Review and Herald, Vol. 24, No. 7. (7/12/1864)

Review and Herald

Jul 12, 1864

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jul 12, 1864

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. 24, Vol. xxiii.)

Elder Hull's Second Article.

ELD. R. F. COTTRELL:

Dear Brother,—I have read with interest and care your reply to my first letter, and will, as I am able, examine it in its bearings on the "question" at issue, as explained in the propositions subjoined, of which, as you remember, there are five. I have no objections to discussing that part of the "question" relating to the nature of man first, as you suggest, and then attending to what may remain. The whole question is, "What is the nature and destiny of man, according to the teaching of the Holy Scriptures?" The "propositions" covering the first half of this question, are

1. "That man is composed of matter and spirit."

2. "That the body is mortal, but the spirit is incapable of physical corruption."

3. "That in the resurrection man's body becomes immortal."

On the first proposition you say, "The issue between us is not whether man has a spirit or not, but what the nature of the spirit is—whether it is capable of a separate conscious existence, and whether it is immortal." I am sure you would not have made this statement, had you well considered the "proposition," which simply is, "Has man a SPIRIT?" there being no ground for argument as to whether he has a body. Nor is there any controversy as to whether the body is mortal. Nor still have I asserted that the spirit of man is immortal, or that it is so declared by any express statement of Scripture. Neither the terms mortal nor immortal are so applied, so far as I recollect, in the Sacred Oracles. Besides, I do not propose to define the nature of the substance of the spirit of man. As the Bible does not define it, why should I? I think this subject has already been sufficiently befogged by "foolish and unlearned questions." "This is to be a Bible discussion." I deem it impossible for us, in this life, to know the exact nature of a spirit. Jesus, I am aware says, "A spirit hath not flesh and bones;" but this fails of telling what the nature of the substance of a spirit is. I do indeed, in this discussion, expect to prove the capability of the spirit to exist after the death of the body, and when I have so done, the question as to the nature of the spirit is settled, in so far as the interests of this discussion are concerned, unless you shall prove that after this the soul or spirit does really cease to exist.

I agree with you, that the Bible teaches, when the question is formally put, that man has a body, a soul, and a spirit. But as the terms soul and spirit are sometimes used interchangeably, I deem it proper to use them so myself, especially as thereby the public are not misled. 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. But this need in no wise stumble us. It may be, however, that in certain instances, we may differ as to the precise meaning of the term in the passages we may quote. If so, we will compare views, stating the points of difference, with our reasons for the opinions affirmed.

I will now turn to the passages quoted in my former letter, teaching the duality of man's nature, and more at length bring out the doctrine they appear to me to contain,

Matt. x, 28—"And fear not those who will kill the body, but cannot kill the soul; but rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell." The corresponding text, in Luke xii, 4, 5, reads, "And I say unto you, my friends, fear not those who kill the body, and after that can do no more; but I will warn you whom to fear. Fear him who, after he hath killed, hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say to you, fear him." Now, what is here stated, and what inferences may we legitimately draw from the texts?

1. That man has a soul and a body.

2. That man can kill the body.

3. But he can do no more.

4. But God can destroy both soul and body in hell.

5. The soul does not necessarily cease to exist when the body dies, for then the act of killing the body would also kill the soul.

6. Except, then, God by his own special act kills the soul, when the body dies, the soul is unharmed.

7. But the only ground upon which, under any circumstances, it can by possibility be affirmed that God will kill the soul, is in the case of the wicked; but even this not until after the resurrection, because no one affirms that the body is cast into hell until after this; and in the text cited, it is said that both soul and body may be destroyed in hell.

8. It follows, then, that the souls of the righteous will never become unconscious, because man can not destroy them, and God will not.

9. But the power man has to kill the body arises from the nature of the body, rendering it capable of receiving physical harm.

10. Therefore, the soul so differs in its nature from the body, that it is not subject to physical injury from any force that man can expend upon it. Hence it is not matter.

