Review and Herald, Vol. 51, No. 8. (2/21/1878)

Review and Herald

Feb 21, 1878

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Feb 21, 1878

Thoughts on Baptism.

By Joseph Harvey Waggoner

BY ELD. J. H. WAGGONER.

(Continued.)

The import or design of Baptism is the main point, however, on which Prof. Stuart relied for his argument in favor of sprinkling; and as he expressed the view of a large class, which ought to be noticed, we give at some length his remarks on this point:—

“Is it essential, in order that Baptism should symbolize purification or purity, that it should be performed by immersion? Plainly not; for in ancient times it was the water which was sprinkled upon the offending Jew, that was the grand emblem of purification. So Paul considers it, when he gives us, as it were, a summary of the whole ritual of purification, by specifying the most significant of all its usages, viz., that of the ashes of a heifer mixed with water (Num. 19:17), with which the unclean are sprinkled. Heb. 9:13. So, too, he decides, when he speaks of ‘drawing near to God, in the full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience.’ Heb. 10:22.”

“It is then a perfectly clear case that the sprinkling of water or of blood was altogether the most significant mode of purification or atonement, or of consecration to God, under the ancient dispensation.”

From this he infers that sprinkling is preferable to immersion in the rite of Christian Baptism! But the whole argument is exceedingly defective and the inference inadmissible. How do we learn that the water of purification was to be sprinkled on the unclean? By the use of a word in the law which always means sprinkle—never immerse. And how do we learn how the ordinance of Baptism is to be administered? By the use of a word in the law which always means immerse—never sprinkle. If the terms of the law are to be set aside, and speculations or suppositions substituted for them, then we may as well lay aside the Bible at once. In every text and instance which he cites, the word sprinkle is used, and the apostle shows that it is a symbol of the application of the blood of Christ, having no reference whatever to the ordinance of Christian Baptism.

We insist, and none can deny, that if the priest had immersed the unclean person in the water of purification, he would not have obeyed the law of that ordinance, for the commandment was to sprinkle. And we likewise insist that to sprinkle a person with water for Christian Baptism is not to fulfill the law of the ordinance, for the commandment says immerse. Prof. Stuart admitted that a word was used by our Saviour which signifies immerse. Did Prof. Stuart, and do all of like faith and practice, know the mind of our divine Lord better than he knew it himself? Do they understand the import and significance of his own ordinance better than he understood it? Or, if sprinkling is preferable, why did Jesus and his apostles never use a word signifying to sprinkle when they spoke of the ordinance? They understood such words, for they used them in reference to other things. Or, if they wished to leave it indefinite, and to let the rite cover every method of application of water to the person, as many now teach, why did they not use the various words which signify sprinkle, pour, and immerse? This would absolutely be necessary if it was designed to give the rite so wide a range, for no one of these words expressed all these modes. Hence, to use, invariably, one word, confines it definitely to one action.

These inquiries and statements may be better appreciated when it is considered that the word baptizo, in its various forms, is used one hundred and twenty times in the New Testament. It is used at least seventy-eight times in direct reference to the ordinance; and if we add to that fifteen times in which it is applied to John as the Baptizer, which title he received solely because he administered the rite, we have ninety-three times which it refers to the ordinance. If sprinkling were the better method, it is amazingly strange that the speakers and writers of the New Testament never once used a word which signified to sprinkle, though referring to the ordinance so great a number of times. It would certainly detract much from our respect for the record as a divine revelation if it could be shown that, in referring to the ordinance nearly one hundred times, it always says immerse, and yet means sprinkle.

Inasmuch as the advocates of sprinkling endeavor to bring the Old Testament to their aid, by citing those passages which state that water or blood was required to be sprinkled on certain things, it may be of use, certainly it may be of interest, to inquire whether the language of the Old Testament is definite in its distinctions between the two actions; whether immersion and sprinkling are so separated that one cannot, in its language, be mistaken for the other. We affirm that the order to sprinkle the blood on the mercy-seat would not have been obeyed if the priest had immersed the mercy-seat in blood. It was no mere chance by which the apostle spoke of the blood of rhantismos, instead of the blood of baptismos; for the former, or sprinkling of blood, was required and practiced, but the latter, baptism of blood, was unknown to the Scriptures, both of the Old and the New Testament. So, also, it is no mere chance, but by evident design, that the rite of baptismos is so often and so definitely enjoined in the gospel, while that of rhantismos is never mentioned. But to the Old Testament terms.

