Earlier text: An Appeal for the Study of the Hebrew ScripturesNOTES ON THE INTERNATIONAL LESSON.
Paul before the Sanhedrim.
THE Sanhedrim met in full numbers. They no longer sat in the Lishcath Haggazzith, the famous hall, with its tessellated pavement, which stood at the south side of the court of the priests. Had they still been accustomed to meet there, Lysias and his soldiers would never have been suffered to obtrude their profane feet into a chamber which lay within the middle wall of partition—beyond which even a procurator dare not even have set a step on pain of death. But at this period the Sanhedrim had probably begun their meetings in the Chanujoth, or "booths," the very existence of which was a proof of the power and prosperity of "the Serpent House of Hanan." To this place Lysias led his prisoner, and placed him before them. The Nasi, or president, was, as usual, the high priest. The preliminary questions were asked, and then Paul, fixing on the assembly his earnest gaze, began his defense with the words, "Brethren, my public life has been spent in all good conscience towards God till this day." Something in these words jarred particularly on the mind of the high priest. He may have disliked the use of the term "brethren," an address which implied a certain amount of equality, instead of one of those numerous expressions of servility which it was only fitting that a man like this should use to the great assembly of the wise. But Paul was no Am-ha-aretz, on the contrary, he was as much a rabbi, as much a Chakam, as the best "remover of mountains" among them all, and it may have been that he designedly used the term "brethren" instead of "fathers" because he too had once been a Sanhedrist. The bold assertion of perfect innocence further irritated the presiding Nasi, and he may have felt, somewhat painfully, that his own public life had not by any means been in all good conscience either towards God or towards man.87 This high priest, Ananias, the son of Nebedeous, who had been appointed by Herod of Chalcis, was one of the worst, if not the very worst specimen, of the worldly Sadducees of an age in which the leading hierarchs resembled the loosest of the Avignon cardinals, or of the preferment-hunting bishops in the dullest and deadest period of Charles II. or George I. History records the revengeful unwisdom of his conduct towards the Samaritans, and the far from noble means which he took to escape the consequences of his complicity in their massacre. The Talmud adds to our picture of him that he was a rapacious tyrant who, in his gluttony and greed, reduced the inferior priests almost to starvation by defrauding them of their tithes; and that he was one of those who sent his creatures with bludgeons to the threshing-floors to seize the tithes by force. He held the high-priesthood for a period which, in these bad days, was unusually long (eleven years), a term of office which had, however, been interrupted by his absence as a prisoner, to answer for his misconduct, at Rome. On this occasion, thanks to an actor and a concubine, he seems to have gained his cause, but he was subsequently deposed to make room for Ishmael Ben Phabi, and few pitied him when he was dragged out of his hiding-place in a sewer to perish miserably by the daggers of the Sicarii, whom, in the days of his prosperity, he had not scrupled to sanction and employ. His conduct towards St. Paul gives us a specimen of his character. Scarcely had the apostle uttered the first sentence of his defense when, with disgraceful illegality, Ananias ordered the officers of the court to smite him on the mouth. Smarting from the blow, "God shall smite thee," he exclaimed, "thou white-washed wall! What! dost thou sit there judging me according to the law, and in violation of law biddest me to be smitten?" The bystanders seem to have been startled by the boldness of St. Paul's rebuke, for they said to him, "Dost thou revile the high priest of God?" "I did not know," he said, "brethren, that he is the high priest;" adding that had he known this, he would not have addressed to him the opprobrious name of "whited wall," because he reverenced and acted upon the rule of Scripture, "Thou shalt not speak ill of a ruler of thy people." It has been thought very astonishing that St. Paul should not know that Ananias was the high priest, and all sorts of explanations have consequently been foisted into his very simple words. Considering the disrepute and insignificance into which the high-priesthood had fallen during the dominance of men who would only, as a rule, take it for a short time in order to "pass the chair;" considering that one of these worldly intruders took to wearing silk gloves that he might not soil his hands with the sacrifices; considering, too, that the Romans and the Herods were constantly setting up one and putting down another at their own caprice, and that the people often regarded some one as the real high priest, who was no longer invested with the actual office; considering, too, that in such ways the pontificate of these truckling Sadducees had sunk into a mere simulacrum of what once it was, and that the real