Earlier text: The New Heaven and the New Earth“My beloved is mine, and I am his.” Song, 2. 16. Yea, thou art mine, my blessed Lord;
O my beloved, thou art mine;
And, purchased with thy precious blood,
My Lord and Saviour, I am thine. Thy hands are mine, for they were pierced
Upon the rugged cross for me;
Thy feet are mine, for they were nailed
For my transgressions to the tree. Thy heart is mine, for, by the spear,
My Lord, for me, ’twas opened wide;
Thy head is mine, which wore the thorns
For me when thou wast crucified. Thy soul is mine, for thou didst pour
It out for me, e’en unto death;
Thy life is mine, for thou didst yield
For me its last expiring breath. Thy blood is mine, for all that blood,
O Lamb of God, was shed for me;
To cleanse my soul from every stain,
It freely flowed on Calvary. Thy spotless righteousness is mine,
Resplendent now before the throne;
In thee I stand accepted there—
In thee, O Son of God, alone. Thy Spirit, Lord, is mine, for thou
Didst send him, never to depart,
Thine own sweet Comforter, to dwell
Within the temple of my heart. Thy risen life is mine; for me
Thou didst awake and leave the tomb;
In me thou liv’st; and I shall see
My life itself when thou dost come! Thy glory, Lord, is mine—the light
That beams upon thy lustrous brow;
For, changed into its image bright,
I yet shall be, as thou art now; Thy rich inheritance is mine;
Joint heir with thee of worlds above,
Lord, in thy kingdom I shall shine,
And reign with thee in endless love. Thy fullness, Lord, is mine—for, oh!
That fullness is a fount as free
As it is inexhaustible!
Jehovah’s boundless gift to me; My Christ! O sing, ye Heaven of heavens!
Let every angel lift his voice;
Sound with ten thousand harps his praise;
With me, ye heavenly host, rejoice! With tears, with songs, with holy psalms,
With daily love, with odors sweet,
With broken heart, with outstretched arms,
I’ll pour my praises at thy feet. Thee will I hymn, my holy Christ,
My Lord, my love, my life who art;
Nor time, nor all eternity,
My treasure from my soul shall part. And wandering by the way, I’ll drink
Of this sweet fountain gushing free,
And sit and sing beside the brink
Of all my Saviour is to me. My Christ! my own! forever mine!
By gift, by promises, by blood,
By oath, by covenant divine,
By the unchanging will of God. Solely thine own no more—but given
To me, beloved—thou art mine;
My joy, my life, my Heaven of heaven—
And I, beloved, solely thine.
—Sel. Funeral Sermons.
By JOS. CLARKE.
I HAVE heard many. They seem to me all well enough; but over the corpse of a dear friend is no place to bring up abstract and disputed points of doctrine. So it seems to me. If we do it, our opponents will do the same to a greater extent. People come to a funeral to sympathize; to show civility, friendship, love. They often feel shocked at hearing a single discourse embrace a great many important points, which a single discourse cannot fully elucidate. One discourse can at best but open the subject. A funeral sermon, as I view it, should be a familiar talk to those in distress, a eulogy, if possible, consolatory and awakening; alarming and comforting; everything but doctrinal. People cannot reason much at such a time. An address, solemn, sweet, elevating, is timely, or a chapter from the Bible may suffice; but I would not that an advocate of error should have an opportunity to deceive, given at the grave of a friend of truth. The resurrection is properly introduced on such an occasion. The fourteenth chapter of Job is a good funeral sermon, good enough for the funeral of a prince. The Usefulness and Fulness of the Old Testament.
