Earlier text: The Old Error RepeatedThe Discussion in Portland, Me.
QUESTION. The Seventh-day Sabbath observed by God's people prior to the crucifixion of Christ, is still binding upon mankind. Affirmative, M. E. Cornell. Negative, T. M. Preble. Cornell. In reply to an assertion by P. that he was claimed as the founder of the sect of Sabbath-keepers, Bro. C. showed that bodies of Christians who kept the seventh day have always existed. The quotations from Morer and Coleman by Eld. P. were met by counter testimony from the same authors, showing that the Sabbath was strictly kept in the Christian church down to the fifth century, and that for three hundred years there was no semblance of any law for the first day of the week. See Hist. Sab. pp. 246, 254. Takes up Preble's admission that the Sabbath as an institution has never been changed, and re-argues the point that the institution cannot be separated from the day. To separate it, destroys it. As P. had asserted that he could prove a change of the day, he was urged to show proof on these three points: When was it changed? how was it changed? and by whom was it changed? We must have the whole modus operandi. P. says that God blessed, in the beginning, only one day, and that was the particular day upon which he rested; not that he blessed it, as it should return every week. This was answered by the fact that God's act of resting was past, and the day upon which he rested was past, when God pronounced the blessing upon it. But a day already in the past could not be blest and set apart for the use of man. This would be impossible. God's blessing therefore could not have reference to that particular day on which he had rested, which was past, but must have reference to the seventh day for time to come. Hence in Isaiah we read of God's holy day, &c. Reminds the negative that he has not yet noticed the reasons on which the Sabbath's institution is based and the steps required to make such an institution, namely, a period of rest on the part of the Divine Being after his creative work, and then his blessing and sanctification given to the day. All these pertain to the seventh day of the week, and to no other day. Shows that the only object direct or indirect, of the blessing and sanctification, is the day. The only object of the fourth commandment is the day. The commandment requires us to keep the rest-day. Whose rest day? Man's? No; but God's. Preble. Admits that Morer's statement is all right, that for 300 years there was no law for Sunday-keeping, and then asserts, that for 2000 years from creation there was no law for keeping the seventh day, notwithstanding Bro. C. had showed that the sanctification of the seventh day in the beginning was the giving of a law or commandment for its observance. Admits that he has no doubt that the people of God kept the seventh day from creation, though there was no law for it; and asks why Christians could not keep the first day for 300 years under similar circumstances. Quotes Coleman, p. 527, not Bible, to show that the sanctity of the seventh day has passed wholly over into the Sabbath of the Christians. Admits that the seventh day was sanctified, but asks, seventh day of what? to which he replies, seventh day after six days of labor. God has instituted the Sabbath, and has sanctified that after six days of labor, man shall rest. [This description of what was sanctified, will doubtless strike the reader as a little peculiar. We do not remember to have read anything of the kind in the Bible.] Makes the following admission: When the affirmative will show that it was meant that man should observe every seventh day, reckoning in successive order from creation, he has gained his point, and I will abandon the whole thing. Expects to prove, but not by any positive precept or command, that the seventh day has been abandoned in favor of the first. Does not contend that there is any command or precept for it in the New Testament; but thinks we have divine precedent for it, for which he argues as follows: The Holy Spirit is a superior teacher to Christ himself. Refers to the passages which speak of Christ's going away and sending the Comforter who should guide them into all truth. I have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. [They couldn't bear the announcement, so we must infer, that they were to keep Sunday.] It was necessary for Christ to leave the world, before they could get the whole truth. Now what day did they keep after that? If they kept the first day, it was proof that they had divine sanction for it. The word Sabbath does not occur in the Hebrew scriptures for 2000 years. It is shavath not Sabbath. Argues that on the same ground Sunday could be kept as the Sabbath, though not called such. The following rather novel argument was now introduced to prove that redemption was greater than creation: The world is to be consumed by fire. Then if it was not redeemed it would be lost. Therefore the work of redemption is greater than creation. Shall we not commemorate, he asks, the day on which Christ accomplished the work of redemption? Argues that we can commemorate both creation and redemption by the first day of the week, but we can only commemorate one by the seventh. The redemption involves the creation. The seventh day commemorates one event, the first day two. Cornell. Refers to the authors quoted, Morer, Coleman, &c., as being good on his side if they are on the other; but he did not go to them. Relies on the Scriptures to prove his position. This is the position of all Adventists, the Bible and the Bible alone. Nothing should be kept but what is appointed in the Bible. We might just as well keep Good Friday, Ash Wednesday, Holy Thursday, &c., as the first day of the week; for they are all equally proved by testimony outside of the Bible, and all rest upon the same foundation. Again reminds the negative that he has not yet noticed the main propositions upon which rest the institution of the Sabbath. Again stirs him up by way of remembrance by rehearsing anew the acts of God at the beginning and the reasons on which the institution rests. Thinks he can make the congregation see that God does require us to keep the seventh day in regular succession. What does the 4th commandment require men to keep? Is it only the seventh part of time? I deny it. When God gave the Sabbath he gave a reason for it. He did not rest upon a seventh part of time and no day in particular; but he rested upon a particular day; and we are commanded to keep the rest-day, the very day upon which he rested. Calls on negative again for proof in regard to change of day, to show when it was done, how it was done, and by whom it was done. All this can be shown in relation to the institution of the seventh day, and if another day has taken its place, the proof must be equally clear. Calls for proof that the disciples kept the first day of the week. In regard to creation and redemption, asks Eld. P. how he knows, provided redemption is greater than creation, that we should keep a day to commemorate it. If God has revealed that fact to us, we are to believe it, but not otherwise. How can we have a memorial of a thing that has not yet taken place? Who ever heard of such a thing? But the world is not yet redeemed; the work of redemption is not yet completed. There is involved in this position the fatal error, of getting up a memorial of something that is not yet accomplished. Draws a parallel between the marriage institution and the Sabbath, two institutions revealed to us as having their origin in the garden of Eden. Both holy and primeval institutions. Spiritualists are trying to do away with one, Preble with the other. We have no more right nor reason to say that the Sabbath has been changed than to say that the Marriage institution has been changed. The Devil has always been trying to do away with both. I deny that there is any proof of the change of either. Eld. C. here introduced an elaborate argument on the subject of memorials, showing that whatever is designed as a memorial in the word of God is plainly appointed for that purpose, so that it can not be misunderstood. Second, that in all Bible memorials there is a correspondence between the memorial and the event commemorated. Third. God does not give unnecessary memorials, hence we do not have two memorials of the same event. But we have memorials expressly appointed in the Bible, for those great events by which Christ secures the redemption of the world, namely, his death and resurrection; these memorials are, baptism and the Lord's supper. To have another memorial of the same things is both unnecessary and contrary to the order of the Bible. In the rest of the Sabbath to commemorate God's rest at creation, there is a fitness. But there is no fitness in Sunday-keeping to commemorate the resurrection. There is not a hint in the Bible about its ever being used for any such purpose. We are not told to keep the day of the crucifixion, resurrection, or ascension. Redemption is not yet finished. When the work is all accomplished, it will be time enough to talk of instituting thereof some appropriate memorial. Preble. Tries to build up his demolished breast-work that God sanctified the seventh day after any six of labor, and not any particular seventh day—simply the old seventh-part-of-time theory. Says the commandments of the decalogue are not binding because the penalty has been changed; yet there is a law against the same things, in this dispensation, and a law for the seventh-day Sabbath too. But we are not to keep the Sabbath written with ink, but that which is written on the heart. Turns to Heb. iv, 10, and argues from the record that it is Christ who is there said to have ceased from his work, as God did from his. How did God cease from his work? He sanctified the day on which he rested. Christ finished the work of redemption when he came out of the grave. Then he must have sanctified that day just as the Father did his rest day. [Query; Did Christ sanctify only that particular first-day on which he arose? or did he sanctify the first-day for time to come? or