Earlier text: HAVE SALT IN YOURSELVESNo Apostasy, or Once in Grace, Always in Grace.
By S. Osborn
I WILL now introduce Paul's testimony on this subject in chapter 6 of Hebrews, verses 1–8. In the first two verses he shows that the subjects of this declaration had taken the initiatory steps of the gospel, and hence were in favor with God. In verses 4–6 he says, “For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.” If a person would read this scripture unbiased by theological prejudice, he could come to no other conclusion, than that a man can fall from grace. But still there is an objection. It is founded on the verb if in verse 6, “If they shall fall away,” etc. The objector says this means, they cannot, and will not, fall; but this is contrary to Webster. He says if is a verb, transitive, and means “grant, allow, suppose, admit.” Now it is evident from Webster’s definition of this term that they were not obliged to continue in the grace of God, but were at liberty to do as they pleased. If they could not fall, why did the apostle talk about not “renewing them again,” and “crucifying afresh,” and “putting to an open shame”? Why did he compare them to “briers and thorns,” “whose end is to be burned”? Why did he tell some of his brethren that “he was persuaded better things of them”? Did he mean to show them there was danger of falling when there was none? Was he trying to deceive them? How much more consistent to take the view that they can fall. In the 10th chapter the apostle comments on the same subject again. Verse 26: “For if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sin.” What then remains? Let Paul answer. Verse 27: “But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.” In verses 28, 29, he enforces this idea, and shows us who these adversaries are by contrasting the penalty of the sins under the law of Moses with the willful sins committed under the new covenant. We read: “He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses; of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace.” Notice that they died without mercy under Moses’ law, and under this new covenant the punishment is to be sorer. Now where is the spark of grace left to revive, if we do “despite to the Spirit of grace,” continue in this course, and die without mercy, as Paul says? Let those answer who can. We are not quite done yet. In the 12th chapter we have another positive testimony on this point. “Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord; looking diligently lest any man fall163from the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled.” Verses 14, 15. We are required to follow peace and holiness, lest we fall from the grace of God. Then if, at any time, we turn away from him, we are liable to fall. There are some that have commenced to serve God that are irretrievably lost. This I have abundantly proved, and it is also evidenced from the comparison of the apostle in the next two verses. He calls Esau a profane person for selling his birthright, and says he would have inherited the blessing, but was rejected, though he was very penitent and sought it with tears. Verses 16, 17. Then just as sure as Esau failed of the blessing of his father Isaac, we shall fail of eternal life if we do as he did, and barter it away. It is as much in our power to do this as it was in his, according to the analogy of the apostle. It is of no use, therefore, to say we cannot fall finally from the grace of God. For Scripture and facts are too plain. Besides the scriptural evidence we have given, many of us know of apostates from God, and some have even gone into the delusion of spiritualism without any hope; for God will send such strong delusions, that they might be damned, 2 Thess. 2:11, 12. We had better heed the instruction of the apostle in Heb. 2:1: “Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let them run out as leaking vessels. [margin]” If a vessel leaks and it is not stopped all the fluid in it will run out. So with the grace of God in our hearts. That some have sinned, and repented, and turned back to God, and obtained forgiveness, like David and others, is no proof against the foregoing view, but is in harmony with it. But where persons have committed willful sins or failed to return to God and repent in the time God has given them, there remains no hope for them. This is sufficient to convince any that can be convinced. Once more, in 1 Tim. 4:1, 2, we read, “Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter days some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron.” “Depart, going away, to forsake” (Webster). This does not speak of backsliding merely, but entirely giving up, departing from the faith. I will now examine some of the strongest objections against this view. 1 John 5:4: “For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world, and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.” This is explained in verse 18: “We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself [guards himself, Diaglott], and that wicked one toucheth him not.” According to this as long as a person keeps himself guarded, he cannot sin, and only this long. This is evidenced from the 16th verse, which shows that a brother can sin a sin unto death. We read: “There is a sin unto death; I do not say that he shall pray for it.” Mark, this is directed to the brethren in the