p. 213 | Signs of the Times, Vol. 5, No. 27. (7/17/1879)

Modern Spiritualism.

By Editor

(Continued.)

THE origin and existence of the devil is not such a mystery as some appear to believe. We do not believe that God ever created a devil, or a wicked man. But men exist, with the power and will to do evil. "God made man upright," but he became wicked by his own will and actions; and so of the devil. We hold that the only reasonable view is that of the Scriptures; that God creates intelligences, giving them power and freedom to act, without which they could form no character at all; and holds them accountable for the exercise of that power in the actions performed, and vindicates justice by bringing them to judgment. There are expressions in Eze. 28, which can refer to no other being than the devil, by which we learn that he was created a "covering cherub," perfect and beautiful. But he fell because of pride. When Moses made the sanctuary, he was directed to make cherubim, and place them on the mercy-seat over the ark, their wings overshadowing the mercy-seat. Heb. 9:5. The Lord promised to meet with them "between the two cherubim." Ex. 25:22. As all this was a shadow and example of heavenly things, a visible representation of the sanctuary and true tabernacle in Heaven, which the Lord pitched, and not man (Heb. 8:1-5; see also Eze., chapters 1-10), we here learn the exalted position occupied, and consequently the great power possessed, by a covering cherub. In Eze. 28, the prince of Tyrus is declared to be a man; the king of Tyrus was a covering cherub. This may well be applied to Satan, who is "the Prince of this world," and who makes use of wicked earthly powers to accomplish his purposes; he was afterward represented by the Roman power (Rev. 12), as it was then his special instrument of wickedness. He who is wise and strong to do good, will, of course, be wise and strong to do evil if he turns his powers in that direction. And as the cherubim in Heaven possess far more power than men, so if they fall, their power will be greater to do evil, in the same proportion. On this point we think it sufficient to add that the Scriptures affirm that angels have fallen; that there was more than human power exerted through the magicians of Egypt; and Satan is said to work miracles "with power, and signs, and lying wonders."

Sorcery and witchcraft are the works of the devil. It was by his power that the magicians of Egypt wrought, and Paul affirms that "so" the truth will be resisted in the last days. And the existence of the devil is not only denied by some, but his whole work is denied; even those who profess faith in the Bible contend that there is no such thing as witchcraft, and that a belief in its existence is a relic of the superstition of the dark ages. But God said, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." Ex. 22:18. This proves that witches did exist, or else God commanded them to put to death such as had no being, to suppose which would be absurd. Paul also teaches, in Gal. 5, that witchcraft is one of the works of the flesh as much as envy, hatred, drunkenness, and murder. Thus the fact of its existence is established by both Testaments.

Again in Lev. 19:26, they were forbidden to use enchantments; and verse 31 says, "Regard not them that have familiar spirits, neither seek after wizards, to be defiled by them." And in chap. 20:6, the Lord said he would cut off the soul that turned after wizards, and such as have familiar spirits. Also in verse 27, a wizard and such as had familiar spirits, either men or women, were to be put to death.

According to the definitions of the words witch, wizard, sorcerer, enchanter, &c., we will give, these various works are closely allied to one another, or are all parts of the same, differing more in degree than in nature. This, with the fact that they all stand related to Spiritualism, is recognized and acknowledged by Spiritualists themselves. Allen Putnam, a Spiritualistic writer says:—

"The doctrine that the oracles, soothsaying, and witchcraft of past ages were kindred to these manifestations of our day, I, for one, most fully believe."

In a pamphlet written by him, entitled, "Mesmerism, Spiritualism, Witchcraft, and Miracle," he says:—

"As seen by me now, Mesmerism, Spiritualism, Witchcraft, Miracles, all belong to one family, all have a common root, and are developed by the same laws." Page 6.

We have testimonies to the same extent Judge Edmonds, Charles Partridge, Uriah Clark, &c.

Most of these works are named in Deut. 18:9-12, which reads as follows:—

"When thou art come into the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations of those nations. There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer. For all that do these things are an abomination unto the Lord."

