Review and Herald, Vol. 26, No. 22. (10/31/1865)

Review and Herald

Oct 31, 1865

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Oct 31, 1865

NATURE AND DESTINY OF MAN

From the Sabbath Recorder.

NATURE AND DESTINY OF MAN.

DISCUSSION BETWEEN ELD. N. V. HULL, SEVENTH-DAY BAPTIST, AND ELD. R. F. COTTRELL, SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST.

(Continued from Review, No. 5, present Vol.)

Elder Hull's Seventh Article.

DEAR BRO. COTTRELL:—Your parry, in the opening of your answer to my fifth letter, is well enough executed, I suppose; but I fail to see the necessity of asserting your belief in the doctrine you advocate. Doubtless you believe you are right. I believe you are wrong. But what has either this or that to do with our argument?

Your designating the doctrine I defend as "Spiritualism," is, to say the least of it, disingenuous. The term defines in popular phrase a form of belief upon the subject of spiritual conditions and agencies entirely aside from anything I have said or believe, and I am at a loss to account for your assertion, that the whole infidel world are embracing my views, as rebels against "high Heaven," and in this their "last ditch" entrenching themselves. That the Christian and heathen worlds, at least the great mass of them, believe with me, that the spirit does not die with the body, is true; but that they are "coming" to this belief, is not true, for they have always held it. Whether a hundred thousand persons in the United States have within the last twenty years embraced your faith in this respect, I know not; but that the statement smacks a little of boasting, no one, I think, would deny. In so far as infidels are concerned, they of course, at least many of them, will have little to object to that part of your faith which asserts that the "whole man becomes unconscious at death," but that any Christian should be led thus far astray, is truly a matter of surprise. Nevertheless, we are told that seducers will "wax worse and worse," and I suppose we may expect that, as time advances, new errors will be introduced, and old ones reproduced. Yours is an old one revived. Eusebius says, (Eccl. Hist., chap. 37, page 253, translated by Rev. C. F. Cruise, A. M., and published by T. Mason and G. Lane, 1839,) "But about this time also other men sprung up in Arabia as the propagators of false opinions. These asserted that the human soul, as long as the present state of the world existed, perished at death, and died with the body, but that it would be raised again with the body, at the time of the resurrection. And as a considerable council was held on account of this, Origen being again requested, likewise here discussed the point in question, with so much force that those who had been before led astray completely changed their opinions." So yours is not a new error, as it dates from the days of Origen, who was born in 185.

You have no need of writing to convince me that eternal life is the gift of God. That I believe as firmly and joyfully as you. Where you and I differ is, that you make continued existence and eternal life the same. I do not. I hold that eternal life, in Scripture phrase, is the same as eternal blessedness. One may exist eternally without being eternally blessed, or having eternal life. To say that Christ came to give continued being to men, calling that eternal life, is so monstrous a perversion, that I see not how any man knowing the Scriptures can utter it. That those who have eternal life will also have continued existence, is true; but that is not what is meant by "eternal life."

That the body, without the spirit, has no life or knowledge, as you say, is true; and your statement, that the spirit came from God, and returns to him, I believe, and rejoice that you so believe. And now, having gone thus far together, why need we separate? You do not believe that the spirit returns to God a dead spirit, do you? I do not. If, then, you agree, that the spirit of man returns to God, a living, vital essence, I see not why our controversy may not come to an end. I have not maintained that the rewards promised, and the punishments threatened, are awarded until after the judgment. What I have maintained, and do maintain, is, that the spirit does not die with the body.

What may be its exact state between death and the resurrection, I have not affirmed, nor do I take any interest in the thousand and one vagaries advocated by the often senseless talkers and writers of the world, whether heathen, Jewish, or Christian. That there must be experienced a sense of fellowship or disfellowship with God, according to the moral state of the subject, seems to me unavoidable from the nature of the case, and is also, I think, clearly indicated in the New Testament. But that they have been judged and rewarded, I do not believe.

