The above “Sermon”—such is its dignified title—was published in the Sabbath Recorder, some months since. I made a reply in which I complained that our views were misrepresented by the author, and in which I showed that the term soul in the Bible is varied in signification, so that no one definition of the term would make sense in every passage where it occurs. The Recorder, with its usual courtesy, published my reply; since which, a correspondence between Eld. Wardner and myself has been carried on through the Recorder, he claiming that we hold the views combated in his sermon, and I denying, till I concluded to decline any farther dispute on that question, holding that in a fair discussion every one has the right to state his own views, and that the truth in relation to the real question at issue should be the subject of discussion.
He has challenged the publication of his sermon, and the correspondence following, in the Review, expressing dissatisfaction that I did not procure its publication in this paper. I have, therefore, obtained permission to publish the sermon with a reply, giving Eld. W. the privilege of a rejoinder; intending briefly to review his arguments and speak to the real point of difference between us.
REPLY.
In the first place, the sermon is simply a negative discourse, the author taking no position, affirming no proposition concerning the nature of man, but merely raising objections to the views, as he understands them, of the “Advent brethren.” In this his efforts resemble those of the infidel against the Scriptures, who, having no system of truth to build up, contents himself with trying to tear down the Christian’s system of faith and hope, and thus leave him shelterless and forlorn as himself.
If Eld. W. has a position, we are left to infer it; and since the doctrine he combats is denominated by him “Materialism,” we infer that he holds the popular idea that the real man is an immaterial being, and exists independent of the body which is his temporary habitation. But since he does not affirm, we are liable to mistake, and, therefore, shall attempt no direct assault against an immaterial and undefined position. In contrast with this I will state my position; and I cannot find language more clearly to express it, than that of the text of the sermon:—“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.” This expresses my faith precisely. It tells us of what material man was made, and how he was made alive and thus became a living soul. I believe it just as it reads. Is this materialism?
1. In reply to the first paragraph of the sermon, I reply, that the same Hebrew word rendered “breath of life” in the text is also used in Gen. 7: 21, 22, which reads as follows: “And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man; all in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.”
2. “But,” says one, “this passage proves that man’s soul is his breath.” I am not that “one,” and I have never met with him in my travels, nor found the book that he has published. The text says plainly that it was the man, not the breath, that became a living soul. Any one that can read the text ought to know better than to take such a position. I disown and reject it once for all. Hence all that follows about atmospheric air, oxygen, nitrogen, nitric acid, and carbonic acid gas, is all gas, as the popular expression is, and, being nothing to the purpose, deserves no reply.
3. Next Eld. W. attempts to stultify us by reading what he claims are our definitions of soul in the place of the term in various passages of Scripture. But in this he not only stultifies himself in his chosen definition—“the thinking, reasoning, intellectual principle”—but virtually attacks the Bible itself with his sarcasm, making its Author stultify himself. The Lord forgive him; for he did not mean it.
To prove that he confounds and defeats himself, the reader has only to read his definition into the very passages which he quotes in order to confound us. He may then add the following texts and as many more as he please. “He keepeth back his thinking principle from the pit.” “His reasoning principle abhorreth dainty meat.” “Yea, his intellectual principle draweth near unto the grave.” “Whose feet they hurt with fetters, his thinking principle came into iron.” “If he steal to satisfy his reasoning principle when he is hungry.” “No intellectual principle of you shall eat blood.” “And every living thinking principle died in the sea.” Thus he stultifies himself, offering us nonsense instead of argument.
But this sneering, scoffing course is a virtual attack upon the word of God. The term soul, as used in the Bible, has a variety of significations. In the text of the discourse it undoubtedly means the person or being that was made of dust. C. Beecher, a believer in the natural immortality of the soul, says, “It is generally conceded that by the expression, ‘God breathed into him the breath of life, and man became a living soul,’ no more is meant than that God caused him to breathe, and he became a living animal. ‘Living soul’ is applied to him in common with birds, beasts, and reptiles, in the same chapter.”—Redeemer and Redeemed, pp. 170, 171.