Reference	Hebrew	Common Version	Septuagint
	טבל (Tah-val)
Gen. 37:31		dipped	emolunan
Ex. 12:22		dip	bapsantes
Lev. 4:6		dip	bapsei
4:17		dip	bapsei
9:9		dipped	ebapse
14:6		dip	bapsei
14:10		dip	bapsei
14:51		dip	bapsei
Num. 19:18		dip	bapsei
Deut. 33:24		dip	bapsei
Josh. 3:15		dipped	ebapesan
Ruth 2:14		dip	bapseis
1 Sam. 14:27		dipped	ebapsen
2 Kin. 5:14		dipped	ebaptisato
2 Kin. 8:15		dipped	ebapsen
Job 9:31		plunge	ebapsas

This embraces the entire use of the Hebrew word tah-val in all its forms. In the first instance emolunan is used in the Septuagint, which, in the New Testament, is rendered defile. This does not conflict with the meaning of the terms, as it (Joseph’s coat) might be defiled with the blood by being dipped in it. And so our version renders it. And no objection can be raised in that bapto is used instead of baptizo; for they both proceed from the same monosyllabic root, and the first meaning of bapto is to dip, or immerse, and baptizo has no other meaning.

This last statement has been contradicted by some authors, who have endeavored to make baptizo carry the two definitions of bapto, namely, to dip or immerse, and to dye. The method of the last of these meanings of bapto indicates its relation to and derivation from the first meaning, as it was common to dye by dipping. Dr. Carson has very clearly proved that baptizo does not take this second meaning of bapto, but, for obvious reasons, we prefer to quote the conclusions of Prof. Stuart on this point. In examining the inquiry “whether bapto and baptizo are really synonymous, as they have often been asserted to be,” Prof. Stuart says:—

“Let us now inquire, whether in actual usage baptizo has a different meaning from bapto. In particular, is it distinguished from bapto by the writers of the New Testament?”

“The answer to these questions will be fully developed in the sequel. I have already intimated that baptizo is distinguished from bapto in its meaning. I now add, that it is not, like this latter word, used to designate the idea of coloring or dyeing; while in some other respects, it seems, in classical use, to be nearly or quite synonymous with bapto. In the New Testament, however, there is one other marked distinction between the use of these verbs. Baptizo and its derivatives are exclusively employed, when the rite of baptism is to be designated in any form whatever; and in this case bapto seems to be purposely, as well as habitually, excluded.”

And in another paragraph he says:—

“The idea of plunging or immersing is common to both the words bapto and baptizo, while that of dyeing or coloring belongs only to bapto.”

This is worthy of the most careful consideration. Not only is every word which signifies pour or sprinkle excluded from the texts in the New Testament which speak of the rite of baptism, but a word which signifies dip or immerse, in common with baptizo, is also excluded because it has another meaning also; and a word is chosen to designate the ordinance which has the signification of immerse, and that only. Such is the remarkable precision of the Greek language used by our Saviour to designate the duty of his followers in this rite. The foregoing table plainly shows that the idea of sprinkling is not contained in the Hebrew word tah-val.

Dip is once derived, in the Old Testament from the Hebrew מָחַץ, mah-khatz, which occurs fourteen times, and is rendered wound, seven times; smite, three times; pierce, twice; strike, once; and dip, once; viz., in Ps. 68:23, where the Septuagint has baphe (bapto). Its use in the latter text is peculiar, though it may stand related to its signification, as pierce does to smite. This is the entire use of the word dip in the Old Testament.

Sprinkle is from two words only in the Old Testament, namely, nah-zah, and zah-rak. The first is quite uniformly rendered both in the English and Greek, as will be seen by the following table:—

Reference	Hebrew	Common Version	Septuagint
	נָזָה (Nah-zah)
Ex. 29:21		sprinkle	rhaneis
Lev. 4:6		sprinkle	prosrhanei
4:17		sprinkle	rhanei
5:9		sprinkle	rhanei
6:27		sprinkled	epirrhantisthe
6:27		sprinkled	rhantisthe
8:11		sprinkled	errhanen
8:30		sprinkled	prosserrhanen
14:7		sprinkle	perirrhanei
Lev. 14:16		sprinkle	rhanei
14:27		sprinkle	rhanei
14:51		sprinkle	perirrhanei
16:14		sprinkle	rhanei
16:14		sprinkle	rhanei
16:15		sprinkle	rhanei
16:19		sprinkle	rhanei
Num. 8:7		sprinkle	perirrhaneis
19:4		sprinkle	rhanei
19:18		sprinkle	perirrhanei
19:19		sprinkle	perirrhanei
19:21		sprinkleth	perirrhianon
2 Kin. 9:33		sprinkled	errhantisthe
Isa. 52:15		sprinkle	thaumason tai
Isa. 63:3		sprinkled	katagagion

Here we find the same definiteness, and nearly the same uniformity, of rendering. In all the instances except the last two the Septuagint uses the same word, or different forms of the same root, while the English has the same word throughout. As the idea of sprinkling is not found in tah-val, so the idea of immersion is not found in nah-zah.

