Your ShelfYour Projects

Review and Herald, Vol. 25, No. 25.

NATURE AND DESTINY OF MAN

Review and Herald

May 23, 1865

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · May 23, 1865

NATURE AND DESTINY OF MAN.

By N. V. Hull

DISCUSSION BETWEEN ELD. N. V. HULL, SEVENTH-DAY BAPTIST, AND ELD. R. F. COTTRELL, SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST.

(Continued from Review No. 12.)

Elder Hull's Fifth Article.

ELD. R. F. COTTRELL:
Dear Brother,—In your letter which appeared in the Recorder of Jan. 26th, you call my attention to the relation of thought, or the seat of thought, to matter.
As to the philosophy of this question, I lay no claim to perfection of knowledge. Sure it is, that the Bible attributes thought to the spirit of man, and not his body. 1 Cor. i, 11—"For what man knoweth the thoughts of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him?" This should be sufficient. I think our philosophical difficulties on this subject arise more from what we do not know, than from what we do know. While it may be well settled, that the brain is the organ of thought, who can prove that the brain thinks? The eye is the organ of sight; who will assert that the eye sees? So of the ear; it is the organ of sound; still it hears nothing.
A fundamental principle in your theory is, if I understand you, that life is the result of organized matter. To this I take exception, arguing, that the reverse of this is the true position—that is, that matter is both produced and organized by a creative and organic force, which we call life, and that the principle of thought lies back in this life-force, and not in matter. If life is the result of organized matter, then matter must be a vivific force, and pre-exists life; and reasoning back step by step, we find matter eternal, justifying atheism. That, in our present mode of being, the spirit reveals itself through organized matter, is both true and necessary. But it is a glory of the human spirit, that it can operate, exercising its powers according to the conditions of its habitation, whether physical and imperfect, or spiritual and perfect. In the resurrection, the body only is changed; at least, we have no warrant from the Scriptures to assert the resurrection of the spirit, or the enlargement of its powers, per se.
That beasts think, seems true; but who can tell how they think? To inquire after the principle of thought in animals, may afford a pleasure to a speculative mind; but to introduce it as a ground of argument in a Bible discussion concerning the nature of man, seems fruitful of no good, seeing it is a mystery which God has not seen fit to reveal.
You think my declaration, that man in the resurrection does not have his animal body restored to life, a denial of the resurrection itself. I fail to see this. If I understand Paul, (1 Cor. xv,) he holds that a man who believes in the resurrection of the animal body is a fool! Indeed, his whole argument is to show, that while there is identity as to personality, there is none as to substance. "There is an animal body, and there is a spiritual body," is his emphatic declaration, backed by the statement, that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God." If it be true, that Christ, after his resurrection, and before his ascension, bore about the same body that was crucified, this does not disprove what I said. You of course are aware of the difficulties surrounding this question. There are those eminent for learning, candor and ability, who suppose that all those raised to life by Christ and his apostles, during their earthly ministries, were still subject to death. Indeed, this would seem to be necessary in order that the full proofs of divinity might be given. But this is altogether another thing from that which occurs at the general resurrection, when the raised are to be introduced to an entirely different mode of being, necessitating a different bodily organization. As with these, so with Christ. While he remained on the earth, he retained his earthly body, even after his resurrection; the necessary inference being, that at the time of his ascension his body underwent the same change that those will who are alive at the last day, who shall be "changed in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye."
Your reference to those in Revelation 20th, who are said to have lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years, and to the dead that lived not again until the thousand years were finished, is without force, for several reasons, but mainly from the fact that a literal resurrection, in their case, has not been proved. Perhaps the most sober view of that case is, that the Revelator saw what was fitly represented by the idea of a resurrection. To quote a passage as proof of a point in dispute, where there is a fair chance to doubt its applicability, is disingenuous. I still hold to the opinion, that whatever there is about us that is physical, and therefore corruptible, in a physical sense, will fail to re-appear in the resurrection. I hold that accountability can only be affirmed of SPIRIT; therefore MATTER cannot be the subject of moral rewards or punishments.
