SOME time since a MS. was placed in my hands, which purported to be a review of the tract entitled, The Truth Found. On referring it to those having charge of the Review and Herald it was considered unworthy of publication, and of an extended notice such as a publication would necessarily involve. But the writer, who signs his name "Not a Babylonian," seems to consider himself neglected, as we are informed, or to think that we keep his arguments from the public, as fearing such a powerful exposure of our weakness.
We will not at this time quote the passage of scripture which justifies us in noticing some of his positions, but will rest on the supposition that our readers are always interested to know what new phase the opposition assumes. We notice such arguments in the article as are new and novel. His exposition of Heb. iv, which is about as consistent as the points we notice below, we pass entirely, as we have been notified that we shall soon be called out on that scripture by one who we presume can present stronger opposition than the writer of the present article. We have another reason that will justify us in noticing all the arguments that may be brought against the truth. As advocates and disseminators of the truth we endeavor to bear in mind that the devices and cavils of men, though they may appear unworthy of notice when put forth in written form, are continually being thrust before the world and the brethren privately, and thus often become the means of the overthrow of some who are but just inquiring for the way of truth. The writer of the article is an entire stranger to us, and for aught that appears in the article he has signed his real name; and he does not give us the opportunity of referring to him by any other. But for the sake of brevity and convenience (not to speak of justice) we shall drop the prefix which he has attached to his name, and give only his surname, to wit, "Babylonian."
Taking up the tract he becomes very indignant at the rule of evidence adopted from Dr. Carson, "An unnecessary inference is without authority," and exclaims:
"What! has it come to this? . . . Are the words, acts, or circumstances of the lives of Christ and his apostles of so little consequence that an inference drawn therefrom is unnecessary? God forbid. Yet so Mr. W. teaches."
"Mr. W." does not so teach or think. We did not speak at all of inferences from the words, &c., of Christ, but of unnecessary inferences drawn from them or anything else. It is wonderful that any one that has intellect enough to learn to write a legible hand cannot see the difference. We always thought that necessary or legitimate conclusions might be drawn from the61words and facts of the New Testament as well as those of the Old; and in the tract in question we attempted to draw inferences from the words and facts of the New Testament; of course, confining the argument to necessary or reasonable inferences. But Mr. B. thinks (or at least speaks) otherwise. He writes as though every inference drawn from the New Testament was unnecessary. Dr. Carson's admirable argument has stood the test of the closest criticism from the most able reasoners; and we can imagine but one reason why Mr. Babylonian should object to such a reasonable rule; to wit, the rule would preclude every conclusion he has arrived at in his article!
Mr. B. then, to show the fallacy of my reasoning, tries his hand at logic; and endeavors to draw a conclusion parallel to the first one in the tract on page 3. He says:
"Let us try Mr. Waggoner's position thus: God made the world and all things, not accursed as at present, but good, holy, and unpolluted; therefore the world and all things can never cease to be holy and unpolluted, even as it can never cease to be a fact that God created them so. Conclusion, therefore the world was never accursed for man's sake."
This he calls the "legitimate result" of the argument, and denominates it a "parallel case." Let us trace the parallel in the record of facts and see how far it goes.
God made all things in six days. | God rested the seventh day.
He saw that all was good. | He blessed the seventh day.
He said, Cursed is the ground, &c. | Where's the parallel?
A sentence on page 4 of the tract will show that Mr. B. willfully perverted the argument. It reads thus: "So it must remain a sanctified day, unless it can be shown to be also a fact that God has removed or withdrawn the sanctity from it." Here is an opening for a subsequent fact to supersede the first. In his illustration a subsequent fact does supersede the first; but in the case presented in the tract no such subsequent fact exists. On this we justly claimed the argument.
Again, there is a further deception in Mr. Babylonian's illustration, as in the tract there are two distinct points examined; first, the creation; second, a quality added. Each of these has its separate argument and conclusion; and what will apply to one will not always apply to the other. Hence, the proviso, as here quoted. But Mr. B. mingled the two together, and left out the proviso, thus presenting the argument in a false light.
On the subject of the repeal of the law he says: "It is admitted that the command was plainly given, but it is not admitted that there are not sufficient grounds for assuming that the command to keep the seventh day holy was, and is, expressly repealed."
He then complains again of the rule as shutting out inferences favoring such assumption. But why talk of inferences and assuming, if it was "expressly repealed?" He used not assume anything, nor infer anything. Let him point to the express repeal and we will cheerfully yield the point.
