Review and Herald, Vol. 11, No. 23. (4/22/1858)

Review and Herald

Apr 22, 1858

Publishing Committee · Battle Creek, Mich. · Apr 22, 1858

IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.

By John Norton Loughborough

REJOINDER TO WM. KEEGAN, BY J. N. LOUGHBOROUGH.

(Concluded.)

Eld. K. also misapprehends the force of our testimony on the text, "Life and immortality are brought to light through the gospel." He seems to think the way life and immortality are brought to light is, that the gospel announces the fact that we are in possession of immortality. But that is the thing Eld. K. has not shown. Where is the place that the gospel states that we have immortality? We concluded to look at a gospel sermon to see how immortality was brought to light through the gospel, and as 1 Cor. xv, purports to be a gospel sermon, it brings to light how immortality is to be received, namely—at the resurrection.

Eld. K. claims on 1 Cor. xv, that

"All, at the great day will be raised to immortality, whether righteous or wicked; indeed it would be inconsistent with any notion we gather from the Bible, of the Divine character, to suppose that he would raise the wicked merely to dissolve them again. (Note 1.) No difficulty that will follow from an acknowledgement of the soul's immortality, will be removed, in view of future punishment, if we acknowledge a general resurrection. (Note 2.) Again if man's conscious nature be material, the changes that will take place at the resurrection, must change the consciousness and character, so that it will be equivalent to a new creation, and a denial of a future life altogether; for the dissolution of a natural body is its destruction; and a recombination of the atoms under new influences, another body altogether. But if we admit the truth, namely, the immortality of the soul, and that the body is but an instrument whether in action, reward or punishment; while the soul is the only responsible agent, all these difficulties will be dispelled." (Note 3.)

On the above we reply according to the numbering of the notes, as follows:

1. The Scriptures state that "he which soweth to his flesh, shall of the flesh reap corruption." The chapter also from which Eld. K. draws this conclusion makes a statement which conveys the idea to us that all will be raised immortal. Paul distinctly prefaces his testimony on immortality by saying, "Now this I say brethren." Then the testimony is concerning his brethren. "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. Behold, I shew you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump; for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality." Verses 50–53.

The testimony also which follows shows that this company gain a victory. "So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory, through our Lord Jesus Christ." Verses 54–57.

But are the wicked to share in this incorruption and obtain this victory by being raised from the dead? By no means; but they are raised to witness Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and all the prophets in the kingdom and they themselves thrust out. And as they come around the camp of the saints and the beloved city, and thus witness them, fire comes down from God out of heaven and devours them." "Devour—to eat up."—Webster. David says, [Ps. xxxvii.] "The enemies of the Lord shall consume; [into smoke shall they consume away.] Malachi in his prophecy, [chap. iv.] says, 'The day cometh that shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.'"

2. If Eld. K. means by a "general resurrection" a resurrection of all at once, we reply, that John teaches [Rev. xx] that there is one thousand years between the resurrection of the righteous and that of the wicked. Those that have part in the first resurrection cannot die the second death which clearly implies that those who come to life when the thousand years are finished can die the second time. (Second death.) Then if they can the second time be deprived of life they are not raised immortal.

3. I did not expect that Eld. K. would come out a Sadducee. He would be loth to admit that he is a Sadducee; but if his position above is correct, there is no such thing as a resurrection. Does not his argument virtually deny the resurrection? That is just what the Sadducees said. But let us analyze his testimony and see. "The dissolution of a body is its destruction." "A re-combination of the atoms under new influences, another body altogether." Then surely, Mr. Keegan, if it is another body, it is not a resurrected body. The soul, according to his reasoning, never died; so of course cannot have a resurrection; for a resurrection is a bringing to life of that which was dead. How far short does this come of denying a resurrection? But Eld. K. will say, I do believe in a resurrection. It is too late for you to tell us that now, Mr. Keegan; for in the testimony above quoted from you, you have incorporated into your faith that which denies a resurrection; so for you to say you believe in a resurrection would be but a sound of words.

Eld. K. tells us, it will remove all the difficulties that arise from believing in a resurrection, to admit the immortality of the soul, and that the soul is the only responsible agent. But shall we admit (to get rid of these difficulties) that which overthrows the doctrine of the resurrection? It will be time enough for Eld. K. to call on us to admit the immortality of the soul when he has advanced at least one proof that it is immortal. It is "proof" that we want not merely his assertion.