The following definitions are copied from Webster's Unabridged Dictionary:—

WITCHCRAFT. The practices of witches; sorcery; enchantments; intercourse with the devil; power more than natural.

SORCERY. Magic; enchantment; witchcraft; divination by the assistance or supposed assistance of evil spirits; or the power of commanding evil spirits.

ENCHANTMENT. The act of producing certain wonderful effects by the invocation or aid of demons, or the agency of certain supposed spirits; the use of magic arts, spells, or charms; incantations.

DIVINATIONS. The act of divining; a foretelling future events, or discovering things secret or obscure, or by the aid of superior beings; or by other than human means.

NECROMANCY. Properly the art of revealing future events by means of a pretended communication with the dead.

FAMILIAR SPIRIT. A demon or evil spirit supposed to attend at a call.

But Israel did not keep free from these abominations. King Saul consulted a familiar spirit when the Lord rejected him, and would not answer him. It is no uncommon thing in these days for those to seek to familiar or evil spirits, who never ask counsel of the Lord, and who have no reverence for his word. Also Manasseh, who was very wicked, and in whose reign Israel was taken captive by the Assyrians, did "evil in the sight of the Lord, like unto the abominations of the heathen, . . . he observed times, and used enchantments, and used witchcraft, and dealt with a familiar spirit, and with wizards; he wrought much evil in the sight of the Lord, to provoke him to anger." 2 Chron. 33:2-6.

Writers and speakers on Spiritualism have undertaken to show that this restriction was placed upon the Jews alone, and given in a law especially for them; and that in this dispensation neither Jews nor Gentiles are holden to it. Woodman, in his reply to Dwight, says:—

"So if intercourse with departed spirits was prohibited by the Old Testament, that circumstance would furnish no presumption that it was wrong." Page 77.

And Edmonds, replying to Bp. Hopkins, says:—

"It is true that in the law of Moses, there are injunctions against dealing with witches, or those having familiar spirits. But does the Rev. prelate mean that his Christian hearers shall understand that the law is still binding upon us?" Page 12.

This is equivalent to a direct declaration by both Woodman and Edmonds that witchcraft and kindred works are not forbidden or wrong at this time. But all efforts to evade the testimony of the Scriptures on this point are met and disapproved by the following facts: (1) The Lord called them "the abominations of the heathen;" and after naming them, said: "For all that do these things are an abomination unto the Lord; and because of these abominations the Lord thy God doth drive them out from before thee." Deut. 18:12. By this we learn that these things were wrong in all, and not in the Jews alone. (2) The New Testament and sorcerers are condemned in the New Testament. Rev. 21:8. Sorcery is witchcraft; see Webster. This overthrows the position of the Judge. Again, in Gal. 5:19-21, witchcraft and other abominations are mentioned, and the apostle says that "They which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God." Elymas, the sorcerer, a false prophet, withstood the apostles, and tried to turn away others from the faith. This is ever their intent. To him Paul said: "O full of all subtlety, and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness." Acts 13:6-11. This language is applicable to all sorcerers, and their co-workers, according to the testimony of the Bible respecting their works. See Acts 8:5-11; 16:16-18.

The theory that "Whatever is, is right," is a favorite one with Spiritualists; but, traced to its conclusion, it is the merest absurdity. Right and wrong are relative terms, and when any course of action is morally binding, the opposite is necessarily forbidden. If it is right to love my neighbor, it cannot also be right to hate him; if it is right to regard his life, it cannot be right to kill him. The whole theory is a perversion of terms, obliterating moral distinctions, and is but a flimsy justification of an evil life.

EDITOR.

Be Gentle, but Firm.

By Lay Evangelist

THERE should be in the words and acts of every Christian a sweetness and gentleness that will attract hearts to them. No man can have the spirit of Christ and be devoid of these, because the spirit of Christ consists in the manifestation of such graces. Nor does the possession of this spirit imply that the possessor must necessarily be false and deceitful.

A man may be as sweet as Heaven and yet protest that all lovers of the world, and all covetous people, and all the children of disobedience, are unsaved. To say the contrary will be untruthful and deceptive, because he who says the contrary presumes to make God a liar, which is wicked. The Lord is not bitter and censorious when He says these things, and we are not necessarily bitter and censorious because we protest that the words of the Lord must be true. It is unkind and cruel to say the contrary.

