NEW AND ENOURMOUS ARGUMENTS FOR SUNDAY-KEEPING.
By Editor
No class of people would be more glad than ourselves to join the prevailing custom, and unite in practice with many whom we esteem in keeping the first-day of the week as the Sabbath of the Lord, could it be made to appear that the fourth commandment of that Law which God has given us by which to regulate our lives and develop our characters, would be satisfied with such a service at our hands. It is not from any pleasure we take in being at variance with our fellow-men, that we cannot thus unite with them. Harmony and union are at all times more pleasant and desirable; but we cannot for the sake of these, or for popularity, or convenience, or the friendship of the world, or the esteem of friends, violate our own consciences, or the just and established rules of interpretation. And in saying that we would willingly return to Sunday-keeping, would the Law permit it, we do not say that that Law, however much its requirements may lead us to differ in practice from those around us, is not our delight, or that we do not esteem it holy, just and good. We do. With the Psalmist we can call the Law our delight, and the Sabbath, with the Prophet, the holy of the Lord, and honorable. Ps. cxix; Isa. lviii, 13. Its principles and its requirements we trust it is the unwavering purpose of every saint to follow, though they should lead him to the block, the halter, or the stake. Much is said for First-day observance, many are the well measured hymns that go up devoutly in its favor, which would be most convincing proof, all that could possibly be required, were they not pure and unqualified assumptions. Many are the articles also that are written in the same spirit for its support; and it is painful to witness the devious turnings, and flimsy reasons behind which men seek to entrench themselves in extenuation of their practice. The object of these remarks is an article in the Advent Herald of the 5th inst., on this subject. Some of its correspondents after quoting Ex. xx, 9, 10, put home this plain question: "Now we keep the first day of the week in the place of the seventh day. Please inform us when this change from the seventh day of the week to the first day of the week took place, and by whose authority." The Herald commences its reply by attempting to throw an air of indefiniteness over the fourth commandment, and thus rob it, as it seems to us, of its essential principles. It says: "The 'seventh day' in the texts referred to, is the seventh that follows six days of labor without any direction as to the place in the week where the weekly cycle should commence." A portion of this statement is partially true. It is true that the seventh day mentioned in the commandment is the seventh that follows six days of labor; but much more than this is true, as we shall endeavor to show. For, (1) any day and every day is the seventh in reference to the preceding six; and if this be the whole intent of the commandment, then every day of the week, in the light of that commandment, is the Sabbath; but, (2) the commandment cites us back to the creation for the institution of the Sabbath, and mentions two great eternal and immutable facts connected therewith: namely, God's resting upon the seventh day, and then blessing and setting apart for man that same day; and as Sabbath means rest, and the Sabbath-day means the Rest-day, it inevitably follows that the Sabbath day is the day of the week on which God rested, and the very day which he blest. But God did not rest upon every day of the week; he did not bless every day of the week; and therefore the conclusion that every day of the week may be the Sabbath, cannot stand. Consequently the position of the Herald overthrows the main pillars by which the Sabbath institution is sustained, by allowing six days of the week to be the Rest-day, on which God did not rest. It destroys its sanctity, by allowing six days of the week to be the Sabbath, which God did not sanctify nor bless. It destroys its principles of commemoration; for resting upon either of the first six days of the week, will not fitly commemorate a rest which took place on the seventh. It admits that the weekly cycle had its origin in the six days of labor and one of rest, that composed the first week of time; [See Herald of May 24th, 1856;] and yet it says that the commandment gives no direction as to the place in the week where the weekly cycle should commence, when it expressly declares to us that we should rest upon the seventh day of each week, for the very reason that God rested upon the seventh and last day of the first week of time, set it apart for man, and there placed his blessing. The question arises further, Suppose God had wished to point out definitely the seventh day of the week, and confine the Sabbath inseparably to that, what language should he have used? For if we take the position that the commandment requires one day in seven and no day in particular, we must show how its language will admit of such a construction; and in doing this, we must show how it should have read, had a particular day been meant. What language therefore should have been employed, again we ask, to point out the seventh day? By thinking upon this point a moment we shall see that the utmost stretch of the English language has been called into requisition, to render the commandment plain, definite, and unequivocal. If the language employed, and the facts connected with the institution, do not confine it exclusively and immovably to the seventh