Earlier text: General ArticlesModern Spiritualism.
By Editor
3. They deny the plainest principles of morality. "If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?" God requires us to perfect holiness in his sight, and to purify our souls in obeying the truth; but if there is no choice of action, or no difference worthy of notice between the principles of truth and error, right and wrong, how shall we assure our hearts before God? The teachings of Spiritualism are truly destroying the foundations, by denying the distinctions of right and wrong, and affirming that no evil consequence can result from any course of action. We call the especial attention of all to this, as it is a point that interests all. Men who deny the Bible, who deny God, who deny Christ, will, in general, acknowledge some principles of right—some rules of morality to which they are ready to admit all should conform. This is "the work of the law written in the heart," more generally acknowledged than any written revelation that ever was given. In all ages it has been the same. No considerable body of people, especially of those claiming the advantages of civilization, have ever denied this, except the Spiritualists of the present time. If we do not make good this charge by sufficient proofs, we stand ready to be impeached. But this we firmly believe, that all history does not show a parallel to the teachings of this class, though among them may be found the learned, the refined, and the professedly pious. Believing thus, it becomes us to speak plainly, if haply any may be saved from the snare. The peril is too imminent, the hazard too great, and the time too far spent, to daub with untempered mortar. We have quoted from the "Healing of the Nations," which says God does not condemn any creature. This is certainly just and true if the following is true, found on page 169 of the same book:— "Unto God there is no error: all is comparative good." And of an inspired teacher, it says:—
"He vieweth error as God vieweth it, as undeveloped good."
A. J. Davis says:—
"Sin, indeed, in the common acceptation of that term, does not really exist."—Nat. Div. Rev., page 521.
"The innate divineness of the spirit prohibits the possibility of spiritual wickedness, or unrighteousness."—Id., page 413. Dr. Hare has a set of "theological axioms," of which he says the affirmative is "as evidently true as any of the axioms of Euclid." In them he says:—
"May not devotion to God be shown,
Whether through Christ or Mohammed known?
Whether men die in holy war,
Or kneel to be crushed by Juggernaut's car?" Another of his axioms is that God would not leave men in error, and then punish for the error; but if God sends them truth and light, and they choose darkness, and despise the truth, and defy his authority, would he not be just in punishing them? Does not the very idea of government, and the welfare of the subjects at large, demand the punishment of the rebellious? Do not such false reasonings tend to lawlessness and anarchy? The doctor evidently regarded everything as devotion to God which professes to be devotional, even though it lead men to sacrifice their own or others' lives. Perhaps he was moved by the spirit that dictated the "Healing of the Nations," and so considered war undeveloped peace! And may they not also excuse the falsehoods in which their teachings and communications abound as undeveloped truth? On page 230, he says:—
"As respects free-will, Dr. Johnson shrewdly said that all practice is in its favor, all theory against it; but whatever view may be taken on this subject, no one can deny that so far as it is possible for sin to be avoided, it must be within the power of God to make men virtuous. The fact that they are not sinless, must arise either from his not wishing to make them more virtuous, or from his inability to make them so. That he does not make them from sin, implies either a want of will or a want of power." But is it not possible for God to constitute man free to choose his course of action? and does not our very consciousness combine with "all practice" to prove it true? This is a thought which Spiritualists will not entertain; and why? Because it makes man accountable for his crimes, and so disturbs their self-complacency. So they will plead that God had not power to do as he pleased, or that everything, filthy and abominable as it may be, is pleasing to him. This fully justifies our parody of the doctor's argument on the existence of the devil. War, murder, slavery, fraud, licentiousness, are "undeveloped good," and according to the will of God, for which he "doth not condemn." If any think this is unjustly severe, let them note what follows. On page 402, Dr. Hare says:—
"That anything should, even for an instant, be contrary to his will, is inconsistent with his foresight and omnipotency. It would be a miracle that anything counter to his will should exist."