The Hebrew word zah-rak occurs thirty-four times, as follows:—

Reference	Hebrew	Common Version	Septuagint
	זָרַק (Zah-rak)
Exodus 9:8		sprinkle	pasato
9:10		sprinkled	epasen
24:6		sprinkled	prosecheo
24:8		sprinkled	kataskeadase
29:16		sprinkle	prosecheies
29:20		sprinkle	(meaning)
Lev. 1:5		sprinkle	proscheonsi
1:11		sprinkle	proscheonsi
3:2		sprinkle	proscheonsi
3:8		sprinkle	proscheonsi
3:13		sprinkle	proscheonsi
7:2		sprinkle	proscheei
7:14		sprinkleth	proscheonti
8:19		sprinkled	prosechee
9:12		sprinkled	prosecheen
9:18		sprinkled	prosecheee
17:6		sprinkle	prosecheei
Num. 18:17		sprinkle	proscheeeis
19:13		sprinkled	rhantisthe
19:20		sprinkled	rhantisthe
2 Kin. 16:13		sprinkled	prosechee
16:15		sprinkle	ekcheois
2 Chron. 29:22		sprinkled	prosechean
29:22		sprinkled	prosechean
29:22		sprinkled	perischeon
30:16		sprinkled	edechonto
34:4		strowed	errhipsen
35:11		sprinkle	prosecheau
Job 2:12		sprinkled	katapasso
Isa. 20:25		scatter	speirei
Eze. 10:2		scatter	diaskorpison
Eze. 36:25		sprinkle	rhano
Eze. 43:18		sprinkle	proscheein
Hos. 7:9		sprinkle	exenthēsan

This word is somewhat more variously rendered, both in the English and in the Septuagint; but the same idea obtains throughout. Its signification, to scatter, hence, to sprinkle, admits of variety of rendering; but in this, as in nah-zah, the idea of dipping or immersing is not found.

We think nothing more is required to show that the language of the Scriptures admits of no such ambiguity as to put bapto for rhantizo, or immerse for sprinkle. In Lev. 4:6, we find both dip and sprinkle used, and it is easy to see that they cannot be interchanged.

There are two texts in the Old Testament which have been greatly misapprehended, and from which unwarrantable inferences have been drawn. Eze. 36:25 reads thus:—

“Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean.”

On this Dr. Scott remarks:—

“In allusion to the divers washings and sprinklings of the ritual law, the Lord promised to sprinkle clean water upon his people, and to make them clean from all their filthiness and idols.”

This reference is correct, as may be seen by examining a few passages. In Num. 8:7 they were commanded to “sprinkle water of purifying” upon the unclean. In chap. 19:18, it is commanded that, if any one touch the dead body of a man, he shall be unclean; “and a clean person shall take hyssop and dip it in the water, and sprinkle it upon the tent, and upon all the vessels, and upon the persons that were there, and upon him that touched a bone, or one slain, or one dead, or a grave.”

This was for what is denominated “ceremonial uncleanness,” having no relation to moral defilement. To it Paul refers in Heb. 9:13: “For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh.” It was not as an ablution to cleanse from filth, but it was figurative, ceremonial, and typical, and the gospel fact which it prefigured is stated by the apostle thus, “How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God.” Verse 14. And for this reason Paul speaks of “the blood of sprinkling,” and “having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience.” Heb. 12:24; 10:22.

Thus it is seen that these sprinklings of the ritual law, to which reference is made in Eze. 36:25, have no relation to any New Testament ordinance; they looked to a different object. And while that object is so definitely stated, there can be no excuse for the error of applying them to baptism, in order to give countenance to sprinkling for that ordinance. The sprinkling of the conscience by the blood of Christ is declared to be their antitype, and a gospel duty is as clearly shown in connection therewith: “Having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.” Heb. 10:22.

