Earlier text: A Little MoreThe Doctrine of Transubstantiation
By C. M. S.
“Rome Never Changes”—No. 7
The Doctrine of Transubstantiation
ONE of the most important tenets of the Roman Catholic faith is that of transubstantiation. In that tenet, or doctrine, is found the basis and the reason for what is known as “the sacrifice of the mass;” and the important place which that practice or sacrament holds in the Roman Church service warrants an inquiry into the doctrine upon which it is founded. That we may know exactly what transubstantiation is and what is involved in it, we give its definition as found in the creed of Pope Pius IV:— I profess likewise that in the mass there is offered to God a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice for the living and dead; and that in the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist there is truly, really, and substantially the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ; and that there is a conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the blood, which conversion the Catholic Church calls transubstantiation. The Council of Trent, in its decree concerning transubstantiation, speaks as follows:— And because that Christ our Redeemer declared that which he offered under the species of bread to be truly his own body, therefore has it ever been a firm belief in the church of God, and this holy synod doth now declare it anew, that by the consecration of the bread and of the wine a conversion is made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood; which conversion is by the holy Catholic Church suitably and properly called transubstantiation.—“Dogmatic Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent” (Authorized Translations), page 74. This is not laid down as something which may be believed or may be denied, but something which must be believed and, if denied, will bring upon him who denies it the curse of the church. The Council of Trent (sess. 13, chap. 8. Canon 1) sets forth this obligation in the following words:— If any one denieth that in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist are contained truly, really, and substantially the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ, but saith that he is only there as a sign, or in figure, or virtue, let him be anathema. The Roman Church even goes so far as to declare that in every particle of the bread there is the whole body, soul, and divinity of our Lord, and in every particle of the wine the same. If this doctrine can be proved untrue, then the whole service of the mass is founded upon nothing; and that service is the chief service of the Roman Church. In the first place, the doctrine is inconsistent even with itself; and in the second place, it is an utter perversion of Scripture. In the above quotation from “Dogmatic Canons and Decrees” it is asserted that the whole substance of the bread is converted into the body of Christ, and the whole substance of the wine is converted into the substance of his blood. The bread becomes his very body, and the wine becomes his very blood. But even this is not sufficiently mysterious to suit the purpose of Rome. Therefore the Council of Trent makes this further declaration:— Immediately after the consecration the veritable body of our Lord and his veritable blood, together with his soul and divinity, are under the species of bread and wine; but the body indeed under the species of bread, and the blood under the species of wine, by the force of the words; but the body itself under the species of wine, and the blood under the species of bread, and the soul under both. Wherefore it is most true that as much is contained under either species as under both; for Christ, whole and entire, is under the species of bread and under any part whatsoever of that species; likewise the whole (Christ) is under the species of wine and under the parts thereof (Canon 3). The ordinance of the Lord’s Supper as instituted by him is consistent with itself, and all that he said in reference thereto is logical and reasonable and plain and easy to be understood. But what Rome has given to the church in place of the Lord’s Supper is inconsistent with itself and illogical and unreasonable, and is not understood by any one, not even the learned doctors of the Roman Church, who have disputed over it for centuries. If, for instance, the bread is actually converted into the body of Christ and the wine into his blood, “it must take the bread and the wine combined to furnish a full presentation of Christ.” How can it then be possible that each of the elements is an entire Christ? If each of the elements is an entire Christ, then there are at least two Christs on the altar at every such service. And if it be true that Christ is whole and entire in every particle of the bread and in every drop of the wine, then there are as many Christs present, whole and entire, as there are particles of the bread and drops of the wine. This doctrine would make foolishness of the simple but sublime service of the Lord’s Supper. Such inconsistencies and absurdities and mysticisms are dishonoring to the service; and there is nothing in the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper as he instituted it that calls for anything of the kind. When he broke the bread and passed it to his disciples, saying, “This is my body, which is broken for you,” he was giving them a symbol which was to represent his body sacrificed for man, which would help to keep that sacrifice always fresh in their minds. When he instituted that ordinance, he was there in his own body. What an absurdity men seek to put into the mouth of our Lord when they accuse him of teaching that in breaking the bread and passing it to his disciples, he was breaking his own literal body and passing it out to be eaten, and he there present in his own literal body all the while! When Jesus passed the cup to his disciples