Earlier text: The Mark of the BeastWe had decided, as announced in No. 17, to drop a subject which, we think from no fault, certainly from no wish, of ours, was fast degenerating into an unpleasant controversy. We refer to our discussion with Eld. Himes of the Voice of the West, in relation to "Holy time, or the Sabbath." But in the Voice of Oct. 25, ult., he has again brought up the subject in a manner that should not pass unnoticed. To refresh the mind of the reader, we must state again the circumstances from which the discussion arose. The Voice published what purported to be a true incident that two companies of missionaries took stations, the one on the Society Islands, the other on the Sandwich Islands, but passed to their stations in different directions, one company going west, the other east, so that in their reckoning of time they were one day apart, and the Sabbath with one company came one day earlier than with the other. The question was then asked which of those days was the Sabbath. This, bear in mind, was the point at issue. It was the gain and loss of time in going round the world; for one company by going west had lost half a day, and the other by going east had gained half a day, so that when they arrived at their respective Islands, one company was keeping one day as the Sabbath, and the other another, and the question was, how they were to tell which day was the right one. The question was aimed at us, and we took it up. But all we attempted to show was the utter inconsistency of Sunday-keepers' urging such an objection against Sabbath-keepers, from the fact that they keep just as definite a day as we do. They believe in keeping Sunday, the definite first day of the week, and no other. The missionaries referred to believed the same. But being one day apart they could not both have been keeping the definite first day of the week, which they and all Sunday-keepers believe in keeping. We therefore called upon Sunday-keepers, and Eld. Himes is one of them, to tell us which day those missionaries should have kept for the first day of the week; and we made the proposition that when they would tell us how the first day of the week could be kept under such circumstances, we would tell them how the seventh could be kept in a like case. On this point we nailed him to the wall, and he has never attempted a reply. But instead of replying he slips off on to the question whether the day should begin here at six o'clock or sunset, and from this question finds a pretext for a raid against sister White's visions—topics that have no more bearing upon the real point at issue, than would a discussion of the questions whether Canada is a cold country in winter, or Iowa a good state for watermelons. Perceiving that it would be useless to try to make him come to the point, or hold him to the question, we thought best to drop it: but he has brought it up again; and it has come up on this wise: Gilbert Cranmer, editor of the Hope of Israel, the paper noticed in No. 18, present volume, under a pompous insinuation that we had not answered Eld. Himes's question, and that it ought to be answered, &c., undertakes to reply himself. But in attempting to quote the incident above referred to in regard to the missionaries, he did not quote one single item correctly, and then he outraged all geography and astronomy by stating that one of the groups of islands referred to was in the eastern hemisphere, and the other in the western, so that the Sabbath would come to one, a day earlier than to the other; whereas every boy who has ever been in sight of a school-house ought to know that both groups are situated in the Pacific, the one south of the other, but on nearly the same line of longitude, so that the sun would rise and set at very nearly the same moment in both places; and that even if they were situated as he declares, there would not be a day's difference in time between the two places. Now, says Eld. H., I had thought to let this matter rest, but as I perceive that "the question at issue is not fairly understood," I take it up again. He then commences with the "Review," taking up a remark in our last article on this subject, then states that the subject is not fairly understood, &c., and to show what the misunderstanding is, quotes the ridiculous statements given above from the Hope, then goes on with "Br. Smith." Now what can his readers infer? Nothing more nor less than that the miserable mistakes set forth in the Hope, constitute our position. But Eld. H. knows that such is not our position, or at least that we have never based any of our arguments on any such premises. And if he took up his pen to correct the misunderstanding of the Hope, why does he not confine himself to that paper, instead of associating us therewith. In the name of all that is just, and fair, and honorable, we protest against being thus mixed up with that sheet, and made ridiculous before the public by being saddled with its stupidity and ignorance. We do not say that any of this is intentional on the part of Eld. H. He is very sensitive over his motives. They must not be impeached. Granted then that in all his motives he is as pure as an angel. But the moment we do this, it becomes a matter of astonishment that so many misrepresentations should have been so innocently and unconsciously made. And now that the subject is up, we will notice a point or two more. He says: And at these two places, having the same longitude two different days are kept as the (Christian) Sabbath; and still each one is keeping the seventh day, (in rotation) to them. The missionaries who went from England kept one day in seven faithfully; those from New York did the same, and now each is keeping the seventh day (in rotation) "as it comes to them," and yet their Sabbaths are an entire day apart. It is well admitted in the above that it was the (Christian) Sabbath that was kept by those missionaries. There is doubtless but