Review and Herald, Vol. 26, No. 23. (11/7/1865)

Review and Herald

Nov 7, 1865

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Nov 7, 1865

NATURE AND DESTINY OF MAN

By N. V. Hull

From the Sabbath Recorder.

NATURE AND DESTINY OF MAN.

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

Elder Hull's Eighth Article.

ELD. R. F. COTTRELL:

Dear Brother,—I still argue, that when you say the soul puts on immortality at the resurrection of the just, you not only go beyond the record, but, further, that you employ sophistry in your argument. You confess that I have proved by direct Scripture testimony, that the body is mortal. Now, that the resurrection of this mortal body is the question under consideration in the argument of the Apostle, is, I think, put beyond the possibility of cavil. See the 44th verse—a verse thrown in expressly as a definition—"It is sown an animal body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is an animal body, and there is a spiritual body." Again, verse 50—"Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood can not inherit the kingdom of God; nor doth corruption inherit incorruption." Now do not "flesh and blood," in this verse, mean what "body" does in the 44th? And is it not this flesh and blood of which corruption is affirmed? If so, then corruptible, in the 54th verse, refers to flesh and blood as being decayable, and incorruption to the new or spiritual body given the saints at the resurrection. How plain and direct is all this!

But now look at your argument. 1. "Man is a soul." 2. "When he received the breath of life, he became a living soul." 3. "The Scriptures call him 'mortal man.'" 4. "Then the living soul is mortal." Let us now look at this, part by part. 1. Man is a soul. Here you use the word soul in one of its meanings, as if this were its only meaning. Besides, you use it not in the sense in which it is used in Matt. x. 28, nor as used in this discussion; for here it has the sense of spirit. But had you employed the word as in Ps. lxxxiv, 2, "My soul longeth, yea, even fainteth, for the courts of Jehovah," would it have suited your purpose? 2. "When he received the breath of life, he became a living soul." That is, he ceased to be a thing, and became a person—a creature of life. Here you use the word soul, as before, in the sense of person, which has nothing to do with our discussion. 3. "The Scriptures call him mortal man." That this term mortal refers to the body, I have proved by overwhelming testimony. 4. "Then the living soul is mortal." Yes, this living person, or being, is subject to death. "Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return."—Gen. iii, 19. Now, this discussion is not about this dust that was taken from the ground and returned to it again, but of that of which Stephen spoke in Acts vii, 59, when he said, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." Have I not, then, reason to charge you with sophistry? SOPHISM, says Webster, "is specious but fallacious argument—a subtlety in reasoning—an argument that is not supported by sound reasoning, or in which the inference is not justly deduced from the premises." Perhaps, however, this is the method by which you propose to keep me from "reasoning in a circle."

I call your attention to one or two more points in that paragraph. You say, "I have proved the entire man mortal." Show me the passage which says the spirit of man is mortal, and I will publicly retract all I have said in this discussion proving that man's spirit survives the death of the body.

Your assertion, that man's spirit puts on immortality at the resurrection of the just, I have attended to in my previous article, showing that it is the body, not the soul, that puts on immortality at that time.

You are particularly severe upon me for saying, "All I have attempted concerning the idea of the soul's immortality, is to prove that the soul does not necessarily die with the body." You say, "Indeed! That is attempting very little." I am relieved, however, by your covert concession, that this is easily done; and also by your admission, that I have done it, by saying that I would have attempted more "had the proof been at hand," and by your further confession, that I would not undertake anything for which there was not proof. It will greatly please me to have an opportunity to return the compliment.

