DR. SPRECHER, while pastor of the First Presbyterian Church in this city, preached against Spiritualism, or at least in such a manner that Spiritualists could not claim him as one of their fraternity. But a sermon of his on Sunday evening, Feb. 24, in Calvary Church, San Francisco, of which he is pastor, presents him in quite another aspect. It is true that in this sermon or lecture, as it was called, he speaks against spirit mediums and materializations; but Spiritualists will care little for that while he indorses and pleads for all that is essential to the existence and growth of Spiritualism. That we are correct in this statement every reader must admit, who has any knowledge of Spiritualism and of the claims upon which it is based, when he reads the following, which we clip from the Chronicle's report of his lecture:—
"The subject of Dr. Sprecher's lecture last evening was, 'Do the spirits of the departed revisit this world, and do they manifest themselves to men at this day?' There was, he said, an almost universal belief in an intermediate state of spiritual existence between death and the day of resurrection, during which period the soul was conscious, but in a different state from that upon which it would enter after the final judgment. This caused some doubt, but it was difficult to see the reason why. The Scriptures speak of angels and ministering spirits, and there are also instances mentioned therein of the spirits of the departed reappearing, while there is not a word which prevents a belief in the power of a spirit to revisit the earth if it so desired. The probabilities were all one way, and it was not at all unreasonable that if in the spirit world we retain the affection for those we leave behind, which we entertained while on the earth, that we should desire to see them again. The speaker believed that the affections did not die with the body, and that our friends, either as disembodied spirits or as spirit bodies, may visit and minister to us. This belief was not Spiritualism as the term is generally understood, and was not incompatible with Christianity, and a Christian who held such a belief should not fall into the error that he had forsaken his faith and must therefore seek refuge in Spiritualism."
We record our emphatic denial of the assertion that the Scriptures give any instances of "the spirits of the departed reappearing," and we invite any one to point out to us the texts wherein such reappearing is supposed to be given. We will examine them in our columns for the benefit of our readers.
But aside from this, we remark that the doctor is right in saying that the belief he announces is "not incompatible with Christianity"—as he and his associates understand Christianity. But we insist that it comprises all that is vital to the existence of Spiritualism. And Spiritualists would no doubt rather have the doctor remain in his church and bring up the members to a recognition of spirit intercourse and spirit ministration, than to leave the church and professedly "seek refuge in Spiritualism," where his influence in favor of the assumed facts of that belief would not be so great as it now is, as pastor of a popular orthodox church.
And Spiritualists will not care much for his avowed disbelief in the reliability of mediums. They are always ready to admit that there are impostors among the mediums, and this admission robs the doctor's indictment of its force. But when he claims that his statements will apply to all mediums, then they will confront him with some millions who oppose their observation and experience to his, many of whom have put the mediums to the severest tests, and are fully convinced that there was no collusion or trickery in the manifestations. We give the doctor's position on this point as reported:—
"He then turned to the second head of his discourse and said that whether or not spirits did manifest themselves at the present day, was a question of fact which could be put to the proof. The modern Spiritualists assert that they can materialize spirits, and volumes upon the subject have been written by men of science and of no science. If such a thing were true, it was the most stupendous subject of the age. It was a subject to which the speaker had paid a great deal of attention, and after carefully following up the records of all the most celebrated mediums of the world, he was unable to recall one who had not, sooner or later, been proven a fraud. Whenever any one was bold enough to seize the materialized spirit, it had turned out to be either the medium or an accomplice. This had occurred so often that there was no room for doubt in the mind of any one that the whole thing was an imposture. Again, if a medium could call up the spirits of the mighty dead they could tell us something new; but although the spirits of the great masters of poetry and prose, great scientists and inventors, have been time and again materialized, they seemed to have left all their genius behind them, and know no more than the least gifted of mortals. And this could not be laid to any lack of expression or want of education upon the part of the medium, for a great as well as a small thought could be expressed in defective language."