and said, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins,” he was giving them the wine as a symbol of the blood which would be spilled for the sins of man, but was not yet spilled; and the use of the wine in that ordinance was designed to keep in the minds of men what salvation cost the Son of God. That Christ did not intend his disciples should consider that wine as his actual blood is shown by his statement which immediately follows the passing of the cup to his disciples. He said:— “But I say unto you, I shall not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.” Matt. 26: 29. If our Lord considered that wine his own literal blood, he would never have made that declaration, for it will be wine and not blood that will be drunk there. The wine represents that shed blood, and the bread represents that broken body; and in this memorial symbolism there is nothing incongruous or absurd or revolting. Nevertheless, the Council of Trent declared it to be “a crime most unworthy” and a “satanical” “invention” to hold that our Saviour’s words were used figuratively when he instituted the ordinance. (See “Dogmatic Canons and Decrees,” sess. 13, chap. 1.) But there are expressions made by our Saviour in the same connection which Rome does interpret figuratively. For instance, “This cup is the new testament in my blood.” Must we interpret that expression literally?—No. Rome does not claim literalism here. The Saviour used “cup” meaning what it contained, the wine. He spoke of the wine as “the fruit of the vine.” Rome says this also is figurative. But that expression which, above all, must be considered figurative in order to be consistent with itself, she declares must be literal. In the Hebrew language and its dialects it was a custom to use the words “this is,” with the meaning “this signifies” or “represents.” We find it in such expressions as “the seven good kine7 are seven years,” “the ten horns are ten kings,” “the seven candlesticks are the seven churches,” “all flesh is grass,” “I am the door.” Now Jesus is not a literal door; and yet there is a plain declaration that he is. The ten horns are not literal kings; and yet it is declared that they are. Flesh is not literal grass; and yet those words say that it is. But do we accuse the divine record of untruthfulness?—Certainly not. Even a child understands what it means. The horns represent kings; the good kine represent years; the candlesticks represent churches; and flesh and grass are alike in that both perish quickly. Therefore, when Jesus said, “This is my body,” his disciples understood his meaning, and we understand it. The bread was broken and given, by himself, for the benefit of others. So his body was broken and was given, by himself, for the benefit of the race. In that particular the bread stood for his body, represented it; and his followers, through all the centuries, when they would partake of the broken bread would see and remember the broken body of their Saviour. And so of the wine. There was no hidden meaning, no mysticism, no metaphysical philosophizing, no inconsistency, in the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper as Jesus instituted it and as he left it. The apostle Paul said: “As often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show [set forth, or celebrate] the Lord’s death till he come.” And that is consistent with the whole idea of the institution; but Rome says this ordinance is not a celebration or a showing, but a literal repetition of the death of Christ. This destroys entirely the memorial idea in the ordinance, and, in doing this, seeks to repeat at every service what Inspiration declares was done once for all in our Saviour’s death on Calvary. Paul’s words “till he come” are entirely out of harmony with Rome’s doctrine of transubstantiation. The Lord’s Supper was to be repeated “till he come.” But if transubstantiation be true, he comes every time a priest consecrates the bread and the wine. According to that belief, whenever a priest says over the wafer, “Hoc est enim corpus meum,” the literal body of our Lord is present. In other words, Christ comes at the call of the priest, and is literally eaten by the people. The boast of Rome that “Rome never changes” would lead one to suppose that this doctrine of transubstantiation had always been held by that body. In fact, the Council of Trent declares, as previously quoted, that it has “ever been a firm belief in the church of God.” But that statement is very far from being a fact. The word transubstantiation was not used until about the year 1100, when Stephen, Bishop of Augustodunum, used it. It was 115 years later that the doctrine itself was adopted and promulgated by the Lateran Council (A. D. 1215) under the popedom of Innocent III, and was reaffirmed by the Council of Trent. Does it not seem strange that an infallible church should have continued for twelve centuries in complete ignorance of a doctrine so important that its denial merits the curse of the church? If those are cursed who do not believe that doctrine now, what must Rome say of those in her own church who never believed it and who stubbornly resisted the attempt to bring the idea into her fold? Will she curse them? If so, she must curse such men as Ephrem, Macarius, Theodoret, Vigilius, St. Chrysostom, and St. Augustine. And it would be a most anomalous situation, a great church cursing its saints, the very saints to whom it prays. Yet those men taught that the bread and wine were no more than types or figures of the body and blood of Christ; and they were right. Cardinal Cajetan, commenting on Heb. 10:18, says:— From the fact that by the new law remission of sins is made by the one offering of Christ, he argues that no other offering for sins remains. For in such a case an injury would be done to the offering of Christ, as though it were insufficient.—Pauli Epp., page 201, Ed. Paris, 1540.
