Review and Herald, Vol. 26, No. 5. (7/4/1865)

Review and Herald

Jul 4, 1865

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Michigan · Jul 4, 1865

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 Vol. xxv, No. 25.)

Elder Hull's Sixth Article.

Eld. R. F. Cottrell:

Dear Brother,—In resuming my reply to your article published in the Recorder of Jan. 26th, I commence by noticing your strictures on the term immortality.

You say, "The Bible is silent concerning the immortality of the soul in its present state, or until it shall put on immortality at the resurrection of the just." Dear brother, will you have the kindness to quote the passage which says, "The soul puts on immortality at the resurrection of the just." Now mark what I say, and let all our readers mark it: There is neither word nor hint in the Bible, of the soul's putting on immortality at the resurrection. You affect dismay at the misuse of the Bible by religious partisans; but of all the bold and unwarrantable statements made by men earnest to establish a point, I know of none exceeding this. Had you said the body puts on immortality at the resurrection of the just, it would have been well. But your theory required an addition to the simple Scripture statement, and for its sake you made the addition!

All that I have attempted concerning the idea of the soul's immortality, is to prove that the soul does not necessarily die with the body. You now say, should I prove this, still I have not proved the immortality of the wicked. I have not come to that yet. When we come to the question of the destiny of the wicked, we shall likely have something to say about the phrase "second death," etc. But as to the existence of the soul after the death of the body, I maintain I have proved it by the saying of Jesus—a saying so positive and so exact, that to dispute it is to oppose!

But you make strange concerning the existence of human spirits separate from their bodies, as if the "idea" was not contained in the Bible. But notice: 1. The Pharisees of Jesus' time believed in the existence of spirits, Acts xxiii, 8—"For the Sadducees say there is no resurrection, neither angel nor spirit; but the Pharisees acknowledge both." 2. In this matter, Paul said he agreed with the Pharisees. 3. The disciples of Jesus believed in the existence of spirits, Mark vi, 49—"But they seeing him walking on the sea thought it was a spirit, and cried out." 4. Jesus believed in the existence of spirits. Luke xxiv, 36—"A spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have." 5. Stephen believed his spirit would exist after the death of the body. Acts vii, 59—"Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." And in this he followed the example of his Master, who, when dying, said, "Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit."—Luke xxiii, 46. Indeed, nobody, at least no sect, in Christ's time, but the haughty infidel Sadducees, denied the separate existence of human spirits. Now, in the light of the above, said I not well, "The Bible especially the New Testament, would be without meaning, were we to remove this doctrine from it?"

It is possible that Greenfield, in making Aphtharton, Rom. i, 23, say that God is incorruptible, or undecaying, as to the essence of his nature, is right; but the difficulty I have with you is, that you quote Greenfield as sustaining you in your theory that the soul or spirit of man decays with the body, because Aphtharton, when applied to decayable substances, means corruptible, perishable, etc., in a physical sense, whereas he holds no such doctrine; at any rate, if he does, I am not aware of it. And now, that our readers may not be misled, will you please quote Greenfield, or any other accepted lexicographer, where Aphtharton, when applied to the spirit of man, is made to mean corruptible, in a physical sense? I certainly know of no such use of the term.

But light may be reflected upon this question, by taking the words corrupt and corrupted, and noticing a few instances where they occur in the Scriptures, from which the physical sense is excluded. Ex. xxxii, 7—"And Jehovah said to Moses, Go, get thee down, for thy people, whom thou broughtest out of the land of Egypt, have corrupted themselves." 1 Cor. xv, 33—"Evil intercourse corrupteth good customs." 2 Cor. xi, 3—"But I fear lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ Jesus." 1 Tim. vi, 5—"Idle employments of men of corrupt minds." Also, 2 Tim. iii, 8; Eph. iv, 29—"Let no corrupt words issue from your mouth." But these instances are enough to show that these words are often used in the Bible, not in a physical, but in a moral sense.

That mortality is affirmed of the bodies of men, whether good or bad, is true; that is, of men in the flesh. But mortality is not affirmed, either of the souls or bodies of men, in the future state.

On what you say of the word destruction, I will only add to what I said in my former article, a quotation from Olshausen, whose learning you will hardly call in question. On 2 Thess. i, 9, he says: "OLETHROO-AIOONIOS, everlasting destruction. . . . This is the only passage in Paul's epistles in which everlasting damnation is openly declared." I refer you hopefully to his entire note.