day of the week, nothing else could. Again the Herald says, "But the commandment is not made to individuals, but to the whole community; and as the keeping of different days by different persons would lead to confusion, and would not be a compliance with the command, it is necessary that all should observe one and the same day in all places." Are we to understand by this that we are not individually holden by the commandment, and that it would not be the duty of an individual to adhere strictly to its requirements, though the whole community besides should disregard them? No one can take this position. Then how does it follow that the observance of different days by different persons, would not be a compliance with the command, according to the exegesis which the Herald itself has laid down? It cannot be shown. The Herald must explain further on this point.42 It is also claimed by the article in question, 1st, That on the seventh day previous to the withholding of the manna, [Ex. xvi,] the children of Israel took a long journey which they could not have done had it been the Sabbath. But here the proof is utterly lacking. Days are spoken of in Ex. xvi, as the sixth and seventh in reference to their position in the week, and without any regard to the falling of the manna, or the journeying of Israel. 2d, That the Lord commanded them to keep the Sabbath in commemoration of their deliverance from Egypt. Deut. v, 15. But we read in chap. xxiv, 17, 18, "Thou shalt not pervert the judgment of the stranger, nor of the fatherless, nor take a widow's raiment to pledge; but thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in Egypt, and the Lord thy God redeemed thee from thence; therefore I command thee to do this thing." Now are we to suppose that the command not to pervert judgment &c., owes its existence to the fact of Israel's deliverance from Egypt? that they might have done so, and been guiltless had not that event occurred in their history, or that it is binding upon none who were not included in that redemption? Of course not. But as an additional motive to their observing this injunction, they are referred to their bondage in Egypt, where they were exposed to the same evil, and their deliverance therefrom. So with the Sabbath: God had delivered them from their Egyptian taskmasters, and brought them out where they could have liberty to sacrifice unto him, and keep his statutes; and this fact is held out as an additional motive to their obedience. But this rehearsal of Moses [Deut. v, 15] was forty years after the Lord had proclaimed from the trembling summit of Sinai, the original command and the reasons on which it is based, citing us back for them to the creation of the world. They were not therefore commanded to keep the Sabbath as a memorial of their deliverance from Egypt. But the Herald says, "they were, and also to commemorate the rest of God after creating the world." Look then at the events commemorated: the first is a day of rest, after six of labor; the other is a mighty rush on the fourteenth of the first month from the land of Egypt; events so similar and so nearly allied to each other in their nature that one memorial will answer for both!! But we will here inquire if the Bible will admit of two memorials of the same event, or suffer one memorial to be commemorative of two events. God gave the children of Israel a memorial of their deliverance from Egypt, in the passover. This is plainly declared to be a memorial, and its office described. Ex. xii. The broken body and spilt blood of our Lord, are kept in remembrance by the institution of the last supper; and his glorious resurrection by the ordinance of baptism. These are sufficient. There is beauty and harmony in them; but there is no fitness, as any one can see in wrestling the Sabbath from its proper office and connecting it with events like these. The Herald has the Sabbath, (instituted remember before the fall,) typical of our future rest, (a most gloomy institution it must have been to Adam,) and a memorial at the same time of creation, and then for a while a memorial of Israel's redemption from Egypt, and finally, it still being commemorative of creation and typical of our future rest, it becomes a memorial of the resurrection! The Herald further says, (and we begin to come now to the enormous arguments intimated in our heading,) "He (Christ) knew that the day of his resurrection would be commemorated by his followers as their Sabbath, unless he instructed them to the contrary; but he gave them no such instructions!" This peevish argument then stands thus: The Lord knew we should keep the day of his resurrection; and if he did not want us to do it, he might have told us better! The Lord knew that a monster man of sin would arise upon earth, and lay violent hands upon his Law; but he did not see fit to prevent his developement. But the reader must hear another strain still further down the murky regions of folly and absurdity: "If these things were not done on the day which he designed should be the Sabbath of his church, then [he] rescinded the command to work six days; for they could not work six on the week in which three thousand were attending meeting on Sunday and keeping Sabbath the next Saturday; but the command to rest one, synchronized with that to work six, and hence the change in the day, if not by his appointment, was by his providence and with his sanction." Reader, did you ever before meet with anything like this? We never did. We confess to its novelty. It is something new in