Review and Herald, Vol. 24, No. 16. (9/13/1864)

Review and Herald

Sep 13, 1864

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Sep 13, 1864

NATURE AND DESTINY OF MAN.

By R. F. Cottrell

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

(Continued from Review Vol. xxiv, No. 7)

Elder Hull's Third Article.—Part I.

ELD. R. F. COTTRELL:

Dear Brother,—Your answer to my letter, published in the Recorder of June 9th, is before me, and the following is my reply.

I. You now take exception to my first proposition, which was, that "man is composed of matter and spirit," upon the ground that it is "philosophical or metaphysical," rather than biblical, because the terms "matter" and "spirit" "are not found in the Bible," in the sense in which I use them. "Matter," you say, "is never contrasted with spirit, nor spirit with matter, in the Bible." I certainly sought no advantage by this form of speech, only designing by it to express what Jesus did when he contrasted body and spirit, in Matt. x, 28. I used the term matter to describe a substance or thing, the objective properties of which may be discovered, and more or less accurately described, by the use of one of more of the five senses. I used the term spirit to describe that principle or power in man, which is the seat of thought, emotion, feeling, passion, and affection. With these definitions of the terms matter and spirit, can any one say that they are not contrasted in the Bible? Let us see. Matt. x, 28—"And fear not those who will kill the body, but cannot kill the soul." Is there no contrast here? Pray what but contrast is there in these words of Jesus? Men will kill the body, but cannot kill the soul or spirit. If this is not contrast, will you please tell what is? I do not fail to quote other passages because they are not at hand, but because this is sufficient. These are the words of Jesus,

and contain a formal statement covering the ground of the question in debate. They are unequivocal and exact, and should end this controversy.

II. I do not see what you gain by my statement, that the terms mortal or immortal are not applied in the Scriptures to the spirit of man. Do I by this yield anything as to the capability of the spirit to exist after the death of the body? Surely not. If proving that the spirit does not necessarily cease to exist when the body dies, proves its immortality as a fact, then it certainly is proved by Matt. x, 28, etc. In this connection you say, "And it is not only remarkable, but truly astonishing, that while the terms soul and spirit are found many hundred times in the Bible, the terms immortal, never-dying, deathless, or anything of the kind, are never applied to either of them, if indeed either is immortal." There may be something in all this "remarkable," but I fail to see it; for, whether this or that word or phrase is used, seems of little account, the real question being, what is the sentiment taught? While I rigidly hold to the necessity of "soundness of speech," I would avoid all "strife about words to no profit." See 2 Tim. ii, 14. To the unlearned, there is a seeming wisdom and superior reverence for God in this sort of criticism upon words, and they are often captivated by it, and so become zealous partisans of the words, rather than enlightened disciples of the ideas of God. But the necessity of attending to ideas, rather than words, will, I think, be most clearly seen, when I come to notice what you say under your next head, where you proceed to say,

"But let us consider your second proposition, 'that the body is mortal,' but—what? what is the opposite of mortal but immortal?—'the spirit is incapable of physical corruption.' You seem to be aware that respecting the terms immortal and immortality in the Scriptures, we have the advantage, and so you put in 'incapable of physical corruption,' over against mortal; this is ingenious, but what will it avail? What text in the Bible speaks of physical corruption? And if the Bible says nothing about it, how can you prove this proposition by the Scriptures? This, like your terms matter and spirit, is a philosophic term, and like them utterly unknown in the Bible.' This is sufficient to show the drift of your argument; and why certain terms are objected to, is because they are philosophic, and because they are not found in the Scriptures. But is there not a philosophy underlying every truth in the universe, whether revealed in the Bible or taught in nature? And is not God the author and revealer of philosophy? Is not this, then, rather the question, whether our philosophy be sound, or whether it is 'philosophy falsely so called?' Indeed, did not Jesus illustrate the resurrection of the dead from a philosophic standpoint? John xii, 24. Again, your objection to the use of certain terms, because they are not in the Bible, seems to me utterly unsound, unless grounded upon the fact that the ideas expressed by said terms are not taught or recognized there. For instance, how often did Jesus and his apostles, in referring to what was taught in the ancient oracles, only quote the sentiment, and not the exact words. But the unsoundness of your position will, I think, appear even more manifest, when I come to examine your arguments in the light of your seemingly triumphant question, 'What text in the Bible speaks of physical corruption?' I answer, Acts ii, 31—'He, foreseeing this, spoke of the resurrection of Christ, that he was not left in the grave, nor did his flesh see corruption.' 1 Cor. xv, 42—'So also is the resurrection of the dead; it is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption.' Verse 50—'Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.' What is this, in point of fact, but physical corruption? Is not the visible substance of the body a physical substance? Webster says, under the word physical, 'A physical body or substance is a material body or substance, in distinction from spirit or metaphysical substance.'

