In confessing ourselves to be Adventists, we are aware that we subject ourselves to the prejudices of many. We do not plead for special favor; we only ask that justice be done to us, as to other classes of professed Christians, and that you will not condemn us in anything without a hearing.
That we are spoken against, we do not offer as evidence that we are right. If our lives are immoral, or our doctrines subversive of the principles of morality, you do well to stand aloof from us, and to regard us unfavorably. But on the other hand, when we are spoken against, we do not regard it as conclusive evidence that we are wrong. The “sect of the Nazarenes”—composed of the early Christians who were eminent for their piety and purity of life—was “everywhere spoken against.” Acts 28:22. Popular feeling is no correct standard of judgment; it is generally wrong, and always fickle. Many of the same multitude who sang, “Hosannah to the Son of David,” when they thought the tide of favor and prosperity ran in that direction, soon after just as vehemently cried, “Crucify him!” At Lystra they came out with oxen and garlands to sacrifice to Paul and Barnabas as to gods; and in a few days thereafter they stoned Paul and dragged him out of their city. Acts 14.
With all the deference with which it is possible to speak an unpleasant truth, we say that in the religion and the great religious bodies of the present day there is not much self-denial, cross-bearing, or renunciation of the world. Pride, luxury, wealth, and fashion, bear almost undisputed sway in the religious world. This being the case, it cannot be a wonder that people converted under such influences do not drop all their prejudices, or are not led by their profession to thoroughly reform their lives and correct their habits. To meet scorn and ridicule from such we cannot regard as sufficient evidence that we are wrong in our views of truth and duty.
We learn also that the persecution of Christ and his apostles was carried on by those who were high in place and power, both in church and state. And therefore we do not feel that we are abased before Heaven if, among our opponents, are found scribes and Pharisees, rulers, and elders. “Wisdom is justified of her children.”
For more than twenty years past a story has been extensively circulated that the Adventists, in the year 1843, and particularly in the fall of 1844, prepared
“ASCENSION ROBES,”
with which to meet the Lord Jesus at his expected coming. Many, no doubt, believe this story to be true, and are not aware that they are doing any wrong in circulating it. Ministers are often heard making the statement, and the people have confidence in them, believing them to be true followers of Christ, and therefore feel assured that what they state is truth. But the story is without any foundation in fact, and was originated by evil-disposed persons, desirous of bringing our faith into disrepute. We are constrained to take this method of doing justice to ourselves and to the faith we hold, because by many it is viewed as a matter of fact and a grievous wrong on the part of the Adventists. In this we think our opponents err; for if the Adventists had procured such robes, it would be no evidence of moral turpitude—it would be no moral wrong. It would not have injured any one. Then why do our enemies cling to the report, and hold it up as though it were a sin of great magnitude—a crime? Is it because nothing real could be found against their faith or practice, that trifling and imaginary charges are reported, and the report is heralded so widely, and clung to so tenaciously?
And now, to set this matter before you in its proper light, we say,
1. The report is improbable and unreasonable. The very idea of preparing such robes strikes our opponents as being a foolish and ridiculous thing. We look upon it in the same light. The Second Adventist movement, up to 1844, was marked by an earnestness, a solemnity, and a zeal, for the truth and honor of
God, which, fortunately, shut out such vagaries and follies. And we confidently affirm that the idea of ascension robes never originated with the Adventists.
2. Its unreasonableness is further shown in that the Adventists of 1844 were Bible students. In this respect they were far in advance of the generality of their opponents; and in this consisted their strength in the midst of great opposition. Whatever the Bible taught in regard to the second advent of Christ was carefully studied by them. And what does it teach in regard to “robes” in which to meet the Lord? Let us read:
Rev. 3:18: “I counsel thee to buy of me . . . white raiment that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear.”
These are the words of the Lord Jesus himself. To him alone we have ever looked for a covering from the evil and the wrath of the coming day.
Rev. 7:9, 11: “After this I beheld, and lo, a great multitude which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands.” “And he said unto me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.”
Can you seriously believe that any of us ever thought that these robes, washed in the blood of the Lamb, were literal garments, manufactured by human hands? But to the following text we invite your special attention:
Rev. 19:8: “And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white, for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.”
