The Love of the Truth, AND THE DANGER OF EMBRACING “STRONG DELUSION” BY NOT RECEIVING IT.
“And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie; that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” 2 Thess. 2:11, 12. For what cause shall this strong delusion be sent? The context, verse 10, clearly shows: “Because they [meaning those who are deceived by this agency of Satan] received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.” God, therefore, does not willingly send them this delusion. In one sense, they bring it upon themselves by rejecting the truth. There is much implied in the words, “The love of the truth.” Those who receive the truth in the love of it, will obey it. Such, not only take hold of the truth, but the truth takes hold of them; and they can exclaim, like the psalmist, “Oh! how love I thy law.” They take delight in doing the will of God. They love God, love his truth and his people, and so long as they cling to the truth, they will escape the strong delusion.
This strong delusion is spiritualism; for it is “after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders.” Is not spiritualism one of the last great efforts of Satan to deceive the church and the world? Are not the manifestations of spiritualism powerful? and has it not been powerful in its seductive influences? Let from ten to twelve millions, who have embraced it, answer.
How great are its signs, how forcible the language which describes its manifestations as lying wonders. No other power or agency of the enemy can answer the fulfillment of this prophecy but modern spiritualism. Abundance of Scripture evidence can be given, and is given, in the work entitled, “Nature and Tendency of Modern Spiritualism,” to show that it is not of God. The point which we wish to notice particularly in this article is the danger of embracing this delusion by rejecting the truth.
“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.” 1 Tim. 4:1. Here we have the prediction, and we can clearly see its fulfillment in the great apostasy which has taken place, and is now going on, in the church. This prophecy was given to warn the church against its corrupting influences; thus pointing out the danger of departing from the faith. Those who have come partially under its influence, and have escaped, know the power which it has over them, and can more fully weigh the meaning of the words, strong delusion. Like the serpent, it is fascinating, and like the serpent, the nearer you get to it, the more apt you are to be swallowed up. It holds out promises—tells you, “You shall not die,” but shall live forever even though you may go on in sin.
To seduce means “to draw aside from the path of duty in any manner, by promises, flattery, bribes, or otherwise.” Hence they are called seducing spirits, and those who come under this influence are just as likely to be drawn away by this strong delusion or deception, as the man who is nearing the falls of a mighty river is in danger of going over the awful precipice. But says one, I wish to attend a spiritual circle just one evening, to know how they perform. Thus to satisfy an idle curiosity the first step is taken. This curiosity-and-wonder-seeker is introduced to some of his departed friends by shaking hands through the medium. He goes again to make new acquaintances, and to learn something more, until finally, he is completely under its satanic influence. Let all take heed to the words, “And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter; should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead? To the law and to the testimony; if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” Isa. 8:19, 20.
How true it is that one false step has ruined thousands. I am acquainted with a young man of talent, a friend, who once could not say too much in favor of the Bible. He was opposed to spiritualism, and even debated against it in public. In process of time he came under its influence by attending spiritual parties and circles. Now he has become a confirmed spiritualist, and pronounces the word of God a fable. No doubt he will indorse the doctrine of Moses Hull, and deem the blood of Jesus Christ no better than that of an ox. The awful prophetic truth of Heb. 10:29, that they shall count the blood of the covenant an unholy thing, has been already set forth in the REVIEW. That we may be on our guard against the allurements of spiritualism, we need to watch and pray; for Satan holds out the bright side of the picture, and has the power of transforming himself into an angel of light (2 Cor. 11:14). Let us see what they claim, and the reader can judge in regard to its truthfulness.
“It is an acknowledged fact by both friend and foe, that where there is the most intelligence, enterprise, and refinement, there also will be found the most spiritualism.” It’s true that there are men of intelligence in their ranks, but is that any proof that they are right? Is not Satan intelligent? Has not the strength of their minds been diminished by this almost irresistible hallucination? Truly, this satanic influence “leads to bewilder, and dazzles to blind.” They may have enterprise, if enterprise consists in attempting to dethrone God, and to overthrow all things sacred in Heaven and on earth. It can be shown from their writings that they deny and blaspheme God.
Again, they say the “New Philosophy is the sworn enemy to ignorance and vulgarity, and is the inseparable companion of intelligence and refinement.” If refinement consists in breaking down all distinction between right and wrong, then they are refined. They are, no doubt, opposed to vulgarity, as they have progressed to that state in which they are “past feeling,” and “glory in their shame.”