A living person, or animal, is a living soul. But this is not always the meaning of soul, and probably not its primary meaning. In the first instances of its use in the Bible it signifies life, a principle which God alone can communicate; and this mysterious principle, though communicated through the agency of the breath, is not to be confounded with it. The first instance of the use of the term ne-phesh, soul, is in Gen. 1: 20: “And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, [Heb. soul,] and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.” Again, it is said, “And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, [Heb. a living soul,] I have given every green herb for meat.” But terms are varied in their signification by a varied use. It would certainly be absurd to claim that n’sham-mah, breath of life, is the ne-phesh chay-iah, living soul, that man became on receiving it. Yet this n’sham-mah is rendered souls in Isa. 57: 16: “For the spirit [roo-agh] should fail before me, and the souls [n’sham-mah] which I have made.”
As life and breath are so closely related to each other, there probably are texts where the Hebrew term for soul may well be rendered breath. Indeed, the original terms for both soul and spirit have been, by our translators, rendered breath. They have given life, person, body, mind, heart, will, pleasure, lust, &c., as the translation of the Hebrew soul. They give us “dead body” where the Hebrew reading is “dead soul.”
Now to array the Bible against itself, by taking a term as used in a certain sense in a particular passage, and applying this sense to the term in other passages where it would make nonsense, as our brother has done, is not a becoming work for a believer in the Bible, as a divine revelation, to engage in. We are not so much surprised that infidels should take this course; but a believer should show the harmony of the Scriptures, and not make them clash with each other, as Eld. W. has done. But he did not intend it. He had his eye upon “materialism,” and was trying to demolish that, when he run the Bible into the ground. I have reason to have confidence in him, as a man of Christian integrity. Though reared in the observance of the first day, when he was convinced that the Sunday Sabbath was a fable, he left it and embraced the Sabbath of the Lord. And when he sees that the natural immortality of the soul is also a fable of like origin, I trust he will discard it. The time will come when he will see it as we do now; and then he will wonder that a zeal to sustain a fabulous theory, destitute of support, either from revelation or from science, but contradictory of both, should ever have led him into a course of argument derogatory to the Scriptures given by inspiration of God.
4. An appeal to the Scriptures. Good. “How shall we interpret” the departing of Rachel’s soul and the coming of the child’s soul into him again? With the facts already stated these are not difficult of interpretation. Soul means life; it also means a person or being. It was the life which God communicated to man with the breath; and it was the man that became a living soul on receiving it. The soul that departed from Rachel was not her person, but her life; for the record says, “She died.” It was the life that left the child, and which Elijah prayed might come into him again; for the child was there upon Elijah’s bed, and when his soul came unto him, “he revived.” Life came to Adam with his breath. And when the child’s “sickness was so sore that there was no breath in him,” life departed, he died. “The body without the spirit [breath] is dead,” whether it be man or beast; for “they all have one breath [roo-agh, spirit].”
Eld. W. says that Jacob buried Rachel’s body; but the Scripture says, “Rachel died and was buried.” The Scriptures always apply the nouns and pronouns representing persons to the body. They never speak of the body as the “mortal remains” of an absent person.
There is nothing difficult in Eccl. 12: 7. God by his almighty power communicated life to man in connection with what is called in Scripture “the breath of the spirit of life.” At death this spirit or life is taken back by Him who gave it, and the dust returns to the earth as it was. This is the unmaking of a man—the reverse of the process by which he was made a living soul. All is easy, if we will accept of it as it is. The term soul is not in this text. It is simply roo-agh, (breath of life,) and not ne-phesh (soul). And in chap. 3: 19, Solomon says of man and beast, “They have all one [roo-agh] breath.”
5. Eld. W. says, “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.” This we deny. We do not make this claim. He makes it for us. We are not so foolhardy, however, as to assert, in the face of science and experimental facts, that there is no connection between thought and brain, but that the mind is independent of the body, so that a pressure on the brain cannot interrupt the thoughts. “In death there is no remembrance,” says inspiration; and as far as experience and observation can go, they corroborate the declaration. But we do not believe that intelligence is a result of physical organization. Adam was perfectly organized before he was animated, and there he might70have remained as dead and thoughtless as a clod, had not God given him life and power of thought. Life, with all its manifestations, is a gift directly from God. No man knows the mystery of life—how thoughts are produced—though he may discover the telegraphic wires, the nerves, which serve as conductors; but every one that has any thoughts worth thinking, knows that they are not produced “just as leaves, blossoms, and fruit, are products of a tree or plant.” This would place man in the vegetable kingdom, and not the animal—make him a plant and not a man. But after manufacturing our premises for us, just to suit himself, he draws for us the very sage conclusion that “mind must be matter,” and all mental phenomena, “material substances, having shape, solidity, and all the other qualities of matter.” We deny the premises. He alone is responsible for this material nonsense.