did he sanctify only one day in seven and no day in particular?] Declines it to be a misapprehension to say that he is commemorating redemption. What purchased the world back from the Devil? The blood of Christ. When was that blood shed? [This question we hoped he would answer, as it would decide at once which day should be kept to commemorate redemption, provided any day should be observed for that purpose. But he went on.] Christ has purchased it, and the work so far as he was concerned, was accomplished when he rose from the dead. Refers to the call for proof that the apostles kept the first day of the week, and says, Paul preached on the first day of the week. Acts xx, 7. Sabbatarians argue that Paul held this meeting in the evening because there were many lights in the upper chamber where they were assembled. Nux [very comically pronounced with a short u] is the word for night, and hemeron is the word for day. Now I ask, what day was it? It is the hemeron, day of the week, and he continued the meeting till evening. It was the first day of the week, not the first-six of the week. [Eld. P. evidently overlooked the fact that hemeron means a period of twenty-four hours as well as the interval between daylight and dark.] Paul preached on the Sabbath to accomodate himself to the Jews. Where did any other apostle do it? The Sabbath in the New Testament is confined to the historical books. It is never mentioned in the epistles. To make good this assertion, he closed this speech with the very truthful admission that Col. ii, 16, has no reference to the weekly Sabbath. The Crisis of the World.
By Editor
THE following weighty paragraph we find in The Christian Press, a paper published by the American Reform Trust and Book Society, Cincinnati, Ohio. What particular events the writer is expecting, we know not; but we were struck with the language, so in harmony is it with the scenes which the word of God predicts soon to transpire on our earth. "Brethren, the crisis of the world is come. Are we prepared for it? Can we resign all the interests of an earthly life, and identify ourselves with the will of God and spiritual excellence? Can we stand in the whirlwind, talk with the thunder, and look29calmly on Heaven, when God looks forth in indignation on a guilty world? Are we prepared with serene joy and holy confidence to unite in the song of Moses and the Lamb, when the plagues of heaven shall fall on the wicked, and the earth shall be filled with wailing and blasphemy? Are we prepared to sympathize with man, wretched in his hopelessness, and in his extremity, and to go forth for his salvation, unmoved by the convulsions of the world, and the terrible manifestations of infinite wrath?" THOSE who profess to be looking for the conversion of the world, point to what are called the enlightened and Christian nations of the earth, especially England and America, as their hope for the accomplishment of this great work. How often do we hear them indulging in grandiloquent harangues about this Christian nation, and the great things to be done by it, in the moral regeneration of the world, as though we were a nation of unqualified saints, and sin and sinners were here unknown. But if all the nations of the earth were raised to the same standard with our own nation, should we then have a converted world? would it all be Christian? would the temporal millennium be here? What proportion of the inhabitants of this country are real Christians? What proportion are professors, even? How many attend regularly upon public worship, who have no saving interest in the things of religion? And what proportion do not attend public worship at all? An acquaintance in our native place, not long since told us, that in an adjoining town forty years ago, every family regularly attended public worship, but now not more than one in ten. On inquiring the reason, the answer was, The morals of the people are growing worse. And this is the very state of things that the word of God sets forth as one of the prominent characteristics of the last days. The following statistics show that three-fourths of the people of this country, or twenty-five millions are habitual neglecters of public worship. And this proportion is continually increasing. And yet this is the nation from which most is hoped, for the conversion of the world. This is the best that now exists. Heaven pity the infatuation of those who in view of these things, and the plain prophecies of God's word, can yet look for generations to come, and for righteousness to cover the earth before a new dispensation is ushered in. The following statements are worthy the careful attention of all: "The religious and moral condition of our country is such as should alarm the fears and excite to vigorous action every lover of God and humanity. Vice reigns to an unparalleled extent. Every secular paper contains accounts of crimes of the most revolting character. The Churches are doing but little for the benefit of the masses. Formality and fashion hold almost undisputed sway in the place where