Selected Works of Thomas Williams

PRE FACE

IN these last dark days of Gentile times, the believer needs the shining light, the steadfast landmark, the sure anchor of faith which a clear and uncompromising exposition of the word of God can provide. One of the best and easiest to be understood pioneer writers was Brother Thomas Williams. His tireless exposition, propagation and defense of the truth of God’s word has stood as a shining example to succeeding generations of Christadelphians.

Although most of the articles reproduced herein are over 70 years old, the reader cannot but be impressed how that time has undiminished their validity, potency and truth. It is hoped that this work will provide the believer a helpful aid in his study and walk in the truth.

The Richmond Ha!! Ecc!esia

October, 1974

CONTENTS Page The Origin of the Bible 1 The Problems of Life 93 The Purpose of God in the Earth 183 The Kingdom of God 199 Man: His Origin, Nature and Destiny 219 Hell Torments 239 The Devil 265 Trine Immersion and Feet Washing 311 The Divine Sonship of Jesus 341 Regeneration 363 Rectification 381 Adamic Condemnation 435 Open Letter to Brother Brode .. 481 A Rallying Point 487

THE ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE The Bible Divine in Its Origin, Pure in its Teachings; the only Safe and Reliable Guide to Human Conduct.

10 Being a Brief Presentation of the Arguments set forth in many and Large works in Defense of the Bible.

BY THOMAS WILLIAMS Author of The World’s Redemption, The Great Salvation and numerous pamphlets on Bible Themes.

THE author having engaged in two public oral debates with two Infidels Col. Billings, in Riverside, Ia., and Mr. Charles Watts, of London, England, in Toronto, Canada—has given herein an epitomy of his arguments, in the hope that it may be of help to some who have not the time to read, nor the means of access to the many large and expensive books which treat elaborately upon the important subject.

ADVOCATE PUBLISHING HOUSE

6718 Oxford Avenue, Chicago, Ill. THE ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE.

The Bible Divine in its origin and perfect in its Teaching. The Only Safe and Reliable Guide to Human Conduct.

CHAPTER 1. THE FACTS AND FIGURES OF CHRISTENDOM CANNOT BE IGNORED.— EVERYTHING POINTS TO THE ONE MAN. THE FACTS ARE NOT WEAKENED BY THEORIES, FALSE OR TRUE. THE FOOTPRINTS OF TIME TESTIFY TO THE FACTS. -THERE IS NO ROOM FOR FICTION, ONLY FOR FACTS. DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN FACTS AND THEORIES—THE NATURAL FACTS IN THE CASE—A COMPARISON. CHRIST’S EXISTENCE ADMITTED BY THE ENEMIES OF THE BIBLE —STRAUSS ADMITS THE FACTS —RENAN’S SHALLOWNESS.

WE open our eyes to behold a great and wonderful fact— a phenomenon—which is represented by the name Christendom. Christendom is made up of people called Christians, who form almost the entire population of the civilized world. Every condition must have a cause, and since in this wonderful condition of things we behold a real fact that is palpable and undeniable alike to infidel, sceptic and christian, the question is forced upon us, What was the original cause of these names, customs, monuments and thousands of other facts confronting us at every turn, everywhere and at all times in the present civilized world ? The question cannot be ignored. To laugh, to taunt, or ridicule will not answer it. It presses hard and imperatively for an answer, a wise answer, an answer that will be satisfactory to the earnest, intelligent and profound thinker and to the more simple but honest seeker for truth.

THE FACTS AND FIGURES OF CHRISTENDOM CANNOT BE IGNORED.

10 Christendom is an open book, upon whose pages figures Pg 2 as well as facts stand out boldly before the eyes of the world seen of all, known of all and written by all; printed, painted, penciled and chiselled, here, there and everywhere, SO that they cannot be ignored or forgotten This year these figures are 1897, and they appear upon every letter, newspaper, book and document issued from the pen or the press. It matters not whether these figures carry us back to the exact time of the original cause of the condition of things ; these figures with the facts prove a beginning a cause—somewhere. The facts and figures did not suddenly spring out of the ground, nor did they fall down from the clouds. They are here, stubbornly here, really here, tangibly here. They are facts. The universal custom and consent of Christendom have been forced by circumstances to witness the facts, to write them every day, to use the words that declare them and keep up an unbroken chain of evidence of their existence; and to measure their time and all their proceedings, in the family, in the shop, in the church, in the court, in the legislature, congress—everywhere every thing is measured by and worked according to the origin, whatever it is, of this wonderful condition of things called Christendom.

EVERYTHING POINTS TO THE ONE MAN

The word Christendom and everything it represents point backwards from all directions, centering and focalizing in one Man, who stands out in bold relief before the world without an equal, and that man is known by the terms Jesus and Christ, and His birth and the wonderful work He did and his tragic death marked off one of the centuries of the world’s history as a point and pivot around which all others revolve. C. and A. D. mean in plain English, Before Christ, and After Christ, and thus this man is the great fingerpost of the civilized world and all that is therein.

THE FACTS ARE NOT WEAKENED BY THEORIES FALSE OR TRUE

It matters not, so far as the facts are concerned, that His doctrines have been perverted and His commandments dis PG 3 obeyed. Neither does it matter that there are disputes as to the technical correctness of the chronology, the fact remains that He, Chrst, existed—was a fact. Yes, a fact adequate to the production of all the thousands of facts and theories resulting therefrom. Trace the results to their cause and from any part of the circumference we shall be drawn to the center, and that center is Christ, and no sane man can deny it. Let his religion be what it may, or let him have no religion at all; ‘let him be a prince or a peasant, a ploughman or a philosopher, he is forced to see the facts. He is not asked to believe a mere theory or to assent to speculation. He is only required to accept facts that exist and that center in the real existence of the one whom they represent—Jesus the Christ.

THE FOOTPRINTS OF TIME TESTIFY TO THE FACTS

For the present you may regard Christ as an impostor, and yet the fact of his existence remains, solid and immovable. If it be claimed that the same can be said of Mahomet, we grant it, so far as the fact of his existence is concerned. So if infidels and sceptics will believe what they see with their eyes, and then go back with us about eighteen centuries, examining the footprints and the monuments, the literature and the traditions along the road, they will find themselves face to face with the Man who started the stream of facts that swelled into a great and mighty flood and spread out into the vast sea of the world of civilization as we behold it to-day. Let not the scoffer sneer about the “faith” of the man who believes in the divinity of the Bible. For the present, we are not depending upon faith, in any form. One may have no “faith” in Constantine as a Christian, and may regard his theories as false and his character as bad, but the fact of his existence still remains.

THERE IS NO ROOM FOR FICTION, ONLY FOR FACTS.

So we are conveyed by force of circumstances and by stern realities back to the starting point and we are in the presence of Christ. And when we are there, we shall find how Pg 4

10 impossible it was for a fraudulent story to start concerning His existence and the powerful results thereof. He was at once too popular and too unpopular to be a fiction ; and the man who tries to persuade himself that He was a fiction need not scoff about ‘ faith,” for it requires a vast amount more of it, whatever it is or whatever the scoffer thinks it is, to believe that He was a fiction than it does to believe that he was a fact. Unaccountable must be the credulity of the man who can persuade himself that a fiction could revolutionize the world as the fact of Christ’s existence has done. Every thoughtful man will regard it as his duty to investigate Him and His surroundings and account for His being what He was, and to learn why He was what He was.

DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN FACTS AND THEORIES

There are many people who are never called upon to systematically weigh and analyze the nature of evidence in a manner to discriminate between the facts of a given case and the theories. In every tragedy the things which first present themselves to us and irresistibly compel belief are: 1 The fact of the tragedy itself. 2. The fact of the existence of the persons concerned. 3. The fact of there being such and such places and names where the tragedy occurred, and where the different persons lived; what they were, etc., involving many other facts. When the facts are proved by the ordinary methods of proof, and the proof withstands all attempts to the contrary, the tragedy is a settled fact. If it is a murder, and a man should come along and in the face of all the citizens, who are excited over it, deny that it occurred, the following facts present themselves: Here is the city in which it occurred; here is the mutilated body of the murdered man; here is the murderer who was caught just as he was leaving his victim; he was bespattered with blood and held in his hand the knife with which he did. the wicked work; the knife fits the wound, etc., Pg 5 etc. all natural facts in natural order. Now it matters not what any man’s theory might be of the motive of the murder, the history and character of either the murderer, or his victim, the facts are irresistible. They are facts. When a case comes before a court with only the fact of the murder clear, the guilty one not known, various facts offer suggestions and start theories, in which many connected things are found consistent with the known facts, and cannot be accounted for otherwise; it is then that theoretical evidence becomes relevant and convincing. In the year 1881 President Garfield was assassinated. All the world was shocked. The fact could be verified by only a few so far as actual sight was concerned; but all the world believed it. Why ? Because there was no reason why they should not, it being a fact with a thousand other facts belonging to it and consistent with it. If there had been no rapid means of communication between the city of Washington and the wide world, the tragedy would have been just as much a fact. And when in a month, or a year, or a thousand years, the news reached Europe, the questions arising would be, Is there, or was there a United States government ? Is there a city of Washington ? Was there a President Garfield ? etc., etc. The subject is investigated and found indisputable; and the man who would deny the facts would be considered insane or a simpleton.

THE NATURAI. FACES IN THE CASE.

Now in treating all the natural facts, and figures, with which Christendom is full, we are taken to the man, the place and the nations in which the great historic tragedy occurred. We are conveyed through the great highway of history, in which the very stones cry out to witness the fact in question. And when we reach our journey’s end, we find the Holy Land a fact; Jerusalem a fact; Calvary a fact—all are facts, and everybody is talking about the tragedy, some cursing the victim, others blessing him; all adding and adding to the irresistible evidence of the fact of Christ’s existence, wonderful Pg 6 life and tragic death. Deny these facts, and one is, he must be, either insane or a simpleton. Be he a heathen or a Christian, an atheist or an infidel, he is asked, so far only to admit these facts. Do you ask, How do I know such a person as Christ ever existed? I never saw him. 1 answer by asking you, How do you know that Julius Caesar, Constantine, Napoleon and thousands of others ever existed? You never saw them. If you believe only what you see with your eyes, you belong more to animals of lower grade than to man. A man who is worthy of his name is supposed to be able to see with the eyes of the mind, the eyes of reason, a thousand things he never saw and never can see with his literal eyes. Do you retort that history is sometimes wrong? Then I answer, Yes, but if the rule in this case is as wrong as the exception, then, since the literal eyes are sometimes deceived, you can never believe what you see, and so you will not be able to believe anything, and you will be left

10 with no means of any evidence of any kind. There are some fools who love their own folly, and it is useless to try to make them anything but what they are. We can only hope to benefit reasonable men, by strengthening the weakening mind, and removing distressing doubts.

A COMPARISON

To see how utterly impossible it was for the facts of Christ’s existence and wonderful life to become history, if they were not facts, we have only to suppose an attempt in 1881 to start a story about a President Garfield who never existed being assassinated by a man who had no existence, giving all the results in the effect on public opinion ~ the trial, etc., etc., while the entire story was a lie and a fraud. Could such gain credence and pass into history as true? Would it not be nailed to the counter as a foolish fraud the moment it was suggested? But all illustrations of this kind fall short of the surroundings and collateral incidents which hedge in the truth and shut out falsehood as to the fact of Christ’s existence, his words and his works. There is no avenue left for escape. Pg 7

As it is only “the fool that hath said in his heart, There is no God,” so this greatest event of the world’s history has been fortified by facts that nothing but the foolishness of fools would ever deny its occurrence

CHRIST’S EXISTENCE ADMITTED BY ENEMIES OF THE BIBLE.

Few men have been bold enough to deny that Christ existed as a remarkable person, and perhaps some will say our labor to establish the fact, or rather to rivet attention upon it, is unnecessary. But grant us the fact and fame of his existence, and, as we shall show, the whole question is settled; for all the other facts and truths then become branches of a deeply rooted, wonderful tree. Finding the facts too stubborn to admit of denial, some of the would-be philosophers have attempted to account for them upon natural grounds and reduce them all to the most ordinary occurrences. Every generation produces its new supply of such philosophers, and along with them come always a class of people, who, ignorant of the history of the question, are ready to applaud what seems to them a new thing in the way of exploding the Bible and reducing Christ to the ordinary level of the mere natural. Old and long-ago-exposed foolishness becomes wisdom to such dupes, especially if the rehash is by a man with a title to his name. When such men as Prof. Strauss are used by the infidel of today against the Bible, their ill informed hearers imagine that the Bible has been completely exposed as a fraud. They are kept ignorant of the fact that as fast as new inventions have been sprung against the Bible and Christ they have been summarily dealt with, and shown to be without foundation in fact. We speak only so far as the facts of history are concerned, for some of the infidel attacks upon the contents of the Bible, we confess, have not, in popular works, been fairly met. As an illustration of the appearance and disappearance of infidel bubbles we quote from Prof. C. E. Stowe, concerning the Strauss sensation in Germany, and the effect of other Writers PG 8

The answers to Strauss were numerous, almost numberless. The controversy raged with great vigor for some six or eight years; but now Strauss, before he is an old man, finds himself an obsolete and antiquated writer; as much so as was, when he began, the old Paulus whom he treated so cavalierly. But though Strauss is already intellectually dead and buried, never to rise again among the Germans, he just begins to live among those who use the English language, and translations of his book are read with the most innocent wonderment by many of our young men, who have no knowledge of the fact that it has long since been thoroughly exposed and exploded in the land of its birth. In the track of Strauss, with more or less of divergency, followed Weisse, Gfroerer, Bruno Bauer, Wilke, Schweitzer, Schwegler, Leutzelberger, F. C. Baur, Renan, Schenkel, and many, many others; the greater part of whom remain unto this present, though, as to any influence they have already mostly fallen asleep.

STRAUSS ADMITS THE FACTS.

Strauss changed the name of Jesus to “Jeschuah” and then proceeded to reduce his history to the ordinary, natural current. He had to admit that there was a Jewish nation; that Christ appeared as one of that nation; that the nation expected their Messiah and that Christ claimed to be that Messiah; that he anticipated a violent death, and that his anticipations were realized, and

10 that “ He perished on the cross.” These are admitted to be facts—all that we ask for now; and the large and elaborate work of Strauss is witness that around these admitted facts were reports of other wonderful facts, which, from the mere natural standpoint, needed to be explained away. In doing this, a “Jeschuah” and his disciples are invented, and the invention is such an extraordinary conglomeration of odd things that the man who can accept it and reject the history sought to be explained away would be beyond comparison with the man who could swallow a camel. Prof. Stowe, after quoting from Strauss’ book of two thick, heavy volumes in German, and three in the English translation, says What an inexplicable enigma is that Jeschuah, for whose existence we are indebted solely to the imagination of Strauss. What unheard of, unaccountable compounds of knavery and goodness, of silliness and greatness,. are Strauss’ disciples of Jeschuah ! What wonderful proficients in stupidity PG 9 must have been the men of that generation, and generations immediately succeeding! How could myths arise and gain credence, in the manner and to the extent which he dreams of, in the same generation and the same country wherein the facts are alleged to have occurred? This difficulty is felt by Strauss, and he attempts to get rid of it by supposing that the stories originated mostly in those parts of Palestine east of the Jordan, where Christ had personally seldom appeared. The whole of Palestine has scarcely one quarter the extent of the state of Maine; and can men in the state of Maine lie with impunity, by going east of the Penobscot? That was an active, enlightened, revolutionizing, realistic age. The whole world was in motion, nations intermingled with each other, languages were cultivated; commerce, literature, the arts, military operations, kept everything astir, and there was neither sluggishness, nor stagnation, nor mental stupor, to favor the growth of a new mythology. One might as well look for the growth of mushrooms at midday on the pavement of the Royal Exchange in London, under the tread of the thousands of feet which daily there perambulate, as expect the prosperous development of such myths as Strauss dreams of, in such an age and country as that which witnessed the lives and deeds of Christ and his disciples. Again, how does Strauss know that matters came about in the way he represents? Who told him? or was he there to see? What authority does he bring, that we should postpone to this single statement the testimony of prophets and apostles and martyrs? Ah! he knows it by the Hegelian power of intuition, by means of which history is constructed subjectively, instead of being objectively learned from the proper sources. In such constructive history, or rather theories of history, we have no confidence.

RENAN’S SHALLOWNESS.

The next most famous writer on the so-called philosophical side of the question was Renan, whose work was published in Paris. He, too, proceeds to write of the natural facts concerning Christ’s environments; his family and native place; his ~ trade and standing in social life, the places he visited, describing even the streets in which he supposes him playing in his youthful days. The admission of the natural facts in the case, and the fact of Christ’s existence, and that he lived a life and died a death which was so out of the ordinary as to require Volumes to explain the facts away and reduce them to the ordinary - all this is enough for our purpose now in laying our foundation in well-bedded and well-cemented facts. Let not the work of Renan be admired and worshipped, PG 10 even by those inclined to his side, and who “love to have it so,” for it is condemned even by a Jew, who would naturally be predisposed in favor of an attack upon Christ and the New Testament. Of this Jew Prof. Stowe says, “I will give an estimate of it by a learned Prussian Jew, Dr. Philippson, of Nadgeburg. Dr. Philippson as a Jewish Rabbi is as much averse to admitting the historical credibility of the gospels as Renan himself, but his solid Teutonic erudition is repelled and disgusted by the flippant shallowness of the Frenchman” The secret of Renan’s success, and the fallacy of his reasoning are fairly and without prejudice, except what would naturally be on Renan’s side, given by one able to weigh “philosophy” with the scales provided by philosophers. The Rabbi says, “With the aid of lively colors, or psychological raisonnements, he, as a master of his language, produces a very readable biography. It was natural, therefore, that his work found many readers, especially in France, and was met with violent refutation on the part of the clergy; but it could gain no great importance in the domain of science and historical criticisms, for after all, much of the work rests upon arbitrary assumptions, very little upon critical principles and an examination corresponding with them. “He often contradicts himself most glaringly, even now and then on the same page of his book. “Meeting with such a confusion of ideas, and such a misconception of all history, we may dispense with all further examination; we said so much lest we should be charged with an omission.”

10 PG 11

THE TESTIOMONY OF ENEMIES

CHAPTER II

THE FACT THAT THE BIBLE EXISTS THE CONFLICT BETWEEN FRIENDS AND FOES.—THE MOTIVE ON BOTH SIDES—ENEMIES NOT QUALIFIED TO JUDGE.—PAST AND FUTURE, A COMPARISON.—CELSUS THE FIRST ENEMY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.—HIS ATTACK PROOF OF ITS EXISTENCE AND POWER. PORPHYRY’S TESTIMONY.—TESTIMONY FROM THE THRONE OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE—THE REVOLUTIONARY CHARACTER OF CHRISTIANITY. —ITS RAPID PROGRESS AND WIDE. SPREAD POWER AS SHOWN BY PLINY’S LETTER TO EMPEROR TRAJAN AND TRAJAN’S REPLY.

NOW we find ourselves in possession of facts, such as, on the one hand, the Bible in existence with thousands of zealous friends ; and on the other hand many enemies angrily assaulting it. There must be a motive on both sides for this conflict. The motive which prompts the friends of the Bible can be found only by reading the doctrines and precepts which the book contains, and learning of the hopes which it holds out, and .as yet we have not, in this investigation, reached the inside of the book; we are now only dealing with external facts concerning it. The motive which generally moves the antagonists of the Bible to anger and wrath, and calls forth the profane language used by some of them in denouncing it, is, to a large extent, an excusable hatred of a system of priestcraft, for which the Bible is ignorantly supposed to be responsible. Generally, and by the very nature of things, they are of an ungodly class, who would prefer the philosophy which teaches that it is better to “eat, drink and be merry, for to-morrow we die;“ while the friends of the Bible have had their hearts thrilled with a hope that there is a better

PG 12 day to come. On the one hand there is reverence and godly fear; and of the other it may be truly said that

“Fools will rush where angels dare to tread.”

It is the aim and object of the enemies of the Bible to tear down and to destroy. If they held out any hope to be realized when their work of destruction is accomplished it would reduce the issue to a question of which hope is the better; and in that case it might be possible for a believer of the Bible to examine the issue with a measure of indifference as to the result. As it is, hope is only on one side; and the course of life that leads to a realization of that hope favorably impresses the godly man and makes him reverent, and deeply concerned as to the issue; while the enemy of the Bible, not having any hope to lose, can cut and slash without regard to results, and in possession of nothing to impart to him a sense of reverence. ‘‘But,” say they, ‘‘we must have a zeal for science ; we must let truth work its way; we must be willing that every falsehood and every mistake, however long and lovingly cherished, should be torn from our embrace.” This, of course, is assuming the thing to be proved, and carried out to its full extent upon infidel lines, would make a man all head and no heart. The fact is, this is the very reason why, in many cases, men are enemies of the Bible. To fully realize what the Bible is one must have a heart as well as a head. It is because the friends of the book ace of a mental and moral constitution begotten by the Bible that they have that reverence and godly fear which are made sport of by those who are destitute of the feelings which the inner teachings of the Bible impart. Really it is safe to say that an enemy of the Bible is utterly incapable of criticizing it. A man who is color blind cannot judge of colors. A man to be a poet must have poetry in his very being. With the Bible the strongest argument in its favor comes from an understanding of its deepest teachings, and an experience of living its precepts. it follows, therefore, that the two sides of this controversy are unequal. The friend

the Bible has advantage over the enemy which the latter cannot realize, and the former is helpless to infuse into him. A true estimate of the Bible is a result that can only come by friendliness; never by adverse criticism in which the head does all and the heart nothing. Not that we are fearful of the issue when discussed upon a purely intellectual basis. Indeed, the tests to

10 which the Bible has been subjected by the heady and heartless have done much to strengthen the evidence that the book is what it claims to be. Such men as Strauss, Weisse, Gfroerer, Bauer, Renan, Bradlaugh and Ingersoll have in modern times been the enemies of the Bible, known and read by all men. They have made themselves popular by being so. Now, suppose that the books of our times are preserved for a thousand or more years and are in that distant future read as books are now. What conclusion will be reached concerning the Bible? From contemporary literature it will be seen that some of these enemies of the Bible are eminent men in the literary and oratorical world men who have no time to give to trifles, and whose work must be in the line of things which absorb popular attention. Since the Bible has received so much attention at the hands of such men it will be concluded that it must have been a very popular book; that popular sentiment was in its favor, and relied upon it as a truthful book and as being what it claims to be—a miracle, made up of a thousand miracles. It will be seen by the inhabitants of the world of those future times that it was to loosen the tenacious hold which the Bible had upon the people and the people upon the Bible that these popular writers used their great intellectual powers and employed the best art of the critic and the finest styles of literature and oratory. What a book it must be! they will exclaim, to have wielded such a power over the people of the most enlightened parts of the world and that, too, in the days when men ran to and fro, and knowledge increased as it never had before! The facts of our times will necessarily force these conclusions upon the minds of future generations, and it will be futile for the

Renans and Bradlaughs of those times to try to set them aside. Now, it is only another slide backwards in the scale of history for us to read of how the Bible stood a thousand or more years in the past, and if we find popular and able men assuming the same attitude towards the Bible that they are now, we are compelled to conclude that it was held in esteem then as it is now; and since with this view we are away back at the time when the New Testament originated, we must conclude that it was launched Out into the world as a wonderful thing, and that its miraculous power enabled it to do what it did— revolutionize the civil and religious world, without its faithful friends firing a shot or drawing a sword from a scabbard.

CELSUS, THE FIRST ENEMY AGAINST THE NEW TESTAMENT.

In Celsus we have a very violent enemy of the New Testament. He is always spoken of as a man of notoriety in the times in which he lived. Here is what Prof. C. E. Stowe says about him: Celsus was a heathen, an Epicurian philosopher, and a violent enemy of the Christians. He lived in the latter part of the first and the beginning of the second century, very near the time when the books of the New Testament were first collected into a volume. He wrote a very elaborate book, which he entitled The Word (or Logos), in which he undertakes to refute the Christians from their own writings. He introduces a Jew who quotes very largely from the Christian Scriptures. The very object and plan of the work, as well as the zeal and ability of the author, make it an invaluable witness to the Christian books as then received. Though we have not the book of Celsus entire, yet in the refutation of it by Origen there are very large and literal quotations from it, in which the views of this zealous pagan in regard to the Christian books, as he read them at that early period, are very fully developed. There is nowhere to be found a more important witness to the integrity and genuineness of the books of the New Testament than this very zealous and able enemy of Christianity.

Here we have a popular man and a philosopher. It must be remembered that for a man to write a book in those early times and to figure so highly in the world of letters means much more than now, when it is comparatively easy at least to

‘‘go into print,” since the art of printing has taken the field and multiplied writers and publishers. Celsus must, therefore, have been a man who stood high in the ranks of the great men of his time. That he was a man of superior ability is evident from those parts of his works quoted by Origen, in some of which, Paley says, his arguments were stronger than Origen’s answers. Celsus makes the Jew, whom he personates, say, “I could say many things concerning the affairs of Jesus, and those, too, different from those written by the disciples of Jesus, but I purposely omit.” He also accuses the Christians of altering the gospel, referring, as Paley says, to “some variations in the readings of particular passages.” That the books which were the object of attack were the very books we have now is evident from the fact that Celsus quotes from them—the genealogies; the command that if smitten on one cheek, we must turn the other; of the woes pronounced by Christ; His predictions; of His saying that we cannot serve two masters; of the purple robe; the crown of thorns and the reed in Christ’s hand; of the blood that flowed from Jesus on the cross; of the difference in the accounts given of the

10 resurrection by the evangelists, some mentioning two angels at the sepulchre while others mention only one. (See Paley, p. i68). Now, in view of this labored attack by this able and prominent philosopher at the end of the first and first part of the second century, it is beyond dispute that our gospels were in circulation, well known, and that the writings of Christ’s disciples were so well known and were taking such a hold upon the public mind that they compelled the notice, yea, the labored efforts, of the great men of the times in an attempt to weaken their power and stop their progress. This was only about seventy years after the crucifixion, to which Celsus refers, and while he tries to bluff the friends of the writings of the New Testament by asserting that he could say many things concerning the affairs of Jesus different from what had been written, he fails to say them, and in this unproved assertion ad- PG 16 mits that there were “affairs of Jesus” that were so formidable that a philosopher deemed it necessary to write a book against the records then in existence.

PORPHYRY’S TESTIMONY.

Paley says that what Celsus was in the second century Porphyry became in the third century. His work was an attack upon Christianity; but since it is not extant, his points of attack can be known only by what was written in reply. From this it is shown that what he wrote was directed against the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, upon the ground that to overthrow these was to overthrow Christianity. Paley says that Porphyry’s writings show that he “had read the Gospels with that sort of attention which a writer would employ who regarded them as the depositories of the religion which he attacked.” And he further details the supposed faults he found with the New Testament: Thus he objects to the repetition of a generation in St. Matthew’s genealogy; to Matthew’s call; to the quotation of a text from Isaiah, which is found in a psalm ascribed to Asiph; to the calling of the lake of Tiberias a sea; to the expression in St. Matthew, “abomination of desolation; “to the variation in Matthew and Mark upon the text, “the voice of one crying in the wilderness,” Matthew citing it from Isaias, Mark from the Prophets; to John’s application of the term “Word; “ to Christ’s change of intention about going up to the feast of tabernacles (John vii: 8): to the judgment denounced by St. Peter upon Ananias and Sapphira, which he calls an imprecation of death—Paley’s Evidences, p. 169.

Porphyry, speaking of Matthew, calls him “your evangelist,” and he also uses the term evangelists in the plural. That this enemy wrote an attack and dilligently searched out every point which to him seemed vulnerable, and that he considered that if he upset the books he would thereby overturn the cause they represented all goes to show that the cause was a formidable one at that time, and that the books were then in circulation, bearing the same names and containing the same things that they do now. These are the stubborn facts which cannot be ignored in establishing the invulnerable truth that the New Pg 17

Testament originated as its books claim to have originated and that Christ was the cause of it all.

TESTIMONY FROM THE THRONE OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE.

Can any sensible person persuade himself that an emperor upon the throne of the great empire of Rome would condescend to notice fables that only affected a few obscure and superstitious men and women, harmlessly believed ? Does not the fact of such a notice prove that the Christian movement was of such a formidable character that the highest dignitary of the world was compelled to put forth his efforts to stem the flowing tide? Right or wrong, a fraud or a genuine thing, it must have been a powerful movement. When this is recognized, which no sane man can deny, the gigantic task is to account for it in any other way than that which it claims for itself. In the fourth century the emperor Julian made some of the same objections against the New Testament that Porphyry had made, adding objections to the words “Out of Egypt have I called my Son (Matt. ii: 15), and to those of Matt. i: 22—-“ A virgin shall conceive.” Paley says of

JULIAN’S TESTIMONV.

