ISA. 8 : 19, 20: "And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep and that mutter; should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead? To the law and to the testimony; if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them."
If the present work of consulting mediums and countenancing their sorceries is not referred to in the above scripture, to what would it apply? or is the scripture without meaning? Only a few years ago this scripture might have appeared almost meaningless. Then the sorrowing friends would anxiously surround the bed of the dying, eager to catch each word, which was often laid up in the heart as a memento of the lost one. Then if the departing had aught to tell, it was listened to with breathless interest, as all were well assured that no future communication could pass between them till the morning of the resurrection should loose the silent tongue. But now, how changed the times! Parents no longer regard death as an enemy, tearing their children from their embrace; but as the best friend, to transplant them as buds of promise, where they can sooner blossom in a happier clime, and mature in richer beauty. The infidel no longer sinks to the sleep of death with a "fearful looking for of Judgment, and fiery indignation which shall devour the adversaries," but he is led to expect to be released from the sinful surroundings and propensities of the present state, to awake where there is no suffering for sin, and all are progressing toward perfect bliss; thus making the cross of Christ of no effect, and rendering the gospel a nullity. Witness the case of the blasphemer, Thomas Paine, as revealed through "Rev. C. Hammond, medium," which is in accordance with the general tenor of spiritualistic teachings as we shall hereafter show.
Two questions are asked and answered in Matt. 24: One concerning the destruction of Jerusalem, and one concerning the coming of Christ, and the end of the world. The Saviour points out the long tribulation of the church, principally under the persecution by the papacy, which was to continue more than 1000 years. The full time of papal rule according to Dan. 7 : 25, and Rev. 12 : 6, 14; 13 : 5, was 1260 years, which commenced in 538 and terminated in 1798. The Saviour said the days should be shortened for the elect's sake. History shows that the time of papal rule was not itself shortened, as the power continued with the papacy, till the spring of 1798; but the tribulation or persecution did not continue the full term of the days. The persecution was abated by the influence of the Reformation, and entirely ceased before the power of the papacy was taken away. This gave room for the precise fulfillment of the prophecy concerning the signs of our Saviour's second coming. According to Mark 13 : 24, the first was to take place "in those days after that tribulation." The sun was darkened in 1780; just 18 years before the end of the days (years); and as the moon cannot give any light when the sun is darkened, the second sign was also fulfilled at the same time. The falling of the stars occurred 53 years afterward, in 1833. Says the Saviour, while discoursing of his coming and the end of these days; "Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there, believe it not. For there shall arise false christs, and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect." Matt. 24 : 23, 24.
These deceptions are more specifically noticed in the warning given in 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."
In the latter times. Equivalent to the last days. In our brief comparison of the prophecies of Daniel and John, it was shown that the facts concerning the kingdoms of earth prove that we are now in the last days; that the signs of the Saviour's coming have been fulfilled, and that it is now time to look and prepare for that event. As the deliverance of God's people draws near, the truth is resisted as it was in the days of Moses, by sorcerers, enchanters, necromancers, etc., who pretend to reveal secrets, and foretell events, by consulting the dead. This is "an abomination to the Lord." Isaiah says, "If they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them."
Some shall depart from the faith. As no person can depart from a place to which he has never been, so no one can depart from a faith he has never professedly embraced. Then in the latter times we may expect to find some denying the truths of revelation, which they have before believed and advocated. That this is true of many of the advocates of Spiritualism, every one knows who is at all acquainted with that work. Many of the lecturers, and some of the mediums, and editors, were formerly ministers of different denominations, and still prefix the title "Rev." to their names; and some clergymen, still occupying their places in their respective churches, are writing and speaking in favor of the new spiritual theory. But other specifications of the prophecy fix it to a certainty. Many of various classes may renounce the truth, but those referred to in this scripture depart from the faith.
Giving heed to seducing spirits. This brings us to notice the claim continually set up that they are good spirits, doing good, etc. In order to seduce, they must have the appearance and profession of goodness. Seductive, says Webster, is "tending to lead astray; apt to mislead by flattering appearances." Flattery is the seducer's strong hold; and this is a characteristic of the teachings of the spirits.