I have a little more to say on your theory of definitions, or the application of words to spiritual subjects; and let this cover what you say on the word destroy. You seem wholly to overlook the fact, that all words, whether they relate to God, Heaven, or hell, or anything touching the future of man, are in their primary significations earthly and physical—that all language seems awakened into being by, and is patterned after, "things visible." And further, as in the beginning man knew but little, words were few and simple; but as men advanced in knowledge, words took on a deeper meaning; and, as necessity required, new words were coined. Such is the history of language, in the Bible as well as in the world of science and letters. Because, then, the words first used to describe God were simple and physical, adapted only to the childhood state of man, shall we refuse the light since shed upon that question, and still clothe him in the rags of that poverty-stricken state? Is he indeed a being possessed of the body and passions of a man? Your system rejects the doctrine that God is pure spirit! And so of your Heaven, the primary meaning of which is wholly physical; and all this comes from the unscholarly and absurd habit of attributing physical properties to spirit.

Your illustration drawn from horse-flesh and horse-life may do very well for one occupying your standpoint, but wholly fails when viewed from mine. 1. Your order in the creation of the horse is imaginary. No such account is given in the Bible. 2. The horse is not made in the image of God, and here is the rub! In so far as the animal substance and life of both horse and man are concerned, I suppose them subject to about the same laws. But in neither of these does the image of God lie.

Concerning your proposition, "that man is mortal," I again say, that the Bible says that man's body is mortal. This I believe. You say man's spirit, or soul, is mortal. This the Bible does not say. I believe the Bible, but disbelieve you.

I do not seek to evade the doctrine, that the "dead know not anything." What I deny is, that the spirit dies with the body. If the Bible says that the spirit dies with the body, why can you not quote the passage in which it is found? That men in the grave do not "remember anything done under the sun," I heartily believe, for that is what both reason and Scripture teach. That in certain instances the words life and spirit may have the same meaning, may be true, but not usually. I will give an instance or two, John, iii, 6—"That which is born of the spirit is spirit." 1 Cor. ii, 11—"For what man knoweth the things of a man save the spirit of man that is in him?" It would be impossible to put the word life in the place of the word spirit, and make sense in these passages,

as in many others. Consciousness is nowhere affirmed of life; it is the spirit that knows and wills.

You say that Matt. x, 28, was written to assure the disciples that men could not deprive them of their future existence. But is that the plain teaching of that text? Is there any evidence that the disciples needed any such assurance as that? But upon the supposition that that is what the Saviour meant, how did he teach them this? Why, by telling them, that although men might kill the body, they could not kill the soul. So, then, the assurance Christ gives, that there is a hereafter for man, is that the soul does not die with the body. Well, then, let it be so!

I close this article with a consideration of your argument upon "immortality an object of hope, and to be sought after." Rom. ii, 7—"To those who by patient continuance in well-doing, seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life." You may be surprised when I tell you, I consider this your strong text. In listening to conversations upon this subject, I have always noticed that this text was quoted with an air of triumph. I must then approach your citadel with care. And, 1st. If I understand you, you make immortality and eternal life one and the same thing. But this would be plainly tautological. You must then say, that glory and honor and immortality are one with eternal life. If so, then immortality and eternal life certainly are not equivalent. 2d. No other writer than Paul exhorts us to seek after immortality, and he only in this text. 3d. But the immortality promised to the saints, and spoken of in 1 Corinthians, is applied to the body in the resurrection state, and does not refer to the spirit. 4th. But this same writer, Philippians iii, 11, speaks of striving to attain unto the resurrection of the dead; and in Acts xxvi, 7, he calls the resurrection, the "hope" of Israel, because founded in a "promise" of God. 5th. But the resurrection per se takes effect upon the wicked as well as the just. But certainly Paul did not seek to attain unto the resurrection of the wicked. It follows, then, that he strove to attain that resurrection which is the portion of the just; the desirableness of which is found not simply in being raised, but in circumstances attending it. Such, then, I understand to be the immortality sought after; not existence, but a blessed, a happy existence. The existence comes without our seeking; but the blessed existence is to be sought after as a thing of hope. I am aware that you will say, that immortality means incorruption. But you will bear in mind the fact, that the primary sense of all language is physical and earthly. Even God, and, as I have said, Heaven and hell, are thus described. But words take on other significations, being modified by their surroundings. Such is the universal law of language. When, then, I look at the word immortality, in the text under consideration, and take it in the light of its surroundings, I am satisfied that what Paul means is, "Seek for a blessed future, such as is the inheritance of the saints." To interpret him as saying, "Seek for a future eternal existence," is, I think, to fall far below the mark.

