Earlier text: General ArticlesTHE SPIRITS CANNOT BE IDENTIFIED.
By Editor
If this assertion can be established, if it can be shown that Spiritualists themselves, after long and carefully testing the matter, acknowledge that spirits cannot be identified—that they will personate and deceive so as to defy all efforts at detection—then their unreliability is fully shown. No better evidence than this is needed of the danger of the system, because deception cannot certainly be detected in any instance, therefore the deception may be permanent—never exposed till the deceived and bewildered soul is ruined. In arguing this and other points, we produce as evidence the testimony of Spiritualists, and such as have been Spiritualists; we will introduce their evidence, with a few interesting remarks from Pres. Mahan:— "Certain experiments have been made, in order to determine whether spirits are present. Individuals go in as inquirers, and get definite answers—in the first place, from departed spirits of persons yet living; in the second place, from departed spirits of persons who never existed here or anywhere else; in the third place from departed spirits of brute beasts. Now, it will not be denied that answers are obtained from these, but it is said the communications come from spirits in a dishonest state of mind. But they will answer all the test questions that any other spirits can do. You cannot get a test applied in any question, cannot form or establish a test, that will not be as perfectly fulfilled in these cases as in any other. Now, if lying spirits can read our inmost thoughts, what evidence have you that any but lying spirits ever did communicate? How do you know but that when you were communicating, the father of lies was present, and shaped his lies for the very purpose of deception?"—Discussion at Cleveland with Tiffany and Rehn, page 13. Had the President followed up the last idea presented above, instead of trying to account for all the phenomena on natural principles, he would doubtless have more nearly met the arguments of his opponents. Again, he says:— "I venture to affirm that the testimony of no individual would be received in a court of justice which varied according to the persons with whom he conversed. Now I say that you cannot bring a solitary spirit that will not do this identical thing. A spirit will come into an orthodox circle, and affirm absolutely all the articles of the orthodox creed. You may in the same spot change the character of the circle and he will deny all he has said before. You may change the third time, and he will deny all he has said before, and assert an entirely new theory. Now I will appeal to any judge of any court, if he would receive the testimony of such a person. Again, they contradict each other in things that spirits cannot be ignorant of. They have attempted to tell us the location of the spheres, the distance between the surface of the earth and the spheres; and I do not believe that you can bring two spirits from the vasty deep that will agree in such a simple fact as that—that will agree with regard to any essential condition with reference to the spirits there, who is there, and what is their condition. "Judge Edmonds has drawn a picture of what he has seen, that made one of his hearers say, 'Why, Judge Edmonds, that is worse than a Presbyterian Hell!' He says that he has seen spirits which have been there 18,000 years, that look like monkeys, and that he has seen those who have horns, just as he has seen in pictures. I take the books, and then the testimony of all that have witnessed these circles, of whom I have inquired, and I have never yet met an individual who would honestly tell me that he believed that the testimony of the spirits was reliable."—Ib., page 37. In a discussion of this subject in the summer of 1856, one who claimed to have been the first Spiritualist in the State of Michigan (a Mr. Hobart of St. Joseph County), made the following remark:— "The spirit sometimes assumes the name of an individual belonging to the same church, to induce them to hear. This is necessary with some who are so bigoted they would not believe unless a name was assumed which they respected." This was an admission which we did not then suppose an intelligent Spiritualist would make. Any such assumption by a lying spirit would avail nothing if the person spoken to believed what the Bible says, that "the dead know not anything." Eccl. 9:5. That they do deceive those who seek to them is beyond all doubt; and to ward off the force of this fact, the flimsy covering of doing evil that good may come, is thrown over them. They are good, but it is our weakness and bigotry that causes them to profess to be what they are not! They are obliged to deceive us for our benefit, and to lie us into the truth! We did not know till that time that Spiritualists had so little confidence in these communications; but investigation proves the fact. Yet it is obvious that all Spiritualists have changed in their faith and lives under the influence of the spirits. This is a point worthy of careful consideration, that they are continually being molded and fashioned by an influence in which they dare not publicly avow the least confidence. "Persons have supposed that when they get correct answers they get tests. But when we come to understand that the spirit can come into rapport with the mind in the circle, we then discover that he can perceive his thoughts and get the answer as well as the question from his mind, and then being in communication with the medium can answer all his questions, and give him perfect answers, as to identity, at the same time that he is a far different spirit from what he purports to be."