Soon the eyes of the saints will be opened to see that true charity does not consist in flattering ungodly people, and in screening them in their wickedness. It does not consist in apologies for, and extenuations of, sin; it does not consist in hiding the truth, and in crying peace, peace, when there is no peace. The perfection of love and of kindness is consistent with absolute truthfulness and unswerving fidelity to God.—Lay Evangelist.

Running in Debt.

The Herald of Gospel Liberty says:—"I hold that no man can be a Christian and recklessly contract debts with the probability that he cannot pay them. To this it may be answered, “A man may honestly fail in business and, therefore, be unable to pay his creditors; how as to him?” I reply that no one should create an obligation without the clearest certainty of being fully able to meet it promptly. If one should fail after being carefully prudent in his business transactions, and surrenders up all his assets to relieve his creditors, then there is some mitigation.”"

THE GRACE OF CHRIST.

By Countess of Pembroke

CHRIST gave us rest, but had no resting place; He healed each pain, yet lived in sore distress; Deserved all good, yet lived in great disgrace; Gave all hearts joy, himself in heaviness; Suffered them live, by whom himself was slain; Lord, who shall live to see such love again?

—Countess of Pembroke.

The Hunger for Heaven.

By William Henry Harrison Murray

My friends, I am not tired of earthly life beyond what all men, fitted for the life to come, at times are weary of it. I love it in its uses, its labors, and its joys. Its duties give exercise to my faculties, its loves to my affections, its successes to my happiness. I am not morbid, but sense the world through a healthy body, a growing mind, and a hope as strong and bracing as a current of northern air when it bears down upon a camp from the sides of mountains planted thickly with odorous trees. The pulse of this life is strong within me, my friends many, and my fortune beyond my merit or my expectation. I am not talking to you as a disappointed, a depressed, an unhappy man. Keeping only what I have, blessed only with my present blessings, I could stay on earth forever, if it be God's will, and be content. But, in spite of all this, when my thoughts range out ahead, and canvass my future, I can but feel persuaded that the present, precious as it is, does not begin to measure the resources of blessing hidden in the heart of God for me.

My present state does not permit me their full reception; does not allow the perfect disclosure of His love. I need the spiritual body, the heavenly language, the celestial sphere of action, the holy companionships, the powers and functions, the rank and dignity, the privilege and liberty, of the glorified world and state, or ever I shall know the breadth, and length, and depth, and hight of the riches of His love; and I feel persuaded that by the very drift and movement of time I am being borne toward, and at last shall come to something far better than the good of to-day.—Rev. W. H. H. Murray.

Church Attire.

By Chicago Pulpit

CONSCIENCES are much more readily put at ease in the matter of church-going than they once were. Mrs. Jones loses sight of hers in the fact that her old bonnet will look shabby beside Mrs. Smith's new one, although Mrs. Jones' bonnet was very pretty and becoming the Sunday before. Her daughter Arabella does not attend the evening service unless invited by Mr. Agustus, for the reason that Mr. Agustus' coat is always of "elegant fit," and his gloves a "delightful color," and he holds the hymn-book in such a graceful way; and vice versa, Augustus invites Arabella because she is "stylish" and "fashionable," and the "other fellows of his set will envy him." If you do not believe this, stand at your window some fair Sunday morning while the church-bells are ringing, and watch the passing crowd. There is the same pitiful mockery from the beginning to the end. The color of the dress, the multitudinous trimmings, the hump at the back where the waist terminates—all the deformities of fashion in silk and lace are imitated by the poorer class in cheaper materials, and Bridget drapes her shawl in exactly the same way as does her mistress. Join the crowd, and you will hear, as you pass along, that "Mrs. D. has a new silk of the loveliest shade, that it is made"—but you hurry on, and hear that "Miss G. has worn the same dress all the season;" that "Mr. P. has a new diamond pin;" that "he is paying attention to Miss M.;" and that "Miss M. is not stylish;" and so on ad infinitum, were you not at the church door.—Chicago Pulpit.

