Earlier text: General ArticlesNo Millennium Till Jesus Comes.
By E. P. Marvin
BY REV. E. P. MARVIN (PRESBYTERIAN). ALL honest and intelligent Christians believe that the two following events lie before us—the personal return of the Lord Jesus Christ to the earth, and the universal prevalence of gospel truth and righteousness in what is called a millennium. But Christians differ as to the chronological order of these two important events. One class holds that the Lord's coming occurs first, and the other that the millennium comes first. In order to discover the truth— 1. We should dismiss all preconceived theories and undertake original investigation. 2. Remember that it cannot be settled by unaided reason. 3. We must expect to find difficulties on both sides. 4. We must not be shaken from known truths by objections founded in ignorance. 5. When truth is once established all objections must of course fall. 6. Waiving the discussion of the comparative influence of the two theories, let us simply endeavor to ascertain which is true, and be assured that truth must be more beneficial than error. 7. Then let us bow absolutely to the testimony of the written word of God as the only source of certain information. *"This is the judge that ends the strife;
Where wit and reason fail." Dr. Hodge truly says: "The only legitimate method of controverting a doctrine which purports to be founded on Scripture is the exegetical." I will present some reasons from the New Testament, why, as it seems clear to many of us, there can be no millennium till Jesus comes. They can only be fully appreciated by those who carefully study the texts adduced. If the church was to make the triumphant conquest of the world, and usher in the millennium before the coming of Christ, we should confidently expect it to be clearly, prominently, and frequently revealed in the New Testament. Those who now expect this, are constantly holding it up before the church. Indeed they regard it almost as the essential and supreme stimulus of the missionary effort. They declare that Christian work and missionary zeal are absolutely and hopelessly paralyzed without it, and Christianity is a failure. Now where in the discourses of Christ or the writings of the apostles is this doctrine made so clearly prominent—nay, where is it taught at all? Nay, more, bring us one solitary proof-text, upon a fair exegesis. I have never heard one adduced. Further, there were special reasons and occasions for presenting and magnifying this doctrine if it was true. When Christ issued the great commission, (Mark 16:15, 16) why did he not encourage and stimulate his followers, as some do now, by promising them the conquest of the world? When Peter wrote to the dispersed and suffering saints, why did he not cheer and encourage them with the promise, so current, of "taking the world for Christ." When Paul corrected the mistake of the Thessalonian Christians, that the day of the Lord was "present," why did he not tell them that a millennium must intervene? 2 Thess. 2:1-12. But let us come now closely, reverently, and candidly to the word. 1. There can be no millennium till Jesus comes, because his coming and the establishment of the kingdom occur together. The kingdom comes with the King. It is to be ushered in by his coming, and by catastrophe. Study 2 Tim. 4:1; Acts 3:20, 21; Luke 19:12-15. We are "heirs" "preserved unto this kingdom," exhorted to "walk worthy of it." 2. The antichrist, whose career all believe to be premillennial, will be alive at his coming and destroyed by its brightness—2 Thess. 2:8. 3. God's purpose through this dispensation, in the gospel mission to the gentiles, is plainly declared to be witness-bearing and out-calling, and not the ingathering of the nations.—Matt. 24:14; Acts 1:8; 15:14-17; Col. 1:6, 23. How does the history of Christianity comport with the purpose of its converting the world? 7. The repeated injunctions of Christ and the apostles to watch for the Lord's coming, as for an event to our knowledge always imminent, forbids an intervening millennium.—Matt. 24:42-48; 25:13; Mark 13:35-37; Luke 12:35-46; Rev. 16:15. It seems evident that no one can, nor does watch for the Lord's coming intelligently, (as for example men watch for death) if he believes that at least a thousand years must intervene. It seems to me that dear Brother Inglis scarcely exceeded the truth when he said, that "the conversion of the world in this dispensation would be the positive refutation of the New Testament." HERE is the position. Three guns of a divided battery are stationed on the crest of a hill to the left of an old orchard which surrounds an ancient farm-house. The other three are on the right of the orchard, and the six pieces point to the meadows below—meadows broken by fences and haystacks and lone trees, until they are lost in the edge of the woods a mile away. The eye ranges over the fields in front and sees nothing to fear. The ear listens to sounds in rear of the battery and hears the ominous preparations for a bloody struggle. Cavalry are swinging away to the right to get position, infantry are marching here and there—guns rushing along at a gallop, and aids fly from point to point with orders. In ten minutes a deep stillness begins to settle down over the left wing. The doves fly down from their cots, the hens walk about in search of food, and the gray-headed farmer stands at the door and shades his eyes with his hands and looks curiously about him. Twenty minutes ago he sat rocking on the porch and the bees flew lazily in the June sunshine, the birds sang in the orchard, and afar down the meadow he heard the voices of his sons as they swung their scythes. Ah! what's that? Down there where meadow and forest blend we can see quick puffs of blue smoke, and here comes the sound of muskets. A blue cloud just begins to gather and rise down