As ever yours,

N. V. HULL.

"If Need Be." 1 Pet. i, 6.

THREE gracious words. Not all for naught Is sorrow, grief and pain; The heavy burdens that we bear Will not be borne in vain. Our heavenly Father knows our frame, He knows how weak we are, And every sigh and every tear He seeth from afar.

If daily cares oppress our heart, And earthly comforts flee; Does aught disturb our peace of mind, He knows it needs to be. And when the "need be" has fulfilled The end marked out by God, And we are brought to trust him more, He will remove the rod.

Oh, blessed thought, there's not a drop In all the cup of woe, That is not measured by his hand, And will not overflow. Then may we ever trust his love, And though severely tried, Remember that it needs to be, And in his strength abide.

[Am. Messenger.

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

By R. F. Cottrell

Eld. N. V. Hull:

Dear Brother,—Yours of Recorder, June 1, is received.

You can scarcely express your astonishment at what you call my "bold and unwarrantable statement," that the Bible is silent concerning the soul's immortality in its present state, or until it shall put it on at the resurrection. You ask for a text that says the soul puts on immortality. You say, "Had you said the body puts on immortality at the resurrection of the just, it would have been well. But your theory required an addition to the simple Scripture statement, and for its sake, you made the addition!" A grave charge indeed! Because the word soul is not in the text referred to, I am charged with adding to the Scriptures. But if I had added body, another word that is not in the text, you say, "It would have been well." Why? Simply because your theory required that addition. The text is found in 1 Cor. xv, 53. It says, "This mortal must put on immortality." Whatever of man is mortal will put on immortality.

What is mortal? You say, the body. I admit it. But have you proved any part of man immortal? No. On the contrary, I have proved the entire man mortal, by plain Bible expressions. Man is a soul. When he received the breath of life, he "became a living soul." But the Scriptures call him, "mortal man." Then the living soul is mortal. The Lord did not talk to the senseless matter of which man was composed, but to the living soul, when he said, "In the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die." Hence, if the living soul transgressed—and that alone was capable of transgression—it was to die. What was the meaning of this threatening of death? It was simply this: that the living soul was to cease to live. It was defined by the sentence, "Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." And that this penalty should not fail of execution, man was excluded from the tree of life, "lest he should eat and live forever." The object of this was, that the living soul should not live forever. Now, when Paul says, "this mortal," he means all that is mortal belonging to man; and this certainly includes the living soul. Therefore, though the word soul is not in the text, yet it teaches that the soul puts on immortality at the resurrection of the just. It is the soul that shouts the victory over that personified power which had, for a season, apparently been the victor over it.

You say, "All I have attempted concerning the idea of the soul's immortality, is to prove that the soul does not necessarily die with the body!" Indeed! That is attempting very little. I presume you would have attempted more, had the proof been at hand. You wish me and our readers to believe the soul immortal, but, during a year's discussion of the point, have not yet attempted to prove it! I think it time you yield the point, or attempt the proof.

To prove the existence of human spirits separate from their bodies, you quote Acts xxiii, 8—"For the Sadducees say there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit; but the Pharisees confess both." On those questions, Paul took ground with the Pharisees. So do we. We believe in the resurrection most faithfully, and think it of some value, too, as giving life to those that are dead. We believe, also, that all the angels of God are "ministering spirits," and that there are such things as "spirits of devils," which are capable, when permitted, of "working miracles." These things we read; and believing them most fully, we are not Sadducees. But the text is still wanting that speaks of human spirits, as living, conscious beings, separate from their bodies. True, the disciples were frightened, because they thought they saw a spirit; and Jesus told them, "A spirit hath not flesh and bones as you see me have." I believe the testimony. When those spirits from Heaven have appeared to men, they have appeared in the form of men; but they have not flesh and bones as men have. The dying Stephen prayed, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." This would be my prayer under like circumstances; and I should do so, believing, with Paul, "that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day." Man's spirit is not a being, but that endowment which man received by the inbreathing of the Almighty. It will be received again at the resurrection, and to the righteous, this gift will be eternal life. This doctrine of human spirits, living, conscious, and active, separate from their bodies, cannot be removed from the New Testament; for it is not there. All that is said of "disembodied spirits" is fabulous. The Bible reveals no such thing.