I do not see that you have advanced anything essentially new on Matt. x, 28, although you have availed yourself of the aid furnished by Eld. Andrews' criticism and comment, which is nearly shorn of its strength when I agree, that the judgment does not pass upon men until the resurrection. The literary feature, however, of the quotation you have made and endorsed, can not be passed over lightly. His article cuts the knot instead of untying it. He has introduced three Greek words, hades, gehenna, and tartarus, each, he says, represented by the English word hell. He further says, these three Greek words, rendered by the word hell, mean three different places. Those in hades, he says, are dead; those in gehenna are cast in there alive, with all their members, to be destroyed soul and body; and tartarus, he says, is the place into which the evil angels were cast after their rebellion. This is too summary and partial. I shall therefore consider these words somewhat at length; ascertaining their grammatical meaning. The field of investigation is fruitful and deeply interesting.

1. HADES. The classical meaning of hades, according to Liddell and Scott, is, 1st. "The nether world. 2d. The grave. 3d. Death." A common phrase with the best authors to express the meaning of hades, is "underworld." As to the definition given by Liddell and Scott, I suppose there will be no dispute, and I will not therefore multiply authorities, only adding the definition given by Grove in his Greek and English Dictionary. Hades he defines, as to its classical meaning, "a dark, obscure place, unseen, or not seen by mortals; hades, the receptacle or region of the dead, containing all the fabulous mansions of the heathen ritual. According to the Christian doctrine, the invisible world of spirits, the unseen place of souls, the place of the dead generally, but vulgarly a place of torment, the abode of the damned in hell—death."

Alford, in his "Greek Testament with Critical Notes," vol. i, on Luke xvi, 23, says, "Hades is the abode of all disembodied spirits till the resurrection, not the place of torment, much less hell, as understood commonly in the E. V."

Kitto, vol. i, under the word hades, says, "A Greek word by which the Septuagint translates sheol, defining the abode or world of the dead, in which sense it frequently occurs in the New Testament, where it is usually rendered 'hell' in the English version. The word hades means literally that which is in darkness. In the classical writers, it is used to denote orcus, or the infernal regions. According to the notions of the Jews, sheol or hades was a vast receptacle, where the souls of the dead were in a separate state until the resurrection of their bodies. The region of the blessed during this interval, or the inferior paradise, is supposed to be in the upper part of this receptacle, while beneath was the abyss, or gehenna, (tartarus,) in which the souls of the wicked were subjected to punishment."

Herzog, vol. ii, under the word hades, says, "At first, hades among the Greeks was the name of Pluto, the God of the nether world, but was afterward applied to the world itself, the abode and estate of the departed, and corresponds to orcus, or the inferna of the Latins, and sheol of the Hebrews. To a greater or less degree, it was regarded as a place of final rewards and punishments, and contained its abysses and tartarus. The life led there was closely analogous to that of the upper world, the only difference being, that the inhabitants were shades, forms without substance. From this heathen view of the future state, that of the Old Testament differs less than might be supposed."

It would be easy to multiply testimony upon this point; but I proceed to say, that the Septuagint translates the Hebrew word sheol by hades, and therefore, to find the meaning of hades, we must go back to sheol, the meaning of which must be looked for in the opinions of the Jews concerning the place or state described by it. The historical, therefore, as well as the grammatical meaning of the word, is essential to a proper understanding of it.

Alger, in his "History of the Doctrine of a Future Life," page 154, says, "Sheol is directly derived from a Hebrew word signifying first to dig or excavate. It means, therefore, a cavity or empty subterranean place. Its derivation is usually connected, however, with the secondary meaning of the Hebrew word referred to, namely, to ask, to desire, from the notion of demanding, since rapacious orcus unsparingly lays claim to all; or, as others have fancifully construed it, the object of universal inquiry, the unknown mansion, concerning which all are anxiously inquiring," etc., etc.

Herzog says, "Sheol comes from a word which means to demand, and signified the place that demands all (Prov. xxvii, 20,) the common receptacle of the dead, the righteous as well as the wicked."

Kitto says, "In the great majority of instances, sheol in the Old Testament used to signify the grave, and in most of these cases, is so translated in the Authorized Version."