there, and we catch sight of men. They are retreating back—coming towards the orchard. They fall back slowly, halting at every fence to tear it down and to deliver a fire from behind the scattered rails. Now we see a long thin line of skirmishers emerge from the woods and occupy the ground as the other line loses it. Back! back! forward! forward! and you might think it a pantomime if men did not fall out of the lines here and there and drop heavily on the earth. There is a stir around us. The silence has been so deep that the jingle of a sabre or rattle of a spur has made men nervous. Out from the edge of the woods by the broad highway and across the peaceful fields, pours a host of armed men. Regiment after regiment and line after line, sweeping forward like mighty waves—now undulating, like the course of a serpent—now marching as steadily as the stride of Time. One—three—five—ten—you cannot count the flags. Silk and fringe and gold and bunting stream over the heads of the men whose eyes are fixed on the orchard and the hill-side. The stir deepens. There is a tramping of feet, orders are given in quick, sharp tones, and three companies of infantry come up at a double-quick as a support and fling themselves down under the trees. Just a moment now to listen to the notes of the blue-birds and robins—to see the blue smoke creeping lazily from the farm-house chimney—to note that the marching lines are almost within musket-shot, and down over the men and guns and sabres and shot and shells falls a shower of pink and white apple-blossoms—emblems of purity and peace! Aye! a rough hand brushes them off a cannon which a moment later is carrying a horrible death to a score of men. Now the fight has begun. Men raise their voices from whispers to mad shouts. The smoke leaps up and stains the pure blossoms. The flame springs forward and scorches the green grass to yellow, and then burns it to the roots. Are the lines yet advancing? You cannot see ten feet beyond the guns, but you can hear. Heavens! but how they shout and scream and shriek and curse! The guns are using grape and canister, and the murderous missiles cut men into shreds and scatter flesh and blood over the living far behind. We are driving them back! hip! hip! hur!— No! Here they are! Through the cloud of flame and smoke they rush at the guns—spectres of death bursting through and over the vapory barrier which has reared itself between the living and the dead. They shout in fury! They shriek in despair! They fight the very flame which dissolves them and they pass the muzzles of the grim monsters! Here on this acre of ground—here beneath the apple blossoms—is a hell on earth. A hell in which smoke and flame and curse and wail and blood and wounds and death are so mingled that those outside of it only hear one terrible and appalling roar, as if some fierce beast had received its death-wound. Shoot to the right or left—over the guns or under them. Strike where you will, but strike to destroy! Now the hell surges down even to the windows of the old farm-house—now back under the apple trees and beyond it. Dead men are under the ponderous wheels of the guns—mad devils are slashing and shooting across the barrels. No one seems to know friend from foe. Shoot! slash! kill! and—! But the hell is dissolved. The smoke is lifting, shrieks and screams growing fainter, and twenty or thirty living men pull the bodies of the dead away from the guns and renew the slaughter against the lines marching across the meadow. Three hundred dead and wounded on the single acre! Blood on the grass, blood on tire and spoke and gun! Arms hacked off—brains spattered against the trees—skulls cleft in twain and bloody fingers fast clenched into blood-red grass! They tell of war and glory. Look over this hell's acre and find the latter.—Anon. Duty and Resistance to Temptation
A MAN in the path of duty is twice as strong to resist temptation as out of it. A fish is twice as strong in the water as on the shore; but a four-footed beast is twice as strong on the land as in the water. The reason is, because the water is a proper element of the one, and the earth of the other. Thy work is the element wherein thou art most able to resist temptation.—Sel. In reading a book which interested us greatly during our three months' sojourn at the Hotel de la Paix, at Mentone, we stumbled on the following passage: "In the anecdote books of our boyhood used to be told the story of an Indian Faquir, who entered an Eastern palace, and spread his bed in one of its ante-chambers, pretending that he had mistaken the building for a caravansary, or inn. The prince, amused by the oddity of the circumstance, ordered, so ran the tale, the man to be brought before him, and asked him how he came to make such a mistake. "What is an inn?" the Faquir asked. "A place," was the reply, "where travelers rest a little while before proceeding on their journey." "Who dwelt here before you?" again asked the Faquir. "My father," was the prince's reply. "And did he remain here?" "No," was the answer. "He died and went away." "And who dwelt here before him?" "His ancestors." "And did they remain here?" "No, they also died and went away." "Then," rejoined the Faquir, "I have made no mistake, for your palace is but an inn, after all." The Faquir was right. Our houses are but inns, and the whole world a caravansary. Under what sign are we living? We like our own sign of "peace." De la Paix has a soft sound to our ear. Others prefer to have their hotels called the "Splendid," or the "Royal," or the "Imperial;" let us dwell in "peace," and we shall be content. It was said of old, concerning our Lord and Master, that "there was no room for him in the inn;" if it be so in any house, peace will be courted in vain; but make room for Jesus, and all will be well, for "he is our peace."—Spurgeon. The Object of Questioning.