I certainly have no desire to turn you aside from a consideration of Matt. x, 28, nor will I criticize your boastful words, only saying, that you marvelously resemble the Confederates, who stoutly affirm, after nearly every stronghold is taken, their territory cut, carved, and sundered part from part, that they are daily increasing in strength, and that their prospects were never before so bright! When you say the view you have given of this passage would be satisfactory to all, were it not that a crumbling theory is to be sustained, you certainly speak as one a little conceited. You over-estimate your efforts. The theory is not crumbling. Every new development in science, and advance step in a true exegesis of the Scriptures, adds new strength to it. Is not that true, brother? Then why talk of the theory as "crumbling?" I do not say that infidelity is dead—that materialism slumbers. Nay they are boastful! But this I say, that when they enter into a close engagement, spirituality always prevails. And as SPIRIT is purer and stronger than MATTER, it always will prevail!
You proceed to say you do not object to the translation of the word soul, but to the interpretation that makes it live after the body is dead—“the idea, that the soul lives when separate from the body.” That question, brother, you must settle with Jesus, inasmuch as he is the one who uttered the sentiment. The truth is, the text is an interpretation and illustration of this “idea,” for the sake of assuring the disciples of this very thing, namely, that although men might kill the body, nevertheless the soul would survive. But your interpretation is lumbered with this absurdity: Christ comforts his disciples with the assurance, that although wicked men, in the service of Satan, can only kill their bodies, he can and will, seeing they peril their bodies in his service, kill their souls! And this is the protection he is to afford his persecuted ones! Mercy! But you proceed and say, that “this idea,” (that the soul lives after the death of the body,) “is not even hinted at in any other passage in the Bible.” You certainly do not want boldness, in whatever other characteristics you may be deficient. And you further say, “And is not intended to be hinted in this.” Pray how do you get so much knowledge? Jesus says this plainly, and you say he did not intend it. Well, I think he did, or he would not have said it!
Your exhibition of modesty, under the cover of a “windy” retreat from a discussion of the meaning of the terms kill and destroy, may be skillful, but won’t save your theory. These words, it is true, have shades of meaning in common with each other, under certain circumstances, and under certain circumstances alone. Yet you have gained much of your strength by an adroit but deceptive use of these terms; and until you withdraw this link of your argument, you must stand before the world not as fair disputants, but as wrestlers of words. This charge may seem to be strong; but I sincerely believe it, and think I am able abundantly to support it.
But you proceed to “take position” upon the first part of the verse—“And fear not those who will kill the body, but cannot kill the soul”—and say, “You will not dispute that kill, in this clause, means kill.”
But you go on and say, "I proceed, then. 1. We are not to fear those who are not able to kill the soul." So you yield the point, do you, that the soul does not necessarily die with the body? I rejoice that a main point in this argument is gained. You then proceed to say, "2. But we are expressly taught to fear God. 3. Therefore God is able to kill the soul." I don't see it. God may indeed be able to kill the soul; but how does it follow, that God can kill the soul, because man cannot, or because we are to fear him rather than man, because man cannot. But you must complete your syllogism, and so you say, "Therefore God will kill the souls of some, i. e., the souls of the wicked." Here another point is gained, namely, not only that men cannot kill the souls of the righteous, but God will not. Therefore, when the bodies of the righteous die, their souls still live, and they must continue to live, for men cannot kill them, and God will not. Amen! But how do you say that God will kill the souls of the wicked, when what Christ says is, that he is "able to destroy both soul and body in hell?" That God is able to do this, I do not deny. But I deny that Jesus says that God will kill the souls of the wicked in hell, and demand your proof that he will. Please don't give us your syllogism, but give us his word. But your argument is further weak, in view of the sentiment you maintain; for even the souls of the wicked only die when killed by God in hell, according to your own showing. Then, when the body of a wicked man dies, his soul still lives, and will live until the body is raised, and then, after being with the soul judged, both soul and body are killed in hell.
But, as you have invited me to point out the "very place where your logic leaks," I proceed; not that I have any desire to tantalize you. You say, "Now that which is liable to be killed, or in other words subject to death, is not immortal, but mortal; therefore, the soul of man is mortal." But consider, it is one thing whether a thing is capable of death by violence at the hands of a superior, or whether death is inherent in its constitution. The body may die by a natural process, and then decaying you have mortality, for the proper idea of mortality is not in death simply, but in decay. If it were the appointment of God, that the particles of matter of which the body is composed should remain intact after life is gone, then the body would be immortal, because corruption would not follow. Death and mortality are not therefore convertible terms. To affirm, then, mortality of spirits, as you do, is a palpable error, unless you can show that the law of decay inheres in them. Your vaunted argument, then, is only a hubble, and when pricked, vanishes.
The remainder of your argument will be noticed in another article.
As ever, yours,
N. V. HULL.

