THE IMMORTALITY QUESTION.
By E. Lanphear
[The following is a portion of an article sent by Bro. E. Lanphear to the Sabbath Recorder. It was declined by that paper, and Bro. L. sends it to us. We are sorry the Recorder is unwilling to lay before its readers articles which are no more antiscriptural or unprofitable than the following.—Ed.] Permit me to ask a few questions for the consideration of your readers. 1. What part of Adam did God address himself to when he said, "In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die;" soul, spirit, body, or the whole man just as he had made him? 2. Which told the truth, the Lord or the serpent? The Lord said to Adam in relation to eating the forbidden fruit, "Thou shalt surely die!" but the serpent said, "Thou shalt not surely die! &c. It seems to me that when my brethren say that man is immortal, and must live on through an endless eternity, either in happiness or misery, they confirm what the serpent said. 3. Did Adam ever get back into the garden after he was turned out, and eat of the tree of life? If he did not, how could he live forever? was not this the very reason why Christ was sent into the world; that man might come unto him and "have eternal life?" Is not "eternal life the gift of God through our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ?" These are questions for my professed orthodox brethren to decide; ministers, of course, if lay members cannot be allowed to investigate for themselves. I never was really willing to come under priest rule, and be compelled to believe what they say, whether the Scriptures teach it or not, for the sake of being called a Seventh-day Baptist. Again, if your theory is correct, and man cannot die, why the injunction, "Turn ye; for why will ye die?" Perhaps this was a mistake, and the passage should have read, turn ye, turn ye, for why will ye live in endless misery or torment? How is it with the text which speaks in relation to a certain class, on whom "the second death hath no power" if there is no second death? I have heard preachers exhort people to "turn from the evil of their ways, and escape the death that never dies." I never learned of any such death by reading the Bible. I am inclined to believe that men talk and preach these things, more for effect than for the truth of them. It is said that a person can repeat a story until he gets to thinking that it is a reality: it may be so in relation to some of the doctrines preached. I have heard persons preach funeral sermons when35they would picture out "heaven" with the spirit, or living part, as they would call it, of the person dead perched on the tree of Paradise in "heaven," with the saints that had gone before him, singing praises to God and the Lamb, and calling for those left behind to come and be with them. Is this Bible doctrine? or is it preaching for effect that grace may abound? Shall men "sin that grace may abound? God forbid." If we allow ourselves to construe the plain teachings of the Bible to mean something else in one case, why not in all cases where it conflicts with our convenience and education? Has not the Sunday observer as good a right to interpret Sabbath to mean Sunday as we have to say that death, die, &c., means life and to live? I had intended to write at some length on the subjects above hinted at; but it seems that freedom of speech and of the press, is to be tolerated only with the favored ones in our denominational paper, especially on subjects hard to be disposed of. Sunday people will not allow Sabbath keepers to discuss the subject of the Sabbath through their periodicals; neither will they allow a Sabbatarian to enter their churches to lecture on the subject of the Sabbath any more than our professed Sabbatarians will the Adventists. I once tried all the Sunday churches in my town to get a chance for a Sabbatarian to lecture, but all had an excuse; and that was, they did not think it profitable to have the people's minds stirred up to that subject. I finally succeeded in getting a chance for him to speak in a school-room in an academy where he gave two lectures, after which "he gave the ministers an invitation to reply." But they answered him "nary-a-bit." The course taken by you and the publishing board, in relation to your correspondents that write on the subjects above referred to, reminds me of a circumstance that occurred years ago when I was a smaller boy than I am now. The circumstance was this: My Father gave me a chicken. I took much pains with it, and it grew up and made a fine looking blue rooster. I thought much of Blue Jacket as I used to call him. But I chanced to call at one of the neighbors one day and espied a very beautiful red chicken, or rooster, to which I took quite a fancy. My father finally consented to let me trade for it, and I brought him home. Of course the chickens wanted to fight; and at it they went in good earnest. My preference was to have Red Jacket whip; so when Blue Jacket was like to get the start I would catch him and hold him for Red Jacket to pick away upon awhile, thinking perhaps old Blue would give it up. But old Blue never would give it up; for he knew it was unfair. But I continued to bother him by tying his legs, &c., until both were so reduced they could fight no more. The result was, both chickens died. I have always thought that if I had given the blue chicken equal chance, he would soon have whipped out the other, and I should have saved the chickens. It seems to me that you and the board are altogether in favor of the red chicken; live or die. Well this is human nature. I do not think it the best way to be always governed by this rule. If I should allow myself to be governed by human nature, I might say as I heard a man say in Wisconsin last fall. He said that "he had willed the publishing society $1000, but if they did not show fair play on these subjects he would alter his will." I am making quite a lengthy article of this. If you do not feel disposed to publish it, you will find enclosed postage stamps by which to return it to me by mail; also my reply to "J. M. T." In concluding this article I wish to make one appeal to the common sense of every reader of the Recorder. Is the doctrine of the endless punishment of the wicked a consistent doctrine when compared with the plain teachings of the Bible, and God's goodness as represented therein? Man seems to have been placed here in the world without any volition on his part. His life is filled up with sorrows, griefs and pains. Rude buffetings and often abuses are the portion of his cup. His bark is often driven aground upon the sands of sorrow, and its keel will ever and anon graze upon the reefs of disappointment. Clouds of adversity hang about his bow and the lightnings of calamity shiver his sails. He is "of few days and full of trouble." The Lord "knoweth our frame; he remembereth that we are dust. As for man his days are as grass; as the flower of the field so he flourisheth; for the wind passeth over it and it is gone, and the place thereof shall know it no more. But the mercy of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear him, and his righteousness unto children's children; to such as keep his covenant, and to those that remember his commandments to do them." Man in his nature seems inclined to sin and will daily do so without a continual watch over himself. Thus the command "Watch and pray lest you enter into temptation." There seem to be two roads placed before man. He must necessarily enter one or the other. Which is the most natural, according to his nature? "Enter ye in at the strait gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat; because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way which leadeth unto life and few there be that find it." If now your theology is correct, man must suffer in endless torment in a lake of fire and brimstone for the finite acts of his mortal life. Is this consistent with the attributes of a merciful being? Is not God more merciful than man? Where would you find a man that would whip his child eternally because he had told him he would whip him if he ate of a certain tree in his garden? especially when the keenest boy in the neighborhood told him to do it, and that his father would not whip him? If such a man could be found would consistency allow it? Every man's dignity and humanity, although depraved in his nature, would abhor such a man. It is no wonder the nobleman of Sinai retorted upon the American missionary who went there to convert their heathen to worship the true God. He asked the missionary how long his God punished the wicked. The missionary answered, "eternally." "Then," said the nobleman, "you may worship your American God. I prefer ours; for our God does not punish the wicked but a thousand years." Consistency is a Jewel.