TO CORRESPONDENTS

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Dec 13, 1877

TO CORRESPONDENTS.

Please explain 2 Cor. 5:8, and Phil. 1:23. Where can we find in the Bible testimony to show that the Sabbath was set back one day at the time of the exodus of the Jews, as I have seen stated by M. H. Fleming, minister of the M. E. Church. E. Needles.

Ans. 2 Cor. 5:8, and Phil. 1:23, are explained in our work on Man’s Nature and Destiny. Respecting the claim that the Sabbath was set back one day at the exode, as stated by some Methodist ministers, under the lead of P. Akers, there is no proof for it either in the Bible or anywhere else. It contradicts the Bible, and history, both sacred and profane. It is a mere subterfuge invented by men to try to avoid the claims of the fourth commandment, and a very silly one at best.

The Douay Bible renders 2 Pet. 1:20, “No prophecy of Scripture is made by any private interpretation.” Is this correct? M. C. W.

Ans. The word which in our translation is rendered “is,” and which the Douay translates “is made,” is ginomai, which is defined by Greenfield, “to come into existence, be created, exist by creation, to take place, come to pass, happen,” &c. We understand the idea to be that the interpretation of the prophecies is no man’s peculiar and exclusive prerogative; for, as the next verse states, as the prophecy was not given by the will of man, but by the Holy Ghost, independent of, and above, man, so the interpretation is not committed to any man’s fancy, but must be made according to the Spirit which gave it.

I find it stated in a Roman Catholic work “that in the whole history of the church from the nineteenth century to the first, no solitary example can be adduced to show that any pope or general council ever revoked a decree of faith or morals enacted by any preceding council or pontiff.” Is this true? M. C. W.

Ans. So far from being true, the whole history of the papacy is marked with the conflicting decrees and decisions of councils and pontiffs. On pages 313–321 of Gavazzi’s Lectures, is a lecture on the infallibility of the pope. From this we take at random, on pp. 317, 319, the following facts:—

Speaking of the doings of some of the councils, he says: “Nice, condemned Arius, and Constantinople absolved him. Constantinople condemned Nice, Lateran condemned Basle. A council of Ephesus condemned Eutyches, and, nineteen years afterwards, a second council of the same Ephesus absolved him. The Ecumenical council of Constantinople declared the bread and wine images of Christ’s body in Heaven; Lateran and Trent pronounced the fullest transubstantiation. Constantinople and Basle asserted that councils are superior to the pope. Lateran opposed the claim. Laodicea excluded the Apocrypha. Trent adopted them all.”

Of the popes he says: “Gregory the Great says, He who assumes the title of universal bishop is Satan; and Gregory VII. says the bishop of Rome is universal. Leo IX. is for, and Gregory XIII. against, infallibility. Pope Vigilius is against, and Innocent III. for, transubstantiation. Pius V. by a Bull declared the breviary correct; Urbanus VIII. declared the breviary of Pius V. full of errors. Sextus V. pronounces the Bible published by him correct; Clement VIII. says the Bible by Sextus V. contains two thousand capital errors. Clement XIV., by an infallible Bull, suppressed the Jesuits as fatal to the church and society. Pius VII., by another infallible Bull, re-established the Jesuits as useful to the church and society.”

He also mentions the case of Formosus, which marked the epoch from the ninth to the eleventh century, as recorded by Roman Catholic writers themselves:—

“Formosus became pope by invading the Basilica of the Vatican, where he erected an altar over the slaughtered bodies of the people. After a little he was overcome and dragged to death. His successor, Stephen, had his body taken from the sepulcher, dressed in Pontifical robes, brought into conclave, and questioned about the crimes it committed when living. Receiving no answer, Stephen ordered three fingers of the right hand to be cut off, the corpse to be stripped naked, and cast into the Tiber. He then excommunicated all the followers of Formosus, and cancelled all his acts, so as to cover his memory with ignominy. A few months after, another pope restored Formosus; a few days subsequently another condemned him and all his acts. And, finally, after seven or eight years, Pope John restored Formosus to all prerogatives and rights among popes!”

These are only a few particulars from almost an unbroken line of like testimony concerning the papacy. And when any Catholic writer, with all this before him (for they must all be aware of it), makes such assertions as our correspondent quotes above, he shows that he has partaken of the spirit of the Romish system, and given himself up to unblushing and unbounded dishonesty.

In the account of the Lord’s supper, Matt. 26:26, &c., we read that Jesus took bread and said, “Take eat, this is my body,” … “this is my blood.” Is not this strong proof of the real presence? M. C. W.

Ans. Not at all, any more than beasts which are used as symbols, are the kingdoms which they symbolize. For instance, Dan. 7:17: “These great beasts, which are four, are four kings, which shall arise out of the earth.” Verse 23: “The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom.” Verse 24: “The ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise,” &c. The prophet had before his eyes only beasts in

their various forms; yet the angel said, These are kingdoms: not that a beast is really a kingdom, but only a symbol of one. Just so, Christ, when he spoke these words had not before him a portion of his own, or any other human body, nor a quantity of blood; but he had bread and wine, which might, and did, fitly represent or symbolize his flesh and blood. Moreover, he says of the bread, “This is my body which is broken for you;” 1 Cor. 11:24; and of the wine, “This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.” Matt. 26:28. But when Christ said this, his body had not been broken, nor his blood shed. Therefore a portion of his broken body and spilt blood could not have been there; and hence it is folly to talk about the “real presence” in the bread and wine of the Lord’s supper.

Answered by Letter: J. H. Waggoner, J. Fargo, Scientific American, E. P. Daniels, G. R. Bennett, M. W. Harris, D. H. Lamson.