MANY learned men who believe in the immortality of the soul, have frankly confessed that it is not taught in the Bible.
Olshausen, in his comments on 1 Cor. 15: 13, says: “The doctrine of the immortality of the soul, and the name, are alike unknown to the entire Bible.” This is a good confession, and here is another of the same kind.
Bishop Tillotson says: “The immortality of the soul is rather supposed, or taken for granted, than expressly revealed in the Bible.”--Tillotson's Sermons, Vol. II., Sermon 100.
This is virtually admitting the whole question. Dr. Bagnall, in the Methodist Quarterly Review for April, 1852, while advocating the natural immortality of man, makes this confession: “In the Bible, we think there is no passage which can be strictly said to declare that all human souls are immortal.”
The celebrated Richard Watson corroborates this statement thus: “That the soul is naturally immortal, . . . is contradicted by the Scripture, which makes our immortality a gift dependent on the will of the giver.”--Theolog. Inst. Vol. II., Part 2, Ch. 18, p. 83.
Mr. Alger, in his late book says: “The whole tenor and drift of the representations in the Old Testament show that the state of disembodied souls is deep quietude. Freed from bondage, pain, toil, and care, they repose in silence.”--Doc. Fut. Life, chap. 7, p. 153.
Archbishop Whately says: “To the Christian, indeed, all this doubt would be instantly removed, if he found that the immortality of the soul, as a disembodied spirit, were revealed in the word of God. . . . In fact, however, no such doctrine is revealed to us; the Christian's hope, as founded on the promises contained in the gospel, is the resurrection of the body.”--Quoted by Horne in the Watch Tower, p. 8.
Bishop Lowth, in his “Lectures on Hebrew Poetry,” says: “We there find no exact account, no explicit mention, of immortal spirits.”--Ibid. p. 12.
This is a significant confession, since the bishop was a firm believer in the soul's immortality. Dr. Neander says: “It was an old Jewish notion that immortality was not founded upon the nature of the soul, but a peculiar gift of divine grace.”--Church Hist. p. 444.
Here is another good admission from an orthodox writer: “We would express our conviction that the idea of the immortality of the soul has no source in the gospel; that it comes, on the contrary, from the Platonists.”--Dorby's Hopes of the Church.
Says Gibbon, “We discover that the doctrine of the immortality of the soul is omitted in the law of Moses.”--Decline and Fall, Vol. I., chap. 15, p. 530.
In his note on this passage from Gibbon, the orthodox Milman thus admits the same: “Modern writers have accounted in various ways for the silence of the Hebrew legislator on the immortality of the soul.”--Ibid., note.
Nemesian, bishop of Emesa, in the fifth century, thus states the doctrine of the Jews: “The Hebrews say that originally man was evidently neither mortal nor immortal; but on the confines of either nature; so that, if he should yield to the bodily affections, he should share also the changes of the body; but if he should prefer the nobler affections of the soul, he should be deemed worthy of immortality.” De Natura Hominis, chap. 1, quoted by Hudson, Debt and Grace, p. 310.
This plainly shows the faith of the ancient Hebrews, as well as the doctrine of the Bible on this point. Dr. Edward Beecher, in a late excellent work upon the subject of Scriptural Retribution thus frankly confesses that the Bible does not teach the natural immortality of the soul: “But before doing this, it will be expedient to consider the real foundations of any reliable belief in immortality. Plato sought to find them in the inherent nature of the deathless soul, existing from eternity to eternity. Others have sought them in the aspirations of the soul, and the imperfect development of retribution in this life. But the fundamental positions of the system of the Bible are not of this kind. It does not recognize, nay, it expressly denies, the natural and inherent immortality of the soul. It assures us that God only hath immortality. (1 Tim. 6: 16.)”--Doc. of Script. Ret., p. 58.
Again he says: “There are passages in the Old Testament which were regarded of old, and still are by many, as teaching the ultimate annihilation of the wicked.”--Ibid., p. 72.