—Discussion with Mahan, page 52. The following remarks from Dr. Hare, made in the N. Y. Investigation Class, show that he also believed there was danger of being deceived:— "There was a difficulty, undoubtedly, in knowing precisely how it is, even upon the testimony of spirits, because spirits there occupying different spheres and immensely differing in their degrees of development, accordingly give discrepant accounts of the matter. We must first identify the spirit and determine his trustworthiness before we could accredit his testimony. We must observe the same rules of evidence, apply the same tests, and have the same care in ascertaining their identity and veracity as we do in like matters here." What folly, to talk of applying the same tests of identity to spirits that we do to persons here! The Doctor knew better, as every one does. But he admits that we cannot trust them, unless we can identify them, and the most experienced Spiritualists say that that is impossible. He seemed to consider himself safe from deception, as will appear by the following remark:— "He thought it impossible that he could have been deceived. It was not likely that any spirit would, in such a convocation, where Washington, Franklin, his father and mother, and others were present, assume a false character and name to deceive him any more than it was possible for any individual to assume to be and speak as some one else at a town meeting, without being detected." But Dr. Hare assumed that "Washington, Franklin, his father and mother," were present, for he could have no evidence of it whatever. We have attended many town meetings in years gone by, but we never yet knew any man to speak in such meetings in the name of his neighbor; but such things often take place in "circles," according to the testimony of Spiritualists. Judge Edmonds, in "Spiritual Tracts," No. 7, page 4, says:— "One day while I was at West Roxbury, there came to me, through Laura as the medium, the spirit of one with whom I had been well acquainted, but from whom I had been separated some fifteen years. His was a very peculiar character—one unlike that of any other man whom I ever knew, and so strongly marked that it was not easy to mistake his identity. "I had not seen him in several years; he was not at all in my mind at the time, and he was unknown to the medium. Yet he identified himself unmistakably, not only by his peculiar characteristics, but by referring to matters known only to him and me. "I took it for granted he was dead, and was surprised afterward to learn that he was not. He is yet living. "I cannot, on this occasion, go into all the particulars of an interview which lasted more than an hour. I was certain there was no delusion about it, and as certain that it was just as much of a spirit-manifestation as any I ever witnessed or heard of." But the credulity of Spiritualists knows no bounds. With all the evidence before him, and the well-known admissions of Spiritualists that lying spirits personate our friends so well as to defy detection, the Judge yet thought it was the spirit of his living friend! The following experience of a circle of "six ladies and gentlemen," is taken from the Boston Bee. The spirit of a dog first identified itself; the paper states:— "Several satisfactory answers were given relative to its name, that of its late master, time of its decease, etc. . . . The next spirit was that of a cat, who revealed the secret that it had been drowned while at a very tender age, in a cistern, by a young lady who was present. The answers in this instance were correct and satisfactory. "After this, a gentleman (who was a medium) asked if the spirit of a favorite horse was present. The raps were in the affirmative. The raps then gave the name of the horse by the alphabet, its age, the number of years it had been dead, the name of the place where it had been struck by lightning," etc. [Copied from Prof. Mattison.] In these instances the most satisfactory "tests of identity" were given. Who has ever known any better to be given by any spirits? Dr. Hare became satisfied that he was conversing with Christ, but Woodman says:— "For our part, we do not believe that Jesus Christ has communicated through any medium directly during the present century, though we do not pretend to know. If he should come to communicate, how would he be known? No living person would know him by his form, his voice, or his writing. No person could be induced to recollect by the relation of unpublished facts in his life, or by any peculiar marks of idiosyncrasies of character, for all these are unknown. So far as we could see, there could be nothing to identify his person. If the communication should be in any respect impure or immoral in its tendency, it would stand self-condemned. If it should be found in perfect harmony with the divine law, still it might come from some other intervening spirit."