church, and not to brethren by the ties of nature, as some contend. There are several texts found in John which are relied upon as unanswerable, according to our view of apostasy. We will give some of them. John 3:36: “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life; and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.” John 5:24: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.” John 6:54: “Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.” In answering the points brought out in these texts, we will consider, first, what this life is that a person gets when he believes in Christ; and, secondly, can it be lost? On the first point, I affirm that Christ is that life. Proof: John 6:53, 54: “Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life.” This shows what eternal life is. It is composed of the flesh and blood of Christ. Again, 1 John 5:11, 12: “And this is the record that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.” It is evident that the eternal life spoken of in the foregoing texts is no part of man, but simply the presence of Christ, which of course is as undying as Christ is; and when we are in him it is eternal life in us. For proof, see verse 20: “That we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.” This is Christ in us the hope of glory. Col. 1:27. The apostle Paul, in describing the difference between the carnal and spiritual mind of man says to the Roman brethren, Rom. 8:10, “And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.” That is, the Spirit of Christ that is in you is this life as is evidenced from the connection. “Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ he is none of his.” “But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.” Verses 9–11. This certainly will sustain the first affirmation, though many more might be adduced. I will now pass to examine the second affirmation; viz., can this life, or Christ, be lost? or, in other words, can we do any thing to cause it to depart from us? There are many texts that might be adduced on this point, but I will only present a few of them. Rom. 8:9: “But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you.” This shows that the possession of this Spirit is conditional. “Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die; but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.” Verses 12, 13. This address was made to the brethren, and they retained this life on condition of mortifying the deeds of the body. Again, the apostle speaks, 1 John 1:2, of this eternal life which was with the Father, and was manifest to us. It is that which gives us fellowship one with another, and also fellowship with the Father and the Son. Verse 3. “If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth.” Verse 6. It is impossible to have this eternal life and walk in darkness. We can know we are in the light by being in fellowship with the brethren, but let us get out of this fellowship, and we are out of present eternal life. The 7th verse attests this fact: “But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.” Here on condition of our fellowship with one another, we have the promise of the efficacy of the blood of our Saviour, and who can be in a saved condition without its merits? Not one. In 1 John 2:24, 25, we read: “Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father. And this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life.” It seems to me that this subject can be made no plainer; but I will adduce one more text. 2 John 8, 9: “Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have gained [margin], but that we receive a full reward. Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.” Great stress is laid upon the term, “hath eternal life.” But when we see that the present eternal life is only Christ formed in us the hope of glory, as we have shown, then we can lose it as easily as the spendthrift can dispose of his money. To-day he may be rich, and very shortly he may be bankrupt. So to-day we may be in good health and have a prospect of long life, but next week we may be in our graves. From this we see present possession is no guarantee that we shall unconditionally hold it. This surely is plain. Rom. 8:35–39 is considered very strong evidence against apostasy. Paul says, “Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?” Paul simply asks the question who shall separate us from the love of Christ, &c. This language does not mean they cannot be separated. He continues: “Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us.” From this we learn that there is a work on our part through Christ, in order to gain the victory. Paul gives his opinion of the Roman brethren in these words: “For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” This only shows that the apostle had great confidence in the fidelity of these brethren, and not that their destiny was absolutely and unconditionally fixed, as some contend. A very serious objection is found in the doctrine of the new birth. John 3:6: “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” It is claimed on this verse that the birth of the Spirit, spoken of here, is as much of the nature of the Spirit of Christ as the birth of flesh is of the flesh. But of whatever nature it may be if we apply it to our condition in this life, the 8th verse shows it is liable to leave us. We read: “The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth; so is every one that is born of the Spirit.” From this we learn the Spirit can come and go like the wind. Wind sometimes ceases to blow, and there is a great calm; so the Holy Spirit departs sometimes, and there is a perfect vacuum in the soul. Thus unless there is an effort on our part to get and retain the Spirit the spiritual man will finally perish, as I have abundantly proved. There are some other objections that are arrayed against the possibility of apostasy; but these that I have examined are the strongest, and as they can be so easily and plainly harmonized with the doctrine of the possibility of apostasy, the weaker objections can be met more easily. People will take positions to support a pet theory which are contrary to facts. Who does not know that in every faith there are individuals who have been soundly converted to it, and have departed from it, even in our time? and that many become worse than they were before? These are facts that cannot be denied. And further, it seems to me this doctrine of no apostasy is a very dangerous one; for it has such a tendency to rock those to sleep who think they were once in grace. It certainly courts the carnal nature of man. I know some who have the reputation of being given over to licentiousness, and at the same time they stand as leaders against the possibility of apostasy. Oh, may God wake up the people! And may his ministers cry against such errors! It is certainly just the doctrine to hold a lukewarm mind where it is. It teaches no danger. It is a fatal peace-and-safety cry. “Hearken unto me, ye that know righteousness, the people in whose heart is my law; fear ye not the reproach of men, neither be ye afraid of their revilings. For the moth shall eat them up like a garment, and the worm shall eat them like wool; but my righteousness shall be forever, and my salvation from generation to generation.” Isa. 51: 7, 8. This is first a summons to attend, to hear. This call is not to the wicked, but to those who know righteousness, to those in whose heart God’s law is found. This message regards the revilings and reproaches of the wicked; it exhorts the righteous not to fear or be afraid of them, because their career will soon end in death; the moth and the worm will consume them, while God’s righteousness and his salvation will endure. A more eloquent passage could not be written than these seventh and eighth verses of Isaiah 51; nor one more full of true godlike independence and righteous fearlessness. As Isaiah saw, from day to day, the overbearing, conceited scorn and pride of the wicked, God told him not to fear nor be afraid; but, Daniel-like, to pass calmly on, pursuing his daily round of duty, composedly resting in faith of God’s word and promise, looking forward to the final triumph of the people of God and the ruin of the poor sinner. But God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, nor did he teach Isaiah to render scorn for scorn, but to look forward with pity and sorrow to their fearful doom; and faithfully and kindly warn them of the terrible retribution awaiting the finally impenitent. Mr. Editor: The following remedy for consumptives, which we clip from the Monmouth Monthly, may be of benefit to your readers, as the plant can be easily obtained. A correspondent writes:— “I have discovered a remedy for consumption. It has cured a number of cases after the patient had commenced bleeding at the lungs, and the hectic flush was already on the brow. After trying this remedy to my own satisfaction, I have thought philanthropy required that I should let it be known to the world. It is the common mullen, steeped strong, and sweetened with coffee sugar, and drank freely. “The herb should be gathered before the end of July, if convenient. Young or old plants are good dried in the shade, and kept in clean paper bags. The medicine must be continued from three to six months, according to the nature of the disease. It is good for the blood-vessels also. It strengthens the system, and builds up, instead of taking away strength. It makes good blood, and takes inflammation from the lungs. It is the wish of the writer that every paper in the country would publish this recipe for the benefit of the people. Lay this up and have it in the house ready for use.”—W. K., in Bib. Messenger. Bunyan the pilgrim, dreamer, preacher,
Sinner and soldier, tinker and teacher,
For heresy scoffed, scourged, put in prison—
The day of tolerance yet unrisen—
Who heard from the dark of his dungeon lair
The roar and the tumult of Vanity Fair,
And showed man's pilgrimage forth with fashion
Heroic, in God-guided poet-fashion,
Has now his revenge; he looks down at you
In a ducal-commissioned statue—
A right good artist gave life and go to it,
But his name's not Boehm, and rhyme says “no”
to it—
And the Dean of Westminster, frank and fluent,
Spoke broad-church truths of the Baptist truant. We like the Duke and we like the Dean,
And the summer air in the summer green,
When the Anabaptist poet and clown
Was set up as the glory of Bedford town;
But ducal and decanal folk should learn
That to-day with the past is of small concern;
That light for the day's life is each day's need,
That the tinker teacher has sown his seed;
And we want our Bunyan to show the way
Through the Sloughs of Despond that are round us
to-day.