While, then, the grammatical meaning of sheol is to demand, and primarily means the grave into which we all go, its historical meaning is whatever might be the views of the Jews, of the state of the dead, at any given period of their history, in which they used that word to express those views. These views were not always the same. The earliest opinions held by them were, I think, that the dead were in a sort of dreamless state; not actually senseless, but only one degree from it. Such, I say, were their early views. But at a later period, these views were abandoned, or rather advanced from, and those giving the soul greater activity came to possess the Jewish mind. Indeed, such ideas of Heaven, hell, the resurrection of the dead, future rewards and punishments, as are taught in the New Testament, by Christ and his apostles, were almost if not entirely unknown to the first ages of Old Testament times. The historic meaning of these terms, then, is to be considered, or we are left yet in the dark.

But before I proceed further with the words hades and sheol, I must attend to gehenna and tartarus. Gehenna is a later word in Scripture usage than sheol, but is nevertheless simply a transfer of the Hebrew word Hinnom by the Greek word gehenna, being a man's name. To know, then, what gehenna means in Scripture phrase, we must go back to its application to the Valley of Hinnom, near Jerusalem. Kitto says, "Hinnom, or rather Ben Hinnom, an unknown person, whose name was given to the valley which bounds Jerusalem on the north, below Mount Zion, and which in Scripture is often mentioned in connection with the horrid rites of Molech, which, under idolatrous kings, were there celebrated. Josh. xv, 8; xviii, 16; Neh. xi, 30; Jer. vii, 31; ix, 2. When Josiah overthrew this idolatry, he defiled the valley by casting into it the bones of the dead, the greatest of all pollutions among the Hebrews; and from that time it became the common jakes of Jerusalem, into which all the refuse of the city was cast, and where the combustible portions of that refuse were consumed by fire. Hence it came to be regarded as a sort of type of hell, the gehenna of the New Testament being no other than this valley of Hinnom, (Ge-Hinnom.) See Matt. v, 22, sq; Mark ix, 43; Luke xii, 5; James iii, 6."

The same author, on the word hell, has the following: "Hell—Much that belongs to this subject has already been considered under the word hades. It is there shown, that hell is represented by the word sheol in the Old, and by hades in the New Testament. But as both of these words mean also the grave, or the condition of the dead, hell, as the place of final punishment for sinners, is more distinctively indicated by the term gehenna, which is the word translated hell in Matt. v, 22, 29, 30; x, 28; xviii, 15, 33; Mark ix, 43, 45, 47; Luke xii, 5; James iii, 6. It is also distinctively indicated by such phrases as the place of torment, (Luke xvi, 28;) everlasting fire, (Matt. xxv, 41.) The hell of fire, where the worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched, (Mark ix, 44.) The dreadful nature of the abode of the wicked is implied in various figurative expressions, such as outer darkness; I am tormented in this flame; furnace of fire; unquenchable fire, where the worm diest not; the blackness of darkness; torment in fire and brimstone, (Matt. viii, 12; xiii, 42; xxii, 13; xxv, 30; Luke xvi, 24; comp. Matt. xxv, 41; Mark ix, 43, 48; Jude 13, comp. Rev. xiv, 10, 11; xix, 20; xx, 14; xxi, 8.) The figure by which hell is represented as burning with fire and brimstone, is probably derived from the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah, as well as that which describes the smoke ascending from it, (compare Rev. xiv, 10, 11, with Gen. xix, 24-28.) To this coincidence of description, Peter also must probably allude in 2 Pet. ii, 6."

Tartarus is but once used in the whole Bible, and then it occurs in 2 Pet. ii, 4, and seems the synonym of gehenna. If there be any difference in their meaning, it is gehenna intensified. The opinion that tartarus, as a place, differs from gehenna, is beyond doubt founded in mistake.

