LETTER FROM ELDER WILLIAM BEEBE
Covington, Ga.
December 1, 1866
 |
| Elder William L. Beebe |
My Dear Father: - I have read attentively your reply to the three questions I submitted, relative to the propriety of those who have publicly professed to be subjects of the kingdom of our Redeemer, bearing arms in obedience to earthly governments, or in self defense.
In yours of the 3d ult. Latin abbreviation for last. you requested to know if your reply should not be satisfactory. I will say that I do not deem it advisable to enter into a full discussion of the subject through the "Signs", yet I may be emboldened by your uniform paternal kindness, freely to express my thoughts to you. Indeed, if it had been only myself that took exceptions to the position to the position of the Warwick Circular, I should not have requested the publication of those questions. You must know that we, who have been robbed, and seen our wives and children rendered homeless by the mercenary invaders' torch, see things from a different point from those of our brethren who have only heard the sound of war at the distance of a thousand miles.
Your arguments are sound, and if your premises were sure, I see no way to avoid not only the conclusions you have deduced from them, but the further consequence, that all human natural relations are abrogated, and that the words of our Lord, recorded in John 6:27 are to be regarded as a literal prohibition of all worldly employment.
But this conclusion is evidently erroneous, as it conflicts with express apostolic directions. The commands of the Savior rightly understood can never be at variance with the directions of the same spirit through the apostles. Then the language of the Lord on the Mount must not be construed to conflict with the duties enjoined on the saints in the support and protection of those who are of their own households. Providing for them certainly includes their protection. (I Tim. 5:8)
Hence, in accordance with the solemn charge you gave me when, on the behalf of New Vernon church, you gave me the hand of fellowship, I had thought that "my relations in life were unchanged," "that I still owed the same obedience to my parents," etc., as formerly. I presume that it is hardly contended that non-professing citizens do not owe military service to their governments. If so, why is there no explicit direction to that effect on record, but rather the direction of John, Luke 3: 14, seems to imply that their avocation is as legitimate as that of any other class of people.
As regards the command in the Decalogue, "Thou shalt not kill," I do not recollect that it is enjoined in the New Testament. If its enunciation in the law of Moses makes it binding on the church, does it not equally enjoin the seventh day Sabbath? That command, you will say, is figurative, and is fulfilled in the gospel rest. Why not also understand the other command in a spiritual sense? If the command in the Sinai law is to be regarded as absolute, what can be understood from the record in I Sam. 15? The war therein authorized seems to have been vindictive, and yet it was not only justifiable, but the failure of Saul to render it bloody as he was commanded, was punished by the rending of the kingdom from him, and the holy prophet himself hewed Agag in pieces before the Lord.
If a vindictive war of extermination in retribution for the unfriendly conduct of their ancestors four hundred years before was right, surely defensive warfare cannot be wrong by the same rule. But you may say, all this was under the legal dispensation. True, but it was hundreds of years subsequent to the injunction relied on to sustain the doctrine that a Christian must not forcibly defend himself against aggression and violence. The spirituality of this command I understand to be fulfilled in the gospel kingdom as described in Isa. 11:9, and 65:25.
Yet while spiritually we are the subjects of that kingdom of peace, in the flesh we are still subject to the law of our natural existence, the same as unregenerate men. Fire will burn us, water will drown us, or starvation will kill us the same as other natural men. I mean to say that the Christian possesses an earthly nature while here on earth, as well as a heavenly existence spiritually in Christ Jesus.
When you solemnize the marriage contract do you not require the husband to promise to protect his bride? If so, what do you intend to require of him in fulfillment of that promise? If a villain attempts to outrage my wife or child, am I not solemnly bound before God to protect them? And if I am bound to protect them against an individual assault, is it my duty to quietly submit to the outrage if committed by a million assailants, when by combining with others I might successfully resist them? Self-preservation is an innate principle placed by the Creator in every living creature; is this principle ignored or forbidden by the law of Christ? Is not he who willfully starves himself as guilty of suicide as he who pierces his heart with a knife? And does it not amount to the same thing if God has bestowed on a man the necessaries of life, and he supinely suffers them to be wrongfully taken from him or destroyed?