Here we learn exactly what these robes are; the righteousness of saints, or the character of well-doing (see 1 John 3:7), without which no one can be prepared to meet the Lord. The same is presented in the following text, speaking of the martyrs who cried, like murdered Abel, to God for vengeance against their persecutors:
Rev. 7:11: “And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellow-servants also, and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.”
The import of these words is unmistakable; they need no further remark. And such is our faith in regard to the robes we must all have, to be able to meet our Lord with joy.
3. The report is without any foundation in fact. We are obliged to offer proof negatively, because those who have taken the affirmative will not (because they cannot) bring forward any proof. From time to time, for nearly twenty years past, they have been invited and urged to prove their assertions, and large rewards in money have been offered to any who would bring proof that ascension robes were prepared by the Adventists in 1844. Such rewards have never been claimed—no proof has ever been offered. And yet the absurd slander is industriously circulated by those who would feel grieved to have their veracity called in question. It is no sufficient palliation of their fault that they did not originate the falsehood: the Lord commanded, saying, “Keep thee far from a false matter.” Ex. 23:7. He shall abide in the holy hill of the Lord who does not take up a reproach against his neighbor. Ps. 15:3. And the same fate is threatened to him that loveth as to him that maketh a lie. Rev. 22:15.
We find in the Advent Christian Quarterly for January, a valuable article on this topic, a portion of which we here quote. After showing that the white raiment of Rev. 7:9-14, is an unspotted Christian character, and that this white raiment is that robe which entitles the wearer to be caught up to meet the Lord in the air, the writer says:
Upon the basis of the frequent expression of our hope to receive this robe, with palm and crown, our opponents, both in and out of the church, have constructed not a few scandals; and among the most senseless of these are those we may call the “ascension-robe” stories. Doubtless it would be stooping to67notice them in these pages, were it not for the fact that the falsehood has been put on enduring record, for the little while time may last, in works to which the public turn with confidence for correct information on the topics presented.
The New American Cyclopædia, published by the Appletons, of New York, and Edited by Charles A. Dana and George Ripley, has given a character to this libel which will cause many to believe it true, spite of any testimony we could bring to the contrary. Yet, this authoritative and generally accurate work, and—popular notions to the contrary notwithstanding, we challenge the proof that any Adventist, ever, anywhere, under any circumstances, prepared an “ascension robe.”
It may be asked, What is an “ascension robe?” An “ascension robe” is, according to the tongue of scandal, a long white garment, sometimes simply a sheet wrapped around the body, in which it is said that Adventists have arrayed themselves from time to time, in the expectation that thus attired they would “go up” to meet Christ at his coming. Who originally told the falsehood, or set it afloat, it is now impossible to say. It was, doubtless, as we have already intimated, suggested by the frequent references to the expected “robe” in our meetings; and was eagerly taken up by the religious and secular press, by the pulpit, and individuals, and circulated for the purpose of fostering and creating prejudice against us, in which it has largely succeeded. Indeed, such success has attended the circulation of slanders, misrepresentations, and exaggerations, by opponents, aided by the blunders of some of our true, and the misconduct of some false, brethren, that prejudice is now the greatest obstacle to the spread of our views.
But we remarked that The New Cyclopædia had indorsed this scandal, and recorded it as a historical fact. We will give its statement, found in vol. xi, p. 510:
“MILLER, WILLIAM. Founder of the sect of Millerites, or Second Adventists. Died in Low Hampton, N. Y., Dec. 20, 1849. . . . His early facilities for education were slight, and he seems never to have been master of what are usually deemed the requisite resources for Biblical criticism. But in 1833 he began to lecture upon the speedy second coming of Christ, announcing in accordance with his interpretation of the prophecies that the earth was to be destroyed in 1843. Even the day was specified, if not by himself, by some of his principal followers. His earnest and confident manner attracted attention; his scriptural and historical argument seemed to many erudite and cogent, and after a few years of constant travel and preaching his disciples were reckoned at 30,000 to 50,000. They belonged not only to the United States, but to British America and Great Britain; and had a weekly organ, The Advent Herald, published in Boston, and still continued by the Rev. J. V. Himes. After the failure of the prediction in 1843, the interpretations of the leaders of the sect varied somewhat; but several different years and days were successively designated for the termination of all things; and, in some localities, the Millerites more than once attired themselves in white, and stationed themselves in graveyards and on the roofs of houses, waiting for the appearance of the Lord. The sect still exists, but with greatly diminished numbers, and holds that the second advent of Christ is near, without claiming to be certain of the precise date.”