In view of the foregoing, then, I come to the following conclusions:

1. That sheol, in its grammatical meaning, is the grave.

2. The underworld—the place of the dead.

3. That in its historical meaning, it is the place of departed spirits, whether good or bad.

4. That hades has the same meaning with sheol, only that it more clearly expresses the opinions of the Jews in the time of Christ, (especially of the Pharisees,) concerning the state of the dead, which was one either of happiness or misery.

5. That hell in English, better, upon the whole, represents the Greek word gehenna, than the Greek word hades. Nevertheless, hades is sometimes fairly represented by hell, because the connection in which it is used requires this interpretation.

6. That the phrases "destroy soul and body," "cast into the lake which burns with fire and brimstone," etc., etc., are to be taken, in their application to the punishment of the wicked in the future state, in a figurative, and not literal sense. For instance, when Jesus said; "If thy right eye cause thee to offend, pluck it out, and cast it from thee, for it is better for thee to enter into life having but one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell," I conclude he is to be understood figuratively. You surely cannot suppose that in Heaven men will be going about with one eye out! But if this and kindred passages must be taken figuratively, upon what principle will you establish a literal interpretation for the word body, in the passage, "Thy whole body shall be cast into hell." Matt. v, 29, 30; that you really think that a man, by some indulgence in this life, may save to himself in hell both eyes, because both are saved to him here, but under certain circumstances we are literally to pluck out one of our eyes, (and that the right one,) that we may enter Heaven, although with only one eye, and that the left one. Do you really think so? But if you abandon your literal interpretation at this point, you can not return to it afterward. What then will you do?

Hoping to reply to your last letter in a few days, I remain, Truly yours,

N. V. HULL.

"It Is More Blessed."

Give! as the morning that flows out of heaven ; Give! as the waves when the channel is riven ; Give! as the free air and sunshine are given ; Lavishly, utterly, carelessly give. Not the waste drops of thy cup overflowing, Not the faint sparks of thy heart ever glowing, Not a pale bud from the June roses blowing ; Give, as He gave thee, who gave thee to live.

Pour out thy love, like the rush of a river Wasting its waters, forever and ever, Through the burnt sands that reward not the giver ; Silent or songful, thou nearest the sea. Scatter thy life, as the Summer's showers pouring ! What if no bird through the pearl-rain is soaring ? What if no blossom looks upward adoring ? Look to the life that was lavished for thee !

Give, though thy heart may be wasted and weary, Laid on an altar all ashen and dreary ; Though from its pulses a faint miserere Beats in thy soul the sad presage of fate. Bind it with cords of unshrinking devotion ; Smile at the song of its restless emotion ; 'Tis the stern hymn of eternity's ocean ; Hear ! and in silence thy future await.

So the wild wind strews its perfumed caresses, Evil and thankless the desert it blesses, Bitter the wave that its soft pinion presses, Never it ceases to whisper and sing. What if the hard heart give thorns for thy roses ? What if on rocks thy tired bosom reposes ? Sweetest is music with minor-keyed closes, Fairest the vines that on ruins will cling.

Almost the day of thy giving is over ; Ere from the grass dies the bee-haunted clover, Thou wilt have vanished from friend and from lover ; What shall thy longing avail in the grave ? Give, as the heart gives, whose fetters are breaking, Life, love and hope, all thy dreams and thy waking, Soon Heaven's river thy soul-fever slaking, Thou shalt know God and the gift that He gave.

Eld. R. F. Cottrell's Seventh Reply.