—Reply to Dwight, page 65. These remarks would apply to any other as well as unto Christ. And if the professed Christ should communicate "in perfect harmony with the divine law," Mr. Woodman would be inclined to regard it as some intervening spirit—and lying spirit, of course, professing to be what it was not. But suppose it professed to be one who had lived in the present century, with whose form, voice, writing, character, etc., we were acquainted, could we identify him with any greater certainty? A. J. Davis, in the Herald of Progress, Feb. 1, 1862, in answer to a question concerning the appearance of spirits, says:— "These appearances are intended merely as reminders and as tests of identity. All intelligent spirits are great artists. They can psychologize a medium to see them, and to describe them, in the style which would produce the greatest impression on the receiver. . . . They can easily represent themselves as being old or young, as in worldly dress or in flowing robes, as is deemed best suited to accomplish the ends of the visitation. They substitute pantomime and appearance for oral explanations." THROUGH all my little daily cares there is
One thought that comfort brings whene'er it comes;
'Tis this—"God knows." He knows
Each struggle that my hard heart makes to bring
My will to his. Often when night-time comes,
My heart is full of fears, because the good
That seemed, at morn, so easy to be done,
Has proved so hard; but then remembering
That a kind Father is my Judge, I say,—
"He knows." And so I lay me down with trust,
That his good hand will give me needed strength
To better do his work in coming days.
—Selected. THEIR TENDENCY IS TO ATHEISM AND IMMORALITY.
LATER still we have the evidence of Dr. Wm. B. Potter of N. Y. In an article under the head of "Astounding Facts," and also in a tract entitled, "Spiritualism as it Is," he has given us the result of his experience and observation. While he portrays Spiritualism with as horrible features as any of the preceding witnesses, his testimony is still more conclusive, if possible, than theirs, as he is yet a Spiritualist, and does not publish to renounce the system, for he still advocates it publicly, but with the vain hope of inducing Spiritualists to correct their errors and amend their lives. We have only room for brief extracts, sufficient, however, to give us a fair view of this most monstrous of all abominations. He says:— "Fifteen years of critical study of Spiritual literature, an extensive acquaintance with the leading Spiritualists, and a patient, systematic, and thorough investigation of the manifestations, for many years, enable us to speak from actual knowledge, definitely and positively, of Spiritualism as it Is. Spiritual literature is full of the most insidious and seductive doctrines calculated to undermine the very foundations of morality and virtue, and lead to the most unbridled licentiousness." "We are told that 'we must have charity,' that it is wrong to blame any one, that we must not expose iniquity as it will harden the guilty, that 'none should be punished,' that 'man is a machine and not to blame for his conduct,' that 'there is no high, no low, no good, no bad,' that 'sin is a lesser degree of righteousness,' that 'nothing we can do can injure the soul or retard its progress,' that 'those who act the worst will progress the fastest,' that 'lying is right, slavery is right, murder is right, adultery is right,' that whatever is, is right." "Hardly can you find a Spiritualist book, paper, lecture, or communication, that does not contain some of these pernicious doctrines; in disguise, if not openly. Hundreds of families have been broken up, and many affectionate wives deserted by 'affinity-seeking' husbands. Many once devoted wives have been seduced, and left their husbands and tender, helpless children, to follow some 'higher attraction.' Many well-disposed but simple-minded girls have been deluded by 'affinity' notions, and led off by 'affinity-hunters,' to be deserted in a few months, with blasted reputations, or led to deeds still more dark and criminal to hide their shame." Speaking of the prevalence and influence of licentious principles among Spiritualists, he mentions the following well-known fact:— "At the National Spiritual Convention, at Chicago, called to consider the question of a National Organization, the only plan approved by the committee especially provided that no charge should ever be entertained against any member, and that any person, without any regard to his or her moral character, might become a member." Such statements as these do not surprise us at all. We cannot be surprised that effect follows cause. We have shown that the teachings of Spiritualism lead to this result, a result we have looked for since the first introduction of this system of error. The Cleveland Herald, speaking of Dr. Hatch's statements, says:— "The Doctor gives other cases to illustrate this, but those of our readers who saw the experiments made in this city not long since by Spencer, need no further proof of the assertion, that there are cases in which the subject becomes perfectly under the control of the operator." Spiritualists claim that "the spirits" can work wonders through the media that mesmeric and psychological operators cannot reach through their subjects. Of course they must have entire, complete control of the medium. In connection with this fact, take the admissions of Spiritualists that no spirit can be identified, and what a field of deception is opened before us! This point we propose to examine. Prizes in Schools.