allegiance of the people had been completely transferred to the more illustrious rabbis—it is perfectly conceivable that St. Paul, after his long absence from Jerusalem, had not, during the few and much occupied days which had elapsed since his return, given himself the trouble to inquire whether a Kamhith, or a Boethusian, or a Canthera was at that particular moment adorned with the empty title which he probably disgraced. He must, of course, have been aware that the high priest was the Nasi of the Sanhedrim, but in a crowded assembly he had not noticed who the speaker was. Owing to his weakened sight, all that he saw before him was a blurred white figure issuing a brutal order, and to this person, who in his external whiteness and inward worthlessness thus reminded him of the plastered wall of a sepulcher, he had addressed his indignant denunciation. That he should retract it on learning the hallowed position of the delinquent, was in accordance with that high breeding of the perfect gentleman which in all his demeanor he habitually displayed. In the discussion which was going on about his case, his knowledge of the Sanhedrim, of which he had been a member, enabled him easily to recognize that his judges were still mainly divided into two parties—the Sadducean priests and the Pharisaic elders and scribes. The latter were the more popular and numerous, the former were the more wealthy and powerful. Now St. Paul well knew that these two parties were separated from each other by an internecine enmity, which was only reconciled in the presence of common hatreds. He knew, too, that one main point of contention between them arose from questions about the unseen world, and the life beyond the grave. Seeing, therefore, that he would meet with neither justice nor mercy from that tribunal, he decided to throw among them the apple of discord, and cried out amid the babel of tongues, "Brethren, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees. I am being judged about the hope and resurrection of the dead." The plan showed great knowledge of character, and the stratagem was for the time almost magically successful. Paul's enemies were instantly at each other's throats. The high priest, Ananias, was so singularly detested by the Pharisaic party that centuries afterwards the tradition still lingered of his violence and greed. There rose a sudden uproar of angry voices, and the scribes, who sided with the Pharisees, started up in a body to declare that Paul was innocent. "We find the defendant not guilty; but if a spirit or angel spoke to him—?" Again the Jews, even these distinguished hierarchs and rabbis, showed their utter incapacity for self-control. Even in the august precincts of the Sanhedrim the clamor was succeeded by a tumult so violent that Paul was once more in danger of being actually torn to pieces, this time by learned and venerable hands. Claudius Lysias, more and more amazed at the impracticability of these Jews, who first unanimously set upon Paul in the temple, and half of whom in the Sanhedrim appeared to be now fighting in his defense, determined that his fellow-citizen should not at any rate suffer so ignoble a fate, and once more ordered the detachment of soldiers to go down to snatch him from the midst of them, and lead him to the one spot in Jerusalem where the greatest living Jew could alone find security—the barracks of foreign conquerors. St. Paul might well be exhausted and depressed by the recurrence, on two consecutive days, of such exciting scenes, and even a courage so dauntless as his could not face unshaken this continual risk of sudden death. The next day was again to bring a fresh peril; but before it came, God in his mercy, who had ever encouraged his faithful servant at the worst and darkest crises, sent him a vision which saved him from all alarm as to his actual life for many a long and trying day. As at Jerusalem on his first visit, and as at Corinth, and as afterwards on the stormy sea, the Lord stood by him and said, "Cheer thee, Paul; for as thou didst bear witness respecting me at Jerusalem, so must thou also bear witness at Rome."—Farrar's Life of Paul. The Christian Meaning of Cemetery
By Christian Union
THE word "cemetery" comes from the Latin word cæmeterium, which means a dormitory or sleeping room; in that sense the word was familiar to the ancients, but by Christians was used to designate the place of burial of their brethren in the faith. James Freeman Clarke, in his "Events and Epochs of Religious History," says this word cemetery is the exact equivalent in Greek to dormitory in Latin, and means sleeping place; it came into use with Christianity, and, like so many other words, contains a whole history of thought and feeling. It marks the advent of a new view of death; it regards it as a sleep—a view given it by Jesus, who loved always to speak of death as sleep: "Our friend Lazarus sleepeth." So the writer of the book of Acts, describing the death of Stephen, bruised with stones, says, "He falleth asleep." Thus, in the word cemetery, we have the whole history of the Christian view of death.—Christian Union. Foods and Their Nutritive Values.