“There is scarcely a reform of the day not heralded by spiritualists.” Bold assertion! It is policy for them to move out in some of the reforms, but the one watchword which characterizes them all is, “Whatever is, is right.”
Still further, they say, “The churches are infected with this new system of religion, and every college in the land is infected with ideas about spiritualism; and two or more professors in many of our first colleges are avowed spiritualists, and also many of our statesmen in Congress.” This boasting in regard to the churches, professors, and statesmen, is only to the writer’s condemnation, and proves the truth of the prophetic word, that many shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, &c.
Those who believe that the soul is not immortal have the great safeguard against this work of the enemy. Let all, then, who would escape “strong delusion,” be careful how they refuse to “receive the love of the truth,” either in regard to the state of the dead, the sanctuary, the Sabbath, the coming of Christ, or any of the kindred truths of the third angel’s message.
How careful, then, should we be that we may not be among that company who are fulfilling the prophecy in not receiving the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
Wm. Penniman.
THE LORD'S PRAYER
By Thomas Sturtevant, Jr.
BEAUTIFULLY paraphrased into an acrostic, by Thomas Sturtevant, Jr., a soldier of the 29th U. S. Infantry, and a prisoner of war in the province of Upper Canada during the war of 1812–15.
OUR Lord and King who reigns enthroned on high!
FATHER of light! mysterious deity!
WHO art the great I AM, the last, the first,
ART righteous, holy, merciful and just,
IN realms of glory, scenes where angels sing;
HEAVEN is the dwelling place of God our King,
HALLOWED the name which doth all names transcend,
BE thou adored, our great Almighty Friend,
THY glory shines beyond creation's space,
NAME in the book of justice and of grace;
THY kingdom towers above the starry skies;
KINGDOMS satanic fall, but thine shall rise,
COME, let thine empire come, O thou Holy One,
THY great and everlasting will be done!
WILL God make known his will, his power display?
BE it the will of mortals to obey!
DONE is the great and wondrous work of love,
ON Calvary's cross he died, but reigns above;
EARTH bears the record in thy holy word.
AS Heaven adores thy name, let earth, O Lord!
IT shines transcendent in the eternal skies,
IS praised in Heaven, for man the Saviour dies!
IN songs immortal, angels laud his name,
HEAVEN shouts with joy, and saints his love proclaim.
GIVE us, O Lord, our food, nor cease to give
US that food on which our souls may live!
THIS be our boon to-day and days to come,
DAY without end in our eternal home!
OUR needy souls supply from day to day.
DAILY assist and aid us when we pray.
BREAD, though we ask, yet Lord thy blessing lend,
AND make us grateful when thy gifts descend.
FORGIVE our sins, which in instruction place
US, the vile children of a rebel race.
OUR follies, faults, and trespasses, forgive,
DEBTS which we ne'er can pay, or thou receive,
AS we, O Lord, our neighbors' faults o'erlook,
WE beg thou'dst blot out from thy memory's book.
FORGIVE our enemies, extend thy grace
OUR souls to save, o'en Adam's guilty race!
DEBTORS to thee in gratitude and love,
AND in that duty paid by saints above.
LEAD us from sin, and in thy mercy raise
US from the tempter and his hellish ways.
NOT in our own, but in his, name who bled,
INTO thine ear we pour our every need.
TEMPTATION'S fatal charms help us to shun,
BUT may we conquer through thy conquering Son.
DELIVER us from all which can annoy
US in this world, and may our souls destroy.
FROM all calamities which men betide,
EVIL and death, oh! turn our feet aside;
FOR we are mortal men and cleave to clay,
THINE 'tis to rule and mortals to obey.
IS not thy mercy, Lord, forever free?
THE whole creation knows no God but thee.
KINGDOM and empire in thy presence fall;
THE King eternal reigns the king of all.
POWER is with thee—to thee be glory given,
AND be thy name adored by earth and Heaven.
THE praise of saints and angels is thine own;
GLORY to thee, thou everlasting One.
FOREVER be thy holy name adored!
AMEN, Hosanna! blessed be the Lord!
The Learned Clergyman and Illiterate Preacher
A LEARNED clergyman was accosted in the following manner by an illiterate preacher who despised education: “Sir, you have been to college, I suppose?” “Yes, sir,” was the reply. “I am thankful,” rejoined the former, “that the Lord opened my mouth without any learning.” “A similar event,” retorted the clergyman, “took place in Balaam’s time; but such things are of rare occurrence at the present day.”