By Editor
The Northwestern Advocate has a good editorial in which the custom of awarding prizes for excelling in certain branches in study is condemned. The editor well says that those who receive the prize and those who fail to receive it are injured. The rivalry is stimulated by an unhealthy motive. It is offered for excelling in some particular study; special labor is bestowed on that branch, and others are neglected. Our contemporary says:— “The prize is a species of gambling; success for one by the failure, the calamity, of several. There is a large element of chance in it, for the judgment of the awarding judges is often as reliable a test of justice as a throw of the dice; not more. They are the petit jury sitting in a school-room. The excitement which permeates chapel or church on the occasion of the contest is so like the excitement at a horse-race or billiard-match, as to leave little difference except in the classes who patronize them. Does the more respectable presence at the one afford pardon for similar acts among the less respectable class? Rather is it the excesses about the hoof and hand contests for prizes which ought to warn the head against following into the same line of amusements. It is the laying of the foundation for love of excitement and for money or goods not earned.” To all of which we fully subscribe, and we now, as heretofore, would discountenance the custom with emphasis.—Cal. Chris. Advocate. Divorce and Moral Decline in New England
THE ratio of divorce to marriage has been as follows during the last few years in four New England States: Vermont, 1 to 16; Massachusetts, 1 to 23; Rhode Island, 1 to 13; Connecticut, 1 to 10. If Maine and New Hampshire have a like divorce record, the number of couples in the New England States who make a shipwreck of matrimony is about 1,800 annually. This record, which has few parallels in history is only one of the several symptoms of moral decline in New England. Church-going is falling into disuse and religion is neglected. There is no superabundance of religious sentiment of any sort among the professors and students of Harvard and Yale colleges.—Exchange. Southern California Camp-Meeting.
By Editor
The San Joaquin Valley is mostly a sandy plain, looking like a barren desert at this season of the year, except where it is irrigated. With plenty of water it produces abundantly. An irrigating ditch has run through the ground where the camp was located, in nearly the form of a semi-circle. A row of weeping willows was planted on either bank. The ditch is now dry and leveled down, and the family tents to the number of 42, were pitched underneath these willows, the branches of which, lengthened by a hasty growth produced by irrigation, trailed upon the ground, furnishing a drapery of green around the tents. The effect was pleasing; altogether unlike anything we ever saw elsewhere. In the bend of the circle the large tent was pitched. Previous to the high wind, of which we spoke last week, the weather was hot in the valley. During thirty days, just before the time of the meeting, the thermometer ranged as low as 102 degrees only on three days; but rising as high as 117. The wind blew some during most of the meeting, growing hotter toward the close. The nights were beautiful—just cool enough to be pleasant—and the moon was at the full. The opening of the meeting we have already noticed. Things moved rather slowly, which was not surprising, as the brethren and sisters in that valley are mostly new in the faith. But the meeting was successful; every subject presented met with general acceptance, and prejudice was removed from minds where it had been strongly entrenched. The Sabbath-school was interesting. That branch of our work was greatly advanced, and we feel confident that the schools in Central California will increase in usefulness. It was proved to all that a Camp-meeting may be an occasion of great benefit to children. Visiting the home of a family in “Central Colony,” the father and mother in which fully embraced the truth at the meeting, we were introduced to two children aged eight years. On our inquiring of the mother why she did not take them with her to the meeting, she expressed her regret that she did not; but she never knew before that a Camp-meeting was a proper place to take children. This was a favorable comment on the influence of the meeting. On Sunday, as usual, the discourses were mostly on points of doctrine, embracing immortality and the Sabbath. But the number present was not large. Another Camp-meeting was in progress not far from ours, where