Thousands upon thousands have with him concluded that "if such a thing were true it was the most stupendous subject of the age." And the great majority, having a greater love for popular error than for unpopular Bible truth, will take the premises assumed and laid down by Dr. Sprecher and logically conclude that the thing is true. We do not believe that mesmerism, psychology, or clairvoyance can be explained upon natural principles. We are aware that professed scientists have their explanations of these things, but, as one said to us when closely questioned on the subject, "That is our theory of the matter; but whether or not it is true we cannot positively say." But the number who have heard inexperienced and illiterate media, while entranced, speak in language which they could by no means command in their normal condition, is so large that the last part of the paragraph quoted above will have no effect at this day in overthrowing their claims to "spirit inspiration." The following paragraph concludes the report. As it is a noteworthy discourse on the subject, we thus give the report in full:—
"There were many who believed in Spiritualism because they saw wonders which they could not account for on natural principles. But that was simply folly, for no medium had ever performed tricks equal to those of the professional jugglers of India, who disclaimed the agency of any supernatural power. They are simply illusions. Mesmerism and clairvoyance and mind-reading, which are agencies of mediumism, are all explainable upon natural principles, as is also the belief that many persons have that they see spirits. Medical works abound in instances of the latter, and prove that it is the result of an abnormal condition of the system, and that these supposed visions can be produced by mechanical appliances. The speaker had no faith in the habitual appearance of spirits, but there was one case in which it did seem possible for the spirit of one to communicate with another—at the hour of death. Many instances have occurred where a person has been apprised of the death of some dear relative or friend in that manner, and the fact of the death at the very hour and minute has been subsequently confirmed, together with the circumstances as they appeared at the time. The power of the mind and will of one upon another in close sympathy of thought and feeling was very great, and it was possible that the soul in its extreme experience might communicate with a kindred soul. These occurrences could not be coincidences. But this was not Spiritualism. The communication came direct without the aid of a medium. The speaker concluded by warning his hearers against the danger of being led into grave mistakes by listening to the advice of mediums, who were often in collusion with those who sought not their welfare."
We cannot think he has shown his reasoning powers to great advantage, according to this report. First, every probability, and facts of Scripture, he claims as proof in favor of the spirits of the departed reappearing. Then he states his belief that the interest of the departed in the welfare of the living is not lessened by their death. And next he attacks the mediums, clairvoyants, and materializers, as humbugs; and finally claims the possibility of one spirit communicating with another at the hour of death. But "possible" has no more place in this connection than in the other cases, as phenomena are presented under other circumstances which can be accounted for only by admitting their supernatural origin. And if his premises are correct, then all the phenomena shown by the most pretentious mediums may be true or genuine. To admit his premises is to admit the possibility of every claim of the Spiritualists to be just.
Not long since we saw the belief expressed by a writer that Bishop Bowman is a Spiritualist. We heard the Bishop speak of the presence and ministrations of his departed in such a manner as to lead us to believe that he was a full believer in Spiritualism; and his disclaimer, immediately made, did not change our opinion if he meant just what his words expressed.
These positions of well-known ministers are the positions of hosts of ministers in the land who are making Spiritualism popular, and preparing the way for its general acceptance by the churches. The churches and the Spiritualists are drawing more closely together. In a "reception" recently given to a Mrs. Lord, in Boston, she said, as reported in the Banner of Light:—
"She remembered that in the audience before her were some who had not yet seen their way clearly to accept the light which was shining upon the pathway of mortals to-day. But why should the Christian Church deny the possibility of present as well as past inspiration. Though human tongues fall out of speech, would immortal love send back no echo across the waves of death? Could he who promised the full harvest forget the weeping sower? If such a bridge as that of Brooklyn could be reared by feeble human means across the pulsing tides, could not angel minds plan and spirit-workers build a bridge of communion over the soundless waters of death? Spiritualism came to take away no one's faith, but to give knowledge to each and all—to make assurance doubly sure that the course of human life is an upward one, and the chain of being stretches through an eternity of progress."
This profession that Spiritualism came to take away no one's Christian faith, but rather to give knowledge of that which before was only belief, is "a new departure" for Spiritualists, but they are all but advancing to that position. All now claim that Spiritualism is a religion, while very many claim that it is the Christian religion perfected. This is their part of the "compromise;" while the churches are admitting the return of the spirits of the dead, and their intercourse with mortals, which is all that Spiritualists ask them to admit, and the members are assured that they need not leave their communions because of their entertaining such belief. If anything more is needed to place the churches and Spiritualists on common ground, we cannot imagine what it is. These main points admitted, minor questions will settle themselves.