By R. F. Cottrell

DEAR BRO. HULL:—You think it disingenuous in me to designate your doctrine as Spiritualism. I did not intend to class you with that odious brood, so recently hatched, which take the name of Spiritualists. I only meant, that modern infidels are leaving their former materialistic position, and embracing your popular view, that man has an immortal spirit, which continues to live after the body is dead, while with Bible students and believers, the gain is decidedly the other way. This is significant. The Devil has changed his tactics, because the people are ripe for a change. He once fought the doctrine of the resurrection with this inscription upon his banner, "Death is an eternal sleep;" but now he finds greater success against the same truth, by taking the more popular motto, "There is no death"—an assertion equally at war with the truth; and there are multitudes of professed Christians at the present time, giving up the doctrine of the resurrection of the body, as the legitimate result of this popular sentiment. The view that you have held in this discussion—that Jesus did not ascend to Heaven in the same body in which he was crucified, and in which he appeared to his disciples after his resurrection—looks too much like making the bodies of the saints entirely useless, as they will ascend at once, and not remain here to convince men of the fact of their having been raised from the dead, and afterward be cast away as worthless at their ascension. I do not accuse you of infidelity. Far from it. But I warn all of the "last ditch," and ask them to open their eyes, lest they fall into it. It is better to admit that man dies and lives again, than to deny the clearly revealed doctrine of the resurrection altogether. Do not take offense. I did not complain when you said, in your fifth article, "I do not say that infidelity is dead—that materialism slumbers. Nay, they are boastful!"

You give our faith considerable antiquity—dating us back to the days of Origen, who was born in A. D. 185. We go a little further back, and find a record thus written, "And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years, and he died."

You hold that eternal life in the Scriptures means eternal blessedness, and that to say that Christ came to give literal life to men is a monstrous perversion. Jesus illustrates the object of the sacrifice of himself as follows: "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life."—Jno. iii, 14, 15.

The object of lifting up the brazen serpent in the wilderness was not to relieve the pains and give ease and comfort to those who had been bitten, though doubtless it had this effect. But the great leading object was to prolong their lives. It saved them from perishing literally, and gave them literal life. So Christ died that the believers in him should not perish—literally perish, or die to live no more—but have eternal life. If this does not mean what it says, by what rule of interpretation shall we understand the Scriptures? I know that words are often used figuratively, always deriving their force from the literal idea. But shall we take the exception for the rule, and because words are sometimes used figuratively, say they have no literal meaning? Again, Paul, speaking of the literal death of Christ and of the literal resurrection of those who sleep in him, at the time when the "Lord himself" shall descend from Heaven, sets forth the object of Christ's death as follows: "Who died for us, that whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him." 1 Thess. v, 10. Is not this the literal death of Christ, and the literal living of the saints with him, by literal resurrection of the dead? Did not the Son of God give his life for ours? Did he not come "to give his life a ransom for many"—to "ransom them from the power of the grave"—and to "redeem them from death"—a thing which Paul says "shall be brought to pass" at the resurrection? Matt. xx, 28; Hosea xiii, 14; 1 Cor. xv, 54, 55. Or did he lay down his blessedness, and become unhappy, that he might give blessedness to beings already in possession of eternal life?

We are agreed that the body without the spirit is dead. James ii, 26, mar. You rejoice at this, and ask, "Having gone thus far together, why need we separate?" I do not desire separation—would rather retain your company. You further ask, "You do not believe that the spirit returns to God a dead spirit, do you?" I answer no; it was not a living creature, but merely a "vital essence" before it was given, and I believe it is such when it returns to the Fountain of Life. I am happy that we agree so far. You cite me to Alger. I will give his rendering of Gen. ii, 7, "The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the spirit of existence, and man became a conscious being." p. 155. If the spirit of existence entering through the nostrils of the man made him a conscious being, the return of the spirit to God would leave him an unconscious being. In this connection, Alger further says, "It seems to be implied that the life of man, having emanated from the spirit, is to be again absorbed in it, when it is said, 'Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was, and the spirit shall return to God who gave it.'"

And still further we agree, "that the rewards promised, and the punishments threatened," are not awarded until after the resurrection. And here we find ourselves in company with the ancient Preacher, who said of the dead, "Neither have they any more a reward." That they have no more a reward, implies that they enjoyed some reward before their death. This agrees with the promise of the Saviour to his disciples, that they should "receive an hundred fold now in this time, and in the world to come eternal life." Now, since men are rewarded both in this life and in the world to come, I infer that the reason they have no reward between death and the resurrection is, because they are unconscious, and consequently incapable of receiving it. This admission brings you very near the ground I occupy—so near that it would be very difficult to define the difference. You find it so; but still think "there must be experienced a sense of fellowship or disfellowship with God," from the very "nature of the case," in that almost dreamless state. Centuries must hang heavily upon them while waiting, in such a state, for their reward. You are almost as far from modern orthodoxy as I am, on this point. Your hold upon it seems only nominal. One more step in the right direction, and we are one.

