Publishing Committee · Battle Creek, Mich. · Apr 8, 1858
CONDITIONS OF SALVATION. No. 4.
By M. E. S.
BY M. E. S.
WE have noticed faith as the first condition of salvation. We can, after a moment's consideration, readily understand why this is necessarily the first requirement. Persons are induced to action in one of two ways; either by the power of force or by the power of motive. God never makes use of the former in the work of redemption; but leaving man a free moral agent, governed by his own volitions, he says, "Whosoever will, let him take of the water of life freely.". Yet, understanding he will not act without being impelled by force or motive, he sets before him "exceeding great and precious promises," that by motive power he may be influenced to perform the conditions required in order to their attainment. First, however, he must believe those promises are true before he will be induced to seek them; that verily "God is, and is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." Thus we see faith consistently and necessarily stands first in the plan of salvation.
We would now ask for the conditions upon which these promises are based, in order to ascertain the next condition of salvation. We have seen that the promises embrace eternal life. Ezekiel tells us, [chap. xviii, 4,] "The soul that sinneth it shall die," hence the class of sinners are excluded from them. But what is sin? [Our inquiries must be minute in order to ascertain our own position regarding the promises.] John says, [1 John iii, 4,] "Sin is the transgression of the law." What law is here referred to? We have but two distinct laws given in Sacred Writ, and indeed one of these sprang from the other, since it was the ministration of it; and was known as the law of commandments contained in ordinances. This law consisted of types and shadows prefiguring the work of redemption to be accomplished by Christ, and was nailed to his cross when he suffered as the great antitype of the sacrifices contained in this ceremonial law. Eph. ii, 15. This law, therefore, having been done away at the death of Christ, could not convict Gentiles of sin, since "where no law is, there is no transgression." Rom. iv, 15.
But of the other law, the law of God or Ten Commandments, none will admit that any part save the fourth was typical. Since the remaining nine were the embodiments of as many great principles, the transgression of which would be considered sin in all ages of the world. But why call the fourth commandment a type? We understand that shadows to be of any service must continue until they reach their substances. Thus the typical law was in force until the appearing of Christ, "who being come an High Priest of good things to come," which were shadowed forth by that law, himself, Jesus, took that law out of the way. Since the shadows in him and his ministration had reached their substances, and were consequently no longer necessary in the plan of redemption. Does the Sabbath of the Lord prefigure anything of the work of Christ, which work was instituted for the express purpose of bringing back the human race from their fallen state to that of primeval innocence and bliss? We answer, The Sabbath commandment says nothing of the work of Christ, nothing of sin or redemption, but points directly back to a work consummated prior to the fall of man, and says, "Remember" &c., because the Lord rested on the first seventh day of time, he sanctified it, i. e., set it apart, and hence all succeeding seventh days, must necessarily be sanctified time. Now how could God consistently ordain a type of man's redemption before man had fallen? He could not. The Sabbath claims priority of institution over all the other commandments, and must be as binding.
But suppose it was a type, prefiguring as some maintain, the heavenly rest. We have before remarked that a shadow cannot be of use, except as it continues until it reaches its substance. Thus in tracing the shadow of a tree for the purpose of finding the tree itself, the shadow must continue until it reaches the object that casts it, otherwise it were unavailing. But in the substance under consideration, the shadow that extends over the space of four thousand years, suddenly ceases; we pass over a distance of nearly two thousand years and then ushers in the great antitype alone, its type having long since ceased. How could we in such a case know with any certainty that the shadow which pretends to be such, at all prefigures that for which it is claimed? how many intervening objects might not such a shadow belong to?