And this is the real secret of the success of Spiritualism. Man is constituted to receive and enjoy the influence of God's Spirit, and by sin his mind is so blinded, and his powers perverted, that it is absolutely necessary for him to receive its aid to guide him through the journey of life. This the Bible offers to him only on condition that he shall be humble, cross-bearing, and self-denying. To the contrary, while Spiritualism professes to supply the same wants, it deludes by flattery, fills the heart with pride, and grants such a license of life as is congenial to the carnal mind.
In 2 Tim. 3, as already noticed, it is said that men shall be lovers of their own selves, boasters, proud, high-minded. Many Spiritualists love themselves so deeply, and regard themselves as so noble and elevated, that they have lost all love and reverence for the Supreme Being. In their esteem the falsehood of the first great seducer is verified—"Ye shall not surely die. . . ye shall be as gods." (See Gen. 3:4, 5.)
That they are seducing, flattering spirits, is also fully proved by their teachings respecting Christ, making their followers to believe themselves to be, not only prophets greater than those whose writings are in the Scriptures, but christs of stronger powers as mediums than Jesus of Nazareth!
It is claimed that they are benevolent and good because they heal diseases. Any reflecting mind will acknowledge that this alone is not sufficient to justify the claim. The argument is no more conclusive than it would be to claim that a physician must be of a benevolent disposition because he cures his patients. His reputation as such, and beyond this his fee or reward, may be the grand motive of his practice. The intent and general course of life must be considered; and so of these spirits. The general tendency of their course and teachings must be ascertained, and these being considered, we shall find that their healing power is exerted only to carry on their deceptions and work of seducing from the path of right. And we inquire, Who brought diseases into the world, and seduced man to a course of action that subjected him to disease? This was the work of Satan. All diseases are part of the process of decay, and prove man to be subject to death, which was at first introduced by the devil. Heb. 2:14. But Jesus is the lifegiver. John 3:16; 6:40; 10:10; 1 Cor. 15:22; 1 John 5:11, 12; Rom. 2:7. When the Saviour healed a woman of disease of long standing, he said Satan had bound her eighteen years. Luke 13:16. And if Satan binds the human family in bonds of affliction, it is certainly no great cause of praise to him that he should release his hold of his victims for a season, the better to carry on his deceptions, and bring them under the power of the second death. Would we praise the magnanimity of the ruffian who had bound and maltreated his neighbor, because he had afterward let him go? We should rather blame him for having ill-treated him. Those who urge such a claim might, with equal show of reason, claim that the devil was benevolent because of the liberal offers he made to the Saviour! Luke 4:2-8. The offers were very large, but the intention deprived them of the quality of benevolence.
These miracles of healing are often wrought through mediums who deny the Bible, reproach the idea of salvation through Christ, and blaspheme the name of God. Does the Lord, or his ministering angels, work through such? If Satan works, or ever shall work, in them that perish, and that love not the truth, 2 Thess. 2:9, 10, he could scarcely find more fitting subjects than many of the mediums through whom these "tests" and wonderful cures are manifested. Thus their character as "seducing spirits" is clearly proved.
The nature and influence of their teachings is aptly characterized by the apostle in the warning under consideration, who says that those who give heed to those seducing spirits are also giving heed to
Doctrines of devils. This brings us to a more full consideration of the doctrines of Spiritualism, as to their origin and tendency. "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God," and whatever is opposed to Scripture is of the adversary, the devil. In giving proof on this point, we shall give the most direct, to wit, their own writings. And if some of them be found to border on blasphemy, they will present still stronger proof of our position. But while we regret the necessity of quoting such irreverent words, even to prove the fulfillment of prophecy, we assure our readers that we do not give the most blasphemous expressions that we have heard spoken, or have read in their publications. The columns of the Truth Seeker, published in Angola, Ind., were literally filled with the lowest and most vulgar infidelity. Its name stood in the Telegraph's list of "weekly journals devoted to Spiritualism," immediately above the Crisis, published in Laporte, Ind., by "Rev. Henry Weller."
"Without Strength."
An exceedingly interesting incident took place in a certain seaport not long ago. A number of people were congregated on one of the wharves to witness something or to enjoy the breeze from the water; and during the time one of the number accidently fell over the wharf into the water beneath. Of course in a moment the people were in a great excitement, some crying for help, and others seeming fixed to the spot while they with horror beheld the struggles of the drowning man, but no one dared to jump in to rescue him.
