Earlier text: The SermonProphetic Time.
By I. D. Van Horn
The periods of time connected with the lines of prophecy in the book of Daniel, are quite generally explained by biblical scholars to be prophetic periods. This would make the day prophetic time signify a year literal time. According to this view the "time and times and the dividing of time" of Dan. 7: 25, would be 3 1/2 years prophetic time, or 3 1/2 times 360 which equals 1260 days, and each day a year, 1260 years; and the 2300 days of chap. 8: 14 would be 2300 years literal time. Some writers, however, differ with this view and hold that all these periods are literal time, and had their fulfillment at the time and in the person of Antiochus Epiphanes. In making the application of these times to Antiochus it is necessary to apply the symbol of the "little horn" of chapter 7 to him, also the "little horn" of chapter 8. We purpose to show in this article that the "little horn" of chapter 8 cannot apply to Antiochus which will be a sufficient reason why the one of chapter 7 does not meet its fulfillment in him. No one will call in question the fact that the "goat" is a symbol of the Grecian Empire, or that the great horn between his eyes—the first king—was Alexander. The four horns which succeeded the breaking of the great horn, represent the four divisions of the Grecian Empire. To this all agree. But in its divided state it is the Grecian Empire still, though some recent writers hold that as soon as it was divided it became the fourth empire. Were this true, then the third grand empire in the series had only one king, Alexander, and the short term of only six years and ten months time. Facts in both the Bible and history are against this, for the angel in explaining to Daniel, says: "The great horn between his eyes is the first king," plainly implying that others were to follow. These did follow in the divided state of the empire as represented by the four horns of the goat, and the four heads of the leopard of chapter 7. But the contest comes hottest over the application of the "little horn" that came out of one of the divisions of this empire. But two opinions prevail, viz.: that this horn came out of the Syrian division of this empire and represents the single king Antiochus Epiphanes, and that it came out of the Macedon division, and was fulfilled by the Roman Empire. That the first opinion cannot be the correct one, may be seen by the following facts: 1. The little horn "magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down." Chap. 8: 11. 2. In verse 13 a question is asked, "How long shall the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?" 3. The same vision and power are referred to in chapter 9. In verse 26 we have testimony similar to the above. "And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself; and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined." All must admit that the "little horn" is the desolating power referred to above, that should lay waste the city of the Jews, and their sanctuary. Was this fulfilled by Antiochus Epiphanes? Some say, yes. But we have a very important reason for believing to the contrary. Our Lord in his prophetic discourse to his disciples bears positive testimony against it. When answering their question "When shall these things be?"—the desolation of Jerusalem and the throwing down of the temple, he says: "When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand)." This decisive testimony carries the little horn power clear over the head of Antiochus and applies it to the desolating power of Rome. There can be no mistake here. All speculations or interpretations that make Antiochus play a large part in fulfilling the symbols of the fourth great monarchy of the prophecy of Daniel, are by this plain statement of our divine Lord, forever set aside. All commentators are generally agreed in applying the fourth symbol to Rome. To show this we will refer the reader to the Bible Dictionary published by the American Tract Society, which "goes out to the world with the unanimous consent of the following seven evangelical denominations, viz.: Baptist, Methodist, Congregationalist, Episcopal, Presbyterian, Lutheran, and Reformed Dutch. Under the article "Rome," we have the following: "In the books of the Old Testament no direct allusion is apparently made to Rome, except in the prophetic vision of Dan. 2: 33, 40; 7: 7, 19. * The first alliance between the Jews and the Romans was made by Judas Maccabeus, B. c. 162. This was renewed by his brother Jonathan, B. c. 144. After this time, the Romans had much to do with Judea, not only under the Herods, but also when reduced to the form of a Roman province; until at last they utterly exterminated the Jews from the country. They took the city of Jerusalem not less than three times: first under Pompey, B. c. 63; again under Sosius, B. c. 33; and lastly under Titus, A. D. 70, when both the city and temple were destroyed." As we have now shown the fourth symbol to be Rome, the "little horn" of chap. 7: 8 must be a power that does not come up till after Rome was divided into ten kingdoms, hence it cannot apply to Antiochus. The most natural, hence the true application is to the ecclesiastical power of Rome—the Papacy. From the above considerations the periods of time connected with the visions of the seventh and eighth chapters of Daniel must be prophetic periods. The "time, and times, and the dividing of time," of chap. 7, must be the 1260 years of the supremacy of the Papal power of Rome, and the 2300 days of chapter 8 must be 2300 years reaching "from the going forth of the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem," B. c. 457, to A. D. 1844, the time when our great High Priest commences to cleanse the heavenly sanctuary. In taking this view of these periods we are not alone. The evangelical