Which Knew Best?

Of thanksgiving proclamations, the Advance tells this good story: "Soon after Chief Justice Chase became Governor in Ohio, he issued his proclamation appointing a thanksgiving day. To make sure of being orthodox, he composed his proclamation almost exclusively of passages from the Bible, which he did not designate as quotations, presuming that every one would recognize them and admire the fitness of the words as well as his taste in their selection. The proclamation meeting the eyes of a democratic editor, he pounced at once upon it—declared that he had read it before—couldn't exactly say where—but would take his oath that it was a downright plagiarism from beginning to end? That would have been a pretty fair joke; but the next day the republican editor came out valiantly in defense of the governor, and pronounced the charge false and libelous, and challenged any man living to produce one single line of the proclamation that had ever appeared in print before."

Our Dangerous Classes.

By Editor

THE following article, under the above head, we take from the St. Louis Globe-Democrat. This is one of the ablest and most influential papers west of the Atlantic sea-board, and the extracts which it offers, as well as its own remarks, are well worthy of our consideration. It says:—

“Seven years ago Mr. C. L. Brace issued a work, replete with statistics, entitled ‘The Dangerous Classes of New York City.’ Some of his conclusions and predictions have been borne out by such authority as the reports of the New York Prison Association. One of the latest of these reports ventures upon the strong and startling statement that ‘the number of persons who live in crime, and make a vocation of some line of criminal life in the city of New York, and in several of the cities in this State, increases more rapidly than the population.’ A still later report more moderately says: ‘The increase of crime is shown by the census of the penal institutions to be assuming very serious aspects.’ These reports and the book referred to, limit their investigations to a comparatively narrow field. The April number of the American Catholic Quarterly Review gives the subject the widest consideration under the head of the ‘Rapid Increase of the Dangerous Classes in the United States.’

“The author concentrates many minor causes in the proposition that the increasing irreligion of the poorer classes is seen to be at the bottom of almost all the increase of crime. The Communistic organizations, ramifying throughout the country, will involve many, and will bring untold woe on all. The pauperism that fifty years ago was almost unknown in America, swarms the country with vagrants, from which school come by the thousand criminals of every kind. In the old time, each town was a little community, contented, self-supporting. Now, the rural population depends on the great cities. Nothing is woven or spun on the farm; no furniture or implements made in the village. Even supplies of food, raised in the same county, must come from town. The sons of the farmer and the mechanic disdain to follow the avocations of their fathers. The education of a family becomes a fearful burden compared with former days; children are dreaded, not welcomed. The young men are educated to feel above trade. They crowd our cities, overstock the professions and the houses of commerce. With little moral strength, they enter the race, where scheming and sharp-dealing take the lead. Peculation, fraud and forgery lure many on, until they sink to the lowest depths of moral degradation, even if they escape punishment.

“The author thinks the collegiate institutions established under the auspices of the State, and not of Protestant denominations, are not only absolutely unchristian in their tendency, but that the course of study in the State institutions is in no respect a suitable preparation for a life of toil. Crime is as natural as disease among poor emigrants crowded into tenement-houses, where a large percentage of the younger criminals begin life. Besides the regular emigration of honest people, there is a steady criminal emigration. Some European States have actually endeavored to empty their prisons on our shores. The professional criminals of the whole civilized world would make New York a rendezvous. Yet 61 per cent of the prisoners in the penitentiaries during 1877 were native born; and the author finds domestic influences which encourage criminal tendencies in the Oneida Community, Chinese heathenism, Mormonism, and the unchecked sale of liquor.

“Costly and luxuriant churches, with fashionable clergymen, have alienated the poorer and lower strata of society, until religion, in practice and theory, is fast dying out among them. The author sees nothing commendable in the assumed fact that Mr. Talmage’s associates in the ministry prided themselves on knowing nothing of the great ulcer of vice which is striking at the very vitals of our American social system.”

