Earlier text: General ArticlesThe Doctrine of Endless Torment Not Essential to the Maintenance of Religion.
We referred to the philosophy of human nature and affirmed that it lent no countenance to the objection of our friends, that the doctrine of infinite terror was indispensable to the maintenance of religion; that if it were abandoned for the theory of ultimate destruction, men would thereby be encouraged to persist in sin; and that nothing less than the fear of infinite misery would suffice as an adequate motive. Now, not to press the fact that human governments have uniformly found crime to rise in amount and aggravation in proportion to the severity of the punishment, and to diminish in proportion as the penalty has accorded with the universal sense of justice, I content myself with asking on what known principle of our nature a man will be more thoroughly and beneficially affected by an indefinite amount of punishment, which he therefore cannot realize, if that which is more level to his apprehension, and more consonant with his sense of justice, is utterly powerless. On what principle would a man be deterred from any course by the threat of a million years of misery, if he laughed to scorn the threat of a thousand years of punishment? In reference to the hitherto untried, we must be affected to a great extent through the imagination. And that which can be somewhat comprehended and realized, will inevitably be more powerful than that which no effort can avail to grasp. The definite will prevail more than the indefinite. And if we dared to imagine such a thing, as that it were left to us to represent such future punishment for the impenitent as we deemed most likely to affect them beneficially, I, for one, should represent the sinner who would not return to God, and who therefore could answer no end by his continued existence, as blotted out of being by a solemn and judicial act, in sight of numberless spectators, who would thereby learn what an evil and bitter thing is sin, and how God will by no means clear the guilty. And this, if I mistake not, would prevail more than the scheme of never-ending misery, for these two reasons already suggested; namely, First, That it could be more thoroughly realized, and so would more powerfully affect the mind; and secondly, and chiefly, Inasmuch as the sinner would in the deep recesses of his conscience feel it to be just, and so, instead of being additionally hardened against God, would be the more ready to embrace his message, and seek to love him with all his heart. On this part of our subject, the reader perhaps may be pleased with an extract from the valuable work of the late Abraham Tucker:— “Let us suppose, then, we could know for certain that the duration of future punishment were precisely one thousand years; what encouragement could this give to the sinner? Is not this length far greater than that of any enjoyment he can expect to get by sinning? Let him consider what it is to pass a day, a week, a month, in exquisite tortures, and he will soon find a less time than that we have specified sufficient to discourage him effectually from running the hazard. Suppose a wicked man talked to by the parson of the parish, who terrifies him with the dread of everlasting flames into the resolution of amendment. You come in afterwards and bid him not mind the parson, for you know better than all of them put together, and can assure him there is no such thing as everlasting flames. Ay, says the man, I am heartily glad of that, for then I may take my pleasure without fear of an after-reckoning. No, you say, I cannot engage for so much either; you must expect to smart, but it will be but for a while, only a thousand years, and all will be well again. What comfort could this give him? Must it not rather damp his spirits, and the naming so vast a length increase his terrors more than the limitation to that term abate them? “For both choice and evidence have their certain weight to render them complete; while below this pitch, you may increase them by adding to the weights; but when once arrived at it, all further audition is superfluous. For in moral arithmetic, as observed before under the article of pleasure, the same rules do not hold good as in the common; nor does two and two always make four. If I hear an unlikely fact related by somebody I know little of, I shall not heed him much; if another confirms what he said, I may begin to doubt; two or three more agreeing in the same story may make me think it probable; but if twenty persons of approved honor and veracity assert it upon their own knowledge, I should give an unreserved assent, nor could I do more though a hundred of the same character were to come in. So were a man offered a long life of pleasure for a month's future sufferings, perhaps he might be stout enough to accept the condition; were they increased to a year, he might hesitate; but were they multiplied to a thousand years, he could not delay his choice a moment, if he had any consideration at all. Where demonstration will not convince, nor things beyond all comparison determine the choice, it proves an insensibility in the mind which no further outward application can cure. If those who hear not Moses and the prophets would not believe though one rose from the dead, neither would he that is not touched with a thousand years of severest punishment be moved with an eternity. For it is plain the present wholly engrosses his imagination; he has no regard for the future, and you may as well make a blind man see by lighting more candles; or a mortified limb, that has utterly lost its sensation, feel by laying on more stripes, as affect him by any future sufferings whatsoever. “Therefore since a mind that has any