The following article is from the pen of Prof. N. N. Whiting, of Williamsburg, N. Y., and was published in the Voice of the Prophets, for September, 1863. It claims to be decisive on the Sabbath question, and is consequently just such an article as the readers of the Review will be pleased to examine. If anything is said against the Sabbath, we prefer something which is, or is supposed to be, decisive, reserving the right, of course, to judge for ourselves, whether or not such is its character.
THE SABBATH.
The Hebrew word "Sabbath," has been transferred by the translators of the Septuagint and by the New Testament writers. You are aware that it signifies "a rest," "a lying by from labor." In the Greek it appears in two forms, one is "Sabbaton," a neuter noun of the second declension, with a plural, "Sabbata." The dative plural of this word is "Sabbasi," found in the third declension, as if from a nominative, "Sabbat," or "Sabbas." The genitive plural is "Sabbaton," (long o, as in our word tone.) An English reader when he sees the nominative "Sabbaton," (short o, as in not,) would be likely to confound it with the genitive plural, or vice versa. So much for the form of the word. Now for the use. 1. "Sabbaton" signifies "a rest," "a Sabbath,"—especially, the seventh day of the week. By a metonymy it is also used for the interval from Sabbath to Sabbath, that is, a week. So in Luke xviii, 12: "dis tou Sabbatou," twice in a week. In other instances, this word is used after numerals, as "first," and in Matt. xxviii, 1, after "mian" "one," by Hebrewism for "first." So Mark xvi, 9, "Early the first day of the week," "Proi prote Sabbatou." So Luke xxiv, 1; John xx, 1.
2. The plural form, "Sabbata," is used often with the singular signification. This may be regarded as a Hebrew idiom. In these cases it is in the genitive or dative case, plural, as "Sabbaton," or "Sabbasi." For examples of genitive plural, see Matt. xxviii, 1; Luke iv, 16; Matt. xii, 1; Acts xiii, 15, and xvi, 13. For dative plural, Mark ii, 23, 24; Luke iv, 31; vi, 2, xiii, 10. I believe that there are only two instances in which "Sabbata" (in nominative plural) is properly translated Sabbaths, viz.: Acts xvii, 2, and Col. ii, 16. In the Septuagint, "Sabbata," (nominative plural) is used as a singular, Exodus xvi, 23, 26. Now, as to the passages to which you refer, viz.:
Mark xvi, 9, "prote tou Sabbatou," is "the first day of the week."
Mark xvi, 1, "diagenomenou tou Sabbatou," is "the Sabbath being passed."
Mark xvi, 2, "tes mias Sabbatou," (plural,) "of the first day of the week."
1 Cor. xvi, 2, "kata mian Sabbatou," is "on the first day of the week;"; and Acts xx, 7 is exactly the same, i. e., "mia Sabbatou."
Now, then, I regard Col. ii, 16, as decisive on the Sabbath question. "We are to let no man judge (i. e., have authority) over us in respect to the distinctions of meats or drinks, as clean or unclean, and in respect to holy days, or new moons, or Sabbaths." It is in vain to say, that other days besides Saturday were "days of rest," or Sabbaths. The plural (genitive), "Sabbaton," will include all days of rest. Its most general rest, as we all know, is the most frequent (Sabbath) day of rest. Let me recommend to your notice, Paley's Moral Philosophy, article "Sabbath," for a clear and concise view of this subject.
REMARKS.