His third definition is, "External, perceptible to the senses, as the physical character of a mineral opposed to chemical." Worcester says, in his definition of the word physical, "1 Pertaining to physics, to nature, to natural productions, or to natural philosophy; natural, bodily, corporeal; opposed to moral." If these definitions are true, then when the body dies and decomposes, have you not an instance of physical corruption? If, then, the idea of physical corruption is in the Bible, why object to the term, because it also is not there? I trust this answer will be satisfactory, because it is to the point, and fully justifies me in the distinction I have made between the physical and the spiritual in man, when I said the "spirit is incapable of physical corruption."

III. On the meaning of the terms soul and spirit, you say, "I admit with you, that the terms soul and spirit are sometimes used in the same sense; but I know nothing of either of them being used to denote 'man's higher or spirit nature.'" You then proceed further to quote me as follows: "I am also aware, that in many instances, the term soul, as it occurs in the received version, does not mean what it does in popular phrase, and further, that it is often a bad translation of the original Greek word;" upon which you say, "Of the corresponding Hebrew word, Parkhurst says, 'As a noun nephesh hath been supposed to signify the spiritual part of man, or what we commonly call his soul. I must for myself confess, that I can find no passage where it hath undoubtedly this meaning.'" This quotation from Parkhurst you follow by saying, "And I am fully persuaded that neither nephesh nor psuche ever mean in the Scriptures what is called the soul or spirit in popular phrase." Had you consulted Gesenius, instead of Parkhurst, whose lexicon is too imperfect to rely upon, you would at least have been less confident in your assertion. Among the references of Gesenius, to show that nephesh (not nephesh) has the sense of soul in its popular acceptance, is Psa. lxxxvi, 4—"Rejoice the soul (nephesh) of thy servant, for to thee, O Lord, do I lift up my soul" (nephesh). Psa. civ, 1—"Bless Jehovah, O my soul" (nephesh). Psa. cxliii, 8—"For I lift up my soul (nephesh) to thee." Psa. lvii, 1—"Be merciful to me, O God, be merciful to me; for my soul (nephesh) trusteth in thee."

But to save time hereafter, perhaps it will be better, if possible, to settle this question at this point, by showing that the Hebrew word nephesh, and the Greek word psuche, do often mean what is commonly understood by the term soul, and are therefore the equivalents of spirit in English, or pneuma in Greek. I follow, in my references, Bush on the Soul, published in 1845. Section 5. Gen. xxiii, 8—"If it be your mind (with your mind or soul) that I should bury my dead." Here the reasoning faculty is referred to. Gen. xxxiv, 5—"His soul (nephesh) clave to Dinah." So also verse 8. Here the affections are referred to. Deut. iv, 28—"But if from thence thou shalt seek Jehovah thy God, thou shalt find him, if thou seek him with all thy heart, and with all thy soul." Also, Deut. vi, 5—"And thou shalt love Jehovah thy God, with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might." These passages are the same in Hebrew and Greek. See also 2 Sam. xvii, 8—"They are chafed in their minds." (Heb. bitter of soul.) Psa. xlii, 1—"So panteth my soul after thee." Also, see xlii, 6—"my soul is cast down." It would be tedious to refer to all the places where both the Hebrew and Greek words positively refer to the higher or religious element in man's nature.