With this agree the words of A. J. Davis:—
"In the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures it is affirmed that sin is the transgression of the law. But by an examination of nature, the true and only Bible, it will be seen that this statement is erroneous. It gives a wrong idea both of man and law. . . It will be found impossible for man to transgress a law of God." The above is from a lecture on the "Philosophy of Reform," given in New York City; but if this is true, is there neither need nor chance for reform, unless it is God's will that needs reforming! But he goes further, and says:—
"Reformers need to understand that war is as natural to one stage of human development as peace is natural to another. My brother has the spirit of revenge. Shall I call him a demon? Is not his spirit natural to his condition? War is not evil or repulsive except to a man of peace. Who made the warrior? Who made the non-resistant? Polygamy is as natural to one stage of development as oranges are natural to the South. Shall I grow indignant, and because I am a monogamist, condemn my kinsman of yore? Who made him? Who made me? We both came up under the confluence of social and political circumstances; and we both represent our conditions and our teachers. The doctrine of blame and praise is natural only to an unphilosophical condition of mind. The spirit of complaint—of attributing 'evil' to this and that plane of society—is natural; but is natural only to undeveloped minds. It is a profanation—a sort of Atheism of which I would not be guilty. And all our religions, all our schemes of reformation, operating on this superficial plane, need the very elements which are necessary to reform." So revenge, war, polygamy, and every violation of the principles of morality, may not be blamed. According to "the true and only Bible," it is impossible to do wrong! To call murder and adultery evil is "a sort of Atheism." It seems quite unnecessary to pursue this point further. Any further "progress" in this direction is impossible. They may go some further in practice than they have gone, but the theory of lawlessness is fully developed. A. P. McCombs, a Spiritualist, in a tract entitled "Whatever Is, Is Right, Viadicated," says:—
"I will not contend about how Pope or anybody else viewed the axiom, or into what departments of God's universe they give it entrance; I believe that 'Whatever is, is Right,' in its fullest and broadest sense, covering every act in the past, present, and future." For an utter contempt of Bible truth and of the authority of God, for an open rejoicing in iniquity, the following has few parallels. It is from a defense of the theater, by Mrs. Crowell, in Chicago:—
"The first woman plucked of the fruit of the tree of knowledge and gave it to the first man to eat, and thus brought death (a doubtful evil) into the world; ergo, woman ought to be abolished. But I, a woman, uphold and glory in the deed of the first of my sex. . . Woman plucked from the tree of knowledge—not from the tree of life. Sublime choice!" Publishing this, the editor of the Religio-Philosophical Journal (Chicago Spiritualist) made the following comment:—
"But what is stranger than all, if God drove the first woman out of Eden for the act referred to, that he should have restrained his vengeance toward this woman who publicly glories in these acts. Lo! these are strange times upon which we have fallen, and 'straws show which way the wind blows.'" These extracts remind us of the blasphemous utterances of the "French Revolution;" but instead of disproving that scripture, as the editor intimates, it proves the truth of another most clearly: "Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil." Eccl. 8:11. Dr. A. B. Child is a well known Spiritualist, and one of the most popular of their authors. His work entitled "Christ and the People" was published at the office of the Banner of Light, and highly recommended by that paper. It was also strongly recommended by Moses Hull in his paper. In this book Dr. Child said:—
"A religion more spiritual will be discovered and acknowledged. . . a religion without written laws, without commandments, without creeds—a religion too sacred to be spoken, too pure to be defiled, too generous to be judged, resting upon no uncertain outside standard of rectitude, upon no dogma of another, no purity of earthly life, no glory of earthly perfection—a religion that every soul possesses by natural endowment, not one more than another.
"This religion is simply desire.
"With every one, desire is spontaneous and sincere, pure and holy; no matter what the desire is, whether it be called good or bad, it is the natural, God-given religion of the soul."
Pages 28, 29. He occupies a chapter in deriding justice; he scoffs at holiness, and exalts sin, as the following brief extracts show:—
"Ere long, man will come to see that all sin is for his spiritual good. . . To see that holiness lays up treasures on earth. . . Sin destroys earthly treasures, and causes them to be laid up in Heaven." Pages 32, 33.
"There is no criminal act that is not an experience of usefulness. The tracks of vice and crime are only the tracks of human progress. . . There has been no deed in the catalogue of crime that has not been a valuable experience to the inner being of the man who committed it." Page 137.
"Man has yet to learn and yet to admit that all sins which are committed are innocent, for all are in the inevitable rulings of God." Page 175.
"He who wars with sin leaves nothing lovely in his tracks." Page 191. These extracts show the character of the book; and the Banner of Light, in its notice says: "This book should find its way to every family. . . It is born of Spiritualism." We think so; nothing could be found outside of Spiritualism to equal it in recklessness and blasphemy; for it is but blasphemy to connect the name of Christ with such impious immorality.