The following is one of the most singular of all the singular positions yet taken by Sunday advocates or Sabbath opposers. It clearly establishes Mr. B.'s reputation for invention, if not for logic. We call it a rare sample of the ingenuity of error—fertile in expedience, but blind to consequences. After quoting Eze. xx, 13, &c., where the Lord says they polluted the Sabbath, Mr. B. adds:
"Here we have the whole thing stated plainly. The sabbaths which were given for a sign, and the seventh day was so given, were polluted. Is a thing polluted holy? Even a lamb was required to be perfect in order to become a sacrifice, and can this polluted day become the representative of the rest of Jesus? . . . Thus we see the seventh-day Sabbath bears the same characteristics as the other sabbaths. It was a sign like unto them, and was to be kept holy. It was also polluted as they were, thus proving that it was not exempted from any circumstance affecting the purity of the other sabbaths, and therefore must have been a part of the ceremonial law."
We think we may now justly "try Mr. Babylonian's position thus," in one of his own words, only we will give an exact parallel, which he did not do.
The name of the Lord is holy. Ps. cx, 11. It is to be reverenced, and not taken in vain. Ex. xx, 7. Note the following scriptures:
Jer. xxxiv, 16. "But ye turned and polluted my name." Query again: "Is a thing polluted holy?"
Mal. i, 11, 12. "My name shall be great among the heathen, saith the Lord of hosts. But ye have profaned it."
Is the name of Jehovah "exempted from any circumstance affecting its purity?" Not if Mr. Babylonian's reasoning is correct; and he seems to rest much on this point, as he refers to his having proved that the seventh day is profaned or polluted, and no longer holy. But the children of Israel polluted the Sabbath, and put no difference between the holy and profane. Mr. B. is guilty of the same offense. The text where this rebuke is found carries the point still further.
Eze. xxii, 26. "Her priests have violated my law, and have profaned mine holy things; they have put no difference between the holy and profane; neither have they showed difference between the unclean and the clean, and have hid their eyes from my sabbaths, and I am profaned among them."
So, according to Mr. Babylonian, the Lord God himself is not exempted from circumstances affecting his purity! Mr. B. was certainly very blind or very reckless in putting forth an argument involving such a blasphemous conclusion.
But Mr. B.'s argument affects his own position also. To pollute or profane a holy day is to do servile work, or secular labor on it; and Mr. B. claims that Sunday is or was a sacred day by the act and appointment of Christ. But has Sunday never been profaned? Would not secular labor on that day neutralize its consecration as much or as readily as it would that of the Sabbath? If Mr. B.'s argument availed anything it would prove that, even if Sunday ever had been sacred, it ceased to be so long ago, by being profaned.
Mr. B. says that I deny that the Lord Jesus arose on the first day of the week, and then, wondering at my infidelity, devotes considerable time and space to prove it. In this he is only unfortunate. I never denied it, and refer to the tract entitled, Nature and Obligation of the Sabbath, for evidence that I believe it and have so published to the world. And when Mr. B., or any one, will show it a duty, by scripture, to keep the day of Christ's resurrection, I will keep the first day. But we believe it from concurrent events, and not because it is so stated, for it is not. And this is what is said in the tract. We do not, however, admit the testimony on which Mr. B. relies. He says:
"The keepers were appointed to watch and know the very hour when Christ arose; and what were they instructed to say? Why, that the disciples came by night and stole him away while we slept. Would they have watched that night if Jesus had arisen the day before? Such is the preposterous condition of Mr. Waggoner's argument."
Not so fast, dear Mr. Babylonian! You appear to be in great haste to exemplify your name. Where did you learn that "the keepers were appointed to watch and know the very hour when Christ arose?" Whatever we may think of your capacities, your opportunities have certainly been great; for the very best proof we have been able to reach says that they were appointed to watch and prevent the disciples stealing him away; and so far from placing any reliance on the testimony of the soldiers, we are of the decided opinion that "what they were instructed to say" was a vile imposition—a falsehood. We hold that this has no bearing on the Sabbath question, and therefore the information Mr. B. gives is of no particular value to us, though it may be to others. As the modern Babylonians follow the Romans in commencing the day at midnight, it is of interest to them to know what time of night the soldiers said he arose. Without this, on your own ground, you prove nothing; and as you are the only person we ever heard of that so fully understood the subject, we refer it to yourself for a further decision.