That nothing might be wanting to complete the injustice of this sketch, the first part of it was sent, in the proof-sheets, to The Advent Herald office in Boston, for correction as to dates and minor details. As it stood, it was as fair an account of the Advent movement as could be expected from those having no sympathy for it. But the allusion to ascension robes was not in those proof-sheets, it was added after the information asked for was received from The Herald office. What motives influenced the editors of that great work to publish a scandal calculated to create prejudice against us, without giving an opportunity for refutation, we will not undertake to define; certainly they were not of a very high order. And unfortunately for their credit for accuracy in dealing with an unpopular movement, they have contradicted themselves in their record of us. After stating, as quoted above, that the Adventists, once numbering from 30,000 to 50,000, “still exist, but with greatly diminished numbers,”
the editors of The Cyclopædia, in vol. xiii, p. 484, say: “They have now four or five periodicals, and number nearly or quite 160,000 members, in the United States, British America, and Great Britain.” In one volume we have “greatly diminished” in numbers; in another our numbers are trebled!!
The attention of the publishers of The Cyclopædia was called to these errors years ago; but it still continues to bear false witness against us.
Another work which circulated this fiction, with others, of which it could not even be said that they were “founded on fact,” was Belcher’s History of Religious Denominations. We endeavored to procure a copy in order to quote its misstatements to our readers, but failed to do so. But while preparing this article, our attention was called to a work entitled Christ Coming in His Kingdom—Millenarianism Refuted, by one Wm. B. Orvis, like Mr. Belcher, a “Rev.,” Mr. Orvis being a professed minister of the gospel among the Congregationalists; Mr. Belcher’s denominational relations we do not recall.
Before quoting any of Mr. Orvis’ allusions to Adventists, we will give an extract from his “parting word” to critics and readers. “We have,” he says, “aimed to treat the subject and all who differ with us with all possible candor and charity, and hope to be so treated by readers and critics in return.” How much of “candor and charity” it is “possible” for Mr. Orvis to exercise in dealing with an opponent, is illustrated in the following quotation (italics ours):
“HOW OFT WILL ADVENTISTS BE ROBED FOR A BODILY ASCENSION?”
“It would seem that after re-enacting a few times more, the grotesque scenes of the past few years would become repulsive scenes, in which thousands of Adventists looking for a materialized, and sense-observed coming of Christ, in the fogs of our atmosphere, have built their balloons (as at this hour they are said to be doing in the city of New York), and have enshrouded their bodies in their ascension robes, as they termed them, . . . have gone out into the fields, and with bewildered gaze, and with frantic speech, song, and gesture, have thus waited for Christ to reappear, as they would look for an aeronaut to descend from the clouds in his balloon. How oft, may we well ask, shall such farcical scenes be re-enacted?”
Let us analyze this statement. “Thousands of Adventists have built their balloons”—what has become of them all? Where were they filled? out in “the fields?” If so, from what source? But besides this, “they have enshrouded their bodies in their ascension robes, as they termed them, [!] gone into the fields, and there waited for Christ as men would watch for an aeronaut to reappear.” Here they are in the fields, with their balloons, and attired in their “ascension robes,” but instead of “going up,” they remain in the fields, making no use whatever of their balloons. How much more dramatic, and quite as near the truth, to have pictured them as entering the balloons at the appointed hour, and, “enshrouded” in their robes, cutting loose from earth, “going up” with “frantic speech, and song, and gesture!” Mr. Orvis should learn to better preserve the unities of his fanciful delineations.
But, to be serious, we appeal to the candid reader, if the above quotation from a “Congregationalist minister” does not on its very face betray a deliberate determination to slander the Advent people. We cannot avoid the conviction that he knew he was uttering a false statement when he penned that paragraph—to say nothing of many other misstatements in his book—and sent it forth to the world. The Christian Union says that his book “has all the marks of insanity.” We are inclined, for charity’s sake, to adopt that view. Certainly we feel no sentiment but that of pity for this traducer of the people and cause we love.