But before I dismiss this subject, it will be proper for me to show, if I can, beyond dispute, that in certain instances the Greek word psuche (soul) does refer to the higher or spirit nature of man; and I will purposely leave out Matt. x, 28, because your reply to my argument on that text requires special notice. But before I proceed to quote any proof texts, I must speak upon a point of vital interest to this question, and that is to define a necessary rule of language for determining the meaning of words and phrases, and

that is their dependence upon the connections in which they are used. To avoid the burden of multiplying words, we increase their power. In this way a single word will often have many definitions, and hence the necessity of the above rule. It is in this way that the Greek word psuche (soul) whatever may be its primary sense, is often the synonym of pneuma (spirit,) in its higher significations. Matt. xi, 29—"Ye shall find rest to your souls," (psuchais.) xxiii, 37—"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul (psuche,) and with all thy mind." So Luke x, 27 and xxvi, 38—"My soul (psuche) is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death." Heb. x, 39—"Of them that believe to the saving of the souls" (psuchas.) So also 1 Pet. i, 9. In the above texts, are not our ideas of the highest elements of human nature fully met? Hence, to deny that psuche is ever equivalent to pneuma—that is, that soul and spirit, in the highest signification of the latter word, are never equivalent—is certainly to commit a grave error. But, as I have promised, I will return to this in another place.

But you proceed to ask me why, if I do not know the exact nature of the substance of human spirits, (or indeed of spirits of any class or grade,) I proceed to say it is not matter.

Answer—I use the term matter here in its ordinary sense, as "that which makes itself known by means of the bodily senses." With this definition, can I not say that spirits are not matter, just as Jesus said they had not flesh and bones, and yet not contradict myself? I think so. But you proceed to say, "To my mind, as to some others, immateriality is but another name for nonentity. It is the negative of things and beings—of all existence. There is not one particle of proof to be advanced to establish its existence," &c. Of course you now speak as a philosopher, and it will be in order for me to defend myself against your criticism. Fleming, in his "vocabulary of philosophy," a book written expressly to define philosophy, in terms, says, "immateriality is predicated of the mind, to denote that, as a substance, it is different from matter. Spirituality is the positive expression of the same idea. Simplicity is also used in the same sense. Matter is made up of parts, into which it can be resolved. Wind is simple, and has no parts, and so cannot be dissolved." But that you may test the truth of your position, suppose you settle the question whether light is a material substance.

IV. You next proceed to say, that you do not know what substance spirits are composed of, but that they have faces, hands, feet, can talk, look, walk, lie down, rise up, hold a staff in their hand, &c., and even that they are angels or ministering spirits; but of disembodied human spirits, that are capable of making any manifestations, physical or mental, (so you don't refuse to use the word "physical,") you know nothing, "having never read of them in the word of God." That angels assume any form of manifestation that the circumstances of the case require, is plain, and to men in the flesh their appearances may be as above indicated; but do you suppose that in Heaven they walk, lie down, hold a staff in their hands, etc.? But what has this to do with our question? I have not said in what form the spirits of men manifest themselves to us in the flesh. Nor have I said that they manifest themselves to us at all while we are in the flesh. But that we are manifest to them, even while we are in the flesh, seems clear. Heb. xii, 22-24—"But ye are come to Mount Sion, and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels; to the general assembly and church of the first-born, who are enrolled in heaven, and to God the judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect; and to Jesus, the mediator of the new covenant; and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than the blood of Abel." Can it be doubted, that the writer here meant to convey the idea that the above heavenly hosts take cognizance of the saints on earth, and are interested in their struggles for salvation? If so, then to the spirits of just men made perfect, as well as to Jesus the mediator, we are revealed, although neither he nor they may be manifested to us in the flesh.

Jesus Wept.

JESUS wept! those tears are over, But his heart is still the same. Kinsman, Friend, and Elder Brother, Is his everlasting name. Saviour, who can love like thee, Gracious One of Bethany?

When the pangs of trial seize us, When the waves of sorrow roll, I will lay my head on Jesus, Pillow of the troubled soul. Surely none can feel like thee, Weeping One of Bethany!

Jesus wept! and still in glory He can mark each mourner's tear, Living to retrace the story Of the hearts he solaced here. Lord, if I am called to die, Let me think of Bethany!

Jesus wept! that tear of sorrow Is a legacy of love; Yesterday, to-day, to-morrow, He the same shall ever prove. Thou art all in all to me, Living one of Bethany!

Eld. Cottrell's Third Reply.—Part I.

Eld. N. V. Hull:

Dear Brother,—In your third article, which is on my table, you have defined the term spirit, as used in your first proposition. This is what I before desired you to do. You say, "I used the term spirit to describe that principle or power in man which is the seat of thought, emotion, feeling, passion, and affection."