one Christian Sabbath. Eld. H. says that he keeps the "Lord's day, the Christian Sabbath." There can be of course but one Lord's day in every week. Now will he tell us which one of those two days that were kept by the missionaries, as the Christian Sabbath was the right one? We trust he will get around by and by where he will see that the burden of proof, and the laboring oar on this question justly belongs to him. What if they did keep the seventh day in rotation? It would be difficult to keep any day of the week and not have it the seventh in rotation. But any day of the week is not the seventh enjoined in the commandment, neither is any day of the week the "Christian Sabbath." The question remains still open then for him to tell us which of those days was the true Christian Sabbath. The law given by God to the Jews, that sunset should mark the beginning of the Sabbath, if applied universally (and strictly carried out,) would cause endless confusion, even on the same lines of longitude, all of which would be avoided if six o'clock, or any other specific hour were the point of commencement. To which we reply that "all of which" would not be avoided, and none of which would be avoided by six o'clock or any other specific hour. Isn't it just as easy to tell when sunset of any day comes, as it is to tell when six o'clock of that day comes? Of course. But it so happens that twice in the year six o'clock is sunset. So twice in the year, the best way we can fix it, we must be subject to "endless confusion!" As to the confusion, all we can say is, that God certainly gave to Adam and through him to all his posterity, as they should spread all over the earth, the institution of the Sabbath; and he has nowhere given us any other point at which to commence that Sabbath, but the setting of the sun. Now we would rather not charge God with giving to his creatures an institution over which they would be involved in "endless confusion." We would much prefer to take our stand with the apostle, when he declares that "God is not the author of confusion." In relation to charging us with regarding the word of God as an insufficient rule of faith and duty, he says that the language upon which he based that charge was this: That some were decided by the vision who otherwise might not have been, we do not deny. And herein is seen one of the objects and blessings of this gift. Harmony now reigns where there might have been discord and division. But we ask how this sets aside the word of God or represents it as insufficient. To what did the vision lead the persons referred to? To the word of God; to take a position which was found to be clearly laid down and sustained by that word. In our former article we asked Eld. H. if he believed in the Spirit of God at all. He replies that he does, and that it is given to lead us into all truth. Now we inquire, when the Spirit of God leads a person into the truth, does it not lead him to the word? Is he not influenced by it to renounce some wrong position which he has taken, or prevented from coming to some erroneous conclusion, and led to that which the word of God teaches? This is just what we claim that the vision did on the occasion referred to, and contend that this is one of the objects of that gift. Do we therefore by believing that the Spirit of God operated in this way through vision, one of its divinely ordained methods, make out the word of God to be an insufficient rule, any more than Eld. H. who believes that the Spirit accomplishes exactly the same results, only in a different manner? Not a particle; and every one can see it, except such as are exceedingly anxious not to see. Then how does he twist himself out of this dilemma? He attempts it in the following language: We believe the word so perfect that we may try even the Holy Spirit by it; but we do not know of any injunction to try the Word by the Spirit, or spirits, or even visions. Marvelous to tell. Who has said anything about trying the word of God by a vision? Who has done any such thing? Have we? Let him produce the instance, or retract his unjust insinuation. On one other point only we quote from the Voice. In relation to our claim that no command can be found in the New Testament forbidding the worship of graven images, Eld. H. says: Br. S. says, the worship of images is not forbidden by the gospel. We might meet this by quoting Rom. i. Paul says that the facts of creation are sufficient to condemn idolatry. But Jesus said to the woman of Samaria, 'All true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth.' This cuts off idolatry, and all other false worship. He might attempt to meet it by quoting Rom. i; but he could not meet it thus, for neither Rom. i, nor the words of Christ to the woman meet it. We did not say that the New Testament does not forbid idolatry. It says, "Flee from idolatry," and then it defines covetousness to be idolatry. We are speaking of the worship of images. And while Rom. i, declares that the works of creation so far reveal the eternal power and Godhead of the Creator, that none could have an excuse for considering any image either in the likeness of men, birds, four-footed beasts or creeping things, as the eternal God, yet nothing is said about worshiping him through symbols of any kind, much less is there any prohibition of such worship. So on John iv, 24, the worshiper of images might respond. "True we should worship the great God in spirit and truth; but we can worship our images also." Eld. H.'s construction of this language would prohibit our worshiping the Saviour, whom all the angels of God (and how much more human beings) have been commanded to adore. We repeat it then that in the New Testament, or what some are pleased to call the law of the gospel, or the law of the New Testament, and what Eld. Preble denominates a "new code of laws, praise God! worth having!" no prohibition of image worship can be found. Nor is it necessary that it should be. The Gospel is not the law book for mankind. We fall back upon that still living, still immutable and glorious royal law, which God wrote with his own finger on tables of stone, and read in plain terms, "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image." With this we shut the mouths both of Heathen idolaters, and Christian cavilers. He that lives in sin without repentance shall die in sin without forgiveness. Christ Rejoices Over the Mourning