Eld. K.'s supposed difficulty about the resurrection can all be made to vanish without admitting the immortality of the soul. I suppose that identity of organization in our bodies constitutes them the same bodies that they were at first, although the particles of matter of which they are composed may have changed. What produces the consciousness in us that we are the same persons now that we were 20 years ago? It must be the memory of those events connected with our past life; and the same memory manifest in the resurrection will preserve our identity. If three, in the resurrection, are brought up with the identity of organization of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, it will be them and no one else in the universe; and in this identity of organization we understand consists the identity of the resurrected body. We know of no philosophy for the resurrection; but it will be a direct manifestation of the power of God that will raise the dead.

Eld. K. next notices Matt. x, 28, and in order to evade the force of the expression, "fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell," he brings another of his far-fetched definitions on the word, destruction. He tells us,

"Destruction, however, does not imply a loss of consciousness as it is used in the Bible, [see Hos. iv, 6,] 'My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge,' they were destroyed, but not deprived of a conscious existence. Again, [Hos. xiii, 9,] 'O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself, but in me is thy help;' they were destroyed and yet they existed. We understand that in this text, God threatens them with a destruction of their comforts, hopes, &c., in hell, should they be found unfit for his presence in the day of his appearing."

What does Eld. K. mean to have us understand here? His claim is, first, that the people were destroyed when this testimony was penned, therefore it must be a figurative expression, for they were full conscious. But his second claim overthrows his first; for in that he locates the destruction spoken of, as to take place in hell after the appearing of Christ, and therefore makes the language of the same import as though it was said, thou shalt be destroyed. He says, God threatens to destroy their comforts and hopes in hell. This reminds one of the way Universalists meet the texts that speak of destroying the sinner; that is, that it means their sins shall be destroyed. To destroy comforts and hopes, and to destroy soul and body, are two things. And, according to his position, destruction does not mean a loss of existence. Who knows then that comforts and hopes are not enjoyed after they are destroyed.

But we return to the text, Matt. x, 28. Archdeacon Blackburne, who wrote about 100 years since, says on this text, "Our translators thought to avoid the contradiction, by translating psuche, [Matt. x, 28,] by the word soul. But other translators had an equal right to render psuche in Mark iii, 4, and Luke vi, 9, by the same English. It ought to have been translated by life, in both places, and then in opposition to soma, [Matt. x, 28,] which means in many places the present life, it would only denote the future life, to which the whole person was to be restored at the resurrection."—Historical view of the controversy on the intermediate state, &c., chap. xxviii.

Eld. K. next notices Ps. cxvi, 4, and says the Psalmist "thus informs us how soon all the thoughts (of the sons of men) that might tend to help us, may perish by death." This testimony needs no more reply than simply a quotation of the text in full, with its connection:

"While I live will I praise the Lord: I will sing praises unto my God while I have any being. Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help. His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish. Happy is he that hath the God of Jacob for his help, whose hope is in the Lord his God:

which made heaven, and earth, the sea, and all that therein is: which keepeth truth forever: which executeth judgment for the oppressed: which giveth food to the hungry. The Lord looseth the prisoners." Verses 2–7.

In noticing the testimony of Solomon, [Eccl. ix,] where he says, "the dead know not anything," he says, These expressions simply mean with regard to this world. This might do very well if it was Eld. K.'s station to be a corrector of the word of God. But while that word stands uncorrected by such notions, Solomon's testimony will always draw a contrast between the living and the dead, namely, "The living know that they shall die, but the dead know not anything." He does not stop to put in Eld. K.'s qualifying term, but shows that "a living dog is better than a dead lion," simply because the living know something, but "the dead know not anything."

Our reviewer's remarks on Job vii, 21, and iii, 13 appear to us like sublime nonsense. On the first of these texts, "now shall I sleep in the dust; and thou shalt seek me in the morning, but I shall not be," he says:

"Let it be remembered that it takes all the parts of a man to fully represent him, and although each part may, and indeed must exist after death, it is not these parts separately, but taken together, that constitute the man, the whole man, could not be in the dust, allowing the Adventists to be the judges, for the breath is a part, and that does not go into the dust, hence their efforts to prove that the whole man is in dust, fail. 'I should not be,'—exist. Job does not exist, but the parts of which he was composed do exist. The soul would only be a part of Job. Hence the text does not disprove the fact that they exist after death."