11. But the text broadly asserts, that man cannot kill the soul—not some souls, as for instance the souls of the righteous—but the soul. As an illustration of this, I cite two familiar passages—Luke xxiii, 46, and Acts vii, 50. In the first, Jesus, when dying, committed his spirit to his Father. In the second, Stephen, the martyr, when yielding up his life to his murderers, committed his spirit to the Lord Jesus. Now, in both these cases, you have before you what man can do—he can kill the body; also, what he cannot do—he cannot kill the soul. That it was the human soul of Jesus that he committed to his Father, seems indisputable. It was not his divine nature that was "straitened," but his human. Nor could he, in his divine nature, commit himself to God. The thing was impossible.

Besides, in this case Jesus illustrates by example the statement made to his disciples, Matt. x, 28, and shows that the soul does not die with the body—yea, that man cannot kill the soul! How flatly opposed to all this is the statement, that the soul dies, or sleeps with the body. The two are perfect antagonisms, so that if the one be true, the other must be false. Again, in the record of Stephen's death, his faith in his Master's teaching on this subject, stands out in bold relief. Take out that brief statement, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit," from the narrative, and the very point upon the idea of the saint's assurance in such a time of trial, is removed. How clearly does it show, that "man cannot kill the soul." What exultation, what triumph, in the hour of danger and death, to know, both by the teaching and example of Jesus, and by the example of his first, and therefore his most honored martyr, that man, when in his diabolical fury he does his utmost, destroying the body by a horrible death, has then done all, as a servant of the devil, that he can. He hath no more that he can do—he cannot kill the soul!

I now proceed to examine the other passages quoted by me to prove the double nature of man, and your criticisms upon them.

1 Thess. v, 23—"And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly, and may your whole spirit, and soul, and body, be preserved blameless at the coming of the Lord Jesus." On this I said, "I have not introduced this text, in this place, with reference to the doctrine of trichotomy, but only to show further, that there is both a physical and spiritual nature in man." Upon this you remark, "Now, the question is, whether each of these is of itself alone a conscious being so that one man is capable of being received into three men, or whether two of these parts are capable of such separate conscious existence, or only one. If only one is independent of the others in its conscious existence and immortality, tell us which it is, and we will mark the other two 'mortal,' and leave them out of this controversy. The body you have proved is mortal. Which is immortal—the soul or spirit?" You do not deny but that the passage is good for the purpose for which I introduced it, namely, "to show further, that there is both a physical and spiritual nature in man;" but you proceed to raise certain questions which you regard as pertinent to the matter in debate.

This text, I suppose, refers—1. To man's spiritual nature; 2. To his animal life or soul; 3. To his physical organization. But it does not follow that because Paul in this case is using exact language, and therefore employs the term soul to distinguish the more animal life of man, and that this dies with the body, therefore it is to be marked "mortal," and "thrown out of this controversy," because it is sometimes used in the same sense as the term spirit in this text, and it is in this sense I use it in this controversy, except in those instances where I give it other and special definitions. Nor should we gain anything by dropping the word soul, and using the term spirit, because that too is used in different senses in the Scriptures. I conclude, then, that your criticism is rather hyper than exact and necessary, and has in it more show than substance.

What you say about the "osseous, the muscular, the venous, and the nervous systems," I dismiss as fully answered in the remarks above.

Your criticism upon my use of the text, Matt. x, 28, because the term "spirit" is not found in it is answered by my statement, (if my statement is true, and I think it is,) that the words soul and spirit are sometimes used as synonyms, while at other times they are used in different senses. In this text, man's higher or spirit nature is evidently meant, because it may survive the death of the body. But with the death of the body, the animal soul or life must evidently perish. I think, therefore, that in this instance also, your criticism is without force.

What you say of the different translations of the Greek words pneuma and psyche, I pass as matters too well understood by critics and Bible students, to need further attention in this connection.

My next proof was 2 Cor. iv, 16—"For which cause we faint not, but though our outward man perish, our inward man is renewed day by day." On this I said, "This text I think, is unmistakable in its import." You however doubt the correctness of my conclusion, and say, "that there is no proof that the 'inward man' is the soul or spirit." It is figurative language, and doubtless refers to the new man, that is put on at conversion—Christ dwelling in our hearts by faith—the hope of glory; this does not wane, but is renewed day by day. See Col. iii, 9, 10; Eph. iv, 22–24; iii, 16, 17; Col. i, 27. These texts read as follows: Col. iii, 9, 10—"Lie not one to another, putting off the old man with his deeds, and putting on the new man that is renewed in knowledge after the image of him who made him." But this says nothing about the "outward man" and the "inward man," as in 2 Cor. iv, 16, but speaks of the "old man" and "new man," terms having no meaning whatever in common with each other. But let us proceed. Eph. iv, 22–24—"That ye should put off the old man of your former conduct, corrupted by its deceitful desires, and be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and put on the new man, which in God is created in righteousness and true holiness." Eph. iii, 16–17—"That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his spirit in the inner man. That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith," etc., etc. But this is sufficient.

