Your ShelfYour Projects

Review and Herald, Vol. XXX, No. 5

THE LORD’S HIGH WAY.

Review and Herald

Third-day, July 16, 1867

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Third-day, July 16, 1867

THE LORD’S HIGH WAY.

By L. D. Santee

AN ESSAY, BY L. D. SANTEE.
“Cast ye up, cast ye up, prepare the way, take up the stumbling-block out of the way of my people.” Isa. lvii, 14.
WHILE endeavoring to hold up the great truths of the present, and to instruct the people in the faith once delivered to the saints, we often meet those who are ready to condemn everything that is not in accordance with popular theology; and when God in his goodness brings to light a truth that has long been buried beneath the traditions of the Man of Sin, they will cry vehemently, Great is Diana of the Ephesians.
Ever since the first waves of the Reformation began to roll through the land, opposers have been numerous. As light began to dawn on the sacred pages, and prophecies began to be understood as they neared their fulfillment, many would persistently close their eyes and ears, rejecting portions of the divine revelation as the very blackness of darkness. Let the great apostle to the Gentiles read the final doom of such: “But unto them that do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man that doeth evil.” Rom. ii, 8, 9.
There is not power enough in the universe to resist the onward march of truth. God declares by the prophet Isaiah in the 62nd chapter and 6th verse, “I have set watchmen upon thy walls, O Jerusalem, which shall never hold their peace day nor night.” There is a highway to be cast up for the people. Verse 10. Saith God, “Gather out the stones.” The path of duty must be made plain. We are living in the last days, near the close of probation and the end of time. The Lord is soon coming. Satan is working with all power, and signs, and lying wonders. 2 Thess. ii, 9. If possible he will deceive the very elect. Matt. xxiv, 24. God, for the protection of his little flock, has sent out watchmen in the spirit and power of Elias and he gives them this solemn charge: “When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die, and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way to save his life, the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand. Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity, but thou hast delivered thy soul. Again, when a righteous man doth turn from his righteousness and commit iniquity, and I lay a stumbling-block before him, he shall die because thou hast not given him warning; he shall die in his sin, and his righteousness which he hath done shall not be remembered; but his blood will I require at thine hand. Nevertheless, if thou warn the righteous man that the righteous sin not and he doth not sin, he shall surely live because he is warned; also, thou hast delivered thy soul.” Eze. iii, 18–21.
And God’s watchmen with the assistance of his Holy Spirit are lifting a standard for the people. The glorious light of truth is arising from the rubbish of ages. It is like a city set upon a hill which cannot be hid. As perils thicken upon the earth, and there is distress of nations and perplexity, God manifests his love for his children by giving them special admonition on whom the ends of the world are come. Knowledge is being increased. Light is being disseminated as we approach the closing chapter of earth’s history.
But let us consider the first portion of our text. The command to cast up would imply that the highway prepared by God for the people to walk on has been trodden down. Let us for a moment look at this part of our subject. First, What is the way to be prepared for the people? and second, how is it to be cast up? We shall lay down the proposition that the way here spoken of is the duty of man as set forth in the ten commandments; and having laid down this proposition, we shall try scripturally to sustain it. We conclude that the way that David (a man after God’s own heart), and other holy men, desired to walk in, was the true way, and the way to be prepared for the people. We will now examine some passages to find what that way was. Prov. viii, 20: I lead in the way of righteousness; also Ps. xxiii, 3: He restoreth my soul; he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness. Again, chap. v, 8: Lead me, O Lord, in thy righteousness. What is righteousness? All thy commandments are righteousness. Ps. cxix, 172.