Christ Jesus rejoices over those as blessed who mourn over themselves as cursed. Elder Himes has declared that he does "not belong to the no-Sabbath party;" yet in the Voice of the West, of Oct. 25, 1864, he speaks thus in relation to the Sabbatic institution: "There was no Sabbath to man before the flood, and none after, in the Patriarchal age, including a period of more than 2500 years. The first account we have of its enjoinment is in Ex. xvi, 1. On the fifteenth day of the second month, b. c. 1611, the Israelites traveled all day, from Elim, to the wilderness of Sin. The next day the manna fell about the camp. And on the sixth day they gathered twice as much as on either of the preceding five days, because the morrow was the Sabbath; which would be the twenty-second day of the second month. So that the day of their entrance into the wilderness, on the fifteenth of the second month, must have been a Sabbath, if the Sabbath had been instituted before this for man to keep holy. And yet on this very day, the people traveled all day by the command of God, and in violation of the law of the Sabbath afterward instituted through Moses. The fair and unavoidable conclusion is, that up to this time there was no special day assigned to, or enjoin upon, man to be kept as holy time." In a subsequent paragraph he says: "It will be seen that the fifteenth day, on which the Israelites came into the wilderness would have been a Sabbath, if there had been any before the twenty-second of this month. And if so, God could not have directed his people to violate it by a day's journey! The Seventh-day Sabbath then began here, and was a Jewish institution, and a type, or shadow of good things to come, as Paul declares in Col. ii, 16, 17." Let us try this argument by another circumstance that happened not long after that time and see how it will stand the test. On their entrance into the promised land, the children of Israel were commanded to march around Jericho seven days in succession. One of these days must have been the Sabbath, "if the Sabbath had been instituted before this for man to keep holy!" And yet on one of these days which must have been the Sabbath, the people by the command of God, all marched around Jericho, in violation of the Sabbath law given through Moses. "The fair and unavoidable (?) conclusion is, that up to this time there was no special day assigned to, or enjoin upon, man to be kept as holy time." There! how does that sound, considering that this was forty years subsequent to the time when the earth itself had quaked under the utterance of the great Sabbath law, by the voice of God from the mountain of Sinai? Applying his second paragraph to the events around Jericho, we have this conclusion: If one of those days had been the Sabbath, "God could not have directed his people to violate it by" marching around Jericho!! But how do we know that it was the Sabbath, if it was then in existence, on which the children of Israel traveled from Elim to the wilderness? Eld. H. concludes it was because the next day the manna fell, and on the sixth day they gathered twice as much, &c. The sixth day from what? The fall of the manna! The record does not say so. This is one of those assumptions which inhere in every argument devised against the Sabbath. We say it is the sixth day of the week, without any reference to the fall of the manna. The record says nothing about "the preceding five days." But if the Sabbath was here instituted, as he claims, let him show it. There is no record of any institution here, no facts are given upon which it is based, the meaning and intent of the institution are not expressed, nor is there any reason assigned why it should be observed. We might as well look in the first chapter of Chronicles for the institution of the Lord's supper, as in the sixteenth of Exodus for the institution of the Sabbath. A fitting conclusion to such arguments as these is found in the declaration that "the seventh-day Sabbath" was "a Jewish institution, and a type or shadow of good things to come, as Paul declares in Col. ii, 16, 17." But Paul declares in that Scripture that the handwriting of ordinances containing all these types and shadows, has been blotted out and nailed to the cross. And if the Sabbath is or was among them, that too has been abolished; and there is now no Sabbath; for nothing has been instituted in this dispensation to take its place. Such an institution, under any divine sanction, cannot be found. Hence Eld. H., in spite of his declaration to the contrary is a no-Sabbath man after all. Yet with a strange inconsistency he tells where he was such and such a "Sabbath," and what he designs to do on such and such a "Sabbath." But he declares that he keeps the "Christian Sabbath" or "Lord's day," meaning the first day of the week. Let him show the warrant for applying either of these titles to the first day of the week, or for observing that day as a day of rest and religious worship. We have often wondered how men felt, keeping a divine institution which was never instituted, applying to it Bible terms which the Bible never uses, obeying a law which was never enacted, and following apostolic example which was never given! And all this under the impression that they are obeying the teachings of the Holy Scriptures, and doing God service. Truly the wine of the mother of harlots is all-potent in beclouding men's reason, and shutting their eyes to the light of truth. “The Combat Deepens.”