denominations referred to above, in the Bible Dictionary give their sanction to this method of interpreting these periods. "The prophetic day usually is to be understood as one year, and the prophetic year or time as 360 days. Eze. 4: 6. Compare the three and a half years of Dan. 7: 25, with the forty-two months and twelve hundred and sixty days of Rev. 11: 2, 3." Bible Dict., Art. Day. Under the article "Time" the same authority says: "Besides the ordinary use of this word, the Bible sometimes employs it to denote a year, as in Dan. 4: 16; or a prophetic year, consisting of three hundred and sixty natural years, a day being taken for a year. Thus in Dan. 7: 25; 12: 7, the phrase 'a time, times, and the dividing of a time' is supposed to mean three and a half prophetic years, or 1260 natural years. This is elsewhere paralleled by the expression, 'forty-two months,' Rev. 11: 2, 3; 12: 6, 14; 13: 5." The apostle Peter in speaking of the second coming of our Lord, as illustrated in the transfiguration on the mount, adds this statement in connection with it: "We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts." 2 Pet. 1: 16-19. It is by a careful study and right interpretation of the prophecies of Daniel and John, that God has caused the "light" to shine all along the path marked out for his people, that they might never be left in doubt concerning their duty. Strike out the prophetic word, or have it all fulfilled, as some interpret, before the first advent of Christ, and the light goes out, and we are left in darkness and doubt respecting the important event of the second coming of Christ and the consummation of the Christian's hope. But God has not left us in darkness. The light of the "sure word of prophecy" is still shining, and shows that this world of sin and woe is soon to close, when the people of God will enter into their home of eternal light and glory. May the day soon come and may we be prepared to meet it in peace.
I. D. Van Horn. God's Commandments.
By John M. Mavity
As SOME think we are an unconverted people because we try to keep God's law, I have selected a few passages and present them as giving the light in which God would have us hold his law or commandments, and ask the candid reader if he can willfully violate them and expect to be saved. If we love God with all our hearts, we will seek to know his will, and when known, will cheerfully obey. If I am saved, I expect it to be through obedience and the faith of Jesus Christ, "What doth the Lord thy God require of thee, but to fear the Lord thy God, to walk in all his ways, and to love him, and to serve the Lord thy God, with all thy heart and with all thy soul, and to keep the commandments of the Lord, and his statutes, which I command thee this day for thy good." Deut. 10:12, 13. "Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart, that the Lord he is God in Heaven above, and upon the earth beneath; there is none else. Thou shalt keep therefore his statutes and his commandments, which I command thee this day, that it may go well with thee." Deut. 4:39, 40. "And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life? and he said unto him, why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is God; but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." Matt. 19:16, 17. "But the mercy of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear him, and his righteousness unto children's children, to such as keep his covenant and to those that remember his commandments to do them." Psa. 103:17, 18. "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom; a good understanding have all they that do his commandments; his praise endureth forever." Psa. 111:10. "Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city." Rev. 22:14. "And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him; and hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us." 1 John 3:24. "As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you; continue ye in my love. If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love. Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you." John 15:9, 14. "He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him." 1 John 2:4, 5. "For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law; and as many as have sinned in the law, shall be judged by the law; for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified." Rom. 2:12, 13. "Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls. But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass; for he beholdeth himself and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was. But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed." James 1:21-25. "If ye fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, ye do well; but if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors. For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty." James 2:8-12. "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord; shall enter the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in Heaven." Matt. 7:21. "Why call ye me Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?" Luke 6:46. "Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter; Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man." Eccl. 12:13. "Oh, that thou hadst harkened to my commandments! then had thy peace been as a river, and thy righteousness as the waves of the sea." Isa. 48:18. "This people draw nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoreth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." Matt. 15:8, 9. JOHN M. MAVITY.
St. Helena, Cal. THREE HINTS WORTH TAKING.—1. Never attempt to do anything that is not right. Just as surely as you do, you will get into trouble. Sin always brings sorrow sooner or later. If you even suspect that anything is wicked, do it not till you are sure that your suspicions are groundless.