6. But what changed the current of thought in Eld. Wardner’s hearers? I suppose the change was produced by certain undulations of the atmosphere set in motion by the vocal organs of the speaker which falling upon the tympanum, produced the sensation which we call articulate sounds, which are by common consent signs of ideas. This gave the hearer something to think of. To illustrate it: My cow or hens start off in a direction I do not wish them to go. I call them, and they turn about and come back. They were going out to gather food for themselves, but when they heard my voice, they preferred to turn back, and see what I had in my basket. Now this is just as mysterious as the latter. If it proves that his hearers had immaterial, immortal souls, it proves the same thing for the lower animals; and that which proves too much, proves nothing at all.
7. Volition and accountability. If man is a tree, doubtless sin grew upon his branches like fire-blight upon a plum tree, and he is not to blame for it. But we are conscious that man is capable of choosing, and God in revelation has called upon him to choose. Therefore he is not a tree. It is in fable only that trees elect a king. But if he is material, how can he be accountable for thoughts, desires and deeds? If Eld. W. will tell us just how an immaterial being—i. e., a being made of nothing and that is nothing after being made—can have the freedom of choice and be made accountable for his actions, I will engage to tell him how a being of flesh and blood, bones and brain, can exercise the same freedom of will and be justly accountable for his actions. I am willing to believe the word of God and my own consciousness upon the subject. And until he can give a reason why immaterial beings are accountable, he can give no reason why material are not. Let him impart the secret, and tell us the how and the why.
My friend seems to think it impossible for God to make a physical being whose organ of thought is a material brain, and yet make him accountable by giving him freedom of volition. For, he argues, his character is of necessity dependent upon his organization, and if he is wicked, it is the “result of the depravity of that organization,” and therefore the blame, if there is any, must attach to his Maker.
Did he ever think of applying this argument to men with immaterial brains? If there are such men, God has constituted them just such beings as they are; and, since revelation has not informed us on the point, by what means does he know that their thoughts, feelings and actions, are not necessitated by their individual organizations? He can give no reason why God cannot give the power and liberty of choice to creatures formed of dust, as well as to those formed of gas, ether, electricity, or—nothing, the thing that he abolished when he made the worlds, because he preferred to it a material creation. Even a horse can choose which road to take; and sometimes his choice strongly conflicts with that of his master. Our friend’s argument begs the whole question. Let him first prove the existence of immaterial men, and then give the proof, either from revelation or well-known facts, that such beings, and such only, can have and exercise freedom of will, and therefore be accountable for the course they pursue. If indeed his argument is founded in truth, an infidel fatalist can justly claim that no creature is accountable to the Creator.
This argument is air-built—it has no foundation on which to stand. On the one hand it has no Scripture declaration on which to rest, and on the other, it has no established fact to support it. To make my meaning clear, let me, by contrast, show how an argument should be founded. Thus: “The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground.” “In death there is no remembrance” of God. This is one good solid pedestal on which a colossal argument might rest. Believers in the Scriptures cannot object to this foundation. But unbelievers may; therefore to meet their case, we will mention a well-established fact, proving that the brain is the organ of the mind. It is this: Press the skull upon the brain, or let it be extremely congested with inflammation, or fever, and the person is unconscious to all that passes till the obstructing cause is removed. While the brain is thus held from performing its function, your immaterial man, which is said to be independent of the body, does not know that he has any existence or ever had. This fact is attested by thousands; and forms another fact to our argument. Two facts are sufficient for an upright argument. It will stand. And it will be found that all “oppositions of science” brought to bear against it, are “falsely so called.”
Men, imagining themselves to be immaterial immortals, may affect to despise, and may traduce a material brain; but they would know less than they do, if they had none, despite their fancied immortality. The greatest wonder is that they cannot see that, for an argument to stand, it must have something to stand on; and that their theory of man is without foundation in natural science; and contradicted by the word of God.
8. One thing at a time. When we get the subject of human nature cleared up, it will be soon enough to inquire concerning the divine. Christ, as the seed of Abraham, was made like unto his brethren. He was made a little while lower than the angels for the express purpose of suffering death. But the doctrine of the Trinity does not depend upon the question under discussion, therefore it would be a digression to discuss it in this connection. R. F. COTTRELL.
