Earlier text: LOST TIMEPETER was in prison. Herod meant to kill him after the Passover. But the Christian friends of Peter did not forget him. “Ceaseless prayer” was offered up for his deliverance. A special prayer-meeting was held at the house of Mary Mark for that purpose. It was a solemn time. James was dead; his blood even then reddened the ground. Was Peter to die too? His precious life hung in the balance. Unless God stepped beyond the operation of natural law to interfere in his behalf, his useful years must end. They believed God could do it. They had not yet learned that God was a slave to the laws himself hath made, and could not suspend their operation, or go beyond it for man’s good, and in answer to prayer. It was left for the unbelief of a succeeding age to shut God up in a net-work of law, from which he could not escape. They asked God, in the simplicity of their faith, to deliver Peter from jail; and God did it. While they were praying and believing, there was a knock at the door. Rhoda, a young girl who was there with them praying, tripped softly to the door, and asked, “Who is there?” “It is I—Peter.” Immediately her soul overflowed with joy. “Glory to God! He has heard our prayers; Peter is free!” She didn’t even think to open the door, but ran back crying to the others, “Peter is free; he is out of jail!” Did they rejoice, praising God, too? No; they would not believe her word, but said, “Thou art mad!” Strange relapse into unbelief! Had been praying in faith for this very thing, and now when their prayer was answered in full, and one of their number reported Peter standing at the outer gate, free and well, they swung back into unbelief, and said it could not be. How natural is unbelief! Thus you, young convert, when under conviction of sin, prayed God to forgive you, and convert your soul. It was done. You were filled with the light of the morning. Joy, like a flood, poured in upon your soul, and testified of God’s grace. But in a little while, the tempter suggested that it was a delusion, and you said, “Oh, I am afraid that I was mistaken!” You relapsed again into unbelief. Mother, your child was sick. The crisis came; you knelt by the bedside; how you prayed God to raise your child; it was done. Next morning, when the physician came, he said the child was better, and would recover. Did you praise God for it? No; you hardly remembered that you had prayed to him in behalf of your child. You praised the physician, recommended him to all your acquaintances, but said nothing about the Great Physician, to whom you had applied in your trouble; you suffered a relapse of faith. Or, you were sick yourself. The tide of life ran far down. Physicians gave you up. Some dear friend knelt at your side as knelt Luther at the side of the sick Melancthon, and wrestled with God for you. You felt in your soul that his prayer saved you. But as you got better, you became ashamed of that impression, and spoke not of it, lest some one should consider you a fanatic; for that kind of faith is not fashionable in the churches. You relapsed into unbelief. Or, you were in a financial strait; your note in bank was maturing. You had asked for help all around among your friends. No help was found; ruin stared you full in the face. You got down on your knees, and asked God to help you in some way; and, in a most unlooked-for way, the help came, and you were out of jail. But did you glorify God for deliverance? No; you almost forgot that you had prayed, or, if you remembered it, perhaps you were ready to think your deliverance as much due to your own perseverance and skill, and to luck, as to any interference on the part of God. So you yielded to unbelief.—Methodist Home Journal. “AFTER the joys of earth,
What then?
After its songs of mirth,
What then?
After its hours of sight,
After its dream so bright,
What then? What then?” “Only an empty name,
Only a weary frame,
Only a conscious smart,
Only an aching heart.
Only a sad farewell,
To a world loved so well,
Only a silent bed,
With the unnumbered dead. “But, after this sad farewell
To a world loved so well,
What then?
After this silent bed
With the unnumbered dead,
What then? What then?” Shall we not all consider this subject, and answer, as in the light of eternity, this question, Whither, O my soul, art thou tending? to glory and immortality through Christ? or to destruction and everlasting banishment from his presence? Jehovah's Swift Wings.