He recited sayings of Christ and various passages of his history, in the very words of the evangelists; in particular, that Jesus healed lame and blind people, and exorcised demoniacs, in the villages of Bethsaida and Bethany. That he alleged that none of Christ’s disciples, except John, ascribed to him the creation of the world; that neither Paul, nor Matthew, nor Luke, nor

10 Mark have dared to call Jesus God; and John wrote later than the other evangelists, and at a time when a great number of men in the cities of Greece and Italy were converted; that he alludes to the conversion of Cornelius and of Sergius Paulus, to Peter’s vision; to the circular letter sent by the apostles and elders at Jerusalem, which are all recorded in the Acts of the Apostles.

Now these great men of those times, in searching for flaws, were compelled thus to refer to the various parts of the writings they sought to disprove, in doing which they admit that the books were genuine. If they could have produced any PG 18 other cause or account of the origin of the system they were attacking, they would quickly have done it. They were too close to the fountain head of the stream to deny its existence, or to attempt to set up any other hypothesis. They knew better than to try such a plan, notwithstanding they evidently were not too scrupulous to resort to any cunning trick that might secure their object, believing that the end would justify the means. So far we have given only the testimony of enemies from the Gentile world, because all we have sought to do was to establish the facts in relation to the origin of the New Testament. It does not matter what one man’s opinion of another may be in testifying of the fact of his existence and of things he has done and of what other people have said about him. He may believe him to be an honest man or a dishonest man and yet his competency to testify as to his residence, his trade or business, etc., never be questioned. It is in this way that the works of the writers we have quoted are competent witnesses as to the facts to which their testimony bears witness.

THE REVOLUTIONARY CHARACTER OF CHRISTIANITY.

When we consider that true Christianity was of the same character as its founder, of whom it is said, “ A bruised reed will he not break, and a smoking flax will he not quench,” its rapid progress against a religion which was backed by the throne is all the more wonderful and unaccountable upon any other grounds than those claimed by itself. The rapid strides it had made in overcoming paganism are best shown by Pliny’s famous letter to the Emperor Trajan, written, let it be remembered, only about seventy years after the death of Christ. In this letter he says:

PLINY’S LETTER TO TRAJAN.

SIR, It is my constant method to apply myself to you for the solution of all my doubts; for who can better govern my dilatory way of proceeding, or instruct my ignorance? I have never been present at the examination of

Pg19 the Christians (by others), on which account I am unacquainted with what uses to be inquired into, and what and how far they used to be punished; nor are my doubts small, whether there be not a distinction to be made between the ages (of the accused), and whether tender youth ought to have the same punishment with strong men? whether there be not room for par don upon repentance? or whether it may not be an advantage to one that had been a Christian, that he has forsaken Christianity? whether the bare name, without any crimes beside, or the crimes adhering to that name, be to be punished? In the meantime, I have taken this course about those who have been brought before me as Christians.—I asked them whether they were Christians or not? If they confessed that they were Christians, I asked them again, and a third time, intermixing threatenings with the questions; if they persevered in their confession, I ordered them executed; for I did not doubt but, let their confession be of any sort whatsoever, this positiveness and inflexible obstinacy deserved to be punished. There have been some of this mad sect whom I took notice of in particular as Roman citizens, that they might be sent to that city. After sometime as is usual in such examinations, the crime spread itself, and many more cases came before me. A libel was sent me, though without an author, containing many names (of persons accused). These denied that they were Christians now, or ever had been. They called upon the gods, and supplicated to your image, which I caused to be brought to me for that purpose, with frankincense and wine; they also cursed Christ: none of these things, it is said, can any of those that are really Christians be compelled to do; so I thought fit to let them go.— Others of them, that were named in the libel, said that they were Christians, but presently denied it again; that, indeed, they had been Christians, but had ceased to be so, some three years, some many more; and there was one that said he had not been so these twenty years. All these worshipped your image, and the images of our gods: these also cursed Christ. However, they assured me, that the main of their fault, or their mistake, was this,— that they were wont, on a stated day, to meet together before it was light and to sing a hymn to Christ, as a God, alternately; and to oblige them selves by a sacrament (or oath) not to do anything that was ill, but that they would commit no

10 theft, or pilfering, or adultery : that they would not break their promises, or deny what was deposited with them, when it was required back again; after which it was their custom to depart, and to meet again at a common but innocent meal, which yet they had left off upon that edict which I published at your command, and wherein I had forbidden any such conventicles These examinations made me think it necessary to inquire by torments, what the truth was, which I did of two servant maids, which were called deaconesses; but still I discovered no more than that they were addicted to a bad and an extravagant superstition. Hereupon I have put off any further examinations, and have recourse to you; for the affair seems to be well worth consultation, especially on account of the number of those PG 20 are in danger; for there are many of every age, of every rank, and of both sexes, which are now and hereafter likely to be ca]led to account, and be in danger : for this superstition is spread like a contagion, not only into cities and towns, but into country villages also, which yet there is reason to hope may be stopped and corrected. To be sure, the temples, which were almost forsaken, begin already to be frequented; and the holy solemnities1 which were long intermitted, begin to be revived. The sacrifices begin to I well everywhere, of which very few purchasers had of late appeared whereby it is easy to suppose how great a multitude of men may be amended, if place for repentance be admitted.

TRAJAN’S EPISTLE TO PLINY.

My PLINY—You have taken the method which you ought, in examining the causes of those that had been accused as Christians ; for, indeed, no certain and general form of judging can be ordained in this case. These people are not to be sought; but if they be accused and convicted, they are be punished, but with this caution, that he who denies himself to be a Christian, and makes it plain by supplicating to our gods, although he had been so formerly, may be allowed pardon, upon his repentance. As for libels sent without an author, they ought to have no place in any accusation whatsoever, for that would be a thing of very ill example, and not agreeable to my reign.

These letters were written about A. D 112, and at that time Pliny could say that “after some time as is usual in such examinations,” etc. ‘‘some (had ceased to be Christians) three years, some many more ;“ ~“ there was one who said he had not been so these twenty years.” Christianity had spread like a contagion” in cities, towns and villages, and among many of every age and of every rank.” This surely takes us back to the source whence it sprung, as claimed by the New Testament and as evidenced by the writers of those early times.

TESTIMONIES OF UNFRIENDLY HISTORIANS

CHAPTER III.

BRIEF NOTICE OF HISTORIANS TO BE EXPECTED.—NERO’S BURNING OF ROME AND HIS CHARGE OF THE CRIME UPON THE CHRISTIANS. EVIDENCES OF THE ROMAN HISTORIAN TACITUS.—THE TESTIMONY OF JOSEPHUS. FURTHER EVIDENCE FROM JOSEPHUS. THE TOLDOTH .JESCHU, ITS EVIDENCE OF REMARKABLE WORKS BEING DONE BY CHRIST AND HIS APOSTLES.

T would seem strange if a matter so remarkable as the start and development of Christianity had not been referred to by the great historians of those times. Yet from such writers as Tacitus and Josephus it would not be reasonable to expect much. Tacitus had such a wide field before him that even matters of notoriety in Judea could expect to receive only a passing glance. What attention this prolific writer did give, however, was right to the point so far as establishing the facts with which we are now dealing is concerned. A very black spot in the history of the first century is the burning of Rome by the monster Nero; and it would seem providential that the uprise of Christianity became associated with this event in such a way as to compel the historian to refer to it, and to make its alleged connection with that event a witness for ages to follow. Such a deed as that of Nero’s could not escape the pages of history; it was a fact too big and black; and it was the adding of crime to crime that connected this dreadful deed with Christianity at that early stage of its development. Upon whom could this embodiment

10 of wickedness put the blame of the terrible fire in Rome and thus shift it from his own cruel and abominable head? It occurred to. him that

Pg 22 the Christians were at once the most defenseless and the most contemptible in the eyes of the heathen and Jewish worlds of those times; and the execution of this evil thought was what made it impossible for the pen of history to record Rome’s catastrophe without bearing testimony to the facts concerning the despised but increasing people who were rallying to the standard of the cross. The time of the birth of Tacitus is not known, but he was married in the year 78 A. D., which was. only forty four years after the crucifixion. The fire at Rome occurred in the tenth year of Nero, which was only thirty years after Christ’s crucifixion. So in considering what Nero did and what Tacitus wrote we are back in the very times when excitement ran high and the tragedy of the cross was as if but yesterday. And right at that time here is what he says

EVIDENCE OF THE ROMAN HISTORIAN TACITUS.

They had their denomination from Christus who, in the reign of Tiberius, was put to death as a criminal by the procurator Pontius Pilate. This pernicious superstition, though checked for a while, broke out again, and spread, not only in Judea, but reached the city also. At first they were only apprehended who confessed themselves of that sect; afterwards a vast multitude were discovered by them.

The check to which Tacitus alludes is reasonably supposed to refer to the result of the persecution following the death of Stephen, and this incidental reference to it makes the passage a clearer witness of facts as narrated in the New Testament. Then we have the testimony that Christians had become a vast multitude and had reached Rome. There must have been large numbers in Rome when Nero set fire to the city; for otherwise his placing the blame upon them would not have appeared feasible enough to deceive. Paul’s epistle to the Romans was written about six or seven years before this; and the fact that he wrote such a lengthy and elaborate letter is evidence ~ that believers had become quite numerous in that city. Thus the testimony of Tacitus, an enemy, coincides with that of the New Testament. PG23 THE TESTIMONY OF JOSEPHUS

Josephus makes only a passing remark concerning Christ and the revolution his work was effecting about the time he was writing his Antiquities—about thirty years after the crucifixion. The genuineness of what he does say is questioned by infidels, but to object to what defeats their claims is a habit with them, and their objections may always be viewed with suspicion. Here is what Josephus says Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was (the) Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe~ of. Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

If this is spurious, as infidels claim, let them produce a copy of Josephus’ works in which it is not found. If they could do this there might be grounds for questioning its genuineness. By all rules of evidence in such cases the testimony stands unimpeached. The most that can be said against it is the supposed improbability that a Jewish writer would so favorably speak of Christ and his followers. But the probability is the other way with such a faithful and careful historian as Josephus is admitted to be. The appearance of such a one as Christ, performing such wonders and drawing such multitudes after him, resulting in such contention and uproar, could not be passed over in silence by an honest historian of those times. Here was the fact that there was a “tribe of Christians.’ .What was the historian to say about them? He would be expected to say something and at that early day, so close to the start, a false account of their origin could not be imposed upon the public; and it is a fact that none of the writers of those times give any other account or in any other way attempt to explain the fact of the existence of a growing revolutionary movement which, so far, had used no force, but had, according to ordinary PG 24 ways of men, taken the course to fail instead of succeed. Now Josephus was placed in a very awkward position.

10 He stood between two fires, as it were—the Jews, who had demanded the death of ~ Christ, and the Romans, by whose law their demands were carried out; and both were bitter enemies of this growing “tribe of Christians.” He was a man with a conscience, and yet by force of circumstances placed in a helpless position. There are many men to-day of high positions in life who see and realize what is right, but who, because of being hedged in by circumstances, cannot act according to their inmost thought. It is very probable that this was the plight Josephus was in; and who will say that the very leaders whose thirst for the blood of Christ could not be satiated but by the cruel cross, when they saw nature’s protest ~ and the rent of the veil of the temple in that dark hour, did not become convinced in their minds that the one they had crucified was more than an ordinary man, and the fact that he had been a “doer of wonderful works” must be attributed to the cause he had claimed. Taking all the facts into consideration it was natural to expect from Josephus just what testimony he gave and no more; and that coincides with all others in establishing the fact of Christ’s existence and wonderful work.

FURTHER EVIDENCE FROM JOSEPHUS

It would seem that when Josephus wrote of matters not distinctly relating to Christ, yet requiring indirect reference to him, he wrote more freely. The incidental character of the testimony as to the existence of Christ and his relations, however, strengthens the evidence. We allude now to his account of the evil treatment of James and other followers of Christ. He says

Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he (Ananus) assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who is called Christ, whose name was James, and some others. And when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned, but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the PG 25 breach of the laws, they disliked what was done ; they also sent to the king desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what had already been done was not to be justified.

Another instance of this kind of incidental evidence is found in Josephus’ account of Herods murder of John, the Baptist He says: Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod’s army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, who was called the Baptist ; for Herod slew him, who was a good man and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness toward one another, and piety toward God.

He then proceeds to give the account of Herod’s wickedness and his reason for beheading John in a circumstantial manner that not only carries truth and genuineness upon its face, but by comparison proves that the disputed evidence before given is genuine. If Josephus could speak so favorably of James, the brother of Jesus, and of John, the Baptist, in what other way could he be expected to speak of Christ, except as he does. He could not have written as he has of John the Baptist without knowing of his relation to Christ, and, therefore, he wrote freely of those in whose favor there was considerable public sentiment; hut quite cautiously of Christ, yet truthfully, being a very conscientious man and a careful historian. Had he given any other account of the tide of Christianity which was then flowing, and which could not entirely escape his notice, enemies might have had some excuse for their criticism. Not until the nineteenth century did any one attempt to invent any other means to account for the history and power of Christianity, and then the writer allowed his imagination to soar away to the other side of Jordan, dreaming that if he got into remote parts not well known, his invention could be Imposed upon the public. But a man has to do more than cross a river to deceive in a matter in which so many facts Cluster around the center in unmistakable and irresistible proof. Upon the non-existence of any other account, Paley says: In the first place, there exists no trace or vestige of any other story. PG 26 It is not, like the death of Cyrus the Great, a competition between opposite accounts, or between the credit of different historians. There is not a document, or a scrap of account, either contemporary with the commencement of Christianity, or extant within many ages after that commencement which assigns a history substantially different from ours.

THE TOLDTH JESCHU

10 Strange to say, there is a work now extant among the Jews, called To/doth Jeschu, which proves that Christ and his apostles relied upon miracles in support of their claims, It shows that wonderful things were done, and attributes them to the powers of magic. Mr. Whately, in his annotations of Paley, says that an English translation of it (this work) was published some years ago. by an antichristian book seller, under the title of the Gospel According to the Jews. He was stupid enough to think that it made against Christianity.” Of this work he further says That the Christian miracles were, at the time, admitted by opponents, we have a proof in a very curious book now extant among the Jews, the Toldoth Jeschu (Generalion of Jesus). It is the Jewish statement of the origin of the religion of Jesus ; and it fully confirms the New Testament statetent that his adversaries acknowledged the fact of his miracles (except only the resurrection), and attributed them to magical art. Now this book, which is very ancient, though the exact date of its composition is unknown, must have been compiled from the very earliest traditions. For it is incredible that if the contemporaries of Jesus had denied the facts, their descendants should afterward have acknowledged those facts, and resorted to the hypothesis of magic. We think now we have given sufficient evidence from enemies and unfriendly historians to establish beyond doubt the existence of Christ and the marvelous origin of Christianity, in all of which there is nothing in opposition but every thing in favor of the New testament account. By excluding theories and following facts only we are back where by a great revolution the religion and politics of the mighty empire of Rome were changed, and where the facts Of Christ’s existence and his wonderful influence began to be ingrained in the whole fabric of the civilized world. And her at the start we are in the presence of Christ himself and of his Pg 27 apostles and disciples, and in their hands we find the Old Testament Scriptures. and afterward the New Testament Scriptures, the latter being referred to by enemies as the books which were understood to be the foundation of the Christian movement, and these enemies are striving to find flaws and to invent means and methods that will account for the miracles performed by Christ and his apostles, recorded in the New Testament writings, and referred to by Christians as the indisputable facts which had changed their minds and produced conviction so firmly that even death could not loosen its grasp. Now let the fact of the existence of the New Testament in the first century have its full force upon the mind, and it will be indisputable that the start was made upon the very claims that ~ are made now. Upon this, Paley, in his Evidences of Christianity, page 170, forcibly says: ‘The argument in favor of the books of the New Testament drawn from the notice taken of their contents by the early writers against the religion, is very considerable. It proves that the accounts which the Christians had then were the accounts which we have now; that our present Scriptures were theirs. It proves, moreover, that neither Celsus in the second, Porphyry in the third, nor Julian in the fourth century, suspected the authenticity of these books, or even insinuated that Christians were mistaken in the authors to whom they accredited them. Not one of them expressed an opinion upon this subject different from that which was held by Christians. And when we consider how much it would have availed them to have cast a doubt upon this point, if they could, and how ready they showed themselves to be, to take every advantage in their power, and they were all men of learning and inquiry; their concession, or rather their suffrage, upon the subject, is extremely valuable. In the case of Porphyry, it is still stronger, by the consideration that he did, in fact, support himself by this species of objection, when he saw any room for it, or when his accuteness could supply any pretence for alleging it. The prophecy of Daniel he attacked upon this very ground of Spuriousness, insisting it was written after the time of Antiochus Epiphanes and maintains his charges of forgery by some, farfetched indeed, but very subtle criticisms. Concerning the writings of the New Testament, no trace if this suspicion is anywhere to be found in him.

RECAPITULATION.

We have thus far seen PG 28

1—That Christendom as it now stands out before us is a wonderful and palpable and undeniable fact. 2 That this fact demands a satisfactory answer to the question that must force itself upon every reasonable mind, Whence came it? 3 That its name, its traditions, its doctrines, its dates, its ways and its days all point back and lead back to one Man, who is and was called Christ. 4. That this one great fact of Christendom and its thousand constituent facts are facts independent of all theories. faith or no faith, false or true. 5—That when we follow back the footprints of eighteen hundred years through the great highway of history we are all the way surrounded by evidences, friendly and unfriendly, that Christendom is a result of which Jesus the Christ was the cause.

10 6.~—That this is and must be true alike to friend and foe, Christian or infidel, and whether any man upon the face of the earth has faith, true r false, or not.

7 That there are many and various natural facts surrounding the history of Christ and Christendom, which will not permit the remotest idea of the origin of the facts being found in fraud or fiction, 8 That the existence of Christ at or about the time and in that part of the earth claimed was admitted and never denied for many centuries alter the time Christianity claims to have originated. 9 That the few writers who have dared in later years to question the fact of Christ’s existence have found it ~ necessary to invent fictions in a vain attempt to account for facts, which fictions require vastly greater credulity for their acceptance than does anything the inventors point to scoffingly in relation to the facts in the case, whether miracles or natural occurrences, 10.—That the productions of the ablest and most ingenious of these opposing writers have been declared by able men of PG 29 their own bias of mind to be unworthy of the ‘‘domain of science and historical criticisms,” resting upon ‘‘arbitrary assumptions” and self contradictory. 11. - That the fact that popular opposing writers and lecturers have found it necessary to perform much labor in vain efforts to get rid of the facts and their origin is strong corroborative evidence of the existence of the facts they oppose, and of the depths and solidity of the foundation upon which they firmly and fearlessly stand. 12. That the opposition of the early writers, Celsus in the end of the first and beginning of the second century, Porphyry in the third and Emperor Julian in the fourth, all goes to establish the fact that Christians existed in those times, that they had the New Testament in their hands as an explanation of their existence, and that the books thereof were then admitted by friend and foe to be genuine. 13.. That notwithstanding the fact that Jesus and his followers used no physical force or violence, and that the precepts of Christ were contrary to the natural inclinations of the flesh, yet Christianity spread so rapidly and so widely, and its supporters multiplied so enormously that in the reign of the Roman Emperor Trajan, according to Pliny’s letter to the emperor, written only seventy years after the death of Christ, the temples of Paganism had almost become empty, both in towns and villages, and the Roman Empire was rapidly being revolutionized religiously by the flowing tide of Christianity. 14.—That by the popular historians of the times, Josephus in the Jewish world and Tacitus in the Gentile, the fact of Christ’s existence and that of his numerous followers, as well as other incidental facts mentioned in the New Testament, is referred to in such a manner as to remove all doubt that history outside of the New Testament and inside bears witness to the truth of the origin of Christianity. 15—That the evidence derived from all the enemies of Christianity PG 30 in the early days proves that the Christians held as sacred the books of the New testament as we now have them, and that Christ’s apostles relied upon miracles in attestation of their claims. So let the sceptics believe with Tacitus if they like, so far as this stage of the argument is concerned, that Christianity is a pernicious superstition,” they must still admit with him the fact of the existence of Christ and Christians who started the pernicious superstition “in the ‘ reign of liberius; “ and they must also believe with the same historian that ‘ Christus (Christ) was put to death as a criminal by the procurator Pontius Pilate” And now we may exclaim, if all these facts have had their foundation in delusion, What a gigantic delusion What a miraculous delusion But we shall see about this further along.

PG 31 FRIENDLY EXTERNAL EVIDENCE

CHAPTER IV.

CONSTANTINES ENTHRONEMENT DUE TO CHRISTANITY – BEFORE IT THE POWER OF PAGANISM WENT DOWN. THE NEW RELIGION THE POWER OF THE THRONE . EUSEHIL’S’ HISTORY IMPORTANT HIS ACCOUNT OF CONSTANTINES ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION OF FIFTY COPIES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT THE VALUE OF THIS FACT AS EVIDENCE - COMPARISONS OF THE DISTANCE OF TIMES OF CONSTANTINE FROM THOSE OF CHRIST.- WHHO AND WHAT WAS EUSEBIUS. PAMPHILUS WHO HE WAS AND HIS SEEMLINGLY PROVIDENTIAL WORK -. FROM THE UNQUESTIONABLE EVIDENCE OF CONSTANTINE , ESUSEBUS AND PAMPHILUS, BACK STEP BY STEP TO CHRIST.

10 HAVING given some of the testimonies of enemies in proof of the existence of the New Testament, and in proof of the fact that the claims of the book were originally as now made by friends as facts, we now proceed to give evidence from some of its friends. In doing this, we shall not yet open the book and let the authors speak for themselves; we shall simply let their friends speak for them, and consider the nature and weight of such evidence as we quote as going to show beyond a doubt that the New Testament existed and was referred to and quoted from as authority. We shall trace this evidence from a given point back to the days of the apostles and of Christ himself. There is no use in making a long trial of this case by multiplying witnesses. Our humble effort is not intended to deal voluminously with the subject in hand ; it is intended to keep inside of such limits as will be within the sphere of those whose time for study is short ; those more highly favored and who may have the patience and diligence for a more elaborate study will have access to the large and numerous volumes devoted to the subject by many and various writers, among whom we may mention William Paley, in his masterly work entitled, Paley’s Evidences of Christianity. Pg 32

Since the fact of the existence of the New Testament from the days of the enthronement of Christianity in the person of Constantine to the present time is not denied, it is not necessary to examine each link in the chain from our times back to the fourth century after Christ. Whether Constantine, the first so-called ‘‘Christian Emperor,” was a Christian or not, and whether the church he was the head of was truly the Christian church or not, the fact that the Emperor claimed to be a Christian and his church claimed to be the Christian Church, based upon the teaching of the New Testament. And holding that book in their hands as their foundation, is all that is necessary for our present purpose—to prove that the book existed, and that it caused the greatest revolution religiously and politically the world has ever experienced. From the days of Con- stantine to the present time, the many and various council, creeds and churches, all relating to and discussing about the New Testament, bear unmistakable and indisputable evidence of the existence of the book and its power over the world’s affairs. So we can take One leap back towards its origin and take our stand in the fourth century of the Christian era. In B. C. 31 2 Constantine became Emperor of Rome. There had been a number of emperors before him; but they all drifted, as it were, with the current of affairs in the empire, religious and civil. Paganism was the religion of the empire, and it was not a plank in the platform of the campaigns and contests for political power. But with Constantine it was entirely different, There was a new thing in the earth. The great tidal wave of “Christianity” had been powerfully and defiantly running against the sea of paganism; and upon this wave Constantine was carried up to the throne. The mighty power of paganism went down and “Christianity” went up, and here we are face to face with a man upon the throne of universal empire with the New Testament in his hand as the cause of his triumph over the strongest religious and political power the world had ever seen, a power scripturally declared to be “strong as iron” (Dan. ii: 40). Pg 33

In this new thing under the sun the new religion was the power of the throne without it the emperor might not have become emperor; without it he could not remain emperor. Conscious of this fact and impelled by the peculiar surrounding circumstances, the emperor is forced -shall we say providentially? —to bear his testimony on the then present status of the New Testament; and the manner in which this is done is related in detail by the historian Eusebius, who is the “father of ecclesiastical history’ since the time of Christ as Herodotus was of general history before Christ. Eusebius wrote a Life of Constantine in four books, from A.D. 306 to A. D. 337, in which the following occurs: “Ever careful for the welfare of the churches of God, the Emperor addressed me personally in a letter on the means of providing copies of the inspired oracles.” The letter is as follows

It happens, through the favoring of God our Saviour, that great numbers have united themselves to the most holy church in the city which is called by name. It seems, therefore, highly requisite, since that city is rapidly advancing in prosperity in all other respects, that the number of churches should be also increased. do you, therefore, receive with all readiness my determination on this behalf. I have thought it expedient to instruct your Prudence to order fifty copies of the sacred scriptures, the possession and use of which you know to be most needful for instruction of the church, to be written on prepared parchment, in a legible manner, and in a commodious and portable form, by transcribers thoroughly practiced in the art. The procurator of the diocese has also received instructions by letter from our Clemency to be careful to furnish all things necessary for the preparation of such copies; and it will be for you to take special care that they he completed with as little delay as possible. You have authority also, in virtue of this letter, to use two of the public carriages for their conveyance, by which arrangement the copies, when fairly written, will most easily be forwarded for my personal inspection; and one of the

10 deacons of your church may be entrusted with this service, who, on his arrival here, shall experience my liberality. God preserve you, beloved brother. Such were the Emperor’s commands, which were followed by the immediate execution of the work itself, which we sent him in magnificent and elaborate volumes of a threefold and fourfold form.

THE VALUE OF THIS EVIDENCE.

Now the value of this evidence does not depend upon any PG 34 theories, doctrines, false or true, that may have been held by either Eusebius or Constantine, or by those composing the churches referred to. Doubtless apostolic Christianity had, in these early times, been sadly perverted ; but our witness is not on the stand to be questioned on theories he may hold, but to prove facts. 1- -That the New Testament then existed. 2---That the numerous churches which had come into existence in spite of the opposition of the combined powers of paganism in church and state, owed their existence to the New Testament. 3-- -That the followers of Christ were so rapidly increasing that the Emperor realized that an increased production of the book they depended upon was necessary. Our royal witness is on the stand bearing indisputable testimony to these facts, and still, even at this stage of our argument, we may leave out of consideration the merits of the book and of its claims to divine origin. So far as our argument is concerned here, our enemies may regard the New Testament as no better than the Koran, the three foregoing propositions still remain facts, and we may well sit down and calmly consider them and compare them so as to take a good and solid stand, from which to reach back from the time of our witness a little over two centuries to the origin of the book and the wonders it accomplished in the revolution of the civilized world Right here we cannot do better than quote from Mr. H. L. Hastings in “The corruptions of the New Testament,” one of his valuable books of the series entitled, “The’ Anti Infidel Library.” On page 23 he puts the matter in such form as to force the facts home and deeply impress them upon the mind. He says The time of Constantine was not as distant from the time of our Saviour as the reign of Emperor William of Germany from the time of Martin I other. Imagine the Emperor William deluded into accepting, publishing, and circulating among all the churches of his realm a magnificent edition of some false, fabulous and spurious writings, giving an account of the Reformation under Luther and Milancthan, when no such things had occurred, and the accounts were utterly unreliable. Imagine Queen Victoria issuing her royal mandate for the production of fifty magnificent copies of a series of books like ‘‘Gulliver’s Travels,” or “Jack the Giant Killer,” professing to relate

Pg 35 events which occurred in the time of her predecessor, Henry VIII, but which all the public monuments and documents demonstrated to be utterly fabulous and deceptive. Imagine the President of the United States ordering the publication and distribution in all the churches of the country, for use in public worship, of a magnificent edition of a lot of utterly fabulous books, containing false accounts of the discovery of America, the settlement of Florida, the foundation of Jamestown, the landing of the Pilgrims, and the origin and establishment of the United States government; while the original journals and documents of explorers and governors, together with the public records of the nation, were all at hand ready to give the lie to everything contained in his books. If such absurdities as these cannot be imagined, neither can it be imagined that Constantine, the Emperor of Rome, a man of no mean scholarship, ability and eloquence could be misled in this way into the publication of an edition of the Holy Scriptures, unless those books were known to be genuine, known to be true, and susceptible of the strongest proof from the writings of historians, the uninterrupted traditions of the people and the public records of the Roman empire.