the line of argument. But let us analyze it a little. Because the day of Pentecost came upon Sunday, and the disciples spent the day in preaching, and three thousand were added to the church, therefore that day must have been the Sabbath, unless the command to work six days and rest one, had been rescinded; for they could not work six days in that week, if they attended meeting on Sunday, and then kept the Sabbath the next Saturday. Therefore, how can it be doubted! Sunday must have been the Sabbath! The disciples held a meeting upon Sunday; and as the next seventh day could not be kept without violating the divine command to work on that week six days, how could the Jewish Sabbath be kept any longer! Who can suppose that it would survive an array of circumstances like these! What matters if the great God did utter with his own voice, and then with his own finger engrave upon the tables of stone, an express edict fixing the Sabbath to a certain day!—what matters this, since by so special a 'providence,' another day is designated for this christian age! And then Christ met with his disciples on a certain First-day, and upbraided them with their unbelief; [Mark xvi, 14.] and again after eight days, which is an indefinite expression meaning just a week! he met with them once more; [John xx, 26.] and again he met them as they were out fishing; [chap. xxi;] and upon the Thursday when he ascended, he had another interview with them, having been seen of them forty days; [Acts i,] but as these last facts are generally overlooked by First-day sticklers, we will not urge them to a disagreeable degree;—but to return, how can it be supposed that the seventh-day Sabbath could stand against such an opposing array of divinely sanctioned circumstances as these! Proh pudor! that men laying claim to common capacity, should put forth such reasons on a subject so clear and so momentous as the Sabbath of the Lord. So then, it seems, a meeting cannot be properly holden all day upon a week-day, unless the command to work six days and rest one has been rescinded. We cannot help wondering at the blindness of the poor Jews anciently, who held so many holy convocations in which they did no manner of servile work, besides the Sabbaths of the Lord. Lev. xxiii. But probably the plea of ignorance could be urged in palliation of their course, as they did not know that they were breaking thereby the fourth commandment; and the age in which they lived contained no such embodiments of wisdom, as have in these modern days arisen to dazzle the world into total blindness. But how shall we designate such arguments as we are here reviewing? Their enormity consists in their littleness. They are profound for their weakness. They would look well saddled with the old political adage, "The mountain in labor gave birth to a mouse!" This review, as others have been before it, may be characterized as being "perfectly savage." If so, we can say that its ferocity is only such as enters into the "righteous indignation" which the defenders of the truth are sometimes permitted to exercise. Its savaginess may be like that contained in the Saviour's words, when he cried out, "Wo unto you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in;" [Matt. xxiii, 13;] or when he said again, "In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men;" [chap. xv, 9;] or the same that actuated Elijah, when he bade the infatuated prophets of Baal send up a louder howl to their dumb god, for perhaps he was gone a journey, or was engaged. 1 Kings xviii. It may be an infirmity in us—and if so the reader will readily pardon it—but we never feel like handling this traditionary pet of Sunday-keeping with gloved hands. The divinity of the Bible is the object of our worship; the Laws of the Bible demand our implicit obedience; but we have as yet heard no voice from all the Scriptures repealing the declaration which was uttered from Sinai. We have seen no edict removing from God's holy Rest-day the blessing and the sanctity with which it was consecrated in the beginning. We have seen no arm raised by the appointment of God, to strike down those divine barriers which were given to guard the Sabbath, and thus render secular and profane, what was once set apart to a holy and sacred use; and until we find some such record in the word of God, we cannot mistake our duty. “THE FAITHFUL AND TRUE WITNESS.” FAITHFUL and true! oh, awful thought,
That every deed in secret wrought,
Each sinful feeling, angry word,
The faithful Witness shall record. Unknown to men, some motive base
Our fairest actions may deface,
But nought escape His piercing eye—
Faithful and true he cannot lie. Amid a thousand fancies vain,
How few false memory can retain,
But nought except His boundless grace,
His faithful record can efface. But yet to loving hearts and meek,
Those words in tones of comfort speak,
The hidden life that shrinks from view,
One faithful Witness has and true. The open sin the world may see,
He knows the contrite agony,
Though tempted oft, we often fall,
He knows our love, for He knows all. The loving labor done for Him
May grow in failing memory dim,
But still each cup of water given,
One faithful Witness has in heaven. Thou knowest me, Lord, by sin defiled,
Yet hoping to be called thy child,
Yet trusting, clinging to the cross,
And counting all things else but loss. Oh! by the blood shed there for me,
May I among thy ransomed be;
Then seated on thy judgment throne,
Bear witness that I am thine own.—Sel. THE NATURE AND TENDENCY OF MODERN SPIRITUALISM.