Isa. 52:15 has been the ground of much speculation and the source of some very erroneous conclusions. Even Dr. Clarke, who approves the rendering of the Septuagint, which is quite different from our common version, asks, in brackets, “[Does not sprinkling the nations refer to the conversion and baptism of the Gentiles?]” Scott, who lets the translation stand, much more appropriately refers it to the blood of sprinkling, the same as Eze. 36:25; to the sacrifice of Christ, to which so plain reference is made in the context. But the translation cannot be defended.

It should be understood that there are different forms or species of every Hebrew verb; and some of these have significations peculiar to themselves, which do not belong to any other species of the same word. Gesenius gives two definitions to that form of nah-zah here used: 1. To cause to leap for joy, to exult, to make rejoice. 2. To sprinkle, e. g., water, blood, also oil, with upon or towards. He accordingly renders this text, “So shall he cause many nations to rejoice in himself.”

The Septuagint has thaumason tai, from thaumazo, to wonder, marvel, or to admire. This very well preserves the idea of the original, and carries out the parallelism of the composition. “As many were astonished at thee, . . . so shall he cause many to wonder or admire.” And this parallel Gesenius notices and approves, thus, “Gr., Syr., Vulg., Luth., Eng., ‘So shall he sprinkle many nations,’ see no. 2, i. e., my servant the Messiah shall make expiation for them; but this accords less with the parallel verb shah-mam. Shah-mam is the verb used in verse 14, and means, to be astonished.”

Dr. Clarke says, “I retain the common rendering, though I am by no means satisfied with it.” He quotes a very judicious comment of Secker, in which he says, “Yaz-zeh, frequently in the law, means only to sprinkle; but the water sprinkled is the accusative case; the thing, on which, has al or el. Thaumason-tai makes the best apodosis.” This exactly agrees with Gesenius. Al and el mean upon and towards; but neither of these is in the text, yet one must be there to give it the sense of sprinkle. Dr. Clarke also quotes a criticism of Dr. Jubb, who renders it, “So shall many nations look on him with admiration; kings shall stop their mouths,” &c.

This criticism, as well as some others noticed, preserves the general idea very well, which seems to have been the aim of the authors; but it is not a close rendering, as it gives the active form, whereas thaumason-tai is the passive voice, which most nearly corresponds to the Hebrew; for this has the causative form. And this shows that the rendering given by Gesenius is not only preferable, but necessary or unavoidable. To translate it, he shall sprinkle, is to change its grammatical form, the causative, and to give it in the first or simple active form; and it also destroys the harmony of the construction by ignoring the parallelism so beautifully shown in the original. The rendering last quoted, as from Dr. Jubb, is open to this further objection, that it gives the active (kal) plural, (they shall admire), whereas the Hebrew is the causative (hiphil), singular, (he shall cause them to, &c.), though it preserves the general idea of the verb. We are willing to submit, on this evidence, that the text should not be rendered sprinkle.

Once more we let Prof. Stuart speak, as he professes to settle the whole question on a principle, which he considers is most decisive proof against confining our practice to immersion, according to the word baptizo. He refers it to the spirit of the gospel, as follows:—

“Whenever an enlightened Christian wishes to make the inquiry, what is essential to his religion, should he not instinctively open his Bible at John 4, and there read thus: ‘Believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall worship the Father, neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem. . . . The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth; for the Father seeketh such to worship him.’ God is a Spirit, and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.”

It seems strange indeed that such a man as Prof. Stuart could find any warrant in this text for departing from the plain, literal reading of the divine record. The principle here stated covers all worship and all duty. This is freely admitted. But we read also, “Thy word is truth.” Therefore John 4 is only perverted when, under pretense of worshiping God in spirit and in truth, we set aside his word, which is truth, and which is the only true measure of religious duty. With as good reason the Romanist might quote John 4 to justify the worship of images contrary to the express declaration of the word of God. The Friend (Quaker) quotes this to set aside the precept of Baptism altogether, and his conclusion is certainly as just as that of Prof. S., and of all those who press it into the service of changing this ordinance of our Saviour. If we can set aside one duty under pretense of worshiping in spirit, we may others, and our worship becomes a mere matter of choice, or will worship. However much we might regard the intention of Prof. Stuart, we are compelled to condemn his reasoning, which, if accepted, would turn our religion into antinomian sentimentalism.

(To be Continued.)

O SAY, WILL YOU BE THERE?

By Sel.