So manifestly true are the foregoing statements that many pious and learned Christian men who have carefully examined the Bible upon this subject, have become thoroughly satisfied that it does not teach the immortality of the soul. Hence they have written many books abundantly showing that no such doctrine is taught in the Bible, but the reverse.
We object to the popular doctrine of man's natural immortality for many reasons which to us seem conclusive against it.
1. IT IS UNREASONABLE.--It is not reasonable that the all-wise Creator should bestow unconditional immortality upon all the race without regard to their moral character, and before any of them had been tested to see what they would develop. What good could come of it none at all, but much evil. The Scriptures plainly teach that man was placed upon probation. Good and evil were set before him. He was left to develop his own character and determine his own destiny for eternity. The Creator certainly knew that it was possible for man to develop an evil character. If, then, he should first make him immortal, sin and evil would thus become immortalized. God-hating creature must continue to insult Heaven and pollute the fair universe. Such a supposition, to our mind, impeaches the wisdom of the Creator. And it is answerable for the following erroneous doctrines.
(1.) Eternal Misery.--Growing out of the supposition of man's natural immortality is the horrid doctrine of an endless hell of torment for the lost. The Bible teaches that a large share of men will be damned, being found utterly unworthy of the kingdom of God. Just as plainly it declares that all such shall go into a lake of fire. Now if all men are immortal by their very nature, then all who are lost must, continue to live in unutterable anguish and eternal burnings through unending ages. And this is the very doctrine that is professed by the churches of the day, and taught with all its unmitigated horrors by the preachers. We believe it to be a reproach to God, and a stone of stumbling to thousands of thoughtful people. We do know that large numbers are driven into infidelity by this very doctrine.
(2.) Universalism.--The unscriptural and unreasonable doctrine of universal salvation has grown out of the doctrine of man's natural immortality. Assuming that all men must, by their very nature, live eternally, the Universalists, being shocked by the horrors of the endless-hell theory, have tried to twist the Scriptures to make themselves and others believe that all men, without regard to character or faith in Christ, will be ultimately saved.
(3.) Spiritualism.--The very corner-stone of Spiritualism, the foundation on which it rests, the very tap-root which supplies it with nourishment and vigor, is the theory of the natural immortality of the soul. Assuming that the soul is the real man, that it lives when the body dies, they ask why this living soul cannot come back and communicate with men in the flesh. Granting these premises, their conclusion is a reasonable one, and hence has grown up the abominable system of modern Spiritualism, with all its blasphemous assumptions and moral pollutions. The doctrine of the immortality of the soul is responsible for the whole thing.
(4.) Purgatory.--At the door of this same theory of natural immortality, may be laid all the abominations of the papal purgatory. It supposes that when the body dies the soul goes into a place of suffering where it is purified from its sins. The prayers, the money, the sacrifices of its friends on earth can aid in releasing it from this horrible place. Hence the Romish purgatory.
All the above and some other abominable doctrines which have cursed the world, have had their root in this theory of natural immortality. If man is mortal, if the dead are unconscious, then all the above theories fall to the ground in a moment.
2. It contradicts some of the Fundamental doctrines of the Bible.--The common theory is not only that the dead are conscious, actually living, but that the wicked go straight into hell at death, and the righteous immediately into heaven. Now if this be so, it virtually nullifies the doctrine of a future judgment. One of the plainest doctrines of the Bible is that there is to be a future, definite, grand day of judgment in which all men, good and bad, will be arraigned before God and judged for the actions of this life. But we ask, What would be the use of a future judgment if men are sent immediately to heaven or hell when they die? Shall God torment a man a thousand years and then call him up to be judged to see whether he should be punished or not? Shall God reward a man in heaven for ages, and then call him down to earth, and judge him to see what his doom should be? How utterly unreasonable is all this. We repeat that it virtually nullifies the future judgment.
