THE IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL NOT UNIVERSALLY BELIEVED
Page 1
Review and Herald
Jul 6, 1869
Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jul 6, 1869
THE IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL NOT UNIVERSALLY BELIEVED.
By Dudley Marvin Canright
It is claimed that the doctrine of the immortality of the soul has been believed by all nations in all ages. This is advanced as a strong argument in its favor. But is this assertion true? Far from it. As an actual matter of fact the great majority of mankind have not believed it. What is meant, now, by the term immortality of the soul? It is meant that every human being when he begins his existence in this world has given him by God a certain spiritual, immaterial, immortal element which will continue to live independent of the body after death in a personal, conscious existence, and that every soul, righteous or wicked, must continue to live as an individual person through all eternity. Such a doctrine it is claimed has been believed by “all nations in all ages.” This we deny, and will offer as much proof as our limits will admit. Mr. Watson, in his “Theological Institutes,” though a believer in the soul’s immortality, makes this candid confession. “Some fine passages on this subject [the immortality of the soul] may be collected from Plato, Cicero, Seneca, and others; but we must take them with others which express, sometimes doubt, and sometimes unbelief. With us this is a matter of general belief; but not so with the generality of either ancient or modern pagans. The same darkness which obscured the glory of God, proportionably diminished the glory of man,—his true and proper immortality, the very ancient notion of the absorption of souls back again into the Divine Essence was, with the ancients, what we know it to be now in the metaphysical system of the Hindoos, a denial of individual immortality; nor have the demonstrations of reason done anything to convince the other grand division of metaphysical pagans into which modern heathenism is divided, the followers of Buddha, who believe in the total annihilation of both men and gods after a series of ages—a point of faith held probably by the majority of the present race of mankind.”
What! the majority of the human race to-day believing in the total annihilation of men? So says Mr. Watson, and so every one knows who is acquainted with the facts. This alone strikes a death blow at the claim of universal belief in the immortality of the soul. Not only is this the belief of modern pagans, but it has always been the doctrine of the whole heathen world. Dr. Davy, after naming “the whole of Tartary, of China, of Japan, and their dependencies, and all of the countries between China and the Burrampooter,” says of the inhabitants, “They appear to be materialists in the strictest sense of the term, and to have no notion of pure spirit or mind.” “Ordinary death is only a change of form; and that this change is almost infinite, and bounded only by annihilation, which they esteem the acme of happiness.” According to this a majority of the human race are gross materialists instead of pure immortal soulists!
The doctrine of emanation and absorption, which was, and still is, held by nearly all the pagan world, is this: Man’s soul is a part of God himself, which emanated from him at some past time; this soul will finally, either at death, or at some future period, return to God and be re-absorbed into his essence, and thus lose all individual existence. True, they talked and wrote poetry about the immortality of the soul, but they only meant that as a part of God it was immortal. But an immortal, conscious, personal existence of any one soul was a doctrine that entered into no part of their theory. This, it will be seen, is utterly subversive of the modern theological doctrine of the soul’s immortality. Of this there is an abundance of proof of which I have room to present a very little. Mr. Henry Howe, the well-known author, says, “Boodhism, the religion of Burmah, has the greatest number of disciples of any on the globe.” “Existence and sorrow are declared to be necessary concomitants; and therefore the chief end of man is to finish this eternal round of changes and be annihilated. The great doctrines of this faith are three; viz., 1. The eternal existence of the universe and all things. 2. Metempsychosis (transmigration). 3. Nichon, or annihilation.”
Annihilation is a prominent article in the faith of the majority of mankind. Says the learned Dr. Alger, “Pantheistic absorption—to lose all imprisoning bounds, and blend in that ecstatic flood of Deity, which, forever full, never ebbs on any coast,—has been equally the metaphysical speculation, the imaginative dream, and the passionate desire of the Hindoo mind. It is the basis and motive of the most extensive disbelief of individual immortality the world has known.” Koeppen says, “Buddhism is the gospel of annihilation.”