By T. De Witt Talmage
THE Arabian gazelle is swift as the wind. If it get but one glimpse of the hunter, it puts many crags between. Solomon, four or five times, compares Christ to an Arabian gazelle (calling it by another name) when he says: “My beloved is like a roe.” The difference is, that the roe speeds the other way; Jesus speeds this. Who but Christ could have been quick enough to help Peter, when the water-pavement broke? Who but Christ could have been quick enough to help the Duke of Argyle, when, in his dying moment, he cried: “Good cheer! I could die like a Roman, but I mean to die like a Christian. Come away, gentleman. He who goes first goes cleanest”! I had a friend who stood by the rail-track at Carlisle, Penn., when the ammunition had given out at Antietam; and he saw the train from Harrisburg, freighted with shot and shell, as it went thundering down toward the battle-field. He said that it stopped not for any crossing. They put down the brakes for no grade. They held up for no peril. The wheels were on fire with the speed as they dashed past. If the train did not come up in time with the ammunition, it might as well not come at all. So, my friends, there are times in our lives when we must have help immediately or perish. The grace that comes too late is no grace at all. What you and I want is a God—now. Oh! is it not blessed to think that God is always in such quick pursuit of his dear children? When a sinner seeks pardon, or a baffled soul needs help, swifter than thrush’s wing, swifter than swallow’s wing, swifter than ptarmigan’s wing, swifter than flamingo’s wing, swifter than eagle’s wing, are the wings of the Almighty.—Rev. T. De Witt Talmage. Three Reasons for Reading the Bible.
A ROMISH priest, who found one of his flock getting very familiar with the Bible, and fearing the result, tried to persuade him to turn his attention more to “the fathers.” “And who are the fathers?” he inquired. “Those good men,” said the priest, “who lived near the times of the apostles and, who are said to have best understood what the apostles meant.” “Well,” said the man “as they lived after the apostles, I shall prefer attending to the apostles themselves; I think the GRANDfathers are better guides than the fathers.” and so he continued reading, and found the entrance of God’s word gave him light and life. Another priest, wishing to induce a man to give up his Bible-reading, argued thus: “Suppose, now, you were going to Dublin, and came to that spot where four crossroads meet, and you did not know the way, and one person told you to go to the right, and a great number told you to go to the left, to whom would you listen? In other words would you mind what Luther, a single heretic, says, or what the pope, the cardinals, and all the other doctors of the Catholic church teach you?” “Well,” replied the man, “if I had a road-book I should not mind what any of them said. Now [producing his Bible] I have here a road-book to Heaven, and, God helping me, I mean to follow it in spite of all that popes and cardinals may say.” “What warrant have you to read the Bible?” said another priest to a poor Irish lad. “The best of all warrants,” shrewdly replied the boy, “namely, a search-warrant; see, here it is, John 5: 39: ‘Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life; and they are they which testify of me.’” “Is not He whose right it is to reign preparing his people for some great crisis which is to precede his coming to claim the kingdoms of this world? So we are disposed to think. The signs of the times are portentous. Let us, beloved, keep our lamps trimmed and brightly burning—looking for, and hastening unto, the coming of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ. Jesus, our absent Lord, has told us that he would come again. He has been away nearly two thousand years. Nearly six thousand years has he stood forth before a fallen, redeemed race, as the Lamb newly slain. The Jubilee of Heaven and earth—the grand Sabbatic year—is about to break upon us. By the foreshowings of Scripture, we seem to see that there will be a short, sharp conflict with the man of sin. But though we may be called to pass through seas of blood, it will but quicken our heart-longing cry, ‘Come Lord Jesus, come quickly!’”—Guide to Holiness. Waiting for Christ’s Coming.