Platonism at Rome.
By Dudley Marvin Canright
We have already traced the history of Platonism to Rome. We are now ready to note its efforts there. That Rome received its religion mostly from Greece, is attested by all writers. “The religion of the Romans,” says a learned author, “appears to have been that of Greece—a mixture of Syrian and Egyptian fables. The principal gods of both people were the same.” “The religious system of the Romans,” says Mr. Fisk, “gives clear evidence of its Grecian descent, being in scarcely any part of it a native growth, but borrowed chiefly from the Greek colonies in Italy.” Dr. Good says, “The philosophers of Rome present us with nothing new; for they merely followed the dogmas of those of Greece.” For several hundred years the Romans were a very rude, barbarous people; and it was not till near the time of Christ that they began to cultivate philosophy among them. About this time, Rome opened its arms to Grecian philosophy, which, “having been thus transplanted to Rome, the exotic plant flourished with vigor in its new soil.” Very soon, every Grecian sect of philosophy had its numerous patrons among the Romans.
Platonism was embraced by some very illustrious men, among whom was Cicero. He was a great admirer of Plato, and said and wrote much to prove the immortality of the soul. He did for that doctrine among the Romans what Plato had done for it among the Greeks. Rome was then mistress of the world. This brought all nations to Rome, and threw them much together.
THE ALEXANDRIAN SCHOOL.
About this time there was a singular school started at Alexandria, in Egypt, then a part of the Roman empire. It was called The Eclectic or New Platonic School. The origin of it was this: Certain philosophers, seeing the endless disputes and contradictions among the many different sects of philosophy and religion, formed the plan of gleaning from all whatever was good and consonant to reason, and rejecting the rest. Platonism was the basis of this school, and the doctrine of the immortality of the soul held a conspicuous place in it. It was through this school, further improved by Ammonius, that this doctrine came into the church; hence we are interested in it. It is not certain just when it started; but probably not far from the birth of Christ. So say Dr. Mosheim, Enfield, The Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, &c. One Potamon, a Platonist, is supposed to have been its founder. Says the Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, “They held Plato in the highest esteem, but did not scruple to join with his doctrine, whatever they thought conformable to reason in the tenets of other philosophers.”
But the man who did the most to make this school what it finally became in its influence on Christianity, was Ammonius Saccas, who was born toward the close of the second century. He was born of Christian parents, and taught that religion; but he apostatized, either wholly or in part, to heathenism. He joined the Eclectic School at Alexandria, and undertook to unite heathenism and Christianity into one system. The learned Dr. Mosheim thus states with regard to this man and his work: “This (Eclectic) mode of philosophizing was changed near the close of the (second) century, when Ammonius Saccas, with great applause, opened a school at Alexandria, and laid the foundation for that sect which is called the New Platonic. This man was born and educated a Christian, and, perhaps, made pretensions to Christianity all his life. Being possessed of great fecundity of genius, as well as eloquence, he undertook to bring all systems of philosophy and religion into harmony; or, in other words, to teach a philosophy by which all philosophers, and the men of all religions, the Christian not excepted, might unite together and have fellowship. * Ammonius held that all sects held one and the same system of truth, with only some difference in the mode of stating it, and some minute difference in their conceptions; so that, by means of suitable explanations, they might, with little difficulty, be brought into one body. He moreover held this new and singular principle, that the popular religions, and likewise the Christian, must be understood and explained according to this common philosophy of all the sects; and that the fables of the vulgar pagans and their priests, and so, too, the interpretations of the disciples of Christ, ought to be separated from their respective religions.”
Says Mosheim: “The grand object of Ammonius, to bring all sects and religions into harmony, required him to do much violence to the sentiments and opinions of all parties, philosophers, priests, and Christians; and, particularly, by means of allegorical interpretations, to remove very many impediments out of the way. To these assumptions he added the common doctrines of the Egyptians (among whom he was born and educated), concerning the universe and the Deity; as constituting one great whole*, [Pantheism] concerning the eternity of the world, the nature of the soul, providence, the government of this world by demons, and other received doctrines, all of which he considered as true, and not to be called in question.” Enfield says about the same of this school.