It would be some relief to the darkness of this picture if its outlines were confined to this country. But it is not so. Every great nation is in the same condition. There may be as little appearance of it in England as in any nation, but it is well known that the reverence for royalty is far less in that realm than it formerly was, and the stringency of the times, greater in England than elsewhere, creates dissatisfaction among the masses. The people have lost confidence in the statesmanship of Beaconsfield, and are out-spoken in condemnation of the Zulu war. Indeed, they were much dissatisfied with that in Afghanistan. The sight of one of the most powerful nations of the earth making war on petty provinces, instead of inaugurating reforms at home which might keep her people from starvation, is not one pleasant to behold. If Beaconsfield could offer a reason for his course, he might remember that starving people do not stop for reasons.

The certain failure of the crops in England this season, will largely increase the suffering and discontent.

France is always tainted with communism, which comes to the surface whenever opportunity offers. We wish her Republic well, but think lasting peace far from being assured.

Prussia came out of her last war covered with military glory. But in the midst of all this glory was plainly to be seen a strong aversion to the policy of the government. The people did not like war. Few rulers, with such success, bringing such glory to the nation’s army, have lost popularity as fast as Bismarck. Socialism finds a generous and well-prepared soil in which to grow in Prussia, and it is doubtful whether she could safely engage in another war. France might soon turn the tide against her if socialism continues to increase as it has during the last decade.

Russia, that wonderful colossus, whose very name has been a symbol of strength and power for a long time, has undergone a great and sudden change. The boast of her rulers was in the devotion and unquestioning obedience of their subjects. But a reaction has taken place, and now all authority is held in contempt. If the strength of a nation is in the loyalty of its people, then is Russia to-day one of the weakest nations of the earth. Nihilism is everywhere; it is all-pervading. Under the strictest guard the Czar finds nihilist proclamations even in his bed-chamber. In the most public places, with every officer on the alert, incendiary publications are found posted in the morning. And nihilism in Russia means murder, robbery, and burning. Every public building is in danger of the torch; every officer is in danger of assassination.

Pestilence and famine are not so terrible as what has lately been characterized as “the epidemic of crime.” The papers are freighted with tales of deeds of horror. We do not note them because we do not wish to fill our columns with such a dark record. And in the midst of the fearful scene, there comes an almost united cry from the “watchmen of Zion,” that “All is well!” “Peace and safety.” “To-morrow shall be as this day, and much more abundant.” Little do they realize that the Lord has spoken of these days; that he says “when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them.” Before the harvest of the earth is reaped, the Lord commands to prepare war—to wake up the nations. Joel 3:9-16. But blind guides of the blind are prophesying peace—that the nations shall soon be converted, and the world is fast growing better! We pity their blindness, but more we pity those who are blindly misled by popular preachers of popular fables.

Let the servants of God “cry aloud and spare not.” The world must be warned, for destruction is impending. Satan is working, and the people love his deceptions. Let us then, be earnest to “Rescue the perishing.”

Church Festival.

By Editor

THE following is part of a report of a church festival, taken from a paper in this county. When you read this just think it is 1839 instead of 1879, and then imagine, if possible, the consternation of all religious, or even irreligious people, at such a report of church doings by a "Ladies' Aid Society of the Presbyterian church." And the churches with which such things are every-day matters accuse us of a want of charity because we make to them an application of the Scripture declaration—"Babylon is fallen." We should consider it a sad lack of charity were we to see these things in the professed church of Christ, and not raise our voice in warning against such "spiritual wickedness in high places."