Amongst the number stood a strong, able-bodied sailor, who they knew could swim. He, too, seemed as if he were nailed to the wharf, while he calmly watched the struggles of the man in the water.
The crowd said, Why does he not jump in and save the man? The sailor still stood with folded arms calmly watching the vain struggles of the poor man in the water, but no movement on his part to save him. As the people saw the drowning man, and the seeming indifference of the sailor, their indignity knew no bounds, and they said, Wretch! why does he not jump in and save the man? Still the sailor stood erect, and with folded arms, gazed upon the water, and the object before him struggling for life. The man had sunk once and risen to the surface, and had gone down the second time and risen again, and as he was about to give up and throw up his arms to sink to rise no more, to the utter astonishment of all present, the sailor plunged into the water under the sinking man, bore him to the surface and brought him to shore.
Now the people, who were so enraged at the sailor’s apparent indifference could understand the wisdom of his entire course. He waited until the man had no strength even to struggle, and then plunged in and saved him.
Now, this affords a striking illustration of God's way in saving a sinner. God's way is to wait, not with indifference surely, until the sinner finds out that he has no strength to save or help to save himself. All the while he supposes he can do ought to save himself he is "without strength." God will wait until he comes to this, and with some it is a long, dreary experience. Their early religious training and preconceived ideas,—all, all against them. So for weeks and months, yea, often for years, they are left to their strugglings, and strivings, and doings, until they in heart bow down to the stated fact, that they are "without strength."
It is one thing to own one's self a sinner, and quite another to confess that one is without strength to save himself. But such is the ruin of man, and such his impotency, that though he struggles and strives, works and weeps, he can no more save himself from hell than the drowning man could from the watery grave that was inevitable, but for the strong arm of the brave and wise sailor. It is this that the word of God states so distinctly, and clearly, and constantly.
In Luke 19: 10, we read, "For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost." Hence the sinner is seen to be so lost that but for a Saviour outside of himself altogether there is no hope for him. The Son of man is that Saviour; for he came to seek and to save that which was lost. Mark: not to help him to save himself, but to seek and to save the lost.
Again, in Rom. 5: 6, "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly." In God's due time Christ died for the ungodly, when the awful fact had been fully demonstrated, that man was not only a sinner, but "lost" and "without strength" to save or help to save himself.
"Without strength" is the divine statement as to man. This leaves the ground clear for Christ to come in and be a perfect and entire Saviour. And as the sailor saved the man when he had given up, so does God, through Christ, and his precious atoning death, save every one that comes to this conclusion, that he is not only a sinner and ungodly, but also without strength. Such one will readily appreciate the strong arm and saving grace of the Saviour of sinners, and allow him, in every sense of the word, to be the Saviour, and give him all the glory for saving him. "By grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast."—Glad Tidings.
HEREIN IS LOVE
WE looked for Him oft in the whirlwind,
In the fire and the tempest's shock;
But found him at last in the silent voice,
And hid in the cleft of the rock.
The nearer we've dwelt to the Father,
The stronger our love has grown;
The more we have sought to obey him,
The clearer the light has shone.
He bids us beware of the tempter,
Of selfishness, anger, and strife;
Of the love of the world and its pleasures,
And of the vanities of life.
And this is the proof that we love him;
If with joy we keep his commands,
And walk in the way he has ordered,
Having pure hearts and clean hands.
We have, as a proof that he loves us,
His commands to keep and fulfill;
For with duties, and trials, and crosses,
Comes the strength to do all his will.
Of every thing useless he prunes us,
And casts every branch aside
That beareth not fruit to the glory
Of him who was crucified.
If Jesus has taught us submission
By the things he suffered while here,
Then let us go on in his footsteps,
With the love that casteth out fear.
Our trials, and conflicts, and losses,
His love, strength, and grace to reveal;
For while we pass under the rod, we know
Our Father's hand wounds but to heal.
The Law and the Testimony.