That this doctrine of absorption into Deity is no figurative language, but really means total annihilation of all consciousness and individuality, is proved by the most critical investigation. The learned Dr. Warburton, of England, long ago fully proved that the ancient Greek sages held the same doctrine of absorption and consequent individual annihilation. On this point Watson remarks: “Some learned men have denied the consequence which Warburton wished to establish from these premises, and consider the re-absorption of these sages as figurative, and consequently compatible with distinct consciousness and individuality. The researches, however, since that time made into the corresponding philosophy of the Hindoos, bears this acute and learned man out to the full length of his conclusion.” With this we leave India, and turn a moment to China. What do these people, comprising so many millions, believe on this subject? Confucius was their great teacher, than whom no man ever exerted a greater influence on a nation. But he taught nothing about the soul’s immortality, nor even about a future state. Of the Chinese in general the learned Dr. Horn says, “Religion, as a system of divine worship, as piety toward God, and as holding forth future rewards and punishments, can hardly be said to exist among the Chinese.” Introduction, Chap. I, p. 21. Dr. Morrison says the learned among them do not teach the immortality of the soul. John Leland, D. D., says, “It is observed by the celebrated Mons. de Montesquieu, that ‘the religion of Confucius denies the immortality of the soul.’” “Confucius being asked by one of his disciples what angels or spirits are, answered that they are air. And this is the notion that the Chinese have of the soul. They look upon it to be a material thing, though highly rarified; and that, when the soul is separated from the body, both of them lose their individual being they had before, and nothing remains but the substance of heaven and earth, which had before concurred to the composition of man, and which, as general causes, ever continue in their substantial being, and are only changed in their accidental forms.”
Here then is about one-fourth of the human race who are materialists, and must be counted out as not believing the immortality of the soul. Who then has ever believed this doctrine as now held? The ancient Greeks and Romans are always appealed to as firm believers in the immortality of the soul; but we have good evidence to show that they never did really believe it. Bishop Warburton, Dr. Leland, Mr. Watson, and many other learned men have abundantly proved this. To them the reader is referred, while I can give only a few short extracts. Of the heathens in general, Paul said that they were without God, and having no hope. This could not be true if they believed in the immortality of the soul, for then they would have a firm hope of a future life. The Romans learned their religion from the Greeks, and the Greeks from the Egyptians; hence they all held about the same faith, specially with regard to the soul. Of these ancients Mr. Watson says, “Bishop Warburton proves that this opinion (of absorption, or individual annihilation) was held not merely by the Atheists and skeptical sects among the Greeks, but by what he calls the Philosophic Quaternion of Dogmatic Theists, the four renowned schools, the Pythagoric, the Platonic, the Peripatetic, and the Stoic; and on this ground argues, that though they taught the doctrine of future rewards and punishments to the populace, as a means of securing their obedience10to the laws, they themselves did not believe what they propagated, and in this he was doubtless correct.
When the ancients are said to hold the pre and post existence of the soul, and therefore to attribute a proper eternity to it, we must not suppose that they understood it to be eternal in its distinct and peculiar existence; but that it was discarded from the substance of God in time, and would in time be rejoined and resolved into it again; which they explained by a bottle’s being filled with sea water, that swimming there awhile, on the bottle’s breaking, flowed in again, and mingled with the common mass. They only differed about the time of this reunion and re-evolution, the greater part holding it to be at death, but the Pythagoreans not till after many transmigrations.
What shall we say to these facts? Here are two very learned men, both believers in the immortality of the soul, who say that none of these ancient philosophers believed in the proper immortality of the soul, but on the contrary, all held that the soul would lose its individuality either at death or some future time. Dr. Good, M. D., F. R. S., &c., in his “Book of Nature,” says, “If we turn to the oldest hypothesis of the East,—to the Vedas of the Brahmins and the Zendavesta of the Parsees,—to those venerable but fanciful stores of learning, whence many of the earliest Greek schools drew their first draught of metaphysical science, we shall find indeed a full acknowledgment of the immortality of the soul, but only upon the sublime and mystical doctrine of emanation and immanation, as a part of the great soul of the universe; issuing from it at birth, and resorbed into it upon the death of the body, and hence altogether incapable of individual being, or a separate state of existence.”
