THE RIGHTEOUS NEVER REMOVED.
Bro. White: In Eld. Waggoner's reply to C. N. Giles (Review No. 12, Vol. xIx), he advances the idea that the declaration, "The righteous shall never be removed," Prov. x, 30, has no reference to a physical fact. His construction of that scripture, in my opinion, is not the most easy and natural one, neither the nearest the truth of any. I suppose he will admit that the latter clause of Prov. x, 30, has reference to a physical fact. Then why not the former? Mark the antithesis here—"The righteous shall never be removed, but the wicked shall not inhabit the earth." Shall not inhabit it permanently or forever, of course this means. Then does not the former clause signify that the righteous shall never be removed from the same forever? or otherwise than temporarily? In my opinion it does, and Bro. Waggoner has here overlooked important testimony, not only for the future reinstatement of the righteous in their original and rightful dominion, but also for the theory of the annihilation of the wicked. See Ps. xxxvii, 9-11, 22, 27, 28, 29; Prov. ii, 21, 22. Yours hoping for an entrance into the everlasting kingdom.
G. P. Wilson. Wilson's Mills, Lincoln Plantation, Me. REMARKS ON THE ABOVE.—I think you have fully answered your objections, and it only remains for me to call attention to the points. You qualify the latter clause of Prov. x, 30, by adding, "permanently or forever." The necessity of this I allow. But they do inhabit it for a season, or temporarily. The same qualification to the first clause (and you have made it) meets your objection. The righteous shall never be removed, i. e., permanently or forever, or as you say, "otherwise than temporarily." I never overlooked the "re-instatement" of the righteous on the earth, but if they were never physically removed, how could they be re-instated? I consider it difficult to tell how long a period "temporarily" embraces, or to give the exact limits of the opposite of "permanently or forever." I consider the present condition of the earth, under the curse, a temporary one, though of six thousand years continuance, because it will cease and give place to an eternal and different state. So a residence in the "Father's house" in heaven, of a thousand years, would not be "permanent or forever," but "temporary," because the saints are to "reign forever and ever" in the new earth. I am not able to see wherein my reply to friend Giles conflicts with any point of Bible truth. I will add that I think the most "easy and natural" construction of Prov. x, 30, is to refer it altogether to the new earth, and then it needs no qualifying; in either case it does not present any objection to our faith.
J. H. W. Burlington, Mich., April 20.