feeling of futurity will be filled with as much terror by the length above specified as it is capable of receiving. you cannot lessen the discouragement by paring off what lies beyond; and one that has no sense of anything further than this present life, will not be affected by all you can say concerning a hereafter; so you cannot lessen the discouragement where there was none. Besides, for a man to pretend he should have paid a due regard to his future state if I had not persuaded him it was finite, would be contradicting himself in the same breath, for why does he make nothing of a limited term unless because he conceives it fifty or threescore years distant? How absurd then is it to tell me he sets no value on a reversion after threescore years, yet should value one extremely after a thousand years? He that makes this excuse either is not in earnest or deceives himself egregiously, and only catches hold of a specious argument to cover his thorough attachment to present pleasures. “After all that has been suggested, if any considerate person should happen to come into my notion upon this article, I think he could not be induced thereby to become a whit the less careful of his future concerns; and for the inconsiderate, they are not likely to meddle with my speculations. But if any of them should be hurt, it may be attributed to the common practice of expatiating, with all the powers of oratory, upon the word eternal, which carries a tacit implication that if punishment were not eternal, it wou'd not be worth minding. This seems to be inuring men never to stir unless upon the strongest inducement; perhaps it might be more expedient to bring them into a habit of answering the gentlest call of judgment. It has been remarked that a trader never grows rich who despises little gains; and it might as justly be said, that a man never grows happy or prudent who despises little advantages, although large enough to be visible. The mind has been often compared to a fine balance, and we know the excellence of a balance lies in its turning with a hair; so the excellence of judgment lies in discerning the minutest difference, and the excellence of disposition, in pursuing measures readily upon view of the slightest preference.”—The Light of Nature Pursued, &c., vol. i, pp. 653, 654. But we pass on to consider another objection already hinted at, namely, That the idea of a literal destruction being the doom of the impenitent, has an untoward aspect on the doctrine of atonement. Thus writes the Eclectic Reviewer:— “The salvation of the soul is the object and result of the redemption which is in Christ Jesus. The expiatory offering of the Son of God is a mystery at least as great as any involved in the doctrine of eternal punishment; and the awe which a serious contemplation of it is adapted to produce passes into actual pain unless we take some grand and awful view of the object which was to be effected by it. To think of the eternal Father slaying his well-beloved Son for any purpose is amazing; but to think of his doing so for a slight one is altogether appalling and impossible. The immortality of the soul stands in the fullest harmony with the vastness of the price that was paid for its redemption, and the eternity of future punishment with the infinite costliness of the ransom. It would afford a devout heart little satisfaction to adopt a view which would represent the Most Blessed as tender to his rebellious creatures, at the cost of representing him as cruel to his Son.” Let me be pardoned by the writer if I say that I read this with deep and painful regret. The unutterably glorious fact of an adequate expiation for human guilt, by the mysterious sacrifice of our adorable Redeemer, is ever to be spoken of with reverent lips. And the idea of God's being represented as “cruel to his Son,” unless all sinners are kept alive through eternity to be tormented, does strike me as unutterably painful. Will my esteemed friend then peril the prime doctrine of atonement, by resting it on this solid basis? Is the atonement of Christ worthless unless the eternity of hell torment is a reality? And is the voluntary death of the Saviour, who is somewhat unhappily designated as “slaying his beloved Son,” an act of cruelty? If the incorrigible are destroyed, notwithstanding “a great multitude which no man can number,” “having washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb,” spend a joyous eternity in Heaven as the glorious reward of his mediatorial undertaking? Must the ears of the compassionate Redeemer drink in, not merely the songs of the saved, but also the groans of the impenitent, through eternal ages, in order that he may not resent his former ignominy as an act of cruelty on the part of the Father? I tremble at the thought. For if I must express my regret at the strain, which, though I am sure it was well intended, will be acknowledged to be most unhappy, I may also deplore that the writer should have allowed himself to build the fortification of his own position with what, in any less honorable opponent, one would have called the wood, hay, and stubble of misrepresentation. I allude to his exhibiting “the Almighty Father as slaying his beloved Son” for “a slight purpose,” if our view be correct; that is, if it were only to save innumerable millions of sinners from destruction, and endow them with immortality, and raise them to Heaven, and make them, in some bright and glorious spheres of action, kings and priests unto God, rendering them growingly happy as the ages of eternity roll on, so that Christ is everlastingly glorified in them, and the eye of paternal Deity rests on them with ineffable complacency and love. All this is accomplished by our blessed Saviour, “whom