The object of law is obedience, to hold in subjection, while that of testimony is to produce faith. Without law there can be no obedience, neither can there be any faith without testimony. Peter's testimony was to as many facts as he stated. Paul's testimony is so many facts verified. We believe Paul just so far as he wrote; we believe Peter's testimony just as far as he records it. The fact of Jesus' birth is no less true than that of his death. The testimony is equally credible, and the faith just as strong. The certainty of these facts which we are to believe is dependent upon the testimony. The testimony being true, the faith must be right. About this there can be no doubts, no weakness, no leaning over.
The only infallible creed, the Bible, the whole of it, all of its parts combined, must be the basis of the faith that is infallibly correct. It is to our spiritual and moral natures what the sun is to the planetary system. Without the Bible, there is no sunshine for the soul. Without "the one best Book," there can be no hope of eternal life, no joy in prospect, no divine fellowship, no communion, no prayer, no glorying in the Lord. From it we learn what God has done for us and what he will do. From it we learn what man is, what he ought to be, morally and religiously. It addresses itself to our intellect and affections. These it seeks to mould and fashion. It forms character—makes man what God wants him to be. It makes white character, and before God gives men white reputations. We therefore accept the Bible as the only great Book of facts, grand and sublime facts. It shows what man is, what he must be if he would escape the doom of the wicked. It presents to him all the essential rules of piety and righteousness, and warns him of the awful danger of continuing in sin. It is not a collection of opinions and theories of beings no higher than ourselves, but a volume of facts revealed by the Supreme Ruler himself.—Brethren at Work.
Tremendous Excitement in San Francisco!
By Editor
WERE we to follow the custom of the daily papers, and fill the half of this column with display heads, we could hardly give our readers any idea of the immense and intense excitement which has swept over the inhabitants of San Francisco with the fury of a hurricane and tidal wave combined. The excitement of the election on the new constitution was a mere trifle compared to this. The coming State election—one of the most important that has ever been held in the State—creates only a mild breeze; even communism looks pale, and Kearney is almost forgotten. The Lotta Fountain, on the most public corner in the city, has been inclosed to the height of sixteen feet or more, to afford conspicuous bulletin boards, where the crowds watch with earnest anxiety for the latest news concerning the all-absorbing subject of most vital interest. San Francisco has never been so convulsed, so terribly shaken to its foundations, since the great earthquake of 1868.
But we must no longer conceal from the expectant reader the cause of this marvelous uprising of the people. It is this: some “pedestrians,” or tramps, have been walking or running a race in the Mechanics’ Pavilion! Please, reader, do not think we have used irony, and exaggerated the interest in this worse than trifling event. Read the following, cut out of the report in a daily paper:—
“The huge building has rarely held so many thousands—never a mass of humanity so tumultuous and enthusiastic. On the floor within the rail the crowd eddied, surged, boiled, bubbled, gathered into knots, expanded into scattering waves, circled like a maelstrom or flowed in opposing currents, that were ever in turmoil and conflict. The closely packed spectators stood up squarely against the track, like the waves of the Red Sea parted for the passage of the Israelites. The seats on either side were over-filled.”
Every class in the great city was well represented. The same paper says:—
“There were owners of railroads, bank Presidents, brokers, wholesale merchants, orthodox church members and music teachers—in fact, nobody was absent in whose private exchequer could be found the requisite half-dollar admission fee. It was a not unpleasant and certainly leveling sight to see the liberated convict thrusting his acute elbow into the abdomen of the plethoric judge who had sentenced him, and was at the moment too intent on the spavined strides of the leading pedestrians to be aware of the antithesis of such malodorous fellowship.”
It is well known that people will sit hours in a theatre, when a religious service grows tedious in fifty minutes, but the pleasure-seekers (pleasure, indeed!) are not now satisfied with the ten or eleven o’clock closing of the theatres, but another day’s report says:—
“It has become the correct thing, the fashion, apparently, to visit the Pavilion, now, after leaving the theatre.”
And again:—
“The numerous lady spectators were lazily fanning themselves, wondering if any other attraction in the world would induce them to sit on hard board benches until 2 o’clock in the morning.”
At the close of this contest, another was commenced, and for six days longer female tramps amuse the idle crowd which gathers day and night to behold.
If the whole world is not going insane, what shall we think of this? We cannot find suitable terms with which to express our feelings at such huge exhibitions of popular folly. Nonsense has become the only wisdom of the masses. “Truth has fallen in the streets.”