My title is comprehensive. Not wishing to occupy too much space, I will condense my information. I will try to be brief, and to the point. If we carefully consider, we shall find that nearly all we eat is really produced, in the first place, from the earth. We know it is so regarding fruits, grains, and vegetables, and it is none the less true as regards flesh meat. Of what is the flesh of the ox, sheep, etc., composed? Is it not of the grains, roots, and grasses the animals eat? Seeing that a good diet can be obtained without eating these animals, or taking it second-hand, why are we not satisfied with it? Is the grain or vegetable enhanced in value by being first partaken of by the cow or sheep? It does not appear so, for we learn that in 100 lbs. of lean beef there are 72 lbs. of water and only 28 lbs. of solid matter, while in the same proportion of peas, lentils, oatmeal, wheat meal, and barley meal, there are 85 lbs. of solid matter and only 15 lbs. of water. Rice contains 87 lbs. of solid matter out of 100 lbs.; maize meal, 86 lbs., and beans, 82 lbs. From this it is seen that many vegetables and grains contain far more nutriment than meat. One might live upon fruits and nuts, for the former, when ripe, are rich in saccharine matter, and the latter have a large percentage of nitrogen. Add to this whole-meal bread and good milk, and the fare is "fit to be set before a king." And what a reduction of kitchen work! Think of the time and labor spent in trying to please and satisfy the perverted appetite! What a curtailing of aches and pains, for many of the diseases humanity seems heir to are brought about by an injudicious choice of food. A fruit and grain diet, too, is less stimulating, hence the bodily functions perform their work more as intended, and life is lengthened thereby. I cannot, just now, go into the chemistry of foods and show how much of the solid part is nitrogen, sugar, fat, etc., but will try to at some future date. "Can a people really exist and be strong without meat?" some may ask. Yes. Take the Scotch. Can a race more efficient bodily, morally, or mentally, be found? And yet their chief food is oatmeal. Take the majority of the laboring classes in England and Ireland; their wages will not allow of meat, save perhaps once a week. Are they unable to undergo their daily toil? Nay. They are far stronger and healthier than the rich man's sons, fed upon the choicest of meats. Examples might be given of the Chinese, Japanese, and others, where flesh meats, if not excluded, form a very small part of their diet. In loading our tables with meats and highly seasoned foods we are imposing a work upon the system that is breaking it down, and then we wonder why we are ill. Let us go back to the race at its beginning. How did the ancients live? "Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed, to you it shall be for meat."—Athena, in Pacific. Educating and Strengthening the Will
By Independent
WE should study the education of the will. We have gymnasiums for the development of muscular force, and drill for the mental faculties. Now we need training for the will; something to strengthen the will, so that a man may triumph over circumstances; so that he may curb rebellious appetites, and exercise all his powers in building up his own higher life and in serving his fellow-men.—Independent. As THE air is, so is the blood; as the blood is, so is the health. Science and Spiritualism.