Cardinal Contarini gives this testimony, which is a flat contradiction of what Rome teaches now, and is a denial of the decrees of the Council of Trent previously quoted:— No Christian author, either ancient or modern, of any name, hath said that the mass is a sacrifice of the priest ex opere operantis, whereby, as if in rivalry of the sacrifice of Christ, the priest obtains for us remission of sins. Nay, Ambrose and Augustine affirm that in the mass there is a remembrance and commemoration of that one sacrifice which Christ offered. . . . Lo, it is expressly said that we make a remembrance of the passion of Christ, by which one sacrifice we are reconciled to God.—De Sacram. Opp., page 350.
Other testimonies might be given to the same effect; but here are two cardinals of the Roman Church teaching directly contrary to the creed of Pope Pius IV, and also in direct antagonism to the decrees of the Lateran Council and the Council of Trent. Dare Rome carry out her threat and place her curse upon these two cardinals? Theodoret, writing in the fifth century, says:— He [Christ] did not change the nature of the bread, but added grace to nature.—Eranistes, Dial. 1.
Many of the early Fathers of the Catholic Church made similar declarations. Bruys admits that the doctrine of transubstantiation was not in evidence before the ninth century, and was unknown in the darker ages of antiquity. Pascasius, who discovered it, was opposed by nearly all his contemporaries, who rose up in strenuous opposition to the innovation. Bertramn, at the instance of the French king, published a work in refutation of Pascasius’s invention. After the Reformation, Bertramn’s work, which rather favored the Reformers, was condemned by the Pope, by councils, and by cardinals, and was placed on the Index Expurgatorius. But after a century and a half this book, condemned by an infallible church, was declared sound and genuine. In the light of these facts, what becomes of the declaration of the Council of Trent that it has “ever been a firm belief of the church of God” “that by the consecration of the bread and of the wine a conversion is made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord,” etc.? It is thus proved untrue. The doctrine itself is a contradiction and a perversion of Scripture; and in maintaining that it has always been the “firm belief” of that church, Rome contradicts her own history; and, further, in anathematizing the opposite belief, Rome places under her curse her own saints and cardinals. Upon such a foundation rests the Roman doctrine of transubstantiation, and upon that doctrine rests, and out of it grows, the most important service of the Roman Church, the “sacrifice of the mass,” of which we shall treat in another article. C. M. S. Elder Daniells’s Australasian Report
By A. G. Daniells
From Elder A. G. Daniells
WE take pleasure in placing before our readers the larger portion of the last letter received from Elder A. G. Daniells just before he left Australia for the Far East. It will be a source of great satisfaction to our brethren and sisters to learn that although he has been engaged in such strenuous work in Australia, the Lord has prospered him and given him health and strength to go on with his work. Let us remember Brother and Sister Daniells in our prayers, as they continue their earnest efforts in behalf of the great and needy mission fields. I have not written as I intended, and the reason is because I have been under such fearful pressure ever since landing in New Zealand. Before I came, the brethren had made out a very strenuous program, covering every day of my time until after the ministerial institute and union conference. This arrangement has taken me to every part of the Australasian field except Western Australia, and has brought me in touch with a great majority of the Sabbath keepers in Australasia. But it has meant very heavy work. I have traveled about eight thousand miles, have preached nearly one hundred and fifty sermons, given thirty Bible studies, and visited eighty families. I have also attended over fifty council8 meetings, and have had numberless private interviews. For this reason my writing has gone by default. I have felt that while here for so short a time I ought to give myself up entirely to the people and to the various interests of the work. I am glad now that I have done this. It would have been a matter of great regret to me if I had gone through the country and failed to come into close, friendly touch with the masses. I have gathered much information, and as soon as I get away from Australia I shall begin to put it in shape for publication. I cannot tell you how glad I am that I have made this visit. It has given me a far better understanding of conditions here than I was able to obtain by talking with the delegates who attended the General Conference, or by reading reports. I have become acquainted with their entire staff of laborers. I have also been able to judge of the tone of the religious life throughout the field. I have seen how they are carrying on their administrative work in the various departments. I have also gained some idea of the possibilities