MEETINGS IN SPRING MT., OHIO.
By T. J. Butler
Bro. Smith: I have just closed a course of lectures at Spring Mountain, Coshocton County, giving in all some twenty discourses. Before commencing I obtained a grant of the M. E. house for two weeks and as much longer as I wished, but having occupied the house long enough to get out the evidences for the kingdom and Sabbath, and showing up Sunday keeping, I was very unceremoniously expelled from the house on the charge of "desecration." It is evident to the minds of many, however, that my expulsion was hastened by some of their members getting very much interested. I was also opposed on two occasions by two ministers—one a Presbyterian, the other a Baptist. The latter claiming to be a Greek scholar stated to a full congregation, that with king James' translation he would have to come to about the same conclusion (on the Sabbath) that I had come to; but he loved the Greek in which the New Testament was originally written, and that it (the Greek) plainly showed that the first day was the Sabbath. To prove this point he read Matt. xxviii, 1, and translated it, claiming that there were two ellipses in the verse to be supplied—the first, before the first occurrence of σαββατον (Sabbath), should be supplied by "old;" the second, before the second occurrence of σαββατον (Sabbath), should be supplied by "new," which would make it read: "In the end of the old Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the new Sabbath." I then pledged myself willing to abide the correct translation, and claimed the privilege of testing his own to see whether or not it should be considered an improvement on that of king James; and having obtained the favor of his books, I called upon the Professor in the Methodist Academy of the same place, who frankly acknowledged to the congregation that there was nothing in the text to favor the first day. I then asked my Baptist friend if he was satisfied with the Professor's rendering, to which he replied, Yes, and if necessary he could say, Amen. I then stated to the congregation that I demurred not; also that from the little knowledge I possessed of the Greek I was ready to affirm, 1. That according to note 4, (Greenleaf, from which he read) all the ellipses were supplied; and that consequently our Baptist friend found ellipses where there were none. 2. That σαββατον as it occurs in the second instance, in the above text, Greenfield himself defines, "a period of seven days." 3. That in every instance where the word "week" occurs in our English New Testament it is translated from the same word σαββατον; and 4. That our Baptist friend must not only for ever fail to show a "new" Sabbath any where in the word of the Lord, but that even the phrase "first day of the week," cannot be found in the Greek New Testament. At this signal failure of the Baptist minister to make his first point, he retired to enjoy his laurels. This also no doubt had its influence in our expulsion. The Presbyterian minister a few evenings after, took up the Sabbath question, and in a gentlemanly manner urged what he considered scripture evidence for the first day, to whom we had the privilege of replying on the next evening. The Methodist minister also took up against us on the subject of the kingdom [Dan. ii, 44], 1. applying the fourth kingdom, the legs of iron, to the Egyptian and Syrian kingdoms—the two principal ones into which the Grecian (third kingdom) was divided after the death of Alexander. 2. That the kingdom of the little stone was set up in the past; it being the church and influence of the gospel. And 3. That its filling the earth denoted that the world was to be converted. To the first I replied as follows: 1. Egypt and Syria did not break in pieces and bruise the others as specified of the fourth kingdom, in Dan. ii, 40. 2. That the fourth kingdom was to be universal, but Egypt and Syria were not. 3. That Egypt and Syria were two kingdoms, hence could not both be the fourth kingdom. 4. That Rome is the next kingdom recognized both in the Bible [Luke ii, 1] and in profane history as being universal after the Grecian; hence it is the fourth kingdom. To his second proposition I replied, 1. That the church cannot be the kingdom, for earthly governments were to become extinct to give place for it [Dan. ii, 35]; but instead of their becoming extinct at the setting up of the church, Christ, the apostles, and 50,000,000 of the saints have been martyred by them. 2. That the kingdom of God is to be set up at the end of the papacy [Dan. vii, 1]; but the church was established before it arose. See heads of epistles. 3. That while the church was set up 1800 years ago, the kingdom is to be set up at the judgment [2 Tim. iv, 1; Rev. xi, 15], which they themselves claim to be future. 4. That the foundation of the church is the Apostles, prophets, and Christ [Eph. ii, 20], while that of the kingdom is the territory of earth [Dan. ii, 38; Rev. xi, 15], and the church will ultimately constitute only the subjects of the kingdom. Matt. xxv, 31-34; Dan. vii, 15, 22, 27; Matt. xiii, 43. And to his third position I replied, 1. That if the church was the kingdom my friend was right about the world's conversion; but that a failure in his third point would be fatal of itself to the two former. 2. That his quotation of Ps. ii, 8, as a promise of its conversion needed verse 9, also Rev. ii, 27, to specify the kind of conversion, viz., to pieces and to shivers, instead of to the church. 3. That if he was right in the church's being the kingdom, and the world was to be converted, he would not only contradict Christ who taught that both righteous and wicked would be together in the world till its end [Matt. xiii, 24-42], but should abandon all church discipline and let them grow together. 4. That if evil men and seducers waxing worse and worse [2 Tim. iii, 13] is what indicates conversion, he may be right. 5. That he can not be right unless God is going to bring sudden destruction upon converted people. 1 Thess. v, 1-6. 6. That unless my friend could show that Paul's description of men in the last days [1 Tim. iv, 1-5 also 2 Tim. iii, 1], is only parallel to the testimony of 2 Pet. i, 5-11, he must be mistaken. 7. If my friend is right, who will the seven last plagues be poured upon threatened in Rev. xvi, and who will gnaw their tongues from pain and blaspheme the name of God? At the close of the meetings fifteen testified to the truth and their determination to live, while others voted in its favor. Five obeyed the Lord in baptism, and others expect to do so as soon as circumstances will allow. I should have said that when I was turned out of the M. E. house, a friend (Mr. Day) opened a large vacated store room in his possession for me to occupy, for which I was very thankful. P. S. In my report of meetings at Claylick, in Review of March 15, it should have read six, instead of "sixteen" who embraced the truth.
T. J. B.