“We have waited for Him, and he will save us.” “BLESSED are they that wait for him; blessed are they who watch and pray and deny themselves; blessed are they who make their whole life an advent, a season of preparation for Christ’s coming, that they may be always ready, at midnight or at cock-crowing; for we are not going to abide forever in this house of pilgrimage. The whirl of earthly life is not going on forever; the buying and selling, the losing and gaining, the marrying and giving in marriage, will soon be over. ‘The night is far spent, the day is at hand.’ Shall that day break upon us unawares while we are troubled about many things? If it thus comes, we shall look on God only to be condemned.” “Great Judge, to thee our prayers we pour,
In deep abasement bending.” WITH these words Solomon introduces, in Eccl. 3:21, a very important question respecting the spirit of man. He says, “Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?” Deeming this a good foundation, the advocates of natural immortality proceed to build thereon. They take it to be, first, a positive declaration that the spirit of man does go up, and the spirit of the beast downward to the earth. Then the superstructure is easily erected. Thus, Solomon must have believed that man had a spirit capable of a separate and conscious existence in death; and this spirit, in the hour of dissolution, ascends up on high, and goes into the presence of God. It therefore survives the stroke of death, and is consequently immortal. Here they rest their argument; but we would like to have them proceed; for the text speaks of the spirit of the beast, which must also be disposed of. If the spirit of man, because it separates from him and goes up, is conscious, is not the spirit of the beast, because it separates from it, and goes down, conscious also? There is nothing in the man’s spirit going up which can by any means show it to be conscious, any more than there is in the spirit of the beast going down, to show it to be conscious. But if the spirit of the beast survives the stroke of death, it has just as much immortality as that of man. This line of argument, therefore, proves too much and must be abandoned. But is not the word spirit as applied to the beast a different word in the original from the one translated spirit and applied to man? No; they are both from the same original word; and that word is ruach, the word from which spirit is translated in the Old Testament in every instance with two exceptions. The beast has the same spirit that man has. Landis (p. 146) feels the force of the stunning blow which this fact gives to the popular view, and endeavors to parry its force by the following desperate resort: He says that Solomon is here describing the state of doubt and perplexity through which he had formerly passed; and, to use Mr. L’s own words, “in this perplexity he attributes to both man and beast a ruach.” But he says that Solomon got over this state of doubt and uncertainty, and “never again attributed a ruach to beasts.” What we regard as the Bible view of man’s nature, is not unfrequently denominated infidelity, by the popular theologians of the present day; but it strikes us as rather a bold position to go back and accuse the sacred writers of laboring under a spirit of infidelity when they penned these sentiments. But if we take Solomon’s words to be a declaration that the spirit of man does go up, his question, even then, would imply a strong affirmation that we are ignorant of its essential qualities. Who knoweth this spirit? Who can tell its nature? Who can describe its inherent characteristics? Who can tell how long it shall continue to exist? On these vital points the text is entirely silent, granting all that is claimed for it. But further, if this text asserts that the spirit of man goes up to God, it will be noticed that it is spoken promiscuously of all mankind. Then the same queries would arise respecting the spirits of the wicked, for what purpose they go to God, and the same objections would lie against that view that were stated in the examination of Eccl. 12:7, in REVIEW No. 23. To arrive, however, at the correct meaning of Eccl. 3:21, a brief examination of the context is necessary. In verse 18, Solomon expresses a desire that the sons of men may see that they themselves are beasts. Not that he intended to be understood that man is in no respect superior to a beast; for no one, inspired or not, above the level of an idiot, would make such an assertion, in view of man’s more perfect organization, his reasoning faculties, and, above all, his future prospects, if righteous. He simply means, as plainly expressed in the next verse, that in one respect, namely, their dissolution in death, man possesses no superiority over the other orders of animated existence. “For” he says, “that which befalleth the sons of men, befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them; as the one dieth [here is the point of similarity], so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath [ruach, the same word that is rendered spirit in verse 21]; so that a man [in this respect] hath no pre-eminence above a beast. All go unto one place [is that place Heaven? and is this a declaration that all, men and beasts alike, go there?] all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.” Thus definite and positive is the teaching of Solomon, that in respect to their life here upon earth, and their condition in death, men and beasts are exactly alike; and now can we suppose that, after having thus clearly expressed his views of this matter, he proceeds in the very next sentence to contradict it all, and assert that in death there is a difference between men and beasts, that men do have a pre-eminence, that all do not go to one place, that the spirit of man goes