You admit the possibility that Greenfield is right in his definitions of the Greek terms used in Rom. i, 23, where God and man are contrasted as incorruptible and corruptible, immortal and mortal, imperishable and perishable. I think he is. Hence, the text describes man as "corruptible, perishable, liable to decay, mortal." This covers the whole ground of man's nature in this respect, unless you can find proof that some part of man is incorruptible, immortal, undying, imperishable. All proof of this kind is wanting. But seeing your weakness at this point, you attempt to cover your retreat by the strange request that I should quote "Greenfield, or any other accepted lexicographer, where Aphtharton, [I presume you mean phtharton,] when applied to the spirit of man, is made to mean corruptible in a physical sense."

This paragraph of yours is very remarkable. The text speaks of the "incorruptible God" and "corruptible man." The meaning is obvious, and not to be evaded. But you speak of "Aphtharton, [phtharton,] when applied to decayable substances," just as if it is sometimes applied to undecayable substances. The fact is when phtharton is applied to a substance, it signifies that it is perishable. It is for you to give instances of its application to incorruptible things. The terms corruptible and incorruptible are defined in Scripture: "Not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever." That which liveth and abideth forever is incorruptible. That which is corruptible, then, does not live and abide forever. This is the case with "corruptible man." The instances you quote of the use of the words corrupt and corrupted, are rendered from other Greek terms, and not from phthartos. I do say that phthartos might not be used in a like figurative sense, but it is not in the New Testament.

I accept of your lecture upon the philosophy of language and the diversified use of words, as a diversion from the point at issue. I do not dispute the various figurative senses of words. Consequently your instructions on this point, though good, are not necessary. Would it not be better to busy yourself in finding the Scripture language, literal or figurative, which proves that man, by nature, is immortal? This would be more acceptable to those of our readers who wish to ascertain the truth on this subject. Please come to the point. I will accept of figurative language in all cases where there is evidence that it is figurative. Any language to prove your position; but alas! it is all wanting. But I cannot allow you to make the most clearly literal expressions of Scripture [all of which are against you] figurative, merely because words are sometimes used in a figurative sense, and because the necessities of your theory demand it.

I have no "theory that the spirit decays with the body;" and no "unscholarly and absurd habit of attributing physical properties to spirit." Man was made of dust; and when the dust returns to the earth as it was, the spirit communicated by the "inbreathing of the Almighty," which gives man life and understanding, returns to God who gave it.

No; God did not create the horse in his own image; but he created him, and gave him, as well as man, the breath of life.

Yes; "the Bible says man's body is mortal." It also says man is mortal. There is no contradiction in the two expressions; one does not disprove the other. You always find the man where his body is. I have not said that "man's spirit is mortal." The spirit is not a separate entity or being. But we frequently read in the Hebrew Scriptures of "dead souls."

You say, "I do not seek to evade the doctrine, that the 'dead know not anything.' What I deny is, that the spirit dies with the body." Until you prove that man has two distinct lives, one in the body and the other in the spirit, there is no demand for a text to prove that the spirit dies with the body. One death is sufficient to place a man in that state in which he knows nothing. Has the body, while living, knowledge? If so, living matter can think; and an immaterial soul to do the thinking is unnecessary. But if it is the soul alone that has knowledge in life, then it is the soul that knows nothing in death; for it is the same that knows while man is living, that knows nothing when he is dead. The text says, "The living know," "But the dead know not." Which, horn will you have? According to your theory, there is no change in respect to man's knowledge at death, only that he knows more than he did before; for he now knows what death is, and how a dead man feels, a thing he never knew before in all his life. Now it seems to me this theory is a fable, or the text untrue. I hold to the text, however "unscholarly" it may be.