I shall not dispute that man is capable of thought, emotion, feeling, passion, and affection; neither shall I claim that these are material objects, discernible by the five senses. There is no dispute here; the thoughts and passions of man, or those of the inferior animals, cannot be weighed upon the merchant's scale, or be measured by the yard-stick, or in the gallon measure, or bushel. They are manifested by action, both by man and beast; and I do not know that they are capable of physical corruption. I think they are not. This does not prove either man or beast to be immortal. But it is the seat of thoughts and passions concerning which we inquire. I think they have their seat in a living being, and that a dead being is destitute of them. You speak of a "principle or power in man" as the "seat of thought, emotion," &c. Is a principle or power a living being? Is there a living man in man? What do you think of the principle or power in beasts which is the seat of their thoughts and affections? The question is, Has God revealed in his word that the principle or power of thought in man is a living being in him, or somewhere about him, that can live just as well where he is not as where he is?

Your main proof is, Matt. x, 28—"Fear not those who kill the body, but cannot kill the soul." I have claimed that this language is not strictly literal. You admit as much. Speaking of 1 Thess. v, 23, you say, "Paul in this case is using exact language, and therefore employs the term soul to distinguish the mere animal life of man." If the Saviour uses it in some other way, he does not use exact language; yet you now say of these words of Jesus, "They are unequivocal and exact, and should end this controversy." And you also claim, that they "contain a formal statement covering the ground of the question in debate." Not so. There is no formal statement here, that the soul lives while the body is dead. This would be a fair inference, however, if this was all the teaching we had on the subject. But were it proved that the soul did not die with the body, it would remain to be proved that it would continue to live to eternity, and thus vastly the greater part of the ground in debate would remain to be covered.

To account for the silence of the Bible concerning the immortality of the soul, you say, "Whether this or that word or phrase is used, seems of little account, the real question being, What is the sentiment taught?" You speak also of the "necessity of attending to ideas, rather than words." Now how will you discover the ideas taught in the Scriptures, but by the words that are used? Should a man make such answer to your demand for the proof of the change of the Sabbath, you would probably ask him to show you the words which convey the ideas. Show me your ideas without your words, and I will show you my ideas by my words. If you can do so, the moderators in this debate, the editors, will doubtless be thankful for fewer words and more ideas. I do not claim that any particular term, as immortal, deathless, or never-dying, should be applied to qualify soul or spirit, in order to prove its immortality; but I said, While the terms soul and spirit are found many hundred times in the Bible, the terms immortal, never-dying, deathless, or anything of the kind, are never applied to either of them. In reply to this, instead of giving me a long lecture about words and ideas and rules of language, you should have been giving the language of Scripture that conveys the idea, if any such language can be found. But if, as I said, not anything of the kind is there to be found, I shall still think it remarkable, upon your hypothesis, though you "fail to see it."

A change of the Sabbath cannot be proved by the Bible, for the simple reason that the Bible says nothing about it; so it is with the doctrine of the natural immortality of the soul; the Bible says nothing about it, but promises a future immortality to the righteous, to be put on at the resurrection, and threatens a second death to the wicked.

I do not deny that the body is corruptible. I have proved that man the entire being, is corruptible. Rom. i, 23. You may call it physical corruption, if you like; in philosophical language, I admit it. But how will you prove from the Bible that a part of man is "incapable of physical corruption," while the Bible says nothing about it? A doctrine that cannot be expressed in Bible language, is not a Bible doctrine. Express it then in Bible language, and I will believe it. But you cannot do this; so you frame a proposition that you think will appear self-evident, and need no proof.

I have admitted that the terms soul and spirit sometimes are used to mean the same thing. They sometimes signify the animal life—the primary meaning of soul—and sometimes they are used to signify the mind, the thoughts, and the affections. I did not need a whole column in the Recorder to convince me of that, after I had admitted it. And now I will make further admissions; for I wish to take no advantage more than the truth gives me, but desire the reader to understand me, and be benefited. I admit, then, that thoughts and affections are not matter, and are not subject to physical corruption. I have never witnessed them in a state of putrefaction in a physical sense, though there can be no doubt that many of them are corrupt in a moral sense. So you see I have admitted your second proposition. The thoughts and affections of even a beast are not matter, and therefore are "incapable of physical corruption."

