Earlier text: The Scripture Doctrine of a Future Life.--No. 13.A Dialogue Between a Predestinarian and His Friend
[FROM JOHN WESLEY'S MISCELLANEOUS WORKS.]
# A DIALOGUE
BETWEEN A PREDESTINARIAN AND HIS FRIEND.
"Out of thine own mouth."
TO ALL PREDESTINARIANS.
1. I AM informed, some of you have said, that the following quotations are false; that these words were not spoken by these authors; others, that they were not spoken in this sense; and others, that neither you yourself, nor any true predestinarian, ever did, or ever would, speak so.
2. My friends, the authors here quoted are well known, in whom you may read the words with your own eyes. And you who have read them, know in your own conscience, they were spoken in this sense and no other; nay, that this sense of them is professedly defended throughout the whole treatises whence they are taken.
3. But, be this as it may, do you indeed say, "No true predestinarian ever did or ever would speak so?" Why every true predestinarian must speak so, and so must you yourself too, if you dare speak out, unless they and you renounce your fundamental principle.
4. Your fundamental principle is this: "God from eternity ordained whatsoever should come to pass." But from this single position undeniably follows every assertion hereafter mentioned. It remains therefore only that you choose which you please (for one you must choose) of these three things:
Either, (1.) To equivocate, evade the question, and prevaricate without end;
Or (2.) To swallow all these assertions together, and honestly to avow them;
Or (3.) To renounce them all together, and believe in Christ, the Saviour of all. FRIEND.—Sir, I have heard that you make God the author of all sin, and the destroyer of the greater part of mankind without mercy. PREDESTINARIAN.—I deny it; I only say, "God did from all eternity unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass." (Assembly's Catechism, Chap. 3.) F.—Do you make no exception? P.—No, surely; for "nothing is more absurd than to think anything at all is done but by the ordination of God." (Calvin's Institutes, Book 1, Chap. 16, Sec. 3.) F.—Do you extend this to the actions of men? P.—Without doubt: "Every action and motion of every creature is so governed by the hidden counsel of God, that nothing can come to pass but what was ordained by him." (Ib. Sec. 3.) F.—But what then becomes of the wills of men? P.—"The wills of men are so governed by the will of God, that they are carried on straight to the mark which he has foreordained." (Ib. Sec. 8.) F.—I suppose you mean the permissive will of God? P.—No; I mean, "All things come to pass by the efficacious and irresistible will of God." (Dr. Twisse' Vindiciae Gratiae Potestatis et Providentiae Dei Editio Jensoniana, pars. 3, p. 19.) F.—Why, then all men must do just what they do? P.—True: "It is impossible that anything should ever be done, but that which God impels the will of man." (Ib. p. 19.) F.—But does not this imply the necessity of all events? P.—"I will not scruple to own that the will of God lays a necessity on all things, and that everything he wills necessarily comes to pass." (Calvin's Inst. b. 3. c. 24, Sec. 8.) F.—Does sin then necessarily come to pass? P.—Undoubtedly: "for the almighty power of God extends itself to the first fall, and all other sins of angels and men." (Assembly's Catechism, c. 5.) F.—I grant, God foresaw the first man would fall. P.—Nay, "God not only foresaw that Adam would fall, but also ordained that he should." (Calvin's Inst. b. 3, c. 23, Sec. 7.) I know God permitted Adam's fall. P.—I tell you, "he fell not only by the permission, but also by the appointment, of God." (Calvini Responsio ad Calumnias Nebulonis cujusdam ad Articulum primum.) "He sinned because God so ordained, because the Lord saw good." (Calvin's Inst. b. 3, c. 24, Sec. 8.) F.—But do not those who differ from you, raise many objections against you as to this point? P.—Yes: "Those poisonous dogs vomit out many things against God." (Ib. b. 3, c. 23, Sec. 2.) "They deny that the Scripture says God decreed Adam's fall. They say he might have chosen either to fall or not, and that God foreordained only to treat him according to his desert: as if God had created the noblest of all his creatures, without foreordaining what should become of him!" (Ib. Sec. 7.) F.—Did God then make Adam on purpose that he might fall? P.—Undoubtedly. "God made Adam and Eve to this very purpose, that they might be tempted and led into sin. And by force of his decree, it could not otherwise be but they must sin." (Piscatoris Disput. Praedest. p. 6.) F.