It will be seen that all but the concluding paragraph of the foregoing article, is simply a criticism upon the word Sabbath, on which there is no controversy. The last paragraph alone involves a position, and sets forth the views of the writer. He considers Col. ii, 16, as decisive on the Sabbath question. "We are to let no man judge us," &c., "in respect to Sabbaths." Why not? What is the reason for this? How have we come by this freedom in respect to sabbaths? This article does not tell us; but Paul does; and to his language we must therefore appeal: Col. ii, 16: "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days." This language is a conclusion from some preceding statement; something has been done so affecting sabbaths that no man is to judge us in respect to them. What is this? We find it in verse 14, where it is stated that Christ blotted out "the hand-writing of ordinances, that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross." This is all that was done. The "hand-writing of ordinances" was blotted out. Now it will be evident to all that no conclusion can be drawn from this fact showing a release from anything not contained in the hand-writing of ordinances; otherwise, we should have a conclusion broader than the premises, which would be inadmissible. But Paul does deduce from this that we are released from meats, drinks, feast-days, new moons and sabbaths. These things therefore are embraced in the hand-writing of ordinances. To say, then, that the weekly Sabbath is here referred to by the term sabbaths, involves us at once in the hideous conclusion that the weekly Sabbath, the Sabbath of the Lord our God, "the holy of the Lord and honorable," a part of that law which is a delight to the Christian, which is "spiritual," and "holy, just, and good," is but a part of the hand-writing of ordinances! Can we adopt such a conclusion? If we do, we must also accept the unsightly train that follows:
1. If the Sabbath is a part of the hand-writing of ordinances, then is the whole law of ten commandments such also; for the Sabbath is imbosomed in the very midst of those commandments, and was, like them, spoken with the voice of God from the summit of Sinai, and written with his own finger on tables of stone. Whatever argument affects the Sabbath of the fourth commandment, affects in the same direction, and to the very same extent, the whole ten of the commandments.
2. If the Sabbath is a part of the hand-writing of ordinances, then is the Sabbath, and all the ten commandments, abolished and done away; for the hand-writing of ordinances has been blotted out and nailed to the cross; and no man is to judge us in respect to any of these things!
3. If the Sabbath is a part of the hand-writing of ordinances, then was it a shadow of things to come; verse 17; but the Sabbath was instituted before the fall; which at once renders the claim of its being at all shadowy or typical, wholly inadmissible.
4. If the Sabbath is a part of the hand-writing of ordinances, then it is "against" man and "contrary to" him; it is one of the carnal ordinances of Heb. ix, 10, and a part of the yoke of bondage of Acts xv, 10, which Peter told the disciples neither they nor their fathers were able to bear. But on the other hand, the Sabbath is declared to be made "for man," not against him; we are instructed to call it "a delight, the holy of the Lord, honorable;" fearful judgments come upon Israel for neglecting it, and the greatest blessings are appended to its observance, even in prophecies which apply to this dispensation; our Lord devoted a great portion of his ministry to ridding it of its Pharisaic traditions, and placing it upon its true basis, the law of his Father; it is recognized in the New Testament as an existing institution, for this side of the cross, where the hand-writing of ordinances perished; John, in the Revelation, speaks of the Lord's day, showing that the Lord claims one day in this dispensation as his own; and the prophet Isaiah carries us forward into the new earth, and brings to view the Sabbath in that glorious and eternal state.
Do all these declarations refer to the same thing? Then farewell forever to the idea that this is harmonious and consistent with itself! If declarations so palpably contradictory, are all spoken in reference to the same subject, let Christianity retire from the field, and skepticism and infidelity stand forth unimpeached in their audacious claims!
But no: they do not all refer to the same thing. One is spoken of the Sabbath of the Lord; the other of the annual sabbaths of the Hebrews. This people had a class of such sabbaths, as distinct from the Sabbath of the Lord, as the fourth of July is from the Sunday of this land; and to confound the two, is to ignore every feature by which any two objects can be rendered distinct. These annual sabbaths of the Hebrews are associated throughout with their other ordinances of meats, drinks, new-moons &c. The Sabbath of the Lord is never thus associated. These are the sabbaths referred to in Col. ii, 16. The Sabbath of the Lord is not referred to at all in that scripture.