Certainly if the above testimony of Eld. K. is correct, Job vii, 21, proves just what we quoted it to prove, namely, that after death the person does not exist. Eld. K. admits this fact as you see above, and his denial of it in the last expression is a denial of the plain testimony of the text.

On Job iii, 13, "For now should I have lain still and been quiet. I should have slept: then had I been at rest with kings and counsellors of the earth, who built desolate places for themselves, or with princes that had gold; who filled their houses with silver; or as an hidden untimely birth I had not been; as infants which never saw light." He says:

"It is manifest that two conditions are here spoken of, one such as kings, counsellors, and princes alike possess, and simply means death without any regard to the conscious nature. If man be contented for a reply, all the clue to it is, that it is compared to sleep and rest. But sleep does not imply unconsciousness, because we dream while we sleep, and can frequently recollect our dreams in our waking hours afterward. Rest does not imply unconsciousness, because it is said God rested; it only means a cessation from any particular kind of labor."

But it is acknowledged that in a profound sleep we are unconscious. Eld. K. has probably slept hours, and had no dreams. But does not the closing expression of the above verses imply unconsciousness in death, where Job represents that while he should thus sleep and rest, his condition would be like that of "infants who never saw light." Eld. K. says of such infants that they "never had consciousness." Then if Job's condition in death was like infants that never saw light, he would surely be unconscious.

Eld. K. says:

"Where it is said 'the dead cannot praise Thee,' and 'there is no remembrance of Thee in the grave,' does not bear upon the question, and the attempt to make them bear, is simply begging the subject of dispute; because the soul does not enter the grave, that is, the conscious nature, and the spiritually dead do not praise God."

According to the Eld. it is the spiritually dead that cannot praise the Lord. Whoever supposed they did? But the context of this text overthrows the Elder's claim, and shows that the dead here spoken of are in graves. Eld. K. has not told us yet what spiritual graves are. Perhaps if we had this it might add another item to his list of literal (?) interpretations of the Bible. On Eld. K.'s statement, "the soul does not enter the grave," we ask, what is meant where it is said of Christ, "his soul was not left in hell?" (Hades, the grave.) Perhaps Eld. K. would say his soul never went to the grave. Then there would be no propriety in saying it was not left there. According to Isaiah liii, 12, Christ "poured out his soul unto death."

Eld. K. finishes his notice of Scripture testimony by calling our attention to Isaiah xxxviii. We will notice his words and reply according to the numbering of our notes.

"'Behold, for peace I had great bitterness; but thou hast in love to my soul delivered it from the pit of corruption; for thou hast cast all my sins behind thy back.' Verse 17. The effort to make the pit of corruption here understood apply to the grave, manifests a desperate perverseness on the part of the Adventists; and proves that man will resort to almost any kind of dishonest dealing with God's word to carry a point. Let the question simply be referred to Hezekiah and he will answer it, why, or how, was his soul delivered from the pit of corruption? 'For thou hast cast all my sins behind thy back'—God had pardoned his sins; hence he does not refer to the grave, but to a moral pollution, called by a figure the pit of corruption. (Note 1.)

"'For the grave cannot praise thee, death cannot celebrate thee; they that go down into the pit cannot hope for thy truth.' Verse 18. The grave cannot praise, &c., relates to the celebration of God in man, that might lead them to salvation, as is manifest from the sense of 'The living, the living, &c., shall praise thee, as I do this day; the father to the children shall make known thy truth.' Verse 19. This praise, or celebration of God in man, must cease as a matter of course at death; but is it not a strong perversion of Bible truth, to thus wrest the Scriptures from their original meaning, to serve the purpose of the Materialist when they can have an expression? . . . They that go down into the pit may mean one of two things. The pit of hopeless despair, with the Devil and his angels, or the body in the grave, in either case, it would be no proof of unconsciousness after death." (Note 2.)

Note 1. Eld. K. supposes he has proved that the pit of corruption, was moral pollution. But if we look at the circumstances which called forth this testimony from Hezekiah, it will be clearly ascertained what he refers to by the pit. We read in verse 1, "In those days was Hezekiah sick unto death." Isaiah came to him and told him he should "die and not live." Hezekiah prayed unto the Lord. The Lord answered his prayer and sent by Isaiah saying, "Go and say to Hezekiah, Thus saith the Lord, the God of David thy father, I have heard thy prayer, I have seen thy tears; behold, I will add unto thy days fifteen years." How natural to conclude that a person thus restored to health should celebrate the deliverance that God had wrought for him. Hezekiah had been delivered from the grave which is a pit of corruption. But how could moral pollution be called a pit of corruption? It must be it is explained by Eld. Keegan's new mode of literal (?) interpretation.