all resorted who love excitement and noise, of which it was reported they had plenty there. Our meetings are altogether too orderly to suit that class. But the effect was as good as if they had been present. Those who attended came to hear, and were benefited by the presentation of the truth. On invitation more than thirty came forward for prayers. On Monday afternoon eighteen were baptized. Some of these cases were of more than ordinary interest. And we look for fruit from the conviction fastened on the minds of others. The temperance meeting was productive of much good. The brethren and sisters largely signed the “teetotal pledge.” We were much disappointed to find the friends so far behind in the health reform. We had reason to note this, as bolted flour bread is an abomination to us, especially when produced in the form of pasty hot biscuits. We saw no graham bread upon the ground till near the close of the meeting, and that which we then saw was produced by special friends to meet our oft-expressed want. In the absence of hygienic cookery we lived mostly upon grapes, which are there produced in great abundance and of the very best quality. We plucked from a vineyard of 160 acres. If any incline to envy us such a privilege, we would remind them that a square rod covered with vines would have answered us just as well. And so in everything, Our real wants may be bounded by narrow limits. But we confidently look for an improvement with the churches there, for we scarcely ever saw a company who more readily accepted instruction on this subject. We believe there are as true friends to the cause of present truth in Fresno and Tulare counties as in any part of the country. There is a strong and growing desire to see Bro. and Sister White in that part of the State. We were not able to hold out any definite promise in that direction, but we believe an appointment for them at any season would secure a large attendance. WE have received several requests to give our opinion as to the identity of Melchisedec. Once we referred the questioner to our work on the "Age to Come," for an answer. As the queries still come we now copy our remarks in that work. Years have passed since it was written, but we cannot give a better answer:— Paul to the Hebrews says the earthly priests "serve unto the shadow and example of heavenly things." But there are certain things which were not typified by the priests of the order of Aaron, and there were also certain things in their ministration to which there is nothing corresponding in the antitype. Therefore it is evident that Aaron and the priests of his order were not complete types of the minister of the new covenant in the heavenly sanctuary. They offered a multitude of offerings "year by year;" he offered but one. Heb. 7:27; 9:25, 26; 10:1, 11, 12. Some have followed the types so strictly as to lose sight of this, and imbibe opinions subversive of the most important truths on this great subject. The points of difference are distinctly pointed out in the letter to the Hebrews. They could not continue by reason of death; but he ever liveth to make intercession for us. Heb. 7:23, 25. With them the priesthood descended from father to son; but his is unchangeable. Num. 3:10; Heb. 7:24. And the reckoning of their genealogy was essential to their being admitted to a discharge of the duties of the office; but no priests traced their genealogy to the tribe from which he sprang. Heb. 7:13, 14. They did not unite royalty with their priesthood; but he is both king and priest. Now as Aaron could not typify the priesthood of Christ in these respects, Melchisedec is presented in the Scriptures to make up this deficiency. Said Paul, "For this Melchisedec king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him; to whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is King of peace; without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually." Heb. 7:1-3. The record in Genesis gives us to understand that he was a real personage; as much so as Abraham, who gave tithes to him. And he can only be said to have been without parents, &c., because there is no genealogy of him given in the records, in contrast with Aaron and his sons, whose genealogy had to be carefully preserved. That this method of expression was common among the Hebrews, we have the best authority to show. Says Dr. Clarke, "He who could not support his pretensions by just genealogical evidence, was said by the Jews to be without father. . . . This sort of phraseology was not uncommon when the genealogy of a person was unknown or