It will be borne in mind that after a reign of twenty five years, Constantine died in 337; about three hundred years from the death of Christ, and less than two hundred and fifty years from the death of the apostle John. He was emperor of that Rome under one of whose provincial governors, Pontius Pilate, Jesus Christ was crucified. Under Nero, one of his predecessors, Paul had been beheaded. In the Colliseum, which is still standing, hundreds and thousands of Christians had been thrown to the wild beasts for avowing their faith in Christ At some eight or ten different times the sword of persecution had been unsheathed by imperial decree against the defenseless Christians, who had been slaughtered by mobs and butchered and burned by Roman emperors, whose successor Constantine was.

WHO AND WHAT WAS EUSEBIUS.

10 Now for this testimony which Constantine bore of the genuineness and status of the New Testament, we are dependent upon the historian Eusebius, whose work forms a connecting link in the chain of ecclesiastical history. His zeal and the peculiar mariner in which he was enabled to do such an important work were made necessary by the strong and bitter efforts of the pagans to exterminate the Christians and destroy their books. Having filled such an important place in the line of evidence of the genuineness of the New Testament, Eusebius has been the target of those who would like to have it otherwise. With his faithful work out of the way, they would be Pg 36 able to make some kind of a show in their opposition Hence they have magic attacks upon him It will be in place here to state who and what he was; and we would remark again, let it be remembered that no apology is necessary for what theories he may have held. His testimony of facts is what we are dealing with. A man may be a fanatic on theories in science or religion, yet his testimony in court as to a fact he saw or heard will not be in the least invalidated thereby. Of Eusebius, Mr. Stowe in his work entitled “History of the Books of the Bible,” page 44, says He was the bishop of the church at Caesarea, in Palestine, at the close of the third and the beginning of the fourth century of the Christian era, and he became the personal friend and ecclesiastical advisor of Constantine, after that emperor had embraced Christianity. In that church at Caeserea before A.D. 300 there was a remarkable man who seemed raised up by Providence to do just the work in regard to the Christian books which was needed for that and all subsequent time. This was

PAMPH ILU S

If ever there was a special Providence here was one, for if the work had not then been done it never could have been done afterwards Pamphilus was the intimate and bosom friend of Emisebius, **** and Eusebius gave himself the surname of Pamphilus, after the name of his friend. Pamphilus had a great passion for collecting books, the books written by Christians; and every’ scrap of Christian literature down to his own time, which he could find, he laid hold of and stored it away in his library. * * * When there was a Christian book which he could neither purchase nor beg for his library, he would laboriously copy it with his own hand. In this way, by copying them himself, he became possessed of all the folios of the works of Origen, which were then very difficult to be obtained. He died early the death of a martyr, and bequeathed his entire library to the church at Caeserva, and Eusebius all his life long had the use of it. Eusebius was a voracious reader and voluminous writer, as hungry to read and write books as Pamphilus had been to purchase them. Thus Eusehius became intimately acquainted with everything pertaining to the Christian literature of the first three centuries, and was well qualified to give testimony in regard to all the Christian books of that period. This testimony is given very copiously in his historical writings, which are still extant and tolerably complete.

Now we have in Pamphilus a “bookworm” who zealously collected every scrap of Christian literature he could find, and thus defeated the efforts of enemies to destroy such literature.

Pg37 We have Eusebius a diligent reader and writer of books relat ing to Christianity; and we have Constantine, the emperor of Rome, aiding and furthering the publication of the New Testament and whatever measures would strengthen the cause of Christianity in the world. From this point of time, with these formidable facts we are now ready to take the few steps back, examining each .link as we go, to the starting point and the cause of this wonderful revolution the world had passed through. The people of the times of Constantine and Eusebius had only about thirty years to reach back and join hands with Origen. Not that many other witnesses during the interval cannot be quoted ; for in 245 we have Cyprian, who became a Christian at that time, and as Mr. Stowe says, “ Though he lived but twelve years after this (his conversion), by his incessant activity and great strength of character he rendered services which have placed his name among the highest of Christian antiquity.” Cyprian says, “The church is watered like paradise, by four rivers, that is, by four gospels.” He often quoted from the Acts of the Apostles under tbat name, and also calls them ‘ Divine scriptures.” Of Cyprian Paley says, -‘ In his various writings are such constant and copious citations of scripture as to place this part of his testimony beyond controversy. Nor is there in the works of this eminent African bishop one quotation of a spurious or apocryphal Christian writing.” As to the many witnesses of these times, Paley says Passing over the crowd of writers following Cyprian, at different distances, but all with in forty years of his time and who all, in the imperfect remains of their works, either cite the historical scriptures of the New Testament, or speak of them in terms of profound respect ; I single out Victorin, etc.

10 ORIGEN.

But since brevity is necessary and the quotation of a sufficient number of important witnesses to give a complete chain is sufficient for bur present object it is needless to multiply Witnesses, and so we return to Origen. He was born in the

year 135 and died in 254, fifty eight years before Constantine was enthroned. The weight of his evidence will be seen by what Paley says of him as follows

An interval of only thirty years, and that occupied no small number of Christian writers, whose works only remain in fragments and quotations, and in every one of which is some reference or other to the gospel (and in one of them— Hippolytus, as preserved in Theodoretisan abstract of the whole gospel history), brings us to a name of great celebrity in Christian antiquity, Origen of Alexandria, who, in the quantity of his writings, exceeded the most laborious of the Greek and Latin authors Nothing can be more peremptory upon the subject now under consideration, and, from a writer of his learning and information, more satisfactory than the declaration of Origen, preserved in an extract from his works, by Eusebius: “That the four gospels alone are received without dispute by the whole church of God under heaven ;“ to which declaration is immediately subjoined a brief history of the respective authors, to which they were then, as they are now, ascribed. The language holden concerning the gospels throughout the works of Origen which remain, entirely corresponds with the testimony here cited. His attestation of the Acts of the Apostles is no less positive : “ And Luke also once more sounds the trumpet, relating the acts of the apostles’. The universality with which the Scriptures were then read is well signified by this writer in a passage iii which he has occasion to observe against Celsus, “That it is not in any private books, or such as are read by a few— only, and those studious persons, but in books read by everybody, that it is written, “The invisible things of God from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by things that are made.” It is to no purpose to single out quotations of scripture from such a writer as this. We might as well make a selection of the quotations of scripture in Dr. Clarke’s sermons. They are so thickly sown in the works of Origen that Dr. Mill says, “If we had all his works remaining we should have before us almost the whole text of the Bible. “—.Paley’s Evidences, j’p. 537 8.

Let it be remembered that when Origen and other witnesses quote the Scriptures they do so with thee distinct understanding that they were authority and a court of final appeal to settle all disputes, as will be more fully shown by the following from Paley

“Our assertions and discoveries,” saith Origen, “are unworthy of credit; we must receive the scriptures as witnesses.” After treating of the duty of prayer, he proceeds with his argument thus: “What w~ have said may be proved from the divine scriptures .” In his books against Celsus, we find this passage: “That our religion teaches us to seek after wisdom shall pg 39 be shown, both out of the ancient Jewish scrij~5tures, which we also use, and out. of those writ/en Since Jesus, WHICH ARE BELIEVED IN THE CHURCHES TO BE DIVINE.” These expressions afford abundant evidence of the peculiar and exclusive authority which the scriptures possessed.—Paley’s Evidences p. 142.

JUSTIN MARTYR.

The next link in our chain shall be Justin Martyr, who was born in the beginning of the second century and was put to death at Rome in the year I 67. Of Justin Mr. Stowe says: His larger apology was addressed to the Emperor Antoninus Pius about the year 161 or there about. In both these works the argument is addressed mainly to the pagans. For the Jews he wrote a dialogue which he professes to have held with Trypho, a Jew, while walking in the gymnasium or Xystras at Ephesus. As to the genuineness of these works there can be no reasonable doubt—History of the Books of the Bible, pg . 134-5.

In summarizing the quotations of scriptures by this witness, Paley says We meet with quotations of three of the gospels within the compass half a page : “And in other words he says, ‘ Depart from me into’ utter darkness, which the Father bath prepared for Satan and his angels,’ (which is from Matt. xxv: 41). And again he said in other words, ‘I give you power to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and venomous beasts, and upon all the power

10 of the enemy’ (this from Luke x: 19). And before he was crucified he said, “The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the Scribes and Pharisees, and be crucified, and rise again the third day” (this from Mark viii: 31).

In another place Justin quotes, a passage in the history of Christ’s birth, as delivered by Matthew and John, and fortifies his quotation by this remarkable testimony : “As they have taught who have writ the history of all things concerning our Saviour Jesus Christ; and we believe them.” quotations are also found from the Gospel of St. John

What, moreover, seems extremely material to be observed is that in all Justin’s works, from which might be extracted almost a complete history of the life of Christ, there are but two instances in which he refers to anything as said or done by Christ which is not related concerning him in our present gospels; which shows that these gospels, and these, we may say, alone, were the authorities from which the Christians of that day drew the information Upon which they depended. One of these instances is a saying of Christ Rot met with in any book now extant. The other, of a circumstance in Christ’s baptism, namely, a fiery or luminous appearance upon the water, which according to Epiphanius, is noted in the gospel of the Hebrews; and Which might be true; but which, whether true or not, is mentioned by Justin \ pg 40 with a plain mark of diminution, when compared with what he quotes as resting upon scripture authority. The reader will advert to this distinction; “and then when Jesus came to the river Jordan, where John was baptizing, as Jesus descended into the water, a fire also was kindled in Jordan ; and when he came up out of the water, the apostles of/his our Christ have written that the Holy Ghost lighted upon him as a dove.”

All the references in Justin are made without mentioning the author which proves that these book were perfectly notorious, and that there were no other accounts of Christ then extant, or, at least, no others so received and credited as to make it necessary to distinguish these from the rest.

But although Justin mentions not the authors’ names, he calls the books Memoirs Composed by the Apostles, Memoirs Composed by the Apostles and/heir Companions; the latter especially, exactly suit the titles which the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles now bear.

IRENAEUS.

We are now at a time when many of the most important witnesses bear their unimpeachable testimony to the existence of the New Testament, and to the fact that its books were regarded as of divine authority then as much so as they are by friends now. Here we have Ireneus, who was born about the year 120; Polycarp, who was martyred about the year 164; Papias, who flourished about the year too. When we have given a few quotations to show the nature and value of their testimony we shall have reached the end of our chain, arid shall find it so securely fastened that all the scepticism and infidelity in the world cannot break it. Let the reader notice now that our witnesses lead us into the actual presence of the writers of the New Testament. Of Ireneus Paley says assertion of the point which we have laid down as the In this he had been a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John. In the time in which he lived, he was distant not much more than a century from the publication of the Gospels; in his introduction only by one step separated from the persons of the apostles. He asserts of himself and his contemporaries, that they were able to reckon up, in all the principal churches, the succession of bishops from the first. I remark these particulars concerning Irenaeus with more formality than usual; because the testimony which this writer affords to the historical books of the New Testament, to their authority, and to the titles which they bear, is express, positive and exclusive. One principal passage, in which this testimony is contained, opens with a precise assertion of the point which we have laid down as the pg 41 foundation of our argument, viz., that the story which the Gospels exhibit is the story which the apostles told. “We have not received,” saith Irenaeus, the knowledge of the way of our salvation by any others than those by whom the gospel has been brought to us. Which gospel they first preached, and afterwards, by the will of God, committed to writing, that it might be for time to come the foundation and pillar of our faith For after that our Lord rose from the dead, and they (the apostles) were endowed from above with power of the Holy Ghost coming down upn them, they perceived a perfect knowledge of all things. They then went forth to all the ends of the earth, declaring to men the blessings of heavenly peace,

10 having all of them, and every one alike, the gospel of God. Matthew then, among the Jews, writ a gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel at Rome, and founding a church there. And after their exit, Mark also, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, delivered to us in writing the things that had been preached by Peter. And Luke, the companion of Paul, put down in a book the gospel preached by him (Paul). Afterwards John, the disciple of the Lord, who also leaned upon his breast, he likewise published a gospel while he dwelt at Ephesus in Asia.

Now here we have a careful account of the origin of the Gospels and other books of the New Testament by one who wrote only about seventy years after John wrote the Apocalypse. Irenus was a disciple of Polycarp and Polycarp was a disciple of John. His quotations of familiar words from the Gospels shows that the books were well known and accepted as authority; and to fully see the force of what he says concerning the origin of the books, one has only to imagine the absurdity of a prominent mah “who had great influence throughout the Christian world” (Stowe) thus writing about and quoting from books which had no existence. Paley well remarks, “If any modern divine should write a book upon the genuineness of the gospels, he could not assert it more expressly, or state their argument more distinctly than Ireneus has done within little more than a hundred years after they were published.” In his day Iren2eus could say that “the tradition of the apostles hath spread itself over the whole universe; and all they, wh search after the sources of truth, will find this tradition to b~ held sacred in every church.”

As to the Acts of the Apostles, Irenus refers to the conversion of Paul as recorded in Acts ix: “ Nor can they (ene Pg 42 mies) show that he is not to be credited, who has related to us the truth with the greatest exactness.” “ In another place,” says Paley, “he has actually collected the several texts, in which the writer of the history is represented as accompanying St. Paul, which leads him to deliver a summary of almost the whole of the hist ‘twelve chapters of his book. In an author thus abounding with references and allusions to the Scriptures there is not one to any apocryphal Christian writing whatever. This is a broad line of distinction between our sacred books and the pretensions of all others.”

Omitting other witnesses of these times, whose works are lost, but who are referred to by Eusebius—Athenagoras, The- ophilus, Militiades, Pant2enus, etc., we quote Clement of Alexandria, who, says Paley, “followed Irenaus at a .distance of only sixteen years, and therefore may be said to maintain the series of testimony in an uninterrupted continuation.” Force is added to the testimony of the witnesses we are now quoting from by the fact that, as Paley says, “it is the concurring testimony of writers who lived in countries remote from one another. Clement (of Rome) flourished at Rome, Ignatius at Antioch, Polycarp at Smyrna, Justin Martyr in Syria, and Ireneus in France;” and, we may add the Clement we are about to quote from, was of Alexandria. Clement of Alexandria was by birth a pagan and, says Stowe, “received his Christian instruction from the celebrated Alexandrian teacher Pantarnus, in the year 187, became his successor in the presidency of the catechetic school, and in the course of time had the world famed Origen for one of his scholars.” As to his testimony for the New Testament we quote the following from Paley: In certain of Clement’s works, now lost, but of which various parts are recited by Eusebius, there is given a distinct account of the order in which ‘the four gospels were written. The gospels which contain the genealogies were (he says) written first, Mark next, at the instance of Peter’s followers, and John’s the last; and this account, he tells us that he had received from Presbyters of more ancient times. This testimony proves the following points: That these gospels were the histories of Christ then publicly received

Pg 43 and relied upon ; that the dates, occasions, and circumstances of their publication were at that time subjects of attention and inquiry among Christians. In the works of Clement which remain, the four gospels are repeatedly quoted by the .names of their authors, and the Acts of the Apostles is expressly ascribed to Luke. In one place, after mentioning a particular circumstance, he adds these remarkable words : “We have not this passage in the four gospels delivered to us, but in that according to the Egyptians;” which puts a marked distinction between the four gospels and all other histories, or pretended histories, of Christ. In another part of his works, the perfect confidence, with which he received the gospels, is signified by him in these words : “That this is true, appears from hence, that it is written in the Gospel according to St. Luke ;“ and again, “I need not use many words, but only to allege the evangelic voice of the Lord.” His quotations are numerous. The sayings of Christ, of which he alleges many, are all taken from our gospels, the single exception to this observation appearing to be a loose quotation of a passage in St. Matthew.

TERTULLIAN.

10 Tertullian shall be our next witness. ‘‘He was born at Carthage about the year i6o, and is the oldest of the Latin church fathers whose writings have reached us * * * He died, as some say, about the year 220, or, according to others, as late as 240. * * * His writings are numerous and have been well preserved and published very often. They are apologetic, polemic and practical. Being so numerous and diversified, and written so near the apostolic age, by one who had been educated a Roman lawyer, and who was the son of a Roman soldier of proconsular rank, their testimony to the New Testament books is exceedingly interesting and important” (Stowe). Now here is another popular man on the side of Christianity. a lawyer, too, who would be likely to bring his legal acumen to bear in carefully investigating the claims of the books of the New Testament before he would place himself under the stigma which necessarily followed the espousal of the Christian cause at that early date. Tertullian’s principal book was an Apology against the Gentiles, and it was addressed to the Roman governors in Africa, a fact which shows that the question of the claims of the New Testament was prominently under the attention of men of rank at that time. Paley (Evi Pg 44 dences p. 136) gives quotations from Tertullian and comments upon the nature thereof as follows In the age in which they lived, Tertullian joins on with Clement. The number of the gospels then received, the names of the evangelists, and their proper description, are exhibited by this writer in one short sentence ‘‘Among the apostles, John and Matthew teach us the faith; among aposlolecal men, Luke and Mark refresh.” The next passage to be taken from Tertullian affords as complete an attestation to the authenticity of our books as can be well imagined. After enumerating the churches which had been founded by Paul, at Corinth in Galatia, at Philippi, Tessalonica, and Ephesus; the church of Rome established by Peter and Paul; and other churches derived from John, he proceeds thus: “I say then, that with them, but not with them only which are apostolical, but with them in the faith, is that gospel of Luke received from its first publication, which we so zealously maintain; “ and presently afterwards adds—”The same authority of the apostolical churches will support the other gospels, which we have from them and according to them. I mean John’s and Matthew’s, although that likewise, which Mark published, may be said to be Peter’s, whose interpreter Mark was.” In another place Tertullian affirms that the three other gospels were in the hands of the churches from the beginning, as well as Luke’s. This noble testimony fixes the universality with which the gospels were received, and their antiquity; that they were in the hands of all, and had been so from the first, and the evidence appears not more than one hundred and fifty years after the publication of the books. The reader must be given to understand that, when Tertullian speaks of maintaining or defending the Gospel of St. Luke, he only means maintaining or defending the integrity of the copies of Luke received by Christian churches, in opposition to certain curtailed copies used by Marcion against whom he writes.

Paley goes on to say that Tertullian frequently quotes from the Acts of the Apostles under that title, and that he shows how Paul’s Epistles confirm it. According to Dr. Lardner, Paley says : “There are more and larger quotations of the small volume of the New Testament in this one Christian author than there are df all the works of Cicero in writers of all characters for several ages.”

POLYCARP.

Polycarp was a disciple of John. In the reign of Marcus Aurelius he was condemned to death between the years 164 Pg 45 and i68. Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History, Book iv., Chapter 15, gives an account of him and a copy of a letter from the church at Smyrna, to which he belonged, written to the churches of Pantus. In this there is an affecting account of Polycarp’s martyrdom. The letter says, “We have written to you, brethren, the circumstances respecting the martyrs and the blessed Polycarp, who, as if sealing it with his martyrdom, has also put a stop to the persecution.” Polycarp wrote a letter to the Phillipians which is still extant. Of him Irenaus says, “I can tell the place in which the blessed Polycarp sat and taught, his going out and coming in, and the manner of his life, and the form of his person, and the discourses he made to the people, and how he related his conversation with John and others who had seen Me Lord, both concerning his miracles and his doctrines, as lie had received them from eyewitnesses of the word of life; all which. Polycarp related agreeably to the Scriptures.”

Paley says of him (Evidences, p. 1 27)

10 Of Polycarp, whose proximity to the age and country and persons of of the apostles is thus attested, we have one undoubted epistle remaining. And this, though a short letter, contains nearly forty clear allusions to books of the. New Testament; which is strong evidence of the respect which Christians of that age had for these books. Amongst these, although the writings of St. Paul are more frequently used by Polycarp than other parts uf scripture, there are copious allusions to the gospel of St. Matthew, some passages found in the gospels both of Matthew and Luke, and some which more nearly resemble the words in Luke. I select the following, as fixing the authority of the Lord’s prayer, and the use of it amongst the primitive Christians “If therefore we pray the Lord that he will forgive us, we ought’ also to forgive.’’

‘‘With supplication, beseeching the all-seeing God not to lead us into

And the following, for the sake of repeating an observation already made, that words of our Lord, found in our gospels, were at this early day quoted as spoken by him; and not only so, but quoted with so little question or consciousness of doubt about their being really his words, as not even to mention, much less to canvass, the authority from which they were taken. “But remembering that the Lord said, teaching, Judge not, that ye be pg 46 not judged; forgive, and ye shall be forgiven; be ye merciful, that ye may obtain mercy; with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again

Here are quotations from the books of the New Testament, without naming the books, a fact which clearly shows that the books were regarded by the write and readers as authority, and that they gave authentic accounts of Christ and his sayings. PAPIAS.

Our next witness is Papias, who belongs to the end of the first century of the Christian era. “He was,” says Stowe, “according to Irena~us, and other ancients, a student of both the apostle John and Polycarp; was a zealous millenarian, learning the doctrine, as he says, from the apostle John himself.” Papias says Matthew set forth his oracles in the Hebrew dialect, which every one interpreted as he was able. And John the Presbyter said this : Mark being the interpreter of Peter, whatsoever he recorded he wrote with great accuracy, but not, however, in the order in which it was done or spoken by our Lord, for he neither heard nor followed our Lord, but, as before said, he was in company with Peter, who gave him such information as was necessary * * * Wherefore Mark has not erred in anything * * * but was carefully attentive to one thing, not to pass anything that he heard, or to state anything falsely in these accounts.

The phrase “our Lord” and the way this writer refers to the Gospels are important as showing with what reverence and esteem Jesus and the Gospels were held. The language comes in a natural way, referring to facts as matters well known and recognized— matters which were so palpable that proof of occurrence and existence was not necessary.

IGNATIUS.

Ignatius was also a student of John ad, it is said, “was by him ordained bishop of Antioch, which office he held forty years.” He lived through the persecution of Domitian, but in the reign of Trajan he was condemned to death, and after a Pg 47 most remarkable conversation with the emperor, an account of which is still extant, he was taken to Rome and there suffered martyrdom. Of this writer Paley says (Evidences p. 129): Igatius, as it is testified by ancient Christian writers, became Bishop of Antioch about thirty seven years after Christ’s ascension; and therefore from his time, and place, and station, it is probable that he had known and con versed with many of the apostles. Epistles of Ignatius are referred to by Polycarp, his contemporary. Passages found in the epistles now extant under his name are quoted by Irenaus A. D. 178, by Origen A. D. 230; and the occasion of writing the epistles is given at large by Eusebius and Jerome. What are called the smaller epistles of Ignatius are generally deemed to be those which were read by Irenaus, Origen and Eusebius.

10 In these epistles there are various undoubted allusions to the gospels of St. Matthew and St. John; yet, so far of the same four with those in the preceding articles, that, like then], they are not accompanied with marks of quotations.

Of these allusions the following are clear specimens: Christ was baptized of John, that all righteousness might he fu/filed by him ‘‘Be wise as serpents in all things, and harmless as a dove.” ‘‘He, Christ, is the door of the Father, by which enter in Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, and the apostles, and the church.

As to the manner of quotation this is observable Ignatius, in one place, speaks of St. Paul in terms of high respect, and quotes his epistle to the Epi~esians by name; yet in other places he borrows words and sentiments from the same ej~ist1e without mentioning it; which shows that this was his general manner of using and applying writings then extant, and then of high authority.

CLEMENT OF ROME.

Clement of Rome is our next witness, and with him we are back in the time and in the company of the apostle Paul. Among the apocryphal books of the New Testament there are two letters of Clement from the church at Rome to the church at Corinth. In these there are frequent references to and quotations from the books of the New Testament; and the exhortations of Clement are very similar in style and substance to those of the New Testament, making allowance for some speculations in which he indulges. It is the fact of the existence of the books, let me say again, that our witnesses are tes Pg 48 tifying to, and theoretical speculations intermixed with the evidence of facts in no way weakens the evidence. Of Clement Paley says (Evidences, pp. 122,123) We are in possession of an epistle written by Clement, Bishop of Rome, whom the ancient writers, without doubt or scruple, assert to have been the Clement whom St. Paul mentions, Phil. iv: 3, “with Clement also, and other my fellow laborers, whose names are in the book of life.” This epistle is spoken of by the ancients as an epistle acknowledged by all; and as Irenaeus well represents its value, “ written by Clement, who had seen the blessed apostles and conversed with them, who had the preaching of the apostles still sounding in his ears, and their traditions before his eyes.” It is addressed t1) the church of Corinth; and what alone may seem almost decisive of its authenticity, Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, about the year 170 B. C., about eighty or ninety years after the epistle was written), bears witness that “it had been wont to be read in that church from ancient times.” This epistle affords, amongst others, the following valuable passages: ‘‘Especially remembering the words of the Lord Jesus which he spake, teaching gentleness and long suffering ; for this he said: “Be ye merciful, that ye may obtain mercy; forgive, that it may be forgiven unto you ; as you do, so shall it be done unto you ; as you give, so shall it be given unto you, as ye judge, so shall ye be judged; as ye show kindness, so shall kindness be shown unto you. By this command, and by these rules, let us establish ourselves, that we may always walk obediently to his holy words.” Again: ‘‘ Remember the words of the Lord Jesus, for he said, woe to that man by whom offences come; it were better for him that he had not been born, than that he should offend one of my elect; it were better for him that a millstone should be tied about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the sea; than that he should offend one of my little ones.” In both these passages we perceive the high respect paid to the words of Christ as recorded by the evangelists. “Remember the words of the Lord Jesus —by this command and by these rules let us establish ourselves, that we may always walk obediently to his words.” We perceive also in Clement i total unconsciousness of doubt whether these were the real words of Christ, which are read as such in the gospels. This observation, indeed, belongs to the whole series of testimony, and especially to the most ancient part of it. Whenever anything now read in the gospels, is met with in early Christian writings, it is always observed to stand there as acknowledged truth, ie, to be introduced without hesitation, doubt or apology.

BARNABAS.

In Barnabas we have a companion of Paul. There is now extant, and classed with the apocryphal books of the New Pg 49 Testament the Epistle of Barnabas. Paley says it was quoted as such “by Clement of Alexandria A. D. 191, by Origen A.D.230. It is mentioned by Eusebius A. D. 315 by Jerome A. D. 392, as an ancient work in their time, bearing the name of Barnabas, and as well known and read amongst Christians, though not accounted a part of Scripture.”

10 As to the nature of his evidence and his scripture quotations Paley says (Evidences p 122) In this epistle appears the following remarkable passage: “Let us there fore, beware lest it come upon us as it is written, There are many called, few chosen.” From the expression “as it is written, “ we infer, with certainty, that, at the time when the author of this epistle lived, there was a book extant, well known to Christians, and of authority amongst them, con taming these words—” Many are called, few chosen.” Such a book is our Gospel of St. Matthew, in which this text is twice found, and is found in no other book now known There is a further observation to be made upon the terms of the quotation. The writer of the epistle was a Jew. The phrase “it is written” was the very form in which the Jews quoted their scriptures. It is not probable, therefore, that he would have used this phrase, and without qualification, of any books but what had acquired a kind of scriptural authority. * * * Besides this passage, there are also in the epistle before us several others, in which the sentiment is the same with that we meet with in St. Matthew’s gospel, and two or three in which we recognize the same words. In particular the author of the epistle repeats the precept, “Give to every one that asketh thee; and saith that Christ chose as his apostles, men who were great sinners, that he might show that he came ‘not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.’

Now we have traced friendly external evidence of the existence of the New Testament, and of the high esteem in which they were held.

So unpopular as Christianity was in its beginning, .and having a superstitious Gentile world and stiff necked and rebellious Israel to contend with, more than ordinary allowance must be made for the destruction of books containing Christian evidence, as well as for loss by carelessness and accident. Still, there is no comparison between the amount of evidence extant in favor of the New Testament and that of other ancient books much prized. Even making such allowance, it is wonderful to what extent the establishment of Christianity left its impress Pg 50 upon the world of literature in its early days. As forcibly showing this we quote from Mr. Hasting’s “Inspiration of the Bible,” pp. i 2, 13. I have on one of my library shelves, between twenty and thirty volumes containing about twelve thousand pages of the writings of different Christian authors who wrote before A. D. 325, when the Council of Nice was held. Many of these books are full of scripture. Those writers had the same books which we have; they quoted the same passages which we quote; they quoted from the same gospels and epistles from which we quote Origen, who wrote a hundred years before the Council of Nice, quotes 5,745 passages from all the books in the New Testament; Tertullian, A. D. 200, makes more than 3,000 quotations from the New Testament books; Clement, A. D. 194, quotes 380 passages ; Irenus, A.D. 178, quotes 767 passages Polycarp, who was martyred A. D. 165, after having served Christ eighty. six years, in a single epistle quoted thirty six passages; Justin Martyr, A.D 140, also quotes from the New Testament: to say nothing of heathen and infidel writers like Celsus A. 1). 150, and Porphry. A. D 304. who referred to or quoted scores of the very passages now found in the Scriptures which we have. Indeed, Lord Hailes, of Scotland, having searched the writings of the Christian Fathers to the end of the third century, actually found the whole of the New Testament, with the exception of less than a dozen verses, scattered through their writings which are still extant so that, if at the time of the Council of Nice every copy of the New Testament had been annihilated, the book could have been reproduced from the writings of the early Christian Fathers, who quoted the hook as we quote it, and who believed it as we believe it. And now infidels talk about the Council of Nice getting up the New Testament. You might as well talk about a town council getting up the Revised Statutes of the state or nation, because they happened to say they accepted or received them. The Council of Nice did nothing of the kind. The books of the New Testament were received from the apostles who wrote them, and were carefully preserved, and publicly read in the churches of Christ long before the Council of Nice was held.