Consolation.

By Mary House

“Fear thou not, for I am with thee.”—Isaiah.
SWEEt words of comfort to the aching heart! It bids all fear and every doubt depart To know and feel, that whatsoe'er betide, God will be with us as a shield and guide,— To know that he, whose compass e'er is true, Will, as a "pilot," safely guide us through Life's wrecking breakers, past each rock and shoal, Until we reach the hoped and longed for goal.
Although our friends forsake, because our way Seems but too narrow for their feet to stray; Though they may scoff, what care we for the frown? The thoughts of Heaven, of a harp, and crown, Of life eternal, make the way seem bright, Which ends at last in full and shining light. And thou, great Shepherd, we thy love behold, And would, as lambs, seek shelter 'neath thy fold; Trusting, our Father, in thy gracious arm To shield us from all danger and from harm. The straight and narrow way we fain would see, And walk the path which leads to life and thee. Mary House.

Elder R. F. Cottrell's Fifth Reply.

By R. F. Cottrell

Eld. N. V. Hull:

Dear Brother,—Yours of Recorder, March 23d, is received. If I have appeared "boastful," or "conceited," or have "over-estimated my efforts, I beg your pardon, and that of our readers. I certainly did not intend it. This, however, is not the subject we agreed to discuss. Consequently, to this part of your argument I shall not attempt a reply; but rather, so far as boasting is concerned, freely confess myself completely vanquished.
Still, in regard to the subject in debate, if I speak at all, I must beg to be allowed to speak with confidence; for I have the utmost confidence in my position, believing, without a doubt, that I am on the side of God and truth. And I cheerfully accord to you the same right and privilege. I shall not accuse you of unfairness and deception, as long as I have a good stock of better arguments; for I am not wrestling with you, but with your errors.
Perhaps I ought further to confess, that I erred in designating yours as a "crumbling theory;" for almost the whole infidel world are embracing it as their last engine with which to overthrow the Bible. Spiritualism is the "last ditch" in which the rebels against high Heaven are entrenching themselves, and in which they will perish. But I think I should speak safely should I say, that of Bible believers, the gain from your theory to the one I hold, in the United States alone, within the last twenty years, is not less than one hundred thousand.
When you manufacture a position for me, and then exhibit your skill in demolishing it, you waste your strength in heating the air. This is the case with the greater part of the article now before me. You say, "A fundamental principle in your theory is, if I understand you, that life is the result of organized matter." So far from being a fundamental principle, this is no part of my theory. Life is not the result of organization, but is the gift of God. And my principal object in this discussion is to convince you and our readers, that life is not inherent in man—that he will not naturally live eternally—but that, as an apostle says, eternal life is the gift of God, through our Lord Jesus Christ. Rom. vi, 23.
I have held, in this discussion, that man was perfectly organized from the dust of the ground, and yet had no life nor knowledge till God gave him the gift, by breathing into his nostrils the breath of life; and that when this gift is recalled, or "returneth to God who gave it," man is in his former state, having no life nor knowledge, though his organization remain perfect up to the moment of his death. Your effort to disprove a theory which I do not hold, demands no reply. I freely admit that there is a spirit in man, and that the in-breathing of the Almighty giveth them understanding. Job xxxii, 8. It remains for you to prove that there is a human spirit out of man, which retains its understanding after God has taken back the gift of life which he gave. The body, without the spirit, has no life nor knowledge.