I have written the above for your own consideration, and it is at your disposal. If I am in error I desire to be enabled to see the right. Of course you know that I reverence the opinions of yourself and brother Durand, as well as all the dear brethren who may concur in them, but you never taught me to receive anything as gospel truth because of my veneration for the brother by whom it may be advanced. I rejoice to know that the spiritual children of God shall all be taught of the Lord, and he will cause their peace to be great.
Wm. L. Beebe.
IS DEFENSIVE WARFARE COMPATIBLE
WITH CHRISTIANITY?
Reply to Wm. L. Beebe: - It is not our desire that our views on this, or on any other subject, shall be accepted by any of our readers, any further than they shall be found in harmony with the sacred scriptures. Whatever of vain ambition may have possessed our mind or perverted our judgment in earlier life, we are now too profoundly sensible that our earthly pilgrimage is drawing to a close, to indulge in aspirations for the mastery on those subjects which are vitally important to be known and practiced by the people of the living God. What the scriptures clearly teach, not the construction which we may put on them, should be the standard of our faith, and rule of our practice, in all things. We are glad, therefore, that our son, or any other of the household of faith, shall scrutinize closely what we have or may advance, and carefully compare it with the Record of divine truth, and reject all that shall be found to conflict with the word or Spirit of the Lord.
It was far from the design of the Warwick Association, or of the brother who wrote our last Circular, or of ourselves, to set up our judgment as a standard for others. We merely wish to call the attention of those who fear the Lord, and who tremble at his word, to a faithful investigation of the subject involved in the interrogatory at the head of this article. Is ever defensive war compatible with Christianity? Is it sustained by the laws, example or teachings of Christ or his apostles? Whatever arguments may be suggested by human reason, or a supposed necessity, should weigh nothing against what is taught by the spirit of divine inspiration.
Without designing to detract from any argument presented in vindication of the right of self-defense, we will briefly notice some of the objections stated in our son's letter, against our premises.
First. The different stand points from which this subject is viewed. Brethren at the North are supposed to have been so far from the scenes of conflict that we cannot be so well qualified to comprehend the full merits of the subject.
But is this so? If we should concede that the South alone have felt in the late conflicts of the country, the aggressive invasion of their rights, have seen their homes invaded, their property destroyed, their citizens slain, and their most sacred rights trampled upon, would all these provocations qualify them to judge more dispassionately of the teachings and admonitions of our Lord? It is said that oppression will make a wise man mad, (Eccl. 7:7) but where shall we find it written that oppression shall better qualify a man to understand the laws of the kingdom of Christ?
The dreadful cruelties and sufferings which have been inflicted on the people of our Southern States, show that they have suffered great and terrible hardships; but did this justify the saints at the South in an attempt to avenge themselves? Are they not forbidden to do so? Read. "Dearly Beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath; for it is written, Vengeance is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord." (Rom. 12: 19) Will any of our brethren say that they have averted any of these horrors by their defensive opposition?
In other words, is it safer to trust to our own ability to repel the invader, and to protect ourselves, our wives, our children, and our property, than to trust in God, who claims the exclusive right to avenge and to protect? Although the South and not the North was invaded, still the same pressure was brought to bear upon the saints at the North, as at the South, but differing in form. Those who were drafted to go into the war, were driven to the necessity of determining whether to obey God or man in the premises. And trusting in God to protect them from the consequences of refusing to obey the authority of men, they have been delivered; while those at the South who have had more confidence in their swords than in the Lord, have suffered a most terrible fate. So much for the stand points. We still contend that the position occupied by the three Hebrew children was the correct one. They knew that the God in whom they trusted was able to deliver, if it was his pleasure to do so. But said they, "If not, be it known we will not worship the idol which the Government had set up."