By J. A. Howe
IN the Sabbath-school as well as in the court-room, questioning is an art. But all art is achieved by working according to definite rules. In every stroke the sculptor has an aim, and for every chip that flies can give a reason. Questions are the strokes of the Sabbath-school teacher, and by them he best fashions character who directs his words according to these three primary principles of Scriptural catechism. Questions should aim rather to awaken thought than to secure assent to thought. That all sentences followed by an interrogation point are not questions, needs no proof. The nature of an object tells what it is; and the nature of a question is unlike that of an answer. Questions appeal to memory or reflection; answers are the product of that appeal. To put the substance of an answer into the form of a question is, however, a common fault of teachers. "Was it not fitting that the angels should announce the birth of Christ?" "Do shepherds watch their flocks by night?" "Would not the advent of Christ be miraculous?" All questions of this order are eggs of the cuckoo in the nest of the sparrow. They are answers in a borrowed garb, defeating, too, all the ends for which questions, instead of affirmations, are made use of by the teacher. It is erroneously supposed that questions designed to stir up thought must be hard questions. What we wish to escape is, not easy, but foolish, questions. Now that is ever a foolish question which a fool can as readily answer as a wise man. It is evident that the intelligence of a scholar may be lost sight of in two ways: by questions too profound, or by questions too simple for his understanding. In any case, the sure mark of a good question is that it is adapted to awaken and draw out the mind of the one addressed. If the proper answer has no nutriment in it, represents neither a quickened intellect nor heart, the question, though an epitome of the entire lesson, is worthless. For questioning is dropping into the brook a line, not with the trout on the hook, but with the bait on it, in order to catch the trout out of the brook. A LADY gave us a rule, not long since, by which she had succeeded in interesting her lively, fun-loving boys, so that they preferred to remain at home evenings, instead of seeking amusement elsewhere. She said:— “I remember that children are children, and must have amusements. I fear that the abhorrence with which some good parents regard any play for children is the reason why children go away for pleasure. Husband and I used to read history, and at the end of each chapter ask questions, requiring the answer to be looked up if not given correctly. We follow a similar plan with the children; sometimes we play one game and sometimes another, always planning with books, stories, plays, or treats of some kind, to make the evenings at home more attractive than they can be made abroad. I should dislike to think that any one could make my children happier than I can, so I always try to be at leisure in the evening, and to arrange something entertaining. “When there is a good concert, lecture, or entertainment, we all go together to enjoy it; for whatever is worth the price of admission to us older people, is equally valuable to the children; and we let them see that we spare no expense, where it is to their advantage to be out of an evening. “But the greater number of our evenings are spent at home. Sometimes it requires quite an effort to sit quietly, talking and playing with them, when my work-basket is filled with unfinished work, and books and papers lie unread on the table; but as the years go by, and I see my boys and girls grow into home-loving, modest young men and maidens, I am glad that I made it my rule to give the best of myself to my family.” The Rev. Mr. Osborn, in a recent speech in England, said: Allusion has been made to the progress of infidelity in these times. Some of the lecturers occasionally met with their match. Some time since he heard of a man who went down to Lancashire or Yorkshire, and delivered a lecture on evolution or development. He endeavored to show that every form of excellence was developed from some inferior species of the same genus, and to account for the existence of man in the same way. He said: "You go and stand by the side of a pool of water perfectly bright, pure, and clear; go a little while after, and you will find it getting thick; go again, and it will be green and putrid; go again, and there will be