In immediate connection with this he falls into another error. He imputes to me the belief that the seventh day—
—"is the day on which Jesus proclaims his peace (or rest) without the smallest command given in the New Testament or practice to warrant it."
No, no, Mr. B. Such a ridiculous notion never entered my head. We think you are fairly entitled to a patent on it. Our faith is that the Sabbath is a day of rest—made for man. You say the Sabbath is a day for Christ to proclaim his peace or rest. How a command could reach such an institution, we cannot perceive.
He further blames me for requiring definite testimony in regard to the first-day Sabbath. And why should we not? We have definite testimony on the Sabbath, and shall another institution be admitted in its place without any definite testimony to warrant the change? But we do not argue the point here. Our views are plainly stated in the book in question. We will follow Mr. B. once more. Speaking of us he says:
"He would be satisfied with the laws of the Medes and Persians if there were none in the United States sufficiently definite to suit him."
If there were no definite laws here we should regard no law here; as an indefinite law would be unworthy of any regard. And we firmly believe there is not a jury in the land who would convict on testimony as vague, indefinite, and contradictory, as that offered by the advocates of Sunday for its institution as a Sabbath. The laws of the Medes and Persians have been referred to by others. We will state our position fully on that point.
1. If we had been under the laws of the Medes and Persians and no definite laws had superseded them, we should still observe them, and consider the duty plain to do so.
2. If the laws of the Medes and Persians had been the laws of this land, and the United States had definitely declared that they did not destroy or make them void, then we should hold that they were the very foundation of this government, and keep them accordingly.
3. If the people of this country had found those laws in force, and had said they did not purpose to do their own will but the will of the pre-existing power and authority, then also I should observe those laws, as a citizen of the United States.
We have heard of an ancient feud between the parties, from which we might conclude that Mr. Babylonian had an especial antipathy to the laws of the Medes and Persians, and if so, his prejudice appears to be as wide-spread as deep-rooted, for it extends to other laws that "alter not;" but to the unprejudiced we would appeal: Is not our position on the above three points correct? And such is our relation, in the gospel, to the law of God; for, the Saviour found the laws of his Father existing: He said he came not to destroy it: He said he came not to do his own will, but that of the Father: and there is no law superseding the fourth commandment, or instituting another Sabbath. On this subject we rest with assurance and safety.
We beg permission to go one step further on this point, and ask, Why are we not bound to keep the laws of the Medes and Persians? The reply will be readily given; that government was subverted and overthrown. But who subverted the law of God? Did the Saviour? Or the man of sin? See Dan. vii, 25; 2 Thess. ii. Which gospel does Mr. Babylonian claim his liberty under, that of Jerusalem or Rome? We leave this question open to all antinomians.
On the sanctification and blessing of the first day he is unusually bold in his assertions; more so than most of his co-laborers in the same cause. He says:
"But the occurrences of the day of pentecost are sufficient to elevate it into a day of holy convocation, for the descending of the Holy Spirit sanctified and blessed it."
We must certainly be approaching the climax. What can induce a man claiming to be candid and christian, to make such statements? Did the day of pentecost come weekly? It did not. Did the descent of the Spirit occur more than once? It did. Was every day sanctified on which the Spirit was poured out or descended on the believers in Jesus? Or would first-day be doubly sanctified by its recurrence on that day? Probably Mr. B. and his fellow Bs. never thought of this.
But where do they learn that the day was sanctified by any such means? Nowhere. They do not know it. It is folly and presumption; no less than adding to the word of God, to make it say what it does not say, that they may appear justified in their transgression. There is no ordinary act of disobedience in this; it is rebellion, it is treason. Have not the words of the wise man an application here? Eccl. viii, 11.
But the last proof on this point, and the closing one of his article, is one which, we have no doubt, our opponents will all hail with joy, provided they can be made to believe in Mr. B.'s theory. He says:
"In [Sunday] is the day on which Christ first performed that which he commanded to be done, saying, 'This do in remembrance of me,' as though he had said, Remember me on this day—equivalent to remember the Sabbath-day. This is not a simple co-incidence, but a fact."
We wonder what the fact is, for there are three statements made, neither of which are true. Truly, three false statements in twice as many lines, should not be called a "simple co-incidence"—it is a complex one.