Note 2. How can the expression, "they that go down into the pit," mean, as Eld. K. says, "the body in the grave," if it is such "a desperate perverseness" to call the pit of corruption the grave? No one could reasonably avoid the conclusion that it was the same pit referred to in both cases, if they read verses 17 and 18 in connection. In the testimony by which Hezekiah declares the goodness of God, he says: "I said . . . I shall go to the gates of the grave." "But thou hast in love to my soul delivered it from the pit of corruption. . . . For the grave cannot praise thee, death [where he would have been, if the Lord had not heard him,] cannot celebrate thee; they that go down into the pit cannot hope for thy truth. The LIVING, the LIVING, HE shall praise thee, as I do this day." Without doubt Hezekiah understood something about the faith of David who said: "The dead praise not the Lord, neither any that go down into silence," and he has here given similar testimony. But Eld. K. feels that the plain testimonies of Hezekiah will stand against his sophistry; on his testimony therefore he must put a qualifier, by saying, "Let it be remembered, that he was not an inspired man, and the Bible historian states his words as a part of history." This is equivalent to Eld. K.'s saying, "If Hezekiah does represent that the dead are unconscious, why it's only the testimony of a man uninspired," and that this is what Eld. K. means by this hint is fully-confirmed by the following from him: "If however it could be proved that Hezekiah had no just conceptions of the state of the dead, it would not prove against the revelations that the gospel affords us on that subject."

"If." Away with your if. Hezekiah's language is so plain that even Mr. Keegan could see that it was strongly tinctured with the doctrine of the unconscious state of the dead. "Hezekiah was an uninspired man." Well, his testimony will weigh as much as the uninspired philosophy of Mr. Keegan. We think a little more; for it seems from Isa. xxxviii, that he was acquainted with that inspired prophet. If Hezekiah's testimony proves the dead unconscious, "it would not prove against the revelations that the gospel affords of that subject."—True, because the gospel testimony confirms the testimony of the Old Testament on this subject, and shows that there is no hope "if the dead rise not"—if there is no resurrection, let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die. And the gospel testimony also shows that our hope is confined to this life, if there is no resurrection. See 1 Cor. xv, 18, 19. But Eld. K. will say, I meant what is revealed on the immortality of the soul. When you have given us gospel testimony that proves anything in favor of that doctrine, it will be time enough for us to notice it.

Inasmuch as Eld. K. has referred us to what is revealed in the gospel, we will close this article by looking at one portion of gospel teaching found in 1 Thess. iv, 13–18. This testimony is among the revelations of the gospel. It is the testimony of Paul, the Gentile minister, (who says, "The gospel which was preached of me is not after man; for I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ,") to the church of Thessalonians who had lost some of their friends by death. He says, "But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope." Verse 13. No one can fail to see by reading this preface of Paul's testimony that the subject up for consideration is the state of the dead. Three things are clearly implied by the testimony of verse 13.

First. That the Thessalonian church were in ignorance concerning the true state of the dead.

Second. That Paul understood perfectly the condition of the dead, and was fully prepared to help them in their difficulty, and remove their ignorance concerning the state of the dead.

Third. That Paul, writing to a church thus in ignorance, and being himself fully prepared to remove their ignorance, could not discharge his duty faithfully without telling them the exact condition of the dead.

And still further, after intimating all this to them, as he clearly has done in this introductory testimony of verse 13, it would be even wronging the Thessalonian church to leave them without a thorough understanding of the condition of the dead.

We look upon this testimony of Paul's, being given as it was under such peculiar circumstances, as entitled to much weight in forming our conclusions upon the subject before us. Here is the testimony: "For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first; then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Wherefore, comfort one another with these words."

This testimony comes so far short of stating that the dead are conscious, that there is even no chance to infer it from the text; but the simple facts given to this church are that the Lord is coming, their dead friends who are sleeping in Jesus shall live again, and they with them be caught up to be forever with the Lord. This is given to the church as that with which they are to console themselves when their friends fall asleep. But how much consolation would there be in this to one who believed their friends were happy in heaven before the resurrection? But if we understand the testimony which represents the dead as knowing "not anything," with "no reward," and "their memory forgotten," we shall feel the full force of the testimony which says, "Thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just," and can "comfort one another with these words."

