ELD. TAFT'S COMMUNICATION.
By M. E. Cornell
Bro. Smith : I see by Review that Eld. Taft takes some exceptions to my reference to his visit to Lapeer, in my report. He says, "The matter is hardly represented in its true light." Now I will say that if Bro. T. had known all that transpired in Lapeer, he would have readily acknowledged that my statement was strictly true. I represented that his sermons were a confirmation of our position, and so they were. If the law of God is immutable, (which Bro. T. affirmed) then the seventh day is the Sabbath. Again, he denied that man pre-existed, and if he did not pre-exist, neither will he exist after "his breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth, and his thoughts perish." Ps. cxlvi, 4. And I repeat that on the questions of the Sabbath, and man's nature Eld. Taft is in theory, substantialy with us, his last communication to the contrary, notwithstanding. As I read Eld. T.'s article, I could not help remarking that it was the effort of an honest man, with a noble mind to get out through a very small place. He says, "As to man's nature, I premise that my views and Bro. Cornell's are not at all alike." Now I must say that if the Elder's article is to be understood literally, his views and mine are exactly alike on all the essential features of the question, What is man? He says, "The make of the soul itself then, argues nothing conclusive upon the subject. We turn to the Bible, and what is the result? Man's mortality stands out on every page." He admits again that the soul is in a state of violence after death, and that without the animated body, the soul is without activity and energy. Again he says, "My faith is that man has no necessary inherent immortality." This covers the whole ground. What more could we say? Our views are stated as plain as language can do it. It will, we think, be vain for the Elder to try to make it appear that he differs from us on these points, for popularity's sake, for his knowledge of the Scriptures, and his honesty compel him to acknowledge to the contrary in all he speaks and writes on the subject. Concerning the Son-ship of Christ, Eld. T. says, "It was the original pre-existent Christ that suffered and died for man," &c. So we believe. It was that Jesus that was with the Father before the world was, that died, and not the mere human body, as some believe. But this is what the clergy of Lapeer called "blank infidelity." Concerning the change of the Sabbath Eld. T. says, "To me there is no evidence of a change by divine appointment, and therefore the perpetuity of the original institution." Again, "If preference has been given to another time, we may expect to find the world advertised of the fact." Thus it appears that in theory there is no real difference between us on these points; but it is natural to lean towards the popular side and try to evade the cross; yet it is to be hoped that Eld. T. will soon realize the importance of discharging the obligations he is under in view of the light he has on these great subjects. Yours for truth, M. E. Cornell.
Hillsdale, Oct. 12th.