We next notice Ps. xxv, 5: Lead me in thy truth? What is truth? Again let David answer, Thy law is the truth. Ps. cxix, 142. From the testimonies that we have examined, we conclude that the way to be prepared is the commandments of God. We shall adduce one more text upon this point. Ps. cxix, 1: Blessed are the undefiled in the way who walk in the law of the Lord; also verse 32 of the same chapter: I will run the way of thy commandments.
Let us now consider how the way is to be cast up. Is it to be made better? That would be impossible; for it is perfect. Ps. xix, 7. Is it to be made more durable? Christ declares that it is easier for Heaven and earth to pass than for one tittle of the law to fail. How then is it to be cast up? Simply thus: It is to be presented before the people in all its purity and spirituality. The people in this age must know the will of God, * being instructed out of the law, even as the early Christians of the apostolic church. Rom. ii, 18. During the long period of the papal supremacy, the Pope in his inordinate rage against God, his worshipers, and his law, persecuted the saints with an unsparing hand, and trampled under foot the requirements of the Most High. He changed portions of God’s law and nullified other portions, until the way prepared by God for the people was terribly broken down. Truly the Papacy has magnified itself even to the Prince of the host, as predicted by the prophet Daniel, or as Paul declared in his second letter to the Thessalonians, has shown itself to be the Man of Sin, the son of perdition, who opposeth and exalteth itself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped, so that he [the Pope] as God, sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.
When we consider the second part of our text, we will examine this quotation more thoroughly. Every one must see the necessity of preparing the way for the people. Look with me around upon the religious world at large. The whole head is sick and the whole heart faint, when we behold the wickedness perpetrated by the professed followers of the lowly Nazarene. Truly, judgment is turned away backward, and justice standeth afar off; for truth is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter. None calleth for justice, nor any pleadeth for truth.
On the second division of our subject, we inquire, first, What is the stumbling-block? and secondly, How is it to be removed? We have already shown that the way to be prepared for the people is the law of God. If in examining the requirements of that law, we find any portion disregarded by the religious world at large, then, surely, that is the part to be cast up; and if we find Christians teaching anything as a part of the law of God for which he has given them no warrant, and for which they have no authority in the Scriptures of divine truth, then we must decide that they have placed a stumbling-block in the way of the people, by making the traditions of men of equal weight with the commandments of God. What is the chaff to the wheat, saith the Lord? Let us examine separately each precept of the law, and see if any command is made void, or any traditions added. First. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. All Christian nations agree in teaching this commandment.
Second. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in Heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them nor serve them, &c. Nearly all denominations agree in condemning the idolator or the worshiper of graven images.
Third. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain, &c. No one, unless it be the Universalist, will pretend that the blasphemer will escape punishment. Thus far, the way that God has marked out for us to walk in is very plain, and the wayfaring man, though a fool, need not err therein.
Fourth. Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor and do all thy work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God, in it thou shalt not do any work, &c. Do those professing godliness keep this commandment? Where can you find those that rest the Sabbath day according to the commandment? Where can you find those who are following in the footsteps of Jesus? who are keeping all the commandments? Christ is Lord of the Sabbath; and can we honor him while disregarding his holy day? Alas for poor, fallen humanity, when the church disregards the voice of her Lord! Well may the ministers weep between the porch and the altar, and cry, Spare thy people, O Lord.