"The special feature of the festival was the roaring farce, termed 'Poor Pillicoddy,' the actors and actresses being the prominent and beautiful among the members of the Centerville Literary Club. The parts were well taken and finely rendered. Miss Alvina Meyers deserves special mention for the creditable manner in which she gave us 'Anastasia.' Miss Martie Crane was a decided success as the irrepressible and always to be found when not wanted 'servant gal.' She seemed to understand and deliver her part with a great showing of stage ability, maintained her coolness and self-possession amidst all the ludicrous scenes she had to perform. 'Pillicoddy' played his part fairly. 'Scuttle' was a little overdone; 'too muchy muchness.' At one time in the play we could hardly tell who was Mrs. Pillicoddy or Mrs. Capt. O'Scuttle, or who was who, but, as near as we can now recall the play, it was all 'about another man's wife.' We deeply regret the tendency of the play-actors and play-goers to indulge in an over-dose of the enacted marital follies, mistakes, errors, and wickedness. We certainly get our daily quantity of demoralization in the newspapers if we care to read all the accounts therein published. It leads us to ask : Are we progressing or retrograding? The only performance that seems to have been over-looked or left out, was the inevitable and never-failing dance! Yes, there was an 'auction,' but what is such a trifling excitement when compared to the 'merry whirl of the waltz ers?' We haven't heard how successful the festival was, but we did hear that 'the dance' at some school-house in the vicinity interfered with the number in attendance at the festival."

Sunday Not the True Seventh Day.

By John Nevins Andrews

(Continued.)

BUT when we reach the seventh month, Dr. A. makes an earnest effort to identify the weekly Sabbath, observed by the Hebrews, with the several annual sabbaths which came in that month. As he claims 30 days to each month, a weekly Sabbath reckoned from Abib 15, would come on the third day of the seventh month. But the law distinctly states that the first day of the month should be a sabbath. Verse 24. So Dr. Akers lengthens the sixth month two days; or rather, he says, as the last month of the Jewish civil year, it once had thirty-five days, and he shortens it three days, so that it has thenceforth but thirty-two. And the month thus changed, as Dr. A. reckons it, is made to end on the sixth day of the week, so that the seventh month, beginning with an annual sabbath, has that sabbath come on the day of the weekly Sabbath, as Dr. A. reckons it from Abib 15.

It is with such violent efforts that Dr. A. succeeds in identifying one of his weekly Sabbaths, reckoned from Abib 15, with one of the subsequent annual sabbaths of Lev. 23. But the next sabbath of this series comes nine days later, and obstinately refuses to be identified with his weekly Sabbath. So Dr. A. finds an excuse, in that the people were to afflict their souls on this tenth day of the month, for declaring that it was not a Sabbath, though the law declares it to be one in the most emphatic manner. See Lev. 23:27-32.

Five days later than this was another annual sabbath; and one week from that was another, i. e., the fifteenth and the twenty-second days of the seventh month were sabbaths. But Dr. A. having pulled down the tenth day of the seventh month from the rank of the annual sabbaths, establishes out of his own heart a weekly Sabbath on the eighth day of the seventh month instead of the tenth day ordained of God for an annual sabbath. With this change, made by violent wresting of the ceremonial law, he is able to identify his weekly Sabbath from Abib 15 with the series of annual sabbaths in the seventh month; viz., the first, the fifteenth, and the twenty-second. But to do this he destroys one Sabbath expressly established by God, and establishes another out of his own heart.

Were it true that these were weekly Sabbaths, it would not be the case that the first two of them are only five days apart! That the third comes on the morrow after the Sabbath! That the next two are ten days apart! And that the next one comes in five days! These were simply annual sabbaths, and were different in their nature from the Sabbath of the Lord. And indeed, had they been simply weekly Sabbaths there would have been no need of enjoining them as days of the months, for in their turn they would all have been observed. It is manifest that this effort to reckon the year in such a manner that it shall end with the sixth day of the week, so that the new year, Abib 1, and the first day of unleavened bread, Abib 15, might always come on the day of the weekly Sabbath, is something which has no other support than is found in the ingenuity of its author. That these sabbaths of Lev. 23 come sometimes upon the weekly Sabbath is freely admitted. That they did not regularly come thus has been fully proved.

Dr. Akers brings forward one fact as a strong proof that the first day of the first month, and consequently the fifteenth day of that month, also, was the weekly Sabbath. It is this: That Moses, according to Exodus 40, set up the tabernacle, and set in it the table and the show bread on the first day of the first month. But the law (Lev. 24:5-9) commanded the priests to set forth the shew bread every Sabbath. Therefore when Moses set up the tabernacle, and set forth the show bread on Abib 1, that day must have been the Sabbath.