Our guide for straggling souls to wait,
And lift the latch of the wicket gate. The churches now debate and wrangle;
Strange doubts theology entangle;
Each sect to the other doth freedom grudge,
Archbishop asks ruling of a judge.
Why comes no pilgrim, with eye of fire,
To tell us where pointeth min'ster spire?
To show, though critics may sneer and scoff,
The path to “the land that is very far off”?
The people are weary of vestment vanities,
Of litigation about inanities,
And fain would listen, O preacher and peer,
To a voice like that of this tinker seer;
Who guided the pilgrim up, beyond
The Valley of Death, and the Slough of Despond,
And Doubting Castle, and Giant Despair
To those Delectable Mountains fair,
And over the River, and in at the Gate,
Where for weary pilgrims the angels wait! The Liquor Business in the United States.
By J. H. W.
A CORRESPONDENT of the New York Evening Post furnishes the following statement. He says that he has obtained the figures from official documents, and that he has presented them in the following compact form so that even the casual reader may see how large, both absolutely and relatively, the traffic in intoxicating liquors is in this country:— Statistics showing the amount of money spent in the United States for intoxicating liquors during the year 1870, as taken from official records:— Imported and domestic distilled and spirituous liquors .......... $1,344,000,000
Brewed and fermented liquors .......... 128,000,000
Imported wines ........................ 15,000,000
Domestic wines ........................ 5,000,000
Total .................................. $1,487,000,000 The amount spent for liquor in each State is also given, and it appears that New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Illinois have the unenviable precedence; the investment in the three last named being more than double that in any other, and in New York more than quadruple. The same writer makes a startling comparison deduced from the following figures. In the same year, The cost of flour and meat was ...... $530,000,000
The cost of cotton goods .............. 115,000,000
The cost of boots and shoes ........... 90,000,000
The cost of clothing .................. 70,000,000
The cost of woolen goods .............. 60,000,000
The cost of newspapers and job printing 40,000,000
Total ................................ $905,000,000 So that for the above staple articles scarcely two-thirds as much was spent as for intoxicating liquor. We are not, therefore, surprised to learn that there were 140,000 liquor saloons in the United States, each having (estimated) 40 daily customers, making 5,600,000 drinkers; and that there were 400,000 more persons engaged in the liquor business in the United States than in preaching the gospel and school-teaching; and from the effects of intoxicating drinks 100,000 are annually sent to prisons, 150,000 to drunkards’ graves, and 200,000 children are reduced to want. And yet liquor dealers insist that government has no right to interfere to prohibit such a nefarious and ruinous traffic. The proper office of government is the protection of its citizens. There are many thousands of helpless women and children, made helpless and suffering by the liquor business, who need to be protected, not to speak of the right of the citizens to cut off this enormous addition to taxation and the expenses of the government. Questions on the Sabbath.