"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness." Isa. 5:20. Read Mal. 2:17. At a recent meeting in London, the Rev. Dr. Moffat, the celebrated African Missionary, who is now over eighty years of age, related the following anecdotes: Some time after the gospel had been preached among the Bechuanas, and converts had been made, I met an elderly man who looked very downcast. He had quite an elongated countenance, such as I had never seen him with before. I said to him, "My friend, what is the matter; who is dead?" "Oh," said he, "there is no one dead." "Well, what is the matter? You seem to be mourning." The man then scratched his head, and said, "My son tells me that my dog has eaten a leaf of the Bible." "Well, what of that," I said. "Perhaps I can replace it." "Oh," said the man, "the dog will never be any good; he will never bite anybody; he will never catch any jackals; he will be as tame as I see the people become who believe in that book. All our warriors become as gentle as women and my dog is done for." There was a man in the congregation over which I was pastor, in the country where I labored, and he had conceived a bitter hatred of me, which burnt like fire in his breast. The cause was this: he had observed that the people who received my testimony became quite other creatures, and he could not comprehend what kind of medicine I used in order to produce the change. The general testimony borne in answer to his inquiries was, "Oh, Moffat has got his medicine out of the book; that is the medicine that changes men's hearts into women's hearts." The man continued to hate me, and he would have given anything to get me cut off. If I met him by chance in a narrow lane or in any hole or corner, he would get out of the way. On one occasion when I thus met him in a lane, I saw him a long way off. He could not turn to the right or to the left. I thought to myself, "Have you found me, O my enemy?" There was no alternative for him but to come forward. Of course, I was not going to turn back. When he came a little nearer he shouted in the Bechuana language, "Look away from me." Then he came nearer and nearer, until he came within ten or twelve paces, and he roared out again, "Look away from me." When he came close to me, I said to him, "My good friend, what is all this about?" smiling at him at the time. "Why do you want me to look away? I can look at you and you can look at me." He then dropped his spear and shield, and called out, "Forgive me, my lord, forgive me." I grasped his hands at once. "Forgive you!" I said; "with all my heart I have forgiven you." He again repeated, imploringly, "Forgive me." I said, "What have you done? I have forgiven you whatever you intended to do or whatever you have done." He said, "If I had had my will, you would have been long since dead. I have waylaid you, with that spear, when you knew it not, but I dared not throw it. When you returned from visiting the sick during the midnight hour, I had my bow and arrow, and I could have shot you, and you would not have known where it came from; but I dared not, I could not." THE ROSE OF SHARON
By L. M. Burgess
O, ROSE of Sharon, bloom for me!
Thy beauties let these dull eyes see!
The thorns that pierced, on stems of thine
Ne'er grew; alas! those thorns were mine!
Mine, when in sins my hand would rise
To pierce the King of earth and skies—
To pierce that heart so kind and true,
That tho' my guilty soul it knew,
Yet gladly died that I might be,
Thro' that dark hour, from sin made free. Sweet Rose of Sharon! Christ divine!
O, quickly come and make me thine!
Earth only charms us to destroy,
In thee alone is peace and joy.
Come in the clouds of Heaven and claim
Those who are trusting in thy name,
Who thine appearing wait, and watch
The faintest gleam of dawn to catch. O, Rose of Sharon, haste and come
To fill the earth with light and bloom!,
One moment clasped to thy pure breast
Would be eternal joy and rest!
One look from those dear eyes would be
Sure cure for all earth's misery.
Sweet Rose of Sharon! haste and give
That look that bids the dying live!
Oh, that my longing, listening ear
May soon his coming footsteps hear!
And soon my raptured vision see
The Rose of Sharon bloom for me!