By D. F. Newton
CHRIST and his redemption is the great subject of the whole Bible. Concerning the New Testament, the matter is plain: it appears to be so with respect to the Old. Christ and his redemption is the great subject of the prophecies, as well as the songs of the Old Testament; and the moral rules and precepts are all given in subordination to him. Christ is also the great subject of the history of the Old Testament from the beginning all along: and even the history of the creation is given as an introduction to the history of redemption that immediately follows it. The whole book, both Old Testament and New, is filled up with the gospel; only with this difference, that the Old Testament contains the gospel under a veil, but the New contains it unvailed, so that we may see the glory of the Lord with open face. Thus we may see the usefulness and excellency of the Old Testament. Some are ready to look on it as being out of date, and as if we, in these days of the gospel, have but little to do with it. But this is a very great mistake, arising from a want of observing the nature and design of the Old Testament, which, if it were observed, would appear full of the gospel of Christ; and would, in an excellent manner, illustrate and confirm the glorious doctrines and promises of the New Testament. Those parts of the Old Testament which are commonly looked upon as containing the least divine instruction, are mines and treasures of gospel knowledge; and the reason why they are thought to contain so little is, that persons do but superficially read them. The treasures which are hid underneath are not observed. They only look on the top of the ground and suddenly pass a judgment that there is nothing there. But they never dig into the mine: if they did, they would find it richly stored with what is more valuable than silver and gold, and would be abundantly requited for their pains. “’Tis a pearl of price exceeding
All the gems in ocean found;
To its precepts ever listening,
In its truths may I abound.”
The two parts of which the Scriptures consist (the Old and the New Testaments), are connected by a chain of compositions (the prophecies), which bear no resemblance in form or style to any that can be produced from the stores of Grecian, Indian, Persian, or even Arabian learning. The antiquity of these compositions no man doubts; and the unstrained application of them to events long subsequent to their publication is a solid ground of belief that they were genuine predictions, and consequently inspired.—D. F. Newton. EFFORTS are made in London to discourage the publication, delivery, and sale of newspapers on Sunday. One of the leading proprietors is willing to stop his Sunday issue, if others will. One news-vender stated that he had been robbed by two-thirds of the boys he had employed within the last eleven years, which he ascribed to the corrupt influence of Sabbath [Sunday] work. The main shops in Paris are henceforth to be closed on the Sabbath [Sunday], the merchants having taken this step of their own accord. They appeal to the public to aid them in making the measure general. The Lord and Saviour of the church still sits over against the treasury and beholds how people cast money into it. And he scans not only what is cast in, but what remains in the hands of the donor; and he still discerns the spirit of the giver and estimates the real greatness or littleness of the offering, by what is retained as well as that given. Deep Christian Experience
SHALLOW waters are easily muddled. After a night of storm, the waters of the bay along the beach, stirred by the winds, are foul and black with the mire and dirt. But look beyond, out into the deep water; how blue and clear it is! The white caps on the surface show the violence of the wind, but the water is too deep for the storms that sweep its surface to stir up the earth at the bottom. So in Christian experience. A shallow experience is easily disturbed; the merest trifles becloud and darken the soul whose piety is superficial; while the most furious storm of life fails to darken or perturb the soul which has attained a deep experience of the things of God. The agitation may produce a sparkle on the surface, but in the calm depths of such a spirit reigns eternal tranquillity, the peace of God that passeth all understanding.—Newport Journal. Philanthropy and True Religion
PHILANTHROPY is not religion, but there is no religion without philanthropy. He that is indifferent to the poor is no Christian, no matter what his creed or his professed experiences. How to care for the poor is another question. It is to be done not merely by feeding the hungry and clothing the naked, but yet more by laws and educational and religious influences which enable them to provide for themselves. The Power of Meeting in Jesus’ Name
When Christians meet in the name of Jesus, he is in their midst; and where he is, there is blessing; counsel, instruction, and consolation. But when “two or three” backsliders, hypocrites, and dead heads, who have nothing, do nothing, feel nothing, and know nothing of the power and grace and work of Jesus Christ, meet together in the in the name of self or sect party, they are no better together than when apart—nay, they are not as well: one of them alone is bad enough—two are worse, and a hundred are worse yet. The Ever-Growing Scriptures
If you come to Holy Scripture with growth in grace, and with aspirations for yet higher attainments, the book grows with you, grows upon you. Many books in my library are now behind and beneath me; I read them years ago, with considerable pleasure; I have read them since, with disappointment; I shall never read them again, for they are of no service to me. They were good in their way once, and so were the clothes I wore when I was ten years old; but I have outgrown them, I know more than these books know, and know wherein they are faulty. Nobody ever outgrows Scripture; the book widens and deepens with our years.—Spurgeon. TAKE the hand of the friendless; smile on the sad and dejected; sympathize with those in trouble; strive everywhere to diffuse around you joy and sunshine; do this and you are sure of being loved. The Spirit Returns to God.