Do Not Be Afraid of Christ
Is it not a shame that we are always afraid of Christ, whereas there never was in Heaven or earth a more loving, familiar, or milder man, in words, works, and demeanor, especially toward poor, sorrowful, and tormented consciences? Hence the prophet Jeremiah prays, saying: “O Lord, grant that we be not afraid of thee.”
Judge not Unkindly.
In our intercourse with our fellow-men, too much heed cannot be observed by us in our censures of the intentions of others, too great a care cannot be exercised in our judgments upon their actions. We are altogether too prone to forget the beam in our own eye, beyond which we discover the mote in that of a brother, and we all too naturally incline to judge others as we would not wish to be judged ourselves. Who has not faults, who around us that points to his neighbor’s error with so much earnestness, at times, but is apt to commit the same or a grosser fault? Let us be charitable, kind, forgiving, then; for appearances are often deceitful.
At a distance a dew-drop has the appearance of a gem. From different positions, we have entirely different views of the same object. We should not judge a man’s character by a single transaction. Would you express your opinion of the value of an edifice by one loose stone? Then judge not a man by one act of his life. He may have a store of good traits which you have not discovered. What has been the ruling passion of the man? Has he endeavored to elevate his fellow-man? If so, forgive his one error; it is but a feather’s weight in comparison to his good deeds and virtuous achievements.
To condemn and denounce a man for one hasty word which he has spoken, one revengeful sentence he has uttered, one spiteful paragraph he has written, one wicked combination he has entered into, one slander he has repeated, one falsehood he has told, or one vicious step he has taken, is the height of injustice, oppression and cruelty. Not so did the early Christians; not so did the apostles; nor so did the Saviour. Love and forgiveness they breathed from their wounded hearts. Imitate them, and judge only by a thorough examination, and deep conviction of duty, and you will never have the unhappy reflection of those who have been the instruments of driving to destruction men, who, but for one fault, would have been ornaments to society, and rich blessings to the world.
Agitation of the Sunday Question.
By J. H. W.
Our friends frequently send us newspaper notices of efforts made by public meetings and otherwise, to put down the Sunday laws; and they sometimes express surprise that we do not appear to take a deeper interest in these movements. Now we are very much interested in them, not only as items of news, but as a means of producing an agitation which must hasten the development of certain features in our national policy to which we have looked forward for years as the fulfillment of prophecy. And, according to the statements of the prophecies, we believe that when our national policy assumes the shape indicated, we, more than any other people, shall be interested in the result.
But we have not chosen to give prominence to these anti-Sunday movements, because we were not able to sympathize with the parties carrying them on, and we do not wish to be placed in a false light in these matters. It is of course well understood that we as a people teach that Sunday is not the Sabbath, and that it should not be kept instead of the Sabbath of the Lord. But we do not consider that a reason why we should sympathize with the current anti-Sunday demonstrations in our large cities. Our explanation is this.
1. Had we no regard for the Bible or Bible institutions, we should accept the civil laws of the land requiring the observance of a day of rest from common labor, as a prudent or even a necessary arrangement for the preservation of health and of social order. Whether these laws required the observance of Sunday, Monday, or any other day, we should not care a whit, as the obligation would only be of a civil or physical nature, and any one day would answer the purpose as well as another. But it is easy of demonstration that, in a physical and civil point of view, a day of rest in each week is a desideratum. Our opposition to Sunday has a conscientious basis; we oppose it because it is taught and observed as a substitute for the Sabbath. And our effort is to lead men to disregard the spurious that they may accept the genuine. And this is our only effort; for we never make any effort to lead men to disregard the Sunday laws, who do not or will not regard the “Sabbath according to the commandment.” We are opposed to the no-Sabbath practice as well as to its theory. But, at the same time, we are obliged to warn them that they are not obeying God in such observance; it is a matter of civil obligation only. Now it is a well-known fact that this anti-Sunday movement set on foot in our cities, is an open no-Sabbath movement. It is decidedly irreligious, and based upon no conscientious convictions. If carried out to the uttermost limit designed by its institutors it would not add a particle to the progress of any religious truth; but, on the contrary, would result in a state of recklessness and disorder that would strongly tend to place men beyond the reach of truth and of religious impressions. This, we think, every careful observer and thoughtful mind will admit. But this being the case, it will be readily seen that we have little or no interest in common with such anti-Sunday demonstrations.