The quotation from Eph. iv, 22–24, is of the same character with the one from Col. iii, 9, 10, neither of which speak of the inward man and the outward man, but of the old man and the new man. The passage, however, found in Eph. iii, 16, 17, is in harmony with the one in 2 Cor. iv, 16, and speaks of the "inner man." I am surprised that you, after so many years of study and thought, should confound these different passages, as they certainly, I must think, differ widely in their meaning. For instance, if the "inner man," the "new man," and "Christ dwelling in you, the hope of glory," mean one and the same thing, how is Christ, by his Spirit, working mightily in men's hearts to strengthen Christ in men's hearts! Do you not see brother, that this is badly mixed? That the inner man is the subject of regeneration, so that the image of God is restored in him, seems to me manifest. Your interpretation seems unnatural—forced. I see no occasion to abandon my former view of this matter.

You next except to my use of John iii, 6—"That which is born of the spirit is spirit"—because I say it is the spirit of man which is the subject of regeneration. You seem to mistake me, when you ask, "Does this prove that flesh only, and not flesh and spirit, is the man that is born of woman?" Of the question of the origin of souls or spirits, I have said nothing, because it is not included in the question proposed for discussion. I had no thought of asserting that man has no spirit until regenerated. What I say is, that it is the spirit of man that is regenerated, and that this text positively asserts that. Your reference of this text to the resurrection of the body, seems to me wholly without warrant. That the resurrection body will be spiritual, is a doctrine of Scripture, but not taught in this text. Jesus says nothing of the resurrection—it is not the theme of discussion. To discuss the resurrection, when the discourse of Nicodemus was concerning the new birth, would be evasive, and tending to mislead on a subject of infinite interest, not only to the interrogator, but also to the whole world. I dismiss this question for the present, feeling confident, that after further reflection, you will not urge an interpretation which makes Jesus thus to trifle with an earnest inquirer.

What you say upon my quotation from 1 Cor. ii, 11, I will pass, seeing the matter is so fully treated in another place, with no other remark, than that I did not cite the passage with reference to whether the spirit of man is conscious when separated from the body, but simply to show that man has a spirit, and that intelligence is one of its attributes.

You commence your concluding paragraph by saying, "In your next, it will be well for you to define the term spirit." I believe my engagement does not bind me to this; and I freely confess, that touching the nature of spirits, I have no very satisfactory knowledge.

Again you say, "If you think the texts you have quoted prove that the spirit of man has a conscious existence after the body is dead, [which I utterly fail to see,] please quote the texts showing that they cannot cease to live." Until my argument on Matt. x, 28, advanced in this article, is met and fairly overthrown; I think I may consider the question settled as to the existence of the spirit after the death of the body. Not that there are not other texts teaching, as I suppose, the same sentiment, but this is sufficient.

Your suggestion, that I prove that spirits can not die, when separated from their bodies, is, I think, extraordinary. By what rule do you require of me to prove a negative? When I prove that the soul lives, although the body dies, no more can be required. What you have now to do, as I understand it, is to show the unsoundness of my argument on Matt. x, 28. If you fail in this, I see not but you are required, by every principle of candor, to accept the doctrine.

I think I have now noticed the main points in your argument, and await your second reply.

Very truly yours.

N. V. HULL.

Watch.

By S. Elmer

WATCH, Christian, watch! for there's danger around thee, Legions of spirits thy progress oppose; Then look unto Him who once went before thee, He is able and willing to conquer thy foes.

Watch, Christian, watch! for the Master is coming, And bids thee be ready to hail him with joy; Then those who've been faithful will share in his glory, While all of the wicked of earth he'll destroy.