By Editor
THE reader will remember the announcement which we gave from Eld. Preble, in No. 11, present volume, of his intention to review both sides on the Sabbath Question. It appears now that he intends to enlarge the field of his operations and review Bro. Andrews' History of the Sabbath in the same work. He gives notice of his forthcoming new work on the Sabbath, in the Voice of the West, as follows: “THE NEW WORK ON THE SABBATH.”
“Be patient friends, and not press too hard. Your letters have been duly received, but the work is not completed; but with the favor of God, as in the past, it will not be long before it will be published. The review of 'Both Sides' is nearly completed; and I am now engaged in reviewing J. N. Andrews' History (?) of the Sabbath. To those who are almost impatient to see the work, I will just say, that, whereas there are more than one hundred authors referred to by Andrews—outside of the Bible—it is no small task to look them over. And in fact it will not be necessary to examine them all; but the more important will claim our attention, and of course it will take time. And none, I presume, would be satisfied to have the work imperfectly done. I think it will pay to have the work thorough this time, so as to clear up, at least a part of the errors and misrepresentations which are now before the public. But while we are willing to wait a short time longer, it will give others, who are disposed to say—'Preble is used up'—a little more time to rejoice—and I say, Let them rejoice if they will. “Those who wait, will find there is another side to this question from that which emanated from 'Battle Creek!' By misrepresentation and lying, the Judaizers of old, thought, no doubt, that Christ was 'used up,' when they saw him on the cross,—and also when they reported that his disciples 'stole him away' from the tomb while the 'watch' were 'asleep!' But to the praise of God we can say, that Christ and his gospel are not quite 'used up' yet! For the 'Living Jesus' has many friends still; while his enemies are scattered to the four winds! “If I may be allowed to judge in this case, the friends of the Christian Sabbath will be satisfied to wait. The review of 'Both Sides,' and also that of Andrews' History of the Sabbath,' added to what I have previously published, will necessarily increase the size of the work beyond what was at first anticipated. And one great reason of so long delay before the work can be completed for the press, is the effort to bring such a vast amount of matter as is involved in this question, into such space, as not to swell the work so as to make it too expensive for the publisher, and for the buyer. “It will probably make a book containing some 300 pages or more. “The other works which I intend to publish, as announced not long since through the columns of the Voice, will be delayed till after the issue of the work on the Sabbath. Due notice will be given when these works are ready. “I am sure the Lord is blessing this humble effort to bring out the truth, in answer to the prayers of many. Pray on brethren. May the Lord speed the right.” We are glad Eld. P. has got hold of the History of the Sabbath for two reasons: 1. Because no man, whatever his position, his prepossessions, or his prejudices, can read it without profit; and 2. Because we have been anxious to see what an opponent could say in reply to that work. We are waiting as patiently as possible for the curiosity. It is to be a book, says the announcement, of some 300 pages or more. Let us see what it is to contain. 1. His own articles on the Sabbath revised. 2. A review of Both Sides. 3. A review of the History of the Sabbath. But Both Sides contains 224 pages, and the History of the Sabbath 340, making an aggregate of 564 pages. A review of this amount of matter, together with the revised edition of his own articles, he designs to get into some 300 pages. The reader can judge from this how fully or how fairly these works will be treated in the forthcoming review. The way to forestall this effort is to give these works a thorough circulation. Brethren in New England, has every Adventist within your knowledge a copy of the History of the Sabbath? If not place one in their hands and put them under oath to carefully study it. Let the people become familiar with its contents. Then men may review it to their hearts' content. And though for a while they may be able, like the rat that gnawed the file, to congratulate themselves on the amount of chips they are making, like him they will find at last that they have only been using up their own teeth. All the Bible, all history, and all Heaven, are on the side of the Sabbath. We have nothing to do but to court investigation. The couplet from which we borrow our heading reads, “The combat deepens, on ye brave, who rush to glory or the grave.” This all applies to our subject except the grave. There is no grave in the path of the Sabbath. Its road is paved with emeralds and diamonds from this on to the gates of the heavenly city, through which all who keep the commandments of God, will by and by enter. "Materialism."