2. Another important fact, not to be overlooked by the lover of order and of correct principle is this. There has been connected with these demonstrations a strong opposition to all laws restricting, or prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors. This is quite enough to show the immoral tendency of the movement, and instead of looking upon it with favor, we have been constrained to look upon it with regret. Some say it breaks the power of tradition over men’s minds, and frees them from superstitious reverence for Sunday. But we add, it carries with it a feeling of freedom from just restraint and teaches that it is right to do injury to our neighbors, for our mere gratification, and that the law has no business to offer protection to the innocent who suffer for the wrongs of the guilty. As long as this movement carries with it this anti-temperance sentiment we must look upon it as subversive, not only of order, but of the sum of the rights of the citizen—the right of protection by law. For if there is any one thing more than all others, in which the rights of suffering, helpless, innocent women and children are invaded, and trampled under foot, it is the abominable vending of intoxicating liquors. We, as people who oppose the observance of Sunday on conscientious grounds, and teach obedience to God’s law, loving order, and advocating the strictest and highest principles of temperance, have great reason to regret that movement by which our opposition to Sunday may be despised and abhorred by lovers of order and temperance, because opposition to Sunday on the part of others, carries with it such demoralizing associations. We think nothing is gained in rooting out a noxious weed, if it is only to make way for the planting of one more poisonous.
But here we are constrained to say, that we look upon the Sunday-law advocates as demonstrating that they are not acting in harmony with justice and right in this matter. Why do they not organize as extensively, and labor with as much determination against the anti-temperance movement as they do against the anti-Sunday movement? When this is answered, a new and important field will be opened before them. Their Sunday laws, when fully carried out, will oppress and persecute a class of conscientious reformers. To stop the liquor traffic would not invade the rights of any, unless it be assumed that they have a right to do wrong! They may, indeed, say that they do not intend to oppress the conscientious. Nor did Eve intend to curse her posterity by her action. If you do not intend to burn your neighbor’s house, pray do not build a fire under it which you cannot stay when it rages. Human nature is not to be trusted too far; and if you would not see religious zealots and bigots, of whom there are an abundance in our land, persecuting their conscientious and God-fearing neighbors, then do not put the power in their hands. Leave us to our rights of conscience, and we will reason with our fellow-mortals on no other ground.
But we do not expect to be exempt from the oppressiveness of civil enactments in this matter. The word of God leads us to look for it. We do not dare it or defy it. On the contrary, having the weakness of humanity, we dread it. But while we are in the way of duty to God, we dare not ask that we may be exempted from trials, however severe they may be. We only pray that we may have grace to bear them as becomes the servants of God and followers of his Son.
J. H. W.
Calls for Help.
By J. H. W.
NEVER in our experience have the calls for ministerial labor been so many and so urgent as at the present time. We do not speak of the appeals from our various Conferences; of the requests of our churches for labor in their midst, but of the calls from new fields and from entire strangers. A number of letters have been sent from the Shenandoah valley in Virginia. Petitions have come in, enough to move the sympathy of the indifferent, could they read them, for help in Tennessee. Bro. D. T. Bourdeau, who recently went to Kentucky, is already calling for a tent. With our present supply of ministers, it does not seem necessary to call for means to buy tents just at present. If, when the tent season arrives, circumstances seem to require a tent in Kentucky, and Bro. Bourdeau will take the responsibility of running it, a tent can doubtless be furnished to him. If he cannot do this, he should not raise an expectation in that direction, as a disappointment might have a depressing influence on the newly-found friends there; and at present he should not expect to call efficient tent labor to his help from other fields. It probably cannot be had.
A lonely sister in Iowa sends ten dollars, with a request that some preacher will come and preach the truth to her neighbors. This manifests a real interest. May God hear her prayers.
From a new State farther west comes a petition signed by seventeen persons, saying, “There are about fifteen hundred inhabitants in this town, and the country about here is well settled, and there is not a church in the town nor in the county; there is not a minister of any note.” With this is an urgent request for one of our ministers to preach our faith to them. Any of our efficient preachers would rejoice to occupy that field if they could be spared from other engagements.
And so the calls come in. We do not give the localities, as we do not wish to have such interest abused by some self-sent pretenders going to spread confusion. Any persons recommended by the Conference Committees of the States in which they live, will be informed on application; provided they have experience and perseverance to do the Lord’s work.