THERE is one phase of the investigation of Spiritualism which does injustice to the truth and to science. Whenever a scientific scholar embraces Spiritualism, it is set down as a testimony from science in favor of Spiritualism. This is not correct. No one has ever pretended to prove Spiritualism by scientific tests, or on scientific grounds. The most that they can say is that they cannot discover any collusion nor trace it to its origin. They admit its claims because they cannot determine its origin. Now it is evident that this is not the voice of science in favor of Spiritualism. It is only a confession on their part that it does not fall within the range of scientific tests. Of course when it is removed from the field of scientific research it becomes to them a matter of conjecture as much as to the unlearned. Their testimony is entirely of a negative character. They admit its claims because they are not able to give any satisfactory solution of its mysteries. But this does not prove anything. It certainly does not prove that the claims of Spiritualism are correct; it shows only that they do not know anything about it. Whether the testimony of scientists is of any value at all depends altogether on the thoroughness of their investigations. But it must be remembered that their investigations are phenomenal, not scientific; and therefore their conclusions are worth no more than are those of the unlearned who observe the phenomena with equal carefulness. No one has a right to affirm that a proposition is true because he does not know that it is not true. When science and human reason fail, the Bible comes to our aid. The claims of Spiritualism are based on certain phenomena or facts of occurrence. These occurrences are, by careful observation, determined to be of unknown origin, that is, their origin is not from anything natural; they are supernatural. But that which is supernatural is beyond the bounds of science and mere reasoning. It must be established by testimony above nature. Having arrived at this evident conclusion, we must either admit the claims of Spiritualism on its own word, or take some other testimony which claims to be above nature. Such testimony we find in the Bible. It claims to be of divine origin; to establish its claims by the fulfillment of its prophecies, by the purity of its morality, by the harmony of its teachings, and by its vindication of divine justice even in dispensing mercy to the erring. In each of these points, Spiritualism entirely fails to establish its claim to our acceptance. The teachings of the Bible are elevating; those of Spiritualism are degrading. The Bible informs us that there were intelligences created before the creation of man; that they rejoiced in the creation of this world, and guarded the way of the tree of life after the fall of man; that some of them sinned, as man has sinned, and lost their "estate;" that, under the name of demons (devils), they carry on their deceptions, and their rebellions against God; and that they work miracles or "lying wonders" to turn men away from the truth. The mediums of Spiritualism and their works are described in the Bible, and identified beyond all question. Their doctrines are called the doctrines of devils. Spiritualists prove the Bible true by denouncing it, by denying the authority of God, by denying Jesus Christ and all means of salvation outside of man's own nature, by denying a future judgment and human accountability, by denying that any action is morally wrong, and by affirming that the purest state of society and the highest morality can only be found in the abrogation of marriage and the unrestrained passional attraction of the sexes! With these facts before us on every hand, why is it that men of education, of good reasoning ability, admit the claims of Spiritualism and entirely ignore the testimony of the Bible? This question may be readily answered by any one who has observed the tendency of the schools of these degenerate times. The disposition has some time been growing among men to accept science as the highest possible source of knowledge, and to rule out the testimony of the Bible as of no real value. Indeed, they have been placed in opposition to each other, and that even by professed teachers of the Bible, and the testimony of science has been decided positive and determinate, and that of the Bible speculative and uncertain. The Bible has thus been caused to lose its hold upon the popular mind and heart. And when science is found to be at fault, when it fails to measure the supernatural, men are left without a compass, at the mercy of the winds of speculation. Having lost their reverence for the Bible, they have thrown off restraint; and now, when their dependence fails, they would rather float even into the vortex of a whirlpool than to return to the teachings of the Bible, which restrains their selfishness and requires humility. The apostle Paul speaks of "the oppositions of science falsely so called," and says they are "vain babblings." Much that is called science in this age will fall under this head. We often hear men flippantly talk of what "science proves" when not a single well-attested fact exists to support their assertions. Many are but reproducing what the apostle so graphically describes in Rom. 1: "Professing themselves to be wise they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man," &c. "Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator." Vice As an Aid to Virtue.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