Watch, Christian, watch! for the day-star has risen, Soon will the morning all glorious come, When thou shalt rest, sweetly rest from thy labor, And the angels in Heaven will welcome thee home.

Then be of good cheer for thy home is preparing, And crowns of bright glory are waiting for thee. Soon the clear light of Heaven will burst on thy vision, And sin, death, and sorrow forevermore flee. S. ELMER. Ashfield, Mass.

Eld. Cottrell's Second Reply.

By R. F. Cottrell

ELD. N. V. HULL:

Dear Brother,—The question under discussion, namely, “What is the nature and destiny of man, according to the teaching of the Holy Scriptures?” is a plain, fair question; and the Scriptures doubtless furnish us with all necessary information upon the subject, as is implied in the question itself. But your first proposition—“that man is composed of matter and spirit”—I do not deem a Scriptural proposition. It is a philosophical or a metaphysical proposition; neither the matter nor the spirit of it is found in the Bible. Both these words, it is true, are frequently found in the Bible, but never in the sense in which they are evidently used in your proposition. Matter is never contrasted with spirit, nor spirit with matter, in the Bible. And herein consists the fallacy of your argument. You frame a proposition with terms used in the technical sense of that which calls itself philosophy, and then go to the Bible, and, lo! the same terms, in form, are there, and the proposition is considered as positively proved! In this way you can prove that feathers are directly the opposite of darkness, because they are light.

You seem surprised that I should understand you as having undertaken to prove the immortality of the soul, and you are sure that I have not “well considered the proposition.” You further say, “Nor still have I asserted that the spirit of man is immortal, or that it is so declared by any express statement of Scripture. Neither the terms mortal nor immortal are so applied, so far as I can recollect, in the Sacred Oracles.” I am glad to have you make this admission. You will not, of course, attempt to prove the soul or spirit immortal, since the Scriptures—the only umpire in this controversy—do not assert it. And it is not only remarkable, but truly astonishing, that, while the terms soul and spirit are found many hundreds of times in the Bible, the terms immortal, never dying, deathless, or anything of the kind, is never applied to either of them, if, indeed, either is immortal.

But let us consider your second proposition, “That the body is mortal, but”—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 use of the terms immortal and immortality in the Scriptures, we have the advantage, and so you put, “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 will you prove this proposition by the Scriptures? This, like your terms matter and spirit, is a philosophic term, and, like them, utterly unknown to the Bible. To prove this proposition, therefore, it will be necessary to resort to philosophical, instead of Bible arguments; and still it will remain unproved; for you do not profess to know “what the nature of the substance of the spirit is,” and consequently you are wholly unprepared to say whether it is capable of physical corruption or not.

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 ever being used to denote “man's higher or spirit nature.” You say, “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.” Of the corresponding Hebrew word, Parkhurst says, “As a noun, neh-phesh 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.” And I am fully persuaded that neither neh-phesh nor psyche ever mean in the Scriptures, what is called the soul or spirit in popular phrase. You modestly decline defining this soul or spirit, for the reason that “touching the nature of spirits,” you “have no very satisfactory knowledge.” I accept of this as a valid reason. Yet you venture to tell me that “it is not matter.” Being unacquainted with the substance, how could you tell so much without an express revelation? 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. It possesses no property or power by which to make itself manifest to any intelligent being in the universe. Reason and analogy never scan it, or even conceive of it. Revelation never reveals it, nor do any of our senses witness its existence. In short, it can exert no influence whatever—it can neither act, nor be acted upon. And even if it does exist, it can be of no possible use.” If you can give any better definition of it, you are requested to do so. If not, please excuse me if I am forced to believe that immateriality is nothing.

I do not presume to attempt to explain the substance of which spirits are composed. But this I have learned from revelation; that they are in the form of men; that they have faces, hands, and feet; that they can talk, look, walk, lie down, rise up, hold a staff in their hand, lay hold of men, and pull them with force from the violence of a mob, or hasten them from a doomed city. Gen. xviii, 1–16; xix, 1–16; Judges, vi, 11–21; xiii, 6–21. Angels are “all ministering spirits.” Heb. i. But of disembodied human spirits, that are capable of making any “manifestations,” physical or mental, I know nothing, having never read of them in the word of God.