Were the Sabbath a type, why should it be excluded from the christian dispensation? Is it because Christians have no interest in its antitype, the eternal Sabbath being designed only for Jews? This idea would darken the future too much for those who hold the above position, yet we think it consistent with their views. Then let us agreeably with God's word, discard the notion of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment's being a type, and leave it to fill the place designed for it by the Lord of the Sabbath.162
Now since nothing but types and shadows were taken away by the death of Christ, we conclude that the perpetuity of the entire law remained unchanged at that time. We will now turn for a few moments to James ii, 10-13. "For he that said, [margin, that law which said,] Do not commit adultery; said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law." Now "where no law is, there is no transgression," for "sin is not imputed when there is no law." Hence the law here spoken of, must have been binding: James taught that it was the rule by which his brethren should be judged. "So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty." What law was here meant? What one contained the commandments cited? They are the sixth and seventh commandments of the decalogue, the very law that some believe was done away twenty-eight years previous to the time in which this epistle was written.
We have seen that the class of transgressors are excluded from the promises. Let us inquire, Whom does this class comprise? Paul represents the law as speaking, [Rom. iii, 19,] and it is evident it will effect some who are not under it. "Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God." We see here, to be under the law, is to be under its condemnation; and that Paul pronounces the whole world guilty. Thus also verse 23. "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." We are now led to conclude that the whole human family are excluded from receiving the promises. Just here the earnest inquiry arises, Is there no hope, no remedy? and man cries out, as did the jailor to Paul and Silas, "What must I do to be saved?" or the convicted on the day of Pentecost, "Men and brethren what shall we do?" They already believed and now Peter tells them, [Acts ii, 38,] "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins," &c.
Then repentance is here made the next or second condition of salvation. Is repentance elsewhere taught by inspiration to be necessary? Hear the Saviour discourse: [Luke xiii, 1-4,] "There were present at that season some that told him of the Galileans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And Jesus answering, said unto them, Suppose ye that these Galileans were sinners above all the Galileans, because they suffered such things? I tell you nay; but except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish." Also verse 5, "Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish."
What are we to understand by this term? It is evidently not of itself sorrow or remorse for sin, since those whom Peter addressed were already pricked in the heart. Macknight renders it reform in these and in all parallel passages. We believe there is but one true repentance, and that is produced by grief on account of sin. See 2 Cor. vii, 20. "For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation," &c. [Notice, the repentance is separate from the sorrow and produced by it. The Bible nowhere tells us how much sorrow we must have; but it is certain we must have enough to produce reformation, which as we have observed is the second condition; repentance would be the natural consequence of sorrow and regret for any given course of action.] The apostle also declares, "The goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance." One led to act by the influence of motive, will only act while that motive possesses power. Thus persons who repent while simply under the influence of fear, will, when the fear is no longer felt, relapse into former habits. We have here one reason of so large a number who openly profess Christ in our popular exciting revivals so soon returning to former sinfulness.
We are now led to inquire into the nature of Bible repentance or reformation. What rule governs it? Evidently none other than that rule or law by the transgression of which man has forfeited his claim to the promises. Thus David says, [Ps. xix, 7,] "The law of the Lord is perfect converting the soul." This law, the same that man has broken, will, if obeyed, convert or reform the soul, and the part that has been transgressed must govern the reform. Thus a thief may keep all ten of the commandments, save the eighth which says "Thou shalt not steal;" but while he persists in breaking that, he is not a reformed man. That alone will convict him of sin, and only that can become the rule of his reformation. Suppose this thief was at first transgressing all the commandments, and should return to the observance of all save the eighth, is he then perfectly reformed? is he not a sinner, a thief still? The same principle will apply as well to any other commandment. Suppose now he recognizes the binding nature of all the commandments, but not fully understanding them, is still not perfectly keeping all! has he now a repentance that needeth never to be repented of, i. e., a reformation that can be extended no further, since he has become perfectly obedient? Jas. ii, 10 says, "Whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all." How so James? Is a man just as depraved, who keeps all the commandments save one, and that, it may be partially, as another who is in the habitual violation of them all? This is certainly not the idea, since the Scriptures recognize degrees of wickedness. Compare Matt. xii, 45; xxiii, 15 and 2 Pet. ii, 20. What then shall we understand the Apostle to teach? Simply this: justification by the deeds of the law, is based on perfect and entire obedience, and the penalty of anything short of this is death. Since anything less than absolute obedience is sin, and "the soul that sinneth it shall die." The penalty can be no more for the transgression of the entire law. Capital punishment illustrates this idea. A man in the State of Illinois is punishable with death for the murder of one individual, while should he kill ten, instead of being sentenced to ten deaths in consequence, he can receive no greater penalty than for the murder of one.