Austin, Ill. —L. M. Burgess. Of all the great cities, London, on the whole, contains the most to interest and instruct Americans. It has doubled in population in the memory of men still young. Most readers remember when Macaulay's history appeared. In the first volume the author contrasted the grandeur of the modern city with the London of Charles II., and boasted that the number of inhabitants had increased from little more than 5,000 to at least 1,900,000. In the brief time that has passed since Macaulay wrote, the 1,900,000 has become 4,000,000. A few contrasts taken from the best estimates will give some suggestions of the immense magnitude of the city. It is aptly described as a province covered with houses. New York is equal in population to the aggregate of Maine and New Hampshire. London equals Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Massachusetts and California all together. To equal the city of London here, we should have to bring together the people of the following cities: New York, Philadelphia, Brocklyn, St. Louis, Chicago, Boston, Baltimore, Cincinnati, New Orleans, Buffalo, San Francisco, Washington, and Louisville. The transient people in New York are about 30,000; in London, 160,000. In New York a baby is born every fifteen minutes, and a death occurs every seventeen minutes. In London a birth occurs every six minutes, and a death every eighth. The drinking places in New York set in one street would extend seventeen miles; those in London, seventy-three miles. The Results of a High-Pressure Revival
THE Hartford Religious Herald gives the following instructive record of the net results of a “high-pressure” revival held some time ago in the town of Lotsville by Brother H., a popular evangelist: “Fifty-three converts were reported, every one being counted in who could be persuaded to say that he believed Jesus was the Christ, and that he (or she) was willing to serve him. The young people liked the plan, and regarded it as a near cut to the kingdom. Brother H. received $118.47 for his week’s work, besides a fine compliment in the town paper, and went his way rejoicing. The meeting closed and the trouble began. Disorder among the new converts became the order of the day. At the end of three years the pastor looked over the list and found five moderately good members, eight drunkards, twenty expelled for disorderly conduct, twelve dropped at their own request, and eight under discipline or worthless.” What to Do With Distilling Grain
A TEMPERANCE lecturer was once asked, "What should we do with all the grain that is now required for distilling?" "Feed the drunkard's wife and children with it; they have gone hungry long enough," was the prompt reply. Stumbling and Standing Erect
STUMBLING proves our tendency to fall; but it also proves our capacity to stand erect. Worldly Wisdom and Clerical Folly.
A SERMON was recently preached against the Sabbath in East Oakland (Brooklyn). The minister dealt out to his hearers the views drawn directly from the work of Dr. Junkin, which he seemed to think are conclusive on the Sabbath question. We were requested to notice the sermon. We will notice the foundation of it. Were it not that people with honest intentions look up to the educated in the ministry and are thereby led astray by their vagaries, we might be amused at the absurdities of many of their utterances. But the subject is important. It is solemn in its importance, and in its consequences. We cannot find it in our hearts to tolerate the trifling in which learned men indulge when treating of the Sabbath, or rest day, of the Lord God. “Sabattismos” is the title of a small book by a person of the imposing appellation of “George Junkin, D. D., LL. D.” Such a trumpet-flourish of names is well calculated to bespeak respect for the production; but we find in it an essay only worthy of the unfledged theological belligerent. The author seems, however, to have a high sense of the appropriateness of means to accomplish the end he has in view. Thus, to convince an opponent of the correctness of his counting of the days, he resorts to the following logic:— “If we fix the start-point of the count on Tuesday, and call that first-day, we shall call Sunday seventh-day. And this could be insured in individual cases by a little artifice. Suppose you hold a sponge saturated with mesmeric power to the nose of a seventh day advocate, or lay him up in sleep, by an opiate, for a whole day; when he awoke to consciousness, having lost a day out of his count, his seventh will be Sunday.” Surely this is appropriate for his work. “A little artifice,” with a due degree of “mesmeric power,” is all that is required to transfer the homage due the seventh day to Sunday! The man who could devise this plan is worthy of the titles Mr. J. wears. We are ready to acknowledge that we should be ashamed if a mere beginner in Bible reading would use such an argument in behalf of the true Sabbath; but the cases of the two days are vastly different. For the seventh day we have the example and commandment of Jehovah, with all revelation, to sustain it. For the Sunday “a little artifice” and “mesmeric power,” are the best dependences. In the entire absence of Scripture evidence anything is allowable in behalf of Sunday, on the principle that “Necessity knows no law.” But we remember that “the Sabbath was made for man,”—for the human race; and it was made in the infancy of the world. It will take more than a few grains of morphine to change the rest-day of the Creator from that day on which He rested when the heavens and earth were made. We would that the field of theology could be forever free from such irreverent nonsense. We next copy a statement as presumptuous as the preceding one is irreverent. It is professedly a reading of the fourth commandment: “Wherefore the Lord blessed, not the seventh, but the Sabbath day and hallowed it.”