obscure." The translation of the text from the Syriac is as follows: "Of whom neither his father nor his mother are written in the genealogies; nor the commencement of his days, nor the end of his life; but, after the likeness of the Son of God, his priesthood remaineth forever." Wakefield renders it, "Of whose father, mother, pedigree, birth, and death, there is no account." The Rheimish N. T. has the following note: "Without father, &c. Not that he had no father, &c., but that neither his father nor his pedigree, nor his birth, nor his death, are set down in the Scriptures." Comprehensive Com. "The commentators generally agree that what is meant is, that his name is not preserved, or the names of his parents, in the sacred genealogies." The record in Genesis gives us no information in regard to Melchisedec further than that he was king of Salem and priest of God. Many conjectures have been put forth relative to him; some have argued that he was Shem. But all such conjectures must be vain, as it was evidently the design of the Scriptures that it should not be known who he was. If it were possible to ascertain this, he would no longer stand as a type of Christ in his priesthood, according to Heb. 7:1-3, etc. All the declarations of that scripture in regard to Melchisedec are fulfilled in the priesthood of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary, and nowhere else. He has neither father nor son; that is, he has neither predecessor nor successor, in that office. He has neither beginning of days nor end of life; that is, his office did not come to him because he was born of a certain line—it was not of descent; nor does death cause a cessation of his ministry, as was the case with all of Aaron’s order. The People to Whom Paul Wrote Were Sabbath Keepers.
By John Nevins Andrews
THIS is a fact which none will deny. Even ecclesiastical history, much of which seems to be written with a single eye to maintaining the Sunday institution, makes no denial of the fact that the Hebrew church not only observed the Sabbath in apostolic times, but continued to do this for centuries, even as long as we can trace the existence of a church of this nationality. When Paul wrote the epistle to the Hebrews, Jerusalem was still standing, and that church was praying in obedience to their Lord’s direction that their flight out of Judea might not be upon the Sabbath day. Matt. 24: 20. If the Hebrew church did not understand the teaching of the apostles, what church did or could? If the Sabbath was changed to Sunday, what portion of the early church would stand the best chance to know it? Certainly that part whose nationality furnished all the apostles. But it may be replied that the Hebrews had so strong an attachment to the ancient Sabbath that they would not change to Sunday though such was the instruction of the apostles; but that the Gentiles, having no such partiality for the seventh day, were quite ready to accept the first-day observance. But it should be observed, 1. That there is no evidence that they ever taught the change of the Sabbath. 2. That even in this epistle, which is addressed to a church which did retain the original Sabbath, and did not recognize this alleged apostolic change of the day, not one word is uttered by way of reproving them or setting them right. 3. That in the early ages no one supposed Sunday to be a Sabbath. It was simply a festival voluntarily observed as a day for more or less of religious meetings, and as being of the same rank with holy Thursday and good Friday. 4. And there is another way to account for the Gentiles observing Sunday as a festival so much more readily than the Hebrews. Sunday was the good day of Gentile observance while yet under the worship of false gods, as the sun and moon and stars. It was no very difficult thing for them to make a festival of such a day. It was no very strange thing that such a day should, on the score of convenience, have great advantage over the rest-day of the Creator. It is worthy of observation that the apostle Paul in writing to a church that did not deviate from the ancient Sabbath, should not say one word exhorting them to such a change. Certainly the observance of Sunday was no matter of obedience to God when Paul could thus lightly pass over it in the case of those still clinging, with steadfast observance, to the ancient rest-day of the Lord. If the Sabbath had been changed in honor of the resurrection, then it was positive disobedience in the Hebrews not to recognize that change. But Paul does not thus treat their case. J. N. A. Theological Confusion.
