those powers. And here we part fellowship; for I would include them in the same category, as when in Christ's day one came to him, seeking help for one dear to him, and in illustrating his condition says, "For the spirit taketh him, and oftentimes he is cast into the water, and oftentimes into the fire." Also, when the seventy disciples returned, reporting in gladness to their master, their language is, "The devils even, are subject unto us." Jesus bade them "Rejoice not that the spirits are subject unto you, but rather rejoice, that your names are written in Heaven." Luke x, 17–20. Nor is it merely a chance inference, that the grand antidote is, having our names "written in Heaven." The disciples, as well as Jesus, spoke of the matter, as a well-understood and recognized fact, or existing condition of things. True they spoke of it as an evil, nor did they dignify it with the appellation of "mediums" or the like; for the use of language to mystify or conceal, was not then sought as now; hence we read, "possessed of a devil," or as now-a-days we prefer to express it, demoniacal possession.

Their has been for years a growing aversion,—contempt perhaps would be the better word, on the part of the learned world, and the church has partaken of the spirit, for anything having the appearance of pushing inquiries into the unseen world; otherwise, no doubt a connected chain of these demonstrations, now called spiritual manifestations, could be brought to light. An account of many, even stronger developments, in France, a little more than a century ago, and well authenticated at the time in M. de Montegeron's Memoire Theologique, stronger than any yet produced by the mediums of our own time, has recently fallen under my notice. The one side claimed as now, that the manifestations were of divine origin, while the other as vehemently condemned them as "a wicked tempting of providence, or worse, accepting assistance from the Prince of darkness, himself." While others, half believing, half shuddering, said, "Who knows if the arch enemy has no part in this?" And as with propriety they argued, as may we now, namely, "It is a sentiment universally established, that it is in the power of the Devil, when God permits, to communicate to man forces above nature."

Allusion has already been made to the prevalence of spirit manifestations at the time of our Saviour's first advent. Reasoning from analogy, need we have been surprised, even if it had not been foretold in scripture, that as the time drew on for his second appearing, Satan would come down with great wrath, because he knew that his time was short? But with this antecedent, and with such definite prophecies as this, "And I saw three unclean spirits, come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet, for they are the spirits of devils working miracles," Rev. xvi, 13, 14, may we not expect that all that has preceded has been but the skirmishing of pickets, preparatory to a bold, onward, defiant rush, to final conflict? And this is why I have said that all are erelong destined to meet it either in high places or in low!

"To be forewarned, is to be forearmed;" therefore let us be fortified by a scriptural knowledge that these very phenomena have been foretold, and not attempt to set it aside, in that half-defined, half-unconscious fear, which is so often manifested by a contemptuous sneer—that kind of derision that is begotten of conscious weakness. The thing itself is a fact, and as a fact it must be met. Then let information be gained concerning it; not, however, by trusting ourselves within its atmosphere; for it matters little whether we enter the precincts of the charmed circle as a believer, or as a "fooled inquirer" seeking to investigate. They may resolve they will go thus far and no farther. Too often the current to which they have opened a passage, sweeps them away. Having by this act thrown off the protection of the Almighty, if heretofore the arguments could be met, they find, as is the testimony of one already fallen in the fatal snare, that "There is an influence not to be withstood."

Then in hours of tranquil judgment, when no passions blind, or impulses of the moment urge us before reason, let us evince wisdom by adopting a prerequisite of action for guidance and safety. Let us learn to possess balance of mind sufficient to rise above the thralldom of mere traditional authority; for truth has nothing to fear in an open, outspoken, face to face encounter, with falsehood. Let us then learn to "be so shod with a preparation of the gospel," that when we meet with passages, labeled with a patent orthodoxy like the following, "Pleasant voices that once mingled with ours, are now silent in the grave, and active hands ever ready to labor and aid us, are now motionless and hidden from our sight; but these voices though silent to mortal ears, are yet in sweeter tones than ever here on earth, tuning a Saviour's praise, and those hands are still busy in the service of the Master they so loved to serve while in this world," we may recognize in them, the teaching that has paved the way for the rapid strides of Spiritualism!!

If the Bible does furnish something to meet all the exigencies of human life, as well as something to meet peculiar doctrines and innovations, let it be borne in mind, that to be shod thoroughly, enables one to walk in thorny paths fearlessly, and to "be shod with a preparation of the gospel," will enable us to meet the subject under consideration understandingly; yet this preparation can never be acquired by that indolent reception of knowledge from others, which so prevails at this time; but by putting forth that effort of mind, which we find needful, whenever we would grasp any important truth and make it fully our own.

Whether we will or not, all must share actively or passively in the present vast procession of events. Do we choose to act an intelligent part, or to be mere tools instead of instruments of Providence? With another I join in the lament: "Alas! even at this advanced hour, how many are unable to sound the mighty problem as now solving, and only look on the mighty evolutions with stupid wonder! How many not merely unable to explore a little way, the labyrinth of the past, fail even to catch a glimpse of the startling significance of the pregnant now; far less to cast a glance into the weighty future! Alas! they cannot read even with tolerable appreciation aught that steps aside from their long cherished and preconceived views."

MARY W. HOWARD. Malone N. Y., Aug. 1864.

Make the Most of Yourself

Make the most of yourself, your talents and opportunities, wasting no idle breath; or empty sighs, on what you might have been, under kinder auspices. If your Maker had thought any other talents or opportunities better for you, he would have given them to you.

Continue reading: The Hope of Israel