We can now, I think, understand the nature of repentance as brought to view in the Bible. It is no partial reformation; but the repentance to salvation produced by godly sorrow, is that which is not to be repented of. 2 Cor. vii, 20. "For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation, not to be repented of." It is becoming "dead to sin." Romans. Now a person is not dead while he retains the last remains of life. But it may be replied, One certainly repents if he embraces and observes what he at the time supposes to be all God's requirements, although in reality, he be ignorantly in the habitual violation of some part of the divine law. We would ask if God expresses his requirements in such a manner as to justify this conclusion? If so, why talk of a repentance that needeth not to be repented of? and why did not James say he that offends knowingly in one point is guilty of all? Jehovah has in his plan made no allowance for ignorance. His requirements are all expressed positively, absolutely. It may be asked then, what will be the destiny of our forefathers, who lived and died in the habitual violation of the fourth commandment. We would answer, They are in the hands of the Lord, and "shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?" but from certain expressions in Holy Writ, we conclude that they will not be judged by the light we have. Thus Paul declared, "I was alive without the law once" (i. e. the knowledge of the law,) if alive it must have been because sin was not imputed, and with it condemnation; "but," (says he) "when the commandment came, sin revived and I died." As soon as Paul understood that he had been breaking the law, he realized that death, the penalty of the law rested upon him. Then, although he had as he thought, perhaps repented before, he now finds he had not the repentance required, since he is obliged to repent still further. And had he eventually been justified by it, his justification would manifestly have been out of the plan of salvation laid down by inspiration. It is evident that condemnation results from rejecting light. See John iii, 19.
Dear brethren and sisters, shall we apply the foregoing? When we were observing the first day of the week for the Sabbath of the Lord instead of that required by the fourth commandment, were we perfectly obedient to God's requirements, and hence had no further need of reformation? Again, when we supposed we were keeping that commandment, but instead, except twice in the year observed a part of two days, did we then have a repentance which admitted no reform, because it was perfect? We may endeavor to justify ourselves on the plea of ignorance and conscientiousness; but could not some who keep the first day, especially those (and such there are) who admit the perpetuity of the law, and suppose they are keeping the fourth commandment, claim justification on the same ground? Nothing can make a repentance which is not perfect Bible repentance, as we have already seen. But a word to the wise is sufficient.
ACCEPTABLE WORSHIP
By William H. Burleigh
From the Christian Freeman,
ACCEPTABLE WORSHIP.
BY WILLIAM H. BURLEIGH.
Nor worthiest is his worship who afar
Retired from crowds, in meditation deep
Passes his days beyond the maddening sweep
Of stormy passions and the angry jar
Of clashing interests, that naught may mar
His inward peace, though all his hours are given
To prayer and penitence and dreams of heaven—
Nor his whose set responses loudest are
In the full temple, when the many kneel
To utter forms the spirit does not feel—
For not in words, though breathed from tongues of flame,
Is the full heart of love revealed the best;
Nor in the unuttered thoughts, that fill the breast
With quiet, and the bounding pulses tame.
Action—untiring, earnest, bold and free.
Its impulse, Love—its object, Truth and Right—
By holy zeal sustained—by heavenly light
Directed ever, though thick darkness be
Over the earth, the men no longer see
The soul's great birthright—ACTION, such as this,
Is holiest worship—and a purer bliss
Attends the offering, than the devotee
Of forms can know. Words, offspring of the brain—
High-sounding, yet not heart-born, are in vain—
The heart turns loathing, from them that hath known
The baptism of the Spirit—turns to find
Its joy in DOING—deeming thus His mind
Hath Christ, our head and great exemplar shown.