This is in harmony with what I have before quoted, and an abundance more that I might quote, showing that none of these heathen nations ever believed in the individual immortality of any human soul. The Arabians did not believe the soul immortal. On this the above author says, “If we turn from Persia, Egypt, and Hindostan, to Arabia, . . . we shall find the entire subject left in as blank and barren a silence as the desert by which they are surrounded; or, if touched upon, only touched upon to betray doubt, and sometimes disbelief. The tradition of a future state of retributive justice seems to have reached the schools of this part of the world, and to have been generally, though perhaps not universally, accredited; but the future existence it alludes to is that of a resurrection of the body; and not of a survival of the soul after the body’s dissolution.” These are facts worth considering. Here is another nation to be counted out as non-believers in the immortality of the soul.
THE PEOPLE. It is true that traditions of a future life of some kind were handed down from the earliest period among all men. But many ages, and even thousands of years, passed away before we find any notion of the doctrine of the immortality of the soul held by any one. It first started with a few priests and lawgivers, was taken up by poets and philosophers, and, finally, was acknowledged by the people. Before the time of Socrates, there is no evidence that this doctrine was received by the people, or even by the philosophers, except Socrates, a Greek, who was born B. C. 469, near Athens. He is said to have been one of the first who argued for the soul’s immortality. That this doctrine was then comparatively unknown, and that the opposite was the common faith, is shown by Dr. Leland in the following: “One of Socrates’ disciples, Cebes, tells him that the doctrine he taught concerning the immortality of the soul, and a future state, ‘met with little credit among men.’ That ‘most men seemed to think that the soul was immediately dissolved at death, and that it vanished and was dissipated like the wind or smoke, or became nothing at all; and that it needed no small persuasion and faith to believe that the soul exists, and has some power and intelligence after the man is dead.’ Socrates himself had said the same thing just before, that his doctrine was not believed by the generality. Simmias, another of the dialogists in the Phaedo, represents it as the opinion of many that the soul is dissipated when a man dies, and that this is the end of his existence. And Socrates, speaking of the soul’s being blown away, and perishing with the body, declares that this is what was said by most men. From these testimonies it plainly appears that the mortality of the soul was a doctrine which prevailed among the Athenians in the time of Socrates, who were looked upon as the most learned and polite of all the Grecians.” Plato, Socrates’ disciple, complains that his arguments on this subject met with little credit. So much for the common belief of the people in the time of Socrates.
How long did this continue so? Did Socrates and Plato convert all men to their new ideas of the soul? By no means. Says Leland, “There is no great reason to think that the state of things among the Athenians grew better afterwards, but rather the contrary.”
From the time of Socrates and Plato we come down to the days of Polybius, who was born B. C. 203. Of him an author remarks: “There is a remarkable passage of Polybius, which shows that the disbelief of a future state was in his time become very common and fashionable, both among persons of superior rank, and among the lower kinds of people.” Neither learned nor unlearned believed this doctrine at that time, and hence it is not universally believed as yet. From the time of Polybius we come a little further down to the time of Cicero, the next great advocate of the soul’s immortality, who was born about B. C. 107. Perhaps this doctrine had gained greater credence by his time. Hear Mr. Leland again: “What that great man Cicero says of the philosophers in his time is remarkable. In that celebrated treatise where he sets himself to prove the immortality of the soul, he represents the contrary as the prevailing opinion. There were crowds of opponents, not the Epicureans only, but, which he could not well account for, those that were esteemed the most learned persons had that doctrine in contempt.” Mr. Watson, speaking of this subject in the time of Cicero, says: “Both philosophers and poets regarded them as vulgar fables. . . . Nor was the skepticism and unbelief of the wise and great long kept from the vulgar, among whom they wished to maintain the old superstitions as instruments by which they might be controlled. Cicero complains that the common people in his day mostly followed the doctrine of Epicurus.” Epicurus denied the immortality of the soul. This testimony is worthy of consideration. The mass of the common people followed Epicurus, that is, disbelieved and denied entirely the doctrine of the immortality of the soul. And the poets and philosophers taught them this! Then who did believe it at that time? It was