You do not meet my argument upon Acts xxiii, 8, etc., proving the separate existence of human spirits. 1. I make this statement: The Pharisees did believe in this doctrine. 2. With reference to this, as well as the existence of angels and the resurrection of the dead, Paul announced himself a Pharisee. 3. Therefore this is a Scripture doctrine. That angels are not meant by "spirits" in the text, is manifest. Olshausen says upon this verse, "In verse nine, pneuma, as used by the Pharisees, is plainly to be understood of a departed soul, because it is distinguished from angelos. If hearing something from the Spirit of God were meant, the article could not be dispensed with before pneuma, nor could elalese be applied in this manner to the spirit." Josephus says, (Ant., book 18, sec. 3,) "They also," the Pharisees, "believe that souls have an immortal vigor in them, and that under the earth there will be rewards and punishments, according as they have lived virtuously or viciously in this life." The same author says, in the next section, "But the doctrine of the Sadducees is this: That souls die with the bodies." Is not that your faith also? If so, then, in respect to this article of their faith, you are a Sadducee! But Paul says that in this matter he was a Pharisee. So you and Paul differ there, do you not? You of course think you are right. I doubt it.

Now, when Jesus said, "A spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have," he said it with reference to the doctrine believed by the Pharisees concerning the existence and nature of the spirits of departed men, i. e., dead men; otherwise his language would have been unintelligible. You attempt to free yourself from this text, by saying that "man's spirit is not a being, but an endowment." Had you reflected sufficiently, you would not, I am sure, have made such an assertion. If by being you mean personality, the Scriptures are certainly against you. Paul says, Rom. vii, 22, "I have pleasure in the law of God, as to the inward man." 2 Cor. iv, 16, "For this cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day." To the same effect is Eph. iii, 16; Col. iii, 10; 2 Pet. iii, 4, and various other passages. Nothing can be plainer, than that personality is here affirmed of the spirit of man. Besides, the spirit of man is not, strictly speaking, an "endowment" of man; but the powers of the spirit, whatever they may be, are its endowments. You might as well say that the body is an endowment of man. The truth rather is, that the body has its endowments, as has also the spirit. Webster says, definition third, "Endowment is that which is bestowed on the person or mind by the Creator. . . . Natural activity of the limbs is an endowment of the body; natural vigor of intellect is an endowment of the mind." You see, then, that mind is one thing, and endowment is quite another. The passage in Acts xxiii, 8, is a complete answer to your statement, that the Scriptures do not teach the separate existence of the spirit from the body, which is what is meant by "disembodied" spirits. If the existence of the spirit, in this sense, is not taught in the Scriptures, then nothing is!

I still hold to my former statement as to the meaning of phtharton, and further affirm, that it is never used by any Lexicographer of the spirit of man. Besides, to say that Paul, in Rom. i, 28, affirms this of the spirit of man, or of the "whole man," is to make the Apostle stultify himself; for in Rom. viii, 11, he expressly asserts

this mortality to be of the body. So, vi, 12, "Let not sin reign in your mortal body." In 2 Cor. iv, 11, Paul says, "That the life also of Jesus may be made manifest in your mortal flesh." Ought not these quotations to settle this matter?

If you accept, as you say you do, my "lecture on the philosophy of language and the diversified use of words," please apply the principle to your theory of interpretation, and we will have no further controversy.

To what you say of man's mortality, and his want of knowledge in death, etc., etc., I need add nothing further, as you have advanced no new thought.

I join with you in a hearty acceptance of the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, and rejoice in the light it sheds upon the question of the future of man. But your argument, as to what it proves concerning your theory of the nature of man, is so fully answered in another place in this discussion, that I will pass it without further notice.

What I have said on the matter of "seeking for immortality," I still stand to, and am the more, if possible, convinced of its correctness, from the fact that it remains perfectly unshaken after your assault. Your main point, that eternal life consists in our having incorruptible bodies in the future state, is too puerile to affect any well-instructed mind. That our spiritual bodies will endlessly exist, I doubt not; but that this is what is meant by "eternal life," as taught in the New Testament, is too absurd to be entertained for a moment. To reduce the whole gospel transaction, as wrapped in the mission and ministry of Jesus, to the work of securing man an eternal existence, is really too shocking. The means and the end bear no proper relation to each other.