2. When you do attempt anything that is right, go through with it. Be not easily discouraged. Yield not to sorrow and sloth and fickleness. To resist all these will not be easy, but you will feel that you have done right when you get through. 3. Do not waste your money. Perhaps you have very little; Then take the more care of it. Besides helping to spread the gospel, buy some good books and read them well. A good book is one of the best things in the world. If you cannot buy as many as you need, borrow from others and return them safe and sound. Never let a book lie where it may be injured. Lord Shaftesbury on Science and Religion.
In a recent address, the Earl of Shaftesbury says: If he had the wealth of Glasgow, or the wealth of a few people in it, so far from fearing the progress of science, as many people did, he would spend no end of money to encourage it. He would urge upon these masters of wisdom that they did not plunge deep enough; they should go further and wider and higher. He wished a thousand times as many minds were engaged in scientific pursuits. A few eminent men held a monopoly, and they crushed the public with their crude and abundant fancies. But there was no greater folly than that committed by those who would maintain revealed truth by counter-theories. The Bible has suffered far more from its friends than from its enemies. In their timidity, they have deprecated inquiry, and so have appeared to distrust their own Zion. In their over-zeal—as if the Bible could not take care of itself—they have proceeded to give explanations and interpretations which the language of Scripture would never justify, and then some clever scientific man has laid hold of it, and in his criticisms overthrown the faith of many by his just and his ridiculing observations. Had he the wealth of Glasgow he would say to Max Muller and his Orientalists: "Here is the sum of £50,000; collect the facts you require. Send abroad your men. You say languages are dying out; send abroad and take the dying speech, the last confessions of these dying tongues." He would send the same sum to Professor Tyndall, and say to him: "Accumulate your facts; I do n't care about your theories, but turn your powerful intellect to the pursuit of facts." He firmly believed that if Glasgow or any wealthy city were to come down with such a means of advancing science they would see that, in less than ten years, that grand old book would be, like the ark upon the top of Mount Ararat surveying the subsiding of the waters, and rejoicing in the restoration of life and joy.—Sel. Hints for the Prayer-Meeting.
In the Annual Record of the College street Church, New Haven, we find these suggestions, from the pen of the pastor, Rev. James W. Hubbell, we presume:— 1. Be punctual. You come to meet your Saviour, to confess your sins, and to render thanks for his mercies. Come not, therefore, tardily nor reluctantly. 2. Pray as you come, that the Holy Spirit may be present, revealing Christ and quickening your own heart. 3. Bring others with you, and strive to do your part to make the meeting interesting and profitable. 4. Let the prayers be short and fervent. Let the remarks be brief and to the point. Let there be some word of experience, some thought of Christian life or doctrine, something calculated to cheer, comfort, and encourage. 5. Do not wait for others. After the meeting is opened, take the first opportunity to offer a short prayer, or to speak a word for Jesus. Do it heartily as to the Lord. 6. Let those who come first take the forward seats. Those who are obliged to come late, will thus find places near the door, where they can quietly take their seats. Sit so as to make room for others. Be cordial and courteous to those near you, for they are guests of your Master. The formalities of the world have no place where the friends of Christ are gathered.—Methodist Recorder. Questions on the Sabbath.
By E. J. Whitney
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.
Parma Center., N. Y. In response to the forgoing 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 sunegmenon ‘being assembled,’ and ton matheion ‘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 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 recommend every one who is investigating this subject. The Spirits in Prison.