These things are not unexpected to us. He who knows "what is in man," and "who knows the end from the beginning," has placed on record in the "sure word of prophecy" just such a state of things. Miracles to deceive, yet professing a pious intention, are plainly spoken of in Rev. 13 and 16, as being done in the last days. Our Saviour in Matt. 24, and Paul in 2 Thess. 2, speak of these things, and all place these deceptions just before the second advent of the Lord. Why, oh, why will not Bible readers and professed Bible believers look at these matters candidly, and accept the warning message which Heaven sends for our instruction at this time? If the multitude will follow in the broad153way, and choose darkness rather than light, we pray that God will give zeal and power in the proclamation of the message, that a little flock, a remnant, may accept it and receive the kingdom as their reward. Luke 12:31-37.
And Still They Come.
By Editor
AS THE light of Sabbath truth shines out, and the attention of the people is called to the last warning message to be given in this dispensation, it is only to be expected that there will be still greater efforts made to uphold the tottering fabric of "the venerable day of the sun." Somebody has kindly forwarded to us a very small pamphlet, bearing on its title page the words: "The seventh-day Sabbath is not obligatory upon the Christian world. A Statement made by C. S. Gitchell, minister of the Gospel."
To what denomination the writer belongs, or whether he represents anybody beside himself, we do not learn from his work. We cannot say that he is more superficial and unreasonable than Mr. Woodward, for we think that few have the ingenuity to construct contradictions that Mr. Woodward has. But we must accord to Mr. Gitchell a very happy faculty of directly contradicting the explicit statements of the Scriptures. A few specimens will give the reader a sufficient idea of the work.
"The Bible tells us there was no law from Adam to Moses."
The Bible tells us that Abraham kept the commandments and the laws of God. Gen. 26:1-5. And the Bible tells us that the generation that lived at the time of the flood, the people of Sodom, etc., were sinners, and that sin is not imputed when there is no law; that by the law is the knowledge of sin; and where no law is there is no transgression. Rom. 3:20; 4:15; 5:13.
"God never blessed or sanctified the Sabbath he gave to Israel, but commanded them to sanctify it themselves."
It is not necessary to repeat the fourth commandment, of which the above is a direct contradiction.
"All the circumstances and facts upon which the Jewish Sabbath was founded have passed away, and so has their Sabbath."
If this referred to those sabbaths which were "Jewish," that is, typical, it would still be erroneous, for the passover was founded upon "circumstances and facts" which can no more pass away, as facts, than can the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. It is a fact to-day as much as it ever was that Pharaoh oppressed the Israelites, and that the Lord brought them out of Egypt in his power. So carelessly does he make his statements. But worse than this, he means the seventh-day Sabbath, which was not and is not Jewish. Why will men close their eyes and hearts to the words of Jehovah himself, "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God?" How dare they despise and reproach it as they do? Upon what circumstances and facts was the seventh-day Sabbath founded? Upon these and no others: "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore [for this reason] the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it." Have these "circumstances and facts" passed away? They surely have, if the Sabbath has passed away, for the Saviour said: "It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail." Luke 16:17.
The circumstances and facts upon which the Lord's Sabbath is founded cannot pass away. It never can cease to be a fact that God made the world in six days, or that he rested the seventh day, or that he blessed and sanctified the seventh day. Heaven and earth might pass away; he who made them might destroy them; but that would not destroy the fact that they were made, and that they were made in six days, and that the Maker rested upon and sanctified the seventh day as his Sabbath. It would seem strange to us that men will so blindly overlook or recklessly deny the plainest statements of Scripture, were it not that the perverseness of human nature, and the enmity of the carnal mind to the law of God, are revealed by the Holy Spirit. Rom. 8:7. Mr. Gitchell says:—
"Now if it was instituted at the creation for man, why is the Scripture so silent?"