having not seen we love, in whom though now we see him not, yet believing we rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory.” But unless it were unending misery that was originally threatened to man, and unless this be the portion of the lost still, “it was a slight purpose,” says the Reviewer, for which the Mediator died! Let me remind the reader that, when we believe the fact of an atonement for sin, we believe it, not because we have first of all reasoned out the propriety of such an amazing procedure in the government of God, but because it is revealed. The Scriptures, which we know to be from God, affirm it, to our apprehension, with unmistakable plainness. And as nothing can ever set aside a fact, all reasoning against facts being absurd, nothing else that we find in Scripture will shake our confidence in this. And as all facts lie quietly side by side with one another, so, whatever be the fact touching the final destiny of the incorrigible, it cannot in the faintest degree affect the previously ascertained fact of an atonement. And as a guilty sinner, humbly basing my hope of Heaven on the merits of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, I grieve at such a dangerous doctrine as that which I regret being thus called to notice. And I beseech my beloved brethren to beware how they snatch up weapons which a common enemy would take from their hands and employ against us both. Let us keep close to the word, and hold fast all facts, whether we can harmonize them or not. Let us not forget, as humble, child-like disciples, that our duty is emphatically “the obedience of faith.”—D. M. Canright, in Future Punishment. Truths Burned In By Affliction
Most of the grand truths of God have to be burned into us by the hot iron of affliction. "I MAY sometimes tremble on the rock, but, blessed be the Lord, the rock never trembles under me." The Sabbath-School.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
Thoughts on Review Lesson for Feb. 3.
GOD'S PURPOSE IN DEALING WITH PHARAOH. THOSE who are disposed to cavil, make a great deal of capital out of Ex. 9 : 15, 16: "For now I will stretch out my hand, that I may smite thee and thy people with pestilence; and thou shalt be cut off from the earth. And in very deed for this cause have I raised thee up, for to show in thee my power; and that my name may be declared throughout all the earth." One who is not predisposed to find fault with the Bible, will have little difficulty with this passage as it stands; but the best critics, among whom is Dr. Clarke, tell us that our translation does not convey the idea of the original. As Dr. Clarke says, God did not bring a pestilence upon Egypt, although the first-born were slain; nor was Pharaoh cut off from the earth at that time. The true meaning is said to be expressed by these words: "For now indeed had I stretched forth my hand and smitten thee and thy people with the pestilence, then hadst thou been cut off from the earth. And in very deed for this cause have I made thee to stand [allowed thee to live until the present time], for to show in thee my power," etc. This relieves the subject of all difficulty, and makes the passage harmonize with the context. In verse 13, God tells Moses to command Pharaoh to let his people go. If he refuses, he says that he will send all his plagues upon him and upon his servants and upon his people. Verse 14. In order that he may not think lightly of the judgments of God, or that he has already exhausted his power, God tells Pharaoh that if he had so ordered it, he would have been cut off from the earth. And then he assures him that it is only an act of mercy that his life has been spared. God might have destroyed Pharaoh at the very outset, and delivered Israel at once; but that, to short-sighted man, would have appeared to be an act of unwarranted cruelty. Instead of this, he allowed Pharaoh to show out his real character, and so vindicated his course, and at the same time displayed his wonderful power. THE HARDENING OF PHARAOH'S HEART. "And the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh, and he hearkened not unto them." With what avidity skeptics seize upon this passage! "If the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart, he was not to blame for what he did, and the Lord was arbitrary and cruel to punish him for what he could not help." Thus they will talk, and having once satisfied themselves that God is a hard taskmaster, and a cruel tyrant, they feel justified in refusing to serve him. But before we jump at such a conclusion, let us see just how it happened that Pharaoh's heart was made hard. Notice first the character of the king. He was ungrateful, as is shown by the statement that he "knew not Joseph." This does not mean that he was not familiar with Joseph's history, and what he had done for Egypt; but that he cared nothing for him. The fact that Joseph had saved all Egypt from starvation, did not seem to the king to be any reason why he should befriend Joseph's people. His was a nature upon which kindness had no softening effect. His treatment of the Israelites shows that he was selfish, cruel, and vindictive, and utterly regardless of human life. He had grown insolent and haughty, and when the demand was made upon him to let Israel go, he replied, "I know not the Lord, neither will I let Israel go." Then plagues were sent upon him. When the frogs covered the land, and the magicians could not remove them, he relented, and promised that if they were taken away, he would let the people go. He was taken at his word, but what was the result? "But when Pharaoh saw that there was respite, he hardened his heart, and hearkened not unto them." Ex. 8:15. Again another plague was sent, but he remained