On Matt. x, 28, you make a fair show of argument. I was aware that you could do so; and to those whose prepossessions and prejudices give them a choice that your view should prove true, it will doubtless be satisfactory. But those who can bring their minds to a thorough and impartial investigation of the whole tenor of Bible teaching on this subject, will find that your exposition of this text is out of harmony with the Scriptures. Why should soul, in this verse, mean an immaterial man, that lives after the body is dead, and in the same chapter, and speaking of the very same subject, namely the risking of our lives for the cause of Christ, mean simply life, as it is translated? “He that findeth his soul shall lose it; and he that loseth his soul for my sake, shall find it.”—Verse 39. No one will claim that soul here means “man's higher or spirit nature,” and that he must lose his immortal soul in hell in order to find it in heaven. But if we lose our life in this world, for the cause of Christ, we shall find it in the world to come, by coming forth from the grave to the “resurrection of life.” And this perfectly agrees with what I before quoted from John, xii, 25. “He that loveth his life [soul] shall lose it; but he that hateth his [soul] life in this world, shall keep it unto life eternal.”

On Matt. xvi, 26, “For what is a man profited if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul?” Dr. Clarke says, “On what authority many have translated the word psyche, in the 25th verse, life, and in this verse, soul, I know not, but am certain it means life in both places.”

I conclude, then, that in Matt. x, 28, the words are not used in their strictly literal sense; that to kill the body means to take away the present life, but to destroy both soul and body in hell, is to deprive one of life and being in the world to come. The former wicked men can do; but they cannot touch that life that is hid with Christ in God, which is to be given “when Christ who is our life shall appear.” And with this agrees the parallel passage in Luke. Persecutors, after they have killed men, “have no more that they can do.” Death puts the objects of their hatred out of their reach. Not so with the Lord; after he has killed his enemies, he can raise them from the dead, and cast them into hell. All believe that they are “cast alive” into hell; not that they are killed and then cast dead there.

I must here remind you, that if you succeed in proving from Matt. x, 28, the separate conscious existence of the soul, you will at the same time prove its mortality; for God can kill it, and he threatens nothing which he does not intend to perform. The wicked he will destroy, both soul and body. And that the souls thus destroyed will be unconscious is implied in your own words: “The souls of the righteous will never become unconscious, because man can not destroy them, and God will not.”

The necessity of brevity forbids that I should re-examine at length the other texts you have again spoken

of. I notice only a few thoughts. You think I have things “badly mixed,” having “Christ, by his Spirit, working mightily in men's hearts, to strengthen Christ in men's hearts.” The difficulty will vanish, when we consider, that “Christ within” is defined to be “the hope of glory.” This hope may be strengthened by the Spirit and “renewed day by day,” though the outward man is in a state of decay.

I do not see how it makes Jesus “trifle with an earnest inquirer,” to represent that he told Nicodemus that he was mistaken in thinking “that the kingdom of God should immediately appear;” (Luke, xix, 11;) that the present state of “flesh and blood” cannot inherit it; and that therefore he must not expect it till the birth from the dead, and the change to immortality, prefigured by baptism, should take place. He, as a “master in Israel,” should have known this, having the 37th of Ezekiel and other like prophecies to read.

I now proceed to speak briefly to the question in debate—the question of man's nature as revealed in the Scriptures. Your first proposition speaks of man's composition, affirming that he is composed of matter and spirit. By the side of this I will lay my first proposition, viz: Man was formed of the dust of the ground. In proof of this I quote Gen. ii, 7, “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” Man was not a living soul until he received the breath of life; but he is called man before that was given; nothing having entered into his composition but the dust of which he was made. In accordance with this, Bible phraseology always represents the man to be where his body is, whether alive or dead. When the breath of life was given, man became a living soul. The man that was formed of the dust became a living soul. The man, then, was the soul, and the soul was the man. Hence one of the primary meanings of soul is the whole person or body. This is the inspired account of man's creation, and there is not one word or intimation in it of the immaterial, immortal soul of popular theology. How strange that the “clay tenement” should be so particularly described, and its immortal occupant not be considered worth naming!