universally disbelieved. Caesar represents the same thing as being true in his day. So it was in the time of Plutarch, who was born about the middle of the first century. “He intimates that these things were not commonly believed.” Not only the philosophers, but the mass of the Roman people had no faith in the doctrines of future rewards and punishments. Of the popular religion Mr. Jones says, “The Romans in general knew the whole to be an imposition, and many of them ridiculed the pretense that the institution was divine.” Again he says, “The doctrine of the immortality of the soul, and of a future state of rewards and punishments was but little understood, and, of course, only very partially acknowledged. Hence, at the period when Christ appeared, any notions of this kind found little or no acceptance among the Greeks and Romans, but were regarded in the light of old wives’ fables, fit only for the amusement of women and children.” This being so, what becomes of the assertion that these nations have always believed the soul immortal? Every school-boy ought to know better. In view of these facts, I can but inquire when it was that this doctrine of the soul’s immortality was universally believed? I am inclined to think that there never was any such time. Who will show us such a time, and give us the proof? Surely it was not before the time of Socrates, for no nation had yet received it; nor in his time, for “most men” denied it; nor in the time of Polybius, nor yet in Cicero’s time; nor even in the days of Plutarch, as I have shown. That brings us this side of the Christian era, at least, before any universality of belief can be shown on this point. Perhaps I may say more on this point in the future.
D. M. CANRIGHT.
Sigourney, Iowa.
“GATHER THEM THERE.”
By Mrs. M. M. Stetson
TUNE.—“Beautiful Zion.”
Gather them there, the good and the blest,
Gather the weary ones to their rest,
Gather the faithful, gather the pure,
Gather us all on Canaan’s fair shore.
Come, blessed Jesus, oh! come very soon,
Come, and gather the weary ones home.
Gather the saints in every land,
Gather those buried in the ocean’s sand,
Gather those martyred for the love they bore,
Gather us all, free from sin evermore.
Come, blessed Jesus, oh! come very soon,
Come, and gather the faithful home.
Gather our sleeping ones from the grave,
Gather to Him who is mighty to save,
Gather the righteous in Eden’s fair land,
There to sing with the angelic band.
Come, blessed Jesus, oh! come very soon,
Come, and gather the loved ones home.
Gather us all from the power of death,
Gather the meek upon the new earth,
Gather them in that golden street,
Gather them at the Saviour’s feet.
Come, blessed Jesus, oh! come very soon,
Come, and gather thy jewels home.
MRS. M. M. STETSON IN World’s Crisis.
THE TRINITY.
By R. F. Cottrell
The Baptist Tidings has noticed some remarks of mine on this subject, not long since published in the REVIEW. He says, “A writer in the Advent Review, in speaking of the trinity, gives his reasons why he never adopted or tried to explain the doctrine. Some of his views are very sensible and logical. He by no means denies the full character, and works, and worship ascribed to Christ in the Bible. These are indorsed and unequivocally acceded to. The question with him seems to be solely in the use of the word trinity, as applied to God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. His objection is that it is unscriptural. That the term ‘trinity,’ or ‘triune God,’ does not occur in the Bible. This point, so far as the use of words is concerned, all will admit is well taken. The use of the word cannot be defended on strict scriptural phraseology. Neither can some other doctrines, or scriptural truths, as theologically expressed, but which still are generally received. For instance, the common belief and expression, ‘immortality of the soul,’ ‘future rewards and punishment,’ as samples. ”
The use of an unscriptural term is not my sole objection. A term not found in the Scriptures may truly express a scriptural idea. But when no term can be found in the Scriptures that will convey the idea, it looks suspicious, at least, that the idea, as well as the term, is unscriptural. As for the examples which the Tidings refers to as scriptural truths, though not found expressly stated in the Scriptures, we observe that the Bible does promise a reward to the righteous and punishment to the wicked, and the fact that they are promised makes them future. But the “immortality of the soul,” though “generally received,” is not only an expression not found in the Scriptures, but the idea is not found there, except as the reward of the righteous, to be conferred at the resurrection of the just. If our friend had coupled with this example, “the first day of the week” as the “Christian Sabbath,” he would have had a pair of illustrations which would have fitted well to the doctrine under investigation, and with that doctrine would have formed a trinity, or at least a trio, not only of unscriptural expressions, but of unscriptural ideas and doctrines, all of which have been “generally received” from the “mother church,” without a scriptural investigation.