By R. F. Cottrell
Under this heading, the Sabbath Recorder, the organ of the S. D. Baptists, recently published an essay, prepared by D. E. Maxson, which, from the following expression of his, I conclude was not intended for that class of infidels generally called Materialists, but for the especial benefit of Sabbath-keeping Adventists, or for those who are in danger of becoming such. Of what he is pleased to call materialism, he says, "It is at the basis, the very corner-stone, of the creed of a whole denomination of Christians rapidly growing up in this country; and for palpable reasons, growing more rapidly here in the West than elsewhere, and seeking by certain affinities to link themselves with Seventh-day Baptists." From this I think he refers to S. D. Adventists; and yet in quoting authors on our side of the question, in order to make a show of fairness by giving our own words, not a word is taken from any writer of our denomination. But certain ones are quoted, some of whom seem to be wise above that which is written; and then, from such expressions of theirs as these: "Man is entirely dependent upon his (physical) organization for all his thoughts," and198 the "mind" is an "attribute of living organized dust," he seems to infer a proposition which none of these writers affirm, viz: "All mental phenomena are the result of organization." He then proceeds to combat this creature of his own creation in the following masterly style. "Let us pursue this wonderful method of thought-producing into its laboratory, and see if we can catch a glimpse of the process by which thought is produced. Here, then, is a human bone to be organized. It has carbonate of lime, phosphorate of lime, gelatine, &c., in its constitution. In the carbonate of lime are three simple elements, carbon, oxygen, and calcium. To produce the lime, the oxygen and calcium must unite; this they do by the strong affinity of the one for the other. This is organization—that process which originates all mental phenomena, according to the hypothesis under consideration. Now look out for a thought! Perhaps the immortal Iliad will come forth, for a particle of oxygen is going to unite with one of calcium to make a bone. The wonderful union is consummated, and lime is organized. Did you see the thought that was produced? Did you see the lime think? There was organization, and 'all mental phenomena are consequent upon organization,' says the Materialist." The Materialist says so, for aught I know, but I have had no acquaintance or connection with him. And I venture the assertion that no professed Christian can be found, who holds that the "process" of organization "originates all mental phenomena," or ever produced one thought. Did not our essayist know that he was beating not so much as the air, but a phantom of his own imagination? And yet he represents that a denomination of "Christians" held such views; and one might infer that he thought his own denomination badly infected with such ideas; for he says, "A gross materialism is sapping the foundation of our spiritual life, and shivering down the soul of man to its own earth-born nature." Now, Bible Christians believe that the first man of our race was perfectly and completely organized, his brain as well as the rest, and yet that he had not a thought till the will and life-giving power of his Creator made him a living soul. The faith of such does not stand in the wisdom of men, nor in the workings of natural affinities of dead matter, but in the power of God. Our creed says, "God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Living souls are capable of thought; though not always the best. But our creed further says of man, "His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish." Our essayist made but the slightest allusion to this creed; his argument was altogether what is termed philosophical. I will notice one of his chief arguments, and conclude my remarks. I call it his principal argument, because he seems to think it the most important, having put it in the form of a syllogism "for the benefit of any who may wish to combat it." He says, - Substances, all of whose phenomena are different, are themselves different;
- The phenomena of matter and mind are different;
- Therefore matter and mind are different.
