WHAT is the proper method of investigating scripture subjects? I consider it proper to first see what bearing the great leading doctrines of the Bible have on them, and let minor objections be a secondary consideration. And any objections, to be valid, must show a want of harmony between the doctrine objected to, and other doctrines which are settled beyond a doubt. And when any objection is based on a passage of scripture, the objector is obliged to show the true sense of the scripture, otherwise it may not appear that the objection really exists.
As an instance of the successful application of this method of argument, I would refer to Eld D. P. Hall's work entitled, "Man not Immortal." First, the leading points are clearly and scripturally canvassed, and these being settled, objections must vanish as fast as the light is brought to bear on them. But let the trivial objections only, which will arise on such subjects, be considered, and volumes may be written without giving the reader a just view of the doctrine.
When I speak of settling the main points and removing objections, I do not mean by it that all must necessarily be convinced; that is altogether too much to expect. In the case above mentioned, notwithstanding the argument is clear and conclusive, I venture the opinion that there may be found those who, after reading the whole work, would quote the Saviour's reply to the crucified thief, or Paul's desire to depart and be with Christ, as unanswerable arguments in favor of the immortality of the soul! And hence I conclude that some people will not be convinced of their errors. In like manner it is to be presumed that some will cling to their construction of some portion of prophecy, which they themselves cannot fully explain, and apply it to favor their views of the "Age to Come," regardless of the bearing of great leading truths on the subject. I have endeavored in the briefest possible manner to show that
The clearest and most definite prophecies point to the coming of Christ as the time of the utter destruction of his enemies.
The facts concerning the symbols given by Daniel and John show that all the nations of the earth will be "dashed in pieces" at that time.
The New Covenant mediation is in the present dispensation, and in the present only; hence its blessings can only be secured by obtaining an interest in them in this dispensation.
The Old Covenant did not, and could not, secure the favor of God to those with whom it was made, and of course their descendants can claim nothing under it.
The New Covenant holds out no hope of special blessings to the Jews, but its promises extend to all alike, through faith, and are to be fully realized in the new earth.
There is no promise of the restoration or rebuilding of "Jerusalem which now is."
The Kingly Priesthood of Christ is entirely in the present dispensation.
The great work of subduing the enemies of Christ, claimed for the Age to Come, is accomplished before the second advent. From these and other considerations we conclude that there will be no probation after Christ comes.
Having the utmost confidence that we have the truth in regard to these points, and that they have a controlling influence in deciding this matter, we are quite willing to enter into a full and thorough investigation to ascertain whether our view or that of our opponents will best harmonize with the great leading truths of the Bible. To the best of our feeble ability we have endeavored to view this subject in all its bearings, and have no fear for the result of such an investigation.
As before remarked, there will doubtless be some who will cling to their construction of the prophecies, regardless of principles which preclude the possibility of such construction being correct. Others there are who are honestly striving for the truth, but have likewise imbibed erroneous views of the prophecies; and as we claim no infallibility for ourselves—nothing but an earnest desire to know the truth—we may also be found in this position. Then, inasmuch as we are all liable to be mistaken in our views of scripture, especially of those parts connected with figures, or of disputed chronology, it is of the utmost importance that we be able to test our opinions by some well-established and acknowledged truth or truths—something that is settled by the plainest declarations, given in the most literal manner, and most definite terms. The necessity of such a criterion all must see at a glance. As students of the Bible we have arrived at far different conclusions, and hence it is evident that on one side or the other there has been a wrong starting point—wrong premises have been laid down—or an incorrect process of reasoning adopted. And if there are no general principles, no plain truths on which we can agree, by which we can test our constructions of certain scriptures, we can scarcely expect to come to "the full assurance of faith," any farther than assurance is founded on confidence in our own imperfect judgments. But such truths or general principles there are; and are acknowledged by our opponents as well as ourselves; and by them we are willing to have our views tested. And they are more than acknowledged by our opponents—they are produced and relied on as the foundation of their faith. These all-controlling principles, by which all theories must be tested, and to which all must bow are
"THE LAW AND THE GOSPEL."
The facts relative to these great fundamental truths are stated in plain terms, and there can be but little chance for an issue between us in regard to either premise or conclusion. The first argument to prove the utter destruction of the unconverted at Christ's coming; and the consequent impossibility of future probation I would base on
THE UNIVERSALITY OF THE LAW. I say that there will be but little chance for an issue on this point, as I know that those who are at this time particularly urgent on the Age to Come question have endorsed and taught all that we claim on this principle; so that to them we may use the words of the Apostle, "We write none other things unto you than what ye read or acknowledge." The universality of the Law we argue from the acknowledged supremacy of God, and from plain scripture declarations on the point. To deny it then, is first to endorse the most absurd positions against God's sovereignty, and second, to contradict the plain written word.