But an attempt is made to override this distinction in the declaration: "It is in vain to say that other days besides Saturday were 'days of rest' or Sabbaths. The plural (genitive), 'Sabbaton' will include all days of rest." To this we have already partly replied by showing that no sabbaths could be included in that expression but such as were included in the hand-writing of ordinances, which is here the subject of Paul's discourse. Because Paul says, as the result of the blotting out of the hand-writing of ordinances, that no man is to judge us in meats, drinks, sabbaths, &c., to play upon the word sabbaths and claim that it comprehends more than Paul has introduced as the subject of his reasoning, is too glaring a fallacy to need refutation.
This would be sufficient on this point; but we reply further, that the assertion that the plural of Sabbaton includes all days of rest cannot be correct, as we have instances where it is applied to the sabbaths of the Jews, and to them exclusively. See Hos. ii, 11: "I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her new moons and her sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts." This is addressed to the Jewish church under the figure of a lewd woman. The Lord by the prophet speaks of a class of sabbaths which he calls her sabbaths. This must refer to the local and ceremonial sabbaths of that people, and to them only; for the Lord never speaks of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment as her sabbath, but always as "the Sabbath of the Lord," "my holy day," &c.; and in this so far as we can learn all commentators are agreed. But here we find the word, sabbaths, according to the Septuagint, from the plural of Sabbaton, just as in Col. ii. The conclusion is therefore not only legitimate but necessary, that Sabbaton either singular or plural is governed by the connection in which it stands, both as to the kind and number of sabbaths to which it refers. The connection in Col. ii, 16, will not allow us to include therein the rest-day of the fourth commandment; and hence that text, instead of being decisive, as is claimed, on the question of the weekly Sabbath, does not even refer to that institution!
Are the Dead Conscious? No. 2.
By R. F. Cottrell
The evidences on this subject must be found in the revelation which God has graciously given us. Men talk of a philosophical argument in favor of natural immortality and consciousness in death. If the fact that Plato and other heathens, that were called philosophers, held the doctrine, furnishes such an argument, they certainly have one. But if it is claimed that natural science furnishes any proof of it, all we have to do is to deny it and ask for the proof. Nothing short of what is called theological science, a science not derived from the oracles of Jehovah, nor from any facts discoverable in nature, but from the oracles of heathen deities and the superstitions of those who did not choose "to retain God in their knowledge," and were consequently given "over to a reprobate mind," and led captive by Satan at his will, can furnish anything in its favor. It is truly lamentable that so much of what is honored with the title of theology, is derived from such a source; but still it is the truth. Witness the heathen festival of the sun, the rival of the Sabbath of the Lord, usurping its place, and sustained by modern theology, Bible in hand! This and that have one parentage; the Bible says nothing in support of either, but much against both.45The utmost stretch of human capacity is not able to discover any difference whatever between the death of a man and that of a brute. As far as our sagacity can penetrate, "as dieth the one, so dieth the other." And no man has come back from the dead, with the information of what he knew while he was dead. A person in a trance is not dead, but living; and, like one in a partial sleep, he may dream. But, on the other hand, there are instances innumerable of living persons being utterly unconscious for a considerable length of time. Where were their immortal souls, which cannot cease to think during that time? And what principle of philosophy is that which teaches, that should you take a person in an unconscious state, and dash his brain to fragments, instantly his consciousness will return, and he will know, not only all he ever knew in his life, but besides this, what it is to be dead, and what is to be his eternal destiny? A slight pressure on the brain produces utter unconsciousness; but, according to this philosophy, grind the person to powder, or burn him to ashes, and it only increases his knowledge! If the word of the Lord asked me to believe this, I would try to believe it; but "oppositions of science, falsely so called," will fail to produce the slightest conviction of its truth.
It is a well known fact, that the powers of the mind, the judgment and the memory, decline and fall with those of the body. This is utterly inconsistent with the idea that the mind is immortal, and not dependent upon the body for the exercise of its faculties.