But with this version of your second proposition, your first will not agree without remodeling. It is not good sense to say that man is composed of matter, and thoughts, and affections. A strange composition that, and "badly mixed." We will straighten it. Man was formed of the dust of the ground; and, being made alive by the power of God he has thoughts and affections. But man is mortal; he dieth. "His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish."—Ps. cxlvi, 4. When the man, the seat of thoughts and affections, dies, all these thoughts, affections, and emotions, perish, though "incapable of physical corruption." "Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished." Eccl. ix, 6. I leave this for the present, by saying, that though I have admitted that thoughts and affections are incapable of physical corruption, yet it cannot be proved by the Bible, for the simple reason, that it affirms nothing concerning it. It is a judgment made from our own observation—it is our own philosophy or wisdom—revelation has said nothing about it. And now if you can prove from the Scriptures that, besides the man—the material organization—and besides the thoughts which are not material things, there is an immaterial man in man, that does all the thinking, you are requested to do so. It must be something more than a "principal or power in man," it must be a living being besides the man.

I quoted Parkhurst to show that one Hebrew scholar, at least, could find no instance where nephesh certainly meant what is popularly called the soul. Gesenius and others may think otherwise; but the primary uses of the term, as found in Gen. i, and ii, are not referred to as instances. There it only means animal life and living being or creature, whether man or beast; and the wonder still remains, that, in the account of the creation of man, nothing is said of the popular soul, or immaterial man, while all that is said, relates to the man that was formed of the dust of the ground. Gen. i, 20, 24, 30; ii, 7.

You labor to show that the Greek word psuche (soul), does, in some instances, refer to "the higher or spirit nature of man." This is simply assuming or taking for granted the very thing to be proved. When you will prove from the Scriptures that man has two natures, and that one of them is higher than the other, I will admit that some terms in the Scriptures refer to his higher nature. Will you present the proof?

I remarked, that I had never read of disembodied human spirits in the Bible, to which you reply: "I have not said in what form the spirits of men manifest themselves to us in the flesh. Nor have I said, that they manifest themselves to us at all while we are in the flesh. But that we are manifest to them, even while we are in the flesh, seems clear." You then quote Heb. xii, 22-24, the text which speaks of the spirits of just men made perfect without bodies. But stop! it does not read so; it says nothing about spirits of men without bodies. Oh, certainly! It lacks the very thing, my brother, without which it cannot help your cause in the least. If you say those spirits of men are now in Heaven, I reply their bodies are there also. Enoch and Elijah were translated—taken to Heaven without death; and when our risen Saviour ascended up on high, he led a multitude of captives. Eph. iv, 8, margin. These released captives were doubtless those saints which came out of their graves after Christ's resurrection. Matt. xxvii, 50-53. They were not disembodied spirits; the bodies, we are expressly told, came out of their graves, and were seen

of many. So those spirits that are made perfect and immortal have bodies. But if you say, that they are men on earth made perfect in holiness, and only written or enrolled in Heaven, I shall have no difficulty in convincing you, that they have bodies as well as spirits. Or, if you choose the position that this text speaks prospectively—that it is in prospect and by faith that we "are come" to these things—that Whiting did not miss the sense in translating it, "You are coming to mount Zion," &c.—that that state of perfection of the spirits of just men is to be when the "general assembly" shall have been gathered together from the four winds, at the coming of Christ and the resurrection, and made immortal—I will not object, but will aid you by referring to what Paul says of the ancients, who had "died in faith" and "received not the [fulfillment of the] promise; God having provided some better things for us, that they without us should not be made perfect. Heb. xi, 13, 39, 40. Apply the text where you choose, there are no disembodied spirits revealed in it, nor in any other text in the whole Bible. You quoted it to prove that we are manifest to the spirits of the dead, "even while we are in the flesh." I will refer you to a text which states the reason of my dissent. Speaking of the dead man, Job says, "His sons come to honor, and he knoweth it not; and they are brought low, but he perceiveth it not of them."—Job xiv, 21.

The Swearers Rebuked.

By A. Smith

“Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in Heaven.” Matt v, 16.

Of late I have thought much of this text, and have sought opportunities to let my “light shine,” feeble as it is, for the glory of Christ. I find many opportunities to do good, in the fields, upon the highway, in the work shop, at social, political, or religious gatherings; for I there find fellow mortals, to whom a word in season may prove a “savor of life unto life.” But I can also count many instances of neglected duty, of lost opportunities. O Lord, give us wisdom that we may bear the cross aright!