By James White
OUR belief that this text, 1 Pet. 3:18-21, refers only to those who lived in the days of Noah, "while the ark was preparing," and not at all to conscious spirits in limbo, to whom Jesus preached between his death and his resurrection, has, by many, been considered as bordering on infidelity. Protestants have contended that it proved the separate existence of the human spirit, and Catholics and Mormons have taken up the statement and offered it as evidence that probation and the offer of salvation is extended to the dead. We have often wondered that Protestants should thus prepare fuel for the fire of their enemies, but their prejudices seemed too strong to permit them to look at the subject in a candid and impartial manner. Now we are pleased to find that no less a work than the Princeton Review comes out squarely on the truth of this text, and the Interior, the influential Presbyterian paper of Chicago, strongly indorses the truth. Let it be noticed that the teaching of the text is simply this: The spirits now in prison were once preached to by Christ, through the same spirit by which Jesus was raised from the dead. Dr. West infers that as the spirits of the just were not preached to after death, that, therefore, they were happy in Heaven. This inference is worthless, for Peter says nothing on the subject. As to what the text actually does teach, without any regard to inferences, we fully agree with the Dr. in his article in the Princeton Review, and we believe this article will have no slight influence in doing away with the prejudice so largely existing against the truth. The words with which the Interior introduces the article are worthy of approval. They are as follows:— "There are some passages of Scripture which, by common consent, are allowed to be 'obscure.' And the fact that they have this reputation is, perhaps, the reason that a great many persons feel justified in having no opinion about them, or an opinion which gravitates toward the view of a leading commentator, but for which no defense is attempted. It is creditable to a man's modesty, if it does not evince his indolence, for him to say, 'This passage is one in the interpretation of which the ripest theologians, and the most accomplished philologists, are unable to agree, and what right have I to an opinion.' It is not always remembered that in Biblical criticism, as in other departments of inquiry, there is a great deal of slovenly writing and immature thinking, that authors are not indifferent to labor-saving expedients, and that where one man, as Alford, for example, undertakes to write a commentary on the entire New Testament, he will be apt, in some cases, to reach his conclusions too rapidly, and particularly if a particular conclusion is one to which he leaned, irrespective of the passage under consideration, and coincides with the views of older exegetical authorities. After all that has been written by way of exposition and elucidation of the entire New Testament, there is much yet to stimulate the industry of those who, by culture and taste, are qualified to enter this important field of inquiry. In proof of this we have a good illustration in Dr. West's article on the 'Spirits in Prison,' which has just appeared in the Princeton Review. 1 Pet. 3:18-21, is one of those passages in Scripture whose difficulties have been such as to keep most men from dealing with it. Those who are boldest in referring to it are those who are confident that it teaches that Christ preached in hades after his crucifixion, to the antediluvians. Those who reject this interpretation are too apt to do so with a timidity and a hesitancy while they admit that it is a difficult passage, and seems to teach a doctrine which nevertheless they do not believe. It is time that this passage, the horizon of which, as Dr. West says, 'virtually sweeps the whole circle of revealed truth unto salvation,' should be taken out the hands of those who use it as a locus classicus in proof of a revolting dogma; should be redeemed from the sphere of obscurity to which orthodox interpreters, in their timidity, have too often consigned it; and should be made, as it is so seldom made, the theme of pulpit discourse, so that by a presentation of the separate elements which compose it, the whole redeeming work of Christ may be brought out. To this end we invite especial attention to the article from the pen of Rev. Dr. West, an article which deserves the highest praise whether we consider the writer's diction, his logic, his controversial skill, his theological grasp or his competency in the sphere of philological criticism."
In noticing the mistakes of interpreters the Interior gives an illustration of the meaning of Peter's words as follows:— "The next mistake of interpreters is that of supposing that the passage teaches that when Christ preached to the antediluvians, they were in prison. But it does not. Suppose one should say, 'Many a time I played with the poor wretch in prison, and I remember what a disobedient boy he was, and how he taxed his parents' patience.' Would anybody think that he went into prison to play with the criminal? Would it not rather occur to every one that the time of the playing referred to the time of the disobedience, and it was after that period that, the imprisonment occurred? This then is what Peter means: Christ preached to the antediluvians in a state of unbelief and particularly when Noah was building the ark. Those antediluvians for their unbelief were punished, and are now 'Spirits in prison.' Christ preached to them, therefore, before he became incarnate. Yes; Peter says, he preached to them in that divine nature, in virtue of which he rose from the dead."