up conscious to God, and the spirit of the beast goes down to perish in the earth? This would be to make the wisest man that ever lived, the most stupid reasoner that ever put pen to paper. How, then, is his language in verse 21 to be understood? Answer: Understand it as a question whether the spirit of man goes up, and the spirit of the beast down, as some asserted in opposition to the views which he taught. John Milton, author of Paradise Lost, so translates it: “Who knoweth the spirit of man [an sursum ascendat] whether it goeth upward.” &c. The Douay Bible renders the passage thus: “Who knoweth if the spirit of the children of Adam ascend upward, and if the spirit of the beasts descend downward?” The Septuagint, the Vulgate, the Chaldee Paraphrase, and the Syriac, give the same reading. This puts the matter in quite a different light and saves Solomon from self-contradiction; but, alas for the immaterialist! it completely overturns the structure of immortality built therein. The notion prevailed in the heathen world, that man’s spirit ascended up to be with the gods, but the spirit of the beast went down to the earth. It was the old lesson taught by that questionable character in Eden, “Ye shall not surely die,” but “ye shall be as gods.” Solomon contradicts this by stating the truth in the case, that death reduces man and beast alike to one common condition. Then he asks, Who knows that the opposite heathen doctrine is true, that the spirit of man goes up, and that of the beast down? He had declared that they all went to one place, in accordance with God’s original sentence, “Thou shalt surely die;” now he calls for evidence, if there be any, to show that the opposite doctrine is true. Thus he smites to the ground this pagan notion by putting it to the proof of its claims, for which no proof exists. There is another class of expressions respecting the word spirit, which properly come under consideration at this point. The first is Ps. 31:5, where David says: “Into thine hand I commit my spirit.” Our Lord uses similar language, perhaps borrowed from this expression of David, when, expiring on the cross, he said, “Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit.” Luke 23:46. And Stephen, the martyr, in the same line of thought, put up this expiring prayer: “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” Acts 7:59. What was it which David and our Lord wished to commit into the hands of God, and Stephen into the hands of Christ? A conscious entity it is claimed, the living and immortal part of man; for nothing less could properly be committed to God. Thus Mr. Landis (p. 131) asks: “What was it then? The mere life which passed into nonentity at death? And can any one suppose they would have commended to God a nonentity? This would be a shameless trifling with sacred things.” But David on one occasion, 1 Sam. 26:24, prayed that his life might be much set by, or be precious, in the eyes of the Lord. That which is precious in his sight, it seems might very properly be commended to his keeping, especially when passing, for his sake, out of our immediate control. And in the very psalm (31) in which he commits his spirit to God, he does it in view of the fact that his enemies had “devised to take away his life.” Verse 13. It is a fact that the same or similar acts are spoken of frequently as done in reference to the life, that are said to be done in reference to the spirit. Can a person commit his spirit to God? So he can commit to him the preservation of his life. Thus David says, Ps. 64:1: “Preserve my life.” What! Mr. Landis would exclaim, preserve a nonentity? Jonah prayed (4:3), “O Lord, take, I beseech thee, my life from me.” Christ says, John 10:15: “I lay down my life for the sheep;” and in John 13:38, he asks Peter, “Wilt thou lay down thy life for my sake?” Thus our life is something that we can commit to another for safe keeping; it can be taken away from us; we can give it up, or lay it down. Is it, therefore, a distinct entity, conscious in death? If it is not, then equivalent expressions applied to the spirit do not prove that to be conscious in death and immortal; for they prove the same in the one case as in the other; and whatever they fail to prove in the one case, they fail to prove also in the other. But if the spirit, as is claimed, lives right along after death, just as conscious as before, and a hundred fold more active, capable, intelligent and free, where would be the propriety of committing it to God in the hour of death, any more than at any point during its earthly existence? There would be none whatever. Entering upon that permanent higher life, it would be much more capable of caring for itself than in this earthly condition. The expression bears upon its very face evidence that those who used it desired to commit something into the care of their Maker which was about to pass out of their possession; to commit something into his hands for safe keeping until they should be brought back from the state of unconsciousness and inactivity into which they were then falling. And what was that? It was what they were then losing, namely, their life, their pneuma, which Robinson defines as meaning, among other things: “The principle of life residing in the breath, breathed into man from God, and again returning to God.” And when the life is thus given up to God by his people, where is it? “Hid with Christ in God.” Col. 3:3. And when will the believer receive it again? “When Christ who is our life shall appear.” Verse 4. Then Stephen will receive from his Lord, that which while dying he besought him to receive. Then they who for Christ’s sake have lost their life (not merely their bodies while their life continued right on) will have that life restored to them again. “Soul-Sleepers’” Conference.
By J. H. W.