A few days since as I was returning from the city of Grand Rapids, Mich., I was accosted by two gentlemen whom I overtook, with a request that they might ride. Although I had quite a load in my wagon, I cordially invited them in. They then resumed the conversation they had dropped, mingled profusely with profane language. I bore it patiently for some time, reflecting in my mind how I should reprove them and not give offense; for I trembled at the thought lest I should do more harm than good; but the words of the text overcame me, and I said at length, “Gentlemen, perhaps you do not think it wrong to swear, but I do, and would like to have gentlemen refrain from it in my presence, which they generally do if they know my principles,” to which one replied that he was glad I mentioned it, as he himself was ashamed of the practice in his sober moments. He then related a circumstance that came under his observation, exhibiting profanity in a more horrible light than ever came to my notice before. I will relate the story as nearly in his own words as possible.

He said: “I was at work in the pine woods at —, in the year —. The company with whom I worked were very profane. Card playing was their delight. Their practice was so bad, and their oaths were so terrible, that, though a profane man myself, I could never join with them. Even their most common, ordinary, and mild oaths,—if for instance in putting on or laying off a coat, anything should go amiss, were too horrible to repeat.

“One of the most profane of their number whom they called Joe, was chosen class-leader and exhorter, and they would hold mock meetings, and blaspheme most horribly. One Sunday evening in particular they were more jubilant than usual, and after card playing and dancing, they held a mock prayer-meeting. Joe led off in a blasphemous prayer in which with other things he said he dared God Almighty to touch him.” One of his companions remarked, “That’s rather hard Joe,” to which he replied, “God Almighty has no business with me, and I dare him to touch me.”

“The next morning we all went to work as usual. I was driving team, and was returning to the woods for my second load, when one came running to meet me, and in great excitement said, ‘Joe is dead.’ I said, ‘How did he die, what was the matter?’ ‘He was cutting logs, when he was struck by a limb of a falling tree and his brains dashed out.’ I hastened to the scene of the disaster, and soon all Joe’s companions were congregated about his lifeless body; and such sad, gloomy, woe-stricken faces, I never saw before. They understood it as a judgment from God, and put a stop at once to their wicked blasphemous practices.”

When my companions thanked me for their ride, and bade me good bye, the one who narrated the above said with some warmth, “I hope to meet you again; if not on earth may it be in Heaven; for such religion as you recommend is worth striving for.”

I feel repaid for bearing the cross. Christians take courage. Bear the cross and finally wear the crown.

A. SMITH.

Kent Co., Mich.

My Experience.

By P. C. RODMAN

SOME fourteen years ago, I heard the doctrine that the Lord was soon to come, became interested, and after reading my Bible on that subject and hearing lectures from Elders E. Bellows and E. Burnham on the same, was persuaded that it was truth, and so embraced and confessed it publicly in the Baptist church of which I was then a member. The result was, that my heart was warmed up anew with God’s love, giving me the witness that he approved. Some of my professed brethren began to cry, Heresy, and curl the lip. This was a little trying; but faith is precious and must be tried. The character of the advocates of the truth was then assailed to prejudice my mind if possible against the truth, but my Bible began to be intelligible, and I loved to read it and pray to Him who has promised to give grace to help in time of need. It so proved in my case and I was sustained and rejoiced in the truth that makes free.

Soon after this, I heard the idea advanced that man had no immortal soul. This I thought was almost, if not quite, infidelity; but I was willing to do with my brethren as God would have us do with him, that is, reason together. The result was, I was driven from every position I took. So I decided that the Bible must settle this question with me. It either taught the immortality of the soul, or it did not. If others found the doctrine there, I could, and if it did not teach it, I ought to know it. So I decided to read the good old book through on this question. In the fear of God I began, praying always in connection with reading; for I was in earnest to know the truth and not be deceived. I soon decided that life eternal was an object of hope, and immortality was to be put on at the resurrection of the just. I began to more than ever see the necessity for the coming of the Lord. Another cross to bear; but as I had learned that the blessing is only obtained by bearing the same, I was resolved to follow the leadings of that Spirit that guideth into all truth. With a heart swelling with light and love I accordingly bore testimony for Jesus by confessing his word; for he says, My sheep hear my voice, and I give unto them eternal life.