We have not seen the Review, though, we would be pleased to see the whole article; but the following, which the Interior calls "a single sentence" of the article, it gives as a summing up of the results of the writer's inquiry, and as a fair specimen of the style of the essay:— "To say, then, in face of all these facts of grammar, history, and theology, that Christ actually went into phulake to preach, when Peter says no such thing; that the preaching Christ did to the contemporaries of Noah was subsequent to the crucifixion, when Peter says it was in the days of Noah; that it was more than two thousand years after the ark rotted, when Peter says it was when the ark was building; that it was to the disobedient, A. D. 33, when Peter says it was to the disobedient, B. C. 2377; that it lasted about one day, or a day and a half, when Peter says it lasted one hundred and twenty years; that the consequence of it was a deliverance of the disobedient out of phulake when Peter shows that the consequence of it was a putting of them into phulake; that, again, it was to pious spirits the preaching was sent, when Peter makes mention of none there save the impious; that it was done in a subterranean cavern—'tenebrosa cavositas'—in Hades, when Peter says it was done in Eastern Asia, or on the Armenian plateau between the Persian Gulf and the Mediterranean Sea; that it was done by the human soul of Christ, or by a semi-pantheistic ubiquitous soul and body together, when Peter says it was done before Christ ever had a human soul or body either; that phulake is a place where pious antediluvians went when the flood arose above their dwellings, when Peter says they went into the ark, and were saved by water; that it was a place of holy repose and expectation for the Old Testament church, when forty times out of the forty-five in the New Testament, it means a jail or place of penal detention, and the other five times; a watch or police; to say that God's long-suffering toward the antediluvians extends over into another world, when God says it was given them, once for all, during one hundred and twenty years in this, and then forever withdrawn—to assert all this in face of the reformed critics and theologians, some of whom towered in intellectual grandeur even above the loftiest of the church fathers and the schoolmen, and in face of the best modern critical apparatus, is not only to set at defiance all established principles of interpretation, but unconsciously to wage war against the laws of the Greek language and the usus loquendi of the Sacred Text."
The Interior, with a mixture of truth with facetiousness, says, "It will be as hard to answer that sentence as it is to read it through in one breath." Perhaps this sentence will answer the purpose of those who will know how to use it as well as the whole article would. We venture the prediction that this paragraph will be read in the hearing of many thousands within the next few months. James White. Sunday Communion.
By James White
THE subject of communion has been connected by many professed Christians, with Sunday keeping, and Acts 20: 7 has been pressed into service, as if it were a help to that idea. But the light is spreading, and many have been led to acknowledge that Acts 20: 7 neither states a custom, nor declares a duty in that respect. The Disciples have clung most tenaciously to that groundless theory, but even they are beginning to see that there is no ground for the theory. McGarvey, a popular Disciple writer, in his Commentary on Acts, speaks on both these points, and really concedes the whole ground of dispute. He says:— “It must, in candor, be admitted, that there is no express statement in the N. T. that the disciples broke the loaf every Lord's day, neither is it stated that they met every Lord's day.” He might have gone further and said there is not a second instance of their breaking bread on first-day, and no intimation that the single instance in Acts 20 was connected with that time either by custom or duty. Again he acknowledges that Paul pursued his journey from Troas, on Sunday morning; thus virtually confessing that Paul did not rest on that only Sunday to which they refer as a precedent for Sunday observance!229 We frequently find the truth acknowledged where we did not expect it. The latest blow against this superstition (for we call that superstition which urges as a religious duty anything not taught in the word of God) we find in the Examiner and Chronicle, a celebrated Baptist paper. The question is brought up by a pastor in the following manner:— “A SATURDAY COMMUNION SERVICE.—I am supplying two churches. We hold our Sabbath-school in the audience-room immediately after preaching. My afternoon appointment will not allow time for the Sabbath-school and communion season. In consequence, by mutual agreement, we have had the communion on the Saturday of our covenant meeting. Brethren and sisters related their exercises as our manner has been many years, and then celebrated the Lord's Supper, and felt greatly blessed. But a certain traveling Elder says we are doing wrong, and takes the trouble to make it appear so to all he can reach or influence. Now what does the Examiner say? Let us hear?” To this a reply is made as follows:— “The Examiner says the church has the right to celebrate the Supper just as they are doing it. The Supper was instituted on a week-day night, and it is not worth while for any ‘traveling Elder’ to make objection to a week-day observance of it.” That is a bold step toward doing away with what has long been claimed as an “established precedent.” Thus, “our enemies themselves being judges.” There is really no precedent for Sunday observance, nor for Sunday communion, and it has always been acknowledged that there is no commandment for them. We do not object to Sunday communion; we would as soon celebrate the supper of the Lord on that day as on any. But we do object to the endeavor to make it a church duty on a scriptural basis. And we are glad to have our objections sustained by so eminent church authority as the Examiner and Chronicle.