—Junkin. Compare this with the Bible:— “And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it, because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.” Gen. 2:3. It is true that the Lord blessed the Sabbath day; it is also true that he blessed the seventh day. Is it then true that he blessed two days? No; he did not. The harmony of these two statements is found in these words of the Lord himself: “The seventh day is the Sabbath.” The truth that he blessed the Sabbath day lies in the truth that he blessed the seventh day. Had he blessed any other day than the seventh day he would not have blessed the Sabbath day. Sabbath means rest. The Sabbath day of Jehovah (“my holy day,” Isa. 58:13,) is the rest day of Jehovah. We pity the man who professes to teach the word of God, and who presumes so directly to contradict the word of God. His responsibility is great. And we pity the people who, accepting him as their teacher and leader, are so blindly misled by his misrepresentations of the sacred Scriptures. “God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it.” Let no one “handle the word of God deceitfully,” and say God did “not bless the seventh day.” The following paragraph contains all the errors and inconsistencies we have time, or care to notice in this work:— “The change of the name and day—not of the thing, for the observance of the holy day is the same with all Christians; but on what ground do we vindicate the Sunday as the day of sacred rest? We admit that any other day, Tuesday, Thursday, if agreed upon over the whole country, and the whole world, would answer as well. We deny any holiness in time: the thought is absurd. The holiness lies in the heart of the worshipers. With the unbelieving world, Sunday is the most polluted of all days. In all popish-governed countries, their Sabbath is the devil's day. The interests of Satan's kingdom are more abundantly advanced on that day than on any one of the seven. But some day is indispensable. This must be agreed upon, or public worship is impracticable. Instead, however, of leaving man to settle this question by experiment and consultation, conventional adjustment and agreement, God was pleased to decide it for us. The first law he gave to man was the Sabbatic law—the day following the six days' labor is sacred to God by his own command. In imitation of the Creator's own example, he has given us also the glorious and blessed privilege of resting, and worshiping himself. And Paul tells us, God the Son, in imitation of God the Creator, when he had said, ‘It is finished,’ bowed his head, and gave up the ghost and entered into his rest. ‘For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.’ Paul had just said, ‘There remaineth therefore a Sabbatismos for the people of God.’ Heb. 4:10, 9. Christ's finishing his work, for the salvation of lost men, is followed by his entering into his rest and securing a Sabbatismos for his people. Thus the creation example is imitated, and this is a most satisfactory reason of the change. Jesus rose from the dead and went to his heavenly glory, and thus consecrated the first day to holy services. His church obeyed his command, and followed his example.” Note some points of the above. 1. “Jesus rose from the dead, and went to his heavenly glory, and thus consecrated the first day to holy services.” This is designed as the “entering into his rest,” spoken of in Heb. 4. But did Jesus ascend on high, to the glory of his Father, on the first day? He did not. The whole statement is a deception. It was no doubt framed to carry the inference that Jesus entered into his rest when he “went to his heavenly glory.” But this was on the fifth day—not the first. 2. There is neither example or command from the Lord to devote “the first day to holy services.” Jesus honored the Sabbath day by word and action, but, as “the seventh day”—not the first—“is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God,” it was the seventh-day Sabbath which he honored. In the Scriptures no other weekly Sabbath but the seventh day is recognized. 3. Notwithstanding Jesus “consecrated the first day to sacred services,” “any other day, Tuesday, Thursday, if agreed upon over the whole country, would answer as well.” And in keeping the first day “his church obeyed his command;” and yet if Tuesday or Thursday, or any other day were agreed upon, it “would answer as well!” Surely, the consecration and commandment of the Saviour cannot be worth much if it may properly be set aside by human agreement! That he does not believe there is any consecration or commandment binding us to the observance of the first day is further evident in that he argues, in another place, that, in consequence of the rotundity of the earth, it is impossible to keep any day in particular. We know that in arguing thus he only shows himself ignorant of the truth on the point; but that does not destroy the evidence contained in the argument that he does not believe it either necessary or possible to keep the first day, notwithstanding his claim of a consecration and commandment of the Saviour in its behalf. If the apostle's injunction were obeyed, to avoid “vain babblings,” such works as this of Dr. Junkin would have few admirers. 