This world is in a deplorable condition. It was created for God’s pleasure and glory. Man was appointed to happiness through obedience and holiness. But God is mocked; his name and authority are held in contempt; his law is despised, and the great body of those who have the form of godliness deny its power. They have no knowledge of vital, earnest godliness. They have no interest in the cause of suffering and perishing humanity. Fashion and folly only engage their deepest attention.
And the watchmen sleep! May the Lord send forth his light, and his truth, and gather out of the darkness of this lost world a people to his own name and glory. May the missionary spirit take deep hold of the faithful of the earth, that they may realize their responsibility, and save themselves from this untoward generation.
Arrival at Southampton, England.
By John Nevins Andrews
On arriving at Glasgow, we visited Mr. Wm. Wills, a draper, at 14 Findley street, and had an interesting conversation with him in regard to the truth. He is not an observer of the Sabbath, but takes a very deep interest in the promulgation of the subject. We also visited Miss Marion Bernstein and her mother, at 5 Dunrobin Place, Paisley Road. Miss Bernstein has observed the Sabbath many years; her mother commenced its observance only a few years since. We found them in circumstances of distress.
When we arrived at London, we were happy to meet Eld. Jones and Bro. Barber. The next day I was seized with chills and fever. I was extremely glad to accept the hospitality of Eld. Jones and his wife, and to give myself up to several days of quiet at their house. They spared no pains to relieve me of this attack. I hoped that it would pass away, and that I would be so much strengthened that on my arrival at this place I might be able to go to work with Eld. Loughborough; but I found that the alternations of chill and fever became more and more severe, and that I must set out for Southampton or I would not be able to leave London.
We left London June 18. A severe chill came upon me at the station there, and lasted all the way to Southampton, when it changed to fever, and was followed with entire prostration. Since this I have been obliged to keep my bed, and have had chills and fever considerable of the time. We are receiving every possible kindness from Bro. L. and his family. I have a light, airy chamber, where I can enjoy entire quiet. I hope this convulsive effort of nature will make a favorable change in my system, and that in the end my appetite will be restored. I have long felt that an attack of some kind was inevitable, and that it was liable to happen any day. Now I feel great hope that when this is past, the recovery of my health and strength will be rapid. I must again ask the prayers of the friends in America. I can go no farther till some change takes place.
Bro. Loughborough is laboring with great faithfulness in the tent; while all the members of his family, and some of the friends raised up here, are actively engaged in visiting from house to house. The work here demands great courage, energy, wisdom and prudence. I hope that a good degree of success will result from the effort made in this place. I must not forget to say that we had interesting services on the Sabbath at Mill Yard in London. About forty persons were present, nearly all of whom were friends of the Sabbath.
J. N. ANDREWS.
Southampton, June 24.
Sunday Not the True Seventh Day.
By John Nevins Andrews
(Continued.)
DR. AKERS has two fundamental arguments: 1. He asserts that he can count the time to a day from Christ's resurrection back to God's rest-day in Paradise, and then forward to Abib 16 in Egypt, which day was also God's rest-day. 2. And he alleges that he can prove that Israel, by divine direction, observed Abib 15, and not Abib 16. Wherefore, it follows that the Sabbath was then set back one day.
But when Dr. Akers asserts that the first day of the week of Matt. 28:1 is the same as the seventh day of Gen. 2:2, 3, because the time comes out in even weeks, counted from one to the other, the very fact that the day at one end of the reckoning is not the same as at the other, shows that, unless he can prove a change of the week between these two points, his reckoning is false. For either Matthew or Moses gives a wrong name to the day; as one, at one end of the chain, calls it "first day of the week," and the other, at the other extremity, calls it the seventh day. Hence he attempts to remove the contradiction, and to sustain his reckoning, by changing the weeks in Egypt. But we have proved that the weeks were not changed in Egypt. And having proved this, we have thereby shown that his count, which starts at Matt. 28:1 with the day as first day of the week, and ends with it as the seventh, Gen. 2:2, 3, is certainly an effort to prove an absolute falsehood! The change of the weeks in Egypt, and the count of the days by Dr. A., are both an entire mistake, and wholly unworthy the confidence of the reader.