Ecclesiastes 12:7: “Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was, and the spirit shall return to God who gave it.” It is natural for men to appeal first and most directly to those sources from which they expect the most efficient help. So the advocates of man’s natural immortality, when put to the task of showing what scriptures they regard as containing proof of their position, almost invariably make their first appeal to the text here quoted. In the examination of this text, and all others of a like nature, let it ever be remembered that the question at issue is, Has man in his nature a constituent element, which is an independent entity, and which when the body dies keeps right on in uninterrupted consciousness, being capable of exercising in a still higher degree out of the body the functions of intelligence and activity which it manifested through the body, and destined, whether a subject of God’s favor, or of his threatened and merited wrath, to live so long as God himself exists. Does this text assert anything of this kind? Does it state that from which even such an inference can be drawn? We invite the reader to go with us, while we endeavor to consider carefully what the text really teaches. Our opponents appeal to it as direct testimony. Let us see how far we can go with them. 1. Solomon, under a series of beautiful figures, speaks in Eccl. 12:1–7 of the lying down of man in death. Granted. 2. Dust, or the body, and spirit are spoken of as two distinct things. Granted. 3. At death, the spirit leaves the body. Granted. 4. The spirit is disposed of in a different manner from the body. Granted. 5. This spirit returns to God, and is therefore conscious, after the dissolution of the body. Not granted. Where is the proof of this? Here our paths begin to diverge from each other. But how could it return to God if it was not conscious? Answer: In the manner Job describes. “If he [God] set his heart upon man, if he gather unto himself his spirit and his breath, all flesh shall perish together and man shall turn again to dust.” Job 34:14, 15. This text speaks of God’s gathering to himself the “breath” of man; something which no one supposes to be capable of a separate conscious existence. Over against this proposition we are compelled to mark, Assumption. 6. This spirit is therefore to exist forever. This conclusion also we fail to see, either expressed, or even in the remotest manner, implied. Thus the vital points in the evidence are wholly assumed. But if the spirit here does not mean what it is popularly supposed to mean, what is its signification? What is it that returns to God? It will be noticed that it is something which God “gave” to man. And Solomon introduces it in a familiar manner, as if alluding to something already recorded and well understood. He makes evident reference to the creation of man in the beginning. His body was formed of the dust; and in addition to this, what did God do for man or give unto him? He breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. This is the only spirit that is distinctly spoken of as having been given by God to man. No one claims that this, like the body, was from the dust, or returns to dust; but it does not therefore follow that it is conscious or immortal. Landis, p. 133, falls into this wrong method of reasoning. He says:— “If the soul were mortal, it too would be given up to the dust, it would return also to the earth. But God affirms that it does not return to the earth; and therefore it is distinct from the mortal and perishable part of man.”