stubborn. Then swarms of flies filled their houses, so that everything was corrupted. This induced the king to say, "I will let you go, that ye may sacrifice to the Lord your God in the wilderness." So Moses intreated the Lord, and the flies were removed at the time appointed; but the result was the same as before. The record says: "And the Lord did according to the word of Moses; and he removed the swarms of flies from Pharaoh, from his servants, and from his people; there remained not one. And Pharaoh hardened his heart at this time also, neither would he let the people go." Chap. 8:31, 32. Yet again, after the cattle had been killed by the murrian, and boils, and the hail; when the terrible storm of thunder and fire had devastated the land, Pharaoh was alarmed. Sending for Moses and Aaron, he said, "I have sinned this time; the Lord is righteous, and I and my people are wicked. Intreat the Lord (for it is enough) that there be no more mighty thunderings and hail; and I will let you go, and ye shall stay no longer." Chap. 9:27, 28. As before, Moses set a time for the removal of the plague, and the result is stated in verses 34, 35 thus: "And when Pharaoh saw that the rain and the hail and the thunders were ceased, he sinned yet more, and hardened his heart, he and his servants. And the heart of Pharaoh was hardened, neither would he let the children of Israel go." Now we can see just how it was that the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart. He did it by his manifestations of mercy. The king was very humble in the face of death, but as soon as the fear of fear was removed, he became stubborn. Had he not been so willful, the mercy of the Lord would have moved him to repentance; but he was one of those persons who think that an exhibition of kindness is a manifestation of weakness. Having nothing like mercy or kindness in his own nature, he was unable to appreciate it in others. Theodoret very aptly says: "The sun by the action of heat makes wax moist, and mud dry, hardening the one while it softens the other, by the same operations producing exactly opposite results; thus from the long-suffering of God some derive benefit, and others harm, some are softened while others are hardened." Numerous cases, besides that of Pharaoh, might be cited to further illustrate this. The same words and actions of Christ that bound his disciples closer to him and gained him many devoted followers, hardened the hearts of the wicked priests, and moved them to kill him. It will ever be found the case that when a man falls, he falls on the side of his natural inclination. The Israelites were commanded to gather of the manna "an omer for every man." This was sufficient for the wants of one day, and as they were to "go out and gather a certain rate every day," it would have been useless to take any more, even if it would have kept. But the people were not content to follow the Lord's directions; some gathered more than the required amount. They doubtless reasoned thus: "It is true that this manna is promised every day, but there may come a time when it will fail, and it is no more than prudent to prepare for such a time, while we have abundance." By gathering more than the specified quantity, more than they could use during the day, they showed their lack of faith in God's promise. They thought that they could provide for themselves better than God could. But their planning proved to be useless, for "when they did mete it with an omer, he that gathered much had nothing over, and he that gathered little had no lack." Thus there was an equality. During their sojourn in the wilderness, God wished to have his people learn to trust him. As we look back on this incident, the course of the Israelites seems foolish; but we will not have to search far in order to find its counterpart. Paul makes their case the text for a lesson in giving. He desires that there should be an equality, that all should give in the same proportion. Then he quotes, "He that had gathered much had nothing over; and he that had gathered little had no lack." God has promised to care for each of his children; to give them their bread day by day. If we gather millions, we can have no more than our daily sustenance, and if we are in the depths of poverty, God is able to provide for our daily wants. Are we not, then, even more culpable than were the Israelites, if we refuse to return to God his rightful portion of our means? God is testing us just as he did them, but how many of us prove to be dull scholars. We have more faith in ourselves than we have in God. As we look at the wanderings of this people, the most prominent thing seems to be their murmuring disposition, and lack of faith. We can hardly realize how they could so easily forget God. Through all the fearful plagues that had been visited upon the Egyptians, they had been miraculously preserved; yet no sooner are they brought into a difficult place by the sea than they complain. They were taken through the Red Sea on dry ground while the pursuing Egyptians were drowned. This raised their spirits once more, and they joined with Moses in singing that wonderful song of deliverance, found in the 15th chapter of Exodus; yet within three days they were murmuring because the water was bitter. Why could they not remember that He who could divide the Red Sea, could provide water to drink? Water was miraculously provided, but in a few days their stock of provision ran low, and again they murmured. They even wished themselves back in their former bondage. Again their wants were supplied; bread was furnished, and a series of miracles was begun, that lasted for forty years, yet it seems to have made but little impression on them. In a short time they came to