Of all the perversions of scripture that it has been our lot to witness, we have never seen the equal of this. And yet (we are informed) the writer is a minister of one of the large denominations of the day! The words of the act of instituting the Lord's supper are turned from their plain, evident intent, to support another institution, the existence of which is not hinted at in God's word. For, he affirms (and everything with him is settled by an affirmation), that the Sabbath is not seventh day, but first day, in the New Testament. And thus we have the scripture expounded: when Jesus distributed the bread and the wine, and said, This do in remembrance of me, it was equivalent to saying, Remember and keep Sunday!!!
We have always confidently supposed that Paul understood the intent of the Saviour's words, and the object of the institution; and in commenting on it in his letter to the Corinthians he says: "For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come." 1 Cor. xi, 26. But according to Mr. Babylonian, the Saviour had altogether another object in view—his words looked in another direction. And the words of Paul, corrected to suit Mr. B.'s theory, would read thus: For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do keep Sunday!
Thank you, Mr. Babylonian; in behalf of all the opposers of God's holy Sabbath, we thank you. We never should have thought of finding Sunday in 1 Cor. xi, 26, if you had not set us on the track.
It is very generally conceded that the Saviour gave the commandment above referred to as early as Thursday evening; so that if we had any authority whatever for attaching the institution to a day, or if Mr. B.'s words were true, that the Saviour meant to say, Remember me on this day, the observance would be fixed to fifth or sixth-day, and not to first-day. But there is not a shade of evidence that the Lord's supper and the observance of any day in any manner, are at all connected. It is on a par with other assumptions by which men seek to justify their transgression of God's law, and shows the weakness of the cause they are trying to sustain, and their own recklessness in their efforts to sustain it.
Though such efforts as this of Mr. B. are unworthy in themselves of any consideration, they yet serve to show the nature of the opposition which is now being so extensively offered to the law of God. And if the truth on the Sabbath can be set aside or evaded in this manner, what duty in God's word can be enforced? Well might the infidel denounce the Bible as an instrument of contradictions and absurdities if it would justify such quibbles and evasions as those of Mr. B. herein noticed, or even of many of more learning, and of (apparently) more candor.
We cannot look upon such efforts without solemn reflections. While fools make a mock at sin, the worldly moralist would often despise it, and the saint of God would hate it. If, then, sin appears odious according to the position and character of the beholder, how must such perversions of truth and of the testimony of the Bible appear in the sight of a holy God? Surely, angels must look with astonishment at the presumption of mortals in insulting heaven with vain excuses to set aside the authority of the Creator.
The Review and Herald.
"Sanctify them through thy TRUTH; thy word is truth."
BATTLE CREEK, MICH. THIRD-DAY, JAN. 8, 1861.
TRUTH vs. SPIRITUALISM.
By D. T. Bourdeau
BRO. SMITH: Never were we more convinced that we have the truth, and that Spiritualism is the great delusion by which the enemy opposes the truth in these last days, than we were the evening of the 9th inst., while reviewing a series of lectures that Mr. Potter, a Spiritualist from Massachusetts, gave in this place a few days since. The truth seemed precious to us, and while we had feelings of pity and compassion for those who opposed the truth, we felt thankful that the Lord had preserved us from the delusion of Satan, and that we could rejoice in the light of God's word. Mr. Potter was present, and tried to resist the truth, and show that the Bible was darkness instead of light; but he merely denied and affirmed without proving, and tried to make the people laugh by using droll expressions. Since reviewing his lectures we have heard that he had
said he would make the people laugh if he did not do anything else. He perfectly disgusted himself in the eyes of those who had any respect for God and his word, and who preferred sound reason to bare assertions.
Though it is painful and unpleasant for us to dwell on the blasphemous views of Spiritualists, yet we will notice the main ideas that Mr. Potter advanced in his lectures.
He said that Spiritualism had no Bible, no theory; that the Bible was a human production; that it was absurd to say we could purchase the infallible word of God for thirty-three cents; that Constantine decided what books should be introduced in the Bible; that the God of the Bible was unjust and partial, because he would punish some and leave others unpunished; because he made a difference between an infidel and a Christian; between one that prays seven times a day, and one that does not pray at all.