The breath of life is distinct from the body, and did not come from the dust of the ground; but to say that it can exist in a conscious state independent of the body, and that it must live forever, is groundless assumption. If spirit here means “the breath of life,” how, or in what sense, does it return to God? Landis, p. 150, thus falsely treats this point also: “How can the air we breathe,” he asks, “return to God?” Between the breath of life as imparted to man by God, vitalizing the animal frame, and air considered simply as an element, we apprehend there is a broad distinction. Solomon is showing the dissolution of man, by tracing back the steps taken in his formation. The breath of life was breathed into Adam in the beginning; by which he became a living soul. That is withdrawn from man, and as a consequence he becomes inanimate. Then the body, deprived of its vitalizing principle, having been formed of the dust, goes back to dust again. That the breath of life came from God to man none will deny. Do they ask how it returns to him? Tell us how it came from him, and we will tell how it returns. In the same sense in which God gave it to man, in that sense it returns to him. That is all there is of it. The explanation is perfectly simple, because one division of the problem is comprehended just as easily as the other. It is an easy thing to turn off with a flippant sneer an explanation which if allowed to stand, takes the very breath of life out of a cherished theory. But there is a grave objection lying against the popular exposition of this text, which must not pass unnoticed. It is involved in the question, What was the state or condition of this spirit before God gave it to man? Was it an independent, conscious and intelligent, being, before it was put into Adam, as it is claimed that it was after Adam got through with it, and it returned to God? Solomon evidently designs to state respecting all the elements of which man is composed, as is expressly stated of the body, that they resume the original condition in which they were, before they came together to form the component parts of man. We know it is argued that the expression respecting the body, that it returns to the dust “as it was,” is good ground for an inference that the spirit returns not as it was. Every principle of logic requires the very opposite conclusion. For, having set the mind upon that idea of sameness of condition, and then referring us to the source from whence the spirit came, and stating that it goes back to that source, the language is as good as an affirmation that it goes back to its original condition also, and must be so understood unless an express affirmation is made to the contrary. The question is therefore pertinent, Was this spirit before it came into man, a conscious being, as it is claimed to be after it leaves him? In other words, have we all had a conscious pre-existence? Is the mystery of our Lord’s incarnation repeated in every member of the human race? Yes! if popular theologians rightly explain this text. And the more daring or reckless spirits among them, seeing the logical sequence of their reasoning, boldly avow this position. Mr. Landis (to whom we make occasional reference as an exponent of the popular theory) recoils at the idea of pre-existence, and claims (p. 147) that the spirit does not return as it was, but acquires “a moral character, and so is changed from what it was when first created and given to man”. Oh! then, when Adam’s body was formed of the dust of the ground a spirit was created (from what?) and put into it. Where did he learn this? To what new revelation has he had access to become acquainted with so remarkable a fact? Or whence derives he his authority to manufacture statements of this kind? His soul swells with indignation over some whom he styles materialists, and whom he accuses of manufacturing scripture. Thou that sayest a man should not, dost thou? Nothing is said of the “creation of a spirit” in connection with the formation of Adam’s body. The body having been formed, God, by an agency, not created for the purpose, but already existing with himself, endowed it with life, and Adam became a living soul. Having thus artfully introduced the idea that the spirit was created for the occasion, Mr. L. takes up this reasoning which shows that if the spirit is conscious after leaving the body, it must have been before it entered it, and, applying to it a term doubtless suggested by his own feelings in view of the assumptions to which he was himself obliged to resort, calls it silly. Nevertheless here is the rock on which their exposition of this text inevitably and hopelessly founders. There is another consideration not without its bearing on this question. The words, “And the spirit shall return to God who gave it,” are spoken promiscuously of all mankind. They apply alike to the righteous and wicked. If the spirit survives the death of the body, the spirits of the righteous would, as a natural consequence, ascend to God, in whose presence they are promised fullness of joy. But do the spirits of the wicked go to God also? For what purpose? The immediate destination usually assigned to them is the lake of fire. Is it said that they first go to God to be judged? Then we ask, Where does the Bible once affirm that a person is judged when he dies? On the contrary, the Scriptures invariably place the Judgment in the future, and assert in the most explicit terms that God has appointed a day for that purpose. Acts 17:31. Thus the Bible doctrine of the Judgment is directly contradicted by this view. According to the Scriptures no man has yet received his final judgment; yet according to the view under examination the spirits of all who have ever died, good and bad, righteous and wicked, have gone to God. For what purpose have the spirits of the wicked gone to him? Are they there still? Does God so deal with rebels against his government—give them Heaven from one to six thousand years, more or less, and hell afterward? Away with a view which introduces such inconsistencies into God’s dealings with his creatures. How infinitely preferable that view which alone the record warrants; that is, that the spirit that returns to God who gave it, is the breath of life, that agency by which God vivifies and sustains these physical frames; since this, so far as the record goes, is just what God did give to man in the beginning, since the definition of the term sustains such an application, since this spirit, without doing violence to either thought or language, can return to God in the same sense in which it came from him, and, above all, since this view harmonizes all the record, and avoids those inconsistencies and contradictions in which we find ourselves inevitably involved the very moment we undertake to make the spirit mean a separate entity, conscious in death and immortal in its nature. Wounded Birds Will Flutter.
