TO CORRESPONDENTS

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · May 30, 1878

TO CORRESPONDENTS.

1. Is it competent for a local elder of a church to baptize members of a church over which he is not elder? 2. Does the fact that an individual has been a regularly-ordained minister in some other denomination give him the right to organize churches and baptize among S. D. Adventists, without first having received credentials from the State Conference? QUERIST.

ANS. Our answer to both these questions would be the same, and a very brief one too, consisting only of the little word, No.

S. T. Gaudemard: For an exposition of 1 Pet. 3:19, and all other texts touching the life and death question, see the work, Man’s Nature and Destiny, published at this Office.

D. A. Wellman: Bro. Waggoner’s articles on Baptism will doubtless be issued in pamphlet form if there is sufficient call for them. A work on that subject is greatly needed, and we know not how anything in so small a compass could be better. We would be glad to know the wishes of the brethren generally, in regard to having them in pamphlet form.

When individuals are taken into the church on condition that they will lay aside tobacco, and afterward refuse to do it, what course should be pursued? C. M. P.

ANS. By refusing to comply with the condition upon which they were taken into the church, they virtually nullify that action and take themselves out. A conditional action is not fully completed until the conditions are fulfilled. But to save all misunderstanding, it would be well for the church, after becoming satisfied with the trial of the individual, to declare by formal action the conditions not complied with, and the individual not a member.

Please explain 1 Cor. 15:50: “Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.” Also Matt. 16:19: “I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of Heaven.”

ANS. We understand the expression, “flesh and blood,” to denote our present physical condition, in which we are mortal and corruptible. In this condition we cannot inherit, possess, or enter into, the kingdom of God. To do that we must become physically changed, our “vile bodies” becoming like “his [Christ’s] glorious body,” immortal and incorruptible.

In regard to “the keys,” two views are presented, besides that taken by the Catholic Church, which latter has contributed largely toward making that church the apostate persecuting power that it has been. The two views referred to are (1), that Peter is addressed as a representative of the church, in which case this text becomes parallel with Matt. 18:18 and John 20:23, setting forth how the action of the church, when standing in the light and moving in the counsel of the Lord, is regarded in Heaven. (2) The other view is that Peter is addressed as an individual, and the keys denote the power or the privilege of first imparting a knowledge of the truths of the gospel, thus admitting persons into the privileges, blessings, and mysteries of the Christian Church. This view is advocated by Dr. Clarke and Bishop Horsley. They claim that this promise to Peter was fulfilled when he was made the first instrument in the proclamation of the gospel to the Jews on the day of Pentecost, Acts 2:14, and to the Gentiles, Acts 10:44–48. But whichever view we may take of it, the Roman Catholic doctrine is a hideous perversion; for Christ gave Peter no authority over his fellow apostles, and he made no provision for the transmission of the keys to a line of imaginary successors.

How can it be shown that we are under obligation to keep the seventh day, when it cannot be proved that Christ kept it after his resurrection? J. M.

ANS. How are we under obligation to refrain from stealing, since it cannot be proved that Christ did not steal after his resurrection? Such a question as this we trust is sufficient to show the fallacy which lies at the foundation of the first. The code of moral duties was completed before Christ’s death; and we are not dependent upon what he did after his resurrection for our knowledge of it. As Christ was without sin, keeping the law in all its precepts before his crucifixion, we are not to suppose that he set the example of sin afterward by disregarding the principles of the fourth precept, the eighth, or any other.

Who is meant by “thy fellows” in Heb. 1:9: “Therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows”? Also when will his enemies become his footstool? Verse 13.

ANS. We think the apostle is here showing the exaltation of Christ above the angelic host. He “maketh his angels spirits;” verse 7; but to the Son he saith, “Thy throne, O God, is forever.” He is anointed above his fellows; for to them God has not said, as he has to the Son, “Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.” Verse 13. His enemies are those who oppose, or stand in the way of, his redeeming work; and they are made his footstool when the last one that stands in the way of the redemption of God’s people is destroyed. That last enemy is death. 1 Cor. 15:26. And this enemy is destroyed when the “end” of this dispensation comes; when Christ finishes his work as priest, gives up the kingdom he now holds with the Father, Rev. 3:21, and takes his own throne, and the righteous dead are raised to be no more under the dominion of death. Compare Ps. 110:1, with 1 Cor. 15:24–28.

D. P. C. and G. M. D.: We understand that there are two lakes of fire, one at the beginning and the other at the end of the one thousand years of Rev. 20. This view seems to be necessary to an understanding of Rev. 19:20, 21, and Rev. 20:10. For Rev. 19:20, 21, must certainly have its application at the second advent; and in Rev. 20:10, we read that the devil is “cast into the lake of fire where the beast and false prophet” (are, says our version, supplying the word; but the construction demands that we read it) were cast. They were cast there at the beginning of the thousand years, according to Rev. 19:20, 21.

Where is the evidence to be found that the comma has not been in use a hundred years? There is a gentleman in Onarga, Ill., who says he owns a book printed in London, Eng., in 1634, which has the comma. R. F. A.

ANS. Quackenbos’ Rhetoric, p. 81, says: “The modern system of punctuation was invented by Manutius, a learned printer who flourished in Venice at the commencement of the 16th century. To him we are indebted for developing the leading principles of the art, though in some of their details they have since that time undergone considerable modification.”

Hayden’s Dictionary of Dates says: “The ancients do not appear to have had any system, and doubtless employed arbitrary signs to distinguish the parts of a discourse. Of our points the period (.) is the most ancient. The colon (:) was introduced about 1485; the comma (,) was first seen about 1521, and the semicolon (;) about 1570. In Sir Philip Sidney’s ‘Arcadia’ (1587) they all appear, as well as the note of interrogation (?), asterisk (*), and parentheses ( ).”

A newspaper paragraph which we met with some time since, ascribes the invention of the comma in its present form to Aldus Manutius, an eminent printer, in 1790, the introduction of the note of interrogation and exclamation to a period some years later, and the use of inverted commas (“”) to distinguish quoted matter, to M. Gillepont, a French printer, somewhat later still. This was our authority for the statement made in Man’s Nature and Destiny, p. 179. The point made on the punctuation of Luke 23:43, is not in anywise affected by this variation of dates; for, according to all the evidence, over fourteen hundred years elapsed from the time when Luke’s gospel was written, A. D. 64, to the time when the modern system of punctuation was introduced.