Deut. 5, on which he with other opposers rest so complacently, does not tell us when nor why the seventh day was made the Sabbath of the Lord God. But Ex. 20 tells us both. It is an accepted rule of criticism that indefinite passages must be explained by those which are definite. But it is a truth well known to those acquainted with this controversy, that opposers of the Sabbath of the Lord have no regard for rules nor for the most definite Scripture declarations. Ex. 20 is exactly parallel with Gen. 2 in the statement of "circumstances and facts." At the end of his work of creation, and nowhere else, God rested the seventh day and blessed and sanctified it. And these three points constitute the entire work of instituting the Sabbath. Nothing more was needed, nothing more was ever done, to make or to institute the holy Sabbath of the Lord. But the Saviour said: "The Sabbath was made for man." If Mr. G. is willing to read and to respect the divine word, he may learn that the Scripture is not silent in regard to the Sabbath being "made for man."
The same truth is included in the word "sanctified." Gen. 2:3. It means, "to set apart to a sacred use." The Saviour's word informs us that it was set apart to a sacred use for man. And no other construction can justly be put upon the language.
We are slow to believe that the general reader will be deceived for a moment by such reckless statements as are put forth on almost every page by Mr. Gitchell. It is too late in the day to successfully make a flourish, as he does, over the idea that we are not justified by the law. All who know our position, and most people do know it, well understand that we make no claim to being justified by the law. We understand the relation between transgression and justification by faith. But our opponents will meet the real issue between us if they will take Paul's statement as their text, "By the law is the knowledge of sin," and harmonize it with their idea that man can be justified in the transgression of the law. Here is a work to which we invite Mr. Gitchell. Until he does this, he has done nothing against our position.
We Can Afford to Be Fair.
By Editor
THEY who have the truth can always afford to be fair; while they who try to uphold error can never succeed by fair means. And therefore we are not at all surprised to see men resort to questionable methods when their prejudices lead them to prize success above an unwelcome truth.
We always intend to be fair and candid. In our experience as a writer and editor, for many years, we have never, to our knowledge, been accused of misrepresenting the position of opponents. And we can say the same in regard to our fellow-laborers. Our position as advocates of unpopular truth has compelled us to appear as controversialists. While the mass of the religionists are against us, denying both our premises and our conclusions, no charge has ever been laid against us of obtaining our ends by unfair means.
But we have very often had the unpleasant duty pressed upon us to point out the cavils and evasions, and sometimes the misrepresentations, of those who oppose us and our work. Perhaps no other truth of the Bible has received so much unreasonable opposition as the Sabbath. And perhaps next to the Sabbath would stand baptism. It is on this latter subject we have now to notice a marked instance. A friend in North Carolina has sent a pamphlet on "The Mode of Christian Baptism, By Rev. M. V. Sherrill, of the North Carolina Conference." We notice his position on the baptism of the eunuch, as a specimen of his method of reasoning, and because his treatment of this case is specially referred to as "effective" in the favorable notice of the work by "Rev. O. P. Fitzgerald, D. D., editor Nashville Christian Advocate." There is nothing in Mr. Sherrill's comments to indicate that he knows any better than to blunder on the use of language, especially on a translation from the Greek. But we are to suppose he did know better, from the recommendations given to his work by prominent men of his church. And such men as Dr. Fitzgerald certainly knew that his comment on the baptism of the eunuch was a misrepresentation of the position of all Baptists, and an abuse of the text.
In our pamphlet on Baptism we pointed out the error of Professor Stuart on that text, with the remark that it was the only case in the Professor's essay on Baptism where his prejudice seemed entirely to get the better of his candor. The following is the paragraph we quote from Professor Stuart, with our remarks on the same, as found on pages 42, 43, of our book:—
"If katabesan eis to hudor is meant to designate the act of plunging or being immersed into the water, as a part of the rite of baptism, then was Philip baptized as well as the eunuch; for the sacred writer says that BOTH went into the water. Here, then, must have been a rebaptism of Philip; and what is at least singular, he must have baptized himself as well as the eunuch."