A SHORT time ago it was stated in the daily papers that Duncan C. Ross, a noted athlete and saloon-keeper, had announced his intention of leaving his present business and entering the ministry. To that, of course, no one offers any objection. We should be pleased to see every saloon-keeper quit the business; even if he did not feel the necessity of disgorging his ill-gotten gains, society would be the better for a diminution in the number of plague spots. And the desire to enter the ministry is certainly a laudable one, provided the aspirant does not seek simply to make gain by his "godliness," or to gratify unholy ambition. Mr. Ross may be perfectly sincere; doubtless he is as honest in his purpose as he knows how to be, but we have our doubts as to his fitness for the position which he seeks. For a man to decide to enter the ministry, before his heart has been touched sufficiently to make him quit selling beer, looks to us as though he was troubled with moral blindness. It is better for a man to become converted before he decides to enter the ministry, than to make such a decision and then be "converted." In the former case there would be more hope of the conversion being genuine. But that to which we wish to call special attention is the statement made by Mr. Ross, that he has learned many things in his career as a saloon-keeper and "sporting man," which will be of material value to him in his work as a preacher. He thinks that, with his past experience, all he needs is a short course in theology, to prepare him for successful work. It is a deplorable fact that this idea obtains quite generally in the world. If a man has been a "rough," people will flock to hear him warn people by his "sad experience" as he tells how degraded he used to be; while the man who has from his earliest childhood endeavored to walk in the path of virtue, is thought to be deficient. It is no exaggeration to say that a large majority of people think that a career of vice is almost absolutely essential to fit one to be a teacher of morals. They do not formulate their ideas in words, but the thought is there. When they compare a teacher who has been brought up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, with one who has assiduously served the devil nearly all his life, there is a decision in favor of the latter. They almost wish that the first one could have had the advantage of at least a short course in crime, "it would have been such a benefit to him." Now the secret of this is found in the love which the natural human heart has for sin. Each heart has a natural tendency toward that which is evil. "Out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies." Matt. 15:19. There is a charm about the man who has distinguished himself among his vicious associates, which leads some to almost deify him; and this fascination is felt to a greater or less extent by every unrenewed individual. Let us examine this matter, and see if a man is really benefited as a teacher by having been familiar with all the details of vice. Take, for instance, the teacher of youth in the high school or the college. Of two candidates for such a position, one of whom never learned to read until he was forty years of age, while the other has been a close student from his early youth, and has always associated with the educated and refined, which would be chosen? Every committee would choose the latter, without hesitation. In so doing they would show wisdom. It is not denied that the first man might make a good teacher, but the question is, Can he teach as well as he could if in his youth he had trained his mind to think? Is his previous ignorance a recommendation? There can be no difference of opinion as to the answer. Suppose I am to make a trip into the mountains, and wish to secure a competent guide. Shall I accept a man whose principal recommendation is that he is thoroughly familiar with all the streets and alleys of the city, and who has never been in the country? Not by any means. The hardy mountaineer is the one whom I will choose. I care not if he knows nothing about the city where I live. What I want is that he shall be familiar with the place to which I am going. He cannot guide me if he has not been there himself. The same rule will apply to religious teachers. A man may know all about the paths of vice, and the steps that take hold on hell, but that is not the kind of instruction that people need. They know enough in that direction, and they will go that way fast enough without any instruction. What they do need is to be led into wisdom's ways, to learn the ways of peace, and to know the love that passeth knowledge. Who shall lead them there? Shall it not be the man who has walked in those ways himself, and who has been with Jesus? Reason would answer, Yes. No amount of argument can convince us that Ahab could ever have developed into a teacher that would compare with Enoch, who walked with God all his life. The best man that ever lived has enough of human nature to contend with to enable him to sympathize with the struggles of poor, frail sinners. We do not say that a good man is best fitted for a religious teacher, but that he is the only one for such a position. If he has at some time in his life followed vicious practices, the grace of God through Christ must remove the stains89 before he can render acceptable service to God. But he can never be the man that he would have been had he always lived an upright life. This is a matter that should receive serious thought by our young men who are designing to work in the cause of God. You want to lead men to God; but you can never lead others there till you have been there yourself. You must know Christ before you can reveal him to others. This is the essential qualification. While you are striving for intellectual culture, do not neglect culture of the heart. It is right and necessary to improve the talent of intellect that God has given you; but at the same time let it be your chief aim to reach "the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ." Remember that men who were ignorant of books have done noble service in the cause of God, but never one who was ignorant of Christ. Let these words of one who had fallen low in sin, be pondered by all:— "Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me. Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy Spirit from me. Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with thy free Spirit. Then shall I teach transgressors thy ways; and sinners shall be converted unto thee." Protestants, or Not?