4. He contradicts all that he says on this point of agreement, by saying that God did not leave “man to settle this question by experiment and consultation, conventional adjustment and agreement.” What did the learned doctor really believe? No one can tell by his expressions. 5. He says there is no “holiness in time; the thought is absurd.” But God says, the seventh day is holy. It was made so by his own action. Why are we commanded to “remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy?” Because God sanctified, hallowed, or made it holy. Therefore Jehovah speaks of it thus: “If thou turn away thy foot from the Sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day.” Isa. 58:13. Here is another scripture which Dr. Junkin contradicts in direct terms. The fitting rebuke for such recklessness as the Dr. has thus manifested is found in Eze. 22:26,—“Her priests have violated my law, and have profaned mine holy things; they have put no difference between the holy and profane, neither have they showed difference between the unclean and the clean, and have hid their eyes from my Sabbaths, and I am profaned among them.” These words again prove that there is a difference between the holy and profane,—God has a holy day; a day which is “holy to the Lord.” Ex. 31:15. Men may hide their eyes from it,—they may profane it—but it remains God's holy day. 6. Closely related to the above is the declaration that the “holiness lies in the heart of the worshipers.” That is to say, that if people do not make a day holy by worshiping on it, then it is not holy! A man who is entirely ignorant of the teachings of the Bible might be presumed to be honest in making such a statement. Look at Ex. 16:23. Speaking of the seventh day of that week, which was yet in the future, it was said, “To-morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath.” If Mr. Junkin's words are true, “to-morrow” was not yet the “holy Sabbath,” because “the hearts of the worshipers” had not yet taken cognizance of it! More than two thousand years before that time God blessed and sanctified the seventh day. People might hide their eyes from it, and profane it, or put it under their feet, and still it was God's holy day—“the holy of the Lord.” But now arises Dr. Junkin, and says that this is all a mistake; the idea of a day being holy is absurd; God has not made any day holy; the holiness is only in the heart of the worshipers. It is not left to men to choose the day, nor to make it holy. God chose the seventh day as his own, “because that in it he had rested from all his work.” It thereby became his rest day, or, which is the same thing, his Sabbath day. For this cause he hallowed it; thus it became the hallowed rest—the holy Sabbath—of the Lord. 7. As far as any sabbatic nature or obligation of Sunday is concerned, we can readily allow what Dr. Junkin says of it,—“it is the devil's day.” But what then becomes of the Saviour's “consecration” of which the Dr. speaks? The seventh day is holy—the holy of the Lord—whether men keep it or profane it. But it appears that the “consecration” and “command” claimed for Sunday is not of that nature. They do not prevent it becoming “the devil's day,” in the estimation of Dr. Junkin! The doctor's expression is harsh—we do not like it. Yet, under the circumstances, we do not know that there is great irreverence in it. But we are glad to know that the Lord's claim to the seventh day, in the decalogue and in other places in the Scriptures, is so plainly established that such language cannot be used in reference to it. While the strongest advocates of Sunday have to confess that, even in the hands of its originators, it has become “the devil's day,” the seventh day remains “the Sabbath of the Lord God,” “the holy of the Lord,” and “honorable.” Isa. 58:13. Blessed be the Lord for the clear light of truth. How brightly it shines over the record of the holy Sabbath. Made when the great Creator founded the heavens and the earth; “made for man;” blessed and sanctified before man fell from his innocency; guarded by the commandment of God, given in the majesty and glory of the divine presence; written by the finger of Jehovah; observed by all the “holy men of God” in all the ages; honored by the Saviour in precept and example; and still kept by his church through the darkness of the apostasy, when “the mystery of iniquity” triumphed over the consciences of men—when the “man of sin” compelled “all the world” to bow in honor of “the venerable day of the sun.” May the Lord give his people grace to still cling to the sacred day in the dark hours of worldly rule which lie between us and the day of redemption. Not long have we to wait for the coming glory. Soon the Son of man will come to vindicate the truth of the divine word, to save all those “who keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.” At some future time we will comment on Heb. 4:1–9. The Book of Revelation.
By Uriah Smith
IS IT SEALED? OR CAN IT BE UNDERSTOOD?