But how can the tales of “ascension robes” be demonstrated to be false? We answer, by pressing those who utter them for the proof. We have heard many tell the story in public and in private, but never yet met the person who dared say that they, themselves, had seen an Adventist attired in an “ascension robe.” When closely pressed they could only affirm, they “had heard it on good authority.” The manner in which the scandal-mongers deal out this ware from
their budgets is well illustrated in the following letter from Bro. A. Penfield, late of Washington, which was published in The Advent Herald some years since, as follows:
“I have been much interested in reading the Notes of a Colporteur. In his No. 11, he is confronted by an allegation that a certain young woman of the village made an ascension robe—cloth bought at a certain store, &c. The Colporteur desired to go and see the young woman, who lived but a short distance, and offered $100 if two good witnesses would say that she ever made the robe; but the parties making the statement would not go. He then offered $100 apiece for every person proved to have made such a robe. This was declined. The Colporteur adds: “I have found many lie-lovers on these things, and some of them in the pulpit.”
“Three or four years since, a Baptist minister of Cleveland being possessed of much “popularity,” gave notice that he should preach on the subject of the Second Advent. A large part of the sermon was devoted to the consideration of ascension robes, etc., and a labored effort made to call forth a smile and a laugh. It was painful in the extreme to listen where there was no opportunity of replying. I however wrote him a letter, informing him that the walls of the same house, if they could speak, would testify with what intense solemnity listening crowds inside and out (the windows being opened) heard on the great subject in bygone days. Though I did not offer money if he would prove that such robes had been made, I did say that till he furnished such proof I should consider him a tale-bearer. I never heard from him. Yet he baptized monthly after this in his congregation. How can such things be? I ask myself.”
We once heard a Methodist minister in the town of Champlain, N. Y., in the course of a historical sketch of his society in that place, indulge this calumny. At the close of the sermon we challenged him as a Christian minister to either prove or retract his assertion. But he declined to do either the one or the other. Large pecuniary or other rewards have been offered, even by advertisement in the public papers—and many of these offers are still standing—for the proof that any Adventist ever wore an “ascension robe.” But it cannot be proved; it is in the very nature of the case wholly impossible that it should be true.
We remember some three or four years since a Free Will Baptist preacher in New Hampshire issued a little pamphlet against us, filled with sneers, invective, and calumny, in which he revived the “ascension-robe” story. We offered if he would prove that any Adventist, anywhere, ever prepared or wore an “ascension robe,” we would furnish him, free of cost, 1000 copies of his pamphlet for every instance established. And we now repeat, what we have said before, that no Adventist, ever, anywhere, under any circumstances, prepared, or wore an “ascension robe.” Let the venders of this slur upon Adventism be pushed for the proof of their story; and if they decline or fail to furnish it, and also refuse to retract, let them stand exposed as tale-bearers, taking up a reproach against their neighbors, speaking evil against their brethren, who equally with them trust in Christ for salvation.
We do not deny that there has been fanaticism connected with the Advent movement; but if this condemns us, which of the sects that oppose us is to “cast the first stone?” and what becomes of Christianity itself? The apostles had to contend with fanatics; and so has every Christian reform since their day. This is a misfortune, not a crime.
To our Advent brethren we say, Let us not be ashamed of our hope! The white-robed throng of the Apocalyptic vision was composed of tried men and women. They had not only known reproach, but many of them had been called to suffer as we never may be. The saints of other ages had trials peculiar to their times. Ours are the last-day perils; not the prison, torture, sword, and flame; but association with those bearing the form of godliness, while denying its power; pleasure lovers, spiritual evils in high places. We cannot doubt that “the last days” are upon us; and if so, the time is near when the dead in Christ shall arise. Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them to meet our Lord in the air. And blessed, indeed, they that shall then have already, prepared from the fine linen, clean and white, which is the righteousness of the saints, AN “ASCENSION ROBE.”
Christ’s Thread
WE can bear to hang by a thread if it be only one of Christ’s spinning.
Brief Thoughts.
By Jos. Clarke
If we are liable to err in our estimate of ourselves, it is clear we may err in our estimate of others.
A true self-respect and esteem, leads us to esteem others; an undue degree of self-esteem, leads us to despise others.