Says Tertullian, A. D. 200 ‘‘ If you are willing to exercise your curios ity profitably in the business of your salvation, visit the apostolic churches in which the very chairs of the apostles still preside in their places ; in which their very authentic letters are recited, sounding forth the voice and representing the countenance of every one of them. Is Achaia near you? You have Corinth. If you are not far from Macedonia you have Philippi and Thessalonica ; if you can go to Asia you have Ephesus, but if you are near to Italy you have Rome.” The apostolic churches received the gospels at the hands of the men who wrote them; and the epistles were written and signed by men whom they Pg 51 well knew. Paul wrote, “The salutation of me, Paul, with mine own hand. which is the token in every epistle, so I write.”

10 We have now given evidence enough from friendly witnesses, and still there is another aspect of the question to be considered before we open the book to examine the internal evidence of its divinity, and that is the canon, readings and renderings of Scriptures. So our next chapter shall be devoted to these subjects.

THE CANON READINGS AND RENDERINGS .OF

THE SCRIPTURES.

CHAPTER V. THE BOOKS PROIDUCED BY THE FACTS TH EY RELATE. –NO DESIGN OF PRODUCING THE BOOKS TO SERVE SINSTER ENDS —THE CLOSE ACQUATINTANCE OF THOSE CONCERNED A BARRIER AGAINST FRAUDULENT BOOKS. VOTES OF COUNCII.S NEVER NEEDED.—AN ILLUSFRATION OF INFIDEL IGNORANCE.~.-IN THE EVENT OF THE DESTRUCTION OF THE BOOKS THEY COULD HAVE BEEN REPRODUCED FROM QUOTATIONS. CATALOGUES OF THE BOOKS BY EARLY WRITERS. NO APOCRAPIIAL BOOKS IN THE FIRST CENTURY. WHY THERE ARE NUMEROUS READINGS. VARIATIONS IN NEARLY ALL THE READINGS UNIMPORTANT. THE VARIOUS RENDERINGS HELPFUL AND IN WAY AFFECT THE INTEGRITY OF THE BOOKS.

UNDER this heading it will be profitable to consider first the canon of scripture, that is, how the books we have in our Bible came to be accepted as the only sacred and authentic books of revelation. Infidels and skeptics have talked much about the chance-work in councils voting on and receiving the books of the New Testament while rejecting others, claiming that the ‘‘selection of some and rejection of ethers” depended upon the notions and votes of fallible men. To realize how the authenticity of these books would be determined by those in whose hands they were first placed we must in mind go back to the origin of Christianity,

-and see that they did not originate by an author determining to produce a book on a certain subject, to be printed and offered for sale upon its merits in the treatment of the particular subject dealt with. It was not a theory, a science or a religion already Out and being discussed that originated these books. The fact that certain things the most remarkable were taking place before the eyes of the people in all the land of Judea was the origin, humanly speaking, of the four Gospels; and the fact that churches existed and were coming into existence in towns and cities and that apostles established and visited these real churches in real places and spoke and wrote to them about real conditions in their midst and about real persons well-known, some good, some bad, and all having to do with a movement started by one who had been publicly crucified and whose humble teaching had started a great and manifest revolution——these facts were the origin of the Acts of the Apostles, and of the Epistles to the various churches. The fact that the churches had increased in number and membership and the temples had proportionately been forsaken, and that, as a result of this fact, the Roman government was persecuting to the death the Christians, these political, social and religious facts standing out before the gaze of the world were the origin, humanly speaking, of the Apocalypse. All the books were produced by the facts, coming out simultaneously with the facts in the most natural way, with no possible hope for the writers and all concerned in the movement and the writings of any remuneration except the satisfaction the spiritual results might yield and the hope of future life; and this with persecution, torture and death as the only present prospects. All these things go to exclude any thought of design in the production of the books, except what was suggested by the daily developing facts and conditions necessary to the performance of a duty to God and man. All told, those who espoused the cause were but few in number, a little flock, and the very nature of the movement brought them all closely together into personal acquaintance. Pg 55

When one would write and the others read there would be mutual knowledge of the places, the things, the people and the subjects written and read about, It would be impossible in the circumstances for a wicked man to impose a fraudulent letter upon any church as if it were from one of the apostles. for the many incidents treated of in the epistles were of such a nature

10 as to he unknown to an outsider; and then, what incentive would there be for fraud in such a case? Fraudulent men do not write such letters as our epistles. They could not if they tried. They have not spirituality enough in them, and they must always have sinister ends to serve when they ape true religion, and then they betray themselves either by their natural secularism or by the pharisaical extravagance of cant. Taking all the facts into consideration it would be a greater miracle if the books of the New Testament were fraudulent productions imposed upon the churches than if they were produced in the way and manner they claim for themselves. If the acceptance of these books had been, as the infidels claim, dependent upon votes of councils in the third or following centuries, the question would still be, Where did they come from? How did they get into the supposed piles of various books from among which they were to be voted as sacred ? And what object could the authors have had in writing such books in some unknown past. a past which if not what the books account for was never heard off ? Is it at all likely that books written to people in the circumstances depicted in and calling for these writings would have been allowed by those who so religiously (call it superstitiously if you like) received and clung to them to be mixed up with masses of other writings till their identity would depend upon the caprice of votes by councils? Let the history of Christianity be repeated now in any part of the world, and let the infidels try the experiment of shaping it as they say it was in its advent and they will perhaps realize what simpletons they are in telling stories that mock intelligence and brand the inventors as the most clumsy and awkward would- be deceivers.

As an illustration of the ignorance of infidels upon how the books of the New Testament were received as canonical,. we quote from Mr. Hastings in his Inspiration of the Bible,” as follows

What makes this book so different from all other books? Whose book is it? Who made it ? Infidels have the strangest ideas on that subject. I recollect in Marlboro, Mass., I read in a newspaper an article written by an infidel, which stated that the Council of Nice, in the year 325 compiled the New Testament. They had a lot of gospels and epistles, genuine and spurious, and no one could distinguish between the two; so they put them all on the f1oor and prayed that the good ones might get up on the communion table and the bad ones stay on the floor; and that was the way that the present New Testament was compiled. And that is the kind of food that infidels are made to swallow and digest ; for that very statement can be found in various infidel books now issued by infidel publishers. This writer said that this account rested on the authority of Papias, an early Christian bishop. I replied, in a lecture, that there was one difficulty about that story—that Papias was dead and buried a hundred and fifty years before the Council of Nice was held but as they might have got the news from “ the spirits,” that might be no great objection to them The man rose to explain and said that this was not the right Papias, but that it was another Papias, “an obscure Christian bishop of the fourth century.” I told him I thought he was obscure ; so obscure that no one ever thought of him before or since. On investigation it was learned that a German dominie, named John Pappus, preacher in Strasburg, and a professor at Munster, who died in 1610, discovered this story in an old Greek manuscript entitled “ Synodikon,” which was written by some old romancer back in the dark ages, about the year 879, for it relates things that occurred as late as 879, over five hundred years after the Council of Nice was dead and buried. And this story, written nobody knows when, where, or by whom, has been swallowed, believed, and published by infidels far and near, as an account of the origin of the New Testament and the men who believe and peddle such fables call Christians fools for believing the Bible.

That the books of the New Testament were in general circulation, and from their origin known to be authentic, is beyond dispute, from the fact that they were so largely and reverently quoted by various writers of those early days. It was never necessary for the Council of Nice nor any other council to vote on them. The reader has only to recall the quotation from Mr. Hastings on page 50 to realize the cx- Pg 57 tent to which the books were quoted; and the reverence for them was not an outgrowth of superstition years after their production, but a direct and immediate result of a knowledge that they came from men who, by signs and wonders and by divers miracles, had established their credentials beyond the shadow of doubt. Not only do we have proof of the books being received from the beginning by .the quotations in the general way we have given, but we have specific catalogues of the inspired and authentic books given by some of the authors writing about them In these catalogues there is a clear and well defined distinction drawn between the sacred hooks and those written by friendly but fallible men—fallible in their writings because uninspired. Diligent men have very carefully and voluminously given the world the result of their research in this branch of Christian evidence, but since Mr. Paley has given us a compendium of the facts brought out we quote from his Evidences, pl). 171 -73.

10 This species of evidence conies later than the rest , as it was not natural that catalogues of any particular class of books should be put forth until christian writings became numerous or until some writings showed themselves, claiming titles which did not belong to them, and thereby rendering it necessary to separate books of authority from others - But, when it does appear, it is extremely satisfactory the catalogues, though numerous , and made in countries at a wide distance from one another. differing very little differing in nothing which is material, and all containing the four gospels To this last article there is no exception.

1. In the writings of Origen which remain, and in some extracts preserved by Eusebius, from works of his which are now lost, there are enumeration’s of the books of scripture, in which the four Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles are distinctly and honorably specified, and in which no books appear beside what are now received. The reader, by this time will easily recollect that the (late of Origen’s works is a. A.D. 230.

II. Athanasius, about a century afterwards, delivered a catalogue of the hooks of the New Testament in form, containing our scriptures and no others ; of which’ he says, “In these alone the doctrine of religion is taught let no man add to them, or take anything away from them.”

III. About twenty years after Athanasius, Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem, set forth a catalogue of the books of scripture publicly read at that time in Pg 58 the church of Jerusalem, exactly the same as ours, except that the ‘‘ Revelation “is omitted. IV. And, fifteen years after Cyril, the Council of Laodicia delivered an authoritative catalogue of cononical scripture, like Cyril’s, the same as ours, with the omission of the ‘‘Revelation.”

V. Catalogues now became frequent. Within thirty years after the last date, that is, from the year 363 to near the conclusion of the fourth century, we have catalogues by Epiphanius, by Gregory Nazianien, by Philaster, bishop of Brescia, in Italy, by Aniphilochius, bishop of Iconium, all, as they are sometimes called, c/ean catalogues- (that is they admit no books into the number beside what we now receive), and all, for every purpose of historic evidence, the same as ours. VI. Within the same period, Jerome, the most learned Christian writer of his age, delivered a catalogue of the books of the New Testament, recognizing every hook now received, with the intimation of a doubt concerning the Epistle to the Hebrews alone, and taking not the least notice of any book which is not now received.

Vii. Contemporary with Jerome, who lived in Palestine, was St. Augustine in Africa, who published likewise a catalogue, without joining to the scriptures, as books of authority, any other ecclesiastical writing whatever, and without omitting one which we at this day acknowledge.

VIII. And with these concurs another contemporary writer, Rusen, presbyter of Apuleia, whose catalogue, like theirs, is perfect and unmixed, and concludes with these remarkable words “These are the volumes which the Fathers have included in the Canon, and out of which they would have us prove the doctrine of our faith.”

In addition to this Mr. Paley says’ That, beside our gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, no Christian history, claiming to be written by an apostle or apostolical man, is quoted within three- hundred years after the birth of Christ by any writer now extant, or known ; or if quoted, is not quoted without marks of censure and rejection.” To show with the most convincing force that the apocryphal books did not in any sense claim to be and were not received as inspired during the first three centuries of the Christian era Mr. Paley gives us the following pointed collection of stubborn facts, Evidences, p. 175 1. That there is no evidence that any spurious or apocryphal books whatever existed in the first century of the Christian era in which century all our historical books are proved to have been extant. “There are no pg 59 quotations of any such books in the apostolical fathers, by whom I mean Barnabas, Clement of Rome, Herrnas, Ignatius and Polycarp, whose writings reach from about the year of our Lord 70, to the year 108 ; “ (and some of whom have quoted each and every one of our historical scriptures). “I say this,” adds Dr. Lardner, “because I think it has been proved.” 2. These apocryphal writings were not read in the churches of Christians 3. Were not admitted into their volume 4. Do not appear in their catalogues;

10 5. Were not noticed by their adversaries; 6. Were not alleged by different parties, as of authority in their controversies; 7. Were not the subjects, amongst them, of commentaries, versions, collations, expositions. Finally ; beside the silence of three centuries, or evidence, within that time, of their rejection, they were, with a consent nearly universal, reprobated by Christian writers of succeeding ages. It is said that the constant repetition of a lie will, in time, bring it to be regarded as truth even by the inventor of it. To this must be attributed the fact that some infidels, otherwise intelligent, have come to believe, and, indeed, have succeeded in getting some friends of the Bible to believe, that the compilation of the New Testament was the work of councils of the third century. There is a sort of sleight of hand trick in this. By hiding that original facts of two hundred years aid throwing the full force of the searchlight upon the discussions of writers and decrees of councils this side the end of the second century the superficial are deceived into the belief that the books which had come bearing the message of eternal life to the world, whose work was to be during the “ times of the Gentiles,” were left to fate in the hands of rival factions who could by the toss of a penny condemn them to oblivion or brand them as sacred and canonical. Let it be remembered that our books foretold that after the death of the apostles there would be an apostasy and a multiplication of wrangling disputants, the seeds of which had already taken root when the epistles were written, and then the reader will be prepared for confusion among the “fathers” of the third century; and the appearance of counterfeits then might well be looked for, Pg 60 since the genuine had turned the world upside down and the drift of worldly affairs arising from an abuse of New Testament results created sinister ends to be served by the production of spurious books. Let the dark pall of superstition and apostasy hide from view the corruption of the third and following centuries and turn the search-light upon the simultaneous birth and growth of Christianity and its books during the first and second centuries, and then it will be seen that our books needed no votes or councils of men to decide whether they were what they claimed to be, and that their competition with other books was never in question.

THE ENTLRE NEW TESTAMENT FOUND IN OTHER BOOKS OF THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

It would be quite difficult for a reasonable person to believe that books quoted as authority by able writers immediately -after their production were not accompanied with the evidence of their genuineness and truthfulness to such an extent as to command the attention they received. Never were books quoted as were those of the New Testament. That the reader might realize how true this is we quote from “Who Made the New Testament” page i 2, a remarkable occurrence recorded in ‘‘Life Times and Missionary Enterprises of John Campbell, pp. 215, 216: “Robert Phillip repeats the following incident as received from the lips of John Campbell, the well-known African missionary explorer, who said: ‘I remember distinctly an interesting anecdote referring to the late Sir David Dalrymple, better known to literary men abroad by his title of Lord Hailes, a Scottish judge. I had it from the late Rev. W. Buchanan, one of the ministers of Edinburgh. I took such interest in it that, though it must have been about fifty years since he told it, I think I can almost relate it in Mr Buchanan’s words

“‘I was dining some time ago with a literary party at old Mr. Abercrombies, father of General Abercromn1de, who was slain in Egypt at the head of the British army, and spending the evening together. A gentleman present put a question which puzzled the whole company. It was this:

‘Supposing all the New Testaments in the world had been destroyed at the end of the third century, could their contents have been recovered from the writings of the first three centuries ? pg 61

‘‘The question was novel to all, and no one even hazarded a guess in answer to the inquiry. About two months after this meeting, I received a note from Lord Hailes, inviting me to breakfast with him next morning. He had been one of the party. During breakfast he asked me if I remembered the curious question about the possibility of recovering the contents of the New Testament from the writings of the first three centuries. “‘I remember well.’ said I, ‘and have thought of it often, without being able to form any opinion or conjecture on the subject. “‘Well,’ said Lord Hailes, ‘that question quite accorded with the turn or taste of my antiquarian mind. (in returning home, as I knew I had all the writings of those centuries, I began immediately to collect them, that I might set to work on the arduous task as soon as possible.’ Pointing to the table covered with papers, he said, ‘There have I been busy for these two months, searching for chapters, half chapters, and sentences of the New Testament, and have marked down what I have found, and

10 where I found it, so that any person may examine and see for himself. I have actually discovered the whole New Testament from these writings, except seven (or eleven) verses (I forget which), which satisfied me that I could discover them all. Now, said 1, here was a way in which God concealed or hid the treasure of His Word, that Julian, the apostate emperor and other enemies of Christ who tried to extirpate the Gospels from the world, never have thought of; and though they had they never could have effected their distruction.”

We quote this, not to show that God had taken this means to defeat attempts to destroy the New Testament, for He fore-knew its preservation intact independently of quotations from it; but we quote it to show how it was esteemed at the time of its production and immediately after, by the writers of those times. Then, too, it must be remembered that this remarkable incident, along with Dr. Keith’s calculations on the number of quotations made by various writers, shows that all our books were then regarded as authoritative, while none of the Apocryphal books were so regarded. While making allowance for the destruction of many books of those early times the following facts are most remarkable:

In the sixth chapter of his “Demonstration of the Truth of the Christian Religion,” Dr. Keith records the number of the quotations from the New Testament which can be seen in works which are still extant, by the writers whom we have named. He reports seven hundred and sixty seven passages quoted by Irenueus, from every book in the New Testament except the third epistle of John, and the epistle of Jude; three hundred and eighty. nine pas Pg 62 sages quoted by Clement, from every book except the epistle of James and the second and third epistles of John, and the epistle of Jude; eighteen hundred and two passages, or, if repetitions are included, more than three thousand passages, quoted by Tertullian from every book in the New Testament, except the epistle of James, the third of John, the second of Peter and the epistle of Jude; while the works of Origen yet extant, contain five thousand, seven hundred and sixty-five quotations from the New Testament, including every book contained therein, and excluding all of the so called apocrypha books, about which infidels talk so much.

We have given sufficient now on the canon of the New Testament to show that the very books we now have were accepted in the beginning of the Christian era, and that none others were included in the canon. The fact that the apocryphal books are the results of the genuine, whether the former strove to imitate the latter fraudulently or not, is proof of the existence, authority and popularity of the books of the New Testament at the time when fraud could have easily been detected and exposed. The merits of the books show clearly the difference between the canonical and apocryphal. One familiar with the Holy Scriptures needs no proof of the spurious character of the Book of Mormon beyond the mere reading of that book. The phraseology and style are such as to impress one with the labored, hopeless efforts at imitation; and the unconscious mixing in of tradition betrays every page. To turn from the pages of the Scriptures to those of the Book of Mormon is to experience a transition from a mental, robust and satisfying feeling to a sensation of sickening disgust. While the difference is not so great between the apocrophal and genuine books, one cannot read them without being impressed with the fact that the writers of the former were unable to rid themselves of the surrounding traditions, and that they were victims of the influence, unconsciously perhaps, of the cant and slavish superstition of their times. And this, with the fact that the writers of the books of the New Testament could be what they were and write as they did in spite of the powerful influence of their traditional and superstitious environ- Pg 63 ments, is a proof of that power which inspiration only could exercise over the minds of the writers Apart from Divine inspiration it would have been impossible for the New Testament writers to have written without betraying the influence of their surroundings; for no writer can be suddenly lifted out of the sphere of influences of the education, training, traditions and customs to which he has been subject. Yet all the writers of the New Testament not only manifest the fact that suddenly they had wiped their pens clean and taken a radically new departure, not only in whit they wrote, but in the style they wrote, a fact which one feels more and more as he reads and compares; and which cannot be accounted for in any other way than by recognizing that the writers were moved by the Holy Spirit. The canon of the New Testament, therefore, is not dependent upon external evidence alone, for one familiar with the books can instantly tell whether a chapter read is from the canonical or the apocryphal.

THE READINGS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

The various readings of the New Testament arise partly from the fact that in the days when the books were written there was no printing press and the art of stereotyping and electrotyping had not been discovered. The usefulness of the original manuscripts would necessarily have been very limited had they not been copied and thus given circulation. The first copy would in its turn be copied, and this in its turn copied and so on. If the original manuscripts could have been set in type, the

10 proof read, compared and corrected, and then cast in the cold- solid form of plates, with our modern facilities of printing from these plates, thousands of copies could have been put in circulation without many errors; and what errors may have escaped the eye of the proofreader would have been the same in every copy. In that case there would have been no “various readings.”

As it was, each copy having to be laboriously written with the pen, there were errors in each. Copy number one would Pg 64 contain a few; and if copy number two were copied from copy number one, instead of from the originals, it would be apt to copy the errors of number one, and add a few more and so on, till the “various readings” would increase proportionately with that of the number of manuscripts produced, and this is the cause of the “various readings” which scepticism makes so much ado about in its endeavor to impeach the books of the New Testament. With a full rea4ization of the preciousness of the books of the New Testament and a knowledge that they came from pens inspired of God, it was only natural that many should desire to possess copies, and that, therefore, many copies would be produced. With all the care which, no doubt, was reverently bestowed upon the work of copying, it was impossible for fallible men to entirely avoid errors. What could be called an absolutely perfect copy, that is, one without the error of a jot or a tittle, of course was impossible. Even now, with the help of the art of printing, it is impossible to produce a book without a single error, in word, spelling or punctuation. In thus admitting the-’ facts of small errors in copies, multiplied proportionately with the number of copies produced. we are not admitting errors in the original manuscripts from which the hundreds of “copies” were copied. The perfection of the originals we shall deal with further on; for the present we are only explaining how there same to be “various readings.” Both the learned and the ignorant among the sceptics use the various readings of the manuscripts of the New Testament as a scarecrow to frighten those who are not informed as to how the various readings came to be and what their character is. To cry out, “The manuscripts of your New Testament contain about one hundred and fifty thousand errors” makes a great sound and is apt to stagger those not fortified by some knowledge of the facts. Even believers in the Bible quite frequently indulge in the same method when they find a text which they cannot harmonize with a theory to which they are pg 65 wedded. If we walk up close and make a personal investigation of the nature of the so-called “errors” we shall find that mole- heaps are by sceptics magnified into mountains and lambs transformed into lions as a means of frightening instead of enlightening. There are now known to be over seventeen hundred manuscripts, complete and partially so, of the New Testament, dating from A. D. 300 to 150. The Greek texts from which our translation have come were, to a limited extent, the product of a comparison of these manuscripts, some used to correct errors in others and vice versa. Concerning the

MOST ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS

Mr. Hastings says: The style of writing indicates the age of manuscripts. Recently, certain manuscripts recovered from the ruins of Herculaneum have been unrolled and deciphered with the utmost care, and fifteen folio volumes have been published. Now we know that Herculaneum and Pompeii were overwhelmed in the year A. D. 79, by an eruption of Vesuvius; and hence there can be no dispute in regard to the age of the manuscripts rescued from these ruins. They must be more than 1800 years old. But these manuscripts are written in Puncial letters” (capitals), very nearly resembling the letters used in those manuscript copies ‘of the New Testament which have been universally esteemed the most ancient. This style of letters has not been used for many centuries; hence the antiquity of these manuscripts is .proved beyond the possibility of dispute. THE FIVE MOST IMPORTANT MANUSCRIPTS.

Among the ‘‘uncial” manuscripts, five are generally distinguished from the rest as of primary importance. Of these, the Alexandrian, known as Codex A, was originally discovered at Alexandria, and was sent to King Charles I., in 1628, seventeen years after the King James’ version was printed. It is now in the British Museum. The style of the letters indicates that this manuscript is of great antiquity, and its date is fixed by critics at about A. D. 450, It is much mutilated,—twenty four chapters of the first gospel, two of the fourth, and eight of one of the epistles being missing. Codex B, in the Vatican Library at Rome, supposed to. have been written between A. D. 300 and A. D. 400, is said to be the oldest vellum manuscript known. This was not allowed to be copied till 1868, when an edition was issued in facsimile type, representing it line for line, and letter for letter. The condition of this is much more perfect. Pg 66

10 A third manuscript is in the National Library at Paris, whither it was brought by Catherine de Medici. This is called a “palimpsest;” from the Greek word which signifies to rub or scrape again,—applied to a parchment from which one writing had been erased to make room for another. This manuscript is known as the “Codex Ephrmmi.” * * * The fourth manuscript is Codex Bezte, in the Public Library of the University at Cambridge, England, it having been presented by Thedore Beza in 1581. This is the least valuable, as it is quite incomplete. It belongs to the sixth century. The Codex Aleph, found Feb. 4, 1859, in the Convent of St. Catherine, near Mount Sinai, by Tischendorf, and published by him in 1862, is the most valuable of the five, as it contains the New Testament complete. This is judged to have been written between A. D. 300 and A. D. 400; and hundreds of corrections which critics had previously made in the text by comparing other manuscripts have been confirmed by this ancient and independent witness, which had laid for ages in the library of that eastern monastery. These manuscripts carry us back very near the apostles’ days; for they might easily have been copied from the originals, or from manuscripts that had been copied from them; and by comparing these with the hundreds of other manuscripts, Lectionaries. quotations, and ancient translations, it is not difficult for learned and studious men to ascertain whether the New Testament books have been seriously corrupted in being handed down to our own times. * * * From the studies and researches of learned, able and conscientious men who have minutely examined many hundreds of these ancient authorities, have come the variations in different editions of the Greek New Testament, to which we call attention.

THE CHARACTER OF THE VARIOUS READINGS.

Mr. Hastings gives a “collection prepared with great pains, and carefully revised and corrected by Prof. Ezra Abbot, one of the American Revision Committee,” which shows at a glance that the variations are of slight importance, none of them materially altering the meaning. The specimen he gives is from the Sermon on the Mount; and of this he says the selection “has not been made with a view to avoid any real difficulties, for this passage contains one of the few really notab/e alterations observed in the later manuscripts, when compared with the earliest authorities, namely, the addition in ‘the Lord’s Prayer,’ of the words, ‘For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.” This addition is Pg 67 supposed to have been made by some copyist who had heard it used in connection with other prayers. As Mr. Hastings remarks, it “is of little importance, for we find the same ideas in many other places in the Bible (Rev. v: 12, 14; I Chron. xxix: ii).” Still, this is far more important than most of the variations. That the reader may get a glimpse of the nature of the much talked of various readings, we will give an extract from the list given by Mr. Hastings in his very valuable book, “Corruptions of the New Testament,” a book which is part of a series composing ‘The Anti-Infidel Library.”

VARIOUS READINGS IN THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT.

MATTHEW V.

Ver. 4. “ Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted’ ‘ ‘5 ‘‘Blessed are the meek; for they shall inherit the earth ‘‘ In some M SS. these two verses are transposed. Ver. 11. ‘‘Say all manner of evil ;against you falsely.’’ Some MSS, and editors omit ‘falsely.’ Some MMS. also omit the word rema , denoting ‘‘word’’ or’ ‘‘thing;’’ but this does not affect the meaning or the translation, Ver , 13. ‘-It is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men,’’ Some authorities read, ‘‘But, being cast out, to be trodden under- foot of men.”

Vrs. 19. ‘Whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great,’’ etc. A few manuscripts read houtos for houto Whosoever shall do and teach so, shall be called great,” etc.

Vrs. 20, ‘‘Your righteousness,’’ literally “the righteousness of you,” Some MSS. change the order, reading, ‘‘Of you the righteousness,’’ making the “your” emphatic.

Ver. 22. “Whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause.” Some MSS. and editors omit ‘‘without a cause.’’

Ver. 25. “Whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at army time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, arid the judge deliver thee to the officer.” Some MSS. and editors read, ‘‘Whiles thou art with him in the way; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge to the officer.”

10 Ver. 27. “Ye have heard that it was said by [or to] them of old time,” The best MSS. And the critical editors omit “by them of old time.” It was added here in the later MSS. from ver21, where it is genuine.

Ver. 30. “And not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.’’ Some MOO. read, “And not thy whole body go in to hell.’’

Ver.32. “ Whosoever shall put away his wife saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery .‘‘ Some - MSS. read, “Every one that putteth away his wife, saving for the cause of forn ication, maketh her an adulteress ’’ Some omit the clause. ‘‘and whosoever’ marrieth her that is divorced committeth adultery.”

‘Ver. 37. ‘‘ But let your communication be Yea, yea nay, may.’’ Sum e 5105. read, ‘‘But your communication shall he. Yea, yea; nay, nay.’’

Ver. 39. “Whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek.” Some MSS. read, “Whosoever shall smite three ‘‘ some read, ‘‘the right cheek,’’ instead of ‘‘thy’ right; cheek.’’

Ver 44. “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.’’ ‘The 0ldest manuscripts and other authorities read, ‘‘Love your enemies, and pray for them that persecute you.’’ The words omitted in the oldest authorities were probably trans ferred to this place in the later MSS from Luke vi: 27, 20. where they are genuine.