Moreover, if the soul is the real man, the thinking, intelligent, active man; if it can live as well or better without the body than with it; if the body is only a prison, a cage, a clog; then what is the use of a future resurrection. If the soul is ever freed from this old body why should God ever put it back again? Why raise this clog of clay and again imprison the immortal soul within it? Such a theory naturally leads to the rejection of the Bible doctrine of the resurrection of the body, than which nothing is more plainly taught throughout the Holy Scriptures.
Furthermore, if the saints go immediately to heaven at death, if they become like angels, and dwell in the presence of God, what will they care for the second advent of Christ to earth? It can be of no account to them. They are with him already, safe, immortal, and unspeakably happy. Why should they long for the return of the Master? This doctrine, it will be seen, throws its whole weight directly against the literal return of Jesus to this earth. But on turning to the Bible, we find the second advent of Christ to be the grand, central theme, the all absorbing hope of every Bible writer, while all of them are entirely silent with regard to the immortality of the soul. These two doctrines do not naturally go together; hence we invariably find that the stronger a man believes in the immortality of the soul, the less he cares for the judgment, the resurrection, and the second advent. These facts alone lead us to look with suspicion upon that theory. D. M. CANRIGHT.
The Fourth Commandment.
By Uriah Smith
But why are men unwilling to admit
That God's unaltered law is binding yet;
That neither all, nor yet a part is slain,
But unimpaired its precepts all remain?
'Tis simply this: The fourth command doth say,
The Sabbath comes upon the seventh day;
So they would cast the law itself aside,
To shun the day that God has sanctified.
O Fourth Command! what trouble hast thou been,
Source of vexation to the sons of men!
How have they tugged and toiled, with various plans,
To break thy power, and shirk thy just demands!
Have chafed and fretted to secure their aim,
And render null and void thy obvious claim!
Vast circuits they through logic's field have run,
And found themselves at last where they begun!
Have loud proclaimed that day of rule was o'er,
And that the law was binding now no more!
Then brought forth reasons for their theories wiss,
Which fools might laugh at, maniacs despise!
Still true are thy demands, thy claims still good,
Though men would fain avoid them if they could.
All who regard them not must soon confess,
And reap the harvest of their sinfulness.
Firm and immutable as Heaven's decree
Thou e'er hast stood, and thou shalt ever be.
Among these holy laws thy place is known,
Which God's own finger graved upon the stone.
Still thy requirements hold that we must rest
Upon the seventh day, which God has blest;
His fixed decrees he ne'er will disarrange;
For God can never lie, and never change.
—A Word for the Sabbath, by U. Smith.
THE SECOND ADVENT OF CHRIST.
By James White
THE sacred Scriptures of both Testaments abound with direct testimony relative to the second advent of Christ. The prophets of God, the Lord Jesus himself, and his holy apostles have said much in regard to this closing and crowning event in the grand scheme of human redemption. Although it was left to the writers of the New Testament, the inspired men who lived nearest the great consummation, to say most upon this subject, yet the Old Testament abounds in prophetic descriptions of that great and terrible day, and warnings to the people of God to be ready. Even Enoch, the seventh from Adam, in prophetic vision looked down through the long vista of years and saw the coming of Christ, and raised the warning, "Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousand of his saints, to execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him."
No truth of inspiration can be more clearly stated than that God reveals his designs to his prophets, that men and nations may be warned before their accomplishment. "Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets." Before visiting with judgments, God has uniformly sent forth warnings sufficient to enable the believing to escape his wrath, and to condemn those who have not heeded the warning. This was the case before the flood. "By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark for the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world."