"Whatever, then, matter is, mind is something else, or not matter. "Now, since the major premise is based on a law fundamental in all philosophy, if the reasoning be faulty, it must be in the minor premise. Are the phenomena of matter and mind different, then? If you affirm that they are alike, then you and I will go to the laboratory and test their qualities. I will take an apple, and you shall take a thought. If the apple and the thought are alike, i. e., if they are both matter, then the same test will apply to both; they will have the same qualities. Now begin. I hold the apple up between my thumb and finger. Now you hold your thought up between your thumb and finger. I press the apple, and find it hard. Be so by the thought. I see the apple; it is red and round. What color and shape is your thought? I bite the apple; it is sour. How does your thought taste? Smell of it; is it fragrant? Now I let go the apple, and it falls to the floor; it is heavy. Now let go your thought; is it heavy? O, Materialist, your materialism is heavy. It will fall, whether you let go or not. "We have now tested the truth of my minor premise. Thought is a phenomenon of the mind. Color, form, &c., are phenomena of matter, and they are as unlike as things can possibly be; and therefore mind and matter are as unlike as they can be; and therefore materialism, which affirms that mind is matter, is as untrue as it can be. "That part of man, then, which thinks, and feels, and wills, not being matter, is consequently neither dependent upon matter for existence, nor subject to any of the laws which govern matter. Physical dissolution, then, of the body, can affect only the body, having no effect whatever upon the mind, in respect of its essential essence or qualities. What it was before the death of the body, it must remain after that event—essentially a thinking, willing, and feeling entity." A vastly large conclusion to draw from so small premises. My pony's thoughts are different from his body; they do not present the same phenomena. And sometimes when he comes to cross-roads, he chooses and wills to take the road that he thinks leads toward home. Yet I never thought of inferring such astonishingly large conclusions from these facts. Our friends of the opposite side of the question always forget to take the thoughts of the inferior animals into the laboratory for a test and comparison with human thoughts. We, as a people, cannot answer for others, but our materialism never "affirms that mind is matter;" and we doubt very much the propriety of packing us in the same box with infidels, and then condemning the lot. But to discover the fallacy of my friend's reasoning. I inquire, Do thoughts think? I remember of reading in the old spelling-book, "Thinkers think thoughts." Thinkers and thoughts are two things. Take a thinker then to the laboratory, i. e., one who thinks, and you will find him possessed of as many palpable qualities as your apple. Is it the mind that thinks? But what is a man's mind but his thoughts? My friend speaks correctly. He speaks of "matter and mind," and then as a specimen or sample of each, he takes an apple and a thought. But, says my friend, "Thought is a phenomenon of the mind. Color, form, &c., are phenomena of matter." Then we have not had a fair test, and we must go again to the laboratory. As I have only a thought, a phenomenon of something that has no appearance, you shall leave your apple behind, and take only some of its phenomena—its color or form, its sourness, its hardness or its heaviness. Now hold up your shape of an apple between your thumb and finger. Press it; is it hard? Look at it, taste it, smell it, weigh it. What is the difference between it and a thought? If you are dissatisfied with this test, and must have your apple, I will take a man, one of whose attributes is mind, or thought, and then we will have a fair test. We shall find that living matter is decidedly in advance of dead matter in its qualities and capabilities. "A living dog is better than a dead lion." We have no controversy with our friends of the opposition in respect to there being a difference between mind, or thoughts, and matter. We do not claim that mind is matter; and those who would fairly oppose our views should cease to misrepresent us. The connection between matter and mind is a mystery, which neither our friends nor ourselves are able to explain. Neither do we know how matter can be endowed with animal life. But we know that life is connected with material organizations, and that matter thus endowed is vastly superior, in its susceptibilities, to dead matter. This our friends seem entirely to forget. Their philosophic reasonings concerning matter, all relate to dead matter. Dead brains cannot think. So they come to the conclusion that immaterial thought can have no connection with matter, but must be the product of an immaterial soul, which comes in between the mind and matter, and does the thinking; making a chain of two immaterial links and one material. They are not aware that it is just as difficult to connect this middle link—this immaterial soul with matter, as it is to connect immaterial thoughts with the same; and yet they hold that this soul is connected with matter, and they have never been able to discover one that was not, although they claim to have just such a soul themselves. They leave out of the controversy the wisdom and power of God, which can as easily connect immaterial thoughts, as an immaterial soul, with matter, and pursue a course of reasoning which, if valid, would make it just as necessary for horses and dogs to have immaterial souls to connect their immaterial intelligence with their material bodies; and if immateriality is a proof of immortality, man, who boasts of his immortality, is, in this respect, no better than the brute. The world by wisdom does not yet know God. All that we know of the mysterious connection between mind and matter, or concerning a future life, is what he has seen fit to reveal