By James White
But it is claimed that the manifestations of Spiritualism answer to Paul's description of the gifts of the Spirit in the gospel church, in 1 Cor. xii, and Eph. iv. But this is contradicted by the plain sense and reading of the Scriptures. Says Paul, "Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit." With Spiritualists the order is entirely different; each gift claims a diversity of spirits. One medium will call on a score of spirits in one evening; and healing mediums, in some cases, call on a number of spirits at once, to unite their strength and increase the power of healing. A careful reading of 1 Cor. xii, 4-13, will satisfy any one on this point. 1 Tim. iv, 1, we think has reference to this work. "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, proved 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, &c., 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." That they contradict the word, and fulfill the prophecy of the Saviour respecting false christs, is evident from their teachings respecting the nature, person, and character, of Christ. They profess to be christs, but to which of them will the scripture facts concerning Christ apply? which of them has fulfilled the prophecies concerning the Messiah? which of them has ascended to the right hand of the throne of the majesty in the heavens to intercede for sinners? To which of them has the Lord said, "Sit thou at my right hand till I make thy foes thy footstool?" To which of them, dear reader, would you entrust your soul's salvation? But enough of this. The united presumption, arrogance, and blasphemy of such teachers and teachings, is sickening. Yet there are professed believers of the Bible, and professed ministers of the gospel who uphold this blasphemous work, and pretend to find in it the perfection of Christianity! This brings to notice the next sentence in the prophecy of Paul above quoted. 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 that he had 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 that 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, &c. 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. In 2 Tim. iii, 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. iii, 4, 5.) This self-sufficient feeling is manifested amongst all classes of Spiritualists, and is well expressed by a speaker at a late annual spiritual convention in the State of Michigan. The speaker, who was also an officer of the convention, in stating the wants of reformers, said:— "What we want is men and women who can43speak and write their own thoughts without leaning on any support, not even God himself." The "Healing of the Nations" is a standard spiritual work, written by a medium, with an introduction and appendix by N. P. Tallmadge. Speaking of the spirit, it says:
"It can from its own individual powers, comprehend the deep beauties of itself." The "deep beauties of self" is a favorite subject of contemplation with a certain class of people. A certain character (Lucifer) is represented in the Scriptures as saying, "I will ascend above the heights of the clouds: I will be like the Most High." Isa, xiv, 14. The following extract from the report of a lecture by A. J. Davis, in New York, is but a reiteration of this boasting. The subject was, "Spiritualism as an agent of human redemption." He was reported in a spiritual paper as saying:—
"Man will control the atmosphere, produce rain, and prevent injurious storms. Then the art of using electricity and magnetism will be discovered, and applied to the improvement of soils, doubling the amount of grains, fruits, &c. A new motive power is to be, ere long, brought out, and applied to the new arrangements for traveling and navigating sea and air," &c. That they are seducing, flattering spirits, is also fully proved by their teachings respecting Christ, making their followers 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 parts of the process of decay, and prove man to be subject to death, which is in the power of the Devil. Heb. ii, 14. But Jesus is the life-giver; [John iii, 16; vi, 40; x, 10; 1 Cor. xv, 22; 1 John v, 11, 12; Rom. ii, 7.] When the Saviour healed a woman of a disease of long standing, he said Satan had bound her eighteen years. Luke xiii, 16. And if Satan holds 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 victim 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 iv, 2-8. The offers were very large, but the intention deprived them 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. ii, 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. But there remains one important point in this prophecy to examine. By this we learn that those who give heed to these seducing spirits, also give heed to 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 for quoting such irreverent words even to prove the fulfilment 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., are literally filled with the lowest and most vulgar infidelity. Its name stands, (or lately stood; we have not seen these papers in some weeks,) in the Telegraph’s list of "weekly journals devoted to Spiritualism," immediately above the Crisis, published in Laporte, Ind., by "Rev. Henry Weller." The Truth Seeker is now published professedly without an editor, one intent of which is that it gives correspondents, who may be ignorant of the facts, the idea that they all occupy the office of editors of their own writings, and is of course designed to be a popular feature. But the truth is that the matter for a paper can no more be compiled without an editor than it can be printed without a printer; it can no more edit itself than the types can set themselves, or the press work itself. Every number that we have seen, contained editorial notes and notices, generally by A. P. Bowman, who is really the editor, and sometimes by the printer, who acts as editor as occasion requires, or in the absence of Mr. Bowman, who is also a lecturer. Not long since a communication was divided in two numbers and an apology offered to the writer therefor. This could not be done without agency, and was, of course, the work of the acting editor. A number of this paper published during the present year, (1857,) contains an editorial note by Mr. Bowman to a correspondent in which he speaks of his paper as follows:
"Our columns are open for a fool or a wise man; for the orthodox Devil or God, or for those who are more friendly and kind to each other than this God and Devil dare be." The correspondent to whom this was addressed is setting forth the glories of the reform movement in "Berlin Heights, Ohio," says:
"We shall combine in one the lecture room and the hall room, and shall seek to promote integral and harmonious development. . . .