At a later period, when the nations had become sunken in idolatry and crime, and the destruction of wicked Sodom was determined, the Lord said, "Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do; seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him?" And due notice was given to righteous Lot, who, with his daughters, was preserved; and none, even in that guilty city, perished without due warning. Lot evidently warned the people; and, in thus communing with them, was "vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked." When he warned his sons-in-law, "he seemed as one that mocked." And when "the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter," Lot warned them, and entreated them to desist from their wickedness. And they at once did that which all sinners, since the days of righteous Lot, have been disposed to do to those who faithfully warn them of their sins; namely, they charged him with being a judge.
Before the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, a forerunner was sent to prepare the way before the Lord. Those who did not receive Christ, were rejected, "because," as he said of Jerusalem, when warning the people of the destruction of their city and temple, "thou knewest not the time of thy visitation." We have on record the Lord's prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem during the time of the generation that rejected him, which was fulfilled in less than forty years from the time of his crucifixion. And that the Christians in Judea might escape its impending doom, they were told that when they should "see Jerusalem compassed with armies," or, as recorded by Matthew, "the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place," they were to "flee to the mountains." They heeded the admonition, and escaped in safety to Pella. Such is the testimony of inspiration respecting the dealings of God with his people in past ages. And it cannot be supposed that he will change his course relative to the future, when that future is to realize the consummation of all prophetic declarations.
Can anything be learned from the Bible relative to the period of the second advent? is a question unsettled in many minds. This is a grave inquiry, and from the very nature of the subject, is worthy of close investigation, and a candid answer. It is a matter of painful regret that many, under the influence of popular prejudice, have decided that the second advent is a secret, hidden with the Lord. While these may scarcely be reached with this subject, as long as they remain under the influence of those religious teachers who denounce all investigation of it as prying into the secrets of the Almighty, there is still a larger class who wait for evidence before deciding. It is with ardent hope of benefiting these, that we write.
We accept the Bible as a revelation from heaven. What God has revealed in that book, let no man call a mystery, or a secret of the Almighty. "The secret things belong unto the Lord our God; but those which are revealed belong unto us and to our children forever." If the sacred Scriptures do not designate any period in particular for the second appearing of Christ, then men should at once abandon the vain search for proofs of his soon coming. But if prophecy, in a most clear and harmonious manner, does point to the period of that great event, and if there is evidence that "it is near, even at the doors," the subject at once assumes vast importance.
When the disciples inquire, "What shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?" Jesus does not reprove them for inquiring into that which was purposely hidden from all men; but he answers that question in the most definite manner. He even states that there should be signs of that event in the sun, in the moon, and in the stars; and adds, "When ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors." The simple fact that the Lord mentions signs of his second advent, is the best proof possible that his people were not to remain ignorant of the relative nearness of the event. Add to this evidence his declaration that when these signs should be seen, his people should know that it was near, even at the doors, and the case becomes an exceedingly strong one.
In our next we will briefly trace down the chain of prophecy in the second chapter of Daniel, and show that we stand upon the very threshold of the eternal world. J. W.
Question.
Is there good authority for changing the punctuation in Luke 23 : 43, placing the comma after to-day?
M. H.
ANSWER.—Authors have differed in regard to this. But it can hardly be considered a question to be settled by authority. Punctuation being modern, there was no comma at all used by Luke, the writer of the text. Hence, we find texts differing in punctuation in different editions of the Bible. And, of course, where a change of the punctuation involves a doctrine by changing the construction, men will differ in their views of the proper punctuation just as far as they differ on the doctrine involved. In this case, as the common method is supposed to strengthen the theory that men receive rewards immediately after death, the majority of authors favor this method, because they believe the theory. Did the majority accept another theory, we may fairly presume they would accept another method of punctuation. Neither one nor the other being any part of the inspired text, people naturally feel free to adopt the one which they think is correct.
How can this question be settled? We fear it cannot be, to the satisfaction of all parties. No reason can be offered on either side, which will be satisfactory to those who may be unwilling to accept the faith of those opposed to them.