Ammonius died about A. D. 243. “The school of Ammonius was continued, and the Eclectic system completed by the most celebrated of his disciples, Platinus, the chief of the Alexandrian Platonists, from whom the school afterwards took its name.” He was born A. D. 205. By his great abilities, the school became very famous, and very successful in its object, as we shall see. Plato’s doctrine of the immortality of the soul he implicitly received. The following from Enfield will illustrate this: “It was another proof of the fanatical spirit of Platinus, that, though well skilled in the medical art, he had such contempt for the body, that he could never be prevailed upon to make use of any means to cure or alleviate his pains. He had learned from Pythagoras and Plato that the soul is sent into the body for the punishment of its former sins, and must, in this prison, pass through a severe servitude before it can be sufficiently purified to return to the divine fountain from which it flowed. When he found his end approach-71ing, he said to Eustachius, ‘The divine principle within me is now hastening to unite itself with that divine Being which animates the universe;’ herein expressing a leading principle of his philosophy, that the human soul is an emanation from the divine nature, and will return to the source whence it proceeded.” This shows what a prominent place Plato’s doctrine of the human soul held in this system.
Platinus died A. D. 270. “The succession of the Platonic or Eclectic school in Alexandria terminated in Damascus, a native of Syria.” That this school was chiefly founded upon the doctrines of Plato, especially that relating to the soul, is attested by all authorities on this subject. Dr. Mosheim says, “Those who originated this species of philosophy (the Eclectic), took their leading principles from the system of Plato; considering almost every thing which he advanced respecting the Deity, the soul, the world, the demons, as indisputable axioms.” Plato was the highest authority with them. To him all, even Christ, must bow. It is their doctrine concerning the soul that we are especially interested in, and this we see was the same as taught by Plato, and was received directly from him. Their doctrines on this point are thus clearly described by Mosheim. “Man, therefore, while he continued here below, was supposed to be compounded of two principles, acting in direct opposition to each other; 1st, a terrestrial and corrupt or vitiated body; 2d, a soul partaking of the nature of the Deity, and derived from the region of purity and light. The soul, or ethereal part, being, through its connection with the body, confined as it were within a prison of matter, was constantly exposed to the danger of becoming involved in ignorance and acquiring every sort of evil propensity from the impulse and contagion of the vitiated mass by which it was enveloped.”
“The body, on the contrary, as the source of every depraved appetite, was, according to them, to be reduced and brought into subjection by hunger, thirst, and every other species of mortification; and neither to be supported by flesh nor wine, nor indulged in any of those gratifications to which it is naturally prone; in fact, a constant self-denial was to be rigorously observed in every thing which might contribute either to the convenience or amenitas [Latin, pleasantness] of this life; so that the material frame being thus by every means weakened and brought low, the celestial spirit might the more readily escape from its contagious influence, and regain its native liberty. Hence it was that the Manichæans, the Marcionites, the Encratites, and others, passed their lives in one continued course of austerity and mortification.” “Every one who laid claim to the character of a wise man, was strictly enjoined by him (Ammonius) to assert the liberty of his divine and immortal part, by extracting it, as it were, from all connection with the body; the consequence of which would be, that it would, even in this life, enjoy communion with the Deity; and when death should disencumber it of every gross and corporeal tie, escape free and unpolluted into the arms of the first great Parent of all things.”
It would seem that a very little penetration would discern in this the original of the modern theological doctrine of the immortality of the soul, going to Heaven at death, &c. With this school the resurrection of the body was either of little importance or denied entirely. This would naturally follow from their view of the impurity of matter. These facts I think sufficient to give a clear idea of the doctrines of this celebrated school concerning man, both soul and body.
ITS GREAT POPULARITY
We will briefly notice how popular and extensive this school became. All agree that it acquired a wonderful degree of eminence, and soon extended itself over most of the Roman empire and eclipsed the glory of all other sects. To this effect writes Mosheim: “While the emperors and magistrates were striving to subvert the Christian commonwealth by means of laws and punishments, it was assailed with craft and subtlety, during this whole century, by the philosophers of the Ammonian school; who assumed the name of Platonists, extended their disciples over nearly all the Roman empire, and gradually obscured the glory of all other sects.” Again: “The school of Ammonius, the origin and dogmas of which have been already stated, gradually cast all others into the back ground. From Egypt it spread in a short time over nearly the whole Roman empire; and drew after it almost all persons inclined to attend to metaphysical studies. This prosperity of the sect was owing especially to Platinus, the most distinguished disciple of Ammonius, a man of intellectual acumen, and formed by nature for abstruse investigation. For he taught first in Persia and afterwards at Rome and in Campania, to vast concourses of youth; and embodied his precepts in various books.” Says Enfield, “The pernicious influence of the Eclectic system, both upon opinions and manners, through many succeeding ages, will be seen in the sequel.”