"We have a Free Discussion Hall where the most radical and generally obnoxious sentiments are uttered with impunity. Orthodoxy, once proud and powerful, feebly totters over its grave, already sings—while Spiritualism and Infidelity stalk abroad at noon-day." In another article by Mr. Bowman, the whole of which is reviling Christianity and the gospel system, he speaks of the hymn commencing with the words, "Come ye sinners, poor and needy," as follows:
"It is generally sung to encourage sinners, who have conscientious scruples about the justice of saddling their sins onto Christ, to induce them to trust in Christ, in the face of their conscience and better judgment." But this publication and its correspondents, are not alone in the work of spreading infidel sentiments. To such names as Dr. Hare, and Dr. Weisse scores might be added, prominent as Spiritualists, who are openly and professedly infidels. The extract before given from Dr. Weisse is from a lengthy article, in which he labors to show that the writings of the Old and New Testaments are but a transcript of heathen fables, and he says that spirits and mediums do not contradict his view of the Scriptures; and a correspondent of one of the New York Spiritual papers, speaking of Dr. Hare’s work, claimed that he had done more to overthrow the Bible than any other man of the age. A. J. Davis says:
"In the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures it is affirmed that sin is the transgression of the law. But by an examination of nature, the true and only Bible, it will be seen that this statement is erroneous. It gives a wrong idea both of man and law. . . . It will be found impossible for man to transgress a law of God." But the open and professed infidels are not alone guilty of promulgating such sentiments. Those Spiritualists who profess to believe the Bible, and amongst them clergymen, teach doctrines subversive of its most vital truths. This most clearly shows the fulfillment of the prophecy. They have, even while yet professing Christianity, departed from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils. The course usually pursued to destroy the authority of the Bible, is first to affirm that there are essential truths that are not taught in it. These are found in the teachings of "the Spirits." When the candidate for "progression" has safely mounted this platform, and imbibed a due reverence for the spirits, they next teach that parts of the Bible are not true. By this time the reformer is prepared to believe that his reason is the test, and his wisdom the most perfect that he can find: that in reading the Bible he must discriminate between what is true and what is false. And we find invariably that that is pronounced false which is in opposition to the teachings of the spirits: of course their teachings are the sole test, and they henceforth are made to occupy the place that the word of God ought to. It is truly singular to behold those who ridicule the believer in the Bible, pronouncing him a slave, afraid to be guided by reason, &c., themselves led by the various teachings of spirits, on whose testimony they rely with implicit confidence, on points beyond the range of their observation, and concerning which they have no data from which to reason but the testimony of "seducing spirits." In the work of overthrowing the Bible various substitutes have been offered, and new versions commenced by spirit dictation. To prove the necessity of this it is affirmed that there is an internal or spiritual signification to the language of the Scriptures: that they cannot be understood by the mere reading of the words. This is an abuse of God’s word that, we regret to say, is countenanced and upheld by the teachings of the various denominations of Protestants. And in so teaching they as truly hide the Scriptures from the masses as the Catholic church has. If we take, for instance, a few plain words, as life, death, immortality, destruction, &c., and give them their plain, obvious meaning, the same that is given to them in other books, and in the dictionaries, "the Bible argument for Spiritualism," as it is termed, would vanish in an instant. But with it would also vanish some of the most cherished doctrines of the churches. That there are figures and symbols in the Bible, none deny, but the symbols are so explained that they are easily understood. It is also true that almost every book and writing now extant, contains figures, but that does not change the significations of the words used. If all the doctrines based upon such an abuse and perversion of the word of God were discarded or overthrown, the world would be greatly benefitted thereby. And if the churches will uphold their unscriptural dogmas, merely because they are popular, when it is so evident that they are the pillars and ground of Spiritualism, they must bear their portion of the blame of this iniquitous work with the Spiritualists who have only to use the arguments furnished to their hands by professors and doctors of theology. But these pretended versions of the Scriptures thus far have been abortive attempts to pervert and destroy the testimony of the word on points of vital importance, or else a mere display of high-sounding, unmeaning words. As an instance of the perversion of language, see the following from the "Healing of the Nations":
"All are outcasts from heaven as light and love are cast out of Jehovah." That sinful, rebellious man, who by transgression of the law of God is treasuring up to himself "wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the right judgment of God" is an outcast from heaven in the same sense and manner that love is an emanation from the God of love, is really absurd. No one could harbor the idea for an instant that had a particle of faith in the holy Scriptures. J. H. W.