Battle Creek, Apr., 1886.

OUR GOVERNMENT.

"And he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon." Verse 2.

The profession of this Government in both its civil and ecclesiastical branches is LAMB-LIKE, but many of its laws are DRAGON-LIKE. Protestants profess to take "the Bible and the Bible alone" as the standard of their faith; and yet they have several hundred creeds, and many of them are but little better than the Roman Catholic. Republicans profess to be governed by the Constitution, and to carry out the principles of the Declaration of Independence; but whether or not, they maintain this high profession, let the following facts testify:

I. LAMB-LIKE PROFESSION.

Declaration of Independence.—"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Constitution, Art. 9, Sec. 2.—"This Constitution, and the laws of the U. S. which shall be made in pursuance thereof, . . . shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

Constitution, Art. 4, Sec. 4.—"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union, a republican form of government, &c."

Guaranty 1.—"To warrant; to make true; to undertake to engage that another person shall perform what he has stipulated.—2. To undertake to secure to another at all events.—Webster's Dictionary.

"The true foundation of republican government is the equal rights of every citizen, in his person and property, and in their management."—Thomas Jefferson's Definition.

At the Congressional banquet given in honor of Kossuth, Judge Wayne, of the Supreme Court, is reported to have given the following sentiment: "Constitutional liberty to all nations of the earth supported by christian faith and the morality of the Bible."

"No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due processes of law."—Amendments Constitution, Art. v.

Says Lord Blackstone, in his commentaries on the common law: "Those rights which God and nature have established, and are therefore called natural rights—such as life and liberty—need not the aid of human laws to be more effectually invested in every man than they are; neither do they receive any additional strength when declared by the municipal laws inviolable. On the contrary, no human legislature has power to abridge or destroy them, unless the owner himself shall commit some act which amounts to a forfeiture."

The New York Tribune, of Feb. 18, 1854, says: "The whole world has been steadily advancing toward the overthrow of African slavery for more than a century. Nations have abolished it. England has emancipated her black population. France has done the same. Even Russia herself has abolished serfdom in every territory, she has added to her empire since the beginning of the present century. The trade in slaves has been denounced as piracy by all nations. The remains of the barbarism of slave-holding now linger in the world under the protection of the decaying kingdom of Spain and a portion of the States of this Union."

Amendment of the Constitution, Art. 1.—"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

The Congressional Committee of 1830, on the intent of the Constitution, report: "We look in vain to that instrument for authority to say whether the first day, or seventh day, or whether any day has been made holy by the Almighty. "The constitution regards the conscience of the Jew as sacred as that of the Christian, and gives no more authority to adopt a measure affecting the conscience of a solitary individual, than of a whole community.—That representative who would violate this principle, would lose his delegated character, and forfeit the confidence of his constituents. If Congress should declare the first day of the week holy, it would not convince the Jew nor the Sabbatarian. It would dissatisfy both, and consequently convert neither. "If a solemn act of the legislature shall in one point define the law of God, or point out to the citizen one religious duty, it may with equal propriety define every part of revelation, and enforce every religious obligation, even to the forms and ceremonies of worship, the endowments of the church, and support of the clergy."

The following letter of Geo. Washington's, written to the committee of a Baptist society in Virginia, in reply to questions as to the design of the Constitution, says: "If I had the least idea of any difficulty resulting from the Constitution adopted by the Convention, of which I had the honor to be President when it was formed, so as to endanger the rights of any religious denomination, then I never should have attached my name to that instrument.—If I had any idea that the general government was so administered that liberty of conscience was endangered, I pray you be assured that no man would be more willing than myself to revise and altar that part of it, so as to avoid all religious persecutions. You can, without doubt, remember that I have often expressed my opinion, that every man who conducts himself as a good citizen is accountable alone to God for his religious faith, and should be protected in worshiping God according to the dictates of his own conscience." GEO. WASHINGTON. Aug. 4, 1789.