—But do you not ground God's decree on God's foreknowledge rather than his will? P.—No! "God foresees nothing but what he has decreed, and his decree precedes his knowledge." (Piscat. Disput. Praedist.) F.—Well, this may truly be termed, a horrible decree. P.—"I confess it is a horrible decree; yet no one can deny but God foreknew Adam's fall, and therefore foreknew it, because he had ordained it so by his own decree." (Calv. Inst. 1, 3, c. 23, Sec. 7.) F.—Do you believe, then, that God has by his own positive decree, not only elected some men to life, but also reprobated all the rest? P.—Most surely, if I believe one, I believe the other. "Many indeed (thinking to excuse God) own election, and yet deny reprobation; but this is quite silly and childish. For without reprobation, election itself cannot stand; whom God passes by, these he reprobates." (Calv. Inst. b. 3, c. 23, Sec. 1.) F.—Pray explain what you mean by election and reprobation. P.—With all my heart. "All men are not created for the same end; but some are foreordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation. So according as every man was created for the one end or the other, we say he was elected or predestinated to life, or reprobated, that is, predestinated to destruction." (Ib. c. 21, Sec. 1.) F.—Pray, repeat your meaning. P.—God hath once for all appointed by an eternal and unchangeable decree, to whom he would give salvation, and whom he would devote to destruction." (Ib. Sec. 7.) F.—Did God make any man on purpose that he might be damned? P.—Did not I tell you before? "God's first constitution was, that some should be destined to eternal ruin; and to this end their sins were ordained, and denial of grace in order to their sins." (Zanchius de Natura Dei, pp. 553, 554.) F.—But is not God's predestinating men to life or death grounded on his foreknowledge? P.—"So the vulgar think; that God, as he foresees every man will deserve, elects them to life, or devotes them to death and damnation." (Calv. Inst. b. 3, c. 22, Sec. 1.) F.—And do you not think, that reprobation, at least, is grounded on God's foreknowing men's sins? P.—No indeed: "God of his own good pleasure ordains that many should be born, who are from the womb devoted to inevitable damnation. If any man pretend that God's foreknowledge lays them under no necessity of being damned, but rather that he decreed their damnation, because he foreknew their wickedness, I grant that God's foreknowledge alone lays no necessity on the creature; but eternal life and death depend on the will rather than the foreknowledge of God. If God only foreknew all things that relate to all men, and did not decree and ordain them also, then it might be inquired whether or no his foreknowledge necessitates the thing foreknown. But seeing he therefore foreknows all things that will come to pass, because he has decreed they shall come to pass, it is vain to contend about foreknowledge, since it is plain all things come to pass by God's positive decree." (Ib. c. 23, Sec. 6.) F.—But if God has positively decreed to damn the greater part of mankind, why does he call upon them to repent and be saved? P.—"As God has his effectual call, whereby he gives the elect the salvation to which he ordained them, so he has his judgments toward the reprobates, whereby he executes his decree concerning them. As many therefore, as he created to live miserably, and then perish everlastingly; these, that they may be brought to the end for which they were created, he sometimes deprives of the possibility of hearing the word, and at other times, by the preaching thereof, blinds and stupefies them the more." (Ib. c. 24, Sec. 12.) F.—How is this? I say, if God created them for never-ending death, why does he call to them to turn and live? P.—"He calls to them, that they may be more deaf; he kindles a light, that they may be more blind; he brings his doctrine to them, that they may be more ignorant; and applies the remedy to them, that may not be healed." (Ib. b. 3, c. 24, Sec. 13.) F.—Enough, enough. Yet you do not make God the Author of sin! P.—No certainly: "God cannot be termed the Author of sin, though he is the cause of those actions which are sins." (Petri Martyris Virmi.lii Com. in Roman, p. 413.) F.—How is he the cause of them then? P.—Two ways: First, by his eternal, unchangeable decree; Secondly, by his present irresistible power.
(To be Continued.) Wakeful Hours.