a number of little creatures popping about in the form of tadpoles; go again, and you will see these tadpoles cutting their capers in the shape of frogs." By that time he had got as far as he could, and he did as parsons sometimes do when they do not know what else to do; he said, "And so on." Whereupon a man in the audience got up and said; "Yes, I think I see what you mean; but can you tell us how long we should have to stand by the pond before we should see a man pop up?" This consists in lecturing to a class of children upon every subject which occurs to the teacher, it being his chief aim to bring before them as many facts in a limited time as possible. It is as if he should provide himself with a basket of sweetmeats, and every time he should come within reach of a child, should seize him, and compel him to swallow—regardless of the condition of his stomach—whatever trash he should happen first to force into his mouth. Children are indeed fond of sweetmeats, but they do not like to have them administered—and every physiologist knows there is such a thing as eating enough even of an agreeable thing to make one sick, and thus produce loathing forever after. Now many teachers are just such misguided caterers for the mind. They are ready to seize upon the victims of their kindness, force open their mental gullets, and pour in, without mercy and without discretion, whatever sweet thing they may have at hand, even though they surfeit and nauseate the poor sufferer. The mind, by this process, becomes a mere passive recipient, taking in without much resistance whatever is presented till it is full. "A passive recipient!" said one to his friend, "what is a passive recipient?" "A passive recipient," replied his friend, "is a two-gallon jug. It holds just two gallons, and as it is made of potters' ware, it can never hold but just two gallons." This is not an unfit illustration of what I mean by making the mind a passive recipient. Whenever the teacher does not first excite inquiry, first prepare the mind by waking it up to a desire to know, and if possible to find out by itself, but proceeds to think for the child, and to give him the results, before they are desired, or before they are sought for—he makes the mind of the child a two-gallon jug, into which he may pour just two gallons, but no more. And if after day he should continue to pour in, day after day he may expect that what he pours in will all run over. The mind, so far as retention is concerned, will act like the jug; that is, a part of what is poured in to-day, will be diluted by a part of that which is forced in to-morrow, and that again will be partially displaced and partially mingled with the next day's pouring, till at length there will be nothing characteristic left. But aside from retention, there is a great difference between the jug and the mind. The former is inert material, and may be as good a jug after such use as before. But the mind suffers by every unsuccessful effort to retain. This process of lecturing children into imbecility is altogether too frequently practised; and it is to be hoped, that intelligent teachers will pause and inquire before they pursue it further.—Page. Learn Your Sabbath-School Lesson.
Among the resolutions for the new year, the resolution to faithfully learn the Sabbath-school lesson should have a place. And when it is made it should be renewed three hundred and sixty-five times during the year. If this is done there will be a wonderful increase of interest in the Sabbath-school. Let each individual devote a few minutes to his lesson every day. Get a few points in your mind early in the morning, and then think of them during the day. In this way new ideas will be gained. The mind has time to grasp the subject, and consider its relation to other lessons. No lesson can be properly learned at one sitting. Time must be taken. If all could realize the value of our lessons, and the importance of thoroughly understanding them, there would be a coming up on this point. The lessons will do us no good if not learned. If they are only half learned and then forgotten, the time spent on them is wasted, except as the individual may have been kept from doing something in itself bad. Let parents impress upon the minds of their children the necessity for thoroughness in the preparation of their lessons, and then remember that in this nothing teaches like good example. ROYAL OCTAVO, 838 PAGES. 285 ENGRAVINGS.
THE PICTORIAL CHILD'S BIBLE.