"These remarks are entirely uncalled for by the record; they are as unworthy of the man who wrote them as of the subject on which they are written. Going down into the water is a necessary prerequisite to baptism (but not to sprinkling); but no one ever claimed or even thought that katabesan eis to hudor expresses 'the action of plunging or being immersed.' We fear the idea sprung up in the mind of a theologian rather than of a critic; for almost the next sentence says 'kai ebaptisen auton,' 'and he baptized him.' This excludes every possibility of obscurity.
"It is true that they both went down into the water, and this is always the case when immersion is practiced. The administrator and subject both go down into the water. But going down into the water is not and was not baptism. Does the record say they both went down into the water and were baptized? No. 'They went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.' It is no part of candor nor reverence for the Scriptures to raise a dust over such plain and unmistakable testimony as this."
On this case Mr. Sherrill says:—
"The whole strength of the argument lies in assuming that 'down into the water,' means down under the water; and that 'come up out of the water' means from under the water. Such a translation would reduce it to a simple absurdity: And they went down both under the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he immersed him. And when they were come up from under the water, &c. You cannot get the eunuch under the water without getting Philip there, too; and if they were both under the water—covered up—they were already immersed—for that is one of the meanings of the terms—and it would be superfluous to add, 'and he immersed him.' How could Philip immerse the eunuch when they were both already under the water—covered up in the stream—immersed?"
We do not believe there is an individual living who honestly thinks that those who believe in the immersion of the eunuch claim that 'down into the water' means 'down under the water.' But he says that that assumption is the whole strength of the argument for immersion! Yet it is never assumed—it is not believed. They both went down into the water; this is what the text says. And Philip baptized him. 'Under the water' is found in the word baptize, and this applies to the eunuch alone, as he was the only one who was baptized.
We always regret the necessity of exposing such misrepresentations. We would far rather have to10do with those who are ignorantly blind, than with those who are willfully perverse. Indeed, we would far rather believe that an opponent were honestly ignorant whenever a perversion is found, but in such a case as the one now before us we see no chance for the exercise of that degree of charity.
"And No Man Can Shut It."
By Uriah Smith
WE read in one place in the Revelation, "that the temple of God was opened in Heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament." To the church which should be living when this took place, Christ says, referring manifestly to the same event, "Behold I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it."
What connection the two events here brought to view have with each other will not probably be apparent at first to those by whom the Bible is but little read, or who have not made the plan of man's salvation a particular study. But to those who are acquainted with the teachings of the Scriptures on the subject of the Sanctuary, the ministration therein performed, the nature of its cleansing, and the entrance of our High Priest from the holy into the most holy place, at the appointed time, we need offer no explanation.
Another consideration engages our attention: It is that when Christ opens before his church a door which no man can shut, there is seen the ark of his testament. This ark of the testament, whether contemplated on the earth, as man was connected with it under the former dispensation, or in Heaven as it is here introduced to us, is equally an object of interest.
Considering that the sanctuary of the first covenant was but a type or shadow of the sanctuary of this, which now exists in Heaven, who may tell us that the ark of the true tabernacle which the Lord pitched and not man, differs from the former, either in the purposes for which it was used, or the things which it contains? The ark of the earthly sanctuary was called the ark of the testimony, or testament. Ex. 25:22. It contained the tables of stone, on which were engraved by the finger of God the ten commandments, and just as he engraved them. Ex. 25:16; 31:18. The ark of the heavenly sanctuary, called also the ark of his testament, as in the text at the head of these remarks, must also contain similar tables, else it was not prefigured by the former.
The ark, then, under whatever dispensation we view it, suggests to our mind the same idea—the commandments of God, as he uttered them from Sinai, and engraved them with his own finger.
But who can suppose that thoughts of the ark, or the writing it contained, suggested to the mind of a Jew the observance of the first day of the week as a day of rest? Neither does it suggest such an idea to our minds, but quite another, according to the reading of the fourth commandment contained in it, which says the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God, &c.
Such are some of the considerations which naturally connect themselves with the ark of God. But, says the Revelation, "The temple of God was opened in Heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament;" therefore considerations like the above have been agitating the minds of the people; and as we have seen through the declarations of his word, those tables of the law carefully preserved in the holy temple of the Highest—impressions of the immutability and perpetuity of that royal law have rolled over us, and we could do no otherwise than turn our feet to the keeping of all those holy commandments.