Approaching the close of your letter, you say "And now, what progress can we report in this discussion on the nature of man? You have proved, by unquestionable authority, that the body is mortal. I have proved, by testimony equally clear and unquestionable, that the entire man is mortal." Dear brother, how can you make such a statement as this? I have proved my statement, in just so many words. Have you done that? Is not yours an inference, while mine is the exact statement of Scripture? I despair, when I find a man so often charging others with preaching their philosophy in place of a "thus saith the Lord," who shall then coolly give utterance to such statements. Every reader, who has followed us in this discussion, knows that you have not produced one passage which says, "The whole man is mortal." That you have again and again asserted this, all know. Your method of proof is to select such passages as may in phraseology nearest approach your point, and place them in a circular form, and then complete the circle by a bold assertion, and call that "proof." Pray, brother, don't do so!

How much progress we may be making in this discussion, I can not say. It was with great reluctance that I engaged in it. I have little taste for controversy. My labors are important and abundant, in a direction much more congenial to my tastes. I entered the discussion from a sense of duty. I felt also my weakness, and naturally shrunk from such a responsibility. But I am glad I entered the field, as I trust I have both received and imparted knowledge. The readers of both the papers in which the discussion has thus far been published, have had an opportunity to read both sides, and are better informed of the sentiments in controversy. I sincerely hope the effect of the controversy may not be to alienation, but to a union in the truth. It may be best, as you delicately hint, to proceed to the second question, "the destiny of man;" but please do not claim a victory before we enter the arena!

I remain sincerely yours, N. V. HULL.

Dawn.

By Bonar

BONAR.

LIGHT of the better morning, Shine down on me! Sun of the brighter Heaven, Bid darkness flee! Thy warmth impart To this dull heart; Pour in thy light, And let this night Be turned to day By thy mild ray! Lord Jesus, come; Thou day-star shine; Enlighten now This soul of mine!

Streaks of the better dawning Break on my sight, Fringing with silver edges These clouds of night. Gems on morn's brow, Glow, hrightly glow, Foretelling soon The ascending noon, Wakening this earth To second birth, When He shall come To earth again, Who comes to judge, Who comes to reign.

Eld. R. F. Cottrell's Eighth Reply.

By R. F. Cottrell

Eld. N. V. HULL:

Dear Brother :—When I said, in my fifth article, that "the Bible is silent concerning the immortality of the soul in its present state, or until it shall put on immortality at the resurrection of the just," I told the truth, as you know, and my meaning was not concealed, but obvious. I said, in the same article, speaking of the resurrection as taught by Paul in 1 Cor. xv, "then this mortal person or soul will put on immortality." To this you objected. You said with emphasis, "There is neither word nor hint in the Bible, of the soul's putting on immortality at the Resurrection." In reply to this, I made

the argument which you now complain of as sophistical. This argument was briefly this: 1. Man is a soul. 2. Man is mortal. 3. This "mortal man," or soul, if just, puts on immortality at the time of which it is said "This mortal must put on immortality." I submit it to the reader, that in this there is no deceptive use of terms, nothing ambiguous or equivocal—that there is neither sophistry, nor yet unsoundness, in it. If it had not been unanswerable, you would have shown its unsoundness, instead of quoting Webster's definition of repleen.

But you complain that the sense in which I use the term soul, is not the sense in which it is "used in this discussion." Now, I really thought that a Bible discussion of the nature of man would lead to the discovery of the Bible sense of the word soul. A leading definition of soul, as used in the Bible, is person or creature, though in its first use in the Bible it means life—the life which God gave to the lower animals. Gen. i, 20, "Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creatures that hath life"—Hebrew—soul. These two are the leading definitions of soul, as used in the Bible. Yet you say that soul, in the sense of person, "has nothing to do with our discussion."