Thus it will be seen that this school was exceedingly popular, and its influence was very widely extended.
D. M. Canright.
A GERMAN TRUST SONG.
By Lampertus
Just as God leads me I would go;
I would not ask to choose my way;
Content with what he would bestow,
Assured he will not let me stray,
So as he leads, my path I make,
And step by step I gladly take,
A child in him confiding.
Just as God leads I am content;
I rest me calmly in his hands;
That which he has decreed and sent—
That which his will for me commands,
I would that he should all fulfill,
That I should do his gracious will
In living or in dying.
Just as God leads, I all resign;
I trust me to my Father's will;
When reason's rays deceptive shine,
His counsel would I yet fulfill—
That which his love ordained as right,
Before he brought me to the light,
My all to him resigning.
Just as God leads me, I abide
In faith, in hope, in suffering true;
His strength is ever by my side—
Can aught my hold on him undo?
I hold me firm in patience, knowing
That God my life is still bestowing—
The best in kindness sending.
Just as God leads me, I onward go,
Oft amid thorns and briars seen;
God does not yet his guidance show—
But in the end it shall be seen
How, by a loving Father's will,
Faithful and true, he leads me still.
—Lampertus, 1625.
Church Festivals.
The following, which we clip from a secular paper, is worthy of consideration by all thoughtful people:
“We had a festival on Christmas, given by the M. E. Society, at which from a ‘tree’ was distributed several bottles of ‘Bourbon’ (sham of course), and of the amount imbibed, none but the most credulous would think that a dozen ‘mule’s ears’ full would be a safe estimate, which is nevertheless true. The proceeds of this (the Festival, not the Bourbon) is to be used for the purpose of liquidating church debts. Pecuniarily, it (we might say both) was a success; but we might ask, Is the cause of Christianity materially benefited, and is it Christianlike for a society to convert its house, a place consecrated to the worship of God, into a place of riotous confusion, even blasphemy, profanity, drunkenness, and all manner of sinful conduct, simply to pay off a church debt? Is there not a better way to raise money? Is it Christianlike for a society to tolerate such conduct in their house? It would, perhaps, be more difficult to raise the money by subscription; but every Christian should feel it his duty to contribute and expend liberally a portion of this world’s goods for the prosperity of the church, that pure and holy principles may be universally extended; he should loathe wrong-doing, iniquity, and that which is vile; avoid and abhor evil. Any one who will be guilty of such conduct in a church, certainly must be wholly incapable of shame. Any community possessing any so utterly debased, deserves pity.—H. W. in Sigourney (Iowa) News.
Annual Meetings—Special Notice!
General Conference.
PROVIDENCE permitting, the eighth annual session of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists will be held in Battle Creek, Mich., Tuesday, March 15, 1870, at 9 o’clock, A. M. All the different State Conferences will please immediately make arrangements to represent themselves by delegate. Let there be no failure. Let all the delegates come prepared to furnish to the General Conference full statistics of their respective Conferences, according to the blanks issued for that purpose. Scattered brethren everywhere have the privilege of presenting their requests to the Conference, either in person or by letter; and such requests will be acted on according to what may seem to be duty in the matter, or according to the ability of the Conference.
The change in the time of the Conference is made because this is thought to be a more favorable season for many to attend, and because it will not infringe upon the summer campaign, as formerly it did. Let those who come be punctual at the commencement, and come prepared to remain to the close.
In behalf of the Committee,
U. SMITH, Secretary.
Michigan State Conference.
THE Michigan State Conference will hold its tenth annual session at Battle Creek, Mich., Wednesday, March 16, 1870, at 9 o’clock, A. M. Let all the churches make report; by delegate, if possible, or by letter, if the delegates cannot be sent. Let ministers and delegates come prepared to make the various reports required by the Constitution, that the necessary business may be promptly done.
In behalf of Committee,
WM. C. GAGE, Secretary.
The S. D. A. Publishing Association.
THE Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association will hold its tenth annual session at Battle Creek, Mich., Thursday, March 17, at 9 o’clock, A. M., to deliberate for the general interests of the Association, elect officers, and transact any other business that may come before the meeting.