of this field. After going over the ground and making notes, I have had the privilege of long interviews and counsels with the leading officers. I find the brethren anxious for suggestions. They have shown themselves ready to respond to everything that they could see had merit, and they have been willing to give careful study to all the suggestions made. The fact is, I did not know how fully we were endeared to one another until I came. The cordiality with which they have received Mrs. Daniells and myself, and the efforts they have put forth everywhere to make our stay comfortable and helpful, have given this field a larger and warmer place in our hearts than when we left fourteen years ago. I have now about finished my work, and shall soon be off to India. In a few days I shall give the graduation address at the Avondale Missionary College. Then I hasten to Melbourne, where I shall spend a Sabbath. They write me that they have secured a large hall in the heart of the city, and will call all the churches together for our parting service. Then Brother Fulton and I shall spend two or three days at Warburton before leaving for Adelaide. There I am to give a lecture in a public hall, on the Eastern Question, Thursday night, and hold meetings with the church Friday night and Sabbath morning. In the afternoon, Brother Fulton, Brother Fletcher, the secretary of the home missionary and educational departments, Mrs. Daniells, and myself will leave for Freemantle. The brethren have arranged for a camp meeting in Western Australia, which I shall attend. On the third of November we sail from Freemantle for Colombo, where we should arrive the twelfth. I have notified Professor Salisbury of these plans, and am hoping that he will meet me at Colombo. I want to get a good view of that island before crossing over to Tinnevelli to meet our Tamil Sabbath keepers. Then my tramp over India and Burma will begin in real earnest. Our ministerial institute and annual council will open in Calcutta on January 15. If I succeed in doing my traveling before this meeting begins, I shall be able to leave India soon after it closes. Just what my movements will be then I cannot say at present. If I am not needed in any part of the European field, I should like to return to the States via the Asiatic Division, visiting the most important centers in that field. As I look forward to it, the journey looks long, and the work heavy; but we live only a day at a time, and seem able to bear the burdens that come to us. I have been greatly blessed healthwise. While working to the limit of endurance, I have come through very well. Although somewhat weary, I am feeling real well, and think that the rest on my way to India will put me in shape for the program that awaits me there. The Review is a very interesting visitor in this distant part of the field. WE take the liberty to present before our readers a portion of a personal letter written by Prof. H. R. Salisbury to the editor of the REVIEW. It will be read, we feel sure, with much interest by our brethren and sisters, and will be appreciated none the less on account of its more personal touch than a formal article. Doubtless before this, Brother Daniells has reached the Indian field, and, with Brother Salisbury, is visiting the mission stations in that country. I am greatly encouraged with the progress of the work. It is a most difficult field, but the truth is making steady advance in nearly every division. I am thankful to say that so far the war has not interfered with our work. In our English efforts the people have been more willing to hear than before, and we are having good audiences in Rangoon, Calcutta, Simla, and Bombay, where we are carrying on regular work. With the native work it has, I think, made no difference. You may be sure that we are very thankful to our Heavenly Father that during this time of war and distress we are thus far left free to carry on our work. Since these things have come to the nations of Europe, our workers and other members have realized their meaning, and with few exceptions they have sought the Lord for more power in their work and a deeper growth of grace in their own hearts. We are all looking forward to the general meeting. We are hoping that nothing will happen to keep Brother Daniells from reaching us. While many things can happen in three months, especially in these days, yet the present outlook is favorable. He wrote me in his last letter that he hoped to get away with no trouble from Sydney on September 30. As far as I know, the sea is clear and the boats are making regular trips, but I have not heard from that side for about four weeks. It would be a most serious disappointment to our workers if our meeting would have to be abandoned, for they are looking forward with a real desire that they may get more help at that time. We need help in our daily battle with the darkness that surrounds us. Some of our workers on the mission stations who are daily in direct contact with heathenism and who do not often have the privilege of Christian fellowship, are looking forward to this meeting as one longs for a breath of fresh air after having