Then, as the gift or endowment of life was communicated through the breath of the nostrils, the breath is sometimes called the soul. 1 Kings xvii, 17, 21. But breath and life are the leading definitions of spirit, breath or wind being its literal meaning. "Ruah signifies, originally, a breathing or blowing."—Alger. This author says of nehphesh, soul, "Its first meaning is breath, the breathing of a living being. Next it means the vital spirit, the indwelling life of the body." In these definitions he is in perfect harmony with Gesenius.

I did not mean to argue that life, which is the gift of God to every living creature, and to all men a mysterious endowment, which none but God can give—that this is the thing that puts on immortality at the resurrection. Nor yet that it was the soul in the sense of Matt. x, 28. Neither did I argue that an immaterial, immortal soul, is to put it on. And for you to assume this is the sense in which soul is used in this discussion, is begging the whole question. Such a soul or spirit is not revealed in the Bible. The words soul and spirit are used about seventeen hundred times in that Book, but they are never qualified by immortal, never-dying, deathless, or any other term of like import. If I am wrong in this, please bring out the testimony, and end this controversy. The Bible is as silent as Hades concerning the existence of such a soul in man. This stupendous fact is unaccountable upon your hypothesis, and irreconcilable with your theory.

I freely admit that Paul, in 1 Cor. xv, is speaking of the resurrection of the dead—of the fleshly, mortal body, if you choose; and I have no idea that he meant to teach that that which never died nor was subject to death puts on immortality. I admit that the body is mortal, as you have insisted. But when you try to make this fact prove that the soul is immortal, you must ever fail. Must I repeat and compare our arguments? Mine is this: 1. The Scriptures call man mortal, in a general, unlimited sense. 2. The Scriptures nowhere represent any part of man as being immortal. 3. Therefore man is wholly mortal. Now you know that both my premises are true, and every one has seen that my conclusion is found in the premises. Otherwise our revelation is deficient. But we are to discuss the question by the Bible. Now what is your argument from these revealed truths? It is in substance this: 1. Man is mortal. 2. But the body is mortal. 3. Therefore a part of man is immortal. Your conclusion is not in the premises, and there is nothing in the Bible to supply the deficiency.

Let me illustrate this argument by another equally forcible. 1. "The Sabbath was made for man." 2. But the Lord said to the Jewish people, "I have given you the Sabbath." 3. Therefore the Sabbath was not intended for the Gentiles. You and I will not accept of such logic, but we claim that if the Gentiles are included in the general term man, the Sabbath was intended for them. So if the soul is included in the general term man, it is mortal; but if it is excluded, then it is no part of the man, and consequently is excluded from our discussion on the nature and destiny of man.

But you say, "Our discussion is not about this dust, that was taken from the ground and returned to it again, but of that of which Stephen spoke in Acts vii, 59, when he said, 'Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.'"

Then what the Bible calls man, formed from the dust of the ground, is excluded from a Bible discussion of man. But what was the spirit which Stephen commended to his Lord? It was simply his life—the "vital essence" which God communicated to man with his breath, and which made him a living soul or conscious being. We read the text:

"For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit; but the Pharisees confess both. And there arose a great cry; and the Scribes that were of the Pharisees' part arose, and strove, saying, We find no evil in this man; but if a spirit or an angel hath spoken to him, let us not fight against God."—Acts xxiii, 9, 10.

