SADDUCEEISM by Editor

Publishing Committee · Battle Creek, Mich. · Apr 12, 1860

SADDUCEEISM.

By Editor

Concluded.

ACCORDING to notice in last week's REVIEW we resume our examination of this subject. The next passage that calls for dissection in the work under review is the convenient way the author has of disposing of testimony that is not agreeable to him. Referring to those passages in the Old Testament which plainly declare to us the state of the dead, Mr. Warren says: "Let it be remembered that every thing is not the word of God which is found on the pages of the sacred volume. Vast numbers of persons are mentioned there, together with the words they uttered, or sentiments they held, which are not pretended to have come from God." Mr. W. occupies three pages in expatiating upon this idea, and cautioning the reader to be careful and not take as inspiration what is not so, evidently designing to leave the impression that these passages which speak so plainly on the state of the dead are not inspiration. Let us look at this. While we admit that there are some things introduced into the Bible from other authors, the sentiment of which the Bible does not endorse, let us see if the passages in question are of that sort. The reader is referred to Job xiv, 12; Ps. vi, 5; lxxxviii, 10; cxlvi, 4; Eccl. iii, 19; ix, 5, 6; Isa. xxxviii, 18, 19. These are the passages, with the exception of Ps. cxlvi, 4, which Mr. W. quotes. On the last passage referred to he comments to show that the testimony is merely the song of Hezekiah, and not Bible-truth. He does not go into a particular examination of the other passages to show that they are not the words of inspiration, but contents himself with indulging in general declamation, as already observed. As for the testimony of Job, the Lord said that he had spoken what was right, [see chap. xlii, 7,] and we know of no reason to suppose that David and Solomon spoke out of their own heart and not as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. We can but regard this method of treating the subject as a very reprehensible effort to evade plain and pointed testimony.

Another argument urged in the tract under notice is this: The Bible uses language according to the appearance of things, as the sun's rising and setting, the firmament, the earth founded upon the floods, &c. And of the same kind it is claimed are the declarations concerning the dead: they are spoken not according to matter of fact, but according to the appearance of things. We reply that there is a vast difference between the language of the Bible as applied to the appearance of things, and the language which it uses in speaking of the dead. In the former case it only falls in with the common usage, and does not see fit to correct the notions of astronomy which people have in past ages entertained. And yet there is no declaration in the Bible concerning the earth or heavenly bodies which the most scrutinizing skepticism can find to conflict with the more recent discoveries of science. While in the latter case when the Bible speaks of the dead it uses assertions of the most positive and unequivocal character. There is therefore no parallel between the two. And moreover, if we can show that the language of scripture concerning the dead goes beyond appearances, it will be a further refutation of the claim of Mr. Warren. And we have only to say that the Bible does so use language. Says Job, "Till the heavens be no more they shall not awake nor be raised out of their sleep." Is there anything in appearance to indicate this? Is it the language of appearance to say that they will sleep till such a time? Not at all. Then we may set it down as a fact that the Bible is not governed by appearances in its language concerning the dead. Other texts might be adduced, but this is sufficient for the purpose.

The next claim is that the Old Testament writers did not have clear views of things. To use the language of the book, "No doubt many of them had almost no idea of any future existence at all, and all spoke of the grave as a place of darkness, and silence, and gloom. Is it wise, then, is it in accordance with common sense to go back to them, and in the very twilight of revelation find authoritative declarations of the future non-existence of man?" We answer: If those ancient writers spoke according to their own knowledge, and out of their own heart, from mere worldly wisdom, then there would be some force to Mr. Warren's position; but we believe that those men spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost; and that the Holy Ghost knew as much about man then as now, and that whatever it uttered we are bound to regard not as a declaration of ignorance, but as the word of God.

On Acts ii, 34, which says, "David is not yet ascended into the heavens," our author remarks: "Obviously the reference is to the body only of the Psalmist. Nothing whatever is affirmed of the soul in this passage." Another convenient way of disposing of a hard point. Compare this with what he says two pages further on: "The I that thinks, the I that makes up my manhood is not my body." The query will at once arise, Of what part of David did the apostle speak? Was it of the body? or was it of the I of David that used to think, the I that constituted his manhood. The apostle says David, not his body. To say that this means his body merely, and that his soul went off to heaven in conscious existence is the merest quibbling.

On the subject of Moses and Elias he says, page 42, "It is said, however, that the body of Moses had now been raised, and that it was this which appeared talking with Jesus. It is enough to reply, this is pure assumption. Not a hint of any such thing is given in the narrative, and nobody would ever have dreamed of such an idea but in the desperation of indefensible error." We have only to reply that we are not aware that the celebrated Dr. Clarke was in any such predicament when he wrote as follows: "The body of Moses was probably raised as a pledge of the resurrection." See comment on Matt. xvii, 3. As this testimony of Dr. Clarke is probably as impartial as Mr. Warren's, and certainly of as great weight, we dismiss them both without further comment.

A remark on the closing sentence of the work under consideration and we have done. To prove that man does not die, these words of Christ are quoted: "He that liveth and believeth on me shall NEVER DIE." But Mr. Warren has all along been laboring to prove that men would never die whether they believed on Christ or not. Adopting his style of argument we might inquire, What force is there in Christ's saying, He that believeth on me shall never die, if those who did not believe on him also should never die? And if this expression proves that some part of men will never die, it can have reference to only the righteous, for the promise is to those who believe on Christ. The wicked are still left to the death threatened them. And thus at best Mr. W. is obliged to let his theory hobble off upon one leg.