On Matt. x, 28, I have held that to kill the body, in this text, means to cut off our present life, and that the killing of the soul relates to the future punishment of the wicked, a punishment to be inflicted after the resurrection. But you argue from this text, that the soul is a distinct, living, conscious entity, while the body is dead—a thing which Jesus does not affirm, and which is positively contradicted by other scriptures; and then you infer, that if this imaginary soul lives after the body is dead, it is destined to live eternally—an inference not at all necessary, provided your premises were wholly true. It would come as far short of proving your conclusion, as it would to say, The soul lives to-day; therefore it is destined to live eternally. At this point you leave the Bible, because it fails to prove your point, and begin to talk of the philosophical principles of immaterial mind, as not being subject to physical corruption. To head off your philosophy, I refer you to the brutes, showing that the fact that they have immaterial thoughts would make them too, immortal were your reasoning true. You admit, they think, but now plead ignorance of the mysterious philosophy of thought. "The brain is the organ of thought," say you, "but who can prove that the brain thinks?" "Beasts think, but who can tell how they think?" And you wonder why beasts should be brought into a controversy concerning the nature of man!
I admit with you, that what we don't know about these immaterial, invisible and mysterious things, would make a bigger hook than what we do know. Hence the necessity of a revelation concerning the future and the unseen. Philosophy cannot prove the immortality of the soul; the Scriptures do not reveal it, only as a gift to the righteous, to be given at the resurrection. If the "idea" was in the Bible, you could have found the words which convey it, as I have requested.
But seeing you hang upon your unwarranted inference drawn from Matt. x, 28, combined with your philosophical knowledge of immaterial things, I proceeded to prove, from the text itself, even viewing it from your own standpoint, that the soul is liable to death, because God threatens to kill it in the same sense in which the body is said to be killed. The only real fault which you attempt to find in this argument is in respect to the meaning of the term mortal. You say, "The proper idea of mortality is not in death simply, but in decay." What! were you not attempting to prove that every soul of man is destined to live eternally, and not die? I thought, since you had confessed the imperfection of our philosophical knowledge, you would not appeal to it again to set aside the testimony of the perfect word, which God has graciously given us, to supply our deficiencies, and correct our errors.
God threatens to kill the soul. Will you undertake to prove the immortality of dead souls? Yes; and here is your argument: "If it were the appointment of God, that the particles of matter of which the body is composed should remain intact after life is gone, then the body would be immortal, because corruption would not follow." Yes, then you would have an immortal dead body, and its immortality would be no evidence that it would ever live again. But you continue: "Death and mortality are not, therefore, convertible terms. To affirm, then, mortality of spirits, as you do, is a palpable error, unless you can show that the law of decay inheres in them." Ah! you are determined, then, to have the soul immortal, dead or alive? Is this the solution of the question how the dead are immortal, and yet, "know not any thing?" I thank you for this illustration of the soul's immortality. It is a virtual admission of all that I claim. I do not claim that the immaterial mind must rot, "after life is gone," or that the particles of the body must be annihilated. But this immortality, which a person might have and not know it, is not the kind for which I am seeking. What consolation can it be to a living soul, to know, that after it is dead, it will not waste away, but ever remain an undecaying mummy?