Christ ever taught the perpetuity of his Father’s law. The fourth precept of that law declares that the seventh day is the Sabbath. It has never been abrogated, but stands immutable, imbosomed in the midst of the decalogue; yet, to-day, the great body of the professed church are violating the fourth commandment, and in its stead are offering to God a sacrifice that he has never required, the observance of Sunday. Such would do well to heed the solemn declaration of the prophet: “To obey is better than sacrifice.” 1 Sam. xv, 22. May the Lord hasten the time when there shall be a rending of hearts and not of garments; and may he speedily lead out into the truth the honest in heart.
I believe that if Christ were here upon the earth, he would address the same language to the professed Christians of to-day that he addressed to his chosen people anciently. Said he, “Ye have made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.” Again, verse 9, “In vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrine the commandments of men.” Said Christ to his disciples, Matt. v, 20, “Except your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of Heaven.” Why? Because the scribes and Pharisees violated the fifth commandment. Matt. xv, 3–6. Jesus plainly declares that whosoever shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be of no esteem in the reign of Heaven. Campbell. Matt. v, 19.
In the face of these plain declarations, can those expect to escape punishment who violate the fourth? I think not. I do not propose advancing arguments upon the perpetuity of the Sabbath, as time and space forbid. For full information upon this point, see J. N. Andrews’ History of the Sabbath, published at the Office of the Advent Review and Sabbath Herald.
We need not examine the remaining six commandments, as all agree that they are binding upon the human family. Let us turn our attention once more to the stumbling-block. Listen to the words of the Lord by the prophet Malachi: “But ye are departed out of the way; ye have caused many to stumble at the law.” The question is often asked, Why is the first day so universally kept, if God has not commanded its observance? I answer, It was brought about by the authority of the Roman Catholic church. For about 1260 years they bore rule over a large portion of the earth, and the nations governed by them were required to keep holy the Sunday. In proof of this statement, we adduce the testimony of Dr. Chambers. He says it was Constantine the Great who first made a law for the observance of Sunday, and who, according to Eusebius, appointed that it should be regularly celebrated throughout the Roman empire. He adds, By Constantine’s laws made in 321, it was decreed that for the future the Sunday should be kept a day of rest in all cities and towns; but he allowed the country people to follow their work. In 538 the Council of Orleans prohibited this country labor. Encyc. Art. Sunday. Constantine published in the same year two edicts, the first of which enjoined the solemn observance of Sunday, &c. Gibbon’s Rome, chap. 20.
We might bring forward a vast amount of evidence; but it is unnecessary. We have quoted enough to sustain our assertion that the Roman Catholic church instituted the observance of Sunday. How exactly has the vision of Daniel been fulfilled, when, speaking of the Papacy, he declares that it should think to change times and laws?
We again notice 2 Thess. ii, 4, where Paul in speaking of the Man of Sin says that he opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped. He has exalted himself above the Most High by claiming for himself the prerogative of changing the divine laws. In the latter part of the verse he is said to sit in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God. This he has done, first, by styling himself the Most Holy Lord God, the Pope, and second, by taking upon himself the authority of God. God is a law-giver. James iv, 12. The Pope has enacted his laws claiming to be divine, among others the observance of Sunday.
Lastly, How is the stumbling-block to be removed? The answer is obvious: By teaching all the commandments of God; by refusing to receive the tradition that has so long usurped the place of the fourth commandment. The angel that bears the last message of mercy to man sees a company keeping the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. Rev. xiv, 12.
If any wish to observe the first day of the week, of course they can do so. For my part, with the promise of eternal life before me, I dare not risk my soul’s salvation in transgressing God’s holy law, and offering a substitute that God has not asked at my hands. May the Lord help us to keep all his commandments, to have the seal of God, to escape the evils coming upon the earth, and finally to stand with the Lamb on Mount Zion. Amen.