In reply we affirmed that the Bible was worthy of our confidence, and proved its human and divine authority by testimonies from heathen and ecclesiastical writers, and by arguments from prophecy. Mr. P. accused us of being partial in our quotations from history; and we challenged him to produce testimonies that would counteract the testimonies we had presented, and to back up his assertion in regard to Constantine by a plain fact from history. But he made no reply. We also affirmed that the God of the Bible was not unjust and partial, and remarked somewhat as follows: A certain parent has two sons. One is obedient and faithful; the other is disobedient and unfaithful. Reason, justice and impartiality would require this parent to punish one of his sons, and have the other unpunished, and thus make a difference between them. Now the God of the Bible punishes the wicked and leaves the righteous unpunished, or gives them life. He makes a difference between those that obey him, and those that obey him not. Therefore the God of the Bible is just and impartial in the administration of his government—in the vindication of the justice of his law. The justice of God's law appears in the punishment of the sinner, as well as in the reward of the just.
Again, a parent that would make no difference between a child that obeys him, and one that obeys him not, would be called unjust and partial. Now the God of Mr. Potter is a God that makes no difference between those that obey him and those that obey him not. Therefore the God of Mr. Potter is a partial and unjust God. We have not such a God as this. The God of the Bible "is no respecter of persons; but in every nation he that feareth him and worketh righteousness is accepted with him;" and he will not leave the wicked unpunished. Acts x, 34, 35; Prov. xi, 21; xvi, 5. A theory that makes no difference between a wicked man and a righteous man, virtually destroys the law of God, and the penalty that guards that law.
Mr. P. "The Bible does not agree with the science of geology. Hugh Miller teaches in his Old Red Sandstone that the earth is more than 6000 years old."
Answer. A true science is based on immutable and unchangeable principles. Geology is the science of the structure and materials of the earth; and the principles on which it is based have led to remarkable discoveries. But geology as a science is only in its infancy; and we should be careful not to confound the opinions and speculations of geologists, with the science of geology, just as we should be careful not to confound the opinions and speculations of men on the Bible, with the teachings of the Bible. The Bible will explain itself if men will let it; and no true science (when rightly understood) will clash with the Bible. But if it is a fact that "Hugh Miller teaches in his Old Red Sandstone that the earth is more than 6000 years old," it is also a fact that Hugh Miller teaches in his Footprints, p. 313, that "there are no calculations more doubtful than those of the geologist," and that geology "furnishes us with no clue by which to unravel the unapproachable mysteries of creation." Hear him further: "These mysteries belong to the wondrous Creator, and to him only. We attempt to theorize upon them, and to reduce them to law, and all nature rises up against us in our presumptuous rebellion. A stray splinter of cone-bearing wood, a fish's skull or tooth, the vertebra of a reptile, the humerus of a bird, the jaw of a quadruped—all, any of these things, weak and insignificant as they may seem, become in such a quarrel too strong for us and for our theory. The puny fragment in the grasp of truth forms as irresistible a weapon as the dry bone did in that of Samson of old, and our slaughtered sophisms lie piled up heaps upon heaps before it." This is a testimony from Mr. P.'s favorite author, which infidels would do well to ponder. We have nothing to say against the genuine science of geology; but we do enter our solemn protest against that science falsely so-called, which makes the word of God of none effect.
Mr. P. "God did not write the same words on the last tables of stone that he wrote on the first."
Ans. "And the Lord said unto Moses, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first; and I will write upon these tables the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest." "And he wrote on the tables, according to the first writing, the ten commandments." Ex. xxxiv, 1; Deut. x, 1–4.
Mr. P. "God is unjust. He sent a lying spirit to persuade Ahab to go up to Ramoth-gilead that he might fall in battle." 1 Kings xxii.
Ans. Ahab was a very wicked king. He caused Israel to depart from the Lord; and of him the Bible says, "Ahab the son of Omri did evil in the sight of the Lord above all that were before him." 1 Kings xvi, 30. God had faithfully warned him by his servants, and had given him time to reform; but he continued to do those things that were displeasing to the Lord. Finally the Lord suffered him to follow his own way, gave him over to the control of a lying spirit, and decided that he should fall in battle at Ramoth-gilead. Surely God has a right to punish the disobedient and impenitent; and we have in the case of Ahab a striking illustration of God's justice and long-suffering.
Mr. P. "Spiritualism is governed by nature. Nature acts just as it did 6000 years ago. Christ agrees with nature; and Christ speaks of the things that are, and not of the things that will be in the future. A Methodist or a Baptist is right if he agrees with nature."