Although you do not want my syllogisms, I call your attention, and that of the reader, again to them. I have given you, and might give you again, the testimonies of the word: "Mortal man," "The soul that sinneth it shall die," "The wages of sin is death," &c. But you would try to parry their force, though you hold that, "accountability can only be affirmed of SPIRIT," and that, "MATTER cannot be the subject of moral rewards or punishments." I should like to know, however, how this is reconciled with the threatening, that the "whole body should be cast into hell." Matt. v, 29, 30.
As I said, I have noticed your only real assault upon my syllogisms. To what you say besides concerning them, I am not bound to reply, as it is not my sentiments which you attack, but a creature of your own creation. Your attempted caricature of my sentiments is only a kind of hybrid, obtained by crossing your own theory with the words of the text and other teachings of the Bible.
My aim is brevity; therefore I can touch only the main points in debate. So I have not noticed your opinion concerning the change of our Saviour's body at the ascension. But upon your chief text, (Matt. x, 28), I think it due the reader to have a few more thoughts, sustaining the position I have taken; and I beg the indulgence to present them as arranged by another:
"And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul; but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."—Matt. x, 28.
"And I say unto you, my friends, Be not afraid of them which kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him which, after he hath killed, hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, fear him."—Luke xii, 4, 5.
1. These texts are the record, by different writers, of the same language of the Saviour. In Matthew's version of the Saviour's words, the soul is indeed made very prominent; but in that of Luke, it is not even mentioned. Yet the language of the one is the same in substance with the other.
2. Thus, while Matthew represents the Saviour as saying, "Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul," Luke expresses the idea thus: "Be not afraid of them which kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do." And as Matthew adds: "Fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell," Luke gives the same warning thus: "Fear him, which after he hath killed, hath power to cast into hell."
3. Thus it is seen, that our Lord recognizes the fact so plainly expressed elsewhere, that there are two deaths. The first death, which is the common lot of mankind, is thus spoken of by Paul: "It is appointed unto men once to die."—Heb. ix, 27.
The second death is the portion only of the wicked. "He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the seconddeath."—Rev. ii, 11, 20: vi, 21; viii. The Saviour bids us not to fear those who can only inflict the first of these deaths, but warns us to fear him who alone is able to kill with the second death.
4. The place in which this terrible punishment here set forth is inflicted, is called hell. This word is found in the English Testament twenty-three times. But in the Greek Testament there are three different words, Hades, Gehenna, and Tartarus, signifying different places, all rendered by the English word, hell. Thus Hades is used eleven times in the original, and is rendered hell ten times, and grave once. The following are the places of its occurrence, the italicised word in each case being the translation of Hades:
Matt. xi, 23.—"Shall be brought down to hell."
Matt. xvi, 18.—"The gates of hell shall not prevail."
Luke x, 15.—"Shall be thrust down to hell."
Luke xvi, 23.—"In hell he lifted up his eyes."
Acts ii, 27.—"Wilt not leave my soul in hell."
Acts ii, 31.—"His soul was not left in hell."
1 Cor. xv, 55.—"O grave, where is thy victory?"
Rev. i, 18.—"Have the keys of hell and of death."
Rev. vi, 8.—"Was death, and hell followed."
Rev. xx, 13.—"Death and hell delivered up the dead."
Rev. xx, 14.—"Death and hell were cast into the lake of fire."
Gehenna is found in the following places:
Matt. v, 22.—"Shall be in danger of hell fire."
Matt. v, 29.—"Whole body should be cast into hell."
Matt. v, 30.—"Whole body should be cast into hell."
Matt. x, 28.—"Destroy both soul and body in hell."
Matt. xviii, 9.—"Having two eyes, to be cast into hell."
Matt. xxiii, 15.—"More the child of hell than yourselves."
Matt. xxiii, 33.—"How can ye escape the damnation of hell?"