Hon. A. H. Cragin, of New Hampshire, in the House of Representatives, says: "When our forefathers reared the magnificent structure of a free republic in this western land, they laid its foundations broad and deep in the eternal principles of right. Its materials were all quarried from the mountain of truth; and, as it rose majestically before an astonished world, it rejoiced the hearts and hopes of mankind. Tyranny only cursed the workmen and their workmanship. Its architecture was new. It had no model in Grecian or Roman history It seemed a paragon, let down from heaven to inspire the hopes of men, and to demonstrate God's favor to the people of the new world. The builders recognized the rights of human nature as universal. Liberty, the great first right of man, they claimed for 'all men,' and claimed it from 'God himself.' Upon that foundation they erected the temple, and dedicated to Liberty, Humanity, Justice and Equality. Washington was crowned its patron saint. "Liberty was then the national goddess, worshiped by all the people. They sang of liberty, they harangued for liberty, they prayed for liberty. Slavery was then hateful. It was denounced by all. The British king was condemned for foisting it upon the colonies. Southern men were foremost in entering their protest against it. It was then everywhere regarded as an evil, and a crime against humanity."

DRAGON-LIKE ACTION.

"Slaves shall be deemed sold, taken, reputed, and adjudged to live, to be CHATTELS PERSONAL, in the hands of their owners and possessors, and their executors, administrators and assigns, to all intents and purposes whatever."—Law of South Carolina, 2 Brev. Dig. 229.

Judge McLean of the Supreme Court of the United States, says: "While the State statutes treat the slaves as chattels, the Constitution can only treat and act on them as persons."

"All negroes, Indians, (free Indians in amity with this government, and negroes, mulattoes and mestizoes, who are now free, excepted,) mulattoes or mestizoes, who now are or shall hereafter be in this province, and all their issue and offspring born or to be born, shall be, and they are hereby declared to be and remain for ever hereafter, absolute slaves, and shall follow the condition of the mother."—Act of 1740, 2 Brevard's Digest, 229.

"With the consent of their masters, slaves may marry, and their moral power to agree to such a contract or connection as that of marriage, cannot be doubted; but whilst in a state of slavery, it cannot produce any civil effect, because slaves are deprived of all civil rights."—Judge Matthews of Louisiana; Martin's Rep. VI, 550.

The following will illustrate the action of both Republicans and Protestants: "A Slave Burned to Death.—A mob was collected together, and a lynch court was held to determine what was best to be done with a negro who had the impudence to raise his hand against a white man. The lynch court decided that he should be burned at the stake. "Nearly four thousand slaves were collected from the plantations in the neighborhood to witness this scene. Numerous speeches were made by the magistrates, and ministers of religion, to the large concourse of slaves, warning them, and telling them that the same fate awaited them if they should prove rebellious to their owners."—N. Y. Tribune, of February, 1854.

A Boston paper speaking of the return of Burns into slavery, says: "We have seen our Court House in chains, two battalions of dragoons, eight companies of artillery, twelve companies of infantry, the whole constabulary force of the city police, the entire disposable marine of the United States, with its artillery loaded for action, all marching in support of a Prætorian band, consisting of one hundred and twenty friends and associates of the United States Marshal, with loaded pistols and drawn swords, and in military costume and array—for what purpose? To escort and conduct a poor trembling slave from a Boston Court House to the fetters and lash of his master! This display of military force the Mayor of the city officially declared to be necessary on the occasion. Nay, more, at a public festival he openly took to himself the glory of this display, declaring that by it life and liberty had been saved, and the honor of Boston vindicated."

Mr. Robert McLean, Presbyterian minister of Mississippi, says: "We have men in our church who buy slaves and work them, because they can make more money by it than in any other way.—And the more we have of such men the better. All who can, own slaves; and those who cannot, want to."

Law of the State of New York.—"There shall be no shooting, hunting, fishing, sporting, playing, horse racing, gaming, frequenting of tippling-houses, or any other unlawful exercises or pastimes, on the first day of the week, called Sunday; nor shall any person travel on that day, unless in cases of charity or necessity, or in going to or returning from some church or place of worship; nor shall there be any service laboring or working on that day, excepting works of necessity and charity."

Most, if not all the States in the Union have laws essentially agreeing with the above.

"The legislature of Texas, has passed a bill to establish the 'Christian Sabbath,' which provides for the punishment, by fine, or imprisonment of such persons as may perform any labor or procure any to be done on Sunday."—Watchman and Reflector.