Our especial object in noticing these calls is to impress upon the minds of all our brethren and sisters the necessity of praying the Lord of the harvest to send forth laborers. The call for a season of fasting and prayer for this object seems timely; and we exhort all to prepare their hearts to spend February 10 and 11, as days of earnest prayer and humiliation before God. Let us afflict our souls together, and we shall be made to rejoice in his salvation. We must have help from God. J. H. W.
Oratory in Prayer.
By James White
The subject of “speech-making in prayer,” is thus deprecated by the Christian Advocate, New York:
“Should prayer offered in public be an oration? A few months ago we went to church on a Sunday evening in a large country town, and heard something that so impressed us that we have since thought about it very often. It was not the sermon; there was nothing memorable in that. It was a prayer, or at least, when the minister began he said, ‘Let us pray,’ and the people bowed their heads as if in supplication. Then we heard a brief eulogy on human nature, setting forth its dignity and independence. Then there was a description of the horrible, enslaving effects of superstition, and of false views of the character of God, which have always been entertained in the Christian church. After this the results of modern theological criticism were summed up, and the prayer concluded with a sketch in outline of the ‘good time coming when a man will be emancipated from the bondage of traditions, and rites, and superstitious usages, and will reverence and worship the Divine only in his own nature.’ This is no caricature; it is an accurate report of what we heard on the occasion referred to, and in important respects it is much like what we have often heard in our own denomination and in others. There is a great deal of praying in public that closely resembles speech-making. Of course we intend no criticism of the obvious ideas and opinions of the minister whom we heard; we only ask whether such an oration can properly be termed a prayer?”
The above just remarks are upon an interesting subject, and almost every one can remember prayers like that described. Some professors of religion seem to have scarce any idea of what a true prayer is, and many ministers recite an essay, or give a short lecture on theology when they attempt to pray. Some use prayer as a means of chastising an opponent; and these are the most sacrilegious of all. I heard a minister, at a large political gathering, where were present two governors, a U. S. Senator, and other notables, on being requested to pray, raising his hands upward and closing his eyes, gave a regular political stump speech, frequently saying, “O Lord,” as if to make his irreverence more complete. I once attended a “Ministers’ Conference” of first-day or no-law Adventists, in Maine, wherein one minister, on his knees, gave to the Lord an exposition of the doctrines of the Bible, and another responded, saying, “It’s truth, Lord!” Whether the Lord was convinced by all this I doubted; more than that, I was shocked, at the boldness of the impiety. Yet these ministers professed to be advanced and enlightened Christians and ministers of the word of God. There is food for reflection in these facts. Let us all see to it that our words are well-chosen, few as the case will require, and all our ways reverent before God.
J. H. W.
Misapplied Wit.
By Uriah Smith
In the following lines, the poet, O. W. Holmes, attempts to be very witty at the expense of believers in the second coming of Christ. He heads them, “Latter-day Warnings,” a heading which is, in one respect, very appropriate; for Paul foretold that in the last days scoffers should appear:—
When legislators keep the law,When banks dispense with bolts and locks,When berries, whortle—rasp—and straw—Grow bigger downward through the box—When he that selleth house or landShows leak in roof or flaw in right—When haberdashers choose the stand,Whose window hath the broadest light—When preachers tell us all they think,And party leaders all they mean—When what we pay for, that we drink,From real grape and coffee-bean—When lawyers take what they would give,And doctors give what they would take—When city fathers eat to live,Save when they fast for conscience’ sake—When one that hath a horse on saleShall bring its merits to the proofWithout a lie for every nailThat holds the iron on the hoof—When in the usual place for ripsOur gloves are stitched with special care,And guarded well with whalebone tipsWhere first umbrellas need repair—When Cuba’s weeds have quite forgotThe power of suction to resist,And claret bottles harbor notSuch dimples as would hold your fist—When publishers no longer steal,And pay for what they stole before—When the first locomotive’s wheelRolls through the Hoosac tunnel bore—Till then, let Cumming blaze away,And Miller’s saints blow up the globe;But when you see that blessed day,Then order your ascension robe.