GLANCING over some exchanges which we had long been waiting the opportunity to examine, we find in the Advent Times of April 2, 1872, a report by O. R. Fassett, of the late discussion in San Francisco, between Bro. Cornell, and Eld. Grant. In this there are some things, which, to say the least, are curiosities in the way of a report, and some which show that their cause was made to pass through strait places not at all pleasing to the natural man; In stating the results of the discussion Eld. F. remarks:—
“But as the same ‘sun which melts the wax, hardens the clay,’ so it is discovered in this instance, that some know not when good comes, and harden their hearts, and become petrified and fossilized in error.” That is to say, some (and in such a confession, this word may be taken to mean full all it expresses)—some, as the result of the discussion, were established more firmly than ever in the doctrine of the Sabbath; and how better could he get over this unpleasant fact? Of course (?) that was not the result of the force of the arguments presented, and clear convictions of the truth, but was clay hardening in the sun was becoming petrified and fossilized in error! It is not difficult to divine what such expressions mean. Let the good work go on. Respecting the state of the Sabbath cause in San Francisco, just previous to the discussion, he uses the following amiable language:—
“Besides, the cause he [Cornell] represented was ‘dying out,’ as was well understood, and it was hoped that it would soon expire for its want of grace, unless electrified into new temporary and apparent life by favoring it with undeserved notice, and giving it the warmth and vital air it sought by an association with a living body.” No doubt they hoped it would expire. This has been the hope of error in regard to the truth in all ages. And when the truth has failed to die, then error has set to work with all its power, to destroy it; but even when crushed to earth, it rises again; “for the eternal years of God are hers.” The “living body” of which he boasts is described by Paul in Rom. 7: 9: “For I was alive without the law once; but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.” They need the law laid in all its power upon their hearts, and they need to die the same death Paul died, a death to carnality and sin, before they can share in Paul’s glorious conversion, or hope to participate in his reward. Our readers would doubtless like to know just what kind of a man Eld. C. is, and so we invite them to look at the following Christian portrait of the creature drawn by Eld. F.:—
“Eld. Grant is a straight forward, scriptural debater, always adhering closely to the sacred text, while Eld. Cornell is a pettifogger, and like every venal pleader of the law, endeavors to ‘make the worse appear the better cause;’ and though, as he said, (intending to apply it to damage the argument of the negative) ‘consistency is a jewel,’ he never fails to condescend to tricks, quibbles, and perversions of the language and arguments of his antagonist, to gain his point if possible. If he gives a report of this discussion, as he summed up his argument, as he no doubt intends to do, this statement will prove true the character I have given him.” Being such a character, of course he deserved the most ignominious treatment, and we are not surprised to learn that Eld. G. gave him (or tried to) a “constant pelting.” Listen again:—
“Eld. Cornell denied, point blank, that the Decalogue was the Old Covenant—admitted that the Old Covenant was abolished—and that if Eld. Grant proved that the Decalogue was the Old Covenant, it was abolished. He maintained that the Decalogue was the law of God, and he shut himself up in this, as he conceived, impregnable fortress as his citadel. Eld. Grant shelled him with a constant pelting of the Scriptures for four successive nights to make him confess what the Old Covenant was, if it was not the Decalogue.” This operation must have been an exhibition worth a trip to California to witness. One disputant “shelling” another in debate, puts the imagination to quite a test; but when we come to the means with which it was done, our philosophy collapses in utter despair. It was done with a “pelting.” How a person could be “shelled” with “a constant pelting” is a greater puzzle than we are able to solve. We are not altogether sure but there is a typographical error here, and he meant to say pelt instead of pelting. We read in Matt. 7: 15 of some who provided themselves with pelts; but it has been reserved to our generation to produce one, so lacking in foresight as to use them up over an opponent, and that, too, in an effort to “shell” him! The writer continues:—
“Eld. Cornell found it was either death, surrender, or escape by an ignominious retreat, and he chose the latter, feeling no doubt that,
“He who fights and runs away
May live to fight another day.”