Beyond this life of hopes and fears, Beyond this world of grief and tears, There is a region fair; It knows no change, and no decay, No night, but one unending day;— O say, will you be there?

Its glorious gates are closed to sin, Naught that defiles can enter in To mar its beauty rare; Upon that bright eternal shore, Earth's bitter curse is known no more;— O say, will you be there?

No drooping form, no tearful eye, No hoary head, no weary sigh; No pain, no grief, no care; But joys which mortals may not know, Like a calm river, ever flow;— O say, will you be there?

Our Saviour, once a mortal child, As mortal man, by man reviled, There many crowns doth wear; While thousand thousands swell the strain Of glory, to the Lamb once slain;— O say, will you be there?

Who shall be there? The lowly here, All those who serve the Lord in fear, The world's proud mockery dare! Who, by the Holy Spirit led, Rejoice the narrow path to tread,— These, these, shall all be there!

Those who have learned at Jesus' cross All earthly gain to count but loss So that his love they share; Who, gazing on the Crucified, By faith can say, “For me he died,”— These, these, shall all be there!

—Sel.

DISCUSSIONS IN VIRGINIA.

By E. B. Lane

Like those in some other new fields, the people of Virginia demand public discussion whenever differences exist in religious belief. We had been in the Shenandoah Valley but a short time before we received and accepted a challenge to debate the Sabbath question. This challenge came from our Disciple friends. They not feeling satisfied with the results, about seven months after we received a second challenge from this denomination to discuss the same question with the same man. This debate, like the former, we think resulted in some good. A few months after, we received a challenge from a man in Indiana, a member of the old Christian Church, which we accepted. We gained another victory, the man returning to Indiana and refusing to debate other questions, one of which he had challenged us to discuss.

The following summer, while laboring in Pendleton Co., West Virginia, we received from a Lutheran minister a public challenge to debate the subject of baptism. We held five sessions, when our arguments proved too strong for him, and he refused to discuss longer, although only about half our appointed time had been used. About four weeks after, Eld. Wm. C. Thurman sought us out, with the design of overthrowing our positions on the law and Sabbath. We immediately entered upon a public debate; but feeling dissatisfied, about two months after he made a public stand against us at Dayton, Rockingham Co. He first published a tirade of abuse and falsehood against us and “Ellen White,” with a challenge warning “Eld. Lane” to “send for his most learned divines;” for his Saturday Sabbath was in danger. Knowing the strength of Bible arguments for the seventh-day Sabbath and the weakness of Eld. Thurman’s positions, I concluded that it was but little the Sabbath cause would suffer at his hands; so I paid no attention to him. But on returning to Dayton, I found he had given a series of opposition discourses, putting up numbers and challenging all present to take them down; and that these lectures had awakened a general interest among the people. His friends had also said that we were afraid, and unable to meet Eld. Thurman, and that was the reason why we were indifferent to his challenge. We immediately accepted his challenge, discussing eight consecutive evenings before a large and attentive audience.

Of all the debates I ever engaged in, I think this one the clearest victory. I never saw such a complete change in the feelings and opinions of the people as was produced by this discussion. Eld. Thurman’s arguments were the old threadbare theories of “no-lawism,” which have been so often refuted through the Review that a repetition of them would be tedious. The Sabbath truth never looked clearer or seemed stronger than during this discussion; and I am confident that much good has resulted to the Sabbath cause. But to cap the climax, the following challenge for the world, from Mr. Thurman, appears in the Rockingham Register:—

“If, when God spoke, his voice shook the earth with those words which, like rolling thunder, said, ‘Keep the Sabbath day, . . . as the Lord thy God commanded thee,’ should not men tremble at his word, and all true Christians learn to speak the same thing, as to God’s holy Sabbath? Then in order to do this, I now propose to meet the most learned man in all the world, in defense of the true Sabbath of God, under the new covenant dispensation, with the question framed thus:—”

“Resolved, That under the new covenant dispensation, there is no law for the seventh-day Sabbath.

“William C. Thurman affirms, the most learned man of your choice denies. The discussion to be held in Boston, Mass., that we may have access to the largest libraries, and the advantage of the best Hebrewand Greek scholars. All the papers in the world please copy.”

Having a chance to know something about Mr. Thurman’s knowledge of Greek and Hebrew, I am prepared to say that it is very superficial, and that this world-wide challenge is entitled to no attention.

E. B. LANE.

Dayton, Rockingham Co., Va.

ORTHODOX TROUBLES.