Concerning the authorities you have quoted on the meaning of sheol and hades, I have only to recommend a careful examination of them, as altogether favoring the faith I contend for. They show the primary and scriptural meaning first, and then the historical or corrupted meaning, as drawn from human tradition. The early Jews believed with their inspired teachers, that sheol was a "land of darkness as darkness itself"—"the land of forgetfulness"—until, by mingling with the heathen, and learning their mythology, they "advanced from" the truth of revelation to the fables of paganism. This gave a new "historical" meaning to the term, but still the Holy Spirit told the truth when he said, "There is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in sheol, whither thou goest." And whatever the heathen might fable to themselves concerning the dead—their activity and their rewards or punishments in hades—when this term was chosen as the best Greek word to represent sheol, the inspired meaning of it is the same; consequently there is no knowledge in hades, and no gehenna or hell-fire there. Alger says, "Those passages which attribute active employment to the dwellers of the under-world are specimens of poetic license, as the context always shows." And then, after giving a version of Isa. xiv. 8, 9, (which see,) he adds, "The activity thus vividly described is evidently a mere figure of speech." We may apply this to the case of the rich man in hades, in torment; because it is a matter of express revelation, that there is no knowledge, nor work, nor device there.

I think I understand your definition of the historical meaning of words. I will illustrate it. The immersion of believers is, by the Spirit of inspiration, called baptism, and the seventh day of the week is called the Sabbath. At the present time, the historical meaning of baptism is putting a drop of water on the head of an infant, and that of the Sabbath is the first day of the week. Still, you and I use these terms in our teaching; but when we say baptism, we never mean sprinkling, and when we say Sabbath, we never mean the first day of the week. So when the Saviour said hades, he did not endorse the fables of heathen mythology concerning it.

The fire of the valley of Hinnom is taken as a type of that which will be kindled outside of the city in which the wicked will receive their punishment after their resurrection. But the bones, filth and refuse that were cast in there, were cast there, not to be preserved, but to be consumed. The fire from Heaven that consumed Sodom and Gomorrah is also given as a type or example of the punishment of those who should afterwards live ungodly; and it will be fulfilled when fire shall come down from God out of heaven and devour them. Rev. xx, 9. The types are types of destruction, and not of preservation.

But if tartarus is "gehenna intensified," or the hottest hell, as you understand it, how is it that the evil angels, who are already there, are expecting a more severe punishment, as is evident from the fact that some of them asked the Saviour, "Art thou come to torment us before the time?" Matt. viii, 29; Rev. xx, 10. They are reserved, an apostle tells us, "unto the judgment of the great day." They are not yet destroyed, though they are doubtless unhappy, for the same class of spirits that said, "Art thou come to torment us before the time," said also, "Art thou come to destroy us?" Mark i, 24. According to your theory, they were destroyed when they were driven out of Heaven. But they do not know it, but are looking forward to a time when they will be destroyed. And if tartarus where they now are, is "gehenna intensified," what can they be looking for in the future? The conclusion is, that tartarus is the prison in which they are reserved to the judgment; and from the evidences we have of their presence among men, both in the days of our Saviour and at the present time, we conclude that our earth and atmosphere are within the limits of their prison.

There is something remarkable in your fifth conclusion concerning the use of the words in question. You conclude that "hell in English, better, upon the whole, represents the Greek word gehenna, than the Greek word hades. Nevertheless, hades is sometimes fairly represented by hell, because the connection in which it is used requires this interpretation." From this I infer that, although you have confessed that men do not receive their punishment till after the judgment, you still think there are some exceptions—that the rich man, for example, of Luke xvi, some way gets into hell before the judgment. I will remind you, that when we come down to the time of the judgment, "death and hell (hades) deliver up the dead that are in them." So if the rich man is an exception, going to hell or purgatory before the time, who knows but that he will go to Heaven when he gets out?