You claim that "the assurance Christ gives, that there is a hereafter to man, is that the soul does not die with the body." I reply, the assurance he gives of a future life is the resurrection. He says, "And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. And this is the will

of him that sent me, that every one that seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day." John vi, 39, 40. From this text, we have for the assurance, that Christ's people will not be lost in death, that he will raise them up again at the last day. "That I should lose nothing," he says, "but raise it up. And the condition of everlasting life in the resurrection is faith in Christ. "Every one that seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life." Will unbelievers have everlasting life, too? Thus it is proved that the resurrection is the assurance Christ gives of a future life. "Well, then, let it be so!"

It is, indeed, most fatal to your theory, that we are taught to seek for immortality, and that eternal life is set before us as an object of hope. "To those who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honor, and immortality, eternal life." Rom. ii, 7. There is a shade of difference between the terms, immortality, and eternal life; but when the apostle promises eternal life to those who seek for immortality, he doubtless intends to promise the very thing for which they seek. Aphtharsia, the word here rendered immortality, signifies incorruptibility, and by implication, immortality. And Greenfield refers us to 1 Cor. xv, 42, 53, 54, to illustrate its meaning. Now you will not dispute me on the meaning of the word in these texts. You will not dispute that when the apostle says, concerning the resurrection, "It is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption," that he does not mean that his people are buried in moral corruption, and raised in moral incorruption, but that these decaying bodies will be made imperishable, and having life in that incorruptible, immortal state, they will have immortal, enduring, endless or eternal life as the result. Now this incorruptibility and consequent eternal life, which is to be given at the resurrection of the just, is the very thing the apostle exhorts us to seek for, and assures us we only obtain, by patient continuance in well doing. Rom. ii, 7. This "first resurrection," the resurrection of life, "over the subjects of which the 'second death hath no power,' is the one to which the apostle so ardently desired to attain: Phil. iii, 11. It is a resurrection "out from among the dead," i. e., the one in which none but the righteous have a part, all the wicked being left behind to slumber in the dust for a thousand years, and then come forth, not to the "resurrection of life," but to the "resurrection of damnation;" not to incorruption, but to "utterly perish in their own corruption." Rev. xx, 4-6; John v, 29; Acts xxiv, 15; Phil. iii, 11; 1 Cor. xv, 54; 2 Peter ii, 12 .

Your first objection to our view on this text is, that it makes it tautological. We can excuse the apostle for promising the very thing sought for, since he varies the terms to avoid tautology. You may qualify the terms by "blessed" or "happy," a thing the apostle was capable of doing, had he thought it necessary, and still the text is not improved. There is no doubt that that life will be blessed; there will be "glory and honor," as well as immortality there. Your second objection is that "no other writer than Paul exhorts us to seek after immortality." Well, one testimony is sufficient if it is well corroborated. If the general tenor of the other scriptures contradicted this idea of Paul's, as they do your view of Matt. x, 28, then we might rightly infer that he did not mean to be understood in a strictly literal sense. But Paul's idea in this text is corroborated by the whole tenor of the scriptures on this subject. I cannot quote a tithe of the testimony in perfect harmony with this exhortation of the apostle, understanding him in the literal sense. I will merely refer you to our Saviour's numerous exhortations to come to him that they might have life, to keep the commandments in order to "enter into life," or have right to the tree of life, &c. All these, and a multitude of other texts, perfectly harmonize with Paul's exhortation to seek for immortality. There is no necessity, then, unless created by a false theory, of forcing this evidently literal language to mean something else. If there is a testimony that does not harmonize with this idea of seeking for immortality, please quote it. Ah! there is the difficulty. There are none. Your other objections I have already answered, and it is unnecessary to repeat.

Olshausen I have not. I have no objection to what you quote from him. To be condemned to everlasting destruction is, certainly, everlasting damnation.

And now, what progress can we report in this discussion on the nature of man? You have proved by unquestionable evidence that the body is mortal. I have proved by testimony equally clear and unquestionable, that the entire man is mortal—that the living soul is subject to death, and that death is not merely a loss of happiness, but a cessation of life—that it was decreed, in consequence of sin, that man should not live forever; and, consequently, it is only through faith in Christ that man can have eternal life.