been in a polluted atmosphere. I was glad to have Brother Daniells tell me in his last letter that his former health had returned to him, and he was able to do all the work the brethren had planned for him. I am sure the Lord is blessing him with special help because of his devotion to the work. This war has been another means of showing that Seventh-day Adventists believe in the prophecies, and see in these things a sign that the end of all things is very near at hand. I have thanked God that I am connected with a people so willing to show their faith by their works. Other missionaries in India express amazement at our strength at this time, and I have had reason to be proud of our Mission Board. Other missions, notwithstanding their large endowments and the large constituency of wealthy members back of them in England and America, have sent word to cut down salaries, and in some places to let all their Indian workers go. They have had to close schools or turn them over to the government; they are sending out no missionaries, and are canceling all furloughs, as they have no money for transportation either way. In the face of the war, and in spite of the fact that without warning all the European missions have been turned for support on the American Board, our Mission Board has hurried us on a double remittance that our work might not be hindered if communications were interrupted, and instead of holding back our new missionaries, have sent them right on to us, and because the short route seemed closed, sent them the long way around, so that our work could go on without a break. That is what I call "holding the ropes." When the darker days come to us, as they must before the end, I hope this same courage will be in our hearts out here, that we may be willing to give all. Mrs. Salisbury is still in the hills, but will come down in a few days. At the close of this month she takes her examination in the Urdu language. She is very anxious to get out and work for the Mohammedan women in their homes. The Lord has been good to hear our prayers and allow us to work among the followers of the false Prophet. There are millions of them all about us, and here we have more freedom to work for them than we would had we gone to the Levant. I am studying the language as best I can with my other work, and look forward to the time when I can work more directly for them. Just now, however, I am having a very interesting time with some well-educated Mohammedans who speak English. I am getting from them their belief in the events of the near future. It is really wonderful how close they come to our interpretation of the Eastern Question. Thirteenth Sabbath Offering
By William T. Knox
The General Conference has appealed to the Sabbath schools through the department, to devote their offerings for December 26 to the support of the African missions operated by the European Division Conference, this action seeming necessary on account of the great war. Under ordinary conditions the9 maintenance of these missions is fully cared for by our brethren in Europe, but with the present situation confronting us, it becomes evident that America must stand ready to lend assistance to the European brethren in this their trying time. The field to which we are requested to contribute our offerings on December 26 covers a vast territory, comprising within its borders the Sierra Leone, Gold Coast, and Nigeria Missions, in West Africa; the South Pare and Victoria Nyanza Missions, in German East Africa; the British East African Mission, on the Victoria Nyanza; the Abyssinian Mission; and the mission fields of Upper and Lower Egypt and Algeria. In these various missions there have generally been from fifty to sixty foreign laborers, besides many native workers. The progress reported from time to time has been most encouraging and interesting. While some sections of this vast field have doubtless been deeply affected by the contentions of the nations, yet there is much that can be done if we can keep the laborers in the field and properly supplied with money. Surely we must do this much. No one will be willing to see this work, established with so much labor and expense of life and money, go backward for lack of the means necessary to sustain it. The channels of communication with these distant lands have been seriously interrupted by the war, but all these brethren have been reached, and money sent them, with the possible exception of our brethren in German East Africa, and the General Conference is hoping to discover some method of remitting money to them in the near future. To us in America the reports coming from the war zone give no indication of the near termination of the war. In fact, the end seems to be as far distant as it did three months ago; but terrible as it is, with the millions of contending hosts, the many thousands of its killed and wounded, the millions in money daily consumed in its support, the work of the world around us is going on much the same as usual. Men continue to buy and sell, to plow and sow, to tear down and build up. The world cannot afford to hold her affairs subject to the termination of even this great