Wouldst thou, then, offer, with a willing mind,
A sacrifice acceptable to Him
Before whose throne adoring seraphim
Bend with veiled faces?—Labor for thy kind—
Uphold the feeble and direct the blind—
Reclaim the wandering—the lost restore—
And bid the erring go and sin no more—
Live for humanity, and thou shalt find
Peace which the selfish heart can never know,
Joys that from holy action only, flow.
Be bold for truth—though all the world despise—
Be strong in right—though all the world oppose—
Be free in love—though all men are thy foes—
And God will smile upon thy sacrifice!
BRIEF REPLY
By J. B. Frisbie
To a Discourse by Eld. Penfield, Presiding Elder of Grand Rapids District, preached in Wright, Mich., March, 1858.
TEXT. Phil. i. 21. "For me to live, is Christ; and to die is gain."
Eld. P. said it would be gain to Paul to die, and for his immortal soul to go to heaven and be with Christ.
Answer. Paul was in a strait betwixt two, (life or death on the one hand,) having a desire to depart (by translation) and to be with Christ, on the other hand. But to live or die was gain to Christ's cause.
The Eld. went on to state that infidelity was always nearly the same from Voltaire down to the present time. Thus representing us to be infidels for not believing the soul immortal.
Ans. We know that "immortal soul" is not once found in the Bible; and if believing all that is in the Bible, and no more makes us infidels, we plead guilty to the charge. But were Sir Isaac and Bishop Newton, Milton, Archbishops Whately and Tillison infidels for not believing the same?
The rich man and Lazarus were then brought to prove that the dead are conscious in hell and heaven; i. e., their immortal souls. Then he made the statement that this was literal history, and could not be shown to be a parable.
Ans. If this is a literal history, it fails to prove that the immortal souls of these men were in heaven or hell, or that they had immortal souls. The thing to be proved was wanting, and taken for granted or assumed. Suppose we should admit that they were deathless spirits. Would the Elder be ready to admit that they had eyes, tongue and other bodily organs? that literal fire could burn, or literal water cool? We think he would not, knowing his creed. Suppose further, that we admit, as the Catechisms claim, that the "immortal soul is
immaterial, and made out of nothing," and then sing it to be
"God's immortal breath;"
Going to heaven and hell at death,
as taught by his books; then we will let father Wesley preach to him a little on immateriality. "For what is immaterial fire? The same as immaterial water or earth. Both the one and the other is absolute nonsense, a contradiction in terms. Either therefore we must affirm it to be material, or we deny its existence.—Sermons, Vol. II, p. 150. I will apply Wesley's reasoning to the immaterial soul, and deny its existence and consider it "absolute nonsense."
Luke xvi, 19, &c., is a parable, 1st. Because it stands connected with a number of parables in the same discourse, beginning with Luke xv, and ending with chap. xvi. 2d. "For without a parable spake he not unto" that class of hearers addressed in this discourse. 3d. Where has Moses warned of a future hell of torments in his writings? See Deut. xxxii, 22-26. Nowhere.
It is not my work at present to show what it does mean, neither is it necessary as far as any argument against us is concerned.
Moses and Elias were next called up with the claim that it was their immortal souls which were on the Mount. He said that Moses was not raised, and that Elias was John the Baptist.
Ans. We will let his commentator, Dr. Clarke, answer, hoping he will acknowledge his authority.
[Matt. xvii, 3. Moses and Elias.] Elijah came from heaven in the same body which he had upon earth, for he was translated, and did not see death. 2 Kings ii, 11. And the body of Moses was probably raised again, as a pledge of the resurrection." We will say, as far as the argument is concerned, that, it was not necessary that either Moses or Elias should have been there at all, as it was a VISION. Verse 9. "Tell the vision," &c.
The Eld. said the thief on the cross went to paradise that day, and said the grave was not paradise.