“In his escape he felt such a pelting fire—in denying his evident position, from the audience, that he shed a tear or two, (as I was told by those sitting before him) to awaken sympathy. But the audience has advised him that ‘when he has found out what the Old Covenant is, they wish him to publish it in the city papers, for they desire to know what he thinks it is.’” This represents that Eld. Cornell refused to tell what the old covenant was, or what he thought it was. Now this is too transparent and ridiculous a fabrication to have any effect upon those who are acquainted with the man or the question. All who know of Bro. C.’s manner of conducting a debate, well understand that if it was his misfortune to have to deal with an opponent or with an audience, so obtuse that they could not, or so perverse that they would not, understand his position, when explicitly stated a sufficient number of times, he would reiterate it, if need be, forty times before the session closed. We say this because we know how he rivets an opponent to the point, when he attempts to dodge. Such statements may for a time deceive those who have no other means of information, till God in his benign providence shall give them an opportunity to escape from the clutches of blind guides, and cause all such attempts to mislead to rebound disastrously upon the heads of their authors. With one more quotation from the report in question, we dismiss this subject. It is a sentence which we commend as a good subject to those who are skilled in analyzing the English language. It reads as follows:—
“And a disputant like Eld. Cornell, can never bring honor to a cause worthy of defense, by any victory his opponent may achieve.” The idea which perhaps the writer intended to convey by this language is that Eld. C. is so mean, ignoble, and contemptible, a person, that it is no honor to an opponent to gain a victory over him, however complete that victory may be. If this is so, then we ask, Why this hasty rushing into print by different writers, through the Crisis and Times, to show to the people that he is so weak and unworthy an opponent, and has so signally failed? Are they fearful that the people will not regard him in the contemptuous181 light they would like to have them? It is very evident that somebody has been hit, and hit severely. Hence all this courageous whistling, and this ill concealed flutter. The California Discussion.
Under this head, the Crisis of May 8, 1872, says:— “In the Advent Review and Herald of the Sabbath, for April 30th, we find a report of our discussion of the seventh-day Sabbath question in San Francisco, with Eld. M. E. Cornell, which contains his statements in his last speech, concerning which, we have received the following, signed by fifty persons who attended the debate:— “‘To whom it may concern:—This is to certify that Eld. M. E. Cornell's last speech in his debate with Elder Miles Grant, in this city, was a series of misrepresentations of Elder Grant's remarks and positions.’” The report was published in the REVIEW Apr. 30. The Crisis containing the foregoing remarks bears date of May 8, one week and one day after the REVIEW was published. It is not possible that in these eight days the REVIEW could have reached California, this certificate have been prepared, and returned so as to reach the Crisis Office by the date named. It follows therefore that it was signed by those who had not the published report before them, and who were therefore dependent on the memory of themselves or others. Then the queries arise, When was it prepared? under what circumstances? and at whose solicitation? And it might be pertinent to ask also by what class of people? for the Watchman and Reflector, as quoted by the Advent Times of April 2, 1872, says that but a “small percentage of Christian character can stand transplanting from the Atlantic to the Pacific coast.” And this state of things would not be materially helped by the teaching that the only law which contains the precept, “Thou shalt not bear false witness,” has been abolished. This matter needs to be cleared of a good many probabilities of a very doubtful nature before it will be of any particular weight. Consistency in Bible Interpretation.