By Alonzo T. Jones
BEARING in mind the principles of Protestantism, scriptural and historical, as presented in last week's issue, we proceed with the inquiry, whether the churches which are professedly Protestant are really Protestant or not. Of course we cannot take up and consider the different denominations one by one; that would be an endless task. There are, however, certain tenets which are held by all Protestant Christendom and upon which they can be brought to the test once for all. We shall choose two of these, which are held so nearly universally that as a matter of fact there are but two denominations which stand as exceptions to each, and only one of these two denominations stands as an exception to both points of doctrine. These two tenets are of special importance, because they are to be the main subjects of controversy until the consummation. Moreover, in the discussion of these two is involved all the doctrine that pertains to the salvation of men. The first of these is, The unconditional immortality of man, or, as otherwise expressed, The immortality of the soul. Although this doctrine is so nearly universally believed by Protestants, and held by them of such vast importance, yet so far is it from being believed and maintained in accordance with Protestant principles, it is held in defiance of them. Remember, "the Bible and the Bible alone" is the rule of Protestants. "The word of God, the whole word of God, and nothing but the word of God," is the Protestant motto. Therefore for Protestants to consistently hold the immortality of the soul, the doctrine must be plainly declared in the Bible, it must be the word of God, and must be upheld by the whole word of God. Webster defines immortal, "exempt from liability to die." "One exempt from death." The unconditional immortality of man therefore is the doctrine that man is not liable to die, that man is exempt from death. But every person who has ever read the Bible at all knows full well that such an idea is in direct opposition to that book from beginning to end. "All have sinned." "The wages of sin is death." "Death passed upon all men." "In Adam all die." It is not necessary to multiply passages to sustain a truth that is so plain. The force of the Scriptures is evaded, however, by the subterfuge that these statements refer to the body, and not to the soul at all; but that this is only a subterfuge, and a very poor one, appears instantly by the fact that the Scriptures speak thus emphatically of the soul, whatever may be claimed for it. "The soul that sinneth it shall die." Eze. 18:4. "He hath poured out his soul unto death." Isa. 53:12. "All they that go down to the dust shall bow before him; and none can keep alive his own soul." Ps. 22:29. Again, so far is the Bible from attributing immortality to man that it states directly the contrary. "Shall mortal man be more just than God?" Job 4:17. "O Lord thou art our God; let not mortal man prevail against thee." 2 Chron. 14:11, margin. So that in whatever form the unconditional immortality of man may be held, it is equally contradictory to the word of God. The doctrine of the immortality of the soul cannot be found in the Bible. It cannot be held in harmony with the Bible as it is. This is plain from the few texts already cited, and these could be multiplied to the whole extent of the word of God. And those who advocate the doctrine, do so at the expense of every principle of Protestantism. Instead of shaping the doctrine by the Bible, they make the Bible conform to the doctrine. The language of the Bible is forced into channels where that of no other book would be allowed to go. Words when found in the Bible are made to mean exactly contrary to what they mean when found in any other place in human language. And all to sustain the dogma of the immortality of the soul. But that is just where this method of interpretation belongs. It was the introduction of this doctrine into the Christian church, that created the necessity for this scheme of interpretation. The one man who, more than any other, is responsible for it was Origen, who lived from A. D. 185 to 253. Says Mosheim:— "The Christian doctors who had applied themselves to the study of letters and philosophy, soon abandoned the frequented paths and wandered in the devious wilds of fancy. The Egyptians [Alexandrinus] distinguished themselves in this new method of explaining the truth. . . . Origen was at the head of this speculative tribe. This great man, enchanted by the charms of the Platonic philosophy, set it up as the test of all religion, and imagined that the reasons of each doctrine were to be found in that favorite philosophy, and their nature and extent to be determined by it. . . . He alleged that it was not in their literal force and import that the true meanings of the sacred waters were to be sought, but in a mysterious and hidden sense. . . . In this devious path he displays the most ingenious strokes of fancy, though generally at the expense of truth, whose divine simplicity is rarely discernible through the cobweb of allegory. Origen expresses himself in the following manner: 'The source of many evils lies in adhering to the carnal or external part of Scripture. Those who do so shall not attain to the kingdom of God. The Scriptures are of little use to those who understand them as they are written.' But the philosophy which this great man embraced with such zeal was one of the sources of his delusion. He could not find in the Bible the opinions he had adopted, as long as he interpreted that sacred book according to its literal sense."