SHALL WE REST AT LAST ?

Shall we rest beyond the river, When the rolling waves are past? Shall we meet no more to sever? Shall we reach the shore at last?
Care-worn soldier, grasp thine armor, Wield the sword in Jesus' name: For the battle makes thee stronger, Jesus comes and thou shalt reign.
Is thy heart oft sad and weary, While you battle for the right, Does the world look dark and dreary, Like the gathering shades of night?
Lift thine eyes; behold the morning Breaks in gleaming beams of light: Hear the watchmen sound the warning— Jesus comes in glory bright.
Though thine eyes are dim with weeping, And thy friends desert thy side; Though thy friends in death are sleeping, You shall rest beyond the tide.
You shall rest beyond the river When your warfare shall be past. You shall rest, yes, rest forever, In that blessed land at last,

The Sermon.

I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom, PREACH THE WORD. 2 Tim. iv, 2.

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 13, Vol. xxviii.)*

Elder Hull's Thirteenth Article.

ELD. R. F. COTTRELL:
Dear Brother,— Little did I think, when I wrote my last letter to you, that months would pass ere another would appear. But in the interim between that and the present time, sickness and cares and duties have occupied my time or consumed my strength. Accept this simple statement as my apology, and pardon, I pray you, what might seem an unjustifiable neglect.
1. In your reply to my last, you commence by defining what you understand to be the Bible sense of eternal punishment, thus: “It is not in the sense of the eternity of pain, but the eternity of its consequences.” To sustain this view, you quote Heb. vi, 2, where Paul speaks of “eternal judgment,” I also think that eternal judgment here means that judgment which fixes the eternal state of men. This makes the judgment eternal in its consequences. But the question still remains, whether this eternal judgment involves the idea of eternal torment, and whether this also is one of its consequences. I hold that the Bible expressly teaches that the suffering of the finally impenitent is eternal. Rev. xx, 10—“And they will be tormented, day and night, for ever and ever.” Matt. 25: 46—“And these shall go away into everlasting punishment.” Rom. ii, 8—“But to those who are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation, tribulation, and distress.” What is plainly taught here is eternal suffering, not eternal “consequences” of the judgment.
Your criticism on the Greek word aion is faulty. That it is limited by its connections, I grant, but not by our theories. Now there is not, according to my recollection, an instance where it is used in the Bible, with reference to the future state, in which it is not bounded by that state. If the state is limited, then the word is limited. When referring to things limited
to this world the word is of necessity limited accordingly. Your attempt to limit its meaning by connecting it with mortal man, would be of force if our question concerned man in this life, because mortality is affirmed of him here, but not of him hereafter. Your rule would destroy the idea of endless happiness in the case of the righteous, if the meaning of the word is to turn upon the fact of man's mortality, for the righteous, as well as the wicked, are mortal, and in precisely the same sense, namely, that they have mortal bodies. See Rom. viii, 11.
2. Your paragraph commencing “Death is a terrible punishment,” is without force, when it is remembered, that the sinner would greatly prefer annihilation to endless punishment, which is the point between us in this discussion.
3. In your third paragraph, you accept in part of my views as to the meaning in the Scriptures of the word death, but require me to show that the figurative meaning is involved in future punishment. This I do by showing that “the second death,” spoken of in Rev. ii, 11, is being cast into the lake of fire, (Rev. xx, 14;) and that this is not a destruction of being, is certain, because in this lake of fire and brimstone, the Devil, the beast, and the false prophet, are tormented day and night, for ever and ever, (Rev. xx, 10,) and the smoke of the torment of such as receive the mark of the beast shall go up forever and ever, nor shall they have any rest, day nor night. This is also in keeping with Matt. xxv, 46, where the future condition of the wicked is described by the phrase “everlasting punishment.” Now, take these passages with Rom. ii, 8, 9, where the indignation and wrath of God are said to produce tribulation and distress as the punishment of those who work evil, and is it not easy to see, that death, when spoken of in connection with the punishment of the wicked in the future state, is to be taken in a figurative sense?