Rephidim, and here their complaints were renewed, the same as before. Because there was no water at hand, they were about to stone Moses. The former miraculous provision of water seems to have been utterly forgotten. Now all this was extremely wicked. They were tempting God, and there can be no excuse for their course. But while we justly condemn their actions, let us see if we are not condemning ourselves. Human nature has not changed much since that time. We have received blessings innumerable from the hand of God. We can truly say with the psalmist that "goodness and mercy have followed us all the days of our life." Israel had a standing manifestation of God's power and goodness in the manna, which was furnished fresh every day. But it is just as true in our case that the mercies of the Lord are "new every morning." And yet we murmur and become discouraged at everything that crosses us. If discouragements come, we, like the Israelites, are tempted to turn back, and imagine that we cannot gain the promised land. It is doubtful if we possess any more faith than they did. We can easily see how much better it would have been for the Israelites if they had been grateful to God for his favors, and had trusted him in times of need. It is well that we are able to do this, for the apostle says, "Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples; and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come." 1 Cor. 10:11. If we can see wherein they erred, let us see to it that we do not follow their course. "Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall." THE FLIGHT FROM EGYPT.—ITS MEMORIAL. It is claimed by many that the Sabbath commemorates the flight from Egypt. They argue thus, because in Deut. 5:15 their deliverance from Egypt is noted as a thing for which the Israelites should be grateful, and an additional reason why they should remember his commandments. But the fourth commandment itself shows what the Sabbath is intended to commemorate, and no hint of the flight from Egypt is given. That claim is so palpably absurd that it must disappear upon the slightest candid investigation. It may not, however, be amiss to notice Ex. 12:41, 42, in this connection. "And it came to pass at the end of the four hundred and thirty years, even the selfsame day it came to pass, that all the hosts of the Lord went out from the land of Egypt. It is a night to be much observed unto the Lord for bringing them out from the land of Egypt; this is that night of the Lord to be observed of all the children of Israel in their generations." The people fled in the night, and the passover, which was the true memorial of their deliverance (See Ex. 12:26-28), was celebrated in the night. Ex. 12:6-10; Deut. 16:6. God's memorials are always fitting and appropriate; when man attempts to improve upon God's plan, he always makes confusion. Censure Mixed With Praise
CENSURE is most effectual when mixed with praise; so when a fault is discovered, it is well to look up a virtue to go in company with it. The Death of Christ Draws Us
The life of Christ inspires us, the example of Christ elevates us, the teaching of Christ convicts us, but beyond all things else, it is the death of Christ that draws us. Bible Meaning of the Word Soul.
A VERY common error, into which many eminent writers and speakers have fallen, is that of taking every expression found in the Scriptures which speaks of a future life and using it as evidence that "the soul is immortal and cannot die." Future life does not necessarily indicate continuous life. The Scripture declarations of death and a resurrection, forbid the idea of continuous life. Where there is continuous life and no death, there can be no resurrection of the dead. And thus it is that wherever the belief of the immortality of the soul strongly prevails, faith in the resurrection declines in a corresponding degree. The doctrine of the immortality of the soul has become almost all-prevailing in Christendom, and, as a natural result, the doctrine of the resurrection is no longer dwelt upon and valued as it was in the early church. Thus Dr. Clarke speaks in his comment on 1 Cor. 15:— "One remark I cannot help making; the doctrine of the resurrection appears to have been thought of much more consequence among the primitive Christians than it is now! How is this? The apostles were continually insisting on it, and exciting the followers of God to diligence, obedience, and cheerfulness, through it. And their successors in the present day seldom mention it! So the apostles preached, and so primitive Christians believed; so we preach, and so our hearers believe. There is not a doctrine in the gospel on which more stress is laid; and there is not a doctrine in the present system of preaching which is treated with more neglect." And that which was so plainly seen when Dr. Clarke wrote, is still more prominent now. The Spiritualists, who have no foundation but that of natural immortality, very consistently deny the resurrection, and reject the scriptures which teach that the dead will be raised. The Catholics, who place so much stress upon purgatory, practically deny the resurrection, for they really ignore it, and make the doctrine of continuous life, or the immortality of the soul, one of the most profitable factors in their vast financial system. As Luther said, it has made the Pope's pot boil, and probably brought more money into his treasury than all other causes combined. That church could dispense with the intercession of Christ, but would become bankrupt without the doctrine of the immortality of the soul. Many popular religious teachers of this time, such as H. W. Beecher, and probably the majority with him, deny the resurrection of the dead. Upon those scriptures