In Indiana, the people represented by The Restitution, a paper printed in Chicago, are called Soul-Sleepers. On the subjects of the state of the dead and the second advent, they believe as the majority of first-day Adventists do; but they are ultra Age to Comeists, and they repudiate the name of Adventists, probably to distinguish themselves from others who call themselves Adventists, but do not indorse the Age to Come. They are also ultra antinomians. They claim to have “the one faith,” but “the one idea” would far better express their position, as everything else is swallowed up by the Age to Come. Yet in fact, though the Age to Come is their sole hobby, there is as great diversity of faith among them as among any class I ever knew. They are constantly patching up the Age to Come, probably no two of them could agree in respect to it, and no one retains his views intact for any long time. As I am engaged in re-writing the work on the Age to Come, I considered myself fortunate in having the opportunity of attending their “Conference,” lately held in the “Little Wild-Cat Meeting House,” Tipton Co., Ind. The first discourse was preached by Eld. J. S. Hatch, a prominent preacher among them. He took his text, 2 Cor. 8:9, remarking that his attention had recently been called to this text by one who referred to it to prove the pre-existence of Christ (and I think the reference was quite appropriate). To show when the Lord Jesus was poor (not when he became poor) he quoted Matt. 8:20. He said Christ was rich only prospectively: he had the promises of God, which were to be fulfilled to him in the future age. He read Phil. 2:5-10, and said that Christ was not yet exalted, but would be when the heathen were given to him, &c. [see Acts 2:33; 5:31]. He also read James 2:5, to show how the saints were rich—in faith and in the promises—and said Christ’s riches were like theirs! But if we hear it said of a man that he once owned a large farm, or had a large sum of money, but he has become poor, we conclude at once that he has lost his farm, or his money; for a person cannot become poor without losing that which made him rich. Had Eld. Hatch informed us when Christ lost the promises he would have given us some tangible idea of his theory. But if any one wishes to know what the Bible teaches on this point he may compare Phil. 2:5-10; John 17:5; &c. Eld. S. G. Clark preached Sunday morning on rightly dividing the word. He said he should not handle the word deceitfully, and if earnestness of manner is any assurance of sincerity, he certainly believed he was preaching the truth. Aside from this we should have judged that his first statement was a mistake. His preaching was more deceptive than that of Eld. Hatch, as he presented his subjects in a more plausible manner, in most respects. It was a genuine, old-fashioned millennium sermon; leaving out a reference to the advent, and to the fallacy of looking for reward at death, and it was in its main features just such a discourse as I have heard the like from my childhood. That he did depart from his promise, and handle the word deceitfully, was very evident from his use of Luke 2:14, the song of the angels at the birth of Christ: “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.” He read it right, but in commenting said, this had not been fulfilled, for as yet we had never seen peace and good will among men; but it would be so in the future age. Were he so ignorant as not to know any difference between toward and among, his comment might be more excusable. But this idea was the real foundation of his whole discourse. By what I heard at this meeting I am assured that the advocates of the Age to Come have made no advance of late years so far as clearness and force of argument are concerned. The first message of Rev. 14, Eld. Clark put into the Age to Come. Eld. Hatch openly said (as we have pointed out in past years) that the privileges of the Age to Come, in the blessings it would confer on the nations, were not for his hearers, nor for any who have heard the gospel. Its probation was solely for those who are ignorant of the gospel, up to the time of the introduction of that age. Then we ask, as we have asked before, Why preach it in this age? Why make its promises the constant theme of discourse to those who cannot be benefited by it, and so divert their minds from present truth and present duty? It is one of the most dreary, lifeless delusions extant in this age of error. It has no power to move the hearts of the world, or to excite to Christian effort, and lead to piety and devotion, in those who believe it. One thing I have ever observed: that all antinomians, or no-law teachers, whether among Disciples or Adventists, or wherever found, are great boasters. Their strength and daring are wondrous, to let them tell the story. And to some it might appear strange that they who denounce the law of God as a law of works, and profess to walk by the “law of faith” alone, are so uniformly given to boasting while the apostle says boasting is excluded by the law of faith. Rom. 3. But the solution is really easy. The carnal (or fleshly) mind is not subject to the law of God, Rom. 8:7, because the law is spiritual. Rom. 7:14. And every one who casts off the necessary restraint of the spiritual law, is, naturally enough, “vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,” or carnal mind, for they are the same. Col. 2:18. But theirs is but empty boasting. They do not discover the harmony of the law and the gospel, and so put the Son of God in antagonism against his Father. “Mistaken souls, they’re in the dark,
Without the law—without the ark.” Our School at Battle Creek.