The following "Notice" was published in the Northern Republic, of Wisconsin: "Notice.—Whereas by the 21st section of chapter 139, of the revised statutes of the State of Wisconsin, it is enacted among other things, that 'No person shall open his shop, warehouse or work-house on the Lord's day, commonly called Sunday,' and whereas Justices of the peace have jurisdiction of offences mentioned in said section, now, therefore, we the undersigned, Justices of the peace, in and for the town of Fort Winnebago, Columbia Co., give notice that we shall take judicial notice of all offences against the provisions of said section 21, as specified above, without respect to persons, from and after the date of the publication of this notice. H. R. Pettibone. A. Dunn. L. Vanslyk. W. E. Waite. Fort Winnebago, July 21, 1852.

A late writer acquainted with the circumstances, says: "Eight seventh-day Baptists, at one time, in Ephrata, Pennsylvania, were fined each four dollars, and if they refused to pay the same, were subject to imprisonment. The great crime alleged to them, was working on Sunday—obeying their own consciences. How shall we explain the acts of Pennsylvania, and other States of this Union, unless it be a fulfillment of the text, 'and he spake as a dragon.'"

Dred Scott Case.—The Independent of the 11th publishes the following letter from the well known English preacher and author, John Angel James, dated Binghampton, May 9, 1857, to his friend, W. Patton, D. D., of New York City: "The decision of your Supreme Court fills us with astonishment, horror, and indignation. It is, indeed, the most terrible outrage upon humanity that has been perpetrated for ages, and will do more to lower the moral character of your country than even the present system of slavery. All Europe and the whole civilized world will blush for you. It is the first time that I know of, when a whole race was put without the pale of social life on account of the color of their skin. Will your country submit to it? Can it be perceived that the descendants of the Pilgrim Fathers will bow to so horrible a rebellion against the precepts of Christianity and the dictates of reason?"

Are you republicans?—away! 'Tis blasphemy the word to say. You talk of freedom? Out for shame! Your lips contaminate the name. How dare you prate of public good, Your hands besmear'd with human blood? How dare you lift those hands to heaven, And ask, or hope to be forgiven? How dare you breathe the wounded air, That wafts to heaven the negroe's prayer? How dare you tread the conscious earth That gave mankind an equal birth? And while you thus inflict the rod, How dare you say there is a God That will, in justice, from the skies, Hear and avenge his creatures' cries? "Slaves to be sold!" hark, what a sound! Ye give America a wound, A scar, a stigma of disgrace, Which you nor time can e'er efface.—Ray.

Pilgrim, Go On!

Go warily, for dangers surround thee. Go boldly, for nothing can harm thee. Go bravely, for Jesus is with thee. Go trustingly, for he will not fail thee. Go cheerily, for the city is near thee. Go Pilgrim! Thou goest to heaven, thy home. [Am. Pres.

"Let your Light so Shine."

A SINGLE illustration, happily introduced into a sermon, will sometimes fasten itself on the mind of a person, never to be forgotten. We remember a case in point. The substance of the sermon in which it was introduced is forgotten; but the point to which we refer is permanent. We have thought of it a hundred

times, in connection with religious cosistency

The preacher referred to a light house near New York, for illustration. The light, which is a revolving one, had ceased to move by reason of some derangement in the machinery. As soon as the keeper discoverd it, he ran to the proper position, and by manual labor kept steadily revolving the light, until weariness compelled him to call another to his assistance, then another took his turn—and so during the live-long night, and the light kept its uniform revolution. A stranger, astonished at the solicitude of the keeper, inquired the cause. "Why," said he, "There may be a hundred seamen looking out from the darkness and storm below, to catch a glance at this light. If it move not, it will be mistaken for another, and, in their uncertainty and danger, they may lose the channel and be shipwrecked."

How many happy hearts passed over Broad-way the next day, all unconscious of the danger to which they had been exposed, but for the faithfulness and consideration of that keeper of the light-house!

Christian, the world is looking on you. You may not know who are below in the darkness and storm of life's troubled sea—but you know the sea is stormy, and there are dangerous shoals to be avoided. Let your light give no uncertain gleaming on the gloom. Keep its motion uniform and continued! And when the day of eternity shall dawn, thousands may tread the streets of the New Jerusalem—who, but for the brightness and regularity of your light might have made shipwreck of faith, and never moored in the harbor of eternal safety.—Protestant.

Singular Theology

Singular Theology.—A preacher said that among the errors of the times, he often meets with opinions and sentiments about religion, which when thrown together, would compose the following creed:

"If you seek religion you'll never find it; when you get it you'll never know it; if you know it you hav'nt got it; if you've got it you can never lose it; and if you lose it you never had it."

Continue reading: THE MARRIAGE OF THE LAMB. (CONTINUED.)