Here is a nail in a sure place. The tables of the testimony are enthroned in Heaven. There they exist without liability of changing or perishing. Men may legislate and hold councils, and pass decrees, and vent their rage against those who will acknowledge the claims of the royal law, but they cannot touch the law; as high as Heaven from earth it still remains above their reach. What must man do to change it? He must ascend to Heaven, dethrone Jehovah, burst through the angel guards into the sacred temple, wrest from the ark the mercy-seat, and with his own would-be omnipotent finger, change the writing of the imperishable tables.
And yet people will talk about the change of the law as a very little thing, or even proceed further, and speak of its abolition. They might as well talk of abolishing earth and Heaven.
The temple has been opened in Heaven, and there is seen the ark of his testament. "I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it." Men may endeavor with all their energies to obscure the claims of the law, but they cannot obscure them. They may raise all the stir they please amid the dirt of earth, and chuckle over the dust they succeed in throwing into their own eyes; but we have only, as it were, to look to Heaven, and behold the ark of his testament.
We have told what man must actually do if he would affect in one jot or tittle the law of God, provided the view we have taken of the passages in Revelation be correct. To prove that we are not correct in our application, it must be shown that the ark of the former dispensation, and consequently that dispensation itself with its attendant ministry, looked forward to no antitype; that there is no temple nor literal city, called the New Jerusalem in Heaven; that there is no ministration in this dispensation in behalf of mankind, of which the former was a figure; that the expression, "the ark of his testament," does not now mean what it used to, or that the scene of Rev. 11:19 is not laid in this dispensation, or that the language has no intelligible meaning.
But we have no fears for the bulwarks of truth on these points; and we feel safe for the present in resting down upon the evidence that a door which reveals to us the ark of God's testament has been opened in Heaven, with the divine assurance that no man can shut it. U. S.
Pacific Coast Council.
By Stephen Nelson Haskell
EACH month brings new evidences that the work of God is rapidly drawing to a close. The importance of taking advance steps, and wisely laying larger plans for operation is constantly increasing, and the more of the divine stamp that is seen in God's word and the less of the human, the more God will be glorified.
There should be frequent consultations in those sections of the country where the work is of a similar character. The wise man says, "In a multitude of counselors there is safety." By bringing together different minds, and laying out different plans, and having free counsel with much prayer, we shall secure more light than by a few pressing toward certain points without conferring with others.
Last year Elder Colcord came from the Upper Columbia Conference to our camp-meeting at San Jose, and was greatly encouraged. Thus it was with other brethren from Nebraska. The cause is one, and we need larger ideas and a heart to take in the work in all its branches and phases.
The cause on the Pacific Coast is comparatively new, especially in the northern part. The city mission of Portland, Oregon, is an important one. A regular line of steamers running to Alaska, presents an excellent opening for the truth to go to that new country. The fact that Portland is a great thoroughfare for emigrants to that northern section, helps to make it an important point for the distribution of our reading matter. We do not know of a more important city of its size on the Pacific Coast. The work in that city is similar to that of New York and Chicago.
New missions must be opened westward, and that speedily. Plans should be laid the present season to enlarge the work as never before. The school in Healdsburg, Cal., is not merely a Californian school, but a Pacific Coast enterprise.
There should be one general interest blending in a special manner, that will embrace all west of the Rocky Mountains. We see no reason why there should not be a good delegation of our brethren in California attend the Northern camp-meeting this season. The work should be well represented at the North, and at our annual camp-meeting in California there should be a good delegation of our brethren from the northern part of the Pacific Coast. Difficulties of varied and perplexing natures will arise, and the stronger the bond of union to carry forward the work, the more we shall prevent the incoming of Satan.
The work should be opened in Idaho, and why not by laborers going from the northern part of the Pacific Coast? There is a field also in the District of Columbia. In each of these places, persons have embraced the Sabbath from the influence of papers sent. All of these matters should be considered at the annual meeting. In short, our camp-meetings should be meetings of instruction as to the best methods of labor, and how to enter unoccupied fields.