The foregoing lines afford ample proof that learning and genius are no substitute for grace. The effect of a cultivated mind on a person whose heart is filled with mockery, is, not to lead him to reverence sacred things, but to enable him to scoff in more polished sentence and smoother phrase, or even, as in this instance, to send forth his muse on an errand of mockery at some of the most solemn truths of the word of God. But the most singular feature of these lines, is the utter misapprehension which they reveal. When all these evils which he so graphically describes are put away from among men, then, says Mr. Holmes, we may expect the end; and his language very plainly implies that the end is not to be expected till this is brought about; whereas the word of God declares that this very state of things, which he acknowledges exists, this utter lack of principle, this all-absorbing selfishness, are the very things that indicate that an incorrigibly apostate race are near the close of their rebellious career. Thus the very signs of the end, which are given to arouse men to a sense of their danger, are, by a piece of satanic legerdemain, transformed into soothing opiates to lull them into a still deeper feeling of carnal security and repose.
Our Lord, in Matt. 13, says that the wheat53and tares shall grow up together till the harvest, and that the harvest is the end of the world. Joel (3:13) says that this harvest comes on account of the wickedness of the people; “Put ye in the sickle, for the harvest is ripe; come get you down for the press is full, the fats overflow; for their wickedness is great. Multitudes, multitudes, in the valley of decision; for the day of the Lord is near in the valley of decision.” Our Lord again says, Matt. 24:12, that just before the end iniquity shall abound, and the love of many shall wax cold. And Paul says, 2 Tim. 3:1–5, that in the last days men shall be lovers of themselves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, and so on, through thirteen other dark particulars. And as it was in the days of Noah, when the land was filled with violence, and in the days of Lot, when it was filled with lust, so shall it be when the Son of Man shall come. Luke 17:26–29. Yet men say, Wait till all these evils are overcome by that gentleness, goodness, faith, and purity which are the fruit of the Spirit, before you have any fears that the end is near. Alas! that, before this unfortunate generation, the chances for eternal ruin so infinitely outnumber the probabilities of their salvation, and alas! that any should, under these circumstances, deliberately lend their powers to mislead the minds of men, and thus hinder them from receiving the truth that they might be saved.
THERE has been a great query in many minds in regard to the exact meaning of the above expression; and some have been in doubt whether the construction put upon it by the authorities recently quoted by Bro. Canright was natural and necessary, or one only adopted to suit their own ideas of the facts in the case. The first is correct; it is the only just view that can be taken of that passage.
The original (Heb. tzad), is used thirty-two times in the Old Testament, and is translated in the side, by the side, beside, &c., but it is never used to denote position as of the contents of anything of which it is spoken. The nearest approach to that use is found in Gen. 6:16: “The door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof;” but the door of a house is no part of the contents of the house. A few instances of its use will give a correct idea of its true signification.
Josh. 3:16: “The city Adam, that is beside Zaretan.”
Its occurrence in 1 Sam. 6:8, is exactly parallel with that of Deut. 31:26. The ark of God was sent home from the land of the Philistines, and a trespass offering was put in a coffer (Heb. tzad) by the side of the ark. And so would Deut. 31:26, be literally rendered. Tzad is several times translated in the side, but never inside; nor will it bear that construction in any case of its occurrence in the Scriptures. By the ark, and not in the ark as a part of its contents, was the place of the book of the law. This book was to be frequently read in the hearing of the people, and was, therefore, frequently brought out of its place of deposit. But they were not permitted to open the ark. Every consideration shows that the book of the law, written by Moses, was not put into the ark. J. H. W.
No Lie is of the Truth.
By R. F. COTTRELL
THIS is a self-evident proposition, yet an apostle, inspired by the Holy Spirit, has stated it, that it might be impressed upon our minds.
Truth is wholly truth—no part of it is a lie—and it is not sustained or aided in the least degree by lies. It stands firmly upon its own basis, and needs no false props. “No lie is of the truth.”
If it is a truth that the first day of the week is the Lord’s Sabbath, there was a time when it became such. When was it? We inquire,
1. Was it the first day of the week that God blessed and sanctified at the beginning, because that in it he had rested from all his work? If so, the first day has been the Sabbath from the very first, and there could be no change to make it the Sabbath since that time.
2. Did the first day become the Sabbath for the reason that the blessing and sanctification of the seventh day pertained to an indefinite seventh part of time? Then the first day has been the Sabbath from the beginning to the full extent that it is now, or ever can become, without the appointment of the specific day; and such appointment would subvert the original design; namely, that the Sabbath should be any one day of rest after six days of labor. With this indefinite-day theory no definite day can become the Sabbath without overturning and nullifying its very foundation. Therefore the first day always was the Sabbath as much as it is now, and it is no more the Christian Sabbath than any other day of the week, the seventh day not excepted.