There is nothing said of human spirits in this text; and there is nothing to prove that they were disembodied, or "departed," if human spirits are meant. Therefore, if the human spirit is meant, the denial of its existence in such general terms, involves the denial of a human spirit in living men. Do you think the Sadducees went so far as that? I do not wonder that Olshausen, or yourself, or any one believing as you do, should infer that it "is plainly to be understood of a departed soul, because it is distinguished from angelus." It is possible, however, that spirits are not distinguished from angels in the text, but are the same. When God said, "Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws," we are not to infer that commandments, statutes, and laws, are each distinguished from the others. Angels are spirits. Are they not all ministering spirits? But the view that distinguishes spirits from angels in the text, involves the absurdity that "the Pharisees confess both" of three things—the resurrection, angels, and spirits. I believe they confessed both of two things. 1. The resurrection. 2. Angels or spirits. I do not think it was the Spirit of God that the Pharisees supposed might have spoken to Paul, neither do I think it a human spirit; for, to oppose a human spirit disembodied, would no more be fighting against God, than to strive with such spirits while in the body. In the belief of the existence of superhuman spirits—the angels—Paul and the Pharisees agreed. But if the Pharisees did "believe that souls have an immortal vigor in them, and that under the earth there will be rewards and punishments, according as they have lived virtuously or viciously in this life," Paul did not endorse this Pagan notion, neither does Eld. Hull; for you hold that rewards and punishments are not awarded till after the judgment and resurrection. Then why quote such testimonies? When you quote, "The spirit shall return to God who gave it," do you mean that the soul goes into some mammoth cave of the earth to find God there, where immaterial souls are confined within the damp and dismal walls of a material prison? If not, why quote such nonsense? You might as well go right to the fountain head of all such marvelous and precious knowledge, namely, the mythology of the Pagans. If Josephus and the Pharisees got these ideas from their inspired Scriptures, we have those Scriptures, and can get them there. But if they got them from some other source, we have no more to do with them than we have with the teachings of the "Christian fathers" of the tenth century to establish Christian doctrine and prove a change of the Sabbath.

Where, then, is your authority for saying that "when Jesus said, 'A spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have,' he said it with reference to the doctrine believed by the Pharisees concerning the existence and nature of the spirits of departed men, i. e. dead men; otherwise his language would have been unintelligible." The doctrine of spirits, good and bad, was taught in their Scriptures. See 1 Kings xxii, 19–23, Job iv, 15, and all those passages that speak of familiar spirits, and unclean spirits. Zech. xiii, 2. Such were the unclean spirits cast out by Jesus. Hence the Saviour's language is perfectly intelligible without the aid of the spirits of dead men.

Did Jesus and Paul endorse the doctrines of the Pharisees? They did in regard to the resurrection of the dead, and of the existence of angels or spirits. These were endorsed, because they were Scripture doctrines, not because the Pharisees believed them. But what

is the source of our information, outside of the Bible, of what the Pharisees did believe? and is it perfectly reliable? Let us see.

Speaking of Josephus, Alger says, "These are his words: 'The Pharisees believe that souls have an immortal strength in them, and that in the under-world they will experience rewards or punishments according as they have lived well or ill in this life. The righteous shall have power to live again, but sinners shall be detained in an everlasting prison.' Again he [Josephus] writes, 'The Pharisees say that all souls are incorruptible, but that only the souls of good men are removed into other bodies.' The fragment entitled 'Concerning Hades,' formerly attributed to Josephus, is now acknowledged on all sides to be a gross forgery. The Greek culture, and philosophical tincture with which he was imbued, led him to reject the doctrine of a bodily resurrection; and this is probably the reason why he makes no allusion to that doctrine in his account of the Pharisees."

Such is the corrupted, fabulous source of our information of what the Pharisees believed. Who knows then, what they believed, further than is revealed in the Bible, only that some of them were turned away from the truth unto fables, our most reliable witness being one of that number? If you make Jesus endorse one iota not revealed in the Scriptures, by the same rule you can make him endorse the whole—non-resurrection of the wicked, transmigration of the souls of the righteous, and no bodily resurrection at all. Let us return, then, and discuss our subject from the Bible, as we agreed to do.

I am satisfied with what I have already said of the inward man, hidden man of the heart, &c., figurative expressions so easily explained without the aid of an immortal soul.

You still hold that phtharton "is never used by any Lexicographer of the spirit of man." Very well. I have never used it so; but admit that the spirit leaves the body at death. But what is that spirit? It can mean no more than the life imparted to man, as well as other living creatures, with the breath. "His breath (Ruah, spirit) goeth forth, he returneth to his earth, in that very day his thoughts perish."—Psa. cxlvi, 2–4. Is there no sophistry in assuming that that spirit is an immortal soul?