Mark ix, 43.—"Having two hands to go into hell."
Mark ix, 45.—"Having two feet to be cast into hell."
Mark ix, 47.—"Having two eyes to be cast into hell."
Luke xii, 5.—"Hath power to cast into hell."
James iii, 6.—"It is set on fire of hell."
Tartarus is used only in the following text:
"God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them into hell."—2 Peter ii, 4.
Thus Hades is seen to be the place of the dead, whether righteous or wicked, the place into which they are introduced by death, and from which they are delivered by the resurrection. Those who are in Hades are said to be dead. Rev. xx, 10. Once in the English Testament, Hades is rendered grave. 1 Cor. xv, 55. Gehenna, on the contrary, is the place where the wicked are to be cast alive, with all their members, and to be destroyed soul and body. It is the lake of fire in which the wicked dead are to be punished after their resurrection. Rev. xx, 13-15. Tartarus is the place into which the evil angels were cast after their rebellion. These three places, therefore, though rendered by the one English word hell, are not to be confounded together.
5. In giving the warning recorded in Matt. x, 28, Luke xii, 4, 5, it is claimed that the Saviour taught the continued existence of the soul in death. But it is worthy of notice, that in each of these texts he utters no warning concerning the punishment of the soul in Hades, the place or state of the dead, but his warning relates to that which shall be inflicted upon the "soul and body" together in Gehenna.
6. That he should speak nothing of the punishment of the soul in its disembodied state in Hades, if such punishment really takes place, is very remarkable; for here, more than any where else in the Bible, is there evidence of the continued existence of the soul while the body is under the power of death. Yet while expressly stating the dreadful fate of the lost, and that too, in such connection as would especially call out the fact, if it were a fact, that the souls of the wicked exist in a place of dreadful suffering, between death and the resurrection, the Saviour says not one word concerning the suffering of the soul in its disembodied state, but confines his warning to that which shall be inflicted upon "both soul and body in hell," i. e., in Gehenna, thus showing that the retribution against which he warns us, comes after the resurrection, and not before it.
7. Our Lord means to point out precisely the danger to which the ungodly are exposed. When, therefore, he says, "Fear him which, after he hath killed, hath power to cast into Gehenna," he means to teach that God will cast the wicked into Gehenna. And when Matthew, expressing the same warning in different words, makes the Saviour say, "Fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna," the fact set forth is, that such will be the fate of the lost.
8. "Fear him which, after he hath killed, hath power to cast into Gehenna." As the wicked are to be cast into Gehenna alive, and in possession of all their bodily members, (see the list of passages in this article where Gehenna is used,) it follows, that he who can cast them there, after they have once been killed, is God alone; for to do this he must raise them from the dead. The "resurrection to damnation" must precede the "damnation of Gehenna." Compare John v, 28, 29, with Matt. xxiii, 33.
These remarks show that the phrase, "kill the body," relates to the first death, which is the common lot of men; and that the phrase, "kill the soul," is used to signify the second death, the punishment to be inflicted on the wicked after they are raised from the dead. Jesus says nothing of the soul as living while the body is dead. Other scriptures fully describe man's state in death.
Men can kill men once. Their power can go no farther. None but He that has the resurrection power can kill men with the second death. The Christian may fall by the hand of the persecutor, but his "life is hid with Christ in God;" and "when Christ, who is our life, shall appear," then (not before) shall he "appear with him in glory." Thank the Lord that the time is near!
Yours with kindest regard.
R. F. COTRELL.