By Fanny Fern
THERE is something beautiful as sublime in the hush of midnight. The myriad quiet sleepers, laying down each their life burden, insensible alike to joy or sorrow; helpless alike—the strong man as the infant—and over all the sleepless Eye, which, since the world began, has never lost sight of one pillowed head. Thoughts like these come to us in our wakeful night hours, with an almost painful intensity. Then eternity only seems real, and every-day life a fable. But morning comes, and the stir and hum of life chase them away, as the warm sun dries up the dew-drops, which like these thoughts performed their reviving mission, ere they departed.—Fanny Fern. Cohesion of Solids Under Great Pressure
SOME interesting experiments have been made by M. W. Spring, who has subjected a number of finely-divided substances to a pressure calculated to be equivalent to 20,000 atmospheres. Potassium nitrate and sodium nitrate were generally converted into a perfectly homogeneous mass, which was harder and denser than the fused salt, and was translucent like porcelain. Sawdust exhibited a “slatey” cleavage, and had a density more than three times that of the wood from which it was made. The author points to these experiments as having established the possibility of causing cohesion of solid bodies by the application of great pressure, unmindful of the fact that what are called dust-tiles are largely manufactured by this very method. How far the effects of simple pressure are taken into consideration by geologists in their study of the solid layers of the earth’s crust is open to question.—Academy. Confusion Among the Wise Men.
By Editor
WHEN the Lord said he would destroy the wisdom of the wise, and bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent, it was not because wisdom and prudence are not good and commendable. They are good qualities when put to right uses. It was when the "wise and prudent" became self-exalted and vain, that the Lord withheld from them the treasures of his truth, and "revealed them unto babes." When a vexed question was presented to Jesus, he said, "From the beginning it was not so." He set aside those rules which were based entirely on man's wrong-doing, or the hardness of their hearts, and required them to regard as of importance that which God ordained from the beginning, before the hardness of human hearts had perverted the ordinances of Jehovah. There is no precept to which these words of our Saviour will apply more forcibly than to that concerning the Sabbath. Every fact to which the Sabbath institution stands related comes down to us "from the beginning." In six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth; he rested the seventh day; for this reason he blessed and sanctified the seventh day—the rest day. Under the head of "A word for the Sabbath," the Christian at Work publishes an article from a correspondent which we here copy. True, the editor gives a gentle check to the misguided zeal of his correspondent, but comes far short of doing justice to the subject. "A VENERABLE friend, who has nearly completed his 85th year, sends us the following from Semiahmoo, Washington Territory :— "We are not required to be more holy on the Sabbath than on other days, but we are commanded to REST, and we must rest on the same day or create confusion, for the rest day is for holy meetings. In the first week God blessed the seventh DAY, but in the fourth WORD, He blessed the Sabbath day, not the seventh day, and required us "to remember the SABBATH day to keep it holy." All the septenary rites of the Old Testament that terminate on the number eight are typical of some important day in Messiah's reign. Why not all these rites terminate on the seventh day if it was to be the new Sabbath? (See Eze. xliii. 26, 27.) When the altar of this Christian temple was purified seven days, then on the EIGHTH DAY and so forward the offerings should be made. Eighth day and first day are the same. See Lev. xxiii 15, where the law fixes the pentecost on the first day of the week. Why not on the seventh if it was to be the new Sabbath? Christ rose from the dead on the first day; He preached but one sermon on earth after his resurrection, and that was on the first day of the week. He met His disciples and blessed them on the Resurrection day, and on the next first day. Many say that the first day is not called Sabbath in the New Testament. Dr. Jacobus says, "The Evangelists called the first day SABBATH, and by no other name so I think." But let us test, say, Matt. xxviii. 1 ; "In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary," etc. The Greek of the verse reads thus: "Opse de Sabbatoon, te epiphouskouse eis mian Sabbatoon," came Mary, etc. Here in the Greek, Sabbath occurs twice in the plural form; whereas our translation gives us one Sabbath in the singular, and for the other Sabbath, "First day of the week," a phrase that has no Sabbath in it, nor any religious principle or obligation. This verse might have been rendered: "In the end of the seventh-day Sabbaths, as the light began to shine into the first of the Christian Sabbaths" (it being the first day of the week) supplied, or, "In the end of the Jewish Sabbaths, as the light began to shine into the first of the Christian Sabbaths, it being the first day of the week, came Mary," etc. This would fairly express the teaching of the text, and there are seven other places in the New Testament that need correction, viz. : John xx. 1, 19; Mark xvi. 2, 9; Luke xxiv. 1; Acts xx. 7, and I. Cor. xvi. 2. Five inspired Bible writers agree in calling the first day of the week Sabbath eight times. The Apostolic Church met on the first day for worship, and so on for the first sixteen centuries, or until King James's Translation, when we got all "First day of the week" and no Sabbath." "Our venerable correspondent is, we think, inclined to strain literalism a little too much. No good will come of attempting to prove more than either the New Testament or ecclesiastical history will warrant. We do not know what Dr. Jacobus held on this question; but his words are these in his commentary on Matt. xxviii. 1: "The first day of the week—an unusual phrase—literally, 'One of the Sabbaths.' The same phrase and no other is used by each of the evangelists in their mention of this first Christian Sabbath. This is not quite as our correspondent represents. But whatever may be thought of our friend's reasoning, we do want more Sabbath observance; God commands rest one day in seven. The Church has adopted the first day as commemorative of the Lord's resurrection. There is no divine command to observe the first day, but the custom of the Church gives it a force, which, with the beauty of its significance, should secure its observance wherever Christ is preached." Now let us notice some of the manifest errors; it would be difficult to notice them all.