Ans. 1. We believe that paradise is the third heaven. 2 Cor. xii, 1-4. 2. This is no proof that the thief had an immortal soul. 3. He did not request to be remembered by Jesus until he came into his kingdom; and he has not come into his kingdom yet. 2 Tim. iv, 1. 4. By reading this reply of Jesus as an interrogative answer, "To-day, shalt thou be with me?" &c., the implied response is, No. This will agree with both Matt. xxvii, 44; Mark xv 32, who say that both thieves reviled him. If one thief was penitent, there is no evidence that he went to heaven that day. To-day, in the text, is the same as the day when he comes into his kingdom.
5. If the thief's soul went to paradise that day, it must have gone there alive; for he was not dead. This was the reason they broke his legs.
6. Three days after, Jesus said he had not yet ascended. John xx, 17.
Eld. P. Absent from the body and present with the Lord. He said this was his immortal soul that went to heaven.
Ans. 1. How did the elder know that it was his immortal soul that went to heaven? O, this was the inference.
2. What body, house or tabernacle had Paul reference to? If it be said the earthly body (which admits of a doubt) then the me and our must be the souls in this body. But how many souls has each body? 2 Cor. v, 1.
3. When does the Apostle expect to be clothed upon with his house from heaven? Ans., [verse 4,] When "mortality is swallowed up of life," which does not take place until the resurrection of the dead, [2 Cor. xv, 53, 54,] which is the clearest evidence that Paul did not expect his crown of life until Christ comes. Col. iii, 4; 2 Tim. iv, 6-8.
Eld. P. They tell us that immortal soul cannot be found in the Bible. Well, what of that? They tell us that deathless spirit cannot be found in the Bible. What of that? Suppose we cannot. God is a Spirit, a deathless Spirit; so man has a deathless spirit.
Ans. A great deal of that. This is the reason that thousands of Bible believers are not believing it, because the Bible does not teach it. Are we infidels163for this? Beasts have spirits. Eccl. iii, 21. Are they deathless too, because God's Spirit is deathless, the only source of immortality? 1 Tim. vi, 16.
Eld. P. If man has no soul then he dies as the brute.
Ans. Eccl. iii, 19. "As the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath: so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast." We believe that man has a preeminence in the resurrection, but not in his death; and that man is all soul, instead of having no soul.
Eld. P. He thought 5000 years was a long time for good Abel to be kept out of heaven.
Ans. We want the Elder to think that poor Cain has been kept out of an awful hell all this time, with many others. Don't forget that.
The Elder next referred to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. "For he is not the God of the dead, but of the living; for all live unto him."
Ans. This question arose on the subject of the resurrection, and not the intermediate state; and Paul in Rom. iv, 17, speaking of Abraham says: "God who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were?" If they are alive they must be raised.
Eld. P. said the wicked are not annihilated; for matter cannot be annihilated.
Ans. Who pretends that it can? But if souls are "immaterial, and made of nothing" according to the Elder's books, there cannot be anything to be annihilated; for it is nothing to commence with. But we would respectfully inquire of the Elder if the same Cause that produced matter out of nothing, has not the power to resolve it into nonentity again?
Eld. P. said eternal and everlasting were the same original words. Matt. xxv, 46. He knew this, for he could read Greek some.
Ans. This we believe, that they both denote endless duration. For "everlasting punishment," which is "everlasting destruction," [2 Thess. i, 9.] will be as long as everlasting life for the righteous. Death and destruction is the punishment; and everlasting death, not life in misery, is everlasting punishment.
Ans. 2 Pet. ii, 6. Sodom &c., were turned to ashes for an example to all those who should live ungodly. What can this example be good for, unless the wicked shall be burned to ashes in the day of Judgment? 2 Pet. iii, 7; Mat. iv, 1-4. The eternal fire that burned up Sodom was the elements of electricity or lightning. See Josephus. In order to keep them tormented for ever, he had them sinning for ever.
Eld. P. If man had no immortal soul, he said there could be no conversions: he might as well preach to his horse.