1. But this ceremonial precept touching the setting forth of the show bread on the Sabbath was not given till some time after Moses set up the tabernacle. So it furnishes no proof to sustain Dr. A. Compare Ex. 40 and Lev. 24.

2. It was a strict law, which we find in Lev. 16, that the high priest should enter the holiest only on the tenth day of the seventh month. But before this precept was given, it appears that Aaron entered that place at all times. Lev. 16:1, 2. This shows that, arguing from a precept of the ceremonial law before it has an existence, as does Dr. A., is very certain to lead to wrong conclusions.

3. The evidence that the tabernacle was set up on the Sabbath therefore amounts to nothing. And indeed, when God had plenty of time for the work, it was in the highest degree improbable that he would cause so extensive a labor to be performed upon the Sabbath. Even if it could be proved it would only show that the Sabbath did constitute the first day of that one year, and not that it did always begin the year. But it is not proved that it did even this one year; and hence the proof to be derived from it that the fifteenth of Abib was always a Sabbath amounts to nothing at all. In closing the examination of Dr. Akers' argument in support of his theory, several facts should be adduced which show that his establishment of the weekly Sabbath upon the fifteenth of Abib is absolutely without any foundation in truth.

1. The fifteenth of Abib in Egypt was wholly unlike the weekly Sabbath of the Lord. Just after midnight Israel was thrust out, and taking what they could carry upon their shoulders, they thus started in the night, and that whole people, amounting to some three millions in all, marched from Rameses to Succoth, driving with them their flocks and their herds! Ex. 12:29-39.

2. Surely if this was the foundation of a new order of Sabbaths to be observed by the Hebrews, it was laid in a manner utterly unlike that of the Sabbath of the Lord. Gen. 2:1-3.

3. But if the following day, viz., Abib 16, was the true Sabbath of the Lord, as Dr. A. professes to be able to show by exact count that it was, did it not come in a good time, and must it not have been very acceptable to that people? Must it not have surprised them very much to have Moses say to them (provided that he did), that though that was the ancient Sabbath, they need not keep it, as their flight out of Egypt the previous day was all the Sabbath-keeping they needed for that week!

4. Did God sanctify this day for a weekly Sabbath? If so, where is the record of the fact? Did he take from them his ancient Sabbath? If so, what did he say on the point to Israel? If we have no record that he said anything of the kind, who knows that he did?

5. Did God then remove the sanctity from the true seventh day, his original Sabbath? If not, did not Israel, for the whole period from the exodus till Christ's resurrection, desecrate the sanctified rest-day of the Lord, provided Dr. Akers' theory is true? But if he did take away the sanctity of the ancient Sabbath at the exodus, did not the day need to be sanctified over again at the resurrection of Christ?

6. It is very true that God bade Israel remember the day on which they left Egypt. But was it to be commemorated weekly or annually? One test will determine. Did God say, "Remember the sixth day of the week, for in that day you were brought forth out of Egypt?" Or did he bid them remember the fifteenth day of the first month, for on that day they were brought forth of Egypt? If he said the first, it established a weekly celebration. If he said the last, it established simply an annual celebration. Does not every Bible student know that he did not then command the observance of a weekly, but of an annual, day of commemoration? How often can the fifteenth day of the first month come?

7. But they had one week in Egypt with only six days in it! And its sixth day was made into the Sabbath by their fleeing upon it! And they kept the day so effectually by thus fleeing, that they had no occasion to observe the following day which was the Sabbath of the Lord!

8. But what about this sixth-day keeping? Dr. Akers says, God then gave them the sixth day for the Sabbath. Did he then bid them to observe the sixth day as the Sabbath after the model of that Egyptian week? Oh! no; he made the sixth day into the seventh, as we are told by Dr. Akers!

9. But how could even the Almighty do this, seeing that he has no power to utter a falsehood?

10. And how does Dr. Akers know that he did thus change the Sabbath from the seventh day to the sixth? And what testimony does he find that God first gave Israel a week of six days, and then improved upon it by giving them a week which began on his own seventh day and ended on his sixth?