We turn from the wisdom of man to the word of the Lord; and this word we shall find decisive of the question before us. It is said of Adam and of many of the antediluvian patriarchs, that they lived to a certain age and then died. The Bible nowhere informs us of an immortal principle that is separated from the body at death; but the man himself is represented as dying. "Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return," is the word of Him who cannot lie. Jacob, when about to die, charged his sons, saying, "Bury me with my fathers in the cave that is in the field of Ephron the Hittite. There they buried Abraham and Sarah his wife; there they buried Isaac and Rebekah his wife; and there I buried Leah." Gen. xlix, 29. How unorthodox are such expressions at the present day! The man himself is represented as dying and being buried; as going down into the grave and mingling with the dust. If this is not the truth, it seems to me the Bible ought to have told us of it. But it has not. But concerning the resurrection it is said, that "all that are in the grave shall hear his voice, and shall come forth."
Job said of himself, in case he had died in infancy, "For now should I have lain still and been quiet, I should have slept, then had I been at rest." Ch. iii, 13. Could Job be asleep and awake at the same time? Could he be in motion when he was at rest? It certainly looks like an impossibility. "I will tell you how it is," says a friend, "the body sleeps while the soul is awake, the body rests while the soul is in motion. The soul is immortal; it cannot die."
But Ezekiel says, "The soul that sinneth, it shall die."
"But," says my friend, "you quote it as though the spirit of man was meant by the term soul, when the context incontestibly shows that no more than person or life is meant by it."
'Amen. That is just what is meant by the term. Person and life are its primary and chief significations. When it is said \'Man became a living soul,\' person is meant. He became a living person. And when it is said, \'Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath soul,\' life simply is the meaning of the term. Hence a person, or any being that has life, is a living soul. And when it is said, \'The soul that sinneth, it shall die,\' death is threatened against the living person that sins. And when it is said, \'As her soul was in departing,\' (for she died,) life is all that departed; \'she died.\' Gen. xxxv, 18, 19. \'Rachel died, and was buried.\' This is the key that unlocks the whole subject.'
But, my friend, you make a distinction between soul and spirit; and seem to admit that the soul is mortal, while you claim that the spirit is immortal. I believe it is generally understood that the "immortal soul" and the "deathless spirit" are one and the same thing. This idea must be corrected. Two parts of man, then, the body and the soul, are admitted to be mortal, while immortality is only claimed for one part out of three. This is narrowing down the controversy. And when it is proved, as it has been, that the spirit, which at death returns to God who gave it, is simply the breath of life which was breathed into his nostrils at the beginning, the whole question is settled.
R. F. COTTRELL.
The Faith of Jesus.
By Wm. S. Foote
Wɖ understand that the faith of Jesus is something definite, or having precise limits; embracing a perfectly correct religious system; and any departure from, or opposition to it, whether through design or ignorance, is radically wrong. The proclamation of the third angel of Rev. xiv, 9-11, is now being heard; and in connection with that proclamation it is said in verse 12, "Here is the patience of the saints, here are they that keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus."
Reader, there is now a people among us, who are striving through the assisting grace of God, in patience to possess their souls, waiting for the coming of their Lord; and keeping "the faith of Jesus." The faith of Jesus is something which may be kept, and this faith is a thorough knowledge and belief of the truth, as revealed to us by our Lord.
As the coming of our Lord is near at hand, it seems absolutely necessary that we should be in possession of, or fully understand his testimony; for in Eph. v, 27, it is said that he is to "present to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish." It is said also in 2 John 9, 10, "Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God; He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, hath both the Father and the Son." "If there come any unto you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed."
The question then arises, How shall we, amid the conflicting views of the present day, be able to decide what is right, and what is wrong? The Baptists would say, Go with us, and the Methodists, Go with us; and so with each one and all of the different religionists of the age. But what says the testimony? "If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself." John vii, 17. What is it to do the will of God? "This is the will of God, that ye keep his commandments." "A good understanding have all they that keep his commandments." Ps. cxi, 10. "My son forget not my law, but let thine heart keep my commandments, so shalt thou find favor and good understanding, in the sight of God and man." Prov. iii, 1-4. Do you wish the Spirit of God to lead you into the faith of Jesus? Peter speaking of Christ, says in Acts v, 32, "And we are witnesses of these things, and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him."