When we think how God has wrought for the Pacific Coast thus far, and how he has honored that people by establishing a pioneer sheet there, that goes to every portion of the globe where the English language is spoken, and has given opportunity through the ship work to reach every civilized nation, we can only say, "How good God is."
If that people prove true to their trust in using the means God has lent them for the spread of his truth, he will go before them in a manner we have never seen. May God bless the general meetings this coming spring, and give success to our brethren in their councils.
S. N. HASKELL.
"A Solemn Thought."
By Editor
SOME one has sent us a copy of the Fremont, Neb., Tribune, of January 19. We regret that it was not forwarded while the report of an Adventist meeting contained therein was fresh. However we give an extract which not only contains a valuable thought, but shows the editor's hearty appreciation of the services:—
"Again we have to chronicle a profitable day at the Seventh-day Adventist Church. The sermon by Elder Cook treated upon the subject of sacrifice at this particular period of the world's history. It is truly a solemn thought that the time has come 'to sell and give alms.' Luke 12 : 33. That the time is at hand to begin to transfer our possessions to the coffers of the heavenly treasury; a time to have our lamps trimmed and burning. Now if we have lamps in our charge (that is, occupy a place with the people of God) but lack the oil (viz., consecration, spiritual and vital godliness), how alarming the situation. James 5 : 1-3. We do not, however, expect to express our individual belief, nor to preach the speaker's sermon over again, but permit us to say that the position taken, although of a radical character, was ably and, as we think, fully sustained. Read again Luke 12 : 33. In view of this we would repeat, 'solemn thought.'"
Work and Christ’s Appearing
An age of work will be but as a few days to those that love God, and long for Christ's appearing.
"An Enemy Hath Done This."
By William N. Glenn
THE teaching of Confucius, as well as that of Buddhism and Mohammedanism, always enjoined total abstinence from intoxicants. But when the arduous labors of the Christian missionaries had opened those Eastern countries to the possibilities of trade, the more "enlightened" nations poured in a stream of alcohol and opium. Christianity has been held responsible by the world at large for the destructive influences of these Satanic implements. But the charge is false. Many things are done by the enemies of Christ, and in his name, for which his church has to bear the blame. In those countries, all Europeans are accounted as Christians, and their bad acts deemed to be the result of Christian teaching; this is quite natural. But infidels in our land also point to the results of European intercourse with the heathen, especially to anything disgraceful, as the consequences of Christianity. Generally speaking, they know better; but when men professing to be Christians engage in illicit traffic for gain with the heathen, either as Government agents or on private account, the infidel has some show of excuse for his tirade.
Yet in the face of all this, the charge of evil influence in heathen countries cannot be laid to Christianity. As a rule the missionaries have strenuously contended against the introduction of pernicious merchandise in their fields of labor. They have faithfully plowed the ground and sowed good seed. It may be asked then, "Whence then hath it tares?" The answer is, "An enemy hath done this." The emissaries of Satan have followed in the footsteps of the Christian husbandman and sowed tares in the field prepared for the Lord's good seed. It was ever his manner of working, and ever will be. Whenever the Lord's work is to be vigorously prosecuted we may expect the agents of the evil one to be equally vigilant, and if possible mingle his interests so that they will pass for the Lord's. There is no more deceptive trick of the enemy than representing wickedness as the results of Christian teaching.
Those who will proclaim the commandments of God in connection with the faith of Jesus will especially have to contend with this phase of opposition; and so-called Christian churches and Christian Governments will be the unwitting agents of the enemy for rearing such obstacles to the work of the Lord. Those who proclaim the commandment message will be charged with abetting the liquor interest because they do not join the Sunday movement. They will be charged with encouraging infidelity because they oppose the orthodox dogma of eternal torment, although many who pass as orthodox ministers do not teach it nor believe it—but they keep Sunday. They will be ranked as "Judaizers," opposed to the gospel, because they advocate the law of God and reject the commandments of men. The results of all manner of evil will be laid upon the promulgators of the final message to the church and to the world.
Yet the "little flock" need not be discouraged. "The disciple is not above his Master." "If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of his household? Fear them not, therefore." Matt. 10:24-26. "Blessed are ye when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice and be exceeding glad, for great is your reward in Heaven; for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you." Chap. 5:11, 12.