the voice of the Son of God should be heard in its resurrection power. The prevailing custom of selling or renting the pews, almost as effectually excludes the common people as if their attendance were strictly forbidden. One can hardly credit the fact that so small a proportion of our people are under religious influence. The Boston Traveller says, Committees of State Conferences report as follows: "MAINE—In 1854, a little more than one-fourth of the people attend public worship: and in 1857, but little more than one-seventh." "NEW HAMPSHIRE—1857, 'A fraction less than two-thirds habitually neglect public worship.'" "VERMONT—1857, 'Less than one-fifth attend public worship.'" "MASSACHUSETTS—1859, 'One-half do not attend at all; and not more than one-fourth attend regularly.'" "RHODE ISLAND—In some parts of the State there is no Sabbath observance for religious worship! Shore Parties,' of hundreds, may be seen on the Sabbath, of persons who scarcely ever enter the house of God, except on the occasion of funerals; while three-fourths at least of all the people habitually neglect religion. "New York City, with a population of over 1,000,000—more than two-thirds of the people never attend public worship." "In Brooklyn, and twelve other large cities, the proportion of habitual neglecters of the house of God is nearly the same. This is true of cities generally, while the neglect in the country towns is still greater. "Not more than one-sixth of the people of the United States attend public worship. Allowing one-fourth of the whole to be detained by age, sickness, and infirmity, three-fourths of the remainder habitually neglect all religion! "These neglecters are not the poor foreigners alone, but they are found in all classes in society. The Scriptures classify those who neglect the worship of God among the heathen; and, according to this classification, three-fourths of our people, or 25,000,000, are home heathen! and now, by the events of war, the whole South becomes missionary ground.'" Old Style and New Style.
By J. M. A.
SISTER M. F. D. wishes some one to tell about "the change from Old to New Style." She says, "We are told by some of the wise men of our Bible-class, that we cannot know to any certainty about the day of the week as regards the Sabbath, on account of the many changes, and loss of time;" and mentioned particularly the so-called change from Old to New Style, as the prominent objection that is urged by these "wise men" against a definite day for the Sabbath. I presume these same wise men, notwithstanding this objection which they urge so gravely against the Seventh day, are great sticklers for the first day as the true Sabbath. Why? Because, say they, the Saviour rose from the dead on that day. "This is the day which the Lord hath made," &c. How soon they forget the fact (?) that was so fresh and vivid in their minds when taking position against the Seventh day! Thoughts of Old Style, or New Style, or "loss of time" never so much as come into their minds when the question of the first day is at issue! Surely our first-day friends should not raise an issue with us on this definite-day question. Their own position must swamp them at once in such an effort. But what about Old Style and New Style? How is the Sabbath affected thereby? I answer, Not at all. Let us for a moment consider the facts: The Julian Calendar, so called, or that which was established by Julius Cæsar, by which every fourth year was made to consist of 366 days, and the other years of 365 days, is called Old Style. By this mode of computation, the years were made to average something over eleven minutes too much; so that in the course of a few centuries there would be a perceptible disarrangement of the equinoxes; i. e., the sun would actually arrive at an equinoctial point, several days perhaps, before the time indicated by the day of the month on which it should annually recur. It will be seen that if such a mode of computation were to be continued indefinitely, a complete change, or displacement of the seasons of the year would eventually be wrought. Pope Gregory XIII, A. D. 1582, in order to correct the Equinoxes at that time, or to bring back the Vernal Equinox to the same day as at the Council of Nice, A. D., 325, found it necessary to retrench ten days. He accordingly retrenched that number of days in the month of October, A. D., 1582, which was done by simply calling the fifth day of the month the fifteenth. This reformation of the Julian Calendar by Pope Gregory was adopted in Great Britain by act of Parliament, A. D., 1751, at which time it was necessary to retrench eleven days. Accordingly eleven days were retrenched in the month of September in the following year, simply by reckoning the third day as the fourteenth. This method, (by which every year divisible by 4, unless it be divisible by 100, without being divisible by 400, has 366 days, and all other years 365 days,) is what is called New Style. By reckoning, according to this ingenious mode, there can never occur any perceptible disarrangement