Ancient and Honorable.

By M. E. Cornell

THE most ancient and honorable of all divine institutions are Marriage and the Sabbath. Both these were instituted by the Creator himself. They originated in the garden of Eden before the fall of man. They were made for man, while yet in his pure state. These two most ancient institutions are pronounced "honorable." Isa. lviii, 13; Heb. xiii, 4.
What folly to talk of either being limited to some particular age, or of their being changed with the change of dispensation.
It has ever been the object of Satan to either abolish altogether, or to pervert the institutions of the Sabbath and Marriage. The emperor Constantine was an efficient agent of Satan to corrupt and change them both. How he figured in regard to marriage is well described by Bishop Newton. He says:
"Forbidding TO Marry. Not regarding the desire of women, neglecting and discouraging marriage; as both the Latin and Greeks did to the great detriment of human society, and to the great discredit of the Christian religion. The Julian and Papian laws which were enacted in the most flourishing times of the Romans, for the favor and encouragement of those who were married and had children, Constantine himself repealed, and allowed equal or greater privileges and immunities to those who were unmarried and had no children. Nay, he held in the highest veneration those men who had devoted themselves to the divine philosophy, i. e., to a monastic life; and almost adored the most holy company of perpetual virgins, being convinced that the God to whom they had consecrated themselves, did dwell in their minds.
His example was followed by his successors; and the married clergy were discountenanced and depressed; the monks were honored and advanced, and in the fourth century like a torrent overran the eastern church, and, soon after, the western too.
This was evidently not regarding the desire of wives, or conjugal affection. At first only second marriages were prohibited, but in time the clergy were absolutely restrained from marrying at all. So much did the power here described, 'Magnify himself above all,' over God himself, by contradicting the primary law of God and nature; and making that dishonorable which the scripture (Heb. xiii, 4,) hath pronounced 'honorable in all.'"
What a pity that so many intelligent men, and even professed Christians will do Satan's work in opposing these divine institutions. While the spiritualists are striking against marriage, some Christian bodies are opposing the Sabbath. Each are striking against the commandments of God, and the teachings of his Son. Jesus Christ has defended the sacredness of both these institutions.
When the Pharisees brought the marriage question before the Saviour, and appealed to what Moses suffered in regard to a man's divorcing his wife, Jesus answered: "For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept, but from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; and they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder."
That which was done at the beginning of the creation, is the rule, and the manifest design in the origin of the institution carries weight, and is appealed to by our Saviour, as still the rule, and proves that the institution is neither abolished nor changed. No Bible believer can deny this conclusion. Now I appeal to the same argument in reference to the Sabbath.
The Pharisees brought the Sabbath question before Christ in the same manner they had that of marriage:
"And he said unto them, The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath: therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath." Mark ii, 27, 28.
The object of making the Sabbath in the beginning, is appealed to for the rule of its observance, even here in the Christian age. No intimation that the Sabbath was relaxed or abolished, or ever would be. Now I say that inasmuch as Christ has treated these two institutions just alike, if one is changed or abolished, the other one is also. They originated together. They had the same author. One is as old as the other. Both were written on stone by the finger of God. Both are called honorable. Christ has honored and enforced them both in the New Testament. Therefore they must stand or fall together. Spiritualists are waging a warfare against Marriage, and the No-law folks are doing the same thing against the Sabbath. One is just as consistent as the other. I do not envy the anti-Sabbath man his company in fighting against the ancient and honorable. These two ancient jewels were made for man. They are twin sisters; in offending the one, we affront the other. God has joined them together, and man will put them asunder at his own peril.
The fourth and the seventh commandments of the decalogue are given to guard the sacredness of these two precious gifts to man. In tearing down those two commandments we destroy the fence that God has made to guard these two ancient plants which were set out by his own hand. Let God be true. He declares them to be "honorable." If God is true, it must be honorable to keep them holy and sacred, and dishonorable to oppose them.
I am more and more confirmed in the Sabbath truth. It is firm as a rock. That man don't live that can overthrow the Bible argument for the Sabbath. How precious is the truth? "The works of his hands are verity and judgment: all his commandments are sure; they stand fast forever and ever, and are done in truth and uprightness." Even so, amen!
M. E. Cornell.

The Face Reveals Truth

By Emerson

DREADFUL limits are set in nature to the power of dissimulation. Truth tyrannizes over the unwilling members of the body. Faces never lie, it is said. No man need be deceived who will study the changes of expression. When a man speaks the truth in the spirit of truth, his eye is as clear as the heavens. When he has base ends, and speaks falsely, his eye is muddy, and sometimes asquint. I have heard an experienced counselor say, that he never feared the effect upon a juror, of a lawyer who does not believe in his heart that his client ought to have a verdict.—Emerson.
Continue reading: The Conference