By Editor
The Religious Herald, a Baptist paper, says: “If you wish to see fur fly, you put a Presbyterian and a Methodist to discussing the ground on which they baptize infants. If a Methodist were to baptize a child, and give as a reason for doing so the grounds on which Episcopalians baptize their children, he would be put out by his own people.” The Christian at Work, without denying or attempting to excuse the inconsistency, retorts as follows:— “If you want to see more fur fly, put a close-communion and open-communion Baptist to discussing the ground on which they welcome or refuse Pedobaptists to the Lord’s table.” The cases are not parallel. In the first, there is professed unity in the administration of what they all claim to be a Scripture ordinance; but they cannot agree on the reasons for their action, which leads legitimately to the conclusion that they lack Scripture to sustain their action. In the other case, there is an open and professed diversity of opinion, with a corresponding diversity of practice. The Christian at Work has made a lame defense, if this retort was intended as a defense. These passes show that both papers consider that a want of unity is evidence of weakness or of error. And so it is; for the Scriptures command us to be “of one mind,” and “all speak the same thing.” If people, with the Bible in their hands, cannot agree upon the reasons of their practice, it is a virtual acknowledgement that there is no sufficient reason to be found. Now if you want to see “confusion worse confounded,” set a bevy of learned “Reverends” and “Doctors of Divinity” to telling why they keep Sunday! We read in Genesis: “Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth.” Considering the confusion among the Sunday advocates, is there not good and sufficient reason to label them “Babylon?” And considering the worldliness of their churches, their tendency to pride, and their questionable devices to raise money to support their costly systems of worship, we can not see any impropriety in claiming in them a fulfillment of Rev. 14:8. We expect soon to hear the call of Rev. 18:4, which will shake these worldly systems to their foundation. May the Lord guide his “little flock” in these days of peril. Spiritual Life in the Church.
By Ellen G. White
THE question is often asked, Why is there not more power in the church? why not more vital godliness? The reason is, the requirements of God’s word are not complied with in verity and in truth; God is not loved supremely, and our neighbor as ourselves. This covers the entire ground. Upon these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. Let these two requirements of God be obeyed explicitly, and there would be no discord in the church, no inharmonious notes in the family. With many the work is too superficial. Outward forms take the place of the inner work of grace. They are whited sepulchres,—beautiful without, as far as claims to piety and a profession of the truth are concerned, but within full of uncleanness. The theory of the truth has converted the head, but the soul temple has not been cleansed from its idols. When the commandment came home to the mind and heart of Paul, he says, “Sin revived and I died.” In these days of pretense there are many sham conversions. True conviction of sin, real heart sorrow because of wickedness, death to self, the daily overcoming of defects of character, and the new birth,—these represented as old things, Paul says had passed away, and all things had become new. Such a work many know nothing of. They grafted the truth into their natural hearts, and then went on as before, manifesting the same unhappy traits of character. What is now needed is the plain testimony borne in love from lips touched with living fire. Church members do not show that living connection with God that they must have in order to win souls from darkness to light. Make the tree good, and good fruit will be the result. The work of the Spirit of God upon the heart is essential to godliness. It must be received into the hearts of those who accept the truth, and create in them clean hearts, before one of them can keep his commandments and be doers of the word. “Marvel not,” said the great Teacher unto the astonished Nicodemus, “Marvel not that I said unto you, Ye must be born again.” The Bible is not studied as much as it should be; it is not made the rule of life. Were its precepts conscientiously followed, and made the basis of character, there would be steadfastness of purpose that no business speculations or worldly pursuits could seriously influence. A character thus formed, and supported by the word of God, will abide the day of trial, of difficulties and dangers. The conscience must be enlightened, and the life sanctified by the love of the truth received into the heart, before the influence will be saving upon the world. What is needed is men of action for the time, prompt, determined, firm as a rock to principle, and prepared to meet any emergency. Why we are so weak, why there are so many irresponsible men among us, is because they do not connect with God; they have not an indwelling Saviour, and do not feel the love of Christ ever fresh and new, calling forth deep gratitude to God, and unfeigned love for souls for whom Christ died. No earthly relationship is as strong as this love. Nothing can compare with it. It elevates, ennobles, and develops all that is great and beautiful in humanity. It is constantly elevating the human to the divine. This life should be a living representative of Jesus Christ. E. G. WHITE.