of the Equinoxes, as would continually occur under the former Calendar, or Old Style. I have been thus minute in this statement, that those who are not posted in regard to Old and New style, may understand the import of these terms, and the cause which led to the change in question. We have now only to consider the effect of such change with reference to the Sabbath. Then I would inquire, with as much gravity as the case will admit, Does the simple act of calling the third day of Sept. the fourteenth day,—and thereby retrenching eleven days in that month—make any change whatever in the days of the week? Suppose the third day of Sept. fell on Friday the sixth day of the week, would it not still be Friday, the sixth day of the week, though it be called by act of Parliament the fourteenth day of the month? And would not the next day be the seventh day of the week as really as though no such retrenchment had been made? Most assuredly it would. And no act of Parliament would suffice to convince the most simple-minded person that his reckoning was wrong; or the faithful Sabbath-keeper that the earth in her diurnal revolutions had made a mistake in measuring off to him the true Sabbath. I care not if there be a change like that from Old to New Style, as often as every new moon, the Sabbath cannot be affected thereby. The earth, notwithstanding all their technical changes, still rolls on, and measures off to us most accurately, and in regular succession, each day of the week. It recognizes no calendar but its own. To-day is Friday, Dec. 22 A. D. 1865. Suppose every legislative body in the wide world, should see fit to enact that it be called the first day of January, A. D. 1870; would not to-morrow be the Sabbath nevertheless? Indeed it would. But in such case, they tell us of time lost! or time gained! This is all imaginary; there is nothing real about it. The great Sabbath Calendar brings all the time there is into accurate account, so that as regards the regular recurrence of the Sabbath, there is no such thing as time lost, or time gained, by any change that man can make in his calendar. The Sabbath of the Lord rests upon a sure foundation. Let the would-be "wise men" object if they will. J. M. A. A Brief Explanation of Scripture.
By E. Goodrich.
RECENTLY while at a neighbor's, engaged in friendly conversation upon topics of general religious interest, the following question was asked and in substance the response that follows the question was made; and as the question has been a source of doubt to the writer, and perhaps a cause of stumbling to others, it may not be entirely uninteresting to the readers of the Review and Herald. What do you think of, or how do you understand, that Scripture that says, “Jesus said unto him, Let the dead bury their dead.” Luke ix, 60. The emphasis of course is mine. Appearances are not always a correct rule by which to judge of the truth of things. The surface may contradict the internal. A man30to outward circumstances may be frank and honest, and yet within full of all subtility and dishonesty. Or he may apparently be in perfect health, and yet within a moment of death. And so it is with many of the events that surround us in this life. Again, in order to understand the language or words of any writer or speaker, it is necessary to obtain the same stand-point of observation that he occupies, so that we may view the same things in the same light. And if we would understand the words and teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ, it is necessary to consider his high and holy mission to earth—those great central truths which he came to demonstrate, and the manner in which these truths were presented to the mind. We judge according to the sight of our eyes and the hearing of our ears, and speak after the same manner; but not so with Christ; for he neither judged any man after the manner of men, neither did he declare the truth as it appeared in the outward circumstances of things; but he preached absolute truth as it existed in the mind and purpose of God, regulated by his eternal law. The stand-point of observation occupied by our Saviour, was a high, holy, and eternal one, commanding a complete view of the past, present, and future, and all the consequences of human action; and when he speaks of those things that certainly will be, he speaks of them as things that are, without specifying the time that may elapse before their accomplishment. The Saviour could say of himself that he was in Heaven although personally upon the earth; for in his thoughts, in all the affections and purposes of his heart, and in the truths that he preached, he dwelt in Heaven. These, and the fact that he that believeth not is already doomed to death, formed sufficient reasons for speaking of the living as dead. And neither is this altogether different from the manner in which we are wont to express ourselves; for we frequently speak of the man who is mortally wounded,—perhaps bitten by some deadly serpent, or attacked by some fatal disease, “He is certainly a dead man.”