By Geo. J. Butler
FROM recent references in the REVIEW the readers of the paper have become acquainted with the fact that a school was to be started June 3d in Battle Creek having some connection with our denomination, the General Conference Committee having the supervision of it. As one of that committee, I wish to say a word in reference to this subject so that all may know my feelings concerning the matter. “I fully believe it is in the order of God that we should have a school started in connection with the other institutions which are growing up there. And I expect to see this comparatively small beginning which is now being made, amount to something very important before the message shall close. I believe this because it is something that is necessary to meet a want that exists among us. And as I firmly believe this197 to be the work and cause of God, the means necessary to its existence and prosperity are of course connected with that work, and in due time will be put in operation in spite of any obstacles which may seem to hinder.) That there will be great difficulties to surmount and obstacles to be overcome we do not doubt, as there have been in every enterprise undertaken by our people. But we have seen the work move forward, because we believe God has a hand in it. So we expect to see in this case; and we expect the sober consideration of this school matter by our people will result in the same manner. When it shall have been properly set before them, we fully believe they will see its importance and act with their accustomed liberality and promptness. We want a school to be controlled by our people where influences of a moral character may be thrown around the pupils which will tend to preserve them from those influences which are so common and injurious in the majority of the schools of the present day; and in this school we want a department in which those who would labor in the ministry, or in other public positions of usefulness, may receive that instruction which will qualify them for the duties of those positions. That such a want as this exists among us, it seems to me every one of our people must admit, unless stone blind. Whether it can be fully met without calling into existence dangers and difficulties of a magnitude to counterbalance the advantages we hope to gain by such a school, may be a question with some. We believe this want may be met, and this school be made a success, and such difficulties overcome, if the matter is carried out with caution and with wisdom, and no injury, but rather great benefit, result to the cause of truth. Any one who has ever attended our high schools where the youth of our country mostly congregate for the purpose of receiving the necessary instruction to prepare them for the business of life, and has had his eyes open, must know that there are influences and temptations brought to bear upon the minds of those in attendance, which are exceedingly dangerous to religion, or even morality. And though it is possible for those of a strong, decided character, whose principles are fixed to resist them and come forth from the ordeal uncontaminated by the spirit of the place, yet those who are weaker and more thoughtless are very sure to be affected by them; and we have many instances of those who are morally ruined in this manner. And how rare it is for young people who attend such schools to keep alive a spirit of piety and religion under the pressure of the influences brought to bear upon the mind. Those who have never attended such schools, probably never suspect what passes in the rooms of students at our academies and colleges. I have had opportunity from personal experience to judge of these matters. Many a pious father sends his children away to such schools, comparatively free from the corruptions of the world, and while he is fondly hoping all is well, and his promising son will come forth to a life of usefulness, at the same time the son may be taking lessons in card-playing, intemperance, carousing in the dead of night, or committing all kinds of iniquity and mischief that would chill the heart of the parent with horror if he knew it. Those who have attended such schools, and re-call the things that took place in by-gone school days, will acknowledge that I have but hinted at matters that might present a sad picture indeed to the pure. Again, the influences and motives brought to bear upon pupils by teachers in order to incite them to study, are many times calculated to build them up in pride and vanity rather than in virtue and religion. Praise and flattery to those who excel are the motives generally appealed to. Here the roots of pride are nourished and strengthened until it is almost impossible to eradicate them. Again, the standard of discipline is so lowered down in these days, and such loose ideas of even morality prevail all through the community, that it is impossible to find things in a condition, in any of our schools, to satisfy the minds of discerning people who are trying to prepare for the Judgment. We want our children to have a chance for mental culture without moral loss. Cannot we throw safeguards around the youth which will have a tendency to preserve them from some of these dangers? I believe we can. Another great and crying want among us, recognized by all, is the need of laborers in the cause to preach the message. All over the field there are individuals who might be useful in this way, men whose thoughts are turning in this very direction. Some of these have not had suitable chances for instruction and mental discipline. It