Of the literality of eternal life, promised to believers, I have spoken in my former letter. You think it "really too shocking" to reduce the whole gospel transaction to the work of securing man an eternal existence. If he were to exist in an eternal hell, I should think the same. But the gospel promises, not only an escape from death, and eternal life, but freedom from all the effects of sin and the curse. I see nothing shocking in "glory and honor and immortality."

To the sentiment you utter, near the close of your letter, that you "sincerely hope the effect of this controversy may not be to alienation, but to a union in the truth," I heartily respond, Amen and amen!

Sincerely yours, R. F. COTTRELL.

Heaven a Location.

By Etta Booth

"And he shall send Jesus Christ which before was preached unto you; whom the Heaven must receive until the time of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began. For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. Acts iii, 20-22.

"And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven, as he went up; behold two men stood by them in white apparel; which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus which is taken up from you into heaven shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven." Acts i, 10, 11.

If it be established that the incarnation of Christ was local, that his crucifixion was local, and that his resurrected body was real, tangible, and local, as the bodies of other men, then it is also established that Heaven,—"the Heaven of heavens," the home of ministering spirits, the mansions preparing for the just, has, and all have, a locality somewhere in the boundless creation of space.

Moses heralded the Messiah to the Jews; he was to be like himself, a man. Local, capable of being in but one place at a time; and a prophet whose sayings they should hear "in all things whatsoever." There can be no spiritualizing here. The holy Bible here is very explicit.

"I go to prepare a place for you; and if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you unto myself, that where I am there ye may be also." John xiv, 2, 3. If we are to hear him, we are to believe him also. How beautifully he associates location here with the promise.

Evasive minds find it convenient to assert, Christ has come; that far back in the remote past, was the judgment! But where is the historical proof? If the Second Advent was at the destruction of Jerusalem, where is the evidence of Josephus upon so striking and wonderful an event! Why should he, and all historians be silent upon a subject so far outstretching Christ's ministry, resurrection, and ascension? On this point, all like them should keep silent till they can find the proof.

Again, Christ comes at death, say some. That is the judgment-day to such and all. Answer. You have seen the lamp of life go out, have closed the sunken eye in death. Did you then see the bright celestial host? did you see Christ as he is? see the melting firmament? see this wicked world renewed, restored? see the glorification of Christ by his own? Literally these have not been. Literally they must be. Without them what is the Bible? What, and where is Christ! What, and where is Heaven?

ETTA BOOTH.

North Ridgeway, N. Y.

The One Talent.

HIDE not thy talent in the earth:— However small it be, Its faithful use, its utmost worth, God will require of thee.

The humblest service rendered here, He will as truly own, As Paul's in his exalted sphere, Or Gabriel's near the throne.

The cup of water kindly given, The widow's cheerful mites, Are worthier, in the eyes of Heaven, Than pride's most costly rites.

His own, which he has lent on trust, He asks of thee again; Little or much, the claim is just, And thine excuses vain.

Go, then, and strive to do thy part— Though humble it may be, The ready hand, the willing heart, Are all Heaven asks of thee.

Unsanctified Talent

By Arrowsmith

UNSANCTIFIED TALENT.—Knowledge and good parts, managed by grace, are like the rod in Moses' hand, wonder-workers, but turn to serpents when they are cast upon the ground, and employed in promoting earthly designs. Learning in religious hearts, like that gold in Israelites' ear-rings, is a most precious ornament; but if men pervert it to base, wicked ends, or begin to make an idol of it as they did a golden calf of their ear-rings, it then becomes an abomination. —Arrowsmith.

Don't Make a Fuss.

By all the motives which have weight with man or woman, be adjured, not in any case, to make a fuss. In the first place, it never does a bit of good. You can accomplish all you intend, and obtain all you desire, quite as well without it, if not a little better. Nay, sometimes, it actually prevents your succeeding, where you certainly might have done so, had you kept cool, and not forewarned and forearmed everybody by a cannonade.