At the present time we wish to call your attention to the law of God, that law, which, according to the testimony of Jesus, is "came not to destroy." As a brother once said, "Man may get up a golden calf, and pretend to pray and shout, and sing, and think they have a good religion; but the Bible tells us, that 'he that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer shall be an abomination.'" Prov. xxviii, 9. "He that saith I know him and keepeth not his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him." Through grace, let us first understand, then keep, and live according to "the faith of Jesus."
WM. S. FOOTE.
Pendleton, O.
Astonishing Apostasy.
Elder Moses Hull Departed from the Faith, and Gone to Spiritualism!
STATEMENT OF THE GENERAL CONF. COMMITTEE.
DEAR BRETHREN: It becomes the unpleasant duty of your Committee to announce to you through these columns, the glaring heresies and downfall of Elder Moses Hull. To you who have ever looked upon this man as sound in the faith, and have been so often pleased with his preaching, this statement may seem rather startling, yet it is nevertheless but the utterance of truth. For more than five years, Elder Hull has been an acknowledged preacher among this people, exercising the various functions of a Christian minister with the approval of the body, and as such he has been cheerfully sustained by the liberalities of the church. But to-day he is a fallen man, and in the light of the sacred Scriptures, a heretic of the most obnoxious kind. We will now state some of his present views, which not only relieve him from any further duties in this cause, but exclude him from the fellowship of all who revere the word of God. The points are as follows:
1. His rejection of the Bible, as a rule of life.46
2. A denial of the divinity of Jesus Christ.
3. Rejection of the vicarious merits of the blood of Christ, and consequently the whole doctrine of the atonement.
4. Believes in the almost total unaccountability of man.
5. Maintains that every individual of the race of Adam will progress, until all will become good, happy, and saved.
6. Denies the doctrine of the physical resurrection.
7. Questions the existence of a personal Devil.
8. Discards the idea of future punishment to the wicked.
9. Denies the mortality of man.
10. Believes in the conscious state of the dead.
11. Rejects the Bible view of the saints' inheritance.
12. Disbelieves entirely the view of Christ's atoning work as a High Priest in the heavenly sanctuary.
13. In short, he has adopted the theory and philosophy of Modern Spiritualism almost in toto.
These points were obtained in an interview recently held by two of the three members of the General Conference Committee, and the Michigan State Conference Committee, with Eld. Hull, and in private conversation. The reader will perceive from them that the "fearful leap" has been taken, and that the prediction of the apostle, "In the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils," in him finds an instance of most literal accomplishment. To-day Eld. Hull is a spirit-medium. He has taken part in circles in this city, has already made some converts to the theory, and talks as glibly of the "spheres," "circles," "mesmerism," and "the summer-land," as if they were his mother tongue. He is what is called an "impressible medium," and now writes through spirit influence.
Concerning his views now, it may be safely said that he does not hold one point in common with this people. To the question asked him, what views he still maintained as formerly, he replied, all he could then think of were "spiritual gifts and the Sabbath." But his views of spiritual gifts, as he expounded them to us, are no more like the Bible view than black is like white. He holds that every human being has a gift—a continual inspiration from his guardian spirit. As to his keeping the Sabbath, he observes it on other authority than the Holy Scriptures; for he stated to one of the committees that when his "inspiration" told him the seventh day was not the Sabbath, he should no longer keep it.