I freely admit that the language of our Saviour, concerning the plucking out of a right eye and the cutting off of a right hand, is figurative. I do not believe that men will be "going about in Heaven with one eye out," nor that there will be immaterial ghosts there in the like sad condition. But if the context alone does not prove that the wicked will be punished in their bodies, other scriptures prove it, and you have admitted it; for you admit that the resurrection of the body takes place before the punishment. You will not claim, I presume, that right hands and right eyes represent darling sins, and the whole body, of consequence, all our sins, so that the danger to the sinner is that all his sins will be cast into hell, while he himself escapes. The teaching of the text seems to be, that it is better to suffer the loss of anything which would cause us to offend or to sin, than to lose all things, even ourselves, as the consequence of our sins. The destruction of soul and body in hell is, in effect, the loss of all things; but if life, or body, is preserved, something is saved, and something which we value pretty highly in the present life, and why not in that which is to come?

You think the fire of future punishment is to be taken in a figurative, and not in a literal sense. I ask you, was it literal or figurative water which inundated the earth, and destroyed the sinners out of it? There is but one answer, that a believer of the Bible can give: It was literal water. Well, Peter says, speaking of the destruction of the antediluvians by the flood, "The world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: but the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the judgment and perdition of ungodly men." The antediluvians perished—literally died by a deluge of literal water. The earth now is reserved to fire. How long reserved? To the day of judgment, the time of the final punishment of the wicked—to the day of perdition—utter destruction—of ungodly men. Will they be literally destroyed by fire, as the wicked were by water in Noah's time? or will it be figurative fire? We are informed, as to the effect of this fire, that "the elements will melt with fervent heat." Will not this make a literal lake of fire?

It is objected to our view of future punishment, that it is not sufficiently terrible to restrain the wicked. An eternity of living woe and misery in the unquenchable flames of hell must be threatened. But when we come to search out the real position, those flames are only figurative—they have no real existence. The wicked are their own tormentors; perhaps, the unquenchable fire is only the remorse of a guilty conscience—a punishment which rests very lightly upon them in this life, and the lighter still, the further they are advanced and the deeper sunk in sin and iniquity. And thus they are to go on, sinning and being punished, to eternity. And this is the popular Protestant hell—as good a heaven as degraded sensualists, calling themselves Spiritualists, would ask for, so far as the goadings of their own consciences are concerned. But I must not anticipate too far, I wait your lead.

Very truly yours, R. F. COTTRELL.

Everything Worn Out.

A CORRESPONDENT who had been traveling through the South since the war ended, gives the following picture of affairs:

"The dwelling-houses of the South present a strange appearance in their furniture and household equipments. Everything has been mended, and generally in the rudest style. Window glass has given way to thin boards, and these are in use in railway coaches and in cities. Furniture is marred and broken, and none has been replaced in four years. Dishes are cemented in various styles, and half the pitchers have tin handles. A complete set of crockery is never seen, and in very few families is there enough to set a table in a manner approaching gentility. A set of forks with whole tines is a curiosity. Clocks and watches have nearly all stopped. Carpets have gone for army blankets. Pianos, where they are owned, are terribly out of tune. Clothing, including hats, bonnets, and ladies' and children's shoes, are nearly all homemade. Hair brushes and tooth brushes are all worn out, combs are broken and are not yet replaced. Pins, needles, thread, and a thousand such articles, which seem indispensable to housekeeping, are very scarce. Even in weaving on looms, corn-cobs have been substituted for spindles. Few have pocket-knives. In fact, everything that has been an article of sale at the South, is wanting now. At the tables of those who were once esteemed luxurious providers, you will find neither tea, coffee, sugar, nor spices of any kind. Even candles, in some cases, have been replaced by a cup of grease, in which a piece of cloth is plunged for a wick. The problem which the South has had to solve has been, not how to be comfortable during the war, but how to live at all. The state of things which this indicates will not disappear rapidly. Neither this season nor the next can bring the era of comfortable living. All are reduced to the same level; all are poor together."