The man who never knew the joys of pardoned sin, nor has an experience of this nature, should abstain from the Lord's supper, and baptism, until he has an experience of this kind. Coming to the full privileges of church membership, with an unconverted, unsanctified heart, has lulled thousands to a final and fatal sleep. Let us be careful, lest in our wish to encourage and assist others, we administer an opiate, which all our skill can never afterwards counteract.
The most perfect self-deception is that of the moralist, who rests upon his good deeds, and correct life; or that of the professor of religion, whose mind is steeped in worldliness, yet has some love for the truth, which he mistakes for faith and assurance.
The most useful and worthy, boast the least. Moses, the prince among the ancient prophets, the meekest of men, the most liberal and untiring, the most self-sacrificing, the most virtuous and noble, writes the Pentateuch with such modesty, that you must find out the author by other means than by his writings. While Nehemiah, with only a tithe of Moses' merit, is really a little egotistical. True, we believe Nehemiah was a good and noble man; but Moses was far ahead of him in true merit.
Is it not astonishing, that the longest and dryest prayers and exhortations, are made by the most lukewarm and indifferent, to hide what they do most clearly prove?
Your most dangerous sins are those you justify, and fear to pray against, or resist.
The wandering of the mind in prayer may often be caused by neglect of confession of sin, or by a mere partial performance of this duty. True penitence and contrition wake the mind to action; self-righteousness deafens and stupifies the moral sense.
No degree of knowledge will compensate for a lack of the other Christian graces.
By means of faith and prayer, we obtain the gospel armor; by means of watchfulness and prayer, we retain this armor. To these we may add, courage, and zeal, and prudence, and skill, in using the armor.
Teachers should never dispute, or criticize each other, before their pupils. Jos. Clarke.
Materialism.
By N. Wardner
A Discourse delivered by N. WARDNER, at West Hallock, Ill., Feb. 27, 1869, and requested by a unanimous vote of the congregation for publication in the Sabbath Recorder.
Gen. 2:7: “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”
Hebrew scholars tell us that the term which is here rendered “breath of life,” is never used, in Scripture, except with reference to man and God. It is an entirely different word from the one used with reference to breathing animals. These facts indicate that it represents a principle akin to God, and superior to any thing pertaining to dumb beasts.
“But,” says one, “this passage proves that man’s soul is his breath; since it was because the Lord breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, that he became a living soul.” If such be a necessary conclusion, then the passage may be rendered thus: “The Lord God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living breath.” And it would follow, that all the soul man can boast of is merely atmospheric air, composed of one part oxygen and four parts nitrogen, which may be decomposed and exist in its separate elements, or be united in different proportions, and form different substances. Combine these gases in equal proportions, and they form nitrous acid. Two parts oxygen with one part nitrogen, and you have nitrous oxyd. Five parts oxygen and one of nitrogen, form nitric acid, one of the most powerful poisons known.
Again, if the breath is the soul, then its purity must depend upon the purity of the air a man breathes, and hence upon his locality. If he is where the air is pure, he has a pure, holy soul, and vice versa. Besides, all organized substances respire as well as man, even down to the lowest order of plants; and therefore have souls!
Again, the amount of air consumed by a person of ordinary size, at each respiration, is about twenty cubic inches, or eight hundred cubic feet (of soul) in twenty-four hours. Hence the largeness of a man’s soul depends upon the size of his body. Besides, when his soul enters his lungs, it is atmospheric air; but it goes out carbonic acid gas; and then he is left soulless. Now, if each breath is a soul, and a man has a new one every second, then which one is to be held responsible for his sins of to-day, next year, or through life? Or must all be held accountable—eight hundred cubic feet for every day, and two hundred and ninety-two thousand cubic feet for every year, and so on? “The soul that sinneth, it shall die,” says God; i. e., the breath that sinneth shall die! But breath (soul) ceases to be breath after it is breathed out. Is this the death which God here threatens?