Here Mr. P. professes to give the foundation of Spiritualism. Nature is the criterion by which he judges persons and things; and he asserts that a Methodist or a Baptist is right if he agrees with nature. But according to his own statement, "Christ agrees with nature." Hence a Methodist or a Baptist is right if he agrees with Christ. This is all we claim. But what does Mr. P. make Christ teach? He says, "Christ talks of the things that are, and not of the things that will be in the future." Is this statement correct? Let the question be answered by those who know what Christ taught. Mr. P. must have known that Christ spoke of the future; for in his last lecture, while trying to create laughter in regard to the teachings of Christ and Paul on the subject of marriage, he remarked as follows: "Christ taught that they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world neither marry nor are given in marriage. Christ spoke of the future. He never spoke of the present." He continues:
"Christ says to the woman taken in adultery, Neither do I condemn thee. John viii. Christ did not condemn her. But the churches condemn and exclude such. Why don't they agree with Christ?"
Christ did not decide that this woman should be stoned according to the expectation of the Jews; neither did he uphold her in her sin. Sin is the transgression of that law of which the seventh commandment is a part; and Christ said to the woman, "Go and sin no more." Christ was without sin; and he came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill. He said to the young man who wanted to know what good thing he should do that he might have eternal life, "If thou wilt enter into life keep the commandments." Matt. xix.
Mr. P. "Men answer to the purpose for which they were made. The Universalist is a philanthropist, a charitable man. The Methodist sends men to hell. One has large benevolence; the other has small benevolence. A man that has no benevolence cannot be a Universalist. These facts grow out of nature—out of the physical development in man. Again, one man is a Christian and prays seven times a day; another is a pirate, and slays his fellow-men. Are these men organized alike? No. There is no devil. Men are growing wiser."63
Ans. It cannot be made to appear consistent that "men answer to the purpose for which they were made," when they have bad dispositions, and do those things which are evil, and repugnant to reason and humanity. The benevolent and wise Creator made man upright, and pronounced him good; and the happiness of God's intelligent creatures consists in their being good; and certainly men should not be called good when their dispositions and actions are evil. Mr. P. says, "These facts grow out of nature." What facts? Why, the fact that Universalists are charitable and benevolent, and that Methodists have small benevolence and send men to hell, and the fact that a Christian prays seven times a day, and that a pirate slays his fellow-men. But nature is the rule by which Mr. P. judges persons and things; and of course nature must be right. Then Universalists, Methodists, Christians and pirates are right; and Mr. P. has proved Spiritualism! We see that Mr. P. labors under a difficulty; and he will labor under a serious difficulty as long as he does not admit that an enemy has marred the works of God.
Mr. P. "We must have facts precede assumption. There is no fact in nature that proves a future punishment."
Ans. The God of nature, who "declares the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand" [Isa. xlvi, 10], has spoken to men by his prophets, and his word has had its fulfillment. This same God teaches in his word that the sinner shall be punished; that those who break his law, which grows out of immutable relations that men sustain to God and to their fellow-men, shall suffer its penalty—shall die the second death, and we believe it. God speaks in prophecy concerning signs that were to be the precursors of his coming wrath; and we have signs around us, in the heavens above, in the earth below, among men and in nature, that answer to God's word in prophecy, and proclaim with awful certainty that the day of God's wrath hasteth greatly. See the "Signs of the Times," published at the Review and Herald Office.
Mr. P. "We say that the soul of man is immortal, because the spirits of our departed friends communicate to us, and say they are immortal."
Ans. Spiritualists admit that the spirits do not always tell the truth, and that "there are mean, low, dirty imps of darkness that tell falsehoods." (This is the testimony of a famous Spiritualist who attended these lectures.) Now if this is so, how can we rely on their testimony? If there are mean, low, dirty, lying imps, is there not danger of being deceived? May not these spirits be the seducing spirits of which Paul speaks? 1 Tim. iv. May they not have learned their lesson in regard to the nature of man from the father of lies, who said in the beginning, "Ye shall not surely die?"
Mr. P. "We read in Mark xvi, These signs shall follow them that believe. They were to believe the gospel. Gospel means good news. Do these signs follow the churches? They follow Spiritualists if they follow any. This age has its gospels and revelations."
Ans. The fact that signs and wonders follow Spiritualists does not prove that Spiritualists are right. The magicians of Egypt had remarkable signs, and did wonders, till their folly was made manifest by the power of God which wrought through Moses and Aaron. Ex. vii; 2 Tim. iii, 8, 9. And Elymas, the sorcerer, "an enemy of all righteousness, a child of the Devil," resisted the truth in the days of Paul; and his folly was also exposed. Acts xiii, 6-11. The Scriptures speak of lying wonders [2 Thess. ii, 9], and of spirits of devils working miracles. Rev. xvi, 14. But we need not be deceived. We have a rule by which we can try the spirits. Says Isaiah, "When they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep and 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." Isa. viii, 19, 20.