The Tidings defines the “trinity of God” as “the three offices of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, in one divine and eternal Person.” This we take as his explanation of the doctrine. We understand that the term trinity means the union of three persons, not offices, in one God; so that
> “The Father, Son and Holy Ghost,
> Are three at least, and one at most.”
That one person is three persons, and that three persons are only one person, is the doctrine which we claim is contrary to reason and common sense. The being and attributes of God are above, beyond, out of reach of my sense and reason, yet I believe them; but the doctrine I object to is contrary, yes, that is the word, to the very sense and reason that God has himself implanted in us. Such a doctrine he does not ask us to believe. A miracle is beyond our comprehension, but we all believe in miracles who believe our own senses. What we see and hear convinces us that there is a power that effected the most wonderful miracle of creation. But our Creator has made it an absurdity to us that one person should be three persons, and three persons but one person; and in his revealed word he has never asked us to believe it. This our friend thinks objectionable. He says,
“But the objectionable expression of the writer referred to is that in which he refuses to explain ‘that which is contrary to all the sense and reason God has given me.’ In this expression he puts his ‘sense and reason’ in direct antagonism to the doctrine of the trinity. Perhaps the word ‘contrary’ was only designed to mean out of reach of his sense and reason, or above them. If so, we have no objection. It may be true. But what sense and reason God has given him is not the measuring-rod of God himself.”
It is said in Prov. xvii, 14: “The beginning of strife is as when one letteth out water; therefore leave off contention before it be meddled with.” Had I11thought of this text, perhaps I should not have written my first article on the subject of the trinity. I never believed the doctrine, nor even professed to believe it. But I do not think it the most dangerous heresy in the world. This is the reason I have never before said anything publicly about it. I think that false views of man’s nature are more dangerous in these days of spiritualistic infidelity; and false views of God’s commandments, which lead men to break them and teach men so, more dangerous still. This imperils the soul, according to the most solemn warning of our Saviour. But to hold the doctrine of the trinity is not so much an evidence of evil intention as of intoxication from that wine of which all the nations have drunk. The fact that this was one of the leading doctrines, if not the very chief, upon which the bishop of Rome was exalted to the papedom, does not say much in its favor. This should cause men to investigate it for themselves; as when the spirits of devils working miracles undertake the advocacy of the immortality of the soul. Had I never doubted it before, I would now probe it to the bottom, by that word which modern Spiritualism sets at nought.
Men have gone to opposite extremes in the discussion of the doctrine of the trinity. Some have made Christ a mere man, commencing his existence at his birth in Bethlehem; others have not been satisfied with holding him to be what the Scriptures so clearly reveal him, the pre-existing Son of God, but have made him the “God and Father” of himself. I do not purpose to add much to the barrels of ink that have been wasted on both sides of this question. I would simply advise all that love our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, to believe all that the Bible says of him, and no more. Then you will have the truth, and not occupy either of these extremes.
When Jesus says, “I and my Father are one,” do not add to it person, but understand them to be one, as two, three, or any number of Christians are one; for Jesus prayed that his disciples might be one, EVEN AS he and the Father are one. Understand that they are in perfect harmony, of one mind and purpose, one in design and one in action; they were one in creating the world, and one in redeeming it. Then when the same divine Son of God says, “My Father is greater than I,” you will not make him contradict himself. But if you interpolate person, or being, you have a contradiction, and are obliged to resort to another invention, the “two whole natures”—the “Divinity and the humanity”—of which the Bible says nothing, to help you out. So when Jesus uses the pronouns I, my, or me, you guess that it is sometimes the humanity and sometimes the Divinity that speaks, as best suits the theory you have chosen to defend; thus virtually accusing the Saviour of double-mindedness, if not of double-dealing. Let Jesus and the Bible speak for themselves, and do not add to their words. Should you go into a store owned by a father and his son, and say to the son, I would like to see your father in relation to our business; and he should reply, ‘I and my father are one; he that hath seen me hath seen my father,’ you would understand him as speaking figuratively. You would not go away and report that the son claimed that he and his father were but one person.