Dr. Akers' act of counting the days from the resurrection of Christ back to the day of the Creator's rest, is all mere talk, for the pretension is preposterous. But this amounts to nothing unless he can show that there was one week somewhere between the two points that had only six days in it, for it is thus only that he can bring the New-Testament "first day" to be identical with the Paradisaical "seventh-day." But unfortunately, the only way to prove this week of six days (of which the Bible says nothing) is by means of this alleged exact count. And even this count is of no consequence, unless it be shown that the day kept by the Hebrews was one day earlier than the true seventh day, an attempt which has already been shown to be an entire failure.
The history of this Sunday-seventh-day, or Sunday-seventh-day-first-day theory, is very remarkable. The man who first gave this theory to the world, so far as we are informed, was the distinguished Joseph Mede, who died in 1638. Dr. Jennings thus states his theory:
"The learned Mr. Mede endeavors to prove the seventh day of the Jewish week, which was appointed for the Sabbath, to be the day on which God overthrew Pharaoh in the Red Sea, and thereby completed the deliverance of his people from the Egyptian servitude. And, whereas a seventh day had before been kept, in memory of the creation (but to what day of the Jewish week that answered, we cannot certainly say), now God commanded them to observe for the future this day of their deliverance, which was the seventh day of their week, in commemoration of his having given them rest from their hard labor and servitude, in Egypt."
This theory of Mr. Mede's asserts the change of the Sabbath from God's seventh day to the seventh day of the Jewish week. But to what day of the Jewish week God's seventh day corresponded, he did not know; so that it would seem hard to prove by any evidence of Mr. Mede's that it was certainly changed at all. But Mr. M. endeavors to prove that Pharaoh was overthrown in the Red Sea on the seventh day of the Jewish week; which day had required the Jewish people to keep, in memory of that event. Thus the Sabbath was changed at the passage of the Red Sea, but what day it was changed from, Mr. M. did not know.
This was the greatest light which Mr. M. could shed upon the change of the Sabbath in Egypt. But though it was seen that the Sabbath could not have been changed at that point, yet the very idea that it was changed at the commencement of the Jewish dispensation, was so serviceable in helping to prove that it was changed again at its close, that it could not be given up.
But though the idea of this change was too valuable to the friends of the first-day Sabbath, yet it was plainly seen that it could not have been changed at the point fixed by Mr. Mede; or that if it was, nobody could find any record of it.
So it came to pass after more than a hundred years, that Dr. Jennings took up the grand idea of changing the Sabbath from the Paradisaical rest-day to the so-called Jewish Sabbath. This itself, in his estimation, was very precious, but Mr. Mede was mistaken in the precise time and place. It was not changed at the passage of the Red Sea, but at the fall of the manna. Dr. Jennings could see clearly that the Sabbath must have been changed when given to Israel (it was so desirable); but he also saw that there was nothing to sustain the change where Mr. Mede had fixed it. So Dr. Jennings decided that the fall of the manna was the very point where this change was effected. And he taught that the fall of the manna was made to bear testimony in behalf of the new Jewish Sabbath and against the ancient Sabbath of the Lord. The Jews never changed the day after this, it is certain; so if he can change it here, it will be easy to change it again at the resurrection; and if he cannot prove it to have been changed at this time, hereabout, then the Jews have now the true seventh day.
Thus the case stood for another hundred years, or more, when Dr. Akers took the case in hand. It was a precious idea that God had given to Israel the sixth day of the week, as the Sabbath, and that he had taken from them the true seventh day of the week, Sunday. But though Dr. Jennings had fixed the time and place of this auspicious change, as being at the fall of the manna, and not at the Red Sea, as asserted by Mr. Mede, yet Dr. A. could see that Jennings had not got it right. There was nothing to his argument fixing it at the fall of the manna, in Ex. 16.
Dr. A., by counting the days in the manner which we have seen, satisfied himself that the change took place on the day of unleavened bread in Egypt. So he publishes to the world, in 1855, the grand fact that at the exodus, God changed the Sabbath from Abib 16 to Abib 15 i. e., from the seventh day of the week to the sixth! For, according to Dr. A., God took from his people his own hallowed rest-day, and gave them a ceremonial Sabbath made out of the sixth day!