war. Much less should the people of God think of withholding their hands in the great work committed to them of giving to the world a message to prepare a people for far more important events than those now taking place in Europe, finding their consummation in the coming of the King of kings. It is true that more than half the people of the earth are affected by the war, but the Lord can turn even this to the direct benefit of his cause. From the meager reports reaching the General Conference Office from our European brethren, it would seem that the work in many ways is going forward in those countries very encouragingly. It cannot be admitted that our God will permit his work of mercy to be delayed because the nations are angry,—rather the contrary. We are told that “he that shall come will come, and will not tarry.” “The end of all things is at hand.” The King’s business demands haste. During the year now closing, many appeals to the liberality of this people have been made. Their responses have been greatly appreciated by the Mission Board, and by the liberality of the people an increasing work has been carried on; but now once more at the very close of the year, the Mission Board sends out this appeal to the Sabbath schools, hoping that the response will be by far the largest Thirteenth Sabbath Offering ever given. “I Cannot Come Down”
By R. C. PORTER
NEHEMIAH had learned the true secret of loyalty to a great cause. He knew the worthlessness of worldly considerations in comparison with the value of an eternal life of loyalty to God. All worldly methods employed to dissuade him from the great purpose which controlled all his conduct, seemed to him cheap and unworthy of consideration when compared with the great issues of eternity which he cast in the balance against them. Nehemiah so organized the work of rebuilding the wall of Jerusalem that the entire wall was covered by workmen, and all parts were completed about the same time. Nehemiah, chapters 2 to 4. “The people had a mind to work,” and every man built over against his own house, so a quick work was possible. Although the work was done in “troublous times,” it was accomplished in fifty-two days. The people were not working for wages and counting the hours to see when their work would close. “So we labored in the work: and half of them held the spears from the rising of the morning till the stars appeared.” Neh. 4:21. Nehemiah’s experience illustrates the advantages of a thoroughly organized work, and is a standing rebuke to those independent spirits who refuse to cooperate in the organized plans for the advancement of the Lord’s work. May we not learn from his experience that our work can be finished only when all parts of the world have shared equally the opportunity of hearing the glad tidings of a soon-coming Saviour? Should we not distribute the repairers of the breach in the law of God proportionately throughout the entire world as speedily as possible for the finishing of the work? We have here a very familiar experience of opposition to the Lord’s work, and a good example set for meeting it. Their enemies laughed them to scorn, despised them, and called them rebels against the government. Neh. 2:19. Then they scoffed, saying, “Even that which they build, if a fox go up, he shall even break down their stone wall.” Neh. 4:3. When laughing and scoffing proved unavailing, they conspired together to come and stop the work by force. Verses 7, 8. But it was the Lord’s work, and they did not stop it. The last resort was to stop it by intrigue. What they had failed to accomplish by laughter, scoffs, and threats, they attempted to accomplish by strategy. Four times messengers were sent inviting Nehemiah to join them in a friendly council, as they wished to shield Israel from rumors that the latter were contemplating a rebellion against the king. If the Jews would meet them in council in one of “their villages in the plain of Ono,” they would advise them as friends how to escape the displeasure of the king. Neh. 6:1-7. But Nehemiah was a man of discernment, and he was not entrapped by their fair speeches. He reveals the secret of their proposal as follows: “But they thought to do me mischief. And I sent messengers unto them, saying, I am doing a great work, so that I cannot come down: why should the work cease, whilst I leave it, and come down to you? Yet they sent unto me four times after this sort; and I answered them after the same manner. . . . Then I sent unto him, saying, There are no such things done as thou sayest, but thou feignest them out of thine own heart. For they all made us afraid, saying, Their hands shall be weakened from the work, that it be not done. Now therefore, O God, strengthen my hands. Afterward I came unto the house of Shemaiah the son of Delaiah the son of Mehetabeel, who was shut up; and he said, Let us meet together in the house of God, within the temple, and let us shut the doors of the temple: for they will come to slay thee; yea, in the night will they come to slay thee. And I said, Should such a man as I flee? and who is there, that, being as I am, would go into the temple to save his life? I will