Now, if God meant to be understood to mean that the soul was the breath, then the word breath should be used as a translation of the original Hebrew, in order correctly to express its meaning. And this would make the Scriptures read as follows: “The breath of my son Shechem longeth for your daughter.” “The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the breath.” “He gave them their request, but sent leanness into their breath.” “Fear not them that kill the body, but are not able to kill the breath; but rather fear him which is able to destroy both body and breath in hell.” “O my breath, come not thou into their secret.” “Why art thou thus cast down, O my breath? and why art thou disquieted within me.” “Come and hear, all ye that fear God, and I will declare what he hath done for my breath.” “He that winneth breaths is wise.” “Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me, for I am meek and lowly in heart, and ye shall find rest to your breaths.” “My breath is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death.” “And they returned to Lystra and Iconium and Antioch, confirming the breaths of the disciples.” “I saw the breaths of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.” These, and multitudes of other passages that might be quoted, show plainly that the words soul and breath do not mean the same thing.
But, after our materialistic friends fail to sustain themselves in the above position, they generally fall back upon the position, that Adam was a soul before the breath of life was breathed into him. This is yielding the point, that the soul is the breath; for, if Adam was a soul before he had any breath, then his breath was not necessary to its existence; and therefore his body must have been his soul, dead or alive.
Hence, body and soul must be convertible terms; consequently, the term body may be substituted wherever the word soul occurs, and make as good sense. Let us see: “Fear not them that kill the body, but are not able to kill the body, but rather fear him who is able to destroy both body and body in hell,” &c. Hence, Webster’s definition of soul—“the thinking, reasoning, intellectual principle”—is incorrect, as it would not apply to Adam’s soul, he being a soul before any such principle existed in him. He must have been in the same condition before the breath of life was breathed into him that he was after it had left him. Then how shall we interpret Gen. 35: 18: “And it came to pass, as her soul was departing, (for she died,) that she called his name Ben-oni”? What was that soul that departed? Not her body; for Jacob buried that. Neither could it have been her breath; for that formed no part of her soul according to this position. Again, 1 Kings 17: 21, 22: “O Lord, my God, I beseech thee, let this child’s soul come into him again. And the Lord heard the voice of Elijah, and the soul of the child came into the child again, and he revived.” Or, as Elijah probably should have prayed, “O Lord, my God, I pray thee, let this child’s body come into him again. And the Lord heard the voice of Elijah, and the body of the child came into the child again, and he revived!” Now, if that child’s body was his soul, then how could his soul go out of him and come into him again? It could not have been his breath; for if Adam was a soul without breath, so was that child. But it seems that the child died, because his soul went out of him, and he could not revive until it came into him again. Now why was it? Solomon tells us, that “dust shall return to dust, and the spirit to God who gave it.” Now, if Adam was a soul, or spirit, without life, so are all dead men, and, therefore, when the body returns to dust, the soul returns to dust, being one and the same thing. Then what did the preacher mean by saying, The body shall return to dust, but the spirit to God who gave it? Does not this clearly indicate that they are of distinct natures, origin, and destiny?
But our Advent brethren claim that spirit, intelligence, feeling, &c., are all emanations from the body—results of our physical organizations; just as leaves, blossoms, and fruit, are products of a tree or plant. If this be so, then mind must be matter, and controlled by the laws of matter. Therefore, when the body is in a fit condition, thought and feeling will be a necessary result, and their kind and quality will be as fixed and uniform as the physical conditions of the body which produce them; and they can no more change without a previous change in our bodily conditions, than any other physical product. It is a universal law of matter, that the same cause, acting under the same circumstances, must always produce the same results; and no effect can exceed its cause. Hence, love, hatred, happiness, and suffering, are all material substances, having shape, solidity, and all the other qualities of matter, and are each produced by laws of physical necessity, resulting from peculiar changes in the conditions of the body, and could not be produced without them. Therefore it would be as impossible to love or be happy while our bodies are in one condition, as for an apple tree to produce blackberries; and as impossible for us not to hate or be unhappy while our bodies are in a different condition, as for a stalk of wheat to bear peaches. And it would be equally impossible to direct the mind in any particular train of thought, while the body is in a condition to produce a different train. But we know that we may be thinking intently upon one subject, and then, in the twinkling of an eye, our thoughts will dart off into another train of thought, of an entirely different character. And our feelings often change as suddenly. How many of you had any such thoughts, when you came into this house, as are now occupying your minds? Probably nothing was more foreign to your thoughts, before I commenced speaking, than what you are now thinking of. The expression of every countenance indicates that your minds are all fastened upon one subject, and drinking in the thoughts that I am communicating. How is this? Have all your bodies undergone such a radical change, and have the few words I have uttered produced that change? Some such effect must have occurred, or such a result could not have been produced, if this theory be correct. And after all it would prove that mind has the power to change the body.
