To Correspondents by Editor

Pacific Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Oakland, California · May 22, 1879

To Correspondents

By Editor

To Correspondents.

To S. J. P.—The argument for the Sabbath does not apply to the yearly festivals given to Israel. They are parts of a typical system which found its fulfillment in Christ. Paul said of those feasts, they "are shadows of things to come, but the body is of Christ." Col. 2:17. We have reached the work and service of Christ, and the shadow ceases. But the Sabbath—the rest-day of the Lord—has a different origin and significance. It is not a type, but a memorial; not reminding of man's sin, but of God's work of creation. Its reasons never run out; its significance as a memorial does not expire with the ages.

To R. T.—We did not intend to give any offense by publishing the Dialogue from Wesley's Works. We supposed that his quotations were correctly made; some of them we know were—others we do not, never having seen the writings from which he quoted them.

Our brother will bear in mind that many spoke of predestination and foreordination, a century or two ago, in terms which would be considered ultra by the most decided Calvinists of the present day. Calvin was not alone of the reformers who spoke in a manner which few, if any, of their most ardent admirers would be willing to imitate now. Even in our own day there has been a marked change in the method of stating their belief on this subject. We are acquainted with only one denomination—that popularly known, and mostly in the South, as Hard-Shell Baptists—which retains

the old, decisive terms of the sixteenth century on this subject.

It is well also to bear in mind that religious controversy ran high in the days of Wesley. His opponents were not always models of a Christian spirit. We really think that of the two parties the Methodists had the advantage in that respect. Wesley was not as harsh in expression as was Luther. Of course we do not indorse every expression of Wesley in his controversial writings, but we do indorse his conclusions on the subject in question. Having once belonged to a "Calvinistic" body, we speak from conviction.

When one of our associate editors requested us to insert these Dialogues, it was a question between us whether to make any changes or omissions, but it was decided to let him represent himself, giving the proper credit.

PLEASE explain Heb. 10:9. H. H. C.

To understand this text we must note carefully the connection. Two things are introduced, 1. Sacrifices and offerings, 2. The will of God. The prophecy quoted, Ps. 40:8, says, —"I delight to do thy will, O my God; yea, thy law is within my heart." Here the will and law are identical. The sacrifices and offerings under the first covenant did not take away sin—they did not vindicate the righteousness of God's law which condemns sin. But the blood of Jesus does. In his work the law is written in the heart. The sinner is reconciled to God; the carnal mind, which is not subject to the law of God, is removed. And, as is said in Rom. 3:31, "we establish the law" by faith. The former sacrifices were removed, and the old priesthood abolished, that this work of establishing the will of God might be accomplished.

Alexander Campbell, in his version of the New Testament, did great violence to this text by an addition to it, as follows: "He taketh away the first will that he may establish the second." The first has reference to the sacrifices which are taken away; the will established has reference to the law of God which was in the heart of the Saviour.

Some contend that if two laws are spoken of in the New Testament there must of necessity be confusion in regard to them as there is no means of distinguishing between them. But the claim is not valid. We find the two laws easily distinguished by their characteristics. And if there is but one it is readily seen that the writers of the New Testament indulge in the most hopeless contradictions.

Some commentators have blinded their readers, rather than aided them in their readings, by a careless method of commenting on the statements of the apostles, especially those of Paul. Thus Dr. Clarke, who was not at all tinctured with antinomianism, interchanged in his remarks from one law to the other as if both were referred to in the same connection or the same text. But Paul was singularly guarded in this respect, and we take occasion from this question to point out that fact, as follows:—

1. In Heb. 8:10 the apostle quotes from Jer. 31:33. But where the prophet uses the singular, my law, the apostle uses the plural, my laws. We can see no reason for this except to distinguish the precepts which are written in the heart of the follower of Christ, from the ceremonial law of which the apostle had been discoursing in this letter, and in speaking of which he had several times used the singular.

2. In Heb. 10:7, is a quotation from Ps. 40:8. The psalmist represents Christ as saying, "I delight to do thy will, O my God; yea, thy law is within my heart." The apostle quotes only the first part of the declaration, omitting the term thy law, because in this connection he had been speaking of "the law" which had only "a shadow of good things to come"—the Levitical law. In other places, see Rom. 2:17, 18, he had identified the will of God as his law. But to mention the two words, as the psalmist did, would make his expression in Heb. 10 ambiguous, and leave the way open to confound the two laws, a liability against which, we repeat, he carefully guarded. If it could be shown that the apostle referred to the two laws in the same terms in close connection, then the objection would have force.

We further only call attention to the fact that "we are sanctified" by the will of God which was in the heart of our Saviour, and which it is the work of the gospel to write in the hearts of all his followers. Seeing that our hearts are purified "in obeying the truth," 1 Peter 1:22, and the law of God "is the truth," Ps. 119:142, we again see reason to refer "the will" to "the law" which we are required to obey.