By Uriah Smith
EDITORS VOICE OF TRUTH, GENTLEMEN:— Having perused the above-named paper since its first issue, I have been somewhat interested in the various articles regarding the Sabbath. Would it be asking too much, to request you to answer and explain, as far as space will admit, for my benefit, as well as that of many who may read the Voice, the following questions, which I cannot solve, so that they will harmonize with your ideas already advanced? 1. Why was Ignatius, the reputed friend and associate of some of the apostles, sanctioned by them and placed in so responsible a position, as regards church matters, when he wrote the following: “Let us no more Sabbatize, but let us keep the Lord’s day on which our Life arose?” 2. Why was the honor of the Pentecostal blessing conferred on the first day of the week, and not on the seventh? 3. Why did the apostles observe the breaking of bread (or the sacrament) and the assembling of themselves together for worship, at which time Paul preached to them on the first day of the week, and not on the seventh? Yours in Christian fellowship, E. J. WHITNEY. In response to the foregoing queries we present replies numbered according to the respective paragraphs:— 1. The History of the Sabbath, while examining the first witnesses for Sunday, speaks as follows of Ignatius:— “Ignatius, the first of these witnesses, it is said, must have known Sunday to be the Lord’s day, for he calls it such, and he had conversed with the apostle John. But in the entire writings of this father the term Lord’s day does not once occur, nor is there in them all a single mention of the first day of the week! The reader will find a critical examination of the epistles of Ignatius in chapter fourteen of this history.”—Hist. Sabbath, p. 211. In chapter 14 of the History here referred to it is shown that the epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians, from which the Sunday quotation purports to be taken, is a forgery; and, secondly, that that forged epistle says nothing of the Lord’s day, that being a still further corruption. 2. “The text which next enters into the fabric of first-day sacredness is the following:— “‘And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.’ “This text is supposed to contribute an important pillar for the first-day temple. On this wise it is furnished: The disciples were convened on this occasion to celebrate the first-day Sabbath, and the Holy Spirit was poured out at that time in honor of that day. To this deduction there are, however, the most serious objections. 1. That there is no evidence that a first-day Sabbath was then in existence. 2. That there is no intimation that the disciples came together on this occasion for its celebration. 3. Nor that the Holy Spirit was then poured out in honor of the first day of the week. 4. That from the ascension of Jesus until the day of the Spirit’s outpouring, the disciples had continued in prayer and supplication, so that their being convened on this day was nothing materially different from what had been the case for the past ten or more days. 5. That had the sacred writer designed to show that a certain day of the week was honored by the events narrated, he would doubtless have stated that fact, and named that day. 6. That Luke was so far from naming the day of the week that it is even now a disputed point; eminent first-day authors even asserting that the day of Pentecost that year came upon the seventh day. 7. That the one great event which the Holy Spirit designed to mark was the antitype of the feast of Pentecost; the day of the week on which that should occur being wholly immaterial. How widely, therefore, do those err who reverse this order, making the day of the week, which the Holy Spirit has not even named, but which they assume to be the first day, the thing of chief importance, and passing in silence over that fact which the Holy Spirit has so carefully noted, that this event took place upon the day of Pentecost. The conclusion to which these facts lead is inevitable; viz., that the pillar furnished from this text for the first-day temple is like the foundation of that edifice, simply a thing of the imagination, and quite worthy of a place beside the pillar furnished from the record of our Lord’s second appearance to his disciples.”—Hist. Sabbath, pp. 149, 150. 3. We suppose this third question has reference to the record in Acts 20:6–13. In reference to this, the History of the Sabbath says:— “This scripture is supposed to furnish a sixth pillar for the first-day temple. The argument may be concisely stated thus: This testimony shows that the first day of the week was appropriated by the apostolic church to meetings for the breaking of bread in honor of Christ’s resurrection upon that day; from which it is reasonable to conclude that this day had become the Christian Sabbath. “If this proposition could be established as an undoubted truth, the change of the Sabbath would not follow as a necessary conclusion; it would even then amount only to a plausible conjecture. The following facts will aid us in judging of the truthfulness of this argument for the change of the Sabbath. 1. That this is the only instance of a religious meeting upon the first day of the week recorded in the New Testament. 2. That no stress can be laid upon the expression ‘when the disciples came together,’ as proving that meetings for the purpose of breaking bread were held on each first day of the week; for there is nothing in the original answering to the word ‘when;’ the whole phrase being translated from three words, the perfect passive participle συνεγμένων ‘being assembled,’ and τῶν μαθητῶν, ‘the disciples;’ the sacred writer simply stating the gathering of the disciples on this occasion. 3. That the ordinance of breaking bread was not appointed to commemorate the resurrection of Christ, but to keep in memory his death upon the cross. The act of breaking bread therefore upon the first day of the week, is not a commemoration of Christ’s resurrection. 