11. The reader need not be told that Dr. A. does this by counting. He counts from the resurrection of Christ, back to the rest-day of the Creator in Eden, and thus makes out that "the first day" in the one case is "the seventh day" in the other. Then he counts from the Lord's rest-day, forward to the exodus; and if he counts right, then Abib 16 was the true Sabbath. And if he can, in addition to, and independent of, all this, prove that Abib 15 was made into a weekly Sabbath at that time, then all this change of the Sabbath, and all this change of the week, follow as a matter of course. But if Dr. A. has made the mistake of just one day in this immense count, then all these wonderful changes are creations of his own fancy.

11. The fifteenth of Abib was of the same rank with the other annual sabbaths, of Lev. 23, with the exception of the tenth of the seventh month, which was more sacred than the rest. It came once a year, and not once a week, like the Sabbath of the Lord. And whereas no servile work was to be performed on Abib 15, no work at all was to be done on the seventh day. Lev. 23:3, 6-8.

12. Finally, the preparation of food was expressly allowed on the fifteenth of Abib, the first day of unleavened bread (Ex. 12:15, 16; Lev. 23:6-8), but was expressly forbidden upon the day of the weekly Sabbath. Ex. 16:23. This of itself is a clear proof that the fifteenth of Abib was not made to recur regularly on the day of the weekly Sabbath.

We have thus shown that Dr. Akers has no valid reasons to prove that the first day of unleavened bread was the seventh day of the week; and we have proved by positive evidence that such cannot possibly be the case.

(To be Continued.) J. N. A.

"The Love of Christ Constraineth Us."

By Stephen Nelson Haskell

THE motive that prompted Christ to leave Heaven, the sacrifice he manifested in coming to this world to die, is what draws men unto himself. And in proportion as we possess this spirit we gather with Christ. Works of sacrifice, prompted by the love of Christ, however inferior they may appear unto men, are wholly fruitful. The life principle is in its own nature, originating with God and his beloved Son, Jesus Christ. A small beginning with such a spirit results in great good. It is not so much the amount a person does, as it is the spirit which prompts the action, and the sacrifice it requires in performing it. It is powerful to win hearts. There is the power of wealth, the power of intellect combined with physical energy. This may affect men's heads. Men will submit from policy to such means, and intellectually to sound reason; but it is the true spirit of sacrifice that affects hearts. "Like begets like." If we possess it, others will voluntarily partake of it, and this with cheerfulness and joy.

It is here that every nationality under Heaven is affected alike. There is no national or denominational line here. Every barrier is broken down, and we enter one fold. It is a Heaven-born principle. And therefore it is God that unites hearts "where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free; but Christ is all, and in all." It is this principle that unites hearts and binds them to the throne of the Eternal. And there is no greater proof of the divine origin of the cause of Christ than the fact that when men receive the truth and spirit of Christ they are actuated with a sacrificing spirit, and desire others to receive the same.

The first impulse of a young convert is to help his fellows. It was in this way the gospel began. When Jesus the great Shepherd manifested himself to the children of men John pointed his disciples to him as the Lamb of God. They followed him. One of these was Andrew, and he first went to his brother Simon Peter and brought him to Jesus. The next day Jesus enlisted Phillip in his service. The first work of Phillip was to hunt up Nathanael and bring him in.

So it has been and so it ever will be of those who partake of the Spirit of Christ. If we have drank at the fountain of truth, we shall be anxious for others to partake of the same. Those who can fold their hands and quietly see others go to ruin are not possessing the Saviour's love and are not prepared to enter the joy of their Lord. "And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament, and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars forever and ever. Glorious crowns are within the reach of us all. They will be given to the workers only.

Shall we let the present opportunities pass, and the stars which we might secure fade from our crowns of rejoicing, and the crowns themselves fall from our grasp, and the kingdom recede from our reach, and life and all its joys be lost forever?

You answer, No; but the answer, to be effectual, must be, not in words only, but in works also.

"O God, my inmost soul convert, And deeply on my thoughtful heart, Eternal things impress. Cause me to feel their solemn weight, And tremble on the brink of fate, And wake to righteousness."

S. N. HASKELL.

Continue reading: The Closing Messages of the Gospel