Is it then an indifferent matter—“a non-essential”—upon which men may differ with propriety? No, it cannot be; for, as before said, a difference in Bible doctrine is involved, and in such case the wrong cannot be equally proper with the right. The right construction is every way to be preferred.
But which is right? That punctuation is right which gives a construction to the text in harmony with the rest of the Scriptures. But this brings us back to the starting point. Men will differ as to where that harmony may be found. We will offer, then, a few reasons why we think it is proper to place the comma after the term, to-day.
1. It does no violence to the language. We find precisely the same form of expression in other texts, notably in Zech. 9 : 12, and Deut. 8 : 19, which is found in this text, if the comma is placed after to-day. It is so far allowable.
2. The request was, to be remembered when Christ comes in his kingdom. Certainly he did not come in his kingdom that day. By Rev 3 : 21, and other texts, we learn that Christ, in his mediation, occupies the throne of his Father in heaven; not his own throne, or that of his father David, Luke 1 : 32, 33. And by Rev. 11 : 14, 15, we learn that the kingdom and dominion is given to him under the sounding of the seventh trumpet.
3. Peter, speaking of the resurrection of Christ, said “his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.” Acts 2 : 31. Here the much-coveted distinction between soul and flesh is recognized, but as Paradise is neither hell nor a place or state of corruption, we incline to the belief that Peter did not mean to say that, by the resurrection of Christ he was not left in Paradise. In truth he had not been in Paradise, either his soul or flesh, and therefore the promise of Luke 23 : 43 was not fulfilled between the death and resurrection of Christ.
4. The time when the saints receive their reward is not at their death, but at the coming of Christ and the resurrection of the dead. A few plain declarations of the sacred word settle this conclusively.
Jesus said, “For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.” Matt. 16 : 27. The same in Rev. 22 : 12.
Again he said, “Thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just.” Luke 14 : 14.
Paul said his labors and crosses in the gospel would not advantage him if the dead rise not. 1 Cor. 15 : 32. On this Dr. Clarke comments: “What the apostle says here, is a regular and legitimate conclusion from the doctrine, that there is no resurrection; for, if there be no resurrection, then there can be no judgment; no future state of rewards and punishments; why, therefore, should we bear crosses, and keep ourselves under continual discipline? Let us eat and drink; take all the pleasure we can; for to-morrow we die, and there is an end of us forever.”
These words, both of Paul and the Doctor, are not true if men get their reward at death, and before the resurrection.
Again, Paul said that he should receive his crown at the appearing and kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ. 2 Tim. 4 : 1-8. Three things are here located in the future, each of which has a direct bearing on the prayer and promise of Luke 23 : 42, 43, namely, the appearing of Christ, the kingdom of Christ, and the time of giving rewards.
Peter confirms this most explicitly: “And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.” 1 Peter 5 : 4.
The testimony of Jesus Christ says that, under the sounding of the seventh trumpet comes “the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great.” Rev. 11 : 15-18. No more can be asked to prove this point. But this being so, the popular construction of Luke 23 : 43, cannot be correct, and the common method of punctuation is not the proper one.
This change of the comma removes the event from the beginning to the close of the dispensation. But this is not the only instance where so great a change is effected by the removal of a comma. We sometime used a Bible of the American Bible Society print, which punctuated Matt. 19 : 27 as follows: “Ye which have followed me in the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory,” etc. We now use one of Oxford, England, print, which punctuates the same as follows:—“Ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory,” etc. They who affect such a horror of the supposed presumption of daring to change the punctuation in Luke 23 : 43, may profit by the fact that recently the American Bible Society have changed the punctuation of Matt. 19 : 27, to conform to the English method.
Likewise the former method, which is yet retained by some, in Heb. 10 : 12, is this; “But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins, forever sat down on the right hand of God.” The present method is; “But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down on the right hand of God.”
This will show that the punctuation of the Scriptures, which is entirely modern, is not regarded with so much reverence as interested writers on Luke 23 : 43 would fain make it appear. It proves, also, that there is no authority by which this question may be settled; but as knowledge of the Scriptures increases, the punctuation has been and is yet being changed accordingly.