1. He makes a distinction between the seventh day and the Sabbath, which is not justified by the Scriptures. Sabbath means rest; on the seventh day and on it alone God rested; therefore it, and it alone is the rest day. A day in which the Lord did not rest cannot be the Lord's rest day.
2. To justify the making of this distinction he has two acts of blessing—one of blessing the seventh day, and one of blessing the Sabbath day. This is a fallacy altogether too glaring to stand. The fourth commandment refers to the facts of record in Gen. 1 and 2, and it refers to nothing else. The blessing, according to Gen. 1:3, and Ex. 20:11, is only one event. Sanctify and hallow in the two texts are the same word in the original.
3. There is no eighth day of the week; therefore all mentions of the eighth day have no reference to any particular day of the week. There was an eighth from a certain event which preceded, as the eighth day of a feast, but the day of the week upon which this eighth fell depended upon the day of the week upon which the feast commenced. But as the feasts were located on certain days of the month, they could not be located on any particular day of the week. At this age of the world a man must be "willingly ignorant" not to know this.
4. He persists in declaring that those texts which speak of the first day of the week should be translated Sabbaths, and not first day of the week. But if they do not mention the first day of the week, how does he know that they refer to the first day of the week? Take Acts 20:7, for an example. He says this refers to the first day of the week, but says also the translation needs correcting. Let us correct it and try his reasoning. "Now upon the Sabbath when the disciples came together." If this is a proper translation, why does he say it was upon the first day of the week? Sensible of his difficulty, he wishes to make a most important addition to the inspired record; he wishes it to be translated both Sabbath and first day of the week in the same text! Here is something entirely new. If it were as valuable as it is novel, it would be worth the writing of the whole article. No comment can do justice to such a preposterous claim. We pass it by for this reason.
5. He not only wishes to have the same word translated both Sabbath and first day of the week in the same text, but wishes to have translated out of it the important adjunct of "Christian Sabbath." Verily, the world has been slow to learn what a fund of Sunday argument may be drawn from such a simple text.
6. He makes a most important admission in the declaration that the phrase "first day of the week," has no Sabbath in it, nor any religious principle nor obligation. From our infancy we were taught the opposite of this; but years ago, in studying on this subject, we learned that it is even so, that there is no Sabbath, nor religious principle, nor obligation, in the Sunday. Why will men persist in trying to put them there, seeing that the word of God never did?
7. We will not further expose the fallacy of his pretended criticisms of the Greek original, as that point has been thoroughly examined in the article on Sabbaton in the and the two preceding numbers of the SIGNS.
The caution of the editor is timely:—"No good will come of attempting to prove more than either the New Testament or ecclesiastical history will warrant." If this were realized, accepted, and acted upon, the bulk of Sunday arguments and "Christian-Sabbath" literature would dwindle into insignificant proportions.
The above article, in all its weakness and absurdity, is as good as the generality of arguments in favor of the Sunday. We publish it as a specimen. It is even better for that side of the question, than a more lengthy article by the editor of the St. Louis Christian Advocate, which a friend has lately sent to us.