Christ was in glory with his Father before the world was. “And now, O Father, glorify thou me WITH THINE OWN SELF with the glory that I HAD WITH THEE before the world was.” The prayer has been answered. The Son of God is now glorified at his Father’s right hand. He has “ascended up where he was before.” The two-whole-nature swivel must turn pretty fast in the interpretation of these passages, especially as it is the Son of Man that ascended. He was the Son of God before the Father sent him into the world; he became the Son of Man when he was made flesh and dwelt among us; yet he is the same being he was before. How can these things be? They are beyond our sense and reason, but not contrary to them.
Our sense and reason are very limited. They cannot comprehend the mighty works of God; but the little we have, he doubtless intended we should use in the investigation of his word. He has not violated, nor asked us to violate, the little sense and reason we have. Revelation goes beyond us; but in no instance does it go contrary to right reason and common sense. God has not claimed, as the popes have, that he could “make justice of injustice,” nor has he, after teaching us to count, told us that there is no difference between the singular and plural numbers.
Let us believe all he has revealed, and add nothing to it.
R. F. COTTRELL.
THE POWER OF EXAMPLE.
By D. A. EDDY
Those only who are self-denying and who love a life of sobriety and holiness are true followers of Jesus; and such cannot engage in empty conversation with the lovers of the world. Alas! how many shrink from the purifying process; they are unwilling to appear singular in the eyes of the world. Oh! that we might feel the power of our example as we go out into the world. Those that profess to be Christians in these last days (which are full of peril) and do not imitate the humble, self-denying Pattern, place themselves in the enemy’s ranks; and what then is their influence? Others take them for an example, and by following them will lose Heaven; when if they had not professed to be Christians, they would have shunned their example. Oh! why is it so hard to live a self-denying life? Because we are not dead to the world, but have a disposition to dress and act as nearly like the world as possible. But alas! what is our example? It is not in harmony with our teachings. “Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world; if any man love the world the love of the Father is not in him; for all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye, and the pride of life, is not of the Father.”
If any wish to have their influence tell in favor of the truth, let them live it out and imitate their humble Pattern. Oh! that the Lord would help us to cut loose from the world and all its fashions, rend the heart and not the garments, and get our hearts in order, lest he visit us in judgment. We must awake to our wrongs, and search up our sins and zealously repent of them. The ax must be laid to the root of the tree. God has a peculiar people, and such he is purifying unto himself; for the pure in heart alone will see him.
Now we have an opportunity to see what it is that shuts out Jesus. The pride of life, the vain things of this world cannot go hand in hand with those that are coming up at every step. God is testing his people. Here is the place for us to show what controls our actions. If it is the truth, it will lead us to good works, and make us noble-hearted and generous, like our divine Lord. When the sins which God hates are subdued, then he will come in and sup with us, and we with him. We can then draw divine strength from Jesus, and grow up in him, and be able, with holy triumph, to say, “Blessed be God who giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.” God is good. Although we have wandered far from him, yet in tender mercy, he calls us to repent. But we have a wily foe which is continually on the alert to lead souls astray and overcome them. Believers in present truth must be as watchful as their enemy. Will we do this? Will we persevere in this warfare? Will we be careful to depart from all iniquity? And may the Lord help his people to make straight paths for their feet. What we do, must be done quickly. May God help us to heed the warnings and admonitions that are given to us week after week, and let what will come, stand for the truth, live up to all the light we have, and let it shine out upon those with whom we deal. He that now tarries will not tarry long, but will come; and shall we have on the wedding garment? or shall it be said of us, “Depart from me, for I never knew you?”