Second. We think a little reflection would satisfy every candid inquirer after truth, that neither our premises, our arguments nor our conclusions on the subject of avenging ourselves, would lead to an abrogation of all human natural relations, or to any such relations. The reproof administered to the zealous followers after loaves and fishes, in John 6:27, could have no such bearing. Their error consisted in following Jesus for the sake only of gratifying their carnal appetites, and for a selfish and unworthy purpose. It could not be reasonably construed to mean that they should not, like others, labor with their hands to procure in any lawful manner what was needful to sustain themselves and families.
Third. You are perfectly correct in saying, The commands of our Savior, rightly understood, can never be at variance with the directions of the same spirit through the apostles. This admitted, and you very justly infer, "Then the language of the Lord on the mount must not be construed to conflict with the duties enjoined on the saints in the support and protection of those who are of their own household." Now we freely admit that whatever the apostles have enjoined on Christians in relation to supporting, or protecting their households, or on any other subject whatever, is to be sacredly regarded and obeyed by all Christians; for the apostles are divinely set upon twelve thrones to judge the spiritual tribes, and their expositions of the laws of Christ are final. But in what part of the apostles' instructions are the saints required to protect either themselves or families by force of arms? or to avenge themselves? God is the Avenger of all their wrongs, and Christ has assured us that he will avenge his own elect who cry unto him day and night.
You add, "PROVIDING for them certainly includes their protection." Be careful, and not so construe the apostles' words as to make them conflict with Christ's own words on the mount. If the apostles' words forbid any construction we may have put on the words of Christ, we should at once discard such construction, and yield to the decisions of the holy apostles; but equally cautious should we be to allow no such rendering of the apostles' words as would conflict with the words of Christ.
You have misapprehended our views, if you understand us to believe or teach that either the earthly nature, or the earthly relations, or obligations involved in such relations are changed by the new birth. We have constantly contended that Christians are by the law of Christ, as his law is expounded to us by his apostles, required to strictly observe all these relations and relative obligations. "Children, obey your parents in the Lord." "Honor thy father and thy mother," etc. "Servants, obey your masters." And, "Let every soul be in subjection to the higher powers." But higher than all these powers, Christians are to recognize the power of Christ, and obey him in all things, even if in doing so they disobey all minor powers; for neither parent, master, magistrate or king has any right to require disobedience to Christ.
Fourth. Whether the citizens of the world owe military service to their respective governments or not, is a question, the discussion of which we think would be out of place in our columns. That there shall be wars, and strife, iniquity, murders and all manner of violence in the earth until the final overthrow of the powers of anti-christ, we fully believe, and that wicked men and deceivers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived, the scriptures declare, and we believe. Whether it be the duty of any man to participate in such strife and bitterness, we will not now express an opinion; but certain we are that those who are called by grace are forbidden to butcher one another. "Wherefore, if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances." (Col. 2:20)
Fifth. John's reply to the soldiers would be regarded as treasonable if given to soldiers in modern warfare. Had you, or any other minister of the Prince of Peace, given such a charge to the soldiers in either the Northern or Southern armies, you or they would have done it at the peril of your lives. "Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages." We do not see that John committed himself in favor of the principle of war. If they were voluntarily engaged in taking the sword, their wages was to perish by the sword. Certainly we cannot understand John as endorsing what Christ afterwards forbid in his sermon on the mount.
It is not clear to our mind that if the people of this world were not obligated to render military service to the governments of the world, that the apostles would have given express direction to that effect, as their apostleship was not to the world, but to the church of God exclusively.
Sixth. We come now to the command in the Decalogue, "Thou shalt not kill." This precept is classified with those which forbid that we shall commit adultery, steal, bear false witness against a neighbor, or covet our neighbor's house, wife, manservants, maid-servants, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is our neighbor's. In his sermon on the mount, Jesus said to his disciples, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." Having made this important declaration to his disciples, he proceeded to explain to them the exceeding broadness of his law.