We stand upon the declaration of the editor of the Christian at Work,—"There is no divine command to observe the seventh day." Ye who would "fear God and keep his commandments" do not forget this. "The customs of the church" give all the force to Sunday which it ever had; but this custom is not only without a divine command, but in opposition to the divine command. Truly, "the customs of the people are vain," as the prophet says. Infantile Logic.
By Editor
The Pacific Churchman contains the following:— “‘Believe and be baptized, and thou shalt be saved.’ Infants cannot believe, therefore, they ought not to be baptized. Exactly so. “‘Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.’ Infants cannot repent, therefore they must all likewise perish. “‘This we command you, that if any would not work neither should they eat.’ Infants cannot work, therefore, they must not eat. “It is all equally logical.” Will this “logic” bear analysing? Let us see. It is admitted that the command to work does not apply to infants; therefore the condition does not apply. And so it is admitted that infants may eat though they do not work. It is admitted that the command to repent does not apply to infants. And it is admitted that infants may be saved. Therefore infants may be saved without repentance. Baptism is, in the New Testament, inseparably connected with belief and repentance. But faith and repentance are not requisite to the salvation of infants. Therefore baptism is not requisite to the salvation of infants. Baptism is related to sin and its remission. Infants have no sin to have remitted. Therefore baptism is not related to the condition of infants. The truth is, and every one knows it, whether Baptist or Pedo-baptist, that the salvation of infants is not suspended upon conditions or duties. Or if it is, no infants can be saved. The death of Christ avails for them without conditions, because they have committed no sin. To make their salvation conditional, as the theory of “infant baptism” does, is to place it entirely in the power of other parties. Who will accept a doctrine leading to such results? We cannot. The Seven Seals.
By Uriah Smith
REV. 6 : 7, 8. "And when he had opened the fourth seal, I heard the voice of the fourth beast say, Come and see. And I looked, and behold a pale horse; and his name that sat on him was death, and hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth." The color of this horse is remarkable. The colors of the white, red, and black horses mentioned in the preceding verses, are natural; but a pale color is unnatural. The original word denotes the "pale or yellowish color," that is seen in blighted or sickly plants. A strange state of things in the professed church must be denoted by this symbol. The rider on this horse is named Death; and Hell (hades the grave) follows with him. The mortality is so great during this period, that it would seem as if "the pale nations of the dead," had come upon earth and were following in the wake of this desolating power. The period during which this seal applies can hardly be mistaken. It must refer to the time in which the Papacy bore its unrebuked, unrestrained, and persecuting rule, commencing about A. D. 538, and extending to the time when the Reformers commenced their work of exposing the corruptions of the papal system.117 "And power was given unto them"—him; says the margin; that is, the power personified by Death on the pale horse; namely, the papacy. By the fourth part of the earth is doubtless meant the territory over which this power had jurisdiction; while the terms, sword, hunger, death, or some infliction which causes death, as exposure, torture, &c., and beasts of the earth, are figures denoting the means by which it has put to death its martyrs, fifty millions of whom, according to the lowest estimate, call for vengeance from beneath its bloody altar. Verses 9-11. "And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held; and they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth? And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellow-servants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled." The events set forth as transpiring under the fifth seal, are the crying of the martyrs for vengeance, and the giving to them of white robes. The questions that at once suggest themselves for solution are, Does this seal cover a period of time? and if so, when is it? Where is the altar under which those souls were seen? What are these souls? and what is their condition? What is meant by their cry for vengeance? What is meant by white robes being given to them? When do they rest for a little season? and, What is signified by their brethren being killed as they were? To all these questions, we believe a satisfactory answer can be returned. 1. The fifth seal covers a period of time. It seems consistent that this seal, like all the others, should cover a period of time; and the date of its application cannot be mistaken, if the preceding seals have been rightly located. Following the period of the papal persecution, the time covered by this seal would commence when the Reformation began to undermine the Antichristian papal fabric, and restrain the persecuting power of the Romish church. 