4. I have considered the nature of the death threatened to Adam, and in what sense he understood it, as well as I am able, and cannot agree with you, that only temporal death was involved. I think you must be in error here, because the sin of Adam was the gateway through which all the sins and all the evils which afflict the race, both in time and eternity, flow in. The conclusion, that more than simply physical death was in the mind of God when this sentence was pronounced or threatened, seems to me inevitable. Nor do I sympathize with you in your alarm at the thought that Adam might not have understood the full import of the word death when it was first uttered to him. Can you not see, that he might not have seen all the consequences that would flow to the race even in this life? If so, why may we not suppose that he was in some measure ignorant of the effect of his sin upon the illimitable future? Why not? In the commentary of J. G. Murry just from the press, page 128, you will find the following excellent remarks: “This act altered fundamentally the position and character of man. He thereby descended from innocence to guilt in point of law, and at the same time from holiness to sin in point of character. Tremendous was the change, and equally tremendous the consequences. Death is, like most Scriptural terms, a pregnant word, and here to be understood in the full compass of its meaning. It is the privation, not of existence, as is often confusedly supposed, but of life in all its plenitude of meaning. As life includes all the gratifications of which our human susceptibilities are capable, so death is the privation of all the sources of human enjoyment, and among them the physical life itself, while the craving for ease and the sense of pain retain all their force in the spiritual part of our nature. These poignant emotions reach their highest pitch of intensity when they reach the conscience, the tenderest part of our being, and forebode the meeting of the soul in its guilty state with a just and holy God.” It seems to me possible, that Adam neither understood the full import of death as it lay in the Divine mind, nor of the promise, The seed of the woman shall bruise thy head. If anything is plainly revealed, when consulting the pages of inspiration, it is progress in revelation. Higher truths are revealed in the New Testament than in the Old. He that attempts the interpretation of the Sacred Volume, and ignores this fact, must fall into error. I interpret
the words of Jehovah to Adam by what has since been revealed, both in the Scriptures and in Providence.
Your next paragraph, I think, has been sufficiently answered.
5. Christ and his apostles certainly do not differ in their testimony. Still, I insist that Paul's “everlasting destruction” must be interpreted by Christ's “everlasting punishment.” This can easily be done, as the person who is everlastingly punished is most emphatically destroyed. To this I think you will agree. But to explain Jesus by Paul, and then make Paul's everlasting destruction physical, as you do, contradicts the idea of “everlasting punishment,” as punishment is the synonym of torment, and this requires the idea of consciousness. Your remark, “You have utterly failed to prove the immortality of the soul in the former part of our discussion,” is no more than I expected, knowing your habits. You have so long rung the changes upon this, that to require you to write or speak without, from time to time, refreshing yourself, and those who trust to your teaching, by returning to it, would in all probability expose yourselves to the danger of having your faith weakened in your theory. But, brother, would it not be better for our readers to judge of the merits of this debate without forestalling them by ad captandum remarks from us? But you proceed, and attempt to show that there is necessity of understanding “destruction” literally, by quoting the highly figurative language of Malachi iv, 1. That there was a real and terrible destruction of Jews in the overthrow of their city, the breaking up of their national polity, and the horrible slaying of the people, in fulfillment of these words, I am aware, but not in the exact manner of the figure of Malachi. The same mistake attends your interpretation of Psa. xxxvii, 20, and the parable of the tares, etc., etc. Take the latter case. Now Jesus was not discussing the manner of the punishment of the wicked, but the certainty and terribleness of it. The as in Psa. xxxvii, 20, and the so in the parable of the tares, do not refer to the form of punishment, but to the certainty of it. Your statement, then, that “these testimonies show that the wicked will be personally and literally destroyed,” is without foundation. Chaff, stubble, fat, &c., all easily consume away by fire—figures fit, indeed, to teach the dull and the indifferent, that God has power over them, and that in his righteous indignation he will smite, not sparing them! But when you make all this refer to the mode of punishment, you belittle the whole question, and blunt the keen edge of the Divine sword. The Lord give thee understanding, brother!
6. As you accept my rule for determining the meaning of apollumi, I will give no further attention to it at present. But your assertion that the lost sheep of the house of Israel were not destroyed, cannot be passed over, because I think it a serious mistake in their case. You think they were not destroyed, because that through mercy they might be recovered. But you forget that this was just their state, as described by Hosea, (xiii, 9.) “O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself; but in me is thy help.” Every sinner is destroyed, ruined, yea, condemned already; but in God, blessed be his name, there is mercy!
7. I do not confound sin and its punishment. Perhaps your attempt here to convict me of weakness is legitimate, but I think not.
8. It is the easiest thing in the world for us to see how there can be degrees in punishment, as also in enjoyments, according to the theory I hold. If the sentence of the Court be in the case of two prisoners, that they receive each forty stripes, and in the execution of this sentence one receives forty heavy stripes, and the other forty light ones, are there not degrees in their punishment?
As ever yours, N. V. HULL.