Again, how came man to sin in the first place? Was it the result of some organic defect, or change in his body? How could he have sinned without, if his mind was a natural production of his physical organization? If the spirit is dependent on the body for its existence and character, then all responsibility attaches to the body. And since it is a fact, that our bodies are entirely renewed once in seven years, and portions of them every day and hour, which body, or part of our bodies, is to be held responsible for our sins? A man who has lived seventy years, has had his body renewed ten times; and surely one body cannot be held responsible for the sins of another body; and as no part of our bodies exists more than seven years, how can a man be held accountable for what he, or somebody else who looked just like him, did seven years before? Now, since the body is passing away and being renewed every hour, it follows, that the whole body can, at no time, be held accountable for sins committed only the day before. Hence, if all the matter that ever composed our bodies, and which participated in our sins, is to be held accountable at the judgment, then, in the resurrection, all those particles must be collected into one body; and a man who has lived eighty-four years, will be twelve times as large as he is here.
Again, if thought is the result of bodily organization, and sin is the result of physical derangement, then man is not to blame for it, any more than he is for the necessary effect of any other natural cause. Physical depravity must precede mental and moral depravity, as a fountain must exist before a stream can issue from it. And if this be true of man, it must hold equally true of Satan. For, according to this philosophy, there could be no devil without a devil body to produce such a character, in the formation of which he had nothing to do, and hence is not responsible for. Who, then, is to blame for his being a devil? Must it not rest upon his Creator? But if this principle be correct, then it must apply to God, as well as to man and Satan, for man is declared to have been made in his image, and after his likeness; therefore, God’s intelligence must also be produced by his physical organization, the same as ours, and be controlled by the same uniform law of cause and effect. His body being the cause, must therefore have existed first, in order to produce his intelligence; and neither could change in character or activity without a corresponding change in that organization; therefore, every thought, feeling, and act of his, is necessitated by the inexorable laws of nature; and therefore he is not responsible. Here, then, is blind fate sitting as the governor of the universe.
Now, if this be true of God, he could not be the creator of matter, as the Bible represents him to be; for matter first created him, spiritually, intellectually and morally.
Again, if this philosophy be true, then regeneration is impossible without the body being regenerated and purified first, which we all know does not take place in this life. Therefore materialists hold that regeneration does not take place till the general resurrection. If this be true, then all men are “carnal, at enmity with God, sold under sin,” up to that time, and then, without any previous change of character in any of them, a part are raised to life and glory, and a part to shame and everlasting contempt; and yet the Scriptures claim that God is no respecter of persons! This philosophy destroys all freedom of will and choice. Then what an ignorant man Paul must have been to teach that, “while the outer man decayed, the inner man was renewed day by day,” as though the spirit of man could grow more and more pure and godlike, while the body that produced69it is festering with corruption, and turning into a mass of putridity! That the fountain can be growing more and more polluted and poisonous, while the stream that issues from it grows more and more pure and wholesome! It is very evident that Paul had not yet attained to such philosophy.
Again, this theory destroys the divinity of Christ. For, if the intelligence and character which Christ had were the product of his physical organization, then wherein did he differ from mankind in general? The Bible says that he took upon him the nature of man, and became in all respects like unto his brethren. Therefore, if there was any divinity about him, it formed a part of his body. But since he partook of the nature of man, and was in all respects made like unto his brethren, wherein could he have possessed any more divinity than mankind in general?
But John says, “In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God;” “and the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us.” Now, how could God, or divinity, be produced by a human body? Let our Advent brethren tell us. They tell us that when he died, he died like any other man, i. e., all there was of him died. Then if he was God, as the evangelist says he was, it follows of necessity that God lay dead, near Jerusalem, for three days and three nights, and therefore must have come to life again by the operation of physical laws, and not by miracle! Such is the necessary result of that kind of logic. And is God honored by it, and man benefited? If so, how?