4. That as the breaking of bread commemorates our Lord’s crucifixion, and was instituted on the evening with which the crucifixion day began, on which occasion Jesus himself and all the apostles were present, it is evident that the day of the crucifixion presents greater claims to the celebration of this ordinance than does the day of the resurrection. 5. But as our Lord designated no day for this ordinance, and as the apostolic church at Jerusalem are recorded to have celebrated it daily, it is evidently presumption to argue the change of the Sabbath from a single instance of its celebration upon the first day of the week. 6. That this instance of breaking bread upon first-day, was with evident reference to the immediate and final departure of Paul. 7. For it is a remarkable fact that this, the only instance of a religious meeting on the first day recorded in the New Testament, was a night meeting. This is proved by the fact that many lights were burning in that assembly, and that Paul preached till midnight. 8. And from this fact follows the important consequence that this first-day meeting was upon Saturday night. For the days of the week being reckoned from evening to evening, and evening being at sunset, it is seen that the first day of the week begins Saturday night at sunset, and ends at sunset on Sunday. A night meeting, therefore, upon the first day of the week could be only upon Saturday night. 9. Paul therefore preached until midnight of Saturday night—for the disciples held a night meeting at the close of the Sabbath, because he was to leave in the morning—then being interrupted by the fall of the young man, he went down and healed him, then went up and attended to the breaking of bread; and at break of day, on Sunday morning, he departed. 10. Thus are we furnished with conclusive evidence that Paul and his companions resumed their journey toward Jerusalem on the morning of the first day of the week; they taking ship to Assos, and he being pleased to go on foot. This fact is an incidental proof of Paul’s regard for the Sabbath, in that he waited till it was past before resuming his journey; and it is a positive proof that he knew nothing of what in modern times is called the Christian Sabbath. 11. This narrative was written by Luke at least thirty years after the alleged change of the Sabbath. It is worthy of note that Luke omits all titles of sacredness, simply designating the day in question as the first day of the week. This is in admirable keeping with the fact that in his gospel, when recording the very event which is said to have changed the Sabbath, he not only omits the slightest hint of that fact, but designates the day itself by its secular title of first day of the week, and at the same time designates the previous day as the Sabbath according to the commandment. Luke 23:56; 24:1.”—Hist. Sabbath, pp. 179–182. In reply to the questions of our correspondent we have thus simply quoted from the History of the Sabbath published at this Office, in which will be found a thorough examination of hundreds of other points relative to the Sabbath question. To this work we would earnestly commend every one who is investigating this subject. U. S. Col. Olcott’s Book.
By Uriah Smith
The American Publishing Co., have just issued a work, entitled, “People from the Other World,” by Col. H. S. Olcott, narrating his experience during his stay of three months with the spirit mediums, the Eddy Brothers, of Chittenden, Vt. He was commissioned by the New York Daily Graphic Co., to visit the Eddys, for the purpose of establishing the truth or falsity of the claims of materialization of spirits. Mr. Olcott professes to write his book, not in the interest of spiritism, but simply as a strict statement of what he saw, heard, and did, during his stay with the family. He attended fifty seances, saw about four hundred materialized spirits appear, including Indians, Americans, Germans, French, English, Russians, Circassians, Khourds, Georgians (Caucasians), Arabs and native Africans. He saw men and women, old and young, children, and babes in arms. He heard them speak in a number of different languages, sing solos and duets; saw them dance, walk, jump, play the organ, smoke, materialize weapons, shawls, gauzes, and animals, in the presence of the audience; saw them cut off locks of their hair, exhibit jewels, braid wreaths, &c. He saw a great number of detached hands of various sizes, shook hands with them, saw them write their names on cards, and heard them play music, some of it being airs not known in this country, but peculiar to Circassia and other portions of the Caucasus and Italy. The publishers of this book say that “the world has ceased to be astonished at anything, and a passive acceptance of whatever is fairly proved, let its claims be what they may, has taken the place of surprise, and a general expectancy of future and still more important advancement in this path evidently exists in the public mind. But nothing has taxed the credibility of the people of all classes as the proposition of the actual materialization of spirit forms, and of their appearance before audiences, exercising the power of locomotion, speech, &c., and in addition performing acts yet to be accounted for only on the theory of supernatural skill.” It is claimed that all this is now fairly demonstrated by the manifestations in question. This is what S. D. Adventists have been for years expecting and predicting in reference to this last crowning deception. And these spirits are to go still farther in this direction. This is set forth as incontrovertible evidence of the immortality of the soul. It might be so taken if there were no devil and his angels, and they did not know how to deceive. In the midst of this working of Satan, and when it is at its height, the Lord is to come. 2 Thess. 2:9. And it has now seemingly to take but one step more to reach the climax of its power. U. S. To Correspondents.