But the matter is not yet settled. Some ten years after Dr. Akers' book was published, the Rev. E. Q. Fuller tried his hand at this great undertaking. Dr. Akers has fixed the time and place all right, but he does not rightly state the change. The Sabbath was not changed from the seventh day to the sixth, as Dr. Akers asserts. No, indeed! It was changed from the first day of the week to the seventh! And instead of there being one week in Egypt with only six days in it, Mr. F. declares that that week had two Sabbaths in it, viz., its first day and its seventh!
Thus Mr. Mede, early in the seventeenth century, announced a wonderful fact. It was this, that the Hebrew people did not have the original Sabbath, or rather, it was taken from them, and the Saturday Sabbath was given them in its place at the passage of the Red Sea.
That is a grand idea! responds in substance, Dr. Jennings a hundred years later; you are right as to the change of the Sabbath, at the commencement of the Jewish dispensation, but mistaken in the time and place of its occurrence, and in the arguments you adduce to prove it. It did not occur at the crossing of the Red Sea, but at a later point, at the fall of the manna.
Not so, virtually responds Dr. Akers221something more than a hundred years later. Though your zeal for the great truth that the Hebrew people had the ancient seventh-day Sabbath taken from them, and a new Sabbath made for them out of the sixth day of the week, is very praiseworthy, yet you are even farther from the truth as to the time and place of the change than was Mr. Mede, and your arguments to prove the change are not sound. It was not changed at the fall of the manna, but on the day that Israel started out of Egypt. And I ascertain the fact of the change by counting the exact number of days from the creation to the exodus.
But Mr. Fuller now rises, and in brief responds to Dr. Akers after this manner: I am much indebted to you for the count of the days you have made from the creation to the exodus. You show Sunday to be the original Sabbath to my full satisfaction. But when you state that God changed the Sabbath at the exodus from the seventh day to the sixth, you make a bad mistake. Not so. It was changed from the first day of the week to the seventh! And I prove it by your own figures in which you count the days from creation!
One grand error is held in common by all these theologians, which is that God took away from his people his own Sabbath and gave them in its stead a ceremonial Sabbath. But while they are all interested to prove this assertion, one of them says that this change was at the Red Sea; the second says it was at the fall of the manna; the third says it was effected at the exodus by changing from the seventh day to the sixth; while the fourth says that it was changed at that point from the first day to the seventh!
Thus they all agree that the Jews did not have the Sabbath of the Lord, but they entirely disagree in proving it. Their case is like that of the false witnesses who all testified that Jesus was not the Christ, but did not at all agree in the nature of the proof!
J. N. A.
(To be Continued.)
True—Very True.
By Editor
THE horrible tragedy in Pocasset, Mass., has received its due share of attention, but perhaps no more than it deserves. Among the utterances which it called forth, none is more true than the following from Messiah’s Herald, of Boston, which, (with a change of name), is the oldest Adventist paper in the country. Speaking of the danger of following impressions, it says:—
"The Spirit of God never moves men to act contrary to the written word of God."
These very words we have uttered scores of times; and we are prepared to make another statement which is very explicit, and has a direct bearing on the transaction which has horrified the whole country. Our statement is this:—
"The Spirit of God never moves men to violate the ten commandments, or any one of them."
We have spent years in an effort to bring the people to accept this statement; unfortunately, the majority do not accept it, though its acceptance would prove a cure for innumerable evils which afflict our world. For holding to this doctrine, many professed Christians accuse us of being "legalists," of denying the grace of Christ, and of trying to restrain Christians of their "liberty" in the gospel! The liberty they claim is that which is pleasing to the carnal mind, which "is not subject to the law of God." Rom. 8:7.
We believe in bringing everything to the test of the infallible word of God. The tendency of the Antinomianism of the present day is to deny the authority of law, of tangible commandments, and to let each one give such evidence of his "love" as his own heart and conscience shall prompt. Of this theory we only say, that it is a good thing for society that the lives of such theorists, under the restraints effected by better teaching, are better than their theories demand. Obedience is the only test of love; and as, "where no law is there is no transgression," so where there is no commandment there is no obedience. That which is done without respect to precept is either disobedience or will-worship,—both alike displeasing to God. "This is the love of God, that we keep his commandments."
These Scripture truths are so plain, so easily understood, that they who reject them must stand without excuse in that day when God, in the light of his commandments, "shall bring every work into judgment." Eccl. 12:13, 14.