Ans. We think it might be as well unless he sheds more light than he did in that sermon, and one on the Trinity some years since.
Eld. P. said if God was a corporeal being, and had eyes, he might become blind; if he had ears, he might become deaf, or might sicken and die.
Ans. We thought we might as well have any kind of a God as to have, according to the Elder's creed, an "immaterial God without body or parts," which is exactly no God at all. See 1st Article of his faith. Also hymn 103. He quoted some poetry of Dr. Young's, and said Christ comes quickly at death to give rewards. Quoted poetry on the death of Bishop McKendry,
"He comes to waft my spirit home,
All is well, &c."
He said, If to be struck out of existence instantly was the punishment, it would be no punishment at all.
I have not endeavored to give the exact words of the speaker, but the ideas. Many hard assertions which he made are not worth noticing. His attempts at proofs, we have endeavored to state as plain as possible, and briefly answer.
J. B. FRISBIE.
Historical Sketches on the Immortality of the Soul.
THERE is but one Scripture that can be produced in proof of man's immortality. That may be found Gen. iii, 4. "Ye shall not surely die; . . . ye shall be as gods," &c.
But necromancy did exist among the idolatrous heathens even in the days of Moses, as Deut. xviii, 9-14, will show. Necromancy is a profession to consult with the departed spirits of the dead. By this we can see that this doctrine was very ancient, and must have had its origin from the Devil; not from God, as it was "an abomination" to him.
The earliest history of which we can get authentic accounts informs us that
"PYTHAGORAS was in Egypt, and from thence went to Babylon. His stay there, Jamblicus tells us, was twelve years: and that, in his converse with the Magians, he learned from them arithmetic, music, and the knowledge of divine things, and the sacred mysteries pertaining thereto. But the most important doctrine which he brought home from thence was the immortality of the soul; for it is generally agreed among the ancients, that he was the first of all the Greeks that taught it. And this, I take it for certain, he had from Zoroaster; for as I have before shown, it was his doctrine, and he is the ancientest of any whom we have upon record of all the heathen nations that taught it." Prid. Con., Vol. I, p. 205.
SOCRATES. "The demon of Socrates, from the Greek word which signifies something of a divine nature, conceived as a secret voice, a sign, or such an inspiration as divines are supposed to have had. It is well known what his prognostications had been long before, upon the unfortunate expedition to Sicily. He attributed it to his demon, and declared it to be the inspiration of that spirit. Socrates, the last day of his life, explained to his friends all the arguments for believing the soul immortal, and refuted all the objections against it, which are very nearly the same as are made at this day. The philosopher here sets forth these great truths, which a constant tradition, though very much obscured by fiction and fable, had always preserved among the pagans; the last judgment of the righteous and wicked; the eternal punishment to which great criminals are condemned; a place of peace and joy without end for the souls that retain their purity and innocence, or which, during this life, have expiated their offences by repentance and satisfaction; and an intermediate state, in which they purify themselves, for a certain time, for less considerable crimes, that have not been atoned for during this life. (Catholic purgatory.) . . . But as the soul is immortal, it has no other means of being freed from its evils, nor any safety for it, but in becoming very good and very wise; for it carries nothing away with it, but its good or bad deeds, its virtues or vices, which are commonly the consequences of the education it has received, and the causes of eternal happiness or misery. But for those who have passed through life with peculiar sanctity of manners, delivered from their base earthly abodes as from a prison, they are received on high in a pure region which they inhabit; and as philosophy has sufficiently purified them, they live without their bodies through all eternity. I can never persuade Crito, that Socrates is he who converses with you, and disposes the several parts of his discourse; for he always imagines that I am what he is about to see dead in a little while. He confounds me with my carcass," &c. Rollins History, Vol. II, pp. 304, 322-324.
PLATO. Josephus to the Greeks on hades says: "You believe that the soul is created, and yet made immortal by God, according to the doctrine of Plato."