By J. O. Corliss

Eastern journals have lately been discussing a certain Hartford minister who rejects the doctrine of eternal torment. An instance of this kind is the signal for a grand rally. One after another marches up, pours in a random shot, and retires to watch its effect, when lo! it is seen that the shot either falls short of the mark altogether, or strikes a portion of the work that is invulnerable, and falls harmless to the ground. In spite of their efforts, the pet theory loses caste, and is rejected. In alluding to the subject, one writer asks with apparent concern, “Is there a hell?” and seems to think that if eternal torment is discarded, there is no alternative but to ignore all punishment and thus have all saved. After deploring the difference of opinion on this point in the bosom of the orthodox church, he says:—

“It is well worth thinking about, what will be the result of these doubts concerning eternal punishment, and this indifference to the subject now prevalent in the Congregational denomination, and in other religious denominations of substantially the same faith. There is a chance for much profitable study here.”

Well may these writers fear the inevitable result of these doubts under the teachings of popular theology. All who read the Bible with any degree of carefulness know that it teaches nothing more plainly than that man will be punished according to his deeds; hence the expressions, “Reward every man according to his works;” “That every one may receive . . . according to that he hath done,” &c. See Matt. 16:27; 2 Cor. 5:10; Luke 12:47, 48. Any one will comprehend at a glance the point taught in the above texts, and be ready to admit its justice. But, asks the logical individual, what will become of one after he has been punished according to his deeds? Does the Lord still punish him to all eternity? or does he release, and restore him to favor? Then reasoning from analogy he says, If a man is condemned for a crime, and serves out his sentence in the penitentiary, then justice demands his release. “Shall mortal man be more just than God?” If he is not, will not God, after punishing men for their sins, restore them to his favor? This thought is far from being a repulsive one, and Universalism gains a convert.

We should be careful where we plant our feet. This is enchanted ground, and one should walk cautiously, lest he step into a pitfall of the enemy and be ensnared in his toils. Does not your reason tell you that if man could have his guilt removed, and be restored to the favor of God through punishment, the work of Christ was a nullity and his death unnecessary? Could the Omniscient One thus mistake? You will certainly answer, Impossible. If man has inherent immortality, and if he actually pays the penalty of his transgressions, then not only does justice demand that there be a release from suffering, but the revelator teaches that there will be a restoration to favor; for he says (Rev. 5:13), that he heard every creature in Heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, giving honor and glory to God and the Lamb, and this could not possibly take place so long as some were suffering punishment. The difficulty with many in trying to solve this question is, they have been taught that man is by nature immortal and must ever live, regardless of his standing in the sight of God; and they cling to this view with wonderful tenacity, although the Bible nowhere warrants it. On the other hand, the Bible teaches that man is mortal (Job 4:17); and that eternal life is a gift of God (Rom. 6:23) which is bestowed only through Christ. 1 John 5:12. This could not all be true were immortality a principle inherent in man. We read that Christ bestows this gift when he comes to earth in glory, attended by all the holy angels. Matt. 16:27. Eternal life cannot be given more than once, as once received it lasts forever; hence if man already has it, Christ cannot give it at his second advent; but if at that time Christ does bestow it upon man, it is positive proof that man never had it before. If at the second coming of Christ each is rewarded according to his deeds, there must be some to whom eternal life will not be given. What will be the reward in their cases? or what will be the result of punishing them according to their deeds? Will that punishment remove their guilt, correct their lives, and give them righteous characters, which are necessary to salvation? No; for these could only be obtained through the blood of Christ. As they lack these necessary qualifications, what then can be done? Can God give them eternal life? No. They have already enjoyed life a long time. All its privileges and blessings were God’s free gift to them, and should continually have reminded them of his goodness, and their obligations to fulfill the conditions upon which the continuation of that life depended.

During all the years of probation, however, they were satisfied to live only for themselves and the things of the world, manifesting no interest in the promises of God and the blessings of the future, but showing, rather, by their daily walk, that they did not care enough about eternal life to accept the offer of God. And now, as they have forfeited all right to that life God has allowed them to retain so long, without the least injustice to them, they are deprived of it, and return to the same condition as before life was first given. The statement of Obadiah (verse 16), that “they shall be as though they had not been,” with similar declarations, will then be fulfilled. Sin and sinners gone, God will have a clean universe, and all creatures can then ascribe blessing and honor to God and the Lamb forever. Thus the Bible is harmonized in all its parts.

J. O. CORLISS.

Continue reading: AN APPEAL FOR OUR STUDENTS