The Substance of a Diligent Man
The substance of a diligent man is precious.
The Mistake of Col. Ingersoll.
By Editor
Col. Ingersoll of Illinois is just now the prince of infidel ranters. A genuine orator, ready of speech and language, with a species of rollicking boldness which makes him quite at home with the atheists of the “Great West,” he has become suddenly famous for his attacks on Christianity and the Bible. His efforts in New York were a failure,—a “lamentable failure” to himself and special friends, but, which caused the lovers of truth and justice to rejoice. He has neither depth nor consistency, and he found himself stranded when he got beyond his admirers on the prairies.
Recently he delivered a lecture entitled “The Mistakes of Moses.” In this, of course, he attempted to show by the errors of the Mosaic record that Moses was utterly unreliable. That lecture was reviewed, among others by Rabbi Isaac M. Wise, of Cincinnati, who very successfully punctured the bubble blown up by Col. Ingersoll. This review, which has been labeled “Mistakes of Col. Ingersoll,” was highly approved by all classes, both Protestant and Catholic. He conclusively proved as all agreed, the unreliability of Ingersoll as a critic, and his errors in dealing with matters of fact.
We call the effort itself “the mistake of Col. Ingersoll.” In bitter denunciation,—in the use of sarcastic, malignant, abusive language, and in misrepresenting the Bible, Christianity, and Christians—the Colonel is a brilliant success. But when he attempted to deal with statements of facts, and put himself upon a record where thought and reason could be brought to bear upon him, he proved a failure. Ribald jeers and coarse sarcastic jokes, generally the stock in trade of infidelity, cannot be easily met with reason and facts. But whenever infidelity attempts to deal with facts it is sure to be met successfully.
Voltaire had some excuse for his opposition to Christianity, in the dark and iniquitous form in which Christianity was presented to him by the papal church with which he came in contact. But his misrepresentations of the Bible are without excuse. They proceeded solely from a hatred of the things of God, growing out of the corruption of his own heart, which was manifested in the licentiousness of his life. And all opposition to the Bible is traceable to the same source.
Mission to Great Britain.
THE time had fully come to start a Mission in England to be extended throughout Great Britain. Elder Loughborough is doubtless in that field. We called for One Hundred Thousand Dollars for that mission to be paid in eight quarterly payments. The sum is not too large to meet the expenses of missionaries to England, Scotland, Ireland, Wales, Australia, and elsewhere in the Queen's dominions, and to establish a complete Publishing House.
But while our Publishing Houses at Oakland, Cal., Battle Creek, Mich., and Bale, Switzerland are embarrassed, no more should be established. When these shall be above want, and friends shall be raised up in Great Britain sufficient to support the publishing work without help from America, then our people here should rally to the work of planting a House of Publication in England.
And further, while there is so great need of relieving the cause in Oakland, Cal., our people on the Pacific Coast should consider their first duty to meet the wants of the cause at their head quarters, and the Mission to Great Britain second.
The General Conference sent Elder L. to England, and the Executive Committee of that body will see that the Mission is sustained. At present Elder L. will get his publications from Michigan, and patronize principally the California paper. The sales of publications and what he shall receive for the SIGNS and Review will sustain him.
When our Publishing Houses and the houses of worship at Battle Creek, and at Oakland shall be free from debt, then we will send Elder L. help to push the work in the countries aforementioned. Then it will be time to publish in Great Britain. The brethren at Battle Creek and Oakland should send no means abroad till their church debts shall be paid. To others who have pledged, we would say that we shall regard you good for the sums you have pledged, but extend the time one year that you may all help us lift those debts during the current year. As means may be needed for the Mission to Great Britain we shall call for help; but the time to raise the one hundred thousand dollars is extended to January 1, 1882. God will bless the cheerful and liberal giver.