Some of his positions are so blasphemous that it will startle the reader to see them. Concerning the offering of Christ on the cross, he remarked, that his blood was of no more worth to other beings, than if Moses Hull should be sacrificed by some wicked mob for his good deeds that he might do! How far this falls short of doing "despite to the Spirit of grace," and "counting the blood of the covenant wherewith he was sanctified an unholy thing," let the reader judge. Of the point first mentioned, his rejection of the Bible as an unerring rule, he said, "The Bible would do for that age, but I will not give up my inspiration for that of any Bible writer." Speaking of the condition of the human family, he remarked, "I regard all mankind as doing about as well as they can. If they err, it is attributable to their organization. My present views nearly do away with the accountability of man; but not entirely." Speaking of the doctrine of progression, he said, the men who lived in Noah's time were not destroyed as a penalty for not getting into the ark, but because they could not believe Noah's doctrine; that they struggled a little in the water, and then commenced their march in the spheres just where they left the world. We might mention many other remarks expository of his unbelief, but the above is sufficient to make the moral distance between him and true-hearted Seventh-day Adventists as far as the East is from the West. He has not only proved recreant on points which are of vital interest to us at the present time, but he has renounced those cardinal doctrines which are common to every so-called orthodox persuasion in the world.
Against his personal character, however, we have no particular charges to bring. Our people have sustained Eld. Hull as a preacher among them, in full confidence that he was a man of good moral character. No Sabbath-keeper has intimated anything to the contrary, to our knowledge. And we can excuse his recent childish threats of what he would do if his character should be attacked, on the ground that he has been labored with patiently and faithfully since he came among us, both by preachers and leading members, for his imprudences, especially in regard to those females who wish to distinguish themselves by being very intimate with a young preacher. These imprudences have sometimes made him and the cause with which he was connected subjects of reproach. Many unfavorable reports followed Eld. Hull when laboring in Iowa, which threatened his usefulness in that State. But the Battle Creek church did not credit these reports. They regarded them as resulting from the advantages which opponents took of his incautious conduct. They saw in this young man some talent as a speaker, and with the hope of benefiting him, in seeing that his temporal wants were liberally supplied, and in correcting those faults in him which often exposed him to the reproaches of the enemies of the Lord, the church invited him to move his family to Battle Creek.
Yet it is a fact, not much known among our people, that before Eld. Hull moved to Battle Creek, nearly three years since, he was required to sign a written article as a bond for his consistent walk. As a speaker he has generally excelled, and has been put forward to preach on such occasions as our General Conferences; but in the church at Battle Creek, where he is best known, he has not been considered a safe counselor in matters pertaining to the cause.
Last May the General Conference Committee decided to place Eld. Hull in a new field. He had crippled his own influence in the West, in Michigan, by falling under the influence of a trance-speaking Spiritualist at Paw Paw about one year since, and in Western New York by imprudences in connection with tent-meetings there two years ago last August. The Committee decided to place him beyond the influence of these misfortunes, if possible, hoping that with the prudent example of Eld. Loughborough before him, and benefited by his judicious caution, he would improve, and be a blessing to the cause in New England.
And not having confidence in Eld. Hull's abilities, excepting as a preacher, the Committee gave to Eld. Loughborough the charge of the work, following in the matter somewhat the custom of the Methodists. In this decision he cordially acquiesced, and expressed himself much pleased with the arrangement before ten or more ministers who were seated in the editor's room in the Review Office. But after Elds. Loughborough and Hull had labored together in New England about three months, Eld. Hull demurred against the decision of the Committee, stating that he would be second to no man. He stated in Manchester, N. H., before Eld. James White and others that he did not object to the course of Eld. Loughborough, as he had only carried out the decision of the General Conference Committee; but his complaint was against the Committee.
Soon his old doubts, which have been his occasional companions for the past twelve months, revived in all their furor, and he withdrew from the field to his family, who were then stopping in Indiana.
Immediately on his return home, to Battle Creek, he went into the trunk business, and has occupied his time in making trunks, and attending circles and lectures, and such investigations, until now he is a spirit medium of quite fair proportions. Being somewhat restive under restraint, we presume Mr. Hull will now enjoy greater freedom of mind in going out and in before that class where "every man does what is right in his own eyes," and whose creed in brief is, "Whatever is, is right."