By order of the Trustees,
E. S. WALKER, Secretary.
The Health-Reform Institute.
THE Stockholders of the Health-Reform Institute will hold their fourth annual meeting at Battle Creek, Mich., Friday, March 18, at 9 o’clock, A. M., for the election of officers, and for the transaction of any other business that may come before the meeting.
JAMES WHITE,
J. N. ANDREWS,
O. B. JONES,
N. N. LUNT,
M. J. CORNELL,
B. SALISBURY,
E. S. WALKER,
Directors.
Say Nothing Respecting Yourself
SAY nothing respecting yourself, either good, bad, or indifferent: nothing good, for that is vanity; nothing bad, for that is affectation; nothing indifferent, for that is silly.
Obituary Notices.
By Roswell F. Cottrell
Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth.
FELL asleep, in Buffalo, N. Y., Jan. 22, 1870, our beloved brother, J. B. Lamson, of Rochester, N. Y., aged 41 years. From apparent health, a few weeks of sickness closed his mortal life. Disease, quick consumption and typhoid fever. He leaves a stricken wife, but a few years since bereaved of a kind father (Bro. J. T. Orton,) by the pitiless hand of a murderer, and two children, father and mother, brothers and sisters, and numerous friends, to mourn his loss; but not without hope; for they feel the blessed assurance that he sleeps in Jesus. He loved the truth; and while he was striving to renewedly consecrate himself to God, and prepare for future usefulness, we believe he was ripening to sleep the “blessed sleep.” The church in Rochester is deprived again of one of its most efficient members, and all the churches in this part of the State mourn with them.
The funeral was held in Rochester. Text, Ps. 103:13–18. We laid him away in Mount Hope, to await the coming of the Lifegiver, whose voice, we believe, will soon open this grave, and others in this cemetery, and bring forth the silent and peaceful sleepers clothed in immortal bloom. R. F. COTTRELL.
Fruit Culture
Health reformers are especially interested in the cultivation of fruits. To assist those who need instruction in the matter, Bro. White has issued a small work entitled, “Small Fruits: How to Cultivate, and How to Can.” In its pages, advice is given as to the selection of profitable varieties, and their proper care and cultivation; to which is added two approved methods of canning various kinds of fruits and berries.
The price of the work is 10 cents; postage 2 cents. This work contains a large amount of very valuable instruction on the subjects indicated by its title. We wish it a wide circulation, as it contains instruction very generally needed.
The Love of Christ
WHAT words can express the love of Christ for sinful men? What language can describe his pity and compassion for them? By what effort of the mind can we take in that self-sacrifice which is beyond all estimate and all comprehension? It is not merely what he gave up for us, but what he suffered for our sakes. It was not done for the worthy, but for the unworthy, the rebellious, and the guilty. Surely the love of Christ passes knowledge.
When the human race, as represented by Adam and Eve, were expelled from Paradise, the tree of life was barred from man's access by the flaming sword of justice in the hands of the cherubim. Before Jesus, the second Adam, could lead back to that life-giving tree the host of the redeemed, himself must receive the blow of that flaming sword. Behold it inflicted upon Calvary! Behold the Lamb of God led to the shameful cross! Witness his dying agonies for Adam's sinful race, and then with the deepest gratitude acknowledge that such love demands the sacrifice of everything that we hold dear, for his cause and for his honor.
Henceforward let every one of us live for him who died for us.
Destruction of Jerusalem.
The terrible visitation of God's wrath upon Jerusalem has been eagerly seized upon, by many, as the fulfillment of all the vengeance against sin which the Bible threatens. So when Malachi speaks of the day "that shall burn as an oven," or Peter of the melting of the elements with "fervent heat," or Paul of the revelation of the Son of God "in flaming fire," these awful declarations are said to have been fulfilled when Jerusalem was destroyed. Undoubtedly when Noah preached the coming of the flood, the antediluvians had some great woe, which had come on mankind some centuries before, to cite to him as the real fulfillment of all God's threatenings against sin. They satisfied their own minds so that they regarded not his warnings. But in spite of all this comfortable explanation, the flood came and destroyed them all. The destruction of Jerusalem now swallows up all the unpleasant truths of Scripture. But instead of that terrible event calming the fears of the guilty, it ought to alarm them. If God has marked iniquity in the Jews, and inflicted on them such terrible blows, will he not do the like by the Gentiles?