By Uriah Smith
Question. Will you please tell us who Melchisedec was, spoken of in Heb. 7? S. L. Curtis. Ans. If we could tell who he was, it would destroy his fitness to represent Christ. He was an ordinary man, king of Salem. His being without father, mother, descent, beginning of days or end of life, signifies only that his genealogy is not reckoned among men. He appears for a time upon the stage of action; but who his father was, or mother, his descent, beginning of days, or end of life, nobody knows; for no genealogical record is preserved among men. Hence he is a fit representative of Christ. A. H. Vankirk: We do not see that any particular importance attaches to the interpretation of the three ribs in the mouth of the bear, Dan. 7:5. It is generally thought to apply to some of the provinces which it specially oppressed, as Babylon, Lydia, and Egypt; and this seems to us more natural than to apply them to Media and Persia, and Babylon; Media and Persia being the beast itself, and therefore not well represented by that which was in the mouth of the beast. But possibly the ribs do not denote any particular portions of territory, but only show the blood-thirsty nature of the Persian power. T. B. Snow. An exposition of Isa. 65, was republished from Review in Signs of the Times, of April 8, 1875, a copy of which we send you. For the arguments on immortality see the works published on that subject at this Office. R. Thompson. We have never published a review of the Assembly Shorter Catechism. G. V. Kilgore. For an exposition of the seven heads of the dragon and beast, and the wounding of one of them, see Thoughts on Revelation, chapters 13 and 17. Question. Will probation close after or before the seven last plagues of Revelation, please explain Rev. 16:9. Can sinners repent at that time and be saved? Ans. We think probation closes before the plagues are poured out, for the following reasons:— 1. So long as Christ acts as mediator between God and men, mercy is offered. No judgments therefore can be inflicted without mercy till Christ’s work as priest has ended. But the seven last plagues are poured out without mixture of mercy, hence they are poured out after Christ has ceased his pleading, and probation has ended. 2. The angels with the plagues come out of the temple. Rev. 15:6, and when they come out the temple is filled with smoke from the glory of God, and no one is able to enter, or to officiate, therein. But the ministration now going forward in the sanctuary will continue till the work of salvation is ended. Therefore the plagues are poured out after mercy has ceased. What then is the force of the expression respecting those who watch and keep their garments, under the sixth plague? Verse 15. We understand that by a change of tenses common to the Scriptures, in this case, the present for the past, the language expresses the blessedness of those who had watched and kept their garments up to the time when their salvation was made sure. Question 1, 2 Kings 8:26 we are told that Ahaziah was 22 years old when he began to reign; and in 2 Chron. 22:2 it is said he was 42 years old. Which is correct? 2. There seems to be quite a discrepancy between 2 Sam. 24:9, and 1 Chron. 21:4, in the number that drew the sword. How is it harmonized? Answer. In reply to the first of these questions we would say that the English version of 2 Chron. 22:2, is evidently a mistake, as it would make the son two years older than his father. See verse 20 of previous chapter. Dr. Clarke says that the Syriac and Arabic have twenty-two, and that it is probable the Hebrew text so read originally. But as numbers were anciently expressed by letters, it was easy for the transcriber to mistake מ mem, forty, for כ caph, twenty. And if the ancient Hebrew letters were used, the mistake would be still more easy, as the difference between מ mem and כ caph is very small. In reply to the second question the answer is similar. Dr. Clarke shows very clearly that the discrepancies must have arisen from the blunders of transcribers. U. S.