Dear readers, we are near the close of time. Satan has come down with great power, knowing his time is short. Especially upon the remnant will his power be directed. His object is to scatter and divide, that they may grow weak; but God will bring his work closer and closer, to test his people; and will we stand the test? This is an individual work. The work is between God and our own souls. Then let us labor in the vineyard of our Lord and Master. With this blessed hope we can cheer the lonely hearts in the narrow way to Heaven. As it is through much tribulation that we are to enter the kingdom, we must in our weakness look to Him who says, “Ask and ye shall receive,” and who giveth liberally and upbraideth not. Then we can walk with God from day to day. He will be a comfort to the sick, a stay and a staff to the weak, and a guide to the youth. May the Lord help us all to set our houses in order, and let this truth, which we profess to love, have its sanctifying influence over us, that all we do or say may tell to the glory of God. Now is the hour of probation. Now is the day of salvation. Watch, therefore, for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come. “But when the Son of Man cometh shall he find faith on the earth? He will find but little. May you and I, dear reader, be of that few that will believe, and stand complete amid all the perils of the last days. So then, “Fear not, little flock, it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom.” D. A. EDDY.
HOW A D. D. LEFT OFF SMOKING.
The interesting autobiography of Rev. Charles Freshman, late Rabbi of the Jewish Synagogue at Quebec, and graduate of the Jewish Theological Seminary at Prague, at present German Wesleyan minister at Preston, Canada, has just been published by Rev. Samuel Rose, Wesleyan Book Room, Toronto. His closing remarks are:
Here, perhaps, I had better write the little word FINIS and lay down my pen, but as another important event occurred quite recently, which I neglected to mention in its proper place, it may not inappropriately be inserted here, and may be called a “P. S.,” an “N. B.,” an “Addendum,” or anything else that suits the fancy of the reader. Those who have been wearied with the task of reading the preceding pages, may stop when they come to the word “Finis” if they please; but if they do they will never know HOW I CAME TO GIVE UP SMOKING TOBACCO! It occurred in this way. In the latter part of November, 1867, I was assisting at a protracted meeting in Heidelberg, on my son’s mission. During one of the evenings I preached there, a good old lady, a Mrs. Weber, was powerfully awakened to a sense of her lost condition as a sinner. After the meeting, Mrs. Freshman and I went home with her to the house of her son, with whom she is living, and to whose kind hospitality we are always welcome. As she was in great distress of mind, we remained, conversing with her, and pointing her to the Saviour who taketh away the sins of the world, till after midnight, when she found peace, and was made happy in God.
After this had been achieved, I thought I deserved to enjoy the luxury “of a good comfortable smoke.” While preparing the necessary materials, the following conversation ensued between myself and one of the young men, a grandson of the old lady I have mentioned:
“Why, Doctor,” said he, “do you smoke?”
“Yes,” said I, “did you never know that before?”
“Well,” said he, “your young men are not allowed to smoke, are they?”
“No,” said I, “we would like our young men, if possible, to be in every respect an improvement on ourselves.”
“Well,” said he, “I was reading a short time ago in the Apologete an article in which you were styled ‘The Father of Methodism in Canada;’ and it does seem to me rather inconsistent that a father will persist in doing what he will not allow his children to do.”
That was about all he said, and the subject was dropped; but never have I listened to a more powerful sermon than that contained in those few words of that young man. When I came home, I said to one of my daughters, “Search through my drawers, and pockets and shelves—everywhere, and wherever you find pipes, tobacco, matches, knives—anything I used in smoking, take it out of my sight, and out of my reach.”
The command fell on no unwilling ear, and in less time than it has taken to write this, not a vestige of it remained, not a crumb, if I had been starving, and scarcely an odor in places formerly most infected.
From that day to the present, more than six months ago, I have never had a “whiff.” To say that I gained the victory without a struggle, would be a simple untruth, and would serve no good purpose. For several days my old appetite would return with considerable intensity, especially after my meals. At such times I would pace the floor, sit down, try to read, get up again, and often could only find relief in prayer for sustaining grace. But I must say the victory thus gained was not such an impossible feat as I had always considered it. Now I not only have no desire to go back to my wallowing in the mire, but I enjoy a delightful sense of freedom from a thralldom which was worse than slavery. My appetite was improved; some of my vests will now hardly button around me. My perceptive faculties are clearer; my sleep more refreshing. I feel younger in years, and more vigorous in body. To all smokers, I would say,—“If you don’t believe it, try it!”