Preaching

PREACHING.—The true learning of a gospel minister consists not in being able to talk Latin fluently, or to dispute in philosophy, but in being able to speak a word in season to weary souls.—Philip Henry.

Fashion Starves Happiness

THE votaries of fashion starve their happiness to feed their pride.

Notes by the Way. No. 4.

By Uriah Smith

A BOOK has been published to the world called "Pauline Theology," setting forth the teachings of Paul in reference to the state of man in death, and the destiny of the wicked. And while this book is very excellent, clearly showing the views of Paul upon the subject of which it treats, yet this is only one item in Paul's theology. Paul has set forth instruction upon many other points, some theoretical, and some practical, which should not be overlooked. That portion of his teaching in which we are just now specially interested is a very practical subject to which he alludes in Acts xxvii, 3: "And Julius courteously entreated Paul, and gave him liberty to go unto his friends to refresh himself." As Paul assures us that he kept back nothing that was profitable, we may safely infer that he advanced nothing that was unprofitable, and hence may conclude that, in his estimation, a person might occasionally, with profit to himself, go to his friends and be refreshed.

After a long absence from our native place, we are now tasting the sweets of a practical application of this hint of the apostle's. We can testify that this is a most excellent item of his theology, and that he used none too strong a term when he implied that by carrying it out, a person would be "refreshed."

Starting from Rochester, N. Y., from which place our last note was written, on the evening of the 17th inst., by a prosperous journey we reached this place the 19th, when a long cherished desire of our heart was gratified in taking by the hand, and again looking upon the face of a dear mother, from whom we have been parted for the space of ten years and four months. This meeting is to us doubly precious from the consideration that to her early and faithful religious instruction, we are chiefly indebted for our present interest in eternal things. We meet as possessors of the same life-giving truths of these last days, and travelers together, to the not-far-distant land of eternal union and eternal youth. May she reach it this side the portals of the grave.

When we last went from this place, we left an only sister near her end under the fell power of consumption, much nearer than we then expected. She long since went to her rest, and we meet her here no more—no more till the world's great and only hope is consummated in the appearing of our Redeemer, and the bright morning of the resurrection arrives, bearing the precious freight of blissful re-unions, and its eternal weight of glory. Hasten the glad day! is the prayer that is drawn from the heart, as at every step we behold the world's changes, and the world's evils.

Sabbath, the 21st, we enjoyed a precious season with the few in this vicinity who are alive in the cause of the Lord. As they take the pains to come from thrice to thirteen miles around, to meet upon the Sabbath to exhort one another, that the spirit of truth may not die out of their hearts, and their light may not go out before the world, the Lord meets with them to own and to bless. It was so upon this occasion. We were rejoiced to meet these faithful pilgrims; and we felt that God's people, whether they live in Michigan or New Hampshire, are all one. May they still have strength to hold on, till all this section is shaken with the truth, as we believe it will be, and the Lord adds to their numbers such as shall be saved.

A few weeks spent here renewing former and pleasant acquaintances with persons and things, will complete our vacation from Office duties. The season is favorable for rest and repose. A New England autumn, proverbially pleasant, is here. The bracing air of our native hills is refreshing and invigorating. And Nature herself, having now accomplished the burden of the year's labor, borne her harvests and ripened her fruits, has arrayed herself in the most fantastically colored apparel, as if to enjoy a little gala day of rest and festivity, ere she sinks to repose before the cold foot-falls of approaching winter.

With serene and joyful anticipation we look forward to that time when nature shall wear more brilliant hues than are yet known to earth, and when its gorgeous coloring will not result, as here, from its elements of decay; but where there will be every form and tint of beauty which can please the eye, all fruits that will be good to the taste, and every influence that can fill with joy unutterable the souls of immortal beings. But a few more seasons, at most, will complete their rounds, ere the day of deliverance comes, for which the whole nation now groans and travails.

U. S.

West Wilton, N. H., Oct. 22, 1865.

Continue reading: Closing Report of Tent Labors in Michigan