—Church History, century 2, part 2, chap. 3, paragraphs 1, 5. There is exposed the secret of the whole matter. "He could not find in the Bible the opinions he had adopted." What were these opinions? He was "enchanted by the charms of the Platonic philosophy." And that was the immortality of the soul. Now in Plato's discussion of the nature of the soul he maintains that it is impetishable, indestructible, immortal, deathless, etc., etc. But the Bible, speaking of wicked men, says they shall "die," "they shall utterly perish," their "end is destruction," that man is "mortal," etc. It is not at all strange therefore that Origen could not find in the Bible the opinions he had adopted, because these opinions, and the statements of the Bible, are as entirely opposites as it is possible for things to be. And so, not finding any support in the Scriptures for this doctrine, he invented a scheme by which he could find not only that, but whatever he wanted. That is, to give a meaning to the Bible language directly opposite to what it says. And Origen's method of interpretation is perpetuated to this day by those who attempt to maintain, by the Scriptures, the immortality of the soul. However, this is not strange, because, as the doctrine was dependent wholly upon this scheme of interpretation for its birth into the Christian church, so, without that scheme, it could not live there for a day. We have a most pertinent illustration of this subject in a late discussion by the Congregational Club, of San Francisco, as reported in the San Francisco Call of Jan. 20, 1885:— "Rev. Prof. Mooar, of the Pacific Theological Seminary, opened the discussion upon the question of 'Conditional Immortality,' . . . and showed that there was no sufficient ground in Scripture for the position that immortality is a special gift, granted only to believers, while others are annihilated." Let us read a few texts: "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life; and he that believeth not the Son, shall not see life." John 3:16, 36. "And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life." John 6:40. "He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God, hath not life." 1 John 5:12. "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Rom. 6:23. Now if these scriptures do not show positively that everlasting life, immortality, is the "gift of God" to those alone "who believe" on the Son, we should like the reverend professor to tell us what they do show. More, if the Lord wanted to tell men that those who believe on Christ shall have everlasting life, and that those who do not believe on him shall not have life, but shall perish; if he wanted to tell them that those who have the Son have life, and those who have not the Son of God have not life; if he wanted to tell men that eternal life is a gift from him through Christ, will Professor Mooar please convey to us some idea of the way in which it could be done more plainly than it is done in the words above quoted? But how does the Professor avoid the plain statements of these texts? Why, just as Origen did before him, in the same cause, he "objected to the canon of interpretation" that the "Scripture must be taken in its most literal and obvious sense." And "Professor Benton agreed with Dr Mooar . . . though there were not a few passages which, literally interpreted, would seem to support that view." So the Scriptures, literally interpreted, i. e., taken as they read, will not admit of unconditional immortality, therefore they must not be taken in their plain, "obvious" meaning, but must be taken in a mystical sense, in a hidden meaning, which none but reverend professors and theological leaders of thought, can know or understand. Where is there any real difference between this and the theory of the papal church? The papacy says the Scriptures are mysterious, that they have mystical meanings, that they are not to be literally interpreted, and that none but the priests, those who are educated for that purpose, can interpret them correctly, and that therefore the common people have no business to read the Bible. These so-called Protestants say, Oh, yes, give the common people the Bible; let them read it; howbeit they will fall into great error, because it is not to be taken in its "most literal and obvious sense." If between these there is any advantage it certainly appears to be in favor of the papal church, for it has at least the merit of consistency. The fundamental principle, the foundation-stone, of Protestantism is that—90"The Bible is not to be interpreted and used according to tradition, or use and wont [custom], but to be explained by means of itself, its own language and connection." But we have seen that the language that is used to express and explain the immortality of the soul, is not the language of the Bible; that in support of this doctrine the Bible is not "explained by means of itself," but by means of the doctrine, and contrary to itself; and that so the "sufficiency of the Scripture" is virtually denied; and as is well expressed by McClintock and Strong, "Those who deny its [the Scripture's] sufficiency, are not in principle Protestants." Therefore from all these considerations it is inevitable that all who maintain the doctrine of the immortality of the soul are not Protestants. ALONZO T. JONES.