Consecutive Arrangement of the Narrative and other portions of the Old and New Testaments, In the words of the Authorized Version, embellished with NEARLY 300 FINE ENGRAVINGS AND MAPS
THIS is a most beautiful book for children of all ages, and a very VALUABLE HELP TO PRIMARY TEACHERS
Of Sabbath-School Classes. The text is in Great Primer type, and is printed on heavy, calendared paper, making a large and elegant volume, royal octavo size, of 838 pages. While the Bible is a book for all, there are some parts of it which are as milk for babes, and some as strong meat for men. The publishers of the "Child's Bible" have endeavored to put in consecutive form such portions of the Holy Scripture as seem best adapted to the wants and capacities of childhood, in the words of the Bible text. And where the sense requires it, words and clauses have been inserted in brackets, sometimes as summaries of what has been omitted, and sometimes as connecting links. Believing that the youth should know at what cost the English Bible was won and preserved for them, there has been prefixed to this edition an account of the Sacred Scriptures from the time of their origin to the present day, prominence being given to the struggle of the Reformers for its translation into the English language. The numerous engravings were executed by the best artists of this country and of England and France. They will assist in interesting children in the text, and will aid in the instruction of those too young to read. Price, in Muslin, marbled edge, $5.00 | In Morocco, gilt edge,.......$8.00 Address, PACIFIC PRESS, Oakland, Cal. THE YOUTH'S INSTRUCTOR.
By Editor
AN ILLUSTRATED WEEKLY PAPER FOR YOUTH AND CHILDREN, DEVOTED TO MORAL, MENTAL, AND RELIGIOUS CULTURE.
This paper is not devoted to insipid stories and religious fiction, but is filled with a great variety of that kind of reading which tends to the healthful development of the youthful mind. Its pages are made bright by the choicest illustrative pictures, and its columns are always full of useful information. As a Sabbath-school and Lesson paper, it is suited to the wants of scholars and teachers, and is calculated to increase the interest of all who read it, in thorough Bible study. The Sabbath-school Department contains two series of lessons, one for children and one for youth. SUBSCRIPTION PRICE, 75 CENTS A YEAR. All new subscribers paying the above price will receive the "Child's Poems" as a premium without extra charge. TERMS TO CLUBS, PAID IN ADVANCE. Price per Copy, Post-paid
5 to 10 copies...............................60 cents a year.
10 copies and upward ...........................50 cents a year. Subscription for 5 to 10 copies will be taken for six months.
Larger clubs may be paid for quarterly. Address YOUTH'S INSTRUCTOR, Battle Creek, Mich.
Or, SIGNS OF THE TIMES, Oakland, Cal. Kindness is as cheap as it is beautiful. It may be given in word or look without diminishing aught of our wealth. With courtesies alone we may illuminate our pathway and pluck down blessings which no gold could purchase. To be brotherly, befriend and cheer and console as far as in us lies—these are the crowning graces of humanity—and all these are born of kindness. It is anger, breeding hate and contumely, that has filled the earth with misery and ruin. Anger between kindred and races, before which all that is beautiful in man vanishes, leaving only the wild, fierce animal of his being; families divided, friends parted, communities at feud—these are the fruits of anger. But from kindness, in proportion as this has been the ruling spirit among men, peace and happiness have followed. The home heart has been the center of a paradise, and the community of Elysium. Verily, "better is a dry crust and quietness therewith, than a house full of sacrifice with strife." Let us study and strive to be kind, no matter how seemingly trivial the occasion, nor how small the promised fruit. It is the only language of our nature that is universal and irresistible. COL. 2:16. It has not only often been asserted, but is continually being reiterated that Paul taught the abrogation of the weekly Sabbath of the Old Testament, the seventh-day Sabbath, in Col. 2:16. The text reads: "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days." The whole connection shows the nature of the sabbaths under consideration. They were those connected with the ceremonies of the Levitical law; not those connected with the moral law on the tables of stone. But it is objected that these ceremonial or annual sabbaths are called "holy days" in the text, leaving the term sabbaths to specify the weekly Sabbath. This is a mistake; and for calling it a mistake we have good and sufficient reasons to offer. 1. The holy days, the original in every other instance in the New Testament being rendered feast, were more in number than the sabbaths with which they were connected. Thus in Lev. 23:34-36, of the feast of tabernacles it is said: "On the first day shall be an holy convocation; ye shall do no servile work. Seven days ye shall offer an offering made by fire unto the Lord; on the eighth day shall be an holy convocation unto you." The sabbaths and feast days together embraced eight days, only two of which were sabbaths. Therefore the term feast or feast day (holy day) does not necessarily refer to an annual sabbath, as here were six feast days which were not sabbaths. Both are included in Col. 2:16, each class under its own title. 