E. GOODRICH.
Edinboro, Pa. Sodom in the Judgment.
By R. F. C.
THERE are some who hold the doctrine of unconsciousness in death, and also deny the resurrection of the wicked. If there is to be no resurrection of the wicked, they can have no interest at stake in a future judgment. Yet our Saviour says, "And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city." Mark vi, 11. From this testimony and a similar one, in Matt. xi, 20-24, we learn that Sodom and Gomorrah, Tyre and Sidon, Chorazin, Bethsaida and Capernaum, were to be brought to an account for their evil deeds, at a future judgment, and that the punishment awarded to those more ancient and less enlightened cities would be more tolerable, or less severe, than that of those who had been favored with the preaching of Christ and his apostles. Can this be reconciled with the non-resurrection theory, without admitting a conscious soul-entity separate from the body? R. F. C. Report from Bro. Sanborn.
By Isaac Sanborn
Bro. White: Since my last report from here, I have preached twenty-four times in Tafton and vicinity. Last first-day I preached in the hall at Tafton; and although there was meeting at the Baptist church at the same hour, we had a very large congregation deeply interested. God gave me great freedom in showing them the perpetuity of his holy Sabbath. At the close of the meeting I took an expression to see how many believed that the seventh day was the Sabbath of the Lord, and was binding on God's people. More than fifty arose. We then repaired to the water, where in the presence of a large assembly, two were baptized. All things considered, our meetings that day were most triumphant. Just how many are keeping the Sabbath I do not know, but there are about thirty, and many others are almost persuaded. I sold about seventy dollars worth of publications, and obtained nine more subscribers for the Review, making fourteen in all since I came here. The Baptists allowed me to preach in their church as long as they thought it would do, then turned the key, notifying me that I could preach there no longer. I then went into the Seminary, but was soon shut out of that also. Then I went back into the hall. Both ministers of the place have opposed with all their might, but on the sly. Notwithstanding I tried to have them make an honorable defense in my presence, they would not, but went around crying, Infidelity, Atheism, &c. Poor men. I pity them, and pray the Lord to open their eyes before it is too late. The Baptists had a choir of noble singers; and after three of the leading members had embraced the Advent doctrine, some of the most prejudiced of the Baptist church being afraid that they would sing some of the Advent hymns, managed to break up the choir, intending to get up a new one; but in that they failed entirely, so their melodeon stands there silent, and their singers too. Oh, how they fulfill prophecy. See Isa. lxvi. "Your brethren that cast you out said, Let the Lord be glorified, but he shall appear to your joy, and they shall be ashamed." There are two other points within a few miles of Tafton where the people are anxious for meetings; and the Lord willing, after a few weeks I expect to return to this field of labor. Till then I hope those who have commenced keeping all God's commandments will study the word of God, and watch and pray that they may grow in grace and in the knowledge of the truth, and let their light so shine before men that they may see their good works and be constrained to glorify God, by obeying the truth; also that when Jesus comes we may all be ready to be gathered to the new Jerusalem. Tafton, Grant Co., Wis., Dec. 13, 1865. Gleanings Arranged.