not go in. And, lo, I perceived that God had not sent him; but that he pronounced this prophecy against me: for Tobiah and Sanballat had hired him. Therefore was he hired, that I should be afraid, and do so, and sin, and that they might have matter for an evil report, that they might reproach me.” Verses 2-13. Who among those who have accepted10 the special message for our time, has not been confronted by similar proposals and for the same purpose? But the end is not yet. The climax of the endeavor to stop the work is yet to come. The one object of all Satan’s opposition and strategic scheming is to weaken the hands of those proclaiming the third angel’s message. Our safety lies in answering, as did that godly man of old, when by laughter, threats, or intrigue, efforts are made to deter us: “I am doing a great work, so that I cannot come down: why should the work cease, whilst I leave it, and come down to you?” To leave the Lord’s work, which is as much higher than any other as heaven is higher than the earth, for any such unworthy considerations as are here mentioned, is to come down to the common level of worldly wisdom in our plans and methods of work in the cause of God. May our eyes ever be so enlightened that we may discern spiritual things with spiritual vision, and respond to all worldly or satanic endeavors to turn us aside from the great work of finishing the proclamation of the third angel’s message in all the world in the closing hours of this generation, in these words: “I am doing a great work, so that I cannot come down.” R. C. PORTER. The Destiny of the Wicked
By G. B. Thompson
MAN, led by the dim, flickering candle of his own reason, cannot solve the question of what awaits the incorrigible in the life beyond. Our only hope for a correct solution of this mystery is in the Scriptures of Truth. We turn, therefore, reverently to the Word of God, and inquire of its Author, What is the final destiny of sinful, unregenerate men who reject the overtures of mercy and die in their sins? Surely this divine revelation, given us as a guide light upon the problem, will shine forth. And from its sacred pages we do indeed gain a most clear and comprehensive answer. This we shall endeavor to make plain from the Scriptures to the mind of the candid reader by a consideration of the question under a few simple propositions. 1. The sinner does not have eternal life. Jesus declares, “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.” John 3:36. The unrepentant sinner therefore is without life; he is “alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them.” Eph. 4:18. Everlasting life is embraced and received by faith. Those who believe have life, but those who through unbelief are separated from the life of God, who do not “see life,” and are “cut off” from the life of God, do not have life and cannot live eternally in the confines of despair. This must be apparent to all. Again we read, “And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.” 1 John 5:11, 12. The wicked are “without Christ,” “having no hope, and without God in the world.” Eph. 2:11, 12. They are therefore without life, for this text tells us very clearly that he that “hath not the Son of God hath not life.” The wicked therefore, being without life, and under the sentence of death, can have no second probation, neither can they have a conscious existence in a place of torment throughout eternity. To suffer in the lake of fire forever, the lost would need to have eternal life as well as the righteous. This is not only unscriptural, but destroys the foundation of the gospel, which promises life only to the believer. The great central truth of Christianity is life only through Christ. It was that those who were “dead in trespasses and sin” “might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly” (John 10:10), that Christ was manifested in the flesh. “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.” John 10:27, 28. By this we see that eternal life is the gift of God, bestowed only upon the little flock. “But the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Rom. 6:23. The apostle Paul, speaking of the gospel and power of God, says: “Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began, but is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.” 2 Tim. 1:9, 10. “Life” and “immortality” are not synonyms. Christ brought two things to light through the gospel; one is life, the other is immortality. Man by nature has neither. He is “dead in trespasses and sins.” He is a mortal man. Job 4:17. God only hath immortality. 1 Tim. 6:16. We receive eternal life when we believe; but immortality will be bestowed upon the righteous only at the resurrection of the just. It is at this time that “this mortal must put on immortality.” 1 Cor. 15:53. To live forever man must believe on Jesus. The wicked, through unbelief, are separated from this life. They cannot therefore be conscious, enduring unspeakable torture in a place of punishment throughout all eternity. We repeat, any teaching which clothes man with life, apart from the gospel, distorts the plan of salvation brought to man through the sacrifice of Christ.