In this course which Eld. Hull has pursued, the Committee claim that they have a perfect demonstration of the justice of their decision in not giving him a leading voice in the management of this work. For in the short space of less than four months, he has abandoned every point of faith which he was then professedly defending, and has made a complete, not to say unparalleled, apostasy in his religious belief. Is such a man to be entrusted with the management of the cause of truth? Not if those engaged in that cause ever want to know where they are going. It is his rebellion against this just restraint of the church, who saw that he was a man who must be looked after and counseled, that has resulted in his final overthrow. Under the influence of the counsel of brethren, and the more powerful restraints of the word of God, we consider that his moral character, notwithstanding his mistakes, has been unimpeachable; but now that he has broken away from these restraints, we would suggest to his new friends that we consider the past no guarantee for the future in this respect.
As far as duty is concerned in this matter, we think the church are clear from the blood of this man's soul. They have done for him, temporally and spiritually, all that Christian love and sympathy could suggest. In spiritual things, the leading members of the Battle Creek church have spent weeks of labor in trying to help him. In temporal things, they have done more than their duty. They took him from the very dunghill of poverty, houseless, homeless, and destitute, and he leaves us to serve the cause of Spiritualism, with a good home, into which the Battle Creek church alone have put one hundred dollars' worth of furniture.
The following is a verbatim report of a frank statement made by Eld. Hull before us:
"I am willing to sign a statement that my brethren have done all that was good, and honorable, and just, by me. I have not a word of fault to find with them as to my temporal and spiritual good. Bro. and sister White have been honest and kind, and not designed to abuse me. I think they are rather sharper than need be."
Concerning the future labors of Elder Hull we know but little. The period of his incubation being over, he will probably assume some sphere of activity. Doubtless he will take the field as a lecturer on the New Philosophy. In the name of God whom he is dishonoring we would warn the church everywhere against his influence. He says he expects to bring many good Seventh-day Adventists over to his views, and without any particular effort on his part.
Brethren, let this case be a warning to all. Eld. H. once stood firm and clear in the truth. And his fall is a striking illustration of the dangers of venturing within the influence of Spiritualism under the plea of investigation. But perhaps we shall be met with the scriptural injunction, "Prove all things." Then we reply, Spiritualism has already been proved. Its diabolical nature and tendency have been fully shown; and under such circumstances to go off upon the Devil's ground, to investigate his great deception, is about the same as it would be to go into a nest of rattlesnakes to investigate the nature of the poison which they eject from their deadly fangs.
Poor Elder Hull! how we pity him! and how our hearts have yearned toward him like David's to Absalom, as we have seen him fascinated with the snake-like charms of Spiritualism. But the die is cast, the old Serpent at last has him in his fatal folds, and he who so zealously warned others of the dangerous meshes of Satan's net, has now deliberately walked into the snare, and given himself up to be "led captive by him at his will."
Let a useful lesson be learned from this,—that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong; but that our only safety is in humble dependence upon the outstretched arm of Israel's God. And to the household of faith, who are keeping the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ, we would say in the affectionate words of the apostle, "Now unto Him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy, to the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen."
JOHN BYINGTON,
J. N. ANDREWS,
G. W. AMADON.
}
General Conf.
Executive
Committee.
Battle Creek, Mich., Jan. 3, 1864.
We, the undersigned, concur in the above statement.
URIAH SMITH,
JOHN BYINGTON,
CYRENIUS SMITH.
}
Mich. State
Conference
Committee.
A Few Thoughts on the Penalty of the Original Law.
By WM. S. INGRAHAM
The penalty of the original law is not spiritual or moral death.
1. Spiritual death is a state of sin and no punishment.
2. It would confound the crime with the penalty, and would be virtually saying to man, because you have sinned, I pronounce you a sinner.
3. If spiritual death is the penalty, and Christ suffered the full penalty of the law, it follows that Christ died a spiritual death, which is to be dead in trespasses and sins; which would prove that he was a sinner and give the word of God the lie; for it says, In him was no sin.