2. Verse 17 is the complement of verse 16, fully explaining that which might to some seem obscure. It reads: "Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ." This verse commencing with the relative, "which," defines the subjects of verse 16 to be "shadows of things to come," which the weekly Sabbath is not. It is only commemorative; it looks altogether to the past—to creation—not at all to the future, or to redemption. Why did God bless and hallow the Sabbath day? Because that in it he had rested from all his work which he created and made. All the annual sabbaths were connected with types of the work of redemption, as the passover, day of atonement, etc. "The body" of these shadows "is of Christ." But a word in the Scriptures concerning the seventh day or weekly Sabbath refers it forward to the work of Christ. While this chapter does not exclude the seventh day Sabbath as a day of observance, it does exclude the first day. It condemns "voluntary humility," or offering as service to God that which he has not required, "Intruding into those things which he hath not seen." Who has seen, in the word of God, that the first day of the week is the Christian Sabbath? "Which things have indeed a show of wisdom in will worship." There is indeed a show of piety in such observances, such voluntary humility and will worship; walking "after the commandments and doctrines of men," is a sure method of building up a popular religion, but will never add to the spirituality of those who observe them. Dress them up as you will, they remain but "the rudiments of the world," destitute of that sanctifying power which is found in God's word of truth. John 17:17. Language could not more clearly point out such an institution as the Sunday-Sabbath than it is pointed out and described in Col. 2:18-23. Heb. 7:12. "For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law." Singularity enough, some have argued from this a change, substituting another law for the decalogue, or at least a change of the Sabbath. But a reason for this application of the text has never been offered. It cannot possibly be shown that a change of the priesthood makes a change of the Sabbath necessary. But was a law which stood directly in the way of the change of the priesthood. See Num. 3:10: "And thou shalt appoint Aaron and his sons, and they shall wait on their priest's office; and the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death." The same in other texts. This order excluded all who were not descended from Aaron, even though they were Levites, for Korah, who was slain for aspiring to the priest's office, was a descendant of Levi. Dathan and Abiram, who perished with him for the same cause, were of the tribe of Reuben. Of this law Paul spoke in Heb. 7. See verses 12, 13:— "For he of whom these things are spoken [that is, Christ], pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood." Uzziah, king of Judah, was smitten with leprosy for his presumption in essaying to offer incense before the Lord in the temple. Azariah the priest withstood him, saying: "It appertaineth not unto thee, Uzziah, to burn incense unto the Lord, but to the priests, the sons of Aaron, that are consecrated to burn incense; go out of the sanctuary; for thou hast trespassed." 2 Chron. 26:16-18. It was this law, restricting the office of priesthood to Aaron and his sons, which, if remaining, would forbid Christ, of the tribe of Judah, acting as priest. This, and this only, is the law spoken of by Paul in Heb. 7. The Sabbath, or any other precept of the decalogue, had nothing to do with it. The moral law of God was not in question in this argument. Question Answered.
By Editor
If there is no life or consciousness from the death of the body till the resurrection, why does Jesus say in Matt. 10:28, "Fear not them which kill the body but are not able to kill the life" (psuchee). For on that supposition are we not equally deprived of one as the other until the resurrection, when we shall not only have the life restored but the body also? And wherein have men failed to destroy the one and not the other, seeing both are alike affected? J. B. T. It would afford us pleasure to give at some length the Scripture evidences on the subjects of the soul and immortality. In the question the sentence is given—"are not able to kill [or destroy] the life." This is suggestive. Where consistent, it is our practice to refer to our publications for answers to questions. We should refer this to Elder Smith's work, "Man's Nature and Destiny." But for the sake of the many of our readers who have not this book, we will copy from it, only regretting that our limited space will not permit us to give in full his remarks on this point. We invite the questioner, and all others interested, to procure the book and read it with care. We heartily indorse the following extracts:— "Whatever it may teach concerning the intermediate state, it is most positively against the doctrine of eternal misery, and the consequent immortality of the soul. It teaches that God can destroy the soul in hell; and there is no force in our Lord's warning unless we understand it to affirm that he will thus destroy the souls of the wicked. We never could with any propriety be warned to fear a person because he could do that which he never designed to do, and never would do. We are to fear the civil magistrate to such a degree, at least, as not to offend against the laws, because he has power to put those laws into execution and visit upon us merited punishment; but our fear is to rest not simply upon the fact that he has power to do this, but upon the certainty that he will do it if we are guilty of crime. Otherwise there could be no cause of fear, and no ground for any exhortation to fear. Now we are to fear God, that is fear to disobey him, because he is able to destroy body and soul in hell; and what is necessarily implied in this? It is implied that he certainly