Elder Cottrell's Thirteenth Reply.

By R. F. COTTRELL

ELD. N. V. HULL:
Dear Brother,—I accept your apology for the delay, and sympathize with you in your cares and afflictions; while I gladly resume our correspondence. I only regret that you do not yet see the truth on our question as I think the Bible teaches. To convince you and our unconvinced readers, is worth a persevering effort.
I honor your admission, that aion—everlasting, forever—“is limited by its connections.” It is not to be limited by my theory, nor extended by yours. To be tormented forever, is to be tormented as long as consciousness of torment exists. When consciousness and life fail—when the wicked die, as the Bible assures us they will—everlasting torment reaches its utmost limit, and comes to an end, according to your own admission. The fallacy of your argument consists in foisting the “future state” into the place of the subject of the torment, or the torment itself, presuming that the reader will admit the eternity of the future state, and assuming that the wicked will go into a state of endless torment, which is the very point to be proved. It is simply begging the question, reasoning in a circle, or attempting to make your proposition prove itself. It is like saying: The wicked will have endless life, because they are to be tormented as long as they live; and their torment will be endless, because they have endless life.
It is your first business to prove that the sinner is to have eternal conscious existence—that his future state is to be one of eternal consciousness of pain; then his everlasting torment will be unlimited or eternal. But you try to make the term aion, forever, limited, and admitted on all hands, by its subject, prove both propositions: that the wicked will be tormented as long as they consciously exist, and that they will thus exist eternally. It is difficult to make one dollar pay two debts of one dollar each. You may promise the dollar to each, but when you have paid it to one, you will still owe it to the other. You may borrow it of the first and pay it to the second, but still you owe just one dollar. Now what you owe in this discussion is the proof that the wicked are to have eternal conscious existence. This proof cannot be found in the use of a word, which of itself only signifies “duration indefinite,” a word always limited by the subject to which it is applied. From other testimony show that the subject is unlimited, then “forever” will imply unlimited duration. You thus assume the point you seek to prove. “Lifetime” is one of the definitions of aion, as given by Greenfield. Hence, to be tormented forever, is to be tormented as long as one lives. Now give us the text that proves that the wicked will live eternally, and your work is done; for they will be tormented as long as they live. This is all that these your strongest texts prove. But on my part, I assume nothing; for I have the most positive proofs that the wicked will be cut off, lose their life, die, be consumed, be devoured, be no more, be as though they had not been, &c. Hence, everlasting torment is necessarily limited to the period of their conscious existence.
Your effort to make my rule of interpretation “destroy the idea of endless happiness in the case of the righteous,” is a failure, because it is expressly revealed, that the righteous shall be raised from the dead incorruptible, that then they shall receive eternal life in the world to come: while there is no such promise to the wicked.
You say my attempt to limit the meaning of aion “by connecting it with mortal man, would be of force if our question concerned man in this life, because mortality is affirmed of him here, but not of him hereafter.” Will man certainly become immortal hereafter, because mortality is affirmed of him but once? This is like the argument for the abolition of the Sabbath, from the fact that the commandment is not repeated in the New Testament. You and I hold that the commandment stands fast until it is reversed. So man once mortal will remain mortal until immortality is given him. This the Scriptures do not promise the wicked, neither in this world, nor in that which is to come. It is true, mortality is affirmed of all men in this life, and the fact that immortality is promised as the reward of the righteous in the future world, is a convincing proof that the wicked will not have it.
But mortality is affirmed of the wicked in the future, at the time they receive their punishment. 2 Peter ii, 12—“But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption.” The next verse calls this “the reward of unrighteousness.” No stronger language could be used to prove the mortality and the utter destruction of the wicked; and it is as strong in the Greek as in the English. We have seen, that your conclusion is not warranted, were your premises true; but your premise, that mortality is not affirmed of the wicked hereafter, is not true.
I am not particular whether Paul's “everlasting destruction” be interpreted by Christ's “everlasting punishment,” or the reverse. I admit that “the person who is everlastingly punished is most emphatically destroyed,” provided the punishment be destruction; but unconsuming pain or torment is not destruction, in any sense of the word, as found in Webster's Unabridged. I have quoted his definitions of destroy entire. Which will you have? Destruction is not in any sense preservation. A thing cannot be destroyed and preserved at the same time. By the figure of metonymy, which puts effect for cause, or cause for effect, &c., we may say of a sound living man, that he is destroyed, or dead. In this case, by anticipation, the effect or consequence, is put for the cause, sin being the cause, and destruction the consequence. We mean that the course of sin will end in destruction. But to say that the sentence of destruction is already executed upon a sound, living man, is false. When you admit that men are not rewarded or punished before the judgment and the resurrection, you virtually admit, that in the text, “O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself,” destruction is affirmed by anticipation; the time has not yet come for its execution; there yet is help; Israel may be saved, and not destroyed. But when a person is destroyed in fact, as sinners will be in Gehenna, there is no help or salvation for him. How absurd then to argue, that the sinner in this life is destroyed in the same sense that he will be after being raised from the dead and cast into the lake of fire.