By M. W. HOWARD
RECENTLY I have been reading a book, written by one well reported for modern orthodoxy; and having been well pleased with remarks oft recurring, regarding the resurrection, I will give them here, before I go on to cite some other passages from the same author, that I penciled down at the time, thinking I might some time set them up, as beacon waymarks for modern Spiritualism! hoping they might cause the observant to discrimination, out of which should grow an enlightened consistency of theory. I prefer giving first that which I would approve, for it is pleasant to re-produce such thoughts as these: “If you ask, ‘When will he rise?’ I reply, not now. It is God’s will that the dust shall mingle with its kindred dust, be swept, scattered and dissolved. But on the morning of the resurrection he shall rise again. This corruptible must put on incorruption; this mortal must be arrayed in immortality. The resurrection of Christ is pledge and proof of our resurrection. Under the head ‘Where shall he rise?’ comes the reply—The spot whereon he fell. The sod whereon you stood and wept, where you have placed sweet flowers, the spot to which you have so loved to repair, will be the spot on which his ransomed feet shall stand, to wait the crown of glory that shall circle the no longer wasted brow.’ How beautiful the thought that when the trumpet sounds, the dead shall come forth from the spot where they were laid to rest. If you ask, ‘How shall he rise?’ I reply, he died with a corruptible body, he shall come forth from the grave with an incorruptible one; the same form, the same flesh, but changed and purified and blest, so that it may exist imperishable forever. The italics are mine, but the words are the author’s own, as also the following: “The bones and the flesh come again: the dead form arises, arrayed in new beauty and instinct with new life; crowned with glory, and adorned in light, the dead come forth. This is no illusion which could never be realized, but the deep mysterious teachings of Christian faith.” Well! the reader is ready to exclaim this is sound Bible doctrine. Yes! and this is why I copy it, that I may place it side by side with other teachings of the same writer, believing that contrast is a strong illuminator and that some inconsistencies in belief which have unawares crept in to most Christian theories, need only to be held up so conspicuously, that they may be seen through and through, to convince the candid that in many instances, creeds have come to stand between the nominal Christian and Bible truth! Indeed, many who read this article have not yet forgotten the time when such sentiments as quoted by G. from the article, “Sweet Thoughts,” in a recent number of the Review, as well as what I am about to quote, seemed interwoven into our own religious thinking. Before I proceed to give the quotations from the author in hand, I will cite one verbal one, heard from a Baptist minister’s pulpit at the time my own mind was beginning to cast away the vail that had bewildered my vision, and began to receive the doctrine of the resurrection as I now regard it—the crowning feature of the gospel plan of salvation. It was by him assumed, “That during the agonies of the death-throes, there was from the corporeal body, a spiritual body separated, which ascended to God.” It would seem that such unscriptural and therefore reprehensible teachings would be sufficient to open the eyes of the determinedly blind. A “loop-hole of retreat” was however left, in case the validity of the doctrine was assailed; for he prefaced it with a rhetorical, “They tell us—I cannot say if it be true or not.”—Had he forgotten, or did he never know the rule, “To the law and to the testimony; if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” Isa. viii, 20. But I started this article to show forth some of the foot-prints of Spiritualism, even in the writings of those who would recoil at the charge. But out of their own mouths would I convict them; even after having given utterance to the beautiful scriptural sayings that I have quoted. In speaking of one recently removed by death he said, “While the form has gone, the spirit still lingers, and hovers over surviving friends.” Again he says, “Our brother lives, he lives in Heaven;” and referring to the resurrection he adds, “Methinks that event has come, and I see the spirits of the departed as they descend from Heaven, and stand by yonder tombs to wait until the trumpet of the archangel brings the body forth; the trumpet sounds—the doors of the tomb are burst open—the dead in Christ arise first—the judgment comes;” then again, “he stands with the angel throng before the throne. From this bright abode he is looking down on you.” But to crown all comes this poetic effusion:— “Death is the crown of life:”
“Were death denied, poor man would live in vain,
Death wounds to cure; we fall, we rise, we reign,
Spring from our fetters, hasten to the skies,
Where blooming Eden gathers on our sight,