‘Ver. 45. “That ye may be the children of [literally, “sons of”] Your Father which is in heaven.” Three manuscripts read, “That ye may be like your Father which is in heaven”

‘Ver. 46. “ Do not even the publicans the same?” Some read, “Do not even the publicans so?”

Ver. 47. “And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? Do not even the publicans so?’’ Some MSS. rend, ‘‘friends’’ instead of ‘‘brethren - ‘‘The, oldest and best MSS. read, “Do not even the Gentiles the same?” Others read, “so” for “the same,”

Ver, 40. “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.” Sonic read, “Ye therefore shall he perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”

No person who is familiar with the character of these various readings can honestly use them disparagingly of the New Testament. They, of course, show the fallibility of man and his incapability of strictly copying correctly. But fortunately the copyists were able to avoid errors of a serious nature; and most of the verbal variations are so trivial that one using them either in an attempt to impeach the Scriptures or to sustain a theory not borne Out in their general teachings, is manifestly in straits to cover up what he is conscious of lacking foundation. Of course, if there had been only one manuscript of the New Testament there would have been no various readings; but the fact that there were so many copies and that there are ten times as many manuscripts of the New Testament as there are of any other ancient book, is proof of the esteem in which they were held at and immediately after the time of their production. As to the comparison between them and others, Mr. Hastings says: No manuscripts of Greek and Roman classics can compare with those of the New Testament in number, or antiquity and authenticity. Of Herodotus, the oldest and the roost important of the classic historians, there are extant about fifteen manuscript copies, most of them written since A. D. 1450. One or two may date back to the ninth or tenth century. There are still fewer manuscript copies of the writings of Pato. One of the earliest bears date A. D. 895. And the text of these ancient writers is far less correct than that of the New Testament manuscripts. Take, for example, the Comedies of Terence, who was born at Carthage 195 B. C. The learned Dr. Bentley asserts, in his reply to Collins (Part I., Sec. 32), that the oldest and best manuscript copy now in the Vatican Library, has “hundreds of errors,” and remarks, “I myself have collated several, and do affirm that I have seen twenty thousand various readings in that little author, not near so big as the New Testament; and am morally sure that if half the number of manuscripts were collated of Terence, with that minuteness which has been use.’ in twice as many for the New Testament, the number of variations would amount to fifty thousand.”

10 From the hundreds of Greek manuscripts of the New Testament which have been carefully examined, critics have collected perhaps 150,000 various reading; most of which are simple differences in spelling, such as are found in printed books to-day; and as we see by consulting a good dictionary, there we find “traveller” and “traveler,” “worshipped” and “worshiped,” “labor” Pg 69 and “labour.” Only about 400 of them perceptibly affect the sense; an average of less than one error to a manuscr:p1. And of this 400 only about fifty are of much consequence. From the writings of Milton, Bunyan and Shakespeare, though they are a little more than two hundred years old, and have been printed, instead of being copied by hand, there could doubtless be culled more various readings than all that have been gathered from the multitudes of different manuscripts of the New Testament that have been examined. Says a writer in the North American Review, in an article on Prof. Norton’s work on the New Testament, “It s9ems strange that the texts of Shakespeare, which has been in existence less than two hundred and eight years, should be far more uncertain and corrupt than that of the New Testament, now over eighteen centuries old, during nearly fifteen of which it existed only in manuscript. * * * With perhaps a dozen or twenty exceptions, the text of every verse in the New Testament may be said to be so far settled by general consent of scholars, that any dispute as to its readings must relate rather to the interpretation of the words than to any doubts respecting the words themselves. But in every one of Shakespeare’s thirty- seven plays there are probably a hundred readings still in dispute, a large portion of which materially affects the meaning of the passages in which they occur.”

Comparisons of this kind show that much greater care has been bestowed upon the manuscripts of the New Testament than upon those of uninspired books; a fact due to the reverence of all who have undertaken to produce copies; and this reverence due to the knowledge at the start that the books came from holy men, who “spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.” These facts are comforting and encouraging to those who have taken the Bible for their guide in this life and their hope in the life that is to come; and they are powerful weapons with which to silence the scoffer and defeat the quibbler. One may be fortunate enough to have been bred and born under the influence of the Scriptures, and thereby to have inherited, as it were, an implicit confidence in and reverence for them. And this blessing, should that confidence never be shaken nor the reverence lost, may be sufficient to secure the ultimate blessings they hold out to perishing man; yet it is better to strengthen the confidence and increase the reverence by examining the great reasons and irresistible evi Pg 70 dences that the Bible is divine in its origin and therefore pure and perfect in its teachings and the only safe and reliable guide to human conduct here in order to life and glory hereafter. Where this is done there is a deeper sense in which one can be ready to give a reason of ihe hope that is in him; and he is also enabled to prove himself a good soldier in defense of the grand principles by which his life is governed and his hope sustained. Especially is this desirable in our times, when men in the highest spheres of the religious world are making a toy of the Bible and breaking the power of its restraints upon the lusts and passions of the young by a system of philosophy falsely so-called, under the title of “Higher Criticism.” While pretending. to love the Bible more than ever they did because (!) “ Higher Criticism” has discovered lies and fraud in it and its claims, they are slowly but surely blighting and blasting what little reverence exists in the world, and turning the devotion and respect of the people from the Creator to the creature. infidelity is now not confined to a despised few against whom children are gravely warned. Dressed in a combination suit, which partly hides its hideousness, it has entered the pulpit and taken a fast hold upon the universities. The prejudices of the “old fashioned” people are soothed by the exclamations of a pretended increased love for the Bible, while the scoffer is lovingly embraced in the folds of the priestly and professional robe, encouraged in his sickening laugh of contempt and his ignorant, conceited outcry, “I told you so.” The Bible cannot be partly true and partly false, It is either the best friend or the worst foe. It is either a divine truth or a human fraud. There is no half and half. As an unknown poet says: The Bible IS we plainly see; Then it must have a pedigree: It either is a book divine, Or men to make it must combine. Suppose the latter, then they must Either be wicked men or just. Take either side and you will see A proof of its divinity. Pg71 If wicked men composed this book, Surely their senses them forsook;

10 For they the righteous man defend, And curse the bad from end to end. If righteous, then they change their name, For they the authorship disclaim. They often say, “Thus saith the Lord,” And testify it is His word; If it be not, they tell a lie, And all their righteousness destroy. Could Moses and could Malachi Unite together in a lie? Could Job and Daniel, with the rest Spread o’er the world from east to west, Unite together and confer When oceans rolled between them, sir? Not only seas, but ages too, Hundreds of years and not a few.

TILE VARIOUS RENDERINGS.

When a book is translated into various languages it is generally a proof that it is held in high esteem, and such translations afterwards serve to help correct important errors of copyists of the original text. In some degree the New Testament is aided by various renderings, and the Old Testament by the Septuagent or Greek translation. Mr. Hastings says: “Since the publication of Stephens’ edition, a vast number of Greek New Testaments have been examined, many of them very ancient, the old versions of the New Testament in Syriac, Coptic, Latin, Gothic, Armenian and other languages, and the numerous quotations by Christian writers have been compared with them, and the differences noted.” Under the title of

“ANCIENT VERSIONS OF THE SCRJPTURES,”

Charles Leach, D. D., in his work entitled “Is My Bible True ?“ presents this branch of the subject. in a very concise and forceful form. Selecting the two most important versions, he says: The books of the New Testament were originally written in the Greek lan. Pg 72 guage. At a very early date some of these books were translated and copied into the languages spoken by the men and women converted to Christianity who did not know Greek. The early versions of the Scriptures thus grew out of the necessities of the case. After our Lord’s ascension to heaven Christianity rapidly spread and took root in many lands. Within thirty years of the day of Pentecost there existed Christian churches, with their regular services and officers, in places far removed from each other. They were to be found in Europe and Asia Minor, and in Syria; also in Jerusalem, Caesarea, Antioch, and in Rome. Churches were found in Philippi, Thessalonica, and at Corinth. Had the people in all these various places spoken the Greek language, their needs would have been met by multiplying copies of the original Greek books of the New Testament. But this was not so. It was necessary that the churches in these places should have records of the revelation which the Lord and his apostles had made, in such languages as they could understand. To meet these needs we know that translations were made. It is not easy to estimate the high value of these ancient versions of the Bible, bringing us back, as they do, to a date long before the oldest of our known manuscripts. They connect us with the apostles, and form a valuable chapter in the history of the Bible. If we can show that versions of the inspired books existed in the second century, we shall, of course, by that fact, also show that the Scriptures themselves were in existence before that time, or they could not have been translated into those languages. Out of the multitude of ancient versions I select two for special examination. These two versions are called Peshito, used in the Syrian churches, and the Old Latin produced for the North African Christians. They were, so far as we know, the first versions of the Scriptures made. It is thought by some that parts of these versions were made within the Apostolic age, and that shortly afterwards the translations of the separate parts were collected, and, after careful revision, were put together as completed books. Let us therefore examine the character of these two versions. 1.—THE PESHITO OR SYRIAN VERSION.

10 The Peshilo contains the oldest Christian version of the New Testament known to the world. The language in which it was written (the Syro-Callaic, or Aramaic) was the common dialect spoken in Palestine at the time of our Lord, though Greek was much used in business. It is quite impossible to fix the exact date of this ancient Syrian Bible. I venture to believe that parts of it were made in Apostolic times, and very likely under Apostolic dictation. There is some evidence to show that messengers were sent from Odessa to Palestine to copy the sacred books, and that the Peshito version was made at a time before the last of the Apostles had passed away. We may take it as an admitted fact that the version was completed in the second century, and some time before the year 150 A. D. Pg 73

This ancient Syrian Bible is a most important book. It was always regarded with respect, and in the earliest ages was received as an authoritative book. Indeed, we know that several other important versions were made from it into other languages— Arabic, Persian, and Armenian; and when the Syrian church lost its unity and split up into several opposing sects, all received this version as of authority, and all used it in their public worship. These things all show it to have been of great importance. I venture the supposition that it may not only have been the most complete, but the most reliable collection of the sacred books then known to the world, except such as the church at Jerusalem may have possessed. The fact that it was probably a translation of many original manuscripts and careful copies of original manuscripts, gave it an authority almost equal to the originals themselves. It is important now that we should note the books which this version contains. It includes the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the fourteen Epistles of St. Paul, Ist John, 1st Peter, and James. You will see that this list very nearly corresponds with our own New Testament. It only omits the second and third Epistles of St. John, the second Epistle of St. Peter, the Epistle of St. Jude, and the Book of Revelation. It is very important to notice that, though this ancient version omits five books contained in our New Testament, it does not include any book which is not found there. 11.—THE OLD LATIN VERSION.

We have seen that the Peshito version was only made for the Eastern churches. We now turn to the Old Latin version, which was made for the Western churches, and which has exerted an influence upon them which can never be told by the pen of mortal man. It was from this version that St. Jerome made his Latin Vulgate, which Vulgate became the Bible authority of the Roman Church, and remains so to this day. And for more than a thousand years it was the chief source of nearly every version of the Scriptures made in the West. But though we cannot fix the date of the old version, we are in possession of evidence which certainly carries us back to Tertullian and men of his day. He freely uses it, and shows that it was not only known, but current at the time when he was in the midst of his literary activity. Tertullian was born about 150 A. D. If we take that date as the year of his birth, and remember that the Old Latin version was in use in the African churches when he was a man and at work, it will not be unreasonable to suppose that it was written before the last quarter of the second century began. It may have been written much earlier, but it could scarcely have been much later. ‘The question now comes as to what books this Old Latin version contained. It contained the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles of St. Paul, three Epistles of St. John, the First Epistle of St. Pe pg 74 ter, the Epistle of St. Jude, and the Book of Revelation. It omits the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistle of St. James, and the Second Epistle of St. Peter. It will thus be seen that it contains all except three of the books which form our own New Testament. If these two versions are put together, we shall get a more striking and important fact. We shall find that, with the single exception of the Second Epistle of Peter, which they both omit, they contain all the books which constitute our New Testament, but no others. Respecting these two versions several things should be noted. They were probably in common use by great bodies of Christians in the last half of the second century. The churches which used them received them as the heritage of a previous age. They represented the New Testament which was known, received, and revered, throughout the Church, including both East and West. Thus we find many means by which comparisons can be made by which we arc assured that the New Testament as we now have it is the same that is traceable back to the fountain head: and by the comparisons which able men have industriously made it is proved that errors made by copyists and by transmission down the centuries are unimportant so far as affecting the design of the book is concerned. So it matters not from what standpoint we view the evidence of the reliability of the Scriptures, we are irresistibly impressed with the proof of their divine origin and, in the main, their safe transmission down to our times.

10 Here we are, then, in the twentieth century of the Christian era with the book in our hands, a book tested and tried, faithful and true, and upon opening its pages we find it containing the only reasonable and safe solution of the problem of life. Without it all would be Babylon, the world a waste, a wilderness, with its wandering, footsore, weary millions hailing from we know not where, and winding their weary way into the darkness of the unknown and the unknowable. So far we have scarcely opened the book. We have been examining facts in the sphere of external evidence, and here we are with the book before us whose existence is the marvel of the world, even when considered apart from ITS INTERNAL INTRINS IC VALUE.

When we open the pages of the Bible to examine its inter- Pg 75 nal and intrinsic worth, and the evidences of its divinity, we may well do so with reverence and Godly fear, exercising such care and diligence as our search outside its lids has shown it to have evoked and deserved. On crossing the threshold with the facts fully before him, one will not be able to resist the feeling that he is entering, as it were, the temple of God and that the ground he is treading on is holy ground. The first words of the Old Testament are: ‘In the, or in a, beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” which is a claim to be a revelation to man never to be discovered by any other means. We open the New Testament, and the first words we read are, ‘The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David; * * * and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which, being interpreted, is GOD WITH US.” Here is the One whose name we have found everywhere in all the civilized world, and whose origin and history we have discovered by a march back through nineteen hundred years, following the deep foot-prints on the sands of time And now we are compelled to declare again what the facts in the case compelled us to say in the beginning of our investigation. Everything points to One Man. The word Christendom and everything it represents point backward from all directions, centering in One Man, who stands out in bold relief before the wide world with out an equal, and that man is known by the terms Jesus and Christ; and his birth, and the wonderful work he did, and his tragic death marked off one of the centuries of the world’s history as a point and pivot around which all others revolve. Now in the New Testament the first claim we find is that of giving to mankind a true, a divinely true, account of “the generation of Jesus Christ.” By its own words the book is ready to be judged. It makes its claim boldly, frankly and fearlessly, and leaves its credentials to be tested by its truths and its facts, to be viewed on every side, in every way, in all their ramifica- tions as the evidence that it is divine in its origin, pure and perfect in its teachings, and the only safe and reliable guide to Pg 76 human conduct. Now, therefore, we may proceed to examine and decide accordingly. INSIDE AND OUT SIDE THE FACTS ARE THE SAME.

Inside as well as outside everything is concerning Christ. He is the beginning of the book, and he is the end of it. The first words are, ‘‘The book of the generation of Jesus Christ;” and the last words are: “He that testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come Lord Jesus. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.” Since Jesus the Christ is the Alpha and the Omega of the book——the hero thereof; since he is the direct and remote cause of the book being produced; and since the book is about him, past, present and future, its reliability necessarily depends upon the integrity of the man. There can be no compromise by admitting the truth of that part of the history which is according to -‘natural laws,” and rejecting that part which relates to the supernatural. Considering the claim which the book sets up, its aim and object, all must be accepted or none. It is a most wonderful Truth, or it is a most wonderful Falsehood; because it makes the most marvelous claims that ever were made. It is miraculous or it is nothing. If the miraculous part is false, then the “natural” is either false or useless truth——useless for the end in view. It begins with miracle and ends with miracle and all depends upon miracle. Without apology or explanation it begins to talk about miracles as though they were matters of course. Its very attitude toward the reader is one which implies that he ought to know its’ origin, its nature and its purpose. It is as frank, open and innocent as Truth in its simplicity. SOME OF ITS MIRACULOUS. CLAIMS.

The first claim is that the hero who is the subject of its story was miraculously begotten, that he was born of a virgin by the power of the Holy Spirit, and that he was therefore the only begotten Son of God. At the time of the birth of Jesus the book tells us of wonderful things——that which caused the journey of the wise men, their worshipping the babe, the star Pg 77 in the East and its journey till it “stood over where the young child was;” the warning to the wise men not to return to Herod, and the revelation of the reason why; the appearing of the angel to Joseph to instruct him as to the safety of the child from the wicked designs of Herod the King. etc., etc. SOME OF THE CLAIMS OF JESUS HIMSELF.

10 As soon as Jesus enters upon the performance of his public mission he adds his claims to miraculous, power and to divine authority. To Simon and Andrew he said: “Follow ‘me;” he claimed to have power to suddenly heal the sick, give sight to the blind, hearing to the deaf, restore the insane to sanity and even to raise the dead to life. In his first sermon he said and repeated: “It hath been said,” so and so (by the law which those addressed believed to be of God); but I say unto you.” so and so (Matt. v; 21, 27, 34). In the same sermon he promised blessings from heaven in a future life —all this. to say nothing of the many miracles which he afterwards performed before the gaze of an astonished people. His language, “Except e eat my flesh and drink my blood ye have no life in you. is most repulsive if from an impostor: but most sublime if from a Saviour, when understood in the deep sense intended. He declares that he must be “lifted up” and crucified upon the cross, and that on the third day he would rise again from the dead, and that he would ascend into heaven and come again. His followers, who were eye witnesses, declared that all this was true, and his claims and his deeds formed the subject of their preaching, at the cost of their lives. Now the fact of a man making such claims, and of his followers persistently witnessing to them in the face of an hostile world, demands an answer to the question : Is it all a miraculous truth or a miraculous falsehood? Upon the hypothesis that it is the latter, the motive should be manifest; but where is it? The miraculous man himself was “a man of sorrow and acquainted with grief.” “He had not where to lay his head.” His ignominious death was the uppermost thought kept before him throughout his life of suffering; and he gave his followers Pg 78 nothing to hope for in the present life but “much tribulation” and death at the hands of enemies, There was no false hope to elate and enthuse and to be disappointed; for the things which he suffered he knew he would suffer, and that “for this cause he came into the world.” So in this book we have a miracle before us; it is the same kind of marvelous testimony inside that we have seen moulded, chisseled, penned and painted outside in the whole civilized world. We are confronted with facts and doctrines which stand so related to our nature, our constitution, our environments, and our interests, as to render it impossible for US to assume an attitude of indifference. We are face to face with a question that must be answered to the satisfaction of a reasonable mind, a problem that must be solved before the imperative demands of the situation can be met. In view of the fact that the book is largely composed of an account of miracles it will b~ too great a work to examine them all in detail. So we will take the principal miracle and try it and test it, and if it be found to be equal to the claims made for it, the very nature of the case will then be such as to stamp all with the seal of Truth irresistibly; not merely human, but divine truth, whereupon the entire problem will be forever solved, and the hope which springs from the book will then be established upon the immovable and impregnable rock of eternal truth.

APART FROM DIVINITY, HIS COURSE INVITED FAILURE.

Alexander the Great, Constantine, Mahomed, Napoleon Bonaparte, and all great heroes of the world adopted a course which, according to the natural order of things. was likely to be successful; but Jesus, from the very beginning of his career, proposed and pursued a course which, according to the natural order of things, invited failure. He promised nothing for himself or his followers in this life but great suffering, persecution and death. In view of this, can anyone suggest a motive other than that claimed—life and glory beyond this vale of tears? No other motive can be imagined. Just think of a man Pg 79 meekly emerging from obscurity proposing to revolutionize the world, and yet of him it is said, “A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment unto victory.” Just imagine a man facing a world in arms, a world angry, jealous, wicked, lauding and applauding its heroes of war, proposing to “bring down the mighty from their seats and to exalt them of low degree, and yet when about to start upon his mission he says, “Blessed are the poor in spirit;” “Blessed are the meek;” “Blessed are they that mourn;” “Blessed are the merciful;” “Blessed are the pure in heart;” “Blessed are the peacemakers;” “Resist not evil;” “Love your enemies; do good to those that hate you. and pray for them that despitefully use you and persecute you”—did ever anyone hear of such a thing as this before? the revolution of the world by principles and precepts which conquerors regarded as wretched cowardice and femininity? Then such a project might have been cabled fanaticism and folly; but it is too late now for such epithets; for the feat has largely been accomplished. The religion of the world has been changed and politics have been revised to a large extent. The most unlikely from a natural point of view has happened; and the question in order now is, How can this be accounted for except upon the principles and claims set forth, namely, that “God was with him” and with his followers? Therefore they were what they claimed to be, and the book is a true record of what they did and of the means by which they accomplished it, and so divinity is the word that gives the explanation of it all; and without it the most amazing facts of all history defy every means of solution. THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST.

10 It may safely be said that the greatest miracle recorded in the Bible is the resurrection of Christ. If this miracle is an established fact, the entire Bible is proved divinely true. Shall we find the irresistible proofs inside the book that we have found outside? In this very book, whose existence cannot be accounted for except upon the claims it sets forth—confirmed Pg 80 by the resultant facts of ages—in this book we read that Jesus foretold his own death, burial and resurrection. In this same book we have a record of some things he said after his resurrection. “So shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth”—Matt. xxii: 40. “As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Sort of Man be lifted up”—Jno. iii; 14. “Ought not Christ to have suffered these things” ?—Luke xxiv: 26. “I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive forevermore.”—-Rev. I: i8. Briefly, here are the claims which the New Testament makes concerning the resurrection of Christ; and now let us consider the evidence which supports this most miraculous fact. In Acts i: 2 1-22, we read: “Wherefore of these men which companied with us all tile time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to witness wit/i us of his resurrection.” I. Our witnesses are therefore men who were with the Lord “all the time” for about four years. 2. They will testify of what they saw, heard and felt; not of what they thought or reasoned out as conclusions from certain premises. 3. The testimony is not that of one man, but of many eye witnesses. 4. We are not left dependent upon the witnesses having just a glance at the resurrected Lord, but “to whom he showed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the Kingdom of God”—Acts i: 4. 5. Our witnesses not only testify of what they saw and heard many times during many days; but they refuse to cease testifying in the face of persecution and death. 6. Their testimony cannot be the result of mistake as to a theory; it cannot be imagination, for many witnesses could not all imagine that they saw the same thing many times pg 81 during many days. To claim that it was imagination is to ask us to believe a far more unlikely thing than that of the truth of the miracles recorded. 7. They cannot be supposed to have been intentional deceivers, for no motive can be imagined for deception in the case, and deceivers would never inculcate such pure doctrines and precepts as our witnesses did, especially through persecution and with no other present prospect except a martyr’s death. Now all the e facts are borne cut by the testimony given, and that we may have it clearly before us let us put together some of the speeches of the witnesses, and listen to them as if they were one speech delivered by a representative of all the witnesses.

THE INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF THE NEW

TESTAMENT.

Presented in the Form of a. Supposed Apostolic Speech, in which the Witnesses Are Shown to Testify of Facts Seen, Heard and Felt,- and the Testimony Shown to be Unaccountable Except Upon I/s Foundation in Sincerity, Integrity and Truth. CHAPTER VI

YE men of all the world, of every kindred, tongue and nation; old and young, rich and poor, learned and unlearned, hear ye what I have to say concerning the most wonderful thing that ever occurred in the history of mankind. I am going to explain to you how those whom I represent forsook all worldly things and followed Him who “was despised and rejected of men” throughout the land of Judea in the face of taunts, trials and tribulations; followed him to the cross on Calvary, and afterwards endured persecution, imprisonment and death in bearing testimony—to WHAT?

To what they supposed, imagined, as to a theory they concluded to believe by reasoning from premises? No, no. Their testimony is a testimony of the facts which they heard, which they saw, which they felt. Pg82

10 Can we know and believe anything at all? Is there anything that occurs on this earth that can be known and believed to have occurred? Es there any such a thing as knowledge? Is there such a thing possible as belief? If not, life is a delusion, a dream, a sham—a mocking, tantalizing deception. You know that there are things which you can know. You know that there are things which you can believe; and now do not be offended when I ask you HOW D0 YOU KNOW?

If there is anything upon this earth you can know it is that which you can see, hear and feel. If you cannot know by the three senses of sight, of hearing and feeling, you cannot know at all. But you can. You know you can. “But even these senses may be sometimes deceived, may they not?” “Sometimes?” Yes; but “sometimes” means exceptions, and exceptions prove the rule. Therefore the rule is that these senses cannot be deceived; and therefore by them you can know of occurrences as matters of certainty, matters of fact. Now I am not going to talk to you about what the eye caught at a glance; about what the ear dimly heard, and the nerves momentarily felt. I am not going to ask you to base your belief upon what one man saw, but what many saw, heard and felt; not only once, but many times, under various circumstances and in different places. When many men testify to what they saw, heard and felt many times, you are, according to the rule of human understanding, compelled to believe them. If you fall back upon exceptions and say that those I represent may have conspired to falsify, then I ask you, Did you ever hear of such a thing as a conspiracy to falsify without an evil motive or sinister ends? Did you ever hear of such a thing as a conspiracy to perpetrate a fraud in this life with hope of reward in a future life? Was there ever such a thing as that of many men spending their lives inculcating the most pure and sublime precepts, with no hope or expectation of rewards here—with only suffering and death here, and no hope or expectation of reward till hereafter? Such a thing is morally impossible. “HONESTLY DELUDED,” perhaps you will say. That might do by way of accounting for fanaticism; but that which is a matter of sight, hearing and feeling by many persons many times during a number of years—people whose words and actions show them to be intelligent, reasonable and righteous—cannot be called fanaticism nor delusion. To say they were insane is worse yet; for you never heard of insane persons agreeing in one project and persistently and unitedly following it throughout a life time, even unto death. Search if you like far and wide, high and low, and you will find no way of accounting for the wonderful Pg 83 thing I am about to explain, except that the witnesses knew and believed, and could not help but know and believe, that the things they testify are facts. “TOO MIRACULOUS TO BELIEVE,” do I hear you say? Not a bit more miraculous than nature is. Not a bit more miraculous than the “heavens that declare the glory of God, and the firmament which showeth forth his handy work.” But you have become accustomed to nature and to know that there is such a wonderful thing, though we know but very little of its powers and laws. If the wonderful things I am going to ask you to believe were before your eyes daily as nature is, you would know and believe them, and view them as matters of fact as much as you do the rising and setting of the sun, the ebb and flow of the tides, and the constantly recurring seasons of the year; and the one would not be more “miraculous” than the other.

OUT OF NOTHING NOTHING COMES.

Nature is. It was evolved out of something, by a power mighty enough and intelligent enough to produce it and govern it by predetermined laws. This you must know and believe if you know and believe that you yourself are; and if you deny your own existence, then you have outstripped in folly the “fool who hath said in his heart that there is no God;” and in that case my words are not to you but to those who are conscious of their own consciousness, and therefore who know that they can know facts that are palpable to the senses. Now I am not asking you to believe and know things more wonderful than those which you know are to be seen in the stupendous phenomenon we call Nature; and if you can believe that there is a power capable of setting in operation the marvelous laws which form nature, then you can easily see how that same power could perform the exceptional wonders I am about to tell you of. We followed Jesus of Nazareth in his travels during about three and a half years, believing that he was the long-looked-for Messiah, whom the prophets of Israel had foretold should come, and who had been the theme of the sweetest songs of Zion for ages past. We were with him by night and by day, listening to his private and public discourses, and beholding the miracles which he performed. The moment a doubt would steal into our minds whether he was of God or not, right out in the open

10 day, under the blaze of the shining sun, he would confirm his words with signs and wonders and divers miracles which would banish all possibility of doubt and fill our hearts with a confidence that could no more be shaken than could our belief in our own existence. Mind you, there was no trickery about his wonderful works. There were no curtains, no cabinets, no mediums, witches or wizards. He did not use dim lights and mystifying reflections, nor did he hide himself and his deeds in the darkness of night in rooms fitted for be- Pg 84

wildering and deceiving. Under the vast canopy of the shining heavens were his mighty works performed before our natural sight and in our hearing, and we were made to feel and experience the heavenly gifts and the powers of the world to come. Talk about resisting such evidence. If there is such a thing as an impossibility that was more than an impossibility. It could not be resisted. Let a man stand before you day after day for three years and perform thirty-three miracles, such as instantly healing the sick, making the lame to leap, the blind to see and the dumb to speak. Let many others stand with you and behold him feed thousands with a morsel and have more food left than before they were fed. Behold him cleansing the leper, raising the dead and hushing into silence the howling winds and calming into tranquillity the raging sea, and then try if you can to doubt the truth of it all and to question the divinity of the man. You cannot do it, we could not do it, though persecution followed us everywhere and a cruel death threatened us. We believed he was the Messiah of Israel that was to come.

MISTAKES HONESTLY CONFESSED.

