Information Asked and Offered.
By Uriah Smith
The Sabbath Recorder of July 16, 1874, reviewing our recent article, “Does he Understand Us?” says, “We do not see how our Advent friends can fairly deny the charge of materialism.” We made no effort in the article referred to, to deny that charge. It is a matter of no great solicitude with us by what terms our views are designated; but we are desirous that our real views and their tendency shall be understood, and that those views shall be what the Bible plainly teaches. Then, though people may call it materialism, or any other name, it matters not. We do not propose to recede from the truth because dissenting parties label it with an opprobrious name. The Recorder thinks the connection put by us “between spiritualism and the doctrine of the soul’s immortality disingenuous.” At the same time it admits that “if the soul’s immortality is a false idea, then there is no ground work for spiritualism to rest on.” If then this doctrine is the foundation of spiritualism, is there not just the connection we asserted between them? What did spiritualism proclaim through its mediums as its avowed object, when it made its advent upon the world? It was to convince mankind of the immortality of the soul. And it is a significant fact that after a little time it leads its adherents invariably to discard the Bible. Why is this if the Bible teaches that doctrine, as many still believe? Why does it not lead them to the Bible, its object being to teach the same thing? It is evident that the Bible does not teach it, but that spiritualism is a grand scheme of the enemy put forth in behalf of that, his favorite dogma. The Recorder takes large exception to our declaration that “the doctrine of eternal misery is what makes infidels.” It says, “It is the enmity of the heart that makes a man an infidel.” Very well. The correspondent of the Recorder, whose remarks we were reviewing, more than intimated that such was the tendency of our teaching which he denominated materialism. We are glad the Recorder thus publicly discards that view of the matter. We do not wish to be understood as saying that there is no other cause of infidelity but the doctrine of eternal misery; but we do say that, as between the two views, eternal misery and destruction, it is the former which leads men into infidelity rather than the latter, upon which it is so extensively charged. The Recorder continues, “Never did the doctrine of eternal misery make an infidel, nor that of destructionism save one.” Will it as frankly clear our doctrine of the charge so frequently made against it, and say that the doctrine of destruction never made an infidel? Nevertheless, it is not to be denied that these questions do influence the views which men entertain of the word of God. We know of hundreds who were formerly infidels, or disbelievers in the Bible, but who now sacredly cherish it as the word of God; who rejected the Bible because they supposed it taught the doctrine of eternal misery, and who now receive it because they see that it teaches no such unjustifiable dogma. Now it may be said that the “enmity of their hearts” was the primary cause of their infidelity, yet they never could have been reached by the invitations of the gospel till their minds had been disabused in regard to the teachings of the book of God. The Recorder is evidently perplexed over the fact that Christ is so plainly set forth as the source of immortality. It says that when the Bible speaks of immortality as secured by Christ, it means the immortality of the body. Then realizing how infinitely it degrades the great work of Christ to make its object simply the restoration of the body, it says that it does not deny that by a separate statement the immortality of the soul is also attributed to Christ. Then only the souls of the righteous will be made immortal; for he promises immortality only to his people; and if his work results in making all the wicked immortal so that they are as a consequence to suffer eternal misery, then more suffering than happiness, more evil than good, results from his intervention in our behalf. We cannot so dishonor the Author of the great plan of salvation as to entertain such a thought. The Recorder further says: “In no instance is the word immoral [which we suppose to be a typographical error for the word immortal] applied to the soul in the Scriptures.” With this statement we agree; and how will our friends account for this fact, if the Bible teaches that the soul is immortal? How can we claim that to be a Bible doctrine which the Bible never once states?