It had been prophesied of him, that he should magnify and honor the law. His exposition of the law gave to his disciples a view greatly magnified beyond what that they had before understood. "Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time," (the children of Israel, as they read and expounded the law), "Thou shalt not kill, and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment. But I say unto you," - unto you, my disciples. What? Does he say this precept is no more to be observed: it only applied to the Jews? Not so. "But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause, shall be in danger of the judgment, and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca," (that is vain fellow) shall be in danger of the council; but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." He also in like manner enlarges upon the interpretations which had been entertained in former times on other precepts, and then in regard to what the Israelites had understood to be awarded them by the law, as exactions of strict justice, he says, "Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil." Should an enemy assail you and gouge out an eye, or smite out a tooth, this would seem a very great provocation, and justice might exact the infliction of an equal amount of suffering on the offender. But, see thou do it not. "But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil; but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go with him a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee, turn thou not away. Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that despitefully use you, and persecute you; that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven; for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?" "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect."
This much we have copied from our Savior's own instructions in regard to the law of God, bearing upon the subject under consideration. Now if it can be made to appear that Christians can conform with the letter and spirit of these instructions, - can restrain all anger, can refrain from killing, from hating, and from even resisting evil - can love their enemies, and pray for their persecutors, do good to them that despitefully use them, and yet, even at the bidding of earthly governments, take up arms, and shoot down their fellow men, then we will confess that we have lived in gross ignorance of the meaning of the scriptures even to this hour.
Seventh. But the inquiry is made, If the precept which forbids us to kill is still in force, is not also the law enjoining the observance of the seventh day Sabbath still in force? We do not understand that either the law forbidding murder, theft, adultery, or covetousness, false witness, swearing or idolatry are in force upon the church of God, as the law of a carnal commandment, but all has been met and canceled by our great and glorious Redeemer, who has not destroyed the law or the prophets, nor any jot or tittle of either, but has perfectly fulfilled both.
And we further believe that he has done all this, not that we should live unrestrained, and without law, but rather that the righteousness of the law should be fulfilled in us who walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit. He has redeemed us from under the law, and we are dead to the law by the body of Christ, and being married to him who is risen from the dead, that we should walk in newness of life, we are now under law to Christ. Hence the distinction between the law as ministered by Moses to those of old time, as preached and enforced in its letter on them, and the spirituality of its righteousness as fulfilled in us, is most clearly set forth by our Savior himself in what we have copied from his sermon on the mount. The seventh day Sabbath, as interpreted by the inspired apostles, most clearly and unmistakably is fulfilled, in its spiritual and typical design, in that Sabbatic Rest into which all believers do enter when they believe on Christ. While the righteousness of the law of the Sabbath is fulfilled in the saints, in their ceasing from all legal works, the Spirit and righteousness of the law of love to God, and to our neighbor, on which two precepts hang all the law and the prophets, is also fulfilled in us, when we receive the spirit of Christ in our new and spiritual birth. That Spirit in us breathes, Glory to God in the highest, on earth peace and good will to men, as it did in the person of our Savior when here in the flesh, and when led like a lamb to the slaughter, and when in his dying agony on the cross he prayed for those who despitefully used and persecuted him. "If any man have not the spirit of Christ he is none of his." And all who have the spirit of Christ will evince it by its legitimate fruits, which are these, love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance; against such there is no law."
Now which of these fruits can be seen in the man who enters the field of carnage, sword or musket in hand, with the design to deprive his fellow being of life? We are told that the works of the flesh are manifest; which are these: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revilings, and such like. In view of this, will it be hard to answer the interrogative of James, "From whence came wars and fighting among you? Come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members?" Not in tones of terrific thunder from Sinai, not on tables of unfeeling stone, are the laws of Christ written; but on the fleshly tables of the heart, written by God himself in the mind, and in the inward parts of his children. This is the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus. But the apostle John informs us that no murderer hath it abiding in him, and if any man hateth his brother, he is a murderer.
Our son, we trust, will see that the spirituality of these laws do not abate their force, or give license to Christians to use carnal weapons in any case.