We are but mortals, and we all have faults and failings. So we frankly confess to you, to all the wide world of ages to come, that our eyes were so dazzled with the hope of the glorious promised reign of the King of Israel, that we forgot sometimes, and for moments, especially in times of deep sorrow, yes, we frankly confess that we forgot that the cross must come before the crown. One of our most zealous companions was caught off his guard in a moment of intense excitement and under the most trying circumstances. Now do not laugh at this and run away. Just think about it for a moment. Would conspirators and deceivers, think you, have recorded the faults and failures of their own companions? The very confession is the frankness of truth, and the very record of it is the manifestation of a hand that is divine. It is so out of the natural order of things that you cannot—it was not intended that you should—account for it except upon the basis of truth. Well, not only did one of our companions falter for a moment and then quickly right himself; not only did another prove to be a traitor and die by his own hand a creature of unendurable remorse; but when we saw our Leader, our Shepherd and Saviour, in whom we had put our trust, when we saw him put to death upon the cross, again, in the heat and bewilderment of the greatest extent conceivable, there was a lapse of memory, the dark shadows of the cruel cross hid behind their fearful blackness the bright lustre of the resplendent crown, and we hung our heads in despair and despondently exclaimed, “We thought it would have been he that would have redeemed Israel.” Now you will readily realize, according to the natural order of things, that having given up all for lost, having seen Him whom we trusted dead and

Pg 85 entombed—I say you must know that it would require more miracles to reassure our despondent spirits. But the needs of the trying hour were met, even to the extent of inspiring the very one who had faltered the most to exclaim from his inmost soul, “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again to a living hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead”—I. Pet. i:3.—Did you ever hear of such a thing? One who was dead and put in a tomb, raised to life again. You may well know that nothing short of this wonder would bring us to believe that we had not trusted in vain. Bit here again you will say that it requires most extraordinary evidence to prove that such a wonder ever happened as that of a dead and buried person being raised to life again. Grant it, and it was for just this kind of extraordinary evidence that I was preparing you when I was speaking about the irresistible evidence of one’s senses, by many, many times, having had such evidence forced upon them.

THE CORPSE NEVER PRODUCED.

10 ‘The jealous Jews knew that Jesus had foretold his resurrection, and so it would seem providential that good use should be made of their ignorance and antagonism. Upon the tomb was placed a heavy stone, sealed by the authority of the much-to-be- dreaded Roman government. ‘To make doubly sure that the body should not be stolen, and the claim sent out that Jesus had risen, a Roman guard is placed around the tomb. That tomb was hewn in a rock, and had a great stone rolled to the door. This with a government guard around it was supposed to be enough to keep the corpse in the tomb. So it was, according to ordinary matters. But what are the precautions of mortals against Him who makes the earth quake and the vault of heaven reverberate with the thunder of his mighty voice? “And behold, there was a great earthquake; for the angel of the Lord came and rolled the stone from the door and sat upon it. His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow” Matt. xxxviii: 2,3. A guard of sixty infidels, select soldiers, no doubt very brave and courageous. But see them before the angel of the God of heaven. “For fear the keepers did shake and became as dead men.” When called to account for allowing the corpse to escape from the tomb, they made the best answer that could be expected from infidels. For a consideration in cash, yes, cash, that mighty power that moves and rules a heartless world, for this in the form of a polluted bribe from hands which were red from the blood of innocence, they were willing to satisfy themselves by saying: “His disciples came by night and stole him away while we slept.” They were asleep and yet they could testify that his disciples removed that heavy stone and stole the body away! That is the best to be expected of the mercenary soldiers of Rome. The bribers invented this falsehood and therefore knew it was a falsehood. In their denial of the resurrection of Jesus why did they not produce the corpse? Pg 86 That would have settled the dispute. That was too big a lie to receive credence, that a few despised, carefully watched disciples of a crucified leader could accomplish the feat of breaking the government seal, rolling away the heavy stone and carrying away the corpse in the very presence of sixty soldiers; and so by contrast the falsehood of the enemies confirms the truth of friends. For the falsehood and bribery on the one hand there was motives clear and unmistakable; while on the other hand there were no motives for falsehood, and all was oil the side of truth and sincerity. THE REASSURANCE OF THE WITNESSES.

Let me pause here a moment to remind you that not only is every star a shining gem reflecting the light of truth over our heads and all around us, but under our feet as we march along are glistening little pebbles which are worthy of examination. Here is one that many may overlook, in the fact that the record is frank enough to reveal that our witnesses had given up hope and for the moment were not expecting to see him who was dead alive again. Do you think this would ever have been recorded in a book written for fraudulent purposes? In this case, you see, the unexpected happened. Even when she saw the empty tomb, poor, broken-hearted Mary Magdalene stood weeping and crying “THEY HAVE TAKEN AWAY MY LORD out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him.” Peter and another disciple ran and saw the tomb empty and “as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead”—John xx: 1—10. What changed their minds back to what had been taught them and which they had for the time forgotten ? “Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni, which is to say, Master. Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.” Mary Magdelene came and told the disciples that she had seen, yes SEEN, the Lord, and that he had spoken these things unto her. Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. And when he had so said, he showed unto them his hands and his side. Then were his disciples glad, when they saw the Lord. * * But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I Will not believe. And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them; then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither pg 87 thy hand, and thrust it into my side; and be not faithless, but believe. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed; blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name”— John xx: 11—31. This is the evidence that restored our companions to their former confidence, and if this will not convince, nothing will. Now do not forget again, like many do, and say that perhaps it is a made up story. This has been repeated and repeated, generation after generation, by forgetful minds, some of whom seem as if they would rather that the testimony be a lie than a truth. But

10 do not forget, I repeat, that you cannot account for it being false upon any principle of ordinary communication between men in all the world. You cannot because, in the very nature of things, a falsehood must have an evil motive, and in this case no motive can be found, no motive is possible, except the one declared and with which alone the facts are consistent. Tie a string around your finger and keep it there lest you forget this important aspect of the question. Keep this constantly in mind, as well as the palpable nature of the evidence, and no man living will refrain from saying, “Lord, I believe.”

STILL ANOTHER TEST.

Now we were eye witnesses of the ascent of our Lord to heaven, after having been with us forty days. He commanded us to remain in Jerusalem until the next Pentecost, when we should receive power from on high by the descent of the Holy Spirit, which he promised to send as the Comforter, to lead us into all truth and to bring all things to our remembrance. Here would be another test involving the accuracy of time as typified by the Law of Moses—the time from the Passover to the Pentecost; at a stated time and place we were told that another wonderful thing would happen that we should see and feel, and which we should not be able to account for upon any basis other than that of truth and facts. Though our Lord had told us that he would go to heaven and there remain until the time would come to make his enemies his footstool; though we had been charged to remain in Jerusalem until Pentecost when, by the coming of the Comforter in the form of the Holy Spirit, we should be “endowed with power from on high,” yet we must confess that the burning hope of Israel’s restoration dazzled our eyes and we asked, “Wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel ?“ After being told that it was not for us to know when this our hope would be realized, and that the power from on high would help us to testify to the truth “both in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost parts of the earth”—after, I Pg 88 say, hearing these words from the lips of our once dead but now living Lord, “while we beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of our sight.” Even then we were not left to wait till Pentecost for the manifestation of another wonder;-but “two men stood by us in white apparel; which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven” —Acts i: 6—11. Now, according to instructions, we waited for the fulfillment of the promise to send the Holy Spirit upon us on the day of Pentecost. You see what a test of truth this would be again. “And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. - And there appeared unto them cloven tongues as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.” In these various tongues we spoke to men of every nation who were then dwelling in Jerusalem. “And they were all amazed and marveled, saving one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galileans ? And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?” Some asked what this wonder meant; others mocked; other said we were drunken. But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words: For these are not drunken as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.” He then showed them that their Scriptures had clearly foretold this very event. So you see we were all now prepared to face the world in bearing testimony to the resurrection of Christ, a most wonderful fact upon which all others in the divine plan depended; a fact whose truth proves the truth of the Bible. Now the skeptic will say I am taking it for granted that all these things happened; and that in my simplicity I am relating them as though they were proved facts. Call it simplicity or whatever you like; but do not forget that I did not commence to relate these things till I had traced facts back through history, and by every means which men accept as establishing truth we were led to the fact of the existence of the books from which I am quoting ; and not only their existence, but abundance of proof was found that these books were accepted as genuine, as true, and of divine authority and that contemporary and subsequent writers quoted them as authority in the various discussions for which those times were remarkable. Now, my skeptical friend, even you must admit the existence of the books which relate what I am saying. Somebody wrote them. They came into existence; they do exist; they do relate these things I am calling your at- Pg 89 tention to. Now please try to conceive why they were written, what they were written for. Just try to imagine a number of men of the intelligence of the authors of these books sitting down to write letters about ordinary and extraordinary things that never happened; addressing them to communities that never existed; and pretending that they were other men; and thus adding deception to deception without having the slightest hope of reward, or honor, or fame; and with the certainty of suffering reproach, contempt, persecution and death. You cannot imagine such a thing. Now this diversion and repetition is a reminder

10 of what we have already established, lest you forget; and now we can resume our subject and proceed to relate the history of facts at the risk of being laughed at for our “simplicity,” knowing that it is the simplicity of truth.

As we have seen, one of the results of the pouring out of the Spirit upon those assembled on the day of Pentecost was the power to speak in foreign tongues. It happened at a time when many people were in Jerusalem, and do not forget that it was prearranged. It had been typified in the Law of Moses and the event was to occur when it could be witnessed by “Parthians and Medes and Elamites, and dwellers in Mespotarnia, and Judea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus and Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians.” That’s the kind of a company that witnessed the facts of this last real Pentecost; and all these were impelled by the facts they saw and heard, to cry out, “We do hear them (these Galaleans) speak in our own tongues the wonderful works of God.” True to human stubborness, even then there were some who mocked and who charged the apostles with being drunk, a fact which gave Peter his opportunity to speak words which to attribute to drunkenness can be nothing short of willful wickedness. By quotation from the prophecy of Joel, and from the Psalms, the apostle was able to show that what was happening had been foretold long before. Proceeding to quote scripture after scripture and comparing prophecy with the facts occurring, he carried conviction to the crowds and about three thousand souls accepted the truths that would cause them, as it had caused Jesus and his disciples before, to be despised and rejected of men. Peter and John, despite the opposition of the rulers, boldly went up to the temple at the hour of prayer, and there was a man lame from birth, whom Peter cured, and who “leaping up stood and walked into the temple, leaping and praising God.” Here was a case right before the eyes of the multitude to cause wonder and amazement. That was the time to force home the truth concerning the source of the miraculous power that had made this man whole. The rulers of the Jews were envious and laid hands upon Peter and John, but they had to be cautious lest the people attack them. They perceived that the apostles were “unlearned” and they marveled. What could they do in the face of the fact that there was the man “healed standing with them,” and they

Pg 90 were compelled to admit that “a notable miracle hath been done is manifest to all them that dwell in Jerusalem; and we cannot deny it.” They tried to prevent the news spreading and “commanded the apostles not to speak at all or preach in the name of Jesus.” It would have been to the temporal interests of Peter and John to desist; but no, they knew their duty to truth and the fidelity they owed to him who had died fur them. Therefore they boldly asked, “Whether is it right in the sight of God to hearken to you more than unto God judge ye. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard”—seen and heard, again. This is the kind of testimony upon which the matter rests; and rather than be unfaithful in their duty concerning matters about which it was impossible for them to be mistaken, they were ready to suffer whatever might befall them. They knew, by all the means that man can know, that they were right; they knew their duty in the matter and they courageously, faithfully and intelligently proceeded to do their work, looking to God for help to finally triumph. “They lifted up their voices with one accord, and said, Lord, thou art God, which hast made heaven and earth, and sea, and all that in them is; who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ. For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel were gathered together for to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done. And now, Lord, behold their threatenings; and grant unto thy servants that with all boldness they may speak thy word, by stretching forth their hand to heal; and that signs and wonders may be done by the name of thy holy child Jesus.” With full trust in God, with a vivid consciousness of the fact that they had seen, heard and felt their risen Lord, with the self-evident fact that they were possessed of power from on high, and with an inspiration which brought to their remembrance prophecies which found fulfillment in palpable facts, on they went, suffering and yet prospering in impressing indelibly upon the pages of history, so that ages of trials and tests could not erase it, the fact which had been established as a fact by many witnesses many times —that Christ had risen from the dead, and that therefore he was all that he claimed to be and that therefore all he said and did was true—divinely true, unimpeachably true, eternally true, so true that to question it is to manifest astounding ignorance and perversity.

It must be well known to both friend and foe that our cause had all the powers and influences of both the Jewish and Gentile world against it, and that for one who was popular to identify himself with it was for him to lose his popularity and invite contempt, persecution and, in many cases, death. No sane man would do such a thing fraudulently, because there was nothing to induce the fraud. It was all loss and no gain; worse; it meant the loss of Pg 91

10 all that the natural man loves and the gain of everything that the natural man would try to escape. Shut out the facts; shut out the real motives; shut out the divine view; shut out the one greatest fact which inspired the greatest confidence, namely, the resurrection of Christ, and you could never account for a popular man giving up all for worse than nothing; turning from his friends to the enemies of his friends and incurring trouble without the least need for it. The man who tells a lie when the truth would suit his case better is called a fool. What would be said of one who would perpetuate and practice a fraud in a case where honesty would be by far of greater advantage to him? In matters of theory men are often deluded and sincerely act accordingly; but who ever heard of hundreds acting alike upon the basis of fact which they had all seen and heard, and of which they had collateral visible evidence, repeated amid repeated—all without a motive? Now you will perhaps be thinking that we have no such a case as I have been illustrating; but we have. We have actually a most learned, intelligent and popular man who either acted so unaccountably inconsistent, or he had good reason for so acting; and the only good reason in the case was the truth of our claim—that Christ rose from the dead. That man is SAUL OF TARSUS.

Here is what he says of himself: “I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city of Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day (Acts vii: 3). Saul’s zeal against us was so great that lie helped our enemies in the persecution in which poor Stephen was cruelly stoned to death. He “made havoc of the church, entering in to every house, and hailing men amid women committed them -to prison” (Acts viii : 3). At last he received letters from the high priest authorizing him to go to Damascus at the head of deputies sent with him to arrest both men and women who were Christians amid “to bring them, bound, to Jerusalem.’’ Now what would it require to suddenly change such a man as this to a belief in the very facts for the belief of which he was persecuting others? Reasoning with him upon the doctrines involved, if it ever changed his mind, would require much time amid elaborate presentation of evidence. It is a fact that while on his’ errand of persecution he suddenly did change his mind and his attitude. There was every reason why he should not change so far as things of this life were concerned, yet he did change. He came to believe that Christ rose from the dead. What made him come to such belief? Nothing but irresistible fact forced upon his sight, his hearing and his feeling. Stricken down; a voice from heaven, even from Jesus whom he was persecuting; stricken with blindness for three days; told to go to Damascus, had to be led; Ananias receives command to go to the street called straight to the house of Judas to meet Saul, who was there praying; Ananias is aston Pg 92 ished, having known of Saul’s original intent in visiting Damascus, but he goes and there was Saul, blind and penitent; Saul’s sight is restored; he is baptized and becomes a most able, zealous and yet humble Christian. Did he exchange all that men love in this life for a life of the greatest suffering, ending in a martyr’s death, without a reason founded in fact? Explain all this, if you can, upon any other principle than that set forth by Saul himself who afterwards was called Paul. His reason was that he was forced by his own natural senses to believe in the fact that Christ rose from the dead. In stating and restating his case he relates facts, not theories. The fact of Christ’s resurrection having been established by hundreds of witnesses separately and collectively and repeatedly, it left its indelible impression upon the civilized world and there it remains, after nearly two thousand years of test and trial at the hands of friends and foes; and here it is to—day the greatest fact of all the world, of all ages. The resurrection of Christ established, he is proven to be all he claimed to be as recorded in the New Testament. His authority and power amid words were therefore divine ; and therefore all he said was true; all that he endorsed of what others had said was therefore true. He endorsed, referred to amid quoted from Moses, the prophets and the Psalms, and therefore they are true; He declared them to be typical amid prophetic, and therefore they were Divinely true, and now we know that the Bible originated in the inspiration of God, that it is true amid a safe and a reliable guide in this life into the glorious and everlasting life that is to come. Stand back, you skeptics, infidels, atheists and agnostics. Hang your guilty heads ye pompous, so called higher critics. You have not, am- of you, been raised from the dead. His credentials are from the Great God of Heaven ; and his seal placed upon the Pentatuch, upon the Book of Daniel in particular, and upon the entire Old Testament in general stamps all your scholastic speculations as the babbling of Babylon, while “Truth crushed to earth will rise again, The eternal years of God are hers; While error. wounded, writhes in pain, And dies amid her worshippers.’’ Pg 93

THE PROBLEM OF LIFE

10 HERE AND HEREAFTER

Of Man’s Relation to the Law of Sin and Death and of Life and Immortality.

The Subject considered from an Historical, Natural and

Biblical stand-point.

By Thomas Wi11iams Chicago, Editor of THE CHRISTADELPHIAN ADVOCATE and Author of various books on Bible subjects

Price twenty cents

THE ADVOCATE PUBLISHING HOUSE

Chicago, Illinois. Pg 94

CONTENTS. Chapter I. —- Introduction……………………….. 1

Chapter II.----The Soul—is it immortal?— The Question Considered Historically 4

Chapter III.—-The Soul—Is it Immortal ?—Does Nature Teach it? 13

Chapter IV.—The Soul—-ls it Immortal?—Do the Scriptures Teach it? 20

Chapter V.----The Spirit of Man—Do the Scriptures That it is an Immortal Entity?- 38

Chapter VI.—Man Is a Creature of the Dust and Mortal by Sin 45

Chapter VII.——Resurrection the Only Hope of Life from the Dead 54

10 Chapter VIII.—Eternal Life a Matter of Promise and Hope, and not of Present Actual Possession 73

Chapter IX.—Immortality a Conditional Gift and not Naturally Inherent 8o

Chapter X.—-Sin and Death to Come to an End and God to be All in All 80

Chapter Xl.----The Transition from the Law of Sin and Death to the Law of Life and Immortality 87

The Problem Of Life. OR MAN’S RELATION TO THE LAW OF SIN AND DEATH, AND LIFE AND IMMORTALITY.

CHAPTER I.

I N T R 0 D U C T 0 R Y.

THE question of man’s relation to the law of sin and death and of life. and immortality is one of vital importance, and should command the most careful, respectful and solemn attention at the hands of all intelligent people. In it are involved the great problems of human life which have perplexed alike the moralist, the scientist and the theologian. The various and conflicting theories of the theological amid scientific world of today present a situation that justifies the closest investigation in order that the causes of the variance amid conflict might be discovered, the evil removed, and confusion be made to give place to a harmony that will dispel doubts, end perplexities and create such a well-grounded hope as will soothe and satisfy the troubled, reasonable mind. The fact that great minds differ upon the subject in hand is offered by many as a reason for regarding as presumption any attempt to solve the problem. If the matter depended upon the opinions of men, the case would he hopeless, no doubt, but when it is recognized that there is a standard of authority by which the question can be settled beyond dispute, the objection must be summarily dismissed with the answer that “Great men are not always wise,” and the “wisdom of this world is foolishness with God.” The effects of the ignorance and credulity of the Dark Ages are still powerful over the masses of mankind, and are to be seen in the allowance of a prestige that concedes to a certain class of men the right to assume such a guardianship as secures for them a dictatorship which, either by threatenings or subtlety, obtains at least a passive, and in a large degree a slavish submission. This, however, is not a situation peculiar to the nineteenth century alone. Such was the state of things in the days of Jesus and his Apostles. “The leaders of the people caused them to err.” In addressing such leaders the Saviour says, “Thus have ye made the commandments of God of none effect by your tradition. Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, “This people draweth nigh unto me with their Pg 96 mouth, and honoreth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me but in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men”—Matt, xv: 6—9.

10 The Scribes and Pharisees were well learned in the traditions of the schools of their day, as the wise men are in those of our days ; and since the “great men” of the first century were denounced by Christ and his Apostles, it should not he regarded as presumption to challenge and weigh in the balances of reason and Scripture the theories of those who are looked upon as the wise men of the nineteenth century.

The Apostles ceased not to warn God’s people of the danger of attaching importance to the “wisdom of the world.” “Beware,’’ says Paul, “lest any man spoil you through philosophy amid vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and mint after Christ’’-——Col. ii: 8. The high esteem in which the wisdom of the wise of this world is held is the result of a departure from the wisdom of God. That the former is not identical with the latter is evident from the confusion of tongues to be heard even on the very highest pinnacles of theological towers. Indeed, to seek for the wisdom of God in the fields of the worlds wisdom is to seek in places where the slightest familiarity with the Scriptures assures one that nothing but thorns and thistles exist. We may safely cross the threshold of inquiry upon the subject in hand with our minds made up that a religion that is popular and highly esteemed among men, amid the religion of the Bible, are to he viewed in contrast with each other, even as light with darkness, and wisdom with foolishness, This is clearly proved by the words of inspiration, which say : “For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble are called ; but God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the things that are mighty ; and base things of the world, and things that are despised hath God chosen, yea, amid things which are not, to bring to nought things that are ; that no flesh should glory in his presence”—-I. Cor. i: 26—29. It is God ‘s wisdom, then, that must command our highest regard. amid that wisdom is found in the Scriptures of Moses and the Prophets, and the New Testament—the Bible, which is the standard of authority we have alluded to.

There is a prevalent idea that we in these times have very little, if anything, to do with the Old Testament ; that the New Testament is all we need read ; and that it is more reliable than the Old. While it is true that the Law of Moses, having been fulfilled in Christ, is no longer binding as a ceremonial law, yet the prophetic character of the writings of Moses, in words and types, along with all the other prophets, shines out with a glorious luster which throws a light upon the New Testament that cannot he Pg 97 seen by those whose ignorance and prejudice disparage the study of the Old Testament.

One cannot help hut he suspicions that objections to the Old Testament arise from an ignorance of the writings of the New Testament. To one who reads the latter the mistake is inexcusable ; for its frequent reference to the former, and the manner in which it is referred to, show that Jesus and the Apostles regarded the Old Testament as authority, and largely drew their lessons from it and commended their followers for doing the same, as the following testimonies will show

Search the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life ; and they are they which testify of me— John v : 39.

10 if they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rose from the dead —Luke xvi : 31. And from a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness——I I. Tim. Iii 15, 16.

And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the -Scriptures——-Acts xvii : 2. havimig therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great .saying,’ none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come Acts xxvi : 22. And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to his lodgings; to whom he expoundcd and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out the prophets. From morning till evening Acts xxviii : 23.

Now the scriptures referred to in these testimonies can only be those of he Old Testament ; for the words could not apply to the New Testament, even if it had been in complete existence at the time. If the Old Testament was held in such high esteem by Jesus as to be referred to as authority, even to be depended upon as more sure than the words of one raised from the dead, who will be so presumptuous as to disregard it and dismiss it as though it were like an almanac out of date? Since we find the Apostles using the Scriptures of Moses and the prophets as their standard of proof, and declaring them to be able to make men wise unto salvation, we shall certainly be safe in receiving and using them combined with the New testament as “the law mind the testimony’’ by which to test and settle the issues raised concerning the subject in hand ;and we may safely conclude when we find theorists who ‘‘speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them’’—__(Isa. vii : 20).

We must not, however, be understood to mean that by claiming that the Bible is entitled to our highest regard we exclude whatever possible evidence true science may afford upon the question of the nature of man. Where science speaks it speaks in harmony with Revelation for God, Pg 98 who is the author of the Bible, is also the creator of the world of nature amid the giver of all its wonderful laws. Science not being intended to reveal the ultimate purpose and plan of God, and being confined! to hare facts, and some of them hard to discover, Revelation must he the guiding star we must follow while traveling through the darkness of science falsely so-called to the goal that will give satisfaction, rest and repose to the troubled minds of reasonable men.

CHAPTER II.

THE SOUL, IS IT IMMORTAL? THE QUESTION CONSIDERED HISTORICALLY. THE phrase “immortal soul” is one so frequently used in relation to man’s nature that one who has not investigated the Scriptures upon the subject would expect to find it almost upon every page of the Bible. Many are very much surprised when they are told that the phrase is not to he found from Genesis to Revelation. The translators of the Bible were believers in the immortality of the soul, and yet they could

10 find no form of words in the original Scriptures of the Old or New Testament that could be translated into the oft-repeated phrase “immortal soul.”

Now when these facts are seriously considered, it will be admitted that, popular as the doctrine of the immortality of the soul is, we might well stop and reflect, and ask ourselves, May it not he possible that the doctrine is one of the elements of the “wisdom of this world ? ” and may not the fact of its being believed and preached by so many be a fulfillment of the predictions of the New Testament as expressed in the following words ?-“For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine ; hut after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears and they shall turn away- their ears from the truth, and shall he turned unto fables”-—-II. Tim. iv : 3, ~. Of whatever origin the popular theory may he, ever reasonable person-must see that the doctrine of the immortality of the soul is fraught with evils that cannot he accounted for consistently with the revealed attributes of Deity. Who can look upon the millions of men of even this ‘‘Christian’’ age, in civilized1 and uncivilized lands, in the depths of depravity in which they grovel, and confidently believe that each one is possessed of part of God’s immortal nature—a spark of the Divine essence? And that too with the theory that the “divine spark” is the mainspring of all mental and moral action? Can it be that the very’ essence of God is capable of descending to the lowest depths of degradation? Can it he that He has stricken off from Himself millions upon millions of conscious entities, immortal like Himself, indestructible, and yet sunk to such a state Pg 99 of depravity that they are unredeemable, and therefore must be preserved in the n-most evil state, necessitating the perpetual maintenance of the most evil place, amid all these evils forming one great evil that must continue such as long as God continues—eternally ?—Can this be and yet God he just, wise and good?

If every’ human being is immortal, and only- a few will be saved, then the many must he preserved in a state of evil, and may we not, in view of the revealed attributes of God, ask, What are they preserved for? Why perpetually maintain such an evil state and place? What is the ultimate good! to be attained? for no solution of the problem will satisfy’ a reasonable mind that does not provide for an ultimate good being reached by Him who is just, wise, good amid! omnipotent .A Bishop Hopkins has, it is true, utilized the evil, possibly to his own satisfaction and to that of others who so tenaciously cling to the doctrine which forms the premise of such a God-dishonoring conclusion. The Bishop’s utilitarianism is thus expressed by the Bishop himself : ‘‘The smoke of their torment shall ascend up iii the sight of the blessed! forever mind! ever, and serve as a most clear glass always before their eyes, to give them a constant bright and most affecting view. * * * This display of the divine character and glory will be in favor of the redeemed, and most entertaining, and give the highest pleasure to those who love God, and raise their happiness to ineffable heights. Should this eternal punishment cease, and this fire be extinguished, it would in a great measure obscure the light of heaven and put an end to a great part of the happiness and glory of the blessed.” Horrible as this may seem to some, it is really the logical sequence of the popular belief in the immortality of the soul. For if the soul is immortal, it never can cease to be. There are more wicked souls than there are good!. Both good! and bad! being, as is claimed, immortal, must have places provided for their eternal abode. Since the bad are to he eternally preserved!, there must be some utility in their eternal preservation in misery. That it is in their ultimate redemption is the duty of “orthodoxy-’’ to deny. Wherein then is it to be found, unless it is in the above picture painted by Bishop’s brush ? Use, however, all the theological and scientific art of the world, and the evils with which the doctrines of the

10 souls immortality is pregnant must always prove to be inconsistent with common reason, contradictory to the Bible and dishonoring to the God of heaven and earth.

It must be admitted that the ‘‘holy’ men of old, who Spake as they were moved! by the Holy Spirit,” have revealed to us in the Scriptures all the truth that is necessary- for us to understand in relation to man’s nature and in doing so they never once, not one of them, found any use for the phrase “immortal soul,” or its equivalent in the tongues in which they

Pg 100 wrote. On the other hand, we can safely say that the modern and popular theory of man’s nature cannot be expressed without the use of this phrase. Were we to ask a representative of the so-called orthodox theory, What is the nature of man ? he would be compelled to answer, “Man is a dual creature, composed of a mortal body and an immortal soul.” We may well ask, Why is it that the phrase” immortal soul” is an indispensable part of the vocabulary of the so-called orthodox theory of man’s nature, while the divinely inspired writers of the Scriptures, in giving full expression to the truth upon the subject. never found any use for such a phrase? The fact that the former cannot dispense with it. and that the latter had no use for it, is certainly proof that they are not in agreement with each other ; and it is no longer a question of harmonizing them. but a question as to which we will accept.