The king of terrors is the prince of peace!” (?) Could the Arch-Receiver, whose great work in this last dispensation is to be the “Spirit of Devils working wonders,” desire better aid from a minister of the gospel? for the quotations I have given are from a book of pulpit themes. And with all its inconsistencies, specimens of which I have given, I did yet like to read it, for scattered here and there rich gems of thought would sparkle out, like the following: “The Revelation—a revered book, now surrounded with perplexities and mysteries, but hereafter to be opened, explored and fulfilled.” The word of God compared with the history of passing events, fully indicates that earth’s great drama is hastening to a close. Time has grown old; six thousand years encircle its weary brow, and with inconceivable velocity it is rushing to its sepulcher. And soon the end will come. The great events connected with the winding up of all earthly affairs, the rendering of the last account cannot be far distant. The earth wrapped in flames, the heavens bleached and pale with terror fleeing away, the opening of the book of remembrance in which all our good and evil deeds are recorded, are but a step before us.” “And there cometh on the world another flood not of water, but a flood of tribulation to destroy them that fear not God—a flood compared with which the deluge that swept the antediluvian world away, will be as nothing. But now as then an ark will ride on the flood—Christ is that ark. All who are in Him will survive the general wreck, outsail the storm, outride the deluge. . . . Alas where then will the wicked be? Where will be the innumerable company that know not God, and obey not his Son? ‘As it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be in the end of the world.’ Swept away! will be the history of the throngs who refuse to yield to Christ and enter the Ark of safety!” How very like our Advent faith the last three quotations sound. Are there those who are so thoroughly indoctrinated in the expectation of the “millennial dawn,” that they incredulously ask, “When is to be this deluge of fire—of tribulation to destroy the wicked?” I answer in the words of Holy Writ. “When the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from Heaven in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God.” 2 Thess. i, 7, 8. When “The day cometh that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, all that do wickedly shall be stubble; and the day that cometh shall burn them up saith the Lord of Hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch. Mal. iv, 1. M. W. HOWARD.
Malone, N. Y., Nov. 1865. CHRISTIAN reader, beware of being satisfied with "clear views." It is, no doubt, most needful to "hold fast the form of sound words;" but then a form of sound words, without realized companionship with Christ, will leave the heart as cold as an icicle. We must remember that in nature the clearest nights are often the coldest. Thus it is with professing Christians. A sound creed in the head, without Christ in the heart, is a poor, cold, dead, worthless, soul-deceiving thing. The true way of obtaining clear views of the Gospel is to look "in the face of Jesus Christ." The true way to attain a knowledge of sound doctrine, is to feel, by the touch of faith, the very pulsations of the heart of Jesus. One reason why so many Christians lack a living peace, is, that they make peace their object, instead of cultivating a closer walk with God. It is impossible to be in the presence of God and not have peace, because perfect love makes every one within its range feel perfectly at home. This is one of the precious effects of love. "Clear views" may leave the heart barren and void. We want to enjoy the companionship of one in whom we can fully confide. The heart needs to be sharpened by "the countenance of a man." Where can we find all these, but in Jesus? Every other heart but his will disappoint us at times. "Earthly friends may fail or leave us,
One day soothe, the next day grieve us;
But this friend will ne'er deceive us;
Oh! how he loves!" Beloved reader, let me exhort you to seek a closer, deeper, more personal walk with God. It is your privilege to enjoy this. Jesus died, "the just for the unjust," not merely to give us "clear views," nor yet to bring us into a good place, but "to bring us to God." We are brought to God now. We are brought to him in heart, in conscience, in understanding, in order that we may enjoy him, according to the mode in which he has revealed himself. And how are we to enjoy him? By the Word. If we attempt to think of God, apart from Christ; or to think of Christ apart from the Word; or to think of the Word, apart from the Holy Spirit, all is mist, confusion, or cold speculation; whereas, a single line or clause of Scripture will bring God into the soul, with unspeakable sweetness and power. This makes all very simple. We have received a new nature, and have been brought into a new position. But this is not all. We have been brought to a person. This is what we want. This is what the heart can understand. The human heart would rather have a cottage with companionship, than a palace in solitude. O God! we see thee in the Lamb,
To be our hope, our joy, our rest;
The glories that compose thy name,
Standing engaged to make us blest.
Thou great and good! thou just and wise!
Hail! as our Father and our God!
For we are thine by sacred ties,
Thy sons and daughters, bought with blood.