Your second proposition is, “That the body is mortal, but the spirit is incapable of physical corruption.” The second part of this proposition is foreign to all Scripture teaching, and, whether it is true or not it cannot be proved by the Bible. The first part of it—‘that the body is mortal’—I have admitted as positively proved. By the side of this I place my second proposition, viz: Man is mortal. I admit that you proved the body to be mortal, because you found the texts of Scripture which expressly call it so. All I ask is, that you admit my proposition proved, when I produce the like testimony. Will you do so? I proceed then to the proof.

Job, iv, 17.—“Shall mortal man be more just than God?” Here man as a whole, is called mortal. This could not be true if a part of him were immortal. All those texts that assert, in the broadest sense, that “man dieth,” prove that he is mortal; for that which is immortal is exempt from death.

Rom. i, 23.—“And changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man.” Man, in the broadest sense, is here called corruptible or perishable. (Grove's Greek Lexicon.) Then no part of him is incorruptible or imperishable. Man is corruptible; God is incorruptible. One of the definitions of the word here rendered incorruptible is immortal; and it is so translated in 1 Tim. i, 17, where also it is applied to God. This text, then, asserts the mortality of man.

My third proposition is, that man in death has no knowledge. “For the living know that they shall die; but the dead know not anything.”—Eccl. ix, 5. If that part of man which knows, while in life, retained its knowledge after death, this text would not be true. The two conditions of man—living and dead—are here contrasted. The living know, the dead know not, is the declaration. That which had knowledge in life, has none in death.

Psa. vi, 5.—“For in death there is no remembrance of thee; in the grave, who shall give thee thanks?” There is a state of death, or there is not. If not, we may throw away our Bible, and say with Spiritualists, “There is no death.” What is death? Is it a state of separation of soul and body? Well, in that state “THERE IS NO REMEMBRANCE” of God. This text being true, the good man does not so much as know that there is a God when he is dead.

As ever, yours, R. F. COTTRELL.

THE SUN SHALL BE DARKENED

By M. E. Cornell

Interesting Extracts. No. 3.

BY ELD. M. E. CORNELL.

"THE SUN SHALL BE DARKENED."

John Kennedy, in a sermon published in Danvers, Mass., A. D. 1780, says:

"The late wonderful and unusual darkness, on the 19th day of May last, struck the inhabitants of this State with horror and amazement, and at the same time filled them with alarming apprehensions. Yea, the very brutes seemed greatly agitated. If so, could a thinking being sit unmoved while he beheld the sun veiled in darkness at noon-day; * the husbandmen returning from their fields in great surprise; the beasts gazing in wild consternation; every countenance seemed to gather blackness; yes, a dismal gloom, which filled the beholder with fear and astonishment, waiting with much anxiety for some event. In fine, the darkness was as we nor our fathers never saw."

The Boston Gazette says: "They were obliged to dine by the light of the candle. Such a phenomenon was never before seen here by the oldest person living."

A correspondent from Newport, May 20, 1780, remarked that "It is not recollected from history, that a darkness of equal intenseness and duration has ever happened in any part of the world, except the miraculous eclipse at the crucifixion of our blessed Saviour."

In a manuscript sermon by Rev. Elam Potter, M. A., on the dark day of May 19, 1780, delivered on the 28th of the same month, he says:

"But especially I mention that wonderful darkness, on the 19th of May, last. Then, as in our text, the sun was darkened; such a darkness as probably was never known before, since the crucifixion of our Lord. People left their work in the house and in the field. Travelers stopped; schools broke up at eleven o'clock; people lit up candles at noon-day; and the fire shone as at night. Some people, I have been told, were in dismay, and thought whether the day of judgment was not drawing on. A great part of the following night, also, was singularly dark. The moon, though in the fall, gave no light, as in our text."

THE FALLING STARS OF 1833.

The Christian Advocate and Journal, Dec. 13, 1883, says:*

"It seemed as if the whole starry heavens had congregated at one point, near the zenith, and were simultaneously shooting forth with the velocity of lightning, to every part of the horizon; and yet they were not exhausted—thousands swiftly followed in the tracks of thousands, as if created for the occasion."

A converted Papist writes: "It was, indeed, owing to this very doctrine (praying for souls in purgatory), that I saw the beautiful meteoric shower which occurred Nov. 13, 1833. I had been taught to make the sign of the cross once for every shooting star I saw, in behalf of departed souls; and being awake when the meteoric shower lighted up the heavens, the work of crossing myself began; but very soon the use of both hands could not suffice, for the stars apparently moved so rapidly that it became impossible to keep up. The consequence was, that the whole family was called up to see a wonder which excited no little fear in us all."—The Conversion of a Papist, pp. 39, 40.