"They that die in time of peace, by some distemper or other, since their souls are already condemned to the grave, together with their bodies; for what man of virtue is there who does not know that those souls which are severed from their fleshly bodies in battles by the sword, are received by the ether, that purest of elements, and joined to that company which are placed among the stars; that they become good demons, and propitious heroes, and show themselves as such to their posterity afterwards, while upon those souls that wear away in and with their distempered bodies, come to a subterranean night, dissolve them to nothing." Wars, Book VI, Chap. i, Sec. 5.
"ORIGEN was at the head of this speculative tribe. This great man, enchanted by the charms of the Platonic philosophy, set it up as the test of all religions, and imagined that the reasons of each doctrine were to be found in that favorite philosophy, and their nature and extent to be determined by it. Its first promoters argued from that known doctrine of the Platonic school, which also was adopted by Origen and his disciples, that the divine nature was diffused through all human souls." Mosheim, Vol. I, p. 88.
PAUSANIAS. "Chaldean and Indian magi have been the first who asserted the immortality of the soul." Herodotus, p. 111.
LARCHER. "It is indeed known that the immortality of the soul was not known to the Jews, but by the commerce which they had with the Assyrians during the time of their captivity." Ib.
DR. CAMPBELL says: "Before the captivity, and the Macedonian and Roman conquests, the Jews observed the most profound silence upon the state of the dead, as to their happiness or misery. They spoke of it simply as a state of silence, darkness, and inactivity. But after the Hebrews mingled with the Greeks and Romans, they insensibly slid into their use of terms, and adopted some of their ideas on such subjects as those on which their oracles were silent." Preface to his Translation.
MOSES. "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and MAN became a living soul." Gen. ii, 7.
WATSON. "The body, formed out of preexistent matter, the earth, and a living soul, breathed into the body by inspiration of God. . . . That was the rational spirit itself, which, by a law of its Creator, was incapable of death, even after the body had fallen under that penalty. In spirituality, and consequently, immateriality, this image of God is man, then, in the first existence, consists. Nor is it any valid objection to say, that immateriality is not peculiar to the soul of man, for we have reason to believe that the inferior animals of the earth are actuated by an immaterial principle. But the tenets of the soul's descent appears to have most countenance from the language of Scripture. . . . The philosophical difficulties which have presented themselves to this opinion appear chiefly to have arisen from supposing that consciousness is an essential attribute of spirit; and that the soul is naturally immortal; the former of which cannot be proved, while the latter is contradicted by Scripture, which makes our immortality a gift dependent on the will of the Giver." Institutes, p. 252.
M. E. CHURCH. "How did God make man? His body out of the dust; his soul out of nothing." S. S. Book for children, by the M. E. C.
BENSON. The soul is "the spiritual and immaterial part of you; this will still survive in all its vigor, while its tabernacle lies in ruins." Benson's Commentary, Matt. x, 28.
WESLEY. "For what is immaterial fire? The same as immaterial water, or earth! Both the one and the other is absolute nonsense; a contradiction in terms. Either therefore we must affirm it to be material, or we deny its existence." Wesley's Sermons, Vol. II, p. 150.
LUTHER LEE. "An immaterial substance therefore can have no surface, and that which has no surface can never be brought into contact with that which has." Luther Lee, p. 62.
BUCK. "The rational soul is simple, uncompounded, and immaterial, not composed of matter and form." Theological Dictionary, Art., Soul.
SPIRITUALISM. "Ques. What do spirits propose to accomplish by these new manifestations?"
"Ans. To unite mankind, and convince skeptical minds of the immortality of the soul." W. Channing.
"Ques. What good can result from these manifestations?"
"I will answer it. It is to draw mankind together in harmony, and convince skeptics of the immortality of the soul." J. C. Calhoun.
J. B. FRISBIE
By J. B. Frisbie
I CONSIDER that man as having attained the end of preaching, who constrains his hearers to forget everything else except the way in which he is personally affected by the great and interesting truths brought before him.—Innes.