It is well known that the doctrine of the immortality of the soul is called “Platonic ;“ which is an implied admission that Pluto was its founder, at least in its present popular form. This places the matter in a bad light at once ; for who that has the least knowledge of the Bible can help viewing with suspicion a doctrine having its origin in the mind of a heathen philosopher? The Grecian philosophers were the very men of whom the apostle Paul warned the churches of Christ to beware. Writing to the church at Colosse, he says, “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men. after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ’--—(Chpt ii :8). ~

If we truce the history of this doctrine farther back than the time of Plato and Socrates, its more ancient origin is calculated still more to arouse suspicion yea, rather to stamp it with unqualified condemnation. as emanating from a nation who were the enemies of God and His people, and who groveled in the lowest depravity of their natures. These were the Egyptians who are said to have been the first to hold the doctrine of the souls immortally, believing also. as Plato did, in the Transmigration of souls through various tanimal bodies and their return to a human body in a period of three thousand years . Search where we will we shall find that, instead of this doctrine having its origin in the scriptures of truth, it has emanated from heathen minds and has come down through heathen channels at last to be united with so-called Christianity when the latter became enthroned as the religion of the State.

Even with the originators of the doctrine of the immortally of the soul, it was a matter of expediency rather than one of truth. As Gibbon says, “With the people “the ignorant masses - “it was equally true, with the philosophers equally false, and with the statesmen equally necessary.’’ The “Pious Fraud’’ was used as a means in the hands of philosophers and statesmen to Intimidate the common and ignorant masses. With them the

Pg 101 policy was to do evil that good might come—to teach lies as productive of supposed good results. They would seem to have reasoned thus : We must persuade the masses that they have or are immortal or never-dying souls, and that if they do not obey the laws of the State, their souls will be preserved in misery eternally in the fires of Tartarus; but if they are obedient to the laws of their superiors, then their souls will be taken to the happiness of the Elysium fields. hence Plato, alluding to this sentiment, says, “If falsehood

10 be indeed of no service to the gods, yet useful to men in the form of a drug. it is plain that such a thing should be touched only by physicians, hat not meddled with by private persons. To the Governors of the State then (if to any) it especially belongs to speak falsely, for the good of the State, whereas, for till the rest, they must venture on no such thing.’’ It is said that Cicero, on the authority of Plato, taught that not to deceive for the public good was wickedness. (We quote from Hudson, Future Life, p. p. 277-8

The most casual examination of the Pious Fraud of the Greeks and Romans will reveal the similarity between it and the popular religious systems of our times. The Platonic and the modern beliefs in relation to the soul’s immortality are identical ; while for the heathen Tartarus the Bible term hell has been made to do service in ex4ressilig the heathen doctrine of endless misery, and the term heaven to represent that of the Elysium fields. It is a question if the same ‘‘Pious Fraud’’ is not secretly perpetuated by the theologians of our times ; and indeed it is observable that the immortality of the soul. and its cognate doctrine of endless misery, find more willing welcome among the ignorant masses that with those whose minds have by education been released from the slavery of a cruel delusion amid a degrading superstition. Of the modern phase of this, Mr. Hudson says : “Isaac Watts deserves praise for his exposure of a flagrant instance of Pious Fraud by Thomas Burniet, who had advised a preacher. in sly Latin, to use the common language concerning Future Punishments, whether he thought them eternal or not.”

From the Bible Vindicated we quote the following

‘‘Fitch, in his review of Tyler on Future Punishment , gives the follow. ing translation of one of the early fathers in reference to eternal torment Allowing our tenets to lie as false and groundless presumption as you would have them, yet I must tell you they are presumptions the world cannot well be without. If they are follies, they are follies of great use because the believers of them, under the dread of eternal pain, and hope of eternal pleasure, are under the strongest ( ?) obligations to become good men.’

It is well known that Plato and other Grecian philosophers received considerable of their education in Egypt, whence they derived their theories

Pg 102 of transmigration, etc. Through their influence the immortality of the soul became the fundamental doctrine of the philosophy of the Greeks, and when the time came for the gospel of Christ to be preached among the Gentiles, it necessarily found them steeped in the wisdom of their schools. The preaching of Christ was therefore to them foolishness; for to believe in him meant a total abandonment of their exalted and vain thoughts of man’s natural immortality and boasted dignity. To accept Christ as the Saviour of mankind was to view man as a mortal, helpless creature, dependent upon the goodness of God and the faithfulness of his Son for his redemption ; and the gospel of Him who “brought life and immortality to ligIit” was a condemnation of the theory that immortality is man’s nature by compulsion, whether he be good or bad, whether he be saint or demon. The light from heaven which, through the gospel, was thrown upon the subject, made the Platonic wisdom of the world foolishness, and its light darkness. As the work of Christ and his apostles progressed and prospered, in the pulling down of the strongholds of both Jewish and Pagan superstition, and by signs and mighty wonders performed by the apostles in

10 attestation of their cause the masses were becoming loosed from the thralldom of the Pious Fraud that had held them in ignorant and slavish subjection, and they rallied around the standard of “Christ and him crucified” until the Pagan world was being turned upside down, the philosophers saw that something had to he done to save their cherished thoughts from utter destruction. In the state of unrest incident to the wonderful revolution that the cause of Christ was effecting, the selfish and ever watchful priests of Paganism and the ambitious and unscrupulous politicians were on the lookout. They were planning the best methods to appropriate the new cause to their own use, and to make it subservient to a system of selfish and ambitious priest craft and statecraft. To carry out their plans, they cunningly worked the scheme of amalgamating Paganism and Christianity. A little Christianity and much of Paganism would do, only give it the name of the former; and upon the great Constantinian tidal wave they were carried up to the throne of “Christendom,” where, by decrees of councils, patronized by the emperor, they fortified themselves and were in a position to compel the acceptance of the doctrine of the immortality of the soul and all its cognate theories. Peter, being led by the Spirit to foresee this, says, “There shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them. * * * And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the truth shall be evil spoken of And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you; whose judgment now of long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not”—II Pet. ii: 1—3. Pg 103 Paul assures us that these deceivers should cause a “falling away,” and he says that the “mystery of iniquity (10th already work.” There and there after the apostles’ death we find an opponent of these heathen dogmas, as they were stealing their way into the church of Christ. Justin Martyr, in the second century, who at one time had been a Platonist, makes a strong protest, and warns those for whom he wrote not to give place to the Pagan heresy. he says : “If you meet with some who are called Christians. who dare calumniate the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, and who say that there is no resurrection of the dead, but that at death their Souls are received up into heaven, do not regard them as Christians.” But what could an individual protest do to Stem the tide of what was rapidly becoming the popular sentiment ? ‘The light of immortality revealed in the gospel was doomed to be hidden under a bushel in order to afford scope for the continuence of the Pious Fraud, which of course would prove profitable to the “clergy” at the expense of the intelligence, liberty and salvation of a plastic and helpless ‘-laity.” The “mystery of iniquity” Continues to work until the man of sin is revealed. The old Platonic doctrine of the immortality of the soul is incorporated into the so-called Christian religion, which is now the religion of the State. The philosophy of Greece becomes the religion of Rome. The East is moved to the West, and Plato’s disciples become multiplied until their name is legion. Every man who has the courage of his conviction is pronounced a “heretic ;“ and the “man of sin” in the person of Pope Leo X., hacked by the council of Lateran, having closed the Bible to the common people, makes the doctrine the subject of the following decree Whereas in our days some have dared to assert, concerning the nature of the reasonable soul, that it is mortal, or one and the same in all men and some, rashly philosophizing, declare this to be true, at least according to philosophy : We, with the approbation of the sacred council, do condemn and reprobate all those who assert that the intellectual soul is mortal, or one and the same in all men, and those who call these things in question ; seeing that the soul is not only truly, and of itself, and essentially the form of the human body, as is expressed in the cannon of Pope C/ement V published in the general council of Vienne, but likewise immortal * * * And seeing that truth never contradicts truth, we determine every assertion which is contrary to the truth of revealed faith to be totally false; and we strictly inhibit all from dogmatizing otherwise, and we decree that all who adhere to the like assertions shall be shunned mad punished as heretics.”

10 The system of abomination which here finds vent in the decree of council and pope is the one which has profaned and degraded the name of Christ by effecting the unholy alliance between Paganism and Christianity, and in this is to be seen the Antichrist so clearly described by the apostle Paul in the following words: “Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the lat Pg 104 ter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy ; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; forbidding to marry” (priests, nuns, etc.,) “and commanding to abstain from meats” (on Fridays, and Lent) “which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them that believe and know the truth”—I. Tim. iv: 1—3. This system, the apostle says, shall he headed up in “the man of sin, the son of perdition; who opposeth and exalteth himself against ill that is called God or that is worshipped; so that he sitteth in the temple of God, setting himself forth as God.” It is by the decree of this “man of sin,” with the “approbation of the sacred (1) council,” and by “the cannon of pope Clement V.” that the immortality of the soul is declared to be true; and it is by this Antichrist that the faithful are “strictly inhibited from dogmatizing otherwise,” and commanded to be “shunned and punished as heretics.” In thus maintaining the doctrine of the immortality of the soul, and other heathen doctrines, by force, the “man of sin” has fulfilled the prophecy: “I beheld and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them, * * * and shall speak great words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High”—Dan. vii: 2 2—25. Now, you who still cherish this heathen dogma, look at its origin! Look at the channels through which it has come down to you ! Look at the character of its supporters I Look at the means employed in its support and then tell me what you think of a doctrine which was conceived and born in Egyptian darkness, which was nursed and fed in the speculative heathenism of Greece, and which has been made the idol of the corrupt and abominable religion of Rome! Look at this very pope Leo X., whose decree for the maintenance of the immortality of the soul by brute force we have given. Here are some of the abominable practices under his sanction. I quote from the able writer, H. Grattan Guiness, in his Approaching End of the Ages, p. 181: The deeply interesting story must not be told here-—how Tetzel, the indulgence-monger, bearing the bull of Leo X. on a velvet cushion, traveling in state from town to town in a gay equipage, to his station in the thronged church, and proclaimed to the credulous multitude, “Indulgences are the most precious and sublime of God’s gifts: this red cross has as much efficacy as the cross of Christ. Draw near, and I will give you letters duly sealed, by which even the sins you shall hereafter DESIRE to commit shall be all forgiven you. There is no sin so great that indulgence can. not remit. Pay, only pay largely, and you shall be forgiven. But more than all this, indulgences saves not the living alone, but they also save the dead. Ye priests ye nobles, ye tradesmen, ye wives, ye maidens, ye young men, hearken to your departed parents and friends (immortal souls, of course) who call to you from the bottomless abyss, ‘We are enduring horrible torments a small alms would deliver us, you can give it, will you not?’ The moment the money clicks at the bottom of the Pg 105 chest, the soul escapes from purgatory and flies to heaven. With ten groschen you can deliver your father from purgatory. Our Lord God no longer deals with us as God—he has given all power to the pope. It will be seen that the doctrine of the immortality of the soul is the very foundation of this corrupt practice; and no wonder, therefore, that the papacy would go to such lengths to maintain it. Remove the doctrine Relegate it to heathenism whence it came, and what would be the result to Rome? With no

10 immortal soul, there would be no use for purgatory and “hell ;“ and there would be no heaven for those whom we pretend to give release from purgatory. These all gone, which would be the case if we surrendered the immortality of the soul, and we are left without a -‘hell” to frighten, without a “heaven” to allure, and our indulgences, and consequently our income, are gone, and our cause must fall to pieces. Reasoning thus they determined to maintain the foundation doctrine by force: and what have they not been guilty of in supporting this child of heathen parentage? Mr. Guiness says of this wicked system: “As to the practice of this unchangeable church, there is not a statement in the following quotation which history does not abundantly substantiate: As some luxurious emperors of Rome exhausted the whole art of pleasure, so that a reward was promised to any who should invent a new one: so have Romish persecutors exhausted all the arts of pain, so that it will now be difficult to discover or invent a new kind of it which they have not already practiced upon those marked out for heretics. They have been shot, stabbed, stoned, drowned, beheaded, hanged, drawn, quartered, impaled, burnt, or buried alive, roasted on spits, baked in ovens, thrown into furnaces, tumbled over precipices, cast from the tops of towers, sunk in mire and pits, starved with hunger and cold, hung on tenter hooks, suspended by the hair of the head, by the hands or feet, stuffed and blown up with gunpowder, ripped with swords and sickles, tied to the tails of horses, dragged over streets and sharp flints, broken on the wheel, beaten on anvils with hammers, blown with bellows, bored with hot irons, torn piecemeal by red-hot pinchers, slashed with knives, hacked with axes, hewed with chisels, planed with planes, pricked with forks, stuck from head to foot with pins, choked with water, lime, rags, urine, excrements, or mangled pieces of their bodies crammed down their throats, shut up in caves or dungeons, tied to stakes, nailed to trees, tormented with lighted matches, scalding oil, burning pitch, melted lard, etc., etc. Here we stop; for other things given are too horrible to repeat, and we again ask you who still hold the very doctrine from which all these crimes, cruelties and abominations have resulted, What do you think of it and its results? The mysteries of Egypt having been transferred from the Nile to the Tiber, the Dark Ages ensued amid shut out the light of the gospel, the saints of the Most High were “worn out” and the “Pious Fraud” became Universal, Martin Luther, however, emerged to some extent from the thick darkness in which the masses of his time were shrouded, and made a strong protest which bid fair to effect a revolution. Indeed it did effect a wonderful rev-

Pg 106 olution in the sense of arousing the people to assert their rights, and free themselves from the bondage of religious tyranny. But to full expose the fallacy of the underlying doctrine— the immortality of the soul ——was too great a work, considering the odds that were against him. he failed not, however, to offer his protest, as soon as he caught a glimpse of the true light upon the subject ; and defiantly he declares, ‘-It is certain that it is not in the power of the church or the pope to establish articles of faith, or laws for morals or good works. * * * But I permit the pope to make articles of faith for himself and his faithful, such as * ** the soul is the substantial form of the human body, the pope is emperor of the world, and the king of heaven and God upon earth, the soul is immortal, with all those monstrous opinions to be found in the Roman dung. hill of decretals”—Luther’s Works, Vol. II., fol. 107. Witteimherg 1562. As Justin Martyr answered the Platonists of the second century, SO did Tyndall those of the fifteenth. “Ye,” he says, “in putting them (souls) in heaven, hell and purgatory, destroy the arguments wherewith Christ and Paul proved the resurrection. * * * If the souls be in heaven, tell me why they be not in as good case as the angels be. And then what cause is there of the resurrection?”

10 Notwithstanding the strong protest of these men, according to the light they could catch in the midst of such thick darkness, the doctrine of the immortality of the soul still held its heathen grasp upon the minds of the people, and merged from Papalism into Protestantism, and is found to-day the foundation of popular religion in all its increased and ever increasing branches. The Bible, however, having been plucked as a brand from the fires of Roman tyranny, was opened to the people, and was no longer entirely monopolized by a selfish and dishonest clergy. To the extent that the Bible was carefully read and studied, it was once more true that the “poor had the gospel preached unto them.” here and there has sprung up a John in the wilderness, through whom the light of the gospel immortality has been caused to shine in a dark place. Coming to bear witness of that light, the truth in a measure has been revived, and in the wilderness of Romish superstition, as in the wilderness of Judea, the former in relation to the second coming of Him who is the Light, as the latter was to his first coming, the voice is heard, “Prepare ye the way of the Lord ; make his paths straight.” The Scribes and Pharisees of Romanism, like those of Judaism, gnash their teeth at the sound of the voices ; and if their king had not lost his power to “wear out the saints.” how gladly would even the daughters of Rome dance before their Herod could they thereby secure the heads of those Johns who rebuke them as a “generation of vipers,” and warn their followers to “flee from the wrath to come.” when the “merchants” of Rome, “who have been made rich by her delicacies, shall stand pg 107 afar off for the fear of her torment, weeping and wailing, and saying, Alas, alas, that great city, that was clothed in flue linen, and purple and scarlet, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls; for iii one hour so great riches is come to naught. Alas, alas! for in one hour is she made desolate, with violence thrown down, and shall he found no more at all.”

CHAPTER III.

THE SOUL, IS IT IMMORTAL? DOES NATURE

TEACH IT?

WE behold man a living, breathing, thinking creature, possessed of what we call the five senses-— seeing, hearing, feeling, smelling and tasting. Viewing him as we see him in the exercise of his various functions, forbidding the play of imagination, and excluding the influence of theological training, do we find anything in him that may be set down as proof that he is possessed of an immortal or immaterial soul? Does the fact that he can see and hear, smell, taste and feel, prove it? If it does, then it proves the same for every creature possessed of these senses. The five senses are exercised and experienced by contact, in some form or other, with objects; and it is the same whether in the lower animals or in man. Is it, as some claim, that “the eves are the windows of the soul?” If so, then of what are the eyes of all animals the “windows?” Why do they have “windows” if there is nothing in them to use the “windows,” to look out through the “windows?” The eyes of the lower animals serve the same purpose as do the eyes of men. They produce sight in both. There is a use for the eyes of the animal and there is something to “look out through the windows.” What is it? Is it not the animal itself, the living, breathing animal? When the eyes of the horse strike an object, it is the horse that sees, and when any part of the animal comes in contact with any other substance, it is the horse that feels. Forbidding the play of imagination and excluding the influence of theological training, why is it not the same with man

10 —why is it not the living, thinking, breathing man that “looks out through the windows,” or that sees? Call the horse a soul—for that is what he is, a living creature—and then we may say. “The eyes are the windows of the soul,” and yet never dream of an inside horse-soul, separate from the living, breathing horse. Call the man a soul, and, forbidding the play of imagination and excluding the influence of theological training, why not say “the eyes are the windows of the soul,” ie., the living, breathing, thinking man sees with his eyes, and not that there is an inside soul entirely separate from the physical man we behold?

It is not claimed that the immortal soul is visible. When we examine Pg 108 man from the natural stand-point we cannot see the immortal soul. If we believe there is one it is not because it has come in contact with the five senses—any, or all of them. Our five senses will not reveal to us an immortal soul in man or beast. It is no use to try to find it by sight. hearing, feeling, tasting, or smelling ; and since these are the five natural senses, and we are considering the subject from a natural stand-point, there is no natural sense by which to discover it. If it is discoverable at all, it must be by supernatural means, which we will examine further along. But, it will be said, there is something back of the five senses; because sight, hearing, feeling, etc., are not mere contact. True, there may be contact without feeling, or without producing the experience of any of the five senses; there must be “something” to take cognizance of contact- ---to feel pain or pleasure; but what is that “something ?“ If we, for the want of any natural law of demonstration, imagine it is the immortal soul, then we have over-reached the mark, because that “something” experiences the results of contact in animals as well as in man. What is it that makes the animal conscious that any part of its body has conic in contact with another substance? In other words, where is the seat or centre of consciousness in the animal. to which the fact of contact is instantly carried by the electric nerve-wires of its natural being? Can we, by the use of our natural senses, find the centre? If we can find it in the animal, shall we not be in a fair way of discovering its seat in man? Well, we shall not look for it in its feet, nor in its body ; hut instinctively, we shall go to the head of the animal, and when we remove a portion of the skull, we shall find that by pressure upon the brain we are able to stop the consciousness from taking cognizance of contact-—the five senses will cease to perform their functions. The animal will be in a state of insensibility. Why is it that the foot coming in contact with another substance is not felt now? If it were the foot that felt, it would still feel, but an interference with the brain is what has stopped the sense of feeling, and what does this prove? It proves that the brain is “head-quarters” of the animal institution, and when it is prevented, by natural causes, from performing its natural functions, there is no consciousness, no experience of pain or pleasures no knowledge, no thought. When the animal is in its normal state, the fact of any part of its body coming in contact with another body is felt because by the electric nerve-wires the fact is communicated to the nerve-centre, the brain, and then causes sensation; pain or pleasure is experienced, and knowledge produced, which is retained in the store-house of memory, and used, practically, according to the degree of intellectuality possessed by the creature. The very same is true of man, and therefore, so far, we have found no reason, viewing the subject from the standpoint of nature, for man’s possession of au immortal soul. Pg 109 The metaphysician asserts that matter cannot think, and upon this he proceeds to build- his theory, adding, “Man thinks, therefore he is more than matter.” In the same manner it might be asserted that matter cannot see the horse sees, therefore he is more than matter. Logic will lie if it is based on a false premise. Who is to say what matter can or cannot be made capable of doing when fearfully and wonderfully organized and vitalized by the creative hand of Omnipotence? What is it that feels, sees and hears in the horse—yea, what is it that thinks amid retains thoughts, manifesting them in memory, in

10 some animals, too, iii a higher degree than in some men? Who will be presumptuous enough to assert that it is not matter? If it is anything besides matter in the animal, then the mark is over-reached again, in proving the animal in possession of an immateriality which is desired to be limited to man. If thought is the property and product of immateriality, then nothing material can affect it ; the one cannot come in contact with the other, and therefore they- cannot interfere with each other, any more than an act of congress can collide with a locomotive. But we do find that materiality may interfere with thought, that one material substance producing pressure on another—- the brain—will put a stop to the evolution of thought. Numerous experiments have proved this, and observation demonstrates it every day. A few quotations as to experiments will be sufficient. From the American Advent Review’ the Bible Vindicated quotes the following Richmond mentions the case of a woman whose brain was exposed in consequence of the removal of a considerable part of its bony covering by disease. lie says: I repeatedly made a pressure on the brain, and each time, suspended all feeling and intellect which were immediately restored when the pressure was withdrawn. The same writer mentions another case. He says: There was a man who had been trepanned, and who perceived that his intellectual-faculties were failing and his existence drawing to a close every time the effused blood collected on the brain so as to produce pressure. The most remarkable case, however, is that given by Sir Astle Cooper, in his Surgical Lectures, as follows: Prof. Chapman in one of his lectures says: “I saw an individual with his skull perforated, and the brain exposed, who was accustomed to submit his brain to be experimented upon by the late Prof. Weston to his class; his intellectual and moral faculties disappeared on the application of pressure to the brain. They were held under the thumb, as it were, and restored at pleasure to their full activity by discontinuing the pressure.” A man by the name of Jones received an injury in his head while on board a vessel in the Mediterranean, which rendered him insensible. The vessel soon made Gibralter, where Jones was placed in the hospital, and remained several months in the same insensible state. He was then carried on board the Dolphin frigate to Deptford, and thence was sent to St. Thomas’ Hospital, London. He lay constantly on his back and breathed with difficulty. When hungry or thirsty he moved his lips or tongue. Mr. Clyne, the surgeon, found a portion of the skull depressed, Pb 110 trepanned him, and removed the depressed portions. Immediately after the operation, the motion of his fingers, occasioned by the beating of the pulse, ceased, and in three hours he sat up in bed, sensation and volition returned, and in four days he got out of his bed and conversed. The last thing he remembered was the occurrence of taking a prize in the Mediterranean. From the moment of the accident, thirteen months and a few days before, oblivion had come over him, and all recollection ceased, yet on removing a small portion of bone which pressed upon the brain, he was restored to full possession of the powers of his mind and body. These facts are sufficient to show that men and animals arc dependent upon matter, in the form of brain, for the power of thought. and that it is the living brain that takes cognizance of contact, amid is, therefore, the centre to which facts that come within the range of the five senses are carried to be intellectually dealt with. ‘When communication with this centre is cut off, or when the brain is injured, consciousness and intellectuality cease’ in all creatures possessing these powers. There is no use denying that there are degrees of intelligence in men and animals. It is a fact that is patent to observation and experience that the shape of the head is quite a consideration in the question of degree of intelligence, both in the creature amid man, a fact that can never be accounted for upon the

10 hypothesis of thought being a property or product of an immaterial soul—that which has no shape, because it has no substance, cannot be seen, felt, weighed or measured—which is supposed to possess the power of thought independently of the body, and indeed, if the body has anything to do with the evolution of thought at all, it is a hindrance rather than a help; and it is claimed that the soul thinks more perfectly when disembodied than when it is imprisoned in the body, although it is difficult to see how a material body could affect the functions of an immaterial entity; and if this difficulty could be explained in relation to man, we should still have the fact that thought, in various degrees—according to the “shape of the head,” too—is manifest in animals. Moreover, it is a fact that the degree of thinking powers in the animal ascends in proportion to the extent the shape of its head approaches to that man. When these facts are recognized it will be evident that instead of there being a necessity of going from the material to the immaterial to account for thought, we are driven to the position that it can be accounted for upon no other principle than that ,it is a product of electrically vitalized matter—a position which necessarily forces us back to a First Cause, possessed of infinite wisdom which, in the impartation of the vitalizing power, impregnated it as it were, with a will force that determined what should be its functions according to natural laws. The metaphysician and the theologian claim that God is immaterial, and that the soul is part of God and that it is therefore immaterial-—without body or parts. Without stopping to notice the absurdity of that which is

Pg 111 without parts being a part of that which has no parts, we may ask, When does this supposed part of God which is claimed to be the thinking entity, take possession of the body ? Is the quest ion of whether a body, begotten by natural laws, shall be supplied with an immortal entity decided by the laws of nature, or is it decided by the direct will of Him of whom the soul is claimed to be a part? It would be difficult to see how natural laws could reach up to heaven, into the very presence of Him who dwells in light unapproachable. and snatch millions of parts of God’s very essence, transform them into individuals. intellectualities— some of them and deposit them in their respective bodies as these are forced into the world, some of them in direct opposition to the laws of God and in the lowest depths of depravity, and the offsprings of the worst crimes. To commit ones self to such a theory would surely be to defy nature and give it power to even enter heaven in defiance of the moral laws of God. on the other hand, if the question of the supply of the immaterial entities in proportion to the demand of material receptacles is determined by a special decision of God in each case, then why is there so much partiality shown ? Why are some of these thinking entities’’ possessed of so much greater superiority of thought than others ? Why are some not able to think all- why are there idiots? Moreover, if the’ thinking entity comes direct from God, why is there not the power of thought in infancy that there is in maturity And why is not the mind as strong in old age as it is in the full bloom of manhood ? Is it that the immaterial grows and declines with the material and if the material is dwarfed , the immaterial is proportionately dwarfed? This would make immateriality , after all the effort to seek for the power of thought in it, dependent upon materiality, and thus defeat the object in view in refusing to see that vitalized matter thinks. Again, a mans mind is largely affected by what he eats and drinks. look at the man tottering and reeling in a state of intoxication. Listen to foolish talk, and then let us ask, What is the cause if this To answer that he has been drinking intoxicants is not enough ; another- question must

10 be answered viz. : Why has the drinking of intoxicants by the body affect— his mind, if the mind is no part of matter—the body --but is the product of an independent entity which is not matter? Are we not driven back to the position that it is matter, in the form of vitalized brain, that is the thinking part of man and animal, and that certain kinds of material things are adapted to affect other certain kinds of material substances That intoxicants will inflame and excite the brain, throw it out of its normal state into an unbalanced condition, and the incoherent babble of the inebriate is the result? There arc thousands of poor unfortunate people in a state of insanity. how is this to he accounted fur, except upon the principle recognized by

Pg 112 the reasonable physician, that it is the result of tramission from parent to child, according to abused) natural laws, or of impairment or disease of the brain ? If thought is not a property of matter, what is the use of placing an insane person in the hands of a physician ? Surely his professional skill is limited to the domain of matter and any treatment from him must be based upon the principle that what will restore the brain to a healthy state, or what will remove a disease front any part of the body that affects the brain, will restore soundness of mind. Were he foolish enough to believe that the mind is the product of ant immaterial entity, he would never try to reach it with drugs nor by surgical operations he would do as the heathen, turn the patient over to the priests and the gods, who alone are supposed to have jurisdiction in the realms of immateriality.

Upon the hypothesis that every in man is possessed of art immaterial entity and that he depends upon it for his mind, how absurd to believe that insanity is transmissible from generation to generation ? If mind comes direct to the child as a quality of an immaterial soul why do we see traits of character mental and moral habits inherited from parents ? Mental traits and powers possessed by parent are generally manifest in their children, a fact which is accounted for by what common people call ‘running through the blood” Bitterness or sourness of the fruit of a tree is transmitted, and no one is foolish enough to claim that these qualities are supernaturally infused into it. Why not allow the same natural laws to operate in man in the production and transmission of temperament, mental powers anal moral proclivities? We should then see that the many faults. idiosyncrasies idiocy and imbecilities “born and bred’ in men are not infused into them as quantities of an immaterial entity direct from heaven ; in it that they are the results of disease and, many of them. Perversion of natural laws, generation alter generation.