THE last book in the inspired volume is entitled, “The Revelation of Jesus Christ.” Our translators in styling it “The Revelation of St. John, the divine,” contradict the very first words of the book itself, which declare it to be “The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to show unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass;” and Christ, it is added, “sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John.” The source from which this revelation comes is thus plainly given. God, the author of all things, makes it known to Jesus Christ; Christ, through the ministry of the heavenly angels, his divine assistants, signifies it to his servant John; and John, evangelist and apostle, and now prophet, acting as amanuensis, makes it known to the church. The book itself has been described to be a “panorama of the glory of Christ.” Certainly whoever reads it with any effort to form a mental conception of the imagery which it introduces, can but be deeply impressed with the grandeur, sublimity, and importance, of the scenes which are made to pass, in fascinating array, before the mind. Themes of thrilling and impressive interest, grand and lofty conceptions, sublime and magnificent description, the whole enhanced by the fact that these take hold upon the issues of the eternal world, are here calculated to awaken in the mind of the reader the most absorbing interest. And the question that will first arise, is, For whose benefit are these scenes described? Can we ascertain our relation to them, or possibly our part in them? Can they be understood? We answer, Yes; or the title of the book is itself a deception: yes; or God has declared his purpose to accomplish a work which he foresaw could never be fulfilled: yes; or he has solemnly pronounced a blessing upon an impossibility. 1. The book is called a revelation. A revelation is something which is revealed or made known. Moses has said, Deut. 29:29, that “the secret things belong unto the Lord our God; but the things which are revealed, belong unto us and our children forever.” The very title of the book, then, is a clear refutation of a view which is alas! too popular at the present day, that this book is a part of the hidden mysteries of God, and cannot be understood. A revealed mystery is a contradiction both of ideas and terms. A revelation is not something hidden and concealed; and if this is the nature of the book, it should have been called The Mystery, or, The Hidden Book; certainly not, The Revelation. 2. It is declared that God gave this Revelation to Christ, to show unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass: The expression “his servants,” is very comprehensive. It includes all the followers of Christ in all time. And wherever and whenever there are any persons who are the servants of Christ, the Revelation is for them, designed to be a lamp unto their feet, and a light unto their path. But how can it show anything to Christ’s followers if it cannot be understood? If, as some contend, it is an unfathomable mystery, dark and incomprehensible, so that all search for its meaning is labor lost, how does it show to the seeker after truth what is coming to pass? It would be worse than useless; for it would only create an anxiety which it would do nothing to relieve. Human tyrants have been known to post their laws so high that the people could not read them, and then punish mercilessly their violation. But God does not act thus. Would he undertake to make known to mankind some important truths, and yet fall into the worse than earthly folly of clothing them in language or in figures which human minds could not comprehend? Would he command a person to behold some distinct object, and then erect some impenetrable barrier between him and the object at which he was bidden to look? Would he give his servants a light to guide them through the gloom of night, and then throw over that light a pall so thick and heavy that not a ray of its brightness could be discovered through261 the obscuring folds? If he has dealt thus with us in the Revelation, then the expressly declared object of the book never can be attained, and he knew it; never could be attained, when he solemnly put upon record that it was to show to his servants things which must shortly come to pass. He does not thus trifle, either with himself or us. 3. The third verse of the first chapter reads: “Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein; for the time is at hand.” A blessing pronounced upon the reading of this prophecy, when the time spent upon it would be thrown away? A blessing upon hearing it when no man can comprehend it? A blessing upon a man who will understand it, when it is impossible that any one can understand it? This would be charging God with folly. Men may assert as some have asserted, that “the study of the Revelation either finds or leaves a man mad.” This is a specimen of man’s judgment; but the word itself assures us that whoever undertakes the study of this book with a calm and teachable spirit, and with a sincere desire to know the truth, that he may glorify God therewith, will find himself, at length, not mad, but in the rich possession of a heavenly blessing. Yes, the Revelation may be understood. We may drink into the spirit of its soul stirring themes till our understandings are enlightened to comprehend and appreciate them. We may gaze upon its scenes of glory till our hearts glow with the foretaste of their blessedness. We may listen to the invitation so tenderly given by the Spirit and the bride, when they say to all, Come, till our beings are fired with new zeal and new determinations to be with that enraptured throng that shall make Heaven ring at last with ascriptions of blessing and honor and glory to God and the Lamb. Let us study with new interest the sacred word; and, having laid hold upon the blessed hope which it sets before us, let us be very thorough in the work of purifying our hearts and lives, that this hope may in due time,
—“change to glad fruition,
Faith to sight, and prayer to praise.”