Under this heading there appeared in the Sabbath Recorder of April 4, 1872, the following article from Eld. S. S. Griswold:— How few of those who profess to interpret the Scriptures are consistent with themselves! How often is it the case that some favorite theory, or mode of interpretation, requires almost a total departure from the rule laid down by the theorist! I was forcibly reminded of this, by an article in the Recorder of March 14th, by R. F. Cottrell, under the heading of “Inquiries,” in which he evidently aimed to show, that those passages of Scripture which have been supposed to foretell a literal return of the Jews to Palestine, are to find their fulfillment in a spiritual conversion to Christ, and that it is a Zion, or Jerusalem, above, to which the Jews are to be gathered, and not to the Jerusalem in Palestine. Now, it seems to me, that a consistent mode of interpretation would require of Bro. Cottrell a literal interpretation of those passages (as Geneva shows), as the brother is most tenacious of the literal interpretation of those passages which speak of the second coming of Christ. And I ask, By what rule of exegesis does Bro. C. spiritualize the one, and literalize the other? The Bible, rightly understood, does not, in my opinion, teach either the literal return of the Jews, or the literal return of Christ to this world. And yet, almost every week, the readers of the Recorder are notified of the near approach of the coming of Christ, the conflagration of the world, and its supposed cognates, soul-sleeping and annihilation, from our Second Advent brethren. Is it not time that this error (for such I believe it is) should be made less prominent, at least, when we reflect that for nearly thirty years the notes of alarm and warning have been sounding that the bridegroom’s coming was near, and that we might expect to see the coming of the Son of Man any day or hour? Signs and wonders have been seen by these literalists, almost every day, for more than a quarter of a century, indicating the near approach of that event. Even the most common phenomena—the northern lights, the shooting of stars, the burning of Chicago and the forests of Michigan—have been urged upon our attention, as signs of the great day. Thus the credulity, the fear and superstition of mankind are played upon, and the result, I doubt not, will be a large harvest of skepticism and infidelity. Duly impressed with the above-mentioned errors, I wrote to the editor of the Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, asking the privilege of writing a few articles upon these subjects, to appear in that paper. But, as far as I have learned, the privilege was not granted. As the readers of the Recorder have been so liberally treated with Adventism, I thought that fair play might permit the readers of the Advent Review to submit to, if not enjoy, the reading of its opposite views. As we had not received the article to which Bro. G. refers in the foregoing note, we deemed it proper that he, and the readers of the Recorder generally, should understand why we had taken no notice of it, and hence sent to that paper the following note which was published in its issue of April 25:— ELD. GRISWOLD AND THE ADVENT REVIEW.
To the Editor of the Sabbath Recorder. We notice, in the Recorder of April 4, 1872, that S. S. Griswold speaks of having written to the editor of the Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, asking the privilege of writing a few articles upon the Signs of the Times and the Second Coming of Christ, to appear in that paper; which privilege, he says, as far as he has learned, “was not granted.” We regret to say, that the communication of Bro. Griswold has not come to hand; which will explain our seeming neglect of his request. We should be utterly averse to any disputation conducted in such a manner as to tend to strife and bitterness, or in any wise to ruffle the feelings of co-operation, or even of Christian fellowship, which we think, despite minor differences, may properly be cultivated between those who occupy common ground as to the perpetual obligation and immutable nature of the law of God. Believing that such need not be the result of a comparison of our views, we shall be happy to receive and lay before our readers any communication which Bro. Griswold may wish to make. We would suggest, however, that some definite proposition, or propositions, be agreed on for examination, and that what is said on both sides be published in full in both the Recorder and the Review. Yours for the truth,
EDITORS OF THE ADVENT REVIEW. To this Bro. G. has made the following response which was published in the Recorder of May 2, 1872:— LETTER FROM MR. GRISWOLD.