is quite an important step to leave the farm and the shop where the mind has been devoted to secular things, and the muscles have had the main burden of exercise, and go at once into a new field to cope with able opponents, and call all the faculties of the mind into requisition. Not one in a thousand can do this successfully; and many a one who will only partially succeed, could, if he had an opportunity for mental discipline, united with instruction in the principles of the present truth, succeed far better than he can with our present course of action. (What a mighty field is opening before us. What a work we have to do. What a short time to do it in. Nothing is more evident to my mind than the fact that we as a people are not making use of all the means in our hands to send this truth to the world. I am perfectly satisfied that we have many among us who ought to go into the field and take hold of the work if they can have the proper discipline and thus be able to work to good advantage. Who can suggest a better plan to bring about this very desirable object than a school such as we have in contemplation? We have tried the do-nothing plan too long; and now it seems to me the time has come when the means should be supplied to accomplish such an important object.) But some will say, You are going to follow right on in the course of the other churches, and become like them, and no doubt will feel much distressed at the prospect, thinking it is a denial of our faith in the soon coming of Christ, and that it will all end in formality and spiritual death. No doubt there is danger of it. But is it a necessity that such a result should be reached? Never was there a plan originated but what there were dangers connected with it. These must be guarded against. To be sure, most of the churches have come to the very result above mentioned. But I have yet to learn that their schools were the cause of it. A few denominations I might mention have never established such schools, and they are as bad off spiritually, as far as I can see, as the other churches, and have a mountain of ignorance to contend with to boot. I do not believe ignorance is a help to spirituality. Those who do, better throw away all those aids to Bible study provided for our use by learned men, and go back to the dark ages for their inspiration. The fact is, most of the denominations have recognized a real want that exists, and must ever exist, where there are things to be learned, and have tried to meet it by establishing schools of instruction. How far they have wisely carried out a sensible plan I will not say. But the want is a real one. And it stares us in the face as well as them. We shall be simply recognizing an actual fact when we act upon the need before us. We are no more imitating the churches in establishing means for necessary instruction than we are in having preaching at all, building meeting-houses, organizing, establishing printing offices for the publication of our views, or in many other necessary things. And the same opposition no doubt will be met in the case of the proposed school, as was met in establishing some of the institutions which we now recognize as very necessary, and which we are thankful are in successful operation. The formality of the churches and their low condition spiritually is no more seen in their schools than in many of those institutions which we all admit are right, and which we have in operation now. Why then should this be any objection to the establishment of a school? No doubt this must be guarded against, and that great care must be exercised on this point. But we believe God will be pleased to have us take hold of this as we have of other worthy enterprises. We have no expectation that a term of study will be proposed as long as that in the theological institutions; we have no time for such a course, neither is it necessary. This is a great subject. I have barely hinted at a few points. I trust abler and more experienced men among us will set the matter more fully before our people. And before the full object can be brought about, the subject must be agitated and the public mind be properly prepared. Means must be solicited and raised, suitable buildings erected, teachers provided, and means of boarding pupils prepared. It is not expected this can be done in a day. But this, like other institutions among us, must be started and grow up to the position God has designed for it. And may he give us as a people a proper sense of the importance of his work and a will to do our part of that work faithfully. Civil Bend, Mo., May 22, 1872. Answer to Question.
By J. H. W.
O. W. A.—For an exposition of 1 Peter 3: 19, see “Which? Mortal or Immortal?” pp. 62, 63. There can be no doubt from the reading of the passage that “the spirit” was the means “by which” the preaching was done. The time is stated—in the days of Noah. As a parallel to this, chap. 4: 6, was once presented to me by a Mormon (and Mormons are the only ones who can consistently use these passages as they are generally used). My reply was that I have heard the gospel preached to them that are dead. But they were not dead when it was preached to them. Now it does not say that it was preached to them that were dead, nor is preached to them that are dead, but was preached to them that are dead. To us there is no difficulty in these passages. But how is it with those who use these texts to prove man’s consciousness in death. Do they all believe in purgatory? or in a probationary state after death? Do they not often quote these texts very inconsiderately?