Eighth. Again. You inquire, If the Sinai law be absolute, what can be understood from the record in I Sam. 15? In that case God commanded Saul to exterminate Amalek, as a righteous retribution for their transgression; and Saul was no more excusable in sparing where God had commanded him to slay, than we are in slaying when God has commanded us to spare. "Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams." Amalek and Agag were typical of anti-christ, and the man of sin, and the saints are now fighting the battle to which this figure pointed; not with carnal weapons, but with the sword of the Spirit which is the word of the Lord. With that sword are the soldiers of the cross now hewing Agag to pieces before the Lord. "No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life, that he may please him that hath called him to be a soldier. And if a man also strive for masteries, yet is he not crowned except he strive lawfully." II Tim. 2:4,5.
Ninth. You feel sure that if a vindictive war of extermination in retribution for the unfriendly conduct of their ancestors, four hundred years before, was right, a defensive warfare cannot be wrong by the same rule. But by what rule was that war against Amalek right? What was the rule which the holy prophet applied to the conduct of Saul? Hear him! "The Lord anointed thee king over Israel; and the Lord sent me on a journey, and said, Go and utterly destroy the sinners, the Amalekites, and fight against them until they be consumed. Wherefore did'st thou not obey' the voice of the Lord?" etc. The voice of the Lord was the rule, which would have justified Saul if he had obeyed it; and so if the word of the Lord commanded us to avenge ourselves with carnal weapons, we might plead the same rule for defensive warfare. But inasmuch as he has forbidden us to resist evil, or to avenge ourselves, we cannot be justified in carnal warfare by that rule; the voice of the Lord. This, you say was hundreds of years subsequent to the injunction from Sinai, "Thou shalt not kill." The law forbidding man to kill, on his own responsibility, could not apply to any case where God himself has commanded to kill, as in the case alluded to. To kill without the express command of God, would be a transgression of his law, and is therefore murder; but to refrain from killing where God has commanded, is equally sinful.
Admitting, as you do, the spirituality of the command to be fulfilled in the gospel kingdom, according to Isa. 11:9, and 65:25, can we suppose that the subjects of that kingdom, are peaceable and harmless within the precincts of the kingdom, and yet, if called on by the kingdoms of this world, they are to go out of the kingdom of Christ, and fight like tigers, destroy the lives, liberty and property of men? To be in the kingdom of Christ, is to abide under his government, observing his laws, and be led by his Spirit. He has redeemed and called his subjects out of the world, and they are to be in obedience to him in all things. "Our feet shall stand within thy gates, a Zion."
Tenth. That there is a law of our nature, which Paul, and which all the saints find in their members, warring against the law of their mind, and bringing them into captivity to the law of sin, is painfully felt and frankly acknowledged. But our allegiance to Christ requires that we deny ourselves of all that he has forbidden. "For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus, has made me free from the law of sin and death." So far from being justified in yielding obedience to the law which is in our members, we are admonished that if we walk according to it, we shall die. The works of the flesh are, as we have shown, hostile to the fruits of the spirit. Therefore, "If ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds or works of the flesh, ye shall live." If led by the law of our depraved nature, we shall attempt to defend ourselves, and avenge ourselves; but when led by the Spirit we trust the keeping of our souls to God, and have no confidence in the flesh. If the Christian did not possess an earthly nature, he would not be required by the law of Christ to crucify the old man with his affections and lusts. Our bodies as well as our spirits belong to Christ. "Ye are not your own, ye are bought with a price; therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit which are God's."
Eleventh. In solemnizing marriage we require a promise from the husband to protect his wife, to the extent of his ability; that is, as far as he can do it lawfully. He is not pledged to violate the law of God; for such protection could not contribute to her safety. For our own protection and that of our families we are taught by the word and Spirit to trust in God, not in ourselves. And our Savior has warned us, "If any man will save his life, he shall lose it; but whosoever will lose his life, for my sake, shall find it." That man shall labor with his hands to provide for the support of his family, and that he shall submit to earthly governments, and to every ordinance of man, which does not require of him a violation of the law of Christ, is very clearly enjoined on Christians by the law of Christ. But when the laws of men or the law of our nature require us to transgress the law of God, and we to avoid the wrath of man, seek to save our life by succumbing, in violation of the law of Christ, we shall loose instead of saving it.