will do this in the cases of all those who do not fear him enough to comply with his requirements. So the text is a direct affirmation that the wicked will be destroyed, both soul and body in hell. The next inquiry, What is the meaning of the word, destroy? We answer that, take the word "soul" to mean what we will, the word "destroy" here has the same meaning and the same force as applied to the soul, that the word "kill" has as applied to the body in the sentence before. Whatever killing does to the body, destroying does to the soul. Don't fear men, because they cannot kill the soul as they kill the body; but fear God because he can and will kill the soul (if wicked), just as men kill the body. This is the only consistent interpretation of the language. But all well understand what it does to the body to kill it. It deprives it of all its functions and powers of life and activity. It does the same to the soul to destroy it, supposing the soul to be what is popularly supposed. The word here rendered destroy is appolluo, and is defined by Greenfield, "to destroy, to kill, to put to death," etc. Having seen that the text affirms in the most positive manner the destruction of soul and body, or the complete cessation of existence, for all the wicked, in hell, we now inquire whether it teaches a conscious existence for the soul in the intermediate state? This must be, it is claimed, because man cannot kill it. But the killing which God inflicts, according to the popular view, is torment in the flames of hell, and that commences immediately upon the death of the body. Let us then see what the Scriptures testify concerning the receptacle of the dead and the place of punishment. The word "hell" in our English version is from three different Greek words. These words are hades, ge-enna, and tartaro-o, a verb signifying to thrust down to tartarus. These all designate different places. . . . Now the punishment which the text warns us, is not a punishment in hades, the state or place of the dead, but in gehenna, which is not inflicted till after the resurrection. Therefore we affirm that there contains no evidence whatever of the condition of man in death, but passes over the entire period from the death of the body to the resurrection. And this is further evident from the record in Luke: "Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that, have no more that they can do. But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed, hath power to cast into hell." Luke does not use the term "soul" at all; yet he expresses the same sentiment as Matthew. Man can kill the body or destroy this present life; but he can accomplish no destruction beyond that. But God cannot only kill the body, or destroy the present life, but he can cast into Gehenna, or destroy the life that we have beyond the resurrection. These two things alone the text has in view. And now when we remember that psuchee, the word here rendered "soul" often means life, either the present or future, and is forty times in the New Testament so rendered, the text is freed from all difficulty. The word "kill," to be sure, is not such as would naturally be used in connection with life; but the word "destroy," which is among the definitions of the original word, apokteino, can be appropriately used with life. Thus, fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to destroy the future life; but rather fear him who is able to destroy the body and put an end to all future life, in hell. And it is worthy of notice that the destruction in hell here threatened is not inflicted upon a person without his body. Nothing is said about God's destroying the soul alone; but it is at some point beyond this life, when the person again has a body; which is not till after the resurrection. Another declaration from the lips of our Lord, found in Matt. 16:25, 26, will throw some light on our present subject: "For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. For what is a man profited if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?" The word "soul" should here be rendered life. Dr. Clarke, on verse 26, says: "On what authority many here translate the word psuchee in the 25th verse, life, and in this verse, soul, I know not, but am certain it means life in both places." But let us take the expressions, "soul" and "to lose the soul," in the popular sense, and what should we have? Whosoever will save his soul (to save the soul meaning to save it from hell) shall lose it (that shall go into hell torments); but whosoever will lose his soul (suffer eternal misery) for my sake, shall find it (shall be saved in Heaven). This makes utter nonsense of the passage, and so is a sufficient condemnation of the view which makes such an interpretation necessary. The passage simply refers to the present and future life. Thus, whosoever will save his life, that is, will Deny Christ and his gospel for the sake of avoiding persecution, or of preserving his present life, he shall lose it in the world to come, when God shall destroy both soul and body in Gehenna; but he who shall lose his present life if need be, for the sake of Christ and his cause, shall find it in the world to come, when eternal life is given to all the overcomers. Here the life is spoken of as something which can be lost and found again. Between the losing and finding no one can claim that it maintains a conscious existence. And what is meant by finding it? Simply that God will bestow it upon us in the future, beyond the res19urrection. So what is meant by the expression that man cannot kill it? Simply the same thing, that God will, in the resurrection, endow us with life again, a life which is beyond the power of man.