which speak of a resurrection, they place the same construction that the Spiritualists do, namely, that they only indicate that there will be a future life, which is really by a continuous life, or by reason of our natural immortality; and that the resurrection from the dead means that the soul leaves the body when the body dies. But scarcely a word is needed to show that this is not the Bible idea of the resurrection. "Them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake." The dead were raised by the Saviour; not by his taking their souls from their dead bodies! but by restoring to life those dead bodies, in one case after it had lain four days in the grave. Jesus himself was raised from the dead the third day after his death. Thus the resurrection and the future life taught in the Scriptures is not a continuous life, but a renewed life. And some theologians have gone so far as to assert that we do live is proof that we shall live in the future. And this they call Christian philosophy! Such assertions are proof only of the folly of those who make them. The fact of living is equally a fact in the case of all animals. The elephant lives and displays a large measure of intelligence. Is that proof that he is immortal—that he will continue to live,—or that he will have a future life? It is no proof in any case. And no man would offer it as proof who had evidence upon which he could rely with any confidence. But the theory which we call in question affirms that it is only the soul, not the body, which continues to live. Let it be so. Is it not the soul of the elephant which displays such remarkable intelligence? Is it not the soul of the dog which manifests sagacity, faithfulness, affection, joy, fear, hatred, &c.? Or have these suddenly become "properties of matter"? The truth is that, according to the Scriptures, the term soul applies to all animals, even to the reptiles that creep upon the earth. Do they therefore live forever, or have a future life? All that can properly be affirmed of man, as far as the term neh-phesh, or soul, is concerned, can with equal propriety be affirmed of all living creatures. But it is asked, Has not man the promise of eternal life, which is not promised to the lower animals? Is not man, therefore, superior to the brutes in regard to the matter of a future life? Yes, man has the promise of eternal life, but not the promise of a continuous life. or an eternal continuance of the present life. There are a number of important considerations connected with this matter of eternal life. 2. Eternal life is conditional, to be given to those who seek for it. Rom. 2:6, 7; John 5:40. The incorrigibly wicked have no promise of it. 3. Eternal life is not an attribute or condition of our nature. It is the gift of God, and is laid up for us "in his Son." 1 John 5:11; John 3:36; etc. 4. The soul—whatever it may be—has no relation to our eternal life, and gives no assurance of eternal life. If it did, the wicked would have eternal life; for they, by nature, are exactly as the just. Faith in Christ, or grace, gives eternal life, and makes all the difference between the righteous and the wicked. 5. The soul—whatever it may be—has no relation to a future life, and gives no assurance of a future life, either limited or eternal. Otherwise all animals, down to the very lowest, would have a future life, for the term living soul is applied to every one of them in exactly the same manner and the same sense in which it is applied to man. A future life is not based on the soul, or on man's nature, but on the promise of God through Jesus and the resurrection of the dead (for all die). Herein, and not in nature, is shown the distinction between man and the lower animals, in respect to the future, or to a future life. Christ died for man, "for every man." He took hold of the seed of Abraham. Heb. 2:9, 16 margin. He was "the second Adam," or man. We learn that he did not die for the fallen angels—he did not take hold of them. Heb. 2:16. We do not learn that he died to resurrect the lower animals. The grace of God in the gospel of Christ raises man above the lower animals in respect to a future life. It also raises the righteous above the wicked in respect to eternal life. The doctrine of natural immortality obliterates all distinction of nature, in respect to eternal life, between man and the lower animals. It proves all to be equally immortal. Or the denial of immortality to the lower animals, because of their natures, is also a denial of it to man, if it be rested on his nature, or on the possession of a soul. And this is true whether we look to philosophy or to the Scriptures for proof. The doctrine of conditional immortality exalts and ennobles man, magnifies the gospel, and gives to Christ all the glory of our exaltation and eternal life. From Adam we inherit a mortal nature and consequent death. All our hope of the future rests upon Christ. He is our life. Col. 3:4. He is the only life-giver. Why will the professed followers of Christ adhere to that which really degrades man, and deny that which glorifies the Redeemer in our exaltation? Why will professed Christians cling to the superstitions of the heathen, and reject the truth of the divine word, which shows our dependence and the ground of our hope? "An enemy hath done this?" Perverse human nature has always preferred human inventions to the right ways of the Lord. Man, in the pride of his heart, is pleased to find his hope and his nobility in himself, rather than to acknowledge his frailty and his dependence, and that he owes all to Christ. The prayer of David is becoming to us mortals: "Lord, make me to know mine end, and the measure of my days, what it is; that I may know how frail I am." Ps. 39:4.