2. The altar. This cannot denote any altar in Heaven; as it is evidently the place where these victims had been slain, the altar of sacrifice. On this point, Dr. A. Clarke says, "A symbolical vision was exhibited in which he saw an altar. And under it the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God—martyred for their attachment to Christianity, are represented as being newly slain, as victims to idolatry and superstition. The altar is upon earth, not in Heaven." A confirmation of this view is found in the fact that John is beholding scenes upon the earth. The souls are represented under the altar, just as victims slain upon it would pour out their blood beneath it, and fall by its side. 3. The souls under the altar. This representation is popularly regarded as a strong proof of the doctrine of the disembodied and conscious state of the dead. Here, it is claimed, are souls seen by John in a disembodied state; and they were conscious, and had knowledge of passing events; for they cried for vengeance on their persecutors. This view of the passage is inadmissible, for several reasons: 1st. The popular view places these souls in Heaven; but the altar of sacrifice on which they were slain, and beneath which they were seen, cannot be there. The only altar we read of in Heaven is the altar of incense; but it would not be correct to represent victims just slain as under the altar of incense, as that altar was never devoted to such a use. 2ndly. It would be repugnant to all our ideas of the heavenly state, to represent souls in Heaven shut up under an altar. 3rdly. Can we suppose that the idea of vengeance would reign so supreme in the minds of souls in Heaven as to render them, despite the joy and glory of that ineffable state, dissatisfied and uneasy till vengeance was inflicted upon their enemies? Would they not rather rejoice that persecution raised its hand against them, and thus hastened them into the presence of their Redeemer, at whose right hand there is fullness of joy, and pleasures forevermore? But, further, the popular view which puts these souls in Heaven, puts the wicked at the same time in the lake of fire, writhing in unutterable torment, and in full view of the heavenly host. This, it is claimed, is proved by the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. Now these souls, brought to view under the fifth seal, were those who had been slain under the preceding seal, scores of years, and most of them centuries, before. Beyond any question, their persecutors had all passed off the stage of action, and, according to the view under consideration, were suffering all the torments of hell right before their eyes. Yet, as if not satisfied with this, they cry to God, as though he was delaying vengeance on their murderers. What greater vengeance could they want? Or, if their persecutors were still on the earth, they must know that they would, in a few years at most, join the vast multitude daily pouring through the gate of death into the world of woe. Their amiability is put in no better light even by this supposition. One thing, at least, is evident: The popular theory concerning the condition of the dead, righteous and wicked, cannot be correct, or the interpretation usually given to this passage is not correct; for they devour each other. But it is urged that these souls must be conscious; for they cry to God. This argument would be of weight if there was no such figure of speech as personification. But while there is, it will be proper, on certain conditions, to attribute life, action, and intelligence, to inanimate objects. Thus the blood of Abel is said to have cried to God from the ground. Gen. 4 : 9, 10. The stone cried out of the wall, and the beam out of the timber answered it. Hab. 2 : 11. The hire of the laborers kept back by fraud, cried, and the cry entered into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth. Jas. 5 : 4. See Buck's Theological Dictionary, Art. Persecution. But the spirit of persecution was finally restrained, the cause of the martyrs vindicated, and the little season of the fifth seal came to a close. The incongruity of the popular view on this verse is so apparent that Albert Barnes makes the following concession: "We are not to suppose that this literally occurred, and that John actually saw the souls of the martyrs beneath the altars—for the whole representation is symbolical; nor are we to suppose that the injured and the wronged in Heaven, actually pray for vengeance on those who wronged them, or that the redeemed in Heaven will continue to pray with reference to things on the earth; but it may be fairly inferred from this that there will be as real a remembrance of the wrongs of the persecuted, the injured, and the oppressed, as if such a prayer was offered there; and that the oppressor has as much to dread from the divine vengeance as if those whom he has injured should cry in Heaven to the God who hears prayer, and who takes vengeance."—Notes on Rev. 6. On such passages as this, the reader is misled by the popular definition of the word soul. From that definition, he is led to suppose that this text speaks of an immaterial, invisible, immortal essence in man, which soars into its coveted freedom on the death of its hindrance and clog, the mortal body. No instance of the occurrence of the word in the original Hebrew or Greek will sustain such a definition. It oftenest means life; and is not unfrequently rendered person. It applies to the dead as well as to the living, as may be seen by reference to Gen. 2 : 7, where the word "living" need not have been expressed were life an inseparable attribute of the soul; and to Num. 19 : 13, where the Hebrew Concordance reads, "Dead soul." Moreover these souls pray that their blood may be avenged, an article which the immaterial soul as popularly understood is not supposed to possess. We regard the word souls as here meaning simply the martyrs, those who had been slain, the words "souls of them" being a periphrasis for the whole person. They were represented to John as having been slain upon the altar