GEN. CONF. COM.
Power of the Advent Doctrine.
It is often claimed that a belief in the near coming of the Lord would paralyze Christian effort, and check the missionary spirit in the churches. Really there is but little of the true missionary spirit in the churches, and it would be a pity to smother out that. We doubt whether those Christians who believe it is the duty and privilege of the church to convert the world, give as much toward accomplishing that object as they spend for tea, coffee, and tobacco. It would not amount to a tithe of what they spend for those fineries and superfluities which are directly forbidden in the word of God.
But it is not true that a belief in the advent doctrine is inimical to Christian effort. It can be shown that, according to their number and means, earnest believers in the near coming of Christ are doing more in the cause of missions than any other people.
At the late "Prophetic Conference," in New York city, the following resolution was introduced and adopted unanimously by a rising vote:—
"Resolved, That the doctrine of our Lord's Pre-millennial Advent, instead of paralyzing evangelistic and missionary efforts, is the mightiest incentive to earnestness in preaching the gospel to every creature, until He come."
Before the vote was taken, Dr. S. H. Kellogg, Professor of Theology in the Presbyterian Seminary, in Allegheny, Penn., made the following remarks, which we copy from the report of the N. Y. Tribune:
"I have felt, my friends, a very special interest in this resolution, first, for the reason that, spending, as I have, twelve years of my life on the foreign mission field, I have been both in a position to hear this wearisome objection oftener, perhaps, than most, and have also been happily in a position to appreciate the utter folly and worthlessness of it better than most; and I do not intend on this occasion to make any lengthy speech, but simply to take this rare opportunity to give my personal testimony to the truth of the statement embodied in the resolution. We hear this said constantly: 'If you don't look for the conversion of the world, then there is an end of the foreign missions.' One of the most venerable and beloved missionaries of the Church of God—his name well known in all the churches—said to me within a fortnight, with the tears in his eyes, in reference to this convention, that he dreaded the effect of it upon the foreign mission work. I told him it filled me with hope. Look at the early age of the Church, as you have heard it already. The one age of the Church in which that faith was absolutely universal was an age in which the zeal of the Church in spreading abroad the Gospel among the nations of the earth was such as has never been seen, even in the nineteenth century.
"In my own case personally, a change of view upon this subject, from the doctrine of the universal conversion of the world to the faith of the Advent of the Lord Jesus as the hope of the world, was one of the most effectual and immediate motives of the occasion of my deciding I could not afford to stay at home; that if the Lord were possibly at hand, I had better be about my Master's business. Woe to that servant who neglects his Lord's commission if that Lord be at hand.
"And let me go further. It has not always happened so, but there are many in the mission work who think differently from us on this matter, but in my own class in the Theological Seminary, where this doctrine was not taught, but the contrary, there were in all seven men who offered to go as foreign missionaries. They were every one of them Pre-Millennarians, and there was not a single other one in that class that so much as offered to go. They felt interest in the mission, but did not offer to go. I will not detain you longer, but simply express my very deep sympathy with this resolution and give utterance to the hope, which I trust may be heard in a somewhat wider circle than this assembly, that at last we may see the end of this old objection to the doctrine of the Advent of Christ as ever imminent on the ground that it paralyzes missionary effort. I say deliberately that the objection has no foundation, either in logic, in facts, or the experience of Christian life. I am sure that the resolution will pass unanimously.
"In response to an inquiry in regard to the Scotch and English missionaries, Mr. Kellogg added; 'I am not able, sir, to speak of the Scotch and English missionaries. Personally to some extent my recollection accords with yours. I can only say in regard to the mission of our church in India—the Presbyterian church—that a few years ago there I was curious to take a census of the Indian views upon this subject. I don't know how they stand at present, but I know at that time the Pre-Millennarians, as proportioned to the others, were about two to one, and I am happy to remark that two of those honored comrads of mine I have seen in this house to-day—missionary brethren, both Pre-Millennarians.'"