Hopkinton City, April 25, 1872. To the Editor of the Sabbath Recorder: In your issue of this date, an article appeared from the editors of the Advent Review, to which, with your permission, I will respond through the columns of your paper. I appreciate their very kind notice of my article there referred to, and thank them for the privilege granted, and will avail myself of their liberality, as time permits, to write some articles upon some subjects which I deem of great importance to the prosperity of the church and the cause of Christianity. To the suggestions of the editor of the Review, that the articles and their responses appear in the Recorder also, I have no objection, but must of course leave that for the editor of the Recorder to decide. As suggested by the editor of the Review, I subjoin the following propositions, or inquiries, as subjects which I wish to consider. 1. Do the Scriptures teach the doctrine of the personal advent of Christ, or his bodily return to our earth; and if so, that such advent is near at hand? 2. Do the Scriptures teach the sleep of the soul, or the unconscious state of the dead, previous to the resurrection and the day of Judgment? 3. Do the Scriptures teach the annihilation of the wicked, or finally impenitent? 4. Do the Scriptures teach the resurrection of the body? 5. Do the Scriptures teach the destruction of this earth by fire? 6. Do the Scriptures teach that this earth will be the final abode of the righteous? 7. Do the Scriptures teach that the Judgment day is some definite day in the future, in which the dead bodies of all mankind will be raised up, and their souls summoned from their abodes of happiness or misery, and made to re-enter those resurrected bodies, and that then both their souls and bodies, thus re-united, will be re-judged and re-sentenced to Heaven or hell? The above are the main points which I propose to consider. I do not do it for any party or personal consideration, but for the purpose of endeavoring to elucidate the truth. That the subjects are of grave importance, none can deny. Nor do I ask any exemption from the severest candid criticism or review. Let the subjects be subjected to the test of a true Bible exegesis, and the most profound reason, and none need fear the examination. As I am not a subscriber to the Advent Review, and may not have its post-office address, will the editors of that paper please forward it to me, commencing with the publishing of this article in that paper, and I will send them the pay for the paper. Address, Hopkinton, R. I.
S. S. GRISWOLD. Take the Back Track.
By R. F. Cottrell
If one gets bewildered in a forest, there is one safe way out, provided he can see the tracks by which he came. If he take the back track, it will conduct him to the place whence he started. If the Christian find himself far away from the path of peace, his only safe course is to remember and retrace his steps. Some wrong steps have been taken, divergent from the path of duty, or some duty neglected, perhaps seemingly small; but the effect has been a wide departure from the right way, clouds and darkness have obscured the sun, and the way is lost. There is but one way out of this darkness, and that is to return by the way you came to the very place where you left the straight path of duty. You cannot by a circuitous course find the right path at an advance from the place where you left it. You must go back to the very spot, and thence proceed, however rough that part of the way may seem to be. Let that brother or sister that is in darkness call to mind the place where the light was left, God has given us light. But at some point the light was left, and an easier way was chosen; but without the least intention of departing wholly from the truth. The consequence of that false step has been darkness, growing more and more dense; and if this course is pursued, it will end in hopeless night. Brother, sister, return to the light. Go back to the very place where you first diverged from it. Find the narrow path right where you left it; and light and peace and joy will return, and the darkness of which you complain will have passed away. Which Is the Seventh Day?
By R. F. Cottrell
WHEN attention is called to the particular day to be observed, as mentioned in the fourth commandment, the inquiry is often raised, “How can we tell which is the seventh day?” In answer, they may be referred to their almanacs. But the following from the “Union Spelling Book,” published by the American Sunday School Union, may be considered better authority and consequently more satisfactory to some: “DAYS OF THE WEEK
“The days of the week in the Bible are called
First day of the week, Sunday, Sabbath,
or Lord’s-day.
Second day, Monday.
Third day, Tuesday.
Fourth day, Wednesday.
Fifth day, Thursday.
Sixth day, Friday.
Seventh day, Saturday.” This is a fair statement of facts. Honest men and well-informed could not make it otherwise. If people desire to know which is the seventh day, as reckoned in the Bible, it is Saturday. That this is the order of the week, as numbered in the Bible, is easily told. But to tell how the first day of the week came to be “our Sunday, Sabbath, or Lord’s day,” is not so easy a task, since the only commandment for a weekly Sabbath plainly declares, “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God.”
R. F. COTTRELL.