Have you found any testimony that any part of man is destined, by nature, or independent of redemption through Christ, to exist in conscious being eternally? Not a word of it; and nothing that points a single step that way, except your claim that Matt. x, 28 proves that the soul outlives the body. This I have admitted would be a fair inference from the peculiar phraseology of this single text, were it not contradicted by positive assertions on this point, and the whole tenor of Bible teaching. And I have proved by the text itself, taking your own stand-point, that the soul is mortal, because the Lord threatens to kill it in the same sense in which the body is killed; and you have been unable to present a single plausible objection to my argument. But should we admit all you claim on the text, it would only carry you one step beyond the death of the body, all further than this, is only what your philosophy says must be so. I am willing to submit our discussion of this text to the candid reader, who has carefully examined what has been said. Such reader will see that you have no Bible testimony for the natural immortality of any part of man.

It is an idea too absurd to be entertained for a moment, that God created man with an immortal soul—a soul that must exist in happiness or woe to the endless ages of eternity; and that he has given him a revelation of his origin, present state, and future destiny, in which he has entirely omitted to inform him of this most important and thrilling fact, if it be a fact. But it is a fact that all that we hear of the immortal, never-dying soul, and deathless spirit, comes from a source outside of the Bible. Ministers who believe the doctrine are not so remiss and careless as to keep it from their hearers; and I do not believe that the God of the Bible would have kept it back, were it the truth.

In conclusion, I wish to advertise you, that when we get upon the other part of the question—the destiny of man—I shall not allow you to argue in a circle. I shall not admit that certain texts upon future punishment prove the eternal conscious misery of the wicked, because the soul is immortal, and that the soul is immortal because it is never to be delivered from its just condemnation and punishment. First prove the soul immortal, then you may claim that "eternal damnation" will result in eternal misery. But this you have not, and cannot do, simply because the testimony is not, the Bible plainly teaching the reverse.

Yours, seeking for immortality, R. F. COTTRELL.

Who Have Mercy, and Who Are Hardened.

“For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion upon whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy.” “Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.” Rom. ix, 15, 16, 18.

The Scriptures plainly show the character of the persons on whom the Lord will have mercy and compassion. “Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.” Isa. liv, 7. “He that covereth his sins shall not prosper; but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy.” Prov. xxviii, 13. “Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” Matt. xi, 28. “God is no respecter of persons; but in every nation, he that feareth him and worketh righteousness is accepted with him.” Acts x, 34, 35. If language can express anything, it leaves no possible doubt respecting the persons on whom the Lord will have mercy and compassion.

The sixteenth verse in the passages shows that “willing” and “running” are not the causes of salvation, but the conditions on which it is received. A brief comparison will explain the subject. Suppose a man of wealth should prepare a table with plenty of wholesome food, and then give the information to a number of starving persons, who have not, and are not able to procure food, that if they will eat they may have as much as they need, for nothing. It is, therefore, certain that neither their willingness to eat, nor their eating, procures or pays for the provisions; yet both the willingness and the eating are necessary conditions, but the food is of the wealthy man who shows mercy. It is also evident that if those persons starve, it is their own fault. So all the provisions of the gospel were made for the race before they came into the world, on conditions of faith and obedience, or of willing and running; and although both of these together cannot merit salvation, yet the want of either of them is sufficient to ruin the soul.

In reference to the 18th verse, I have only to show whom God will harden; having before shown upon whom he will have mercy. According to the gospel by Paul, God will indirectly harden those who continue to rebel against him.

The following passage illustrates the point: “Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and to four-footed beasts and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves: who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed forever.” Rom. i, 21, 25. From this passage it appears that God gave them up to uncleanness and vile affections, not because he had predestinated them to be wicked, but because of their own willful rebellion against him. Again the apostle asserts, “Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.” 2 Thess. ii, 9-11.

From this passage it is also evident that God sends men “strong delusions,” not because God hath predestinated them to wickedness, but because they receive not the truth in the love of it. Therefore although these errors and delusions of infidelity have ruined many, to them must be ascribed their destruction, as they brought these delusions entirely upon themselves, without any decree to that effect by their heavenly Father.—Herald of Gospel Liberty.

Slander.

By Charles Simeon

ThE more prominent any person's character is, the more likely he is to suffer in this way,—there being in the heart of every man, unless greatly subdued by grace, a pleasure in hearing anything which may sink others to his level, or lower them in the estimation of the world. We seem to ourselves elevated in proportion as others are depressed. Under such circumstances I derive consolation from the following reflections:—

1. My enemy, whatever evil he says of me, does not reduce me so low as he would if he knew all concerning me that God knows.