In the second place, it is exceedingly annoying to others; there is neither peace nor comfort in the neighborhood of a fusser. He is always plaguing you to know if you think it will rain next week, when he is going to the white mountains; or dreading that the cars will run off the track, or the omnibusses break down, or the hotels be crowded, or some such imaginary trouble, ever so long beforehand. And, when fairly started on such an excursion, a fusser destroys all the comfort and enjoyment of his unfortunate companions, and makes his own fancied torments real ones to them. Therefore his company is sedulously avoided.

Thirdly, no one sympathizes with a fusser. Even other fussers have no fellow-feeling with it. The word (and a most expressive one it is,) means worrying over trifles; and who cares a straw if Mrs. Briggs did lose her bandbox, which contained her French bonnet? or if Mr. Brown's bedroom was invaded by a shaggy dog that wouldn't go out, so that it quite worried him to death, and made him quite nervous, as he pathetically declares? Nobody cares whether you or I could not sleep because the rats run over our heads all night, or because we had such startled dreams, or such a bad pain in our shoulder, etc. People don't like to have their sympathies appealed to for such nonsense.

Fourthly, it is decidedly vulgar and incompatible with the dignity of a true lady or gentleman. It was an apt remark that a well-bred hostess will not move a muscle, even when John upsets the best china.

The Scoffer Silenced.

An infidel from Louisiana saw, in a steamboat on the Mississippi, a minister whom he heard deliver a discourse on infidelity. Gathering his associates to the table, he began to tell hard things about religion and religious people, the Bible and its ministers. The minister said nothing.

At length the infidel came up, and suddenly slapping him on the shoulder, said—

"Old fellow, what do you think of these things?"

"Do you see that beautiful landscape?"

"Yes."

"If you were to send out a dove he would pass over it, see and delight in all that was beautiful and lovely; but if you were to send out a buzzard, he would see nothing to fix his attention, unless he could find some rotten carcass, loathsome to all other animals; on it he would light and gloat with exquisite pleasure."

"Do you mean to compare me to a buzzard?"

"I made no allusion to you."

The disciple of Tom Paine walked off in confusion, and was called buzzard the rest of the passage.—Ex.

A Waif.

By H. L. T.

God's children are never orphaned. He lives, they live. He calls them 'sons' and they learn to say 'Our Father which art in Heaven.' In-breathed the spirit of adoption, hence no 'creature' (Rom. viii, 39:) can dissolve the relationship. Why then should faith fail ever, why not always cry in joyful trust, my Father? God's love in Christ to us ward! Blessedest mystery, tribulation, distress, persecution, famine, nakedness, peril, sword, death, life, angels, principalities, powers, present things or future, height, depth, nor anything else there be—shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord! Rom. viii, 35. Sure here is fullness! Certainly here is safety! God's love is hedged with triple covenants. Yea and amen are his seal, and he who trusts, receives. God's sons are fatherless never. Our Father from everlasting to everlasting; the same yesterday, to-day and forever! Believe and be happy.—H. L. T. in Herald of Gospel Liberty.

Take Care.

Do not wound the hearts of those you should shield. "Your anger may sting venomously. Your jealousy may do a mischief in one short hour that your whole life cannot repair. Your cruel pride may do a whole age's work in a day. You cannot take back the injuries you have done to those whose hearts lie throbbing next to yours. Ah! when Winter has frozen my heliotropes, it makes no difference that the next morning thaws them out. There lie the heliotropes, a black noisome heap. And it is possible for you to chill a tender nature so that no thawing can restore it. You may relent, but frost has been there, and you cannot bring back freshness and fragrance to the blossom. You cannot sweeten the embittered heart to which your words have been like scorpions. It is a terrible thing for a man to have the power of poisoning the hearts of others, and yet carry that power carelessly. He cannot find place for repentance, though he seeks it carefully with tears."