Rom. iii, 19. "Now we know that what things whatsoever the law saith, it saith to those who are under the law; THAT EVERY MOUTH MAY BE STOPPED, AND ALL THE WORLD MAY BECOME GUILTY BEFORE GOD."
God is supreme—"his kingdom ruleth over all;" his law is binding on all, and all are amenable to him as the "one Law-giver." Not only so, but all are transgressors of his law. The denial of this is not only the foundation of grievous errors, but it is founded upon errors the most fatal, originating in human pride, and vanity, denying the depravity of man. And it is a question of serious importance to know whether all men are chargeable with the crimes specified by Paul to the Romans. Chap. i, 29-31. I do not refer to overt actions, but to the spirit of the law forbidding such crimes. Dare you say that they are not, "O man, whosoever thou art?" See chap. ii, 1. It is certain that vague and indefinite views of this text have been held: some have laid the whole list to the account of the darkness of heathenism; while others represent the heathen as being so guileless and innocent that there is an absolute necessity for a new system of probation under more favorable circumstances to be established in the future, to give them a more reasonable chance for life, and thus to vindicate the justice of God! Monstrous as this appears in the light of God's revealed plan, I have heard it publicly advanced during the past Winter by a teacher of the Age to Come.34
From the context it is evident that these declarations apply to the heathen, if to no others. For the heathen as for all other sinners against God, I entertain strong feelings of pity; and doubtless the Apostle also did, and was willing to lay down his life to place the offer of salvation before them; but having the mind of Christ, he sufficiently well knew what was in man to truthfully describe his natural state.
By Rom. ii, 13-15, we learn that the Gentiles (which comprised all the heathen, all who did not hear the law on mount Sinai, verse 12) had a sufficient knowledge of the principles of the law to be able to accuse or excuse one another, so that to them will apply as well as to others, the remark of chap. i, 32. "Who knowing the judgment of God that they which commit such things are worthy of death." The description of vices referred to reads: "Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenant-breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful." Missionaries, and all who have dwelt in heathen lands, and authentic history, assure us that wickedness of the most abominable kinds, and to an awful extent, prevails and has ever prevailed among the heathen. Of a truth it is said, "The dark places of the earth are full of the habitations of cruelty." Of the very best of them, their sages and philosophers, Melancthon observed, "I admit there were found in Socrates, Xenocrates, and Zeno, constancy, temperance, chastity. Those shadows of virtue existed in impure minds, and sprang from self-love; and therefore ought they to be regarded not as genuine virtues, but as vices." Of this expression the celebrated historian D'Aubigne says, "This may seem a harsh judgment, but only when Melancthon's meaning is misapprehended. No man felt more disposed than he was to own that the Pagans had virtues worthy of human esteem; but he maintained that great truth, that the supreme law given by God to all his creatures is, that they should love him above all things. Now, should man in doing God's commands act from love to himself, not from love to God, could God ever approve of his thus daring to substitute himself in the room of his Infinite Majesty; and would there not be vice in an act involving express rebellion against the Supreme God?"
But I cannot believe that this scripture should be limited to the heathen; and its general application will appear quite reasonable when we find that the Apostle has described in nearly the same terms the characters of a class of the last days, "having a form of godliness." He says they "shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, truce-breakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, high-minded, lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God." 2 Tim. iii, 2-4. What principle of morality is not violated by such characters? And if those professing godliness are guilty of these things, who shall estimate the depravity of those who profess nothing but opposition to, and hatred of, the truth? Statistical facts and every day observation show that crime is on the increase, yet the churches profess to be engaged in the work of converting the world; but in truth the world has well-nigh converted the church. A recent writer said, "Take the whole population at the beginning of this century, and ascertain the relative proportions of professional christianity and so-called infidelity, and then follow the ratio of the decrease of one, and the increase of the other, and you find that in the same ratio, the end of this century will find America destitute of a church." To those who believe that the present professed christian churches are "the light of the world" this is an alarming fact; but when we see that amongst them the proud are called happy, and they that work wickedness are set up, their cessation could scarcely be considered an occasion for regret.
There is another scripture more general in its application than the preceding. Gal. v, 19-21. "Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like." These are placed in opposition to the fruits of the Spirit; and as surely as the fruits or graces of the Spirit abound where the Spirit dwells, and the Spirit cannot dwell where these are not, so surely do those prevail in all flesh, where the flesh with its affections and lusts is not crucified or subdued by the grace of God. That the "works of the flesh" are developed in man's nature, is still more evident from Paul's summary in Rom. viii, 7: "the carnal mind is enmity against God, for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be." That which is perfectly subject to the law of God, is perfect in love, for "love is the fulfilling of the law." But that which is enmity against God, and not subject to his law, is complete in hatred to God, and a transgressor of his holy law in every respect. That all are "by nature the children of wrath," and have carnal minds, none can deny; hence all are by nature in the deplorable condition described by the Apostle. James White.