We read in Mark xvi, "These signs shall follow them that believe; in my name shall they cast out devils." Does this sign follow Spiritualists? No. They are very careful to say as little as they can about devils. This is the first sign of which Christ speaks; and this sign was very prominent in the primitive church. Christ commenced his work by breaking the power the Devil held over the suffering, and by casting out devils. He had a controversy with the Devil and wicked spirits during his entire ministry; and his disciples could say, "Even the devils are subject unto us through thy name." Luke x, 17.
Mr. P. says, "This age has its gospels and revelations." Granted. But do these gospels and revelations agree with the law and the testimony? Does the gospel that Mr. P. brings agree with the gospel that Christ and the apostles taught? It does not. It speaks against the Bible and against the God of the Bible, and makes no difference between a wicked man and a good man. It destroys all distinctions of right and wrong, says there is no Devil, and denies the doctrine of a future punishment. This gospel is very different from the gospel which Paul preached; and truly God's blessing cannot rest on those who teach it. Says Paul, "Though we or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." Gal. i, 8.
Query. Was it customary for holy men of old to whom the Lord gave revelations for the people, to stand before a congregation and lecture one or two hours in vision with their eyes closed?
D. T. BOURDEAU.
MARTIN LUTHER ON THE LAW.
By John Norton Loughborough
On reading the article from Bro. White in Review No. 5, of present Vol., I noticed an extract from Michelet's Life of Luther, on the subject of the Sabbath. I supposed from that quotation that Luther was to all intents a no-law, and no-Sabbath man. The thought struck me (as I have Michelet's Life of Luther) that I would get together all he says of Luther's views on the Sabbath and law. The result is, as our readers will see, that Luther was not a no-law man, but he designed to strike against superstition in his remarks that seem to be against the law.
On p. 183 Luther is represented as saying: 'Why do we teach and keep the ten commandments? The reason is, that nowhere is the natural law so well arranged and laid down as in Moses. I wish we had borrowed from him in temporal things as well.' Then follows the quotation above referred to concerning keeping the Sabbath, not as a matter of necessity, but because nature teaches us to take a day of rest, &c.
It was not Luther's intention in the above text to strike against the law, as he elsewhere shows. He says on p. 215, in speaking of the Antinomians, and, in particular, of Eisleben, 'Such doctrine, however, must not be endured. Reject the law, without which there can be no church nor government! this is not tapping the cask, but breaking it in.' Again, he says of him on the same page: 'He would base repentance on the love of justice, and so preaches the revelation of divine wrath to the just and pious only. He does not preach for the wicked. Yet St. Paul says the law is for the ungodly. In short, by taking away the law, he takes away the gospel, and he withdraws our belief from the firm support of conscience to subject it to the caprices of the flesh. Who could have dreamt of this sect of the Antinomians.'
On pp. 216-7, he says of Luther: 'Master Jobst, dining one day with Luther, showed him some propositions, according to which the law ought not to be preached, since we are not justified by it.' Luther got angry and exclaimed, 'What, will my brethren propose such innovations even while I live! Ah! how ought not Master Philip to be honored, who teaches with clearness and truth the use and utility of the law! Cousin Albert Von Mansfield's prophecy is being realized. He wrote to me: 'There is Munzer lurking behind that doctrine;' and, indeed, he who pulls down the law, pulls down at the same time the whole framework of human polity and society. If the law be thrust out of the church, there will no longer be anything recognized as sin in the world, since the gospel defines and punishes sin only by recurring to the law. If, at the outset, I inveighed against the law, both from the pulpit and in my writings, the reason was, that the Christian church was at the time overladen with superstitions, under which Christ was altogether buried and hidden, and that I yearned to save and liberate pious, God-fearing souls from this tyranny over the conscience. But I have never rejected the law.
I would here remark that it matters little to the Bible student whether great men have subscribed to its truths or not. But for the sake of those who may trust in the multitude of mighty men it may be good to learn that Luther was in sentiment on the side of God's truth; although it is quite certain that he did not keep all the ten commandments.
J. N. LOUGHBOROUGH.