4. If spiritual death is the penalty of the law, and is never to be changed, but there is to be a continuation of the same in hell, it contradicts the Bible; for that teaches that the sinner must suffer the second death.
The penalty of the original law was physical or corporeal death. Proof, (1) Gen. iii, 17-24. Verse 19 reads as follows: "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken; for dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return."
That the penalty might be inflicted upon Adam, God drives him from the garden, cuts him off from having access to the tree of life, deprives him of the means of perpetuating his existence; and the result is, Adam goes back into the dust. And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died. The penalty God pronounced upon Adam has never been revoked. Immediately after man's transgression, the elements of nature were placed in opposition to him that he might lead a life of toil, become subject to the ills incident to his natural life, until his career is ended and he sleeps in the dust. The same dying nature that Adam possessed he has entailed upon his posterity. The seeds of mortality are ripening fast, and our friends are continually going to the hills of the dead. If it had not been for the scheme of salvation through Jesus Christ, the sleep of Adam and his posterity must have been an eternal, unconscious night in the dust of the earth.
Proof, (2) Rom. v, 12: "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned."
Proof, (3) 1. Cor. xv, 21: For since by man came death, by man (or Christ) came also the resurrection of the dead." If it had not been for the transgression of man, the boon of eternal life would have been his.
Notwithstanding man by transgression involved the world in ruin, yet God's love was not exhausted. A remedy is provided, a scheme devised for man's recovery. Eternal life is promised through a crucified and risen Saviour to all the faithful ones. The blessing of eternal life is placed before us as an object of hope and pursuit. Shall we make an effort to secure the treasure?
Reader, let us try to be loyal to the government of Heaven. The promise is to them who by patient continuance in well doing, seek for glory and honor and immortality. Eternal life is the reward. The blessed and holy will have a part in the first resurrection at the coming of Christ. But the sinner comes up in the second resurrection, and will be doomed to the second death as the reward of his own personal sins.
Monroe, Wis. WM. S. INGRAHAM.
Letters.
"Then they that feared the Lord, spake often one to another."
💌 This department of the paper is designed for the brethren and sisters to freely and fully communicate with each other respecting their hopes and determinations, conflicts and victories, attainments and desires, in the heavenly journey. Then they, says the prophet, that feared the Lord spake often one to another. We believe emphatically that we are living in that time. Therefore seek first a living experience and then record it, carefully and prayerfully, for the comfort and encouragement of the other members of the household of faith. Let this department be well filled with lively testimonies of the goodness of God, and the value of his truth.
From Sister Olds.
Bro. White: I am much encouraged by reading the testimonies of those of like precious faith. I with my companion embraced the truth under the labors of Brn. M. E. Cornell and B. F. Snook at Laporte City, Iowa. I praise God that I ever had the privilege of hearing the proclamation of the third angel's message, and that I had a heart willing to receive and try to obey its precepts. I am still trying to keep all of God's commandments, and the faith of Jesus, which we read is the spirit of prophecy. I am a firm believer in spiritual gifts. I believe that God is at the head of this work, and that he is leading out a people to witness his coming, and to be prepared for translation. Oh how careful and prayerful ought we to live! I want to live a faithful, humble, devoted, Christian. I want a humble place among God's children. I want to be among the number that will be ready to meet Jesus when he comes.
We are truly living in perilous times, when it is very necessary to cry earnestly to the Lord for help. I feel as though I was among the weakest, yet I feel like saying, "Let us lay aside every weight and the sin that doth so easily beset us and run the race with patience, looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith. I do feel thankful that we have an high priest that can be touched with the feelings of our infirmities, one who was tempted in all points like as we are, yet without sin. Let us come boldly then unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain help in time of need.
I hope that I received the truth for the love of the truth; and I pray that these truths may sink deeper and deeper into my heart, until I shall be able through the grace of God to overcome the last sin. Oh that my prospects may grow brighter and brighter until the perfect day.
F. Olds.
La Porte City, Iowa.