to us in his word. And since our wisdom or folly cannot improve this revelation, we shall do better to accept of it as it is. That word tells us plainly that man who was made of dust, on receiving the breath of life, became a living soul. Of the immaterial, immortal soul it says nothing. On the contrary, it calls man mortal, with no part excepted, but promises him a future life by means of a resurrection of the dead, and immortality on condition of his seeking for it in the way of faith and obedience. Our philosophic friends may imagine that they aid the belief in a future life through the resurrection, by proving that man is immortal independent of it; but the effect of their reasoning must be to weaken faith in it, by making it appear that there is no need of it—that man is immortal without it, and can feast his "immortal mind" on all the joys of Paradise, should his corruptible "clay tenement" never be brought up from the dust. And it is having this effect. Thousands upon thousands are coming to deny the resurrection and reject revelation, as the legitimate fruit of their faith in the natural immortality of man. Did our Christian friends realize the real tendency of their efforts in behalf of natural immortality, they would drop their vain philosophy, and maintain the faith of a future life through the resurrection of the dead, instead of asserting that there can be no resurrection of an individual, if he is really and wholly dead. Why should it be thought a thing incredible with them that God should raise the dead? But they virtually deny his power to endow animated matter with thought, and positively declare that he cannot raise the dead, if consciousness has ceased, and all this in the face of innumerable facts of the cessation of consciousness, while the person was living. But while we mourn over the fact that our friends are unwittingly aiding the cause of Spiritualism, the present, and most popular form of infidelity, and therefore the most dangerous; they, in turn, feel deeply over our supposed tendency to ancient, materialistic, Epicurean, infidelity, a thing that has had its day and run its race, is unpopular, and is now discarded even by Satan himself; he having discovered a more plausible form of deception for this age, suited to the prevailing philosophy. Who are in danger of being deceived? Where lies the truth? Not in human philosophy or wisdom, either ancient or modern, but in the word of God. May Heaven aid the honest inquirer to lay aside human wisdom, and receive that word in its native simplicity, harmony, and beauty, and thus escape the subtle snare, which Satan has been so long weaving for this last generation. Queries.
By John Nevins Andrews
It is written, Ps. cxlv, 20, "The Lord PRESERVETH all them that love him: but all the wicked will be DE-STROY." If the wicked exist as long as the righteous is there any propriety in the foregoing statement? It is written, Rev. iv, 11, "Thou art worthy O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power; for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are, and were created." Does not this language imply that all created beings exist for the pleasure of the Creator in rendering to him glory and honor? And hence does it not imply that those who are sinful beings when their probation closes mnst be destroyed and cease to exist, because they have forfeited the only condition on which existence is granted? It is written, Rev. v, 13, "And every creature which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth, and such as are in the sea and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing and honor and glory and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne and unto the Lamb forever and ever." Does not this language show that the time will come when not a wicked being shall exist in the universe? If the Judge of all the earth should preserve his people by giving them eternal life, and destroy his enemies with the second death, would not the result be a universe of holy beings? Without it, no man or woman is ever worth a button, nor ever can be. Without it, a man becomes at once a good-natured nobody, the poverty-stricken possessor of but one solitary principle, that of obliging everybody under the sun merely for the asking. He is like the judge who uniformly decided according to the views of the closing speech. Having no mind of his own, a man is a mere cipher in society, without weight of character, and utterly destitute of influence. Such a one can never command the respect, or even the esteem of men around him. All that he can command is a kind of patronizing pity. The man to be admired, respected, feared, and who will carry multitudes with him whether right or wrong, is he who plants his foot upon a spot, and it remains there in spite of storm, or tempest, or tornado; the very rage of an infuriated mob but gives new inspiration to his199 stability of purpose, and makes him see that he is so much the more a man. “Then they that feared the Lord, spake often one to another.” This department of the paper is designed for the brethren and sisters to freely and fully communicate with each other respecting their hopes and determinations, conflicts and victories, attainments and desires, in the heavenly journey. Seek first a living experience and then record it, carefully and prayerfully, for the comfort and encouragement of the other members of the household of faith. BRO. WHITE: We continue our meetings yet. The interest is increasing. Our congregations have been larger this week than before. Prejudice has now turned in our favor. A Methodist spoke on the Sabbath question yesterday, and his own members ridiculed his arguments for the Sunday Sabbath. We had a meeting last Sabbath and a few decided to keep all the commandments. We have given thirty-one lectures, and now we think that the work is just begun. People cannot decide on these things in a short time. So we shall stay till our work is fully done if it is three months. Pray for us.