Tobacco and Whisky.
By Editor
THE following account of a very sad case we copy from the California Christian Advocate. Many complaints have been made against the Seventh-day Adventists because they have persistently refused to fellowship tobacco-using. Our course in this is being vindicated, and we hope that the lines will never cease to be closely drawn against this abomination. All the talk about restricting men in their liberty we heard years ago in the anti-whisky reform. It is time that professed Christians understand there is no Christian liberty to do wrong.
“Rev. Jas. Stephenson, a prominent preacher of Dayton, Ohio, has been accused of immorality and suspended from the ministry. He was charged with drunkenness; while under the influence of liquor he was guilty of other immoralities and improprieties. The committee by a unanimous vote found him guilty and suspended him. The conference will, doubtless, expel him from the ministry and from the church.
“He had long been addicted to the use of tobacco, and his nervous system had been deranged, hence his craving for stimulants. That tobacco was to a large extent the cause of his downfall there can be no doubt. It produces a degree of intoxication and excites a thirst for malt or distilled liquors, hence under certain conditions the temptation to drink is well-nigh irresistible. If men never learned to smoke and chew tobacco they would seldom, if ever, become intemperate. We never saw a drunkard who was not an inveterate smoker. The habit of using the vile narcotic always precedes liquor-drinking. If a man does not and will not touch tobacco we have little fear of his ever becoming an inebriate.
“Had the annual conference twenty or thirty years ago, as at present, received none who use tobacco in any form, Rev. James Stephenson would not have fallen, bringing ruin upon himself and reproach upon the church of Christ. Had he never narcotized his brain and nervous system he never would have been tempted to drink to intoxication.”
Letter and Spirit.
A BROTHER who has received a letter from a friend, in which it was claimed that we are not to keep the letter of the law, but only the spirit, requests us to notice this point. We can do no better than to quote from our "Review of Baird," as follows :—
The author starts out with a very broad fling against the letter of the law. This course is becoming popular with those who, whether wilfully or otherwise, "darken counsel by words without knowledge" on this important subject. That position is really calculated to destroy the authority of God's written word. To justify his statements he says, David "found the demands of nature an ample justification for violating the letter of the law." There is no such distinction as he covertly claims in these words. In eating the show-bread David violated the letter of the law ; but did he keep it in the spirit? did he keep it in any sense? Admitting that the letter of a law may be kept while the spirit of it is not, it is not therefore true that the spirit of a law can be kept while the letter is violated. The letter and spirit always agree. The spirit may reach farther than the letter, but never in an opposite direction. The spirit neither requires nor permits anything which the letter forbids. If it did, we could only render spiritual obedience to God by doing just the reverse of what his commandments say!
The true tendency of this popular argument against "the letter" is to licentiousness, or freedom from just restraint ; for when the letter is set aside, each one becomes the judge of what it is to obey in spirit, and revelation becomes a nullity. Its falsity may be exposed by examination of the position often assumed on Matt. 5 : 21-28. It is claimed on this text that the Saviour set aside the letter of the sixth and seventh commandments and substituted something more entirely spiritual in their places. This is far from the truth. He taught the spirituality of those precepts by affirming that, in the sight of God, he who hates his brother, or is angry with him, is guilty of violating one, and he who harbors lust in his heart is guilty of violating the other. The position of those who oppose the letter is just this : The Saviour taught that hatred is wrong, but he abolished the law which forbids murder ; and he taught that lust is wrong, but he abolished the law which forbids adultery ! and thus are we released from "the bondage of the letter." The unavoidable conclusion from this is, that in this dispensation of "gospel freedom" it is not wrong to kill your neighbor if you do not hate him ; and it is not wrong to commit adultery if you have no lustful desire ! We challenge any one to show that our conclusion is not just, from the premises of those who oppose the letter of the law.