A writer in the New York Ledger says: "They fell each one from its own starting point, in lines conformed to the arching sky, as if they followed the outline of one vast umbrella, overshadowing the beholder. Yet the meteoric stars fell unlike the ripe fruit, which drops from the tree directly to the ground. They flew, they were cast, they were hurled from their place like unripe fruit, which refuses to let go its hold, until the tree is powerfully shaken, when at length it breaks loose, bursts away, and darts madly toward the ground."

The Hard Problem.

By M. W. Howard

“There never was since the world began a problem for our faith to solve so hard as that which tries American believers at this time.” So says one who clings with blinded zeal to the so-called millennium theory. The ideas which had been advanced were no new sentiments. I had been familiar with the stereotyped phrases from my childhood. Though they had always jarred somewhat discordantly, it was only by the help of present truth that I had been enabled to see how utterly futile and unscriptural they were. But now it struck me with new force; and as I drank in the import of the words above quoted, I fell to musing: At last one was ready to admit that it was a “hard problem.” And no wonder! for he was forced to see and confess, “That Edomitish envy, aristocracy and greed characterize our people; that hostile camps of brothers of one land frown defiance at each other with such bitter hate that scarce a sentinel can live between them;” or mingling in the closer conflict, our land is deluged with brothers’ blood. No wonder it tries the faith of “American believers,” at least that portion of them who are trusting in the American churches, dignified as the vicegerent of the gospel of Christ, to renovate this fallen, sinful world. No wonder it is a problem, hard for such a faith to solve; for well it may be, in the face of all the scriptures that disprove it, aside from the stubborn facts and proofs of man’s degeneracy. Then why not open your eyes and see that the faith itself is the harder problem?

It must needs be, “that the Scriptures be fulfilled,” is the only way one can account for this persistent clinging to an unfounded dogma, by persons possessing clear, practical good sense in understanding other things. Why need a veil rest over the understanding in reading the word of God, except it be that so few read it with sufficient discrimination to break the spell of a hackneyed early training. Alas! that mankind will so impregnably intrench themselves behind the ramparts of prejudice, that, resisting alike argument and the sterner logic of passing events, they will reiterate and endorse the sentiment, as not long since I heard one, in an outburst of pulpit eloquence, “I will never! no, never! till the latest hour of my breath, give up the idea that this sinful earth is to be renovated, and lifted to millennial purity by the gospel of Christ!” I sighed mentally then, and repeat it now: If you never will, you never will! But may not Jesus now be saying of such, as he said while upon earth of the scribes and Pharisees, “Let them alone; they be blind leaders of the blind;” even though they would doubtless ask as arrogantly as did those Pharisees: “Are we blind also?” Let Jesus’ answer come with solemn weight to all, till in earnestness we pray, “Open thou the blind eyes.”

M. W. HOWARD.

Malone, N. Y., June, 1864.

The Mother's Influence

THE MOTHER'S INFLUENCE.—The solid rock which turns the edge of the chisel, bears forever the impress of the leaf and the acorn, received long, long since, ere it had become hardened by time and the elements. If we track back to its fountain the mighty torrent which fertilizes the land with its copious streams, or sweeps over it with a devastating flood, we shall find it dripped in crystal drops from some mossy crevice among the distant hills. So, too, the gentle feelings and affections that enrich and adorn the heart, and the mighty passions that sweep away all the barriers of the soul and desolate society, they have sprung up in the infant bosom in the sheltered retirement of home. "I should have been an atheist," said John Randolph 'if it had not been for one recollection, and that was the memory of the time when my departed mother used to take my hands in hers, and cause me on my knees to say, "Our Father which art in Heaven."

Way of Life

WAY OF LIFE.—Many people labor to make the narrow way wider. They may dig a path into the broad way, but the way of life will remain a narrow way to the end.—Cecil.

Sublimity

SUBLIMITY.—One of the sublimest things in the world is plain truth.—Bulmer.

Continue reading: BOTH SIDES OF THE SABBATH QUESTION