This matter has been tested during the late dreadful war. The Federal government called for troops to fight the South, and the Confederate government called for troops to fight in defense. By drafting, some of the children of God at the North were required to go into the field and shoot down indiscriminately the citizens of the South, including their own brethren; to rob them of their property, burn down their dwellings, sack and lay waste their land. Many of the brethren in the South believing and acting on the principle that defensive war was justifiable, volunteered, or were drafted, and entered the field. If obedience to earthly powers were a sufficient justification for Christians to enter the armies, then Christians may righteously shoot down their brethren, and rob and plunder them. Can this be so?
We know that there were brethren in the North, who would sooner be shot down at home, than go and level their guns, to shoot down their fellow men, especially their brethren at the South, and it was a matter of regret to us that the brethren at the South were misled to take up arms for their own protection, rather than trust in God for protection. The result has proved the fallacy of their reliance. While those, both North and South who have trusted alone in God, and have kept out of the conflict, cheerfully suffering the loss of property and all other consequences, have been preserved. What have they gained who went into the war? If either the North or the South have benefited by the war, we are unable to see wherein; while the South in their appeal to arms have failed to attain their object; and the North is also filled with widows, orphans, maimed and crippled thousands, and the wailing of Rachel's lamentations, goes up to heaven from North and South, because of the hundreds of thousands of the slain.
In view of all this, can Christians count up the cost, and arrive at the conclusion that it is safer, wiser and better to appeal to arms, than to appeal to God, for protection!
Twelfth. You ask, "If a villain attempt to outrage my wife or child, am I not bound before God to protect them?" To the extent of your power we think you are, if the intervention of your own life would save theirs, you are bound by the law of Christ to lay it down, not only for wife or child, but for any of the saints. But still, you, as a disciple of Christ, have not the right to violate a single example or precept of Christ to save yourself or others. We are taught by the gospel to trust, and wholly confide the keeping of our souls to God. How can we do this while our reliance is in our appeal to arms.
Do we doubt the ability of God to keep us from the power of our enemies? Read the Psalm 91, and the words of our Lord to Peter. "Put up again thy sword to his place; for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword."
The innate principle of our nature, inclining us to self preservation, is only righteously adhered to so far as its dictates are in subordination to the laws of Christ. By its dictates, we may avoid presumptuous exposure to danger; but if we rely on it for protection, we cease to trust in the living God. By the instinctive principle inclining us to self-preservation, we may avoid suicide; but it does not follow that by allowing our worldly substance to be taken from us by injustice and robbery without fighting to prevent the loss, is alike suicidal or unjustifiable. Read once more in the sermon on the mount. Matt. 5:39-41.
Thirteenth. You are right in your conclusion, that we do not wish you to accept any opinion of ours, as right without investigation. As a Christian, and as a minister of Christ, our standing is on a perfect level. The laws of consanguinity are not to rule in the kingdom of Christ, where we are to know no man after the flesh; where there is neither Jew nor Greek, bond or free, but all are one in Christ Jesus.
In conclusion, we wish to say, it has not been our design to censure any of our brethren, North or South, in the views we have expressed on the subject. We are fully aware that our brethren have generally entertained substantially the views expressed by our son and acted upon those views in the Revolutionary war, and perhaps in other wars; but it is our solemn conviction that God, in his holy providence, by startling events which are now transpiring, designs to hold his children under such discipline as shall compel them to seek for the ancient paths, which he has marked out in his law, for them to walk in. Light is breaking in upon us, probably, preparatory to great and marvelous events, which in fulfillment of prophecy are about to transpire.
Let all our readers carefully ponder the words, Rev. 13:9,10. "If any man have an ear, let him hear. He that leadeth into captivity, shall go into captivity; he that killeth with the sword, must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints."
Middletown, N.Y.
December 1, 1866
Elder Gilbert Beebe
Editorials volume 6
Pages 415 - 428
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for commenting. If an answer is needed, we will respond.