of papal sacrifice, on this earth, and lying dead beneath it. They certainly were not alive when John saw them under the fifth seal; for he again brings to view the same company, in almost the same language, and assures us that the first time they live after their martyrdom is at the resurrection of the just. Rev. 20 : 4-6. Lying there, victims of papal blood-thirstiness and oppression, they cried to God for vengeance, in the same manner that Abel's blood cried to him from the ground. The white robes. These were given as a partial answer to their cry, "How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood?" How was it? They had gone down to the grave in the most ignominious manner. Their lives had been misrepresented, their reputations tarnished, their names defamed, their motives maligned, and their graves covered with shame and reproach, as containing the dishonored dust of the most vile and despicable characters. Thus the church of Rome, which then molded the sentiment of the principal nations of the earth, spared no pains to make their victims an abhorring unto all flesh. But the Reformation begins to work. It begins to be seen that the church is the corrupt and disreputable party, and those against whom it vents its rage are the good, the pure, and the true. The work goes on among the most enlightened nations, the reputation of the church going down, and that of the martyrs coming up, until the corruptions of the papal system of iniquity stands forth before the world in all its naked deformity; while the martyrs are vindicated from all the aspersions under which that Antichristian church had sought to bury them. Then it was seen that they had suffered, not for being vile and criminal, but "for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held." Then their praises were sung, their virtues admired, their names honored, and their memories cherished. White robes were thus given unto every one of them. The little season. The cruel work of Romanism did not instantly cease as the light of the Reformation began to dawn. Not a few terrible outbursts of Romish hate and persecution were yet to be felt by the church. Multitudes more were to be punished as heretics and join the great army of martyrs. The full vindication of their cause was to be delayed a little season. And during this time Rome added hundreds of thousands to the vast throng of whose blood she had already become guilty. U. S. (To be Continued.) Church Privileges.
By Editor
WE think a mistake is often made by well-meaning people as to what constitutes true religious liberty in regard to church relations. The idea obtains with a great many that it is "charity" to fellowship every imaginable belief and life, and that it is restraining a person's liberty—an infringement on his rights—to deny him the privilege of believing and talking whatever he pleases in any church with which he may choose to associate. Prof. Swing was considered a persecuted man, and Dr. Patton was regarded as a narrow-minded bigot, because the latter had the former arraigned before the synod for preaching doctrines contrary to the Presbyterian faith. But we never regarded it in that light. We held then, as we now hold, that no person can honorably preach as a Presbyterian minister, when he ceases to preach Presbyterian doctrine. If it is anything less than deception, it is at least an abuse of privilege, to profess to be a Presbyterian minister, and to enjoy the sanction of the Presbyterian church, and at the same time teach contrary to the faith of the Presbyterian church. And so in the case of any other church. This plea for liberty and charity is often made the occasion of introducing confusion where order would have a much better effect, and where the interests of truth might be better served by preserving order. In these remarks we say nothing of the correctness or incorrectness of the faith of the parties concerned. This has no bearing on the principle. We think it is well for every individual to remain with the church to which he has belonged, until his views are well known, when he has changed his views, and until the reasons for the change are understood, if the church is willing to examine the reasons. But to remain longer, and to persist in talking his views where he knows it can be only an annoyance, can do no good, and may do much harm by prejudicing those who might candidly hear if a more judicious course were pursued. If we claim a regard for our rights, we should, in turn, respect the rights of others whether they are right or wrong in matters of belief. Errors in faith do not warrant an infringement on the rights of any, or a violation of the rules of Christian courtesy. A letter which we lately received has led us to make these remarks, which, we believe, will meet the approval of every considerate person. It is not always an easy thing to locate a prophecy to a certainty, unless it has some feature by which it may be shown to be necessarily connected with some other prophecy or declaration which may be located. Very many false theories have been maintained by this means alone, of building upon an indefinite prophecy. The consecutive prophecies, such as the books of Daniel and Revelation, and some others, are easily located, and whenever other prophecies can be shown to have close relation to these, then they become located by reason of such connection. We discover nothing in Eze. 36:24-38 to make it sure that it is to be fulfilled in the future. It was written before the return of Israel from Babylon or Persia, and a comparison with Heb. 8:6-10 will show that it may refer to that which is past and present in the work of the gospel.