Theology a Little Confused.

By Editor

An eastern paper lately contained the following item:

“I am young, but I must die; In my grave I soon shall lie; Am I ready now to go, If the will of God be so?”

“Ah! that was the last Sabbath sweet little Nellie ever spent there. Two Sundays thereafter she was sleeping in Jesus, with the angels of Heaven singing the praises as her soul reposed in holiness.”

To those who are well-informed on the teachings of the Bible in reference to the state of man in death, the above extract speaks for itself; to those who are not, we propose to speak for it. The poetry expresses what is to many a great and solemn truth, and is in sentiment correct. But how is it with the few lines of comment that follow? We think it would be difficult to get a greater number of inconsistencies, to use no stronger word, into so small a compass.

The writer first launches out upon the expression, “sleeping in Jesus,” which is Bible, and so far all correct. But he goes on, “with the angels of Heaven.” What! are the angels “sleeping in Jesus?” We have not been accustomed to contemplate Heaven as a place where such a state of things existed. We have supposed that the angelic inhabitants of Heaven were all alive with a conscious and joyful activity, not silent and still in inglorious sleep. But the writer continues, “singing the praises.” Here he draws largely again on our astonishment; and we are compelled to ask in wonder, Do people sing praises while they are asleep? We believe it is not usual. We think there would be too much uncertain sound and incoherent sense. Some people, we know, are accustomed to talk in their sleep, and such, now-a-days seems to be a great share of the popular talk concerning man in death; but singing in that state is still more rare; and we cannot believe it is the plan of Heaven to look for praise to beings in such a condition.

It may be said that it is the body only which sleeps in Jesus, the soul being conscious and singing the praises. But the writer stops up that crevice by his next declaration which is, “as her soul reposed in holiness.” The poor body cannot be brought in to free the matter from difficulty here; for the soul is said to be reposing, and hence could not at the same time be singing praises. So whether it is the soul or the body to which the writer refers, it is either asleep in Jesus, or reposing in holiness, and at the same time singing praises with the angels of Heaven, whom we must infer from his manner of expression, are asleep in Jesus also.

We showed the above extract, a few days since, to a staunch believer in the popular, but unscriptural doctrine of consciousness in death, with the inquiry if there was not a little discrepancy between the ideas of sleeping in Jesus, and at the same time singing praises. He said it was difficult to express the whole idea upon this subject, in one sentence; and in this we agree with him exactly, that is, understanding by the whole idea the popular view. The idea is, he continued, that the body was sleeping in the grave, while the soul was praising God in Heaven. We suggested that then the poetry was a little out of joint: “In my grave I soon shall lie;” for the pronoun “I” must refer to whatever there was about the person that was intelligent or conscious. He said no more; but we hope he will examine this subject till he is led to embrace a view for which he can, in the language of Peter, give a reason with meekness and fear.

To carry out the full idea as generally entertained, which our friend thought so difficult to express in one sentence, the poetry should read something like this:

“I am young, but my body must die; In the grave, my body, while my soul is conscious and soars away to sing praises with the angels in Heaven, soon shall lie.”

We confess that this does not materially help the poetry, nor indeed the truthfulness of the sentiment. Why will not people come to the Bible on this question? Why will they not believe what Solomon said, when contrasting the living and the dead, he declared that the living know that they shall die, but the dead know not anything. If Solomon has told us the truth, that which has knowledge when a person is living, knows not anything when the same person is dead. There is no evading this declaration; and what can men require more plain, simple or direct?

But we must be patient. The agitation is going forward; we will be thankful for this. We hold no views, but such as challenge examination. And while we urge the truth upon our friends, let us do it with gentleness, meekness, and a Christian spirit, and pray that it may be blessed to the enlightening of professors, and the conversion of sinners; for it is only through the truth, upon this as well as all other subjects, that a person can, after the light has come forth upon them, be sanctified and saved.

Continue reading: My Condition