The language you quote from Murry, is fine and smooth, and is probably as well calculated to explain a theory which rests solely upon what exists in the mind of God, and is not revealed in his Word, as any could be. Our discussion is concerning what is revealed. Revelation is progressive, but not contradictory. When God said, “The seventh day is the Sabbath,” I have no idea that the first-day as the “Christian Sabbath” was in his mind. And when he defined death to be the returning of man to the earth whence he was taken, I cannot believe he intended that progression should reverse it, and make it eternal life in misery. It is the boasted progression of this degenerate age, which says, The Scriptures do not mean what they say, or, if they do, they are not to be believed.
Is the “great and dreadful day of the Lord,” prophesied of by Malachi, already in the past? Is that burning “day of the Lord,” in which Peter said the elements and the earth itself should melt with fervent heat, long since gone by? Then may scoffers boldly say, Where is the promise of his coming? All things continue as they were.
When it is said that all the wicked shall be burned up; that it “shall leave them neither root nor branch;” that as the fat of lambs they shall consume, into smoke shall they consume away; that as the tares are gathered and burned in the fire, so shall it be with the wicked in the end of the world—is it enough to say, that these Scriptures do not mean what they say? Where is the evidence that Jesus was not teaching the manner of the punishment, but the certainty and terribleness of it?—that the as and the so do not refer to the mode of future punishment? Is the true meaning of these texts the very opposite? Is it, that as fat, chaff, and tares are consumed in the fire, so the wicked shall be eternally preserved, either in the fire or out of it? Are these things really comparisons, or contrasts? Were these Scriptures intended to instruct, or deceive us? Are they intended to frighten sinners with the “certainty and terribleness” of a punishment altogether of another kind, and to which these things bear no resemblance? If this is the key to revelation, we may believe what we please, only be sure and not believe what the Bible says.
Where are the wicked to be punished? I answer, On the earth. Prov. xi, 31. 2 Pet. iii, 7. Rev. xx, 9. Here, while day and night continue, the smoke of their torment will ascend up forever and ever. Isa. xxiv, 1, 2, 8–10. Rev. xiv, 10, 11; xviii, 8, 9, 18; xix, 19–21; xx, 10. When the rebellion of earth is put down, the rebels will not be transported from earth to defile some other portion of the fair creation of God. The fire of Gehenna will be here; no Scripture locates it any where else. But the earth is to be renewed, and the righteous are to inhabit it, when the curse is no more. Isa. lxv, 17. 2 Pet. iii, 13. Rev. xxii, 1–5; xxii, 3. “And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light; and they shall reign forever and ever.” When this is the case with the righteous, the everlasting torment of the wicked, which was on this earth, will have come to an end. “And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth”—the whole vast creation of God—will be heard saying, “Blessing, and honor, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb, forever and ever.”—Rev. v, 13. When this is the case, the wailings of the damned will have died away forever, and there will be no sin, pain, death, or curse, in all the vast universe of God. May you and I, dear brother, unite with all the redeemed in that song of praise?
As ever yours,                                     R. F. COTTRELL.

1 Corinthians i, 16.

“And I baptized also the household of Stephanas; besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.”
In reference to the doubt here expressed by the apostle concerning the persons he had baptized, Dr. Clarke remarks:
“I do not recollect that there is any person now residing in Corinth, or Achaia, besides the above mentioned, whom I have baptized. It is strange that the doubt here expressed by the apostle should be construed so as to affect his inspiration! What, does the inspiration of prophet or apostle necessarily imply that he must understand the geography of the universe, and have an intuitive knowledge of all the inhabitants of the earth, and how often, and where they may have changed their residence! Inspiration was given to the holy men of old that they might be able to write and proclaim the mind of God in the things which concern the salvation of men.”
The phrase, I know not, “indicates,” says the Comprehensive Commentary, “the little interest he [Paul] took in the matter.” He cared not whether he or some one else baptized them, provided only they were baptized, and became the followers of Christ. He took care not to single out and watch over his own converts, nor give them any occasion to form themselves into a body of schismatics. Thus his enemies were deprived of the privilege of accusing him of drawing partisans to himself.
Continue reading: THE LAW OF GOD AND THE SABBATH WHICH IT ORDAINS.