But now I had gone so far that the Baptist Church was concerned; and because I did not believe in eternal torment for the wicked, but that they would be punished with everlasting destruction, on the charge of heresy, I, with some others, was turned out of the synagogue. But the Lord owned and blessed, and I was sustained. Since then, I have been identified with the Adventists, working with them as best I could, making some mistakes, cast down, but not destroyed.

For some years there appeared to be an advance generally in truth and grace; but as a body, sorry I am to say it, the Adventists in this State have lost that deep-toned spirituality they once possessed. I mourned over it with others, and labored to remedy it as far as possible; but it grows no better. What shall be done? has been my inquiry again and again. Surely this people is not ready for the coming of Jesus as I believe his people will be, when he comes. Enoch and Elijah being types, his people, as a body, will have Enoch and Elijah’s characters, when the parted heavens shall reveal him.

Some three years or more since, I began to learn about Seventh-day Adventists, but under circumstances to rather prejudice my mind against them, and so against the doctrines that made them peculiar, until the Sabbath question was discussed to some extent in the R. I. Conference, when I began to grow interested to know the truth; for I saw there was argument for the Sabbath of the Lord. I began to read the good old Bible renewedly; for I had come to be a no-Sabbath man, on this ground, namely, I could not find Bible for the first-day as a Sabbath; and I supposed the Law was abolished surely.

The result of reading on the subject, led me to be careful not to oppose; but I did not embrace it for two reasons: first, there was a difficulty in my mind in separating the moral law of ten commandments from the ceremonial; and I think this hinders many from seeing more readily the truth.

Second, there were some that kept the Sabbath, and embraced the third angel’s message, that I did not wish to be identified with. Of the few that I knew, some were fanatical, others did not sustain good moral characters. Then the cross of coming out and confessing so unpopular a doctrine, unpopular not only with the world and professed church at large, but with Adventists also, who really looked upon the third angel’s message as taught by the Review and Herald with contempt, was great. Why they so regard it, is more than I can tell. Neither did any one ever give me the why, unless it was by some thrust at the visions of sister White, or else by some prejudiced remark about the law.

Some may believe themselves thinking men to be turned from following that Spirit that leads into all truth, by such objections; but I choose to go on after the pillar of fire by night and cloud by day, the sure word of prophecy, whereunto we do well that we take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawns.

Some express sorrow for me because I now keep the Sabbath. I know not why they should. It cannot make me any worse to obey God in all ten of his commandments surely. My peace is no less, but increased; and really it does appear that another seal is broken from the precious Bible, and light beams from its sacred pages as never before. Like Peter I can say, “This is that,” and none can gainsay it, without rejecting plain Bible. The twenty-three hundred days have ended, and we know the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep; for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed.

May God give me grace and quicken me by his mighty power, to do all his will meekly, and patiently, trusting his faithful word until the opening heavens reveal our absent Lord. More anon.

Yours in faith, hope and love.

P. C. RODMAN.

Ashaway, R. I.

How to Hear the Gospel.

Rowland Hill paid a visit to an old friend a few years before his death, who said to him, "Mr. Hill, it is just sixty-five years since I first heard you preach, and I remember your text, and a part of your sermon. You told us that some people were very squeamish about the delivery of different ministers who preached the gospel. You said, 'Supposing you were attending to hear a will read, where you expected a legacy to be left you, would you employ the time when it was reading, in criticising the manner in which the lawyer read it? No, you would be giving all ear, to hear if any thing was left you, and how much it was. That is the way I would advise you to hear the gospel.'" This was excellent advice, and well worth remembering sixty-five years.

Religion Only Left Out

RELIGION ONLY LEFT OUT.—The Christian Inquirer says, that a certain gentleman was soliciting subscribers for the Inquirer, and he called on a certain farmer who refused to subscribe on the ground that he took so many papers for his family, that he needed no more. Mr. —— asked what papers he took? The farmer replied that he took a political paper, an agricultural paper, and a magazine of fashions. Mr. —— then answered very wisely, and very shrewdly, "It seems then that you must have agriculture, politics, and the fashions all represented in your family, but religiou you do not deem to be necessary." The farmer immediately subscribed.

Continue reading: Seventh-day Adventists Recognized as Non-combatants