3. Did the first day become the Sabbath at the birth of Jesus Christ? as the Roman church hold that he “was born upon a Sunday.” If so, it was not the Sabbath before, and has not become such since.
4. Did Christ make the first day the Sabbath by his teaching? If so, it was not the Sabbath from the beginning, nor from his birth; neither could it become the Sabbath at any subsequent time, from the fact that his teaching had already made it such.
5. Did the first day become the Sabbath at the resurrection of Christ? Then it was not the Sabbath before, and could not be made the Sabbath afterward.
6. Did the outpouring of the Spirit upon the apostles on the noted day of Pentecost, bless and sanctify the first day of the week as the Sabbath? Then it had not been the Sabbath from the resurrection of Christ; for it could not be the Sabbath before its sanctification, that is, before it was set apart for this use, and it could not become the Sabbath by any act or saying of the apostles afterward, because it was already appointed. They might refer us to the fact, that the day was blessed and sanctified on the day of Pentecost, but their acts and teachings could not make it the Sabbath.
7. Was the first day made the Sabbath by the action or commandment of the apostles? In that case it had not been the Sabbath from any point of time mentioned before.
Again, we ask, When did the first day become the Sabbath? If it is the Sabbath because it is the very day on which God rested from the work of creation, then there has been no change; and therefore every effort to prove a change is false. Away then with all these false positions; they are not needed; for “no lie is of the truth.”
Or, if it is the Sabbath by virtue of its being one day in seven, it always has been just what it now is. Hence all efforts to prove that it became the Sabbath at any subsequent point of time, are vain, and every added prop is false. It could not become what it already was. To say it became the Sabbath afterward is false; and no lie is of the truth—lies do not help the truth in the least degree.
But if the Sabbath was changed at the resurrection of Christ—if the first day then became the Sabbath instead of the seventh, which had been the Sabbath before, the position that it had been the Sabbath from the creation, by virtue of its being a seventh part of the week, is false, and should be abandoned; for no lie is of the truth.
In answer to the question, When was the change of the Sabbath made? our friends are obliged to say that it was brought about gradually—that Christ in his teaching laid the foundation for the change, that by his resurrection and by the outpouring of the Spirit—two events fifty days apart—he pointed out the day, and left it with the apostles to give the decisive and authoritative instructions in regard to it to the church, which, by the way, they neglected to do.
Yes, my friends, the change was gradual; and the grade was much longer, and consequently not half so steep, as you imagine. Instead of the descent being made in the first century, during the lifetime of the apostles, the change in the law of God was not fully made and the first-day Sabbath completed, till in 538 the church of Rome decreed that all, in the country places as well as in cities and villages, should rest from labor on that day, and anathematized all those who still adhered to the original Sabbath. And it was many centuries later still, when the discovery was made that the fourth commandment could be fully obeyed, in letter and in spirit, by keeping holy the first day of the week. The Roman church claimed the right and authority to change the day, but it remained for Protestants to discover that there needed no change, but that Sunday was the Sabbath by virtue of the original enactment as expressed in the fourth commandment, because it was a seventh part of the week. Any one may be satisfied of the truth of these statements who will read the history of the Sabbath during the present dispensation.
And now every conceivable position is taken, silly, absurd, discordant and contradictory, all that we have named, and how many more of the same sort, or, rather of a like heterogeneous and contradictory character, perhaps no one living can tell, all to prove that we ought to keep the first day as the Christian Sabbath; or, at least, that we need not keep the day that is named in the commandment. As no one place can be found where the first day became the Sabbath, it is said that the argument is cumulative which sustains the change, and hence search is made from the beginning of the Sabbatic institution to the present time, to find reasons for holding that the Sabbath has been changed without any revelation to sustain it. No lie is of the truth; and since these contradictory positions cannot all be true, why not throw away all of them, except the true one, and tell us how and when the first day became the Sabbath? Is not that theory false, which needs so many false props? The different steps in the “cumulative argument” contradict each other. They cannot all be true. But no one can be spared; and, it is thought, that taken altogether the argument is exceedingly strong; and the more strange and contradictory ideas that can be added, the stronger, it is thought, their mountain stands.
The truth has no need of a single lie to sustain it. But the difficulty is this: When you have abandoned every false proof that Sunday is the Sabbath of the Lord, nothing remains.