2. In drawing the balance, as between the debtor and creditor, I find that if I have been robbed of pence, there are pounds and talents placed to my account to which I have no just title.

3. If man has his "day," God will have his—Charles Simeon.

The Lord's Supper.

IS IT TO BE CELEBRATED WEEKLY?

A CORRESPONDENT makes inquiry on this point. Having read works on present truth, somewhat, he so far endorses their teaching, as to acknowledge that the New Testament furnishes no evidence in favor of the first day of the week as a day of religious rest and worship. But he seems to think that day is pointed out as the one upon which the communion should be celebrated, and refers to Acts xx, 7. And having belonged to a class of professed Christians who hold that view, he inquires what the text does mean, and where there is direction for the time of celebrating the Lord's supper, if not there.

Acts xx, 7, reads, "And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread," &c. Assuming that the words, "to break bread," here refer to the Lord's supper, we take the position distinctly that the New Testament gives us no stated period for its observance. If it was confined to any particular day of the week, that day would undoubtedly have been chosen upon which it was instituted. But this is commonly supposed to have been Thursday. Certainly it was not the first day of the week. And if Acts xx, 7, is an instance of its celebration on that day, it is sufficient proof that no particular day is designated for the ordinance. And this view is further confirmed by Acts ii, 46, which declares that at one time the church in Jerusalem broke bread daily.

But the expression, "to break bread," certainly does not always refer to the Lord's supper. When the two disciples returned from Emmaus they told the eleven and others, at Jerusalem, that the Lord had risen, and that he was known of them in "breaking of bread." Luke xxiv, 35. What was this occasion of breaking of bread? It was as verses 29 and 30 inform us, when they had reached Emmaus as the day was far spent, and constrained the Saviour to stop with them, and had taken their seat to partake of the ordinary and closing meal of the day. This was called breaking of bread; but this was not the Lord's supper.

Come back now to Acts xx, and read verse 11. After Paul had been down and healed the young man who fell from the window, we read, "When, therefore, he had broken bread and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed." Here the breaking of bread did not take place till after midnight. When it did take place, Luke describes it by the term eating. When he had "broken bread, and eaten." Is such language as this ever applied to the Lord's supper? We do not come to the Lord's table to eat. Paul sternly rebukes any such irregularity, in 1 Cor. xi. "What?" says he, "have ye not houses to eat and to drink in?" And again, "If any man hunger let him eat at home, that ye come not together unto condemnation."

It would seem then that Acts xx does not refer to the Lord's supper at all. Dr. Bloomfield in the notes to his Greek Testament, admits that verse 11, does not refer to it, and gives this as the general opinion of commentators this side of Grotius, A. D. 1600. And the only method he proposes of finding the Eucharist in that chapter, is to suppose that it was celebrated at the commencement of the meeting. But the record does not state this; nor is there any necessity or any place for such a supposition. The first thing Paul did was to preach. Next he healed the young man after midnight. Then he broke bread and ate, and then continued with the disciples, probably in social intercourse (for the word rendered talked, in verse 11, is different from the word preached in verse 7), until break of day, and so departed. If this view is correct, Sunday-keepers need never again refer to Acts xx; for all the fact they have to work upon in that chapter is the Lord's supper; and that is not there.

But allowing verse 7 to refer to the Lord's supper, does not the language denote its regular weekly recurrence? We answer, No. Some try to make this appear by laying great stress upon the word when. "Upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread." And they have argued that this expression denoted a regular meeting, just as we would say, "And on the fourth of July when we celebrate our national independence," denoting that it is a regular yearly occurrence. But there would have been no opportunity for this play upon the word when, had not the translators here taken a singular liberty with the original. There is no word in the original that corresponds to the word, when. The Greek reads simply and literally like this: "And on the first day of the week, the disciples being assembled to break bread, Paul preached," &c. Whiting and Sawyer so translate it. It is a simple announcement of what then took place, without any intimation that it had ever taken place before, or ever would take place again.

Another proof that the New Testament does not fix the time of celebrating the Lord's supper, is found in Paul's language in 1 Cor. xi, 26: "For as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come." What language could intimate more clearly that this institution was left, as to the frequency of its occurrence, to be regulated by the church.

Continue reading: Might is Ever on the Side of Right