It has been claimed by some that, while thought is a quality of an immaterial soul, the- brain is necessary as a channel through which it operates during natural life and that upon this principle the fact of mind being affected by body is to be accounted for, but instead of this explaining the matter, it only presents the absurdity of the immaterial being affected by. and dependent upon, the material ; and a philosophy that would volunteer such a theory to extricate itself from a difficulty only manifests the straits to which it is driven to hide itself from the light of reason. To admit that the brain is necessary as a channel for the soul to think in man is to lay down a principle that would prove the possession of thought in the animal to be the result of an immaterial soul operating through the channel of the brain, and. therefore prove too much. It will not do to try to evade the force of this by splitting hairs to divide instinct from thought, using the former term in relation to man, That is only an artificial distinction—a

10 pg 113 distinct ion wit bout a difference, when considered in relation to the- intelligence of some animals as compared with that of some men for it must be admitted that such a comparison in many instances gives a verdict in favor of the animal.

But suppose we grant for a moment that the soul as the thinking entity operates conjointly with and is dependent upon the brain for the evolution of thought, what then becomes of the theory that it continues to think when the body with its brain, lies silent in the dust of death? If it depends upon the brain for thought in life then in death there can be no thought. It will not do for philosophy to imagine that when the brain is gone- another channel will be provided; for that would be going into realms of imagination and stepping on ground that is forbidden 1philosophy revelation only being the means of determining its truth or- falsity, and that we will consider further along. It is certainly reasonable and logical to reduce this theory to the following syllogism, which will show that it defeats the very object it seeks to maintain : The soul is dependent upon the brain for thought ; the brain lies with the body; therefore when the brain is dead the soul cannot think.

Nature stands by and sees one who is to be subject to electrocution;the subject receives one shock and he is unconscious, but signs of life arc manifest. He receives another and Nature pronounces him dead and therefore unconscious, while- the long robed priest steps to the front and, true to his craft, boldly however- absurdly, ex claims, No, he is not unconscious.’ Nature asks the ‘‘Rev.’’ gentleman. ‘‘Was the man unconscious after receiving the’ first shock ;“ “Yes,” “And do you mean to say that while the first shock nearly killed and struck the man unconscious, the second absolutely killed and yet struck him conscious? “and the priest answers, “‘Y_E_S, amid proceeds to abuse- Nature for being to critical and for encroaching upon ground that belongs to a monopoly that enriches itself on disembodied ghosts and immaterial entities.

We beheld man as he approaches the verge of death after a long and struggling life. As his body declines his mental powers gradually weaken and wane; until he is in his “dotage. Them he lie’s helpless his dying bed ; and soon while there is little life remaining consciousness ceases, and at last the lamp of life goes out, and he who once lived is now dead he who once talked is now silent: he who once could see now sees no more; he who once could hear is now oblivious of sill sounds; he who once thought has now ceased to think he is dead.

There nature leaves him, and that is as far as it will take us in the investigation of the question, Is the soul immortal? If there is a future life, it must be by resurrection, a doctrine that nature wil1 not teach and prove to our satisfaction ; and if there is to ‘be a resurrection of the dead, we must

Pg 114 derive our knowledge of it from Revelation. In the realms of which we will now proceed to further investigation.

CHAPTER IV.

10 THE SOUL, 1S IT IMMORTAL? -D0 THE SCRII’TURES TEACH IT?

In opening the Bible in the investigation o the subject of the nature of man, we enter upon a work that will repay our efforts much more satisfactorily than can be expected in the wide fields of history and philosophy.

It is reasonable to expect that he who formed and gave life to mail, and who revealed the plan of salvation, meeting in all respects the requirements of a sin-cursed fallen and lost condition, would, in that revelation, make known the real nature and condition of the being to be saved, and the nature and state to which the plan of salvation purposed to exalt those who come within its scope. The nature of tile case to he dealt with must. necessarily be understood before there can he a proper comprehension and appreciation of the plan that proposes to meet the requirements of the case.

If one believes that he is, naturally immortal, while the plan of salvation is intended and adapted to save mortal men and them ultimately with immortality, he will not be in a position to believe in that plan ; because his belief must. necessarily. nullify it. For how can one properly believe in and appreciate an offer of immortality if lie is persuaded that he already in possession of it? As the apostle Paul says. “We are saved by hope; but hope that is seen not hope, for what a man seeth why doth he yet hope for? But if we hope for that we see not (or arc not in possession of) “then do we with patience wait for it” (Rom. viii: 24. 25)

The word ‘‘soul’’ as used in our times, conveys to the minds of most people the idea of immortality and immateriality; and it is associated with what is supposed to be the thinking. conscious. never-dying part of man which it is thought survives the death of the body, and goes immediately to bliss or woe according to its deserts.

Opening the bible with this theory in mind, but with a desire to test its truth, one would think the first thing that would reasonably suggest itself :as a wise course would be to examine the use of the word Soul in the Scriptures; and what more natural, than that such an inquirer would turn to the first place in which the word is found ? Supposing him to be a careful inquirer, and desiring to go to the root of the matter, he will avail himself of the ample means now at his disposal. to ascertain what words in the Hebrew and Greek stand for our word soul ; and finding that the Hebrew word is nephesh he will, by the aid of a concordance, or otherwise, Pg 115 find the first place where that word occurs in the Bible. He will, no doubt. be astonished when he is referred to Gen. I: 29, and finds that the word nephesh, translated “life” in the text, and “soul” in the margin, is applied to the “moving creatures” and “fowl that may fly above the earth.” By continuing, he will find that verse 21 reads, “And God created great whales. and net living creature—-nephesh, or soul- —that moveth. Still further. in verse 24: “And God said, let the earth bring forth the living creatures— nephesh, or soul—after his kind, cattle, and creeping things, and beast of the earth after his kind and it was so ;“ sad in verse 30 he will again find creature— nephesh. or soul—applied to “every beast of the earth.” Having now examined the first chapter of the Bible in search of the immortality of the soul, and having found the word nephesh, or soul, used four times and in each case applied to the animal, and not once to man, what conclusion can he come to, but that he has been wrong in believing that the word soul signifies an immortal entity? Recalling the fact that he has frequently used and heard used the phrase. “immortal soul,” he will leave his critical search for a moment, and run over all the hooks of the Bible to see if he can find the oft- repeated phrase within its pages, and to his astonishment he discovers it is not there; that he has been using and hearing used a phrase that, while always on the lips of “theologians,” “holy men of old, who spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit,” never used. Disappointed, and feeling that the foundation upon which he had supposed himself secure is a questionable one, he determines to make a careful

10 investigation of the subject, and naturally re-turns to the book of Genesis, and reads the second chapter to see what is said about the creation of man. As a rule, the believers in the immortality of the soul are willing to stake heir whole theory upon Gen. ii: 7, believing it says that God formed the body of the man of the dust of the ground, and put an immortal soul into that body. It is quite reasonable to expect that whatever the truth of the matter is it will be found in this, the account of man’s creation ; and we may, therefore, freely enter upon a careful examination of the text without fear of disappointment in regard to reaching the truth of the matter. It reads thus: “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.” Here are clear statements of the facts and all we have to do is accept each statement as the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. It says that the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground; therefore, that which was formed out of the dust of the ground was the man— not the body into which a man was to be put. The statement, “The

Pg 116

Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground.’’ must, in itself. be true and the next statement, following the conjunction’’ and is the statement of another truth, namely, that God ‘‘breathed into his the man’s nostrils the breath of life ; and this, caused the man that had already been formed out of the dust of the ground to become, a living (not an immortal) soul. Here we have a soul, called also a man. Where did he come from Did he come from heaven or out of the earth The answer is before us in the words of the text and if corroborative evidence is need. it is found in the words of the apostle Paul : “The first man is of the earth earthy, (1. Cor. xv : 47) Since it is clear that man -the soul –came out of the earth and is earthy that immortality is God’s nature and must come from heaven, it follows that the soul of man is not immortal Many believers in the immortality of the soul contend that the soul was breathed into man when he received the breath of life and they lay stress upon the fact that it is sail, in so many words, that God breathed into man the breath of life, but that it is no so said of the beasts. This cannot be called an argument. It is simply a foolish attempt to escape the force of the evidence against their cherished but false theory. If it were not that they deserve to some extent to be pitied in their attempt to save themselves by catching at a straws , one might condescend to meet them upon their own ground, and thereby show that their premises would logically lead to the conclusion that the women was left destitute of an immortal soul. Their would be argument might be submitted in the following syllogistic form: it is said that God breathed into man the breath of life it is not said that God breathed into the beasts the breath of life therefore when the breath of life was breathed into man, he received an immortal soul which the beasts did not receive.

Now let us try the same syllogism in relation to ther woman: It is said that God breathed into man the breath of life ;It is not said that God breathed into the woman the breath of life; therefore when the breath of life was breathed into man, he received an immortal soul, which he woman did not receive. This is sufficient to show the absurdity of such a position.

But upon what authority is it denied that God breathed the breath of life into beasts? That they have the breath of life we are positively told and the question therefore is, Where did they get it from, if

10 God if God did not breathe it into them? Beside what wild imagination one must have to see an immortal soul put into the body by the breath of life being breathed into man nostrils. Now of the beasts it is said, “And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air ( Gen11:19) The similarity between this and the words of verse 17, in relation to man. is Worthy of note. In chapter vi: 17 it is said, “And Pg 117 behold I even I do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh :wherein there is the breath of life.’ Again, chapter vii : iy--’’And they the creatures named in verse 14) went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.’’ Since the beasts are said in these quotations to be possessed of the breath of life, it follows that they must have received it of God, the only source of life ; and since it is said to be in their nostrils, who but God could have breathed it into their nostrils any more than into mans If they could have the breath of life breathed into them and yet destitute of immortal souls, as is admitted, then man could also have the breath of life breathed into him and still not have an immortal soul. While life, which is the result of the inbreathing of the of the breath causing respiration. is sometimes called soul , it is never is never spoken of an an immortal soul. It must not be supposed that immortality is implied by the word soul ; for soul is applied in common to all living creatures. for instance, it says, “And levy a tribute unto tile Lord of the men of war which went out to battle; one soul in five hundred, of the persons, and of the beeves ,and of the asses, and of the sheep Numb xxxi:28)

The phrase my soul is seized upon by some to prove that tile soul is a separate entity from the body ; but a comparison of the use of the phrase in relation to man with that of the beasts will show the fallacy of such a claim. In the verse quoted above we have the words, “one soul of”—of what? One soul of the persons; one soul of the beeves, etc. Besides, it is fatal to the popular- theory that we have the soul spoken of as belonging to the man, if in the phrase “my soul” we are to understand the pronoun “my”to represent the man, and the “soul’’ an entity possessed by the ‘‘my’’- --the man . For the theory of those who hold to the doctrine is that lie soul is the real man, and the body only the habitation of the soul. But suppose for the sake of the argument we allow the claim, then what shall we do with the phrases ‘‘my body’’ (Job xix : 17), “your bodies,” etc. (Job xni 12 We should have to reverse our position to suit these phrases, an at one time say the soul is the man, and :it another time that the body is the man. What we should do with the “my,” however, when we reach “my body and my soul’’ (Job xix:17) would be an overwhelming difficulty ; for in this is case we have ‘‘my ‘ separate from both soul and body, and by the premises laid down in the claim we are combating, we should be driven to conclude that the “my,’’ the man, was a separate being from both soul and body. It becomes apparent that no theory of the kind claimed can be built upon such an uncertain foundation A man might say, my body, my soul, my spirit, my head, my hands, etc. etc., but what folly it would be to conclude that he thereby meant that he himself was a separate being from all the parts named. Wc cannot avoid this form of expression, and in com-

PG 118 mon parlance it is never misconstrued. It is only when the theory of the ‘Soul being a separate entity from the body is hard pressed to protect itself that such a foolish contention is resorted to. One might speak of the foundation of the house, the walls of the house, the roof of the house everything of the

10 house, and even the believer in the immortality of the soul would not suppose that the house was a separate thing from the parts named. Why not be as reasonable when similar language is employed in relation to man

It is impossible to give one definition that will embrace all the various senses in which the word soul is used in the Bible ; but it is very easy to see that not a single instance is found where it has the meaning of immortal entity as popularly held. The primary meaning of the word is creature. But it is also employed to express the various aspects in which a creature can be contemplated such as person, body, life, individuality disposition, breath, etc. The Hebrew word nephesh, which is the word rendered soul in the Old Testament, is rendered man in Ex. xii : 16 Lev. Xxix : 17; ii. Kings xii : 4 ; isa. xlix : 7. It is rendered him, in Gen. xxxxii : 21 ; Deut. xix: 6, xxii : 26; Prov. xi: 16. It is rendered pleasure, iii Deut. xxiii: 24; Psa. cv : 22 ; jer. xxxiv : i6. It is rendered fish, in Isa. xix : io. mind in Gen. xxiii : 8; Deut. xviii : 6, xxviii : 65; Heart, in Ex. xxii : 9 ; Lex. xxvi : i6 ; Creature. in Gen. i : 21, 24, n: 19, ix : 10. It is rendered life and lives, in Gen. i: 20,30; ix: ~,s; xix: i~ Lev. xxii: 11. It is rendered person, Gen. xiv : 21 ; xxxvi : 6; Ex. xvi: i6 ; Lev. xxxii Numb. v: 6; xix: 18; xxxi: 19 1. Sam. xxii: 22; Prov.xxxiii: 17. Body, Lev. xxi : 11 Numb. xi: 6; xix : 13 Hag. ii: 13.

Beasts are said to have souls, in Numb. xxxi : 28 ; Job. xii : 10; Prov xii : 10 (the word life in the verses is ,nephesh in the Hebrew). The life or blood of animals is called nephesh, or soul, in Gen. ix : 4 ; Lev. xvii: 11, Dent. xii : 23.

Souls are said to be born (Ex. xii : 19). to die (Ezek. xviii : 4. 20 ; Rev xxi: 3. to go to the grave Psa. lxxxix : 48), to be raised from the grave Acts ii: 31), to have blood (Jcr. ii 34), to breath (Josh. xi: 11 ), to be slain (Josh. x : 28, 39), to eat and drink ( Lev .vii:20; Isa. xxxii : 6), to expire (Job. xxxi : 39, see margin), to be burnt (isa. xl ii: 14. see margin), to fast Ps. xxxv : 13); but it is never, we repeat. in the Scriptures said to be immortal. It xx as necessary for the pope, the antichrist, the ‘‘man of sin and son of perdition” to decree that the soul was immortal, because he or his followers could not find it in the Scriptures. hence he said, “Whereas in our days some have dared to assert, concerning the nature of the reasonable soul, that it is mortal, * * * -we, with the approbation of the sacred council, condemn and reprobate all those who assert that the intel-

Pg 119 lectual soul is mortal, * * * seeing that the soul is * * * essentially immortal.

“LIVING SOUL.”

The Hebrew words rendered “living soul” in Gen. ii: 7, where it is said “man became a living’ soul,” are nephesh chayiah; speaking of which Dr. Adam Clarke says : It “is a general term to express all creatures endued wit/i animal life in any of its infinitely varied gradations.” This phrase is used thirteen times in the Scriptures ; eleven times it is applied to the beasts and twice to man, a fact which of itself is sufficient to convince a reasonable mind that the phrase “living soul” does not mean ‘‘immortal soul.” The unreasonable mind that would persist in claiming for it the popular meaning of “immortal soul” would he forced to acknowledge that there would be eleven testimonies in favor of the immortality of the soul of the beasts to two in that of man. Many, we are sorry to say, are so Unreasonable that, rather than abandon a theory that has become popular, will rest their belief upon the most absurd claims. They have been taught to believe in the immortality of the

10 soul ; they cannot find the phrase “immortal soul” in the Bible, and rather than surrender to the force of facts and reason they will delude themselves with the idea that “immortal soul” is to he seen in “living soul,” to which they will cling even if it does commit them to the conclusion that the beasts have “immortal souls.”

Scripture explains scripture, to observe which is a very safe rule. The Apostle Paul makes use of tile phrase “living soul,” referring to the very verse in question. The use he makes of it must certainly be accepted in preference to that of uninspired men. ‘the latter would say, “There is an Immortal soul ; for so it is written, ‘The first man Adam was made a living soul ;‘ “ but Paul says, ‘There is natural body, * * * and so it is written, The first man Adam was made living soul” I. Cor. xv : 44, 45. A natural body is a living, earthy body- ; and that is what man is in his present state. What the apostle terms a ‘‘natural body ‘‘ in verse 44 he calls ‘‘the first man’’ in verse 47, where he say’s, “The first man is of the earth, earthy “

First, he say s, ‘‘There is a natural body.”

Second. he proves that there is a natural body’ by’ the words written, ‘‘‘The first man Adam was made a living Soul.’

‘Third. lie says that this ‘‘natural body,’ which is a ‘‘living soul,’’ is the first man,’’ or man in the state which is first- the natural.

Fourth he declares that this man is of, or out of, “the earth, earthy.” Had the apostle been a believer in the immortality of the soul his language would certainly- have been contradictory of his theory, as it is contradictory of the popular theory of our times. To have given expression to the general belief of to-day he should have said, “The body of the first man is of

Pg 120 the earth, earthy, but the man himself is an immortal Soul which came down from heaven ad entered into the body.”

If there is such thing as an immortal soul, then it is a spiritual thing and if the immortal soul the man then the man is now a spiritual being; Now the apostle shows that man , while he may become a spiritual being; is now a natural being Can there be anything plainer in his statement -—There is a natural body (which, as we have seen, is the man the living soul of the earth, earthy ‘, and there is a spiritual body *** Howbeit that is not first that which is spiritual but that which is natural: and afterwards that which is spiritual And as we have borne( and do bear) the image of the earthy we shall (not we do) also ear the image of the heavenly .” And to make the matter still more clear, if possible, he adds:’’ Now this I say. Brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God ; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption “ Could anything be clearer to show that man is not both natural and spiritual at the’ same time’ He is not mortal and immortal, of an earthy and a heavenly nature now. The first is the natural and afterward the spiritual Incorruption doth not inherit corruption. There is not an incorruptible soul in the corruptible body Man is first earthy and the worthy shall be

10 mane heavenly. So that man is first sown a natural body, or a natural being, and then raised a spiritual body, or a spiritual being. ‘The word soul philologically may be said to mean self. The varous uses of the word in the Scriptures we have already given; and it will be observed that the primary its meaning is living creature As such it is necessarily a material being; for what would it be if it were immaterial? It would really be and this is what the popular tradition reduces itself to nothing The’ soul is carefully guarded by its champions from anything of a material nature; its zealots being very much afraid of being called materialists. To regard the soul as material and therefore something to be looked upon by those of the Platonic school as sacrilegious It is their custom to enshroud the subject in a mystery that will baffle the understanding of their followers and hid themselves from the sharp arrows of reason and Scripture Nothing will do for them but a soul that will not be seen felt weighed or measured. It must have no form, no body, no part, no substance, it must be immaterial; and yet without visibility, weight, form measurement or substance, it is claimed to be an entity.! Now we submit that a being without form, weight, measurement or visibility is unthinkable – has no being because it has nothing to have a being. It is simply nothing – nothing but a phantom of a bewildered and paganized mind. In the Scriptures, however, when the word soul is applied to a being it is substantiality . It can be born (Ex xii:19); die (Rev xvi:3); go to the grave (Pas Lxxxix: 48); be raised out of the grave ( acts ii:31) eat and drink.

Pg 121

(Lev. vii : 20 ; ishi. xxxii : 6), etc., etc. Scripturally speaking, therefore, the soul is a being-—- it is something and therefore it is material..

As set forth in the various Scriptures we have given, when the word is used otherwise than of the person or being, it is always employed to express the variety of aspects in which a living being can be contemplated, such as life, individuality mind disposition ect but it never, expresses the idea of used in the popular form, “immortal soul”

SOU L, USED FOR LIFE.

It is when the word soul is used for life that it seems to strengthen an opinion already formed of it being a separate entity from the body. To a mind holding such an opinion the idea of am immortal soul that can forsake the body and still exist as a seperate entity has, by education and by breathing, as it were, from infancy, the paganized theological atmosphere of the religious world, become a supposed self— evident fact. It is taken for granted , and everywhere is viewed from that unscriptural and unreasonable standpoint The result is that there is not that exercise of reason in the use of phraseology upon this subject that there upon other mat— te’rs. ‘The moment the phrase “the soul of man ” is seen or heard, the thought received is that the soul is s separate entity; built when the phrases, the hearing of man “the sight of man,’ “the feelings of man,” “the love’ of man.” etc .a re’ used, there is no thought of hearing, sight, and all the other tributes of man being separate entities. If you say to one who believes in the’ separate existence of the soul as an entity that a man’s soul has gone’. he’ would ask, Where to ? because his perverted mind cannot conceive of the man’s soul having gone without also thinking of it being an entity after it has gone.” If however one were to say to him. “The mans hearing is gone “ he would never dream of asking , Where to”?

10 Only expresses the fact aht the man has lost his hearing That condition of things which combined to produce what we call “hearing ” has been destroyed If the condition could be restored, it could then be said, ‘‘His hearing returned,’’ and still there would be no danger of anyone falling into the mistake that the hearing had as an entity , been absent and maintained an abstract existence. That the very same is true of life is clear to an unbiased mind. ‘The life of a man is no more of an abstract thing than the life of a horse, Life is a condition of being. Destroy the condition in any living and the life of that being then ceases . You may express this by saying the life is gone, whether it be the life of a man or the life of a horse: but that does not mean that the life maintains an abstract existence as entity after it “has gone.” Restore the condition, and you may say the’

Pg 122 28 TIlE PROaLEM OF J~tFE. TtiE SOUL, IS IT IMMORTAL ? 29 life has returned and still not commit yourself to the idea of the life, either of man or animal, having been roaming around bodiless. ELIJAH RESTORES THE SOUL OF THE CHILD.

Now the word soul as we have said, is sometimes used for life, and this recalls a text often referred to in support of the poplar idea of the departure of the soul at death. In I. Kings xvii: 21, 22, it says : "And he (Elijah) stretched himself upon the child three times, and cried unto the Lord, and said, 0 Lord my God, I pray thee, let this child's soul come into him again. * * * And the soul of the child came into him again, and he revived." Now all that this teaches is that when the child's soul left him he died, and was therefore dead and not alive ; and when his soul "came into him again, he revived," or was restored to life. The departure of the soul, as we have illustrated in regard to hearing, sight, etc., was the destroying of that condition of things called life ; and the return of it was the restoring to life that which was not alive, but dead. The Septuagint rendering of this text hears this out very clearly. It is as follows : Let this child's life he restored to him." Of course, a man bent upon holding to the doctrine of the soul's immortality will continue to see in the return of the child's soul the return of in immortal entity. But let us ask such an one, Do you find the word immortal prefixed to soul here? since yon do not, why will you add it? Which is the child, the body or the soul? If you answer, The body, then it follows that the child was dead and that which departed and returned was not the child. If you answer that the soul is the child, then it follows the soul died ; for if the soul is the child and the child is the soul, then, since it says the child died, it follows that the soul died. But if you persist in adding to and contradicting God's word and say that the child in the ease is the immortal soul and that the child did not die but forsook its body and continued to live, then was it not an act of cruelty, rather than au act of mercy and goodness, to compel the immortal soul to forsake its newly- attained state of bliss (for you believe that the death of a child is a certain reward of bliss) and return to its mortal habitation to pass through a probation that might deprive it of ever again enjoying that bliss of which it had been permitted through death to get a taste. If you will persist in claiming that the word soul here means "immortal soul,'' how will you account for the fact that the very same word is used for the life of the beasts of the field? A glance at your concordance and lexicon will show you that the Hebrew word which is here rendered soul is nephesh ; and if you will turn to Proverbs xii: 10 you will find the same word rendered life and applied to the life of the beast : "A righteous man re-

10 gardeth the life (nephesh) of his beast." See also Gen. ix : 4 Lev. xvii: Deut. xii: 23 and many other places. Now you would hardly be willing to read the quotation above as you would the one in question. You

Pg 123 are determined to read, "And the child's immortal soul came into him again;" and if you were consistent you would be compelled to read, "A righteous man regardeth the immortal soul of his beast." If not, why not? The word in both instances is the same; and if- you derive any strength from the fact that it is worded "the soul of the child," as though it proved It to be a separate entity, then you see that you have the same phraseology in the 'life (nephesh, soul) of the beast." why not surrender a pagan fiction to the Bible and be consistent enough to admit that the word soul is used in this case, as it is in many others, for life ; and then you can under stand that the child died and the child was restored to life. "HER SOUL WAS IN DEPARTING."

Another text much relied upon is Gen. xxxv : Ii, in which the wording is very similar to the text we have been considering : "And it came to pass as her soul was departing (for she died) that she called his name Benoni The departure of the soul here, as in the other case results in the death of the person. It is therefore clear that "soul" is used for life; and that when the life departs, it is gone out, as one would say of the extinguished light of the candle. It is gone out; but the man who would claim that the soul (life) that has gone out is still existent as an entity is as unreasonable as one would be to insist that the light of the candle still exists as a light after it is blown out. In the New Testament, where the Greek word which answers to the Hebrew word nephsh is psuche, we find it used in the same way. Sometimes it applies to the man as a being, sometimes to life, etc., variously speaking of the conditions in which a being can be thought of; but never, be it remembered, is it applied to an "immortal soul." To find this phrase or the theory it expresses, it is necessary to go outside both the Old and the New Testaments, into the works of heathen philosophers, such as Plato and Socrates and those of the Platonic school in general.

"THEN WILL I SAY TO MY SOUL."

The superficial character of those who compass sea and land to maintain their theory of the soul being- a separate entity is frequently seen in the attempt to force into service the words " Then "will I say to my soul, soul Thou hast much goods laid up for many years ; take thine ease eat drink and be merry" (Luke xii: 19). "There,'' it is said, "look at that “my soul” Well, what is there in that - What kind of soul is the man talking- to and about? Is it an immortal soul, an immaterial soul? It can not be for it is a soul that had use for "goods" to be stored in barns of which it was to eat, and surely an immaterial soul without weight measure or visibility would have no use for such substantial things But it is the fact that the phrase " my soul" is used that charms the mind suppose it had read, 'Then will I say to myself, Eat" etc ' Would not the thought

10 have been just the same? Is not that the real thought conveyed? When one uses the word myself is it to be understood that the "my" and the self are separate and that the self can forsake the my' and exist independently of it? If this is too absurd to be entertained, why not use "my soul" in the reasonable way we use "myself?" If the "my" is a separate being from the "soul," then we should be committed to the theory that when the words "your body,, soul and spirit" are read, they represent four beings---the "soul," the "body," the "spirit," and the "your." Moreover, such premises would lead one possessed of a logical turn of mind to the conclusion that the beasts are separate entities from their bodies for the Apostle Paul speaks of "the bodies of those beasts,” etc. This is the same as if he had said the beasts' bodies ; but not that they and their bodies are separate beings.

In the next verse to the one in question (Luke xii : 20) we have the word soul used for life : "This night thy soul shall be required of thee ;" and here is an illustration of the latitude given the word in its application to a being, attributes of a being, or various conditions in which the being may be thought or spoken of. the context always showing the sense. The same latitude is seen in our way of speaking of other things. We say “Blow out the candle,.'' And we say ,”Blow out the light" Also 'The kettle boils" is the same as to say, “The water in the kettle boils.''

Now to illustrate how the meaning. of the 'word soul in the Bible can be determined by the context, we find it says, "And levy a tribute unto the Lord of the men of war which went out to battle, one soul of five hundred. of the persons and of the beeves, and of the asses, and of the sheep" ~ Numb. xxxi: 28). here the reader is bound to see that the word means creature or being, both man and beasts. In Job xii: 10 it says, “ In' whose hand is the soul of every living thing and the breath of all mankind”. In this case it, must be seen that soul applies to the 'life of the beasts ; so that in one instance it stands for the anima; itself and in the other for the life of the animal, it being impossible to misunderstand its application, and one thinks of attaching the meaning of immortality entity to the word. Now carry the same reason to cases where the word stands sometimes for the man and at other times for the life of the man and the texts are clear to mind willing to be reasonable and scriptural that immortal entity is out of the question. It is said that Zilpah bare unto Jacob sixteen .souls ( (Geni xlvi: 18); and here ''souls" stands for persons, while in E x iv : I 9, where it says "All the men are dead which sought thy life '' (nephesh soul) it is clear that it means' life, and the translators so rendered it, as they did also the Greek word psuche in Matt. ii : 20. where it says, "They are dead which sought the young child’s life." If the translators had given soul

Pg 125 here, as they have in many places, the reader would have, seen by the very nature of the case that the word stood for life. "LOSE HIS OWN SOUL."

With this view of the matter we can readily understand the texts in question to mean, "Then will I say to myself, Thou hast much goods," etc . "Thou fool, this night thy life shall be required of thee." And 'we may also turn to another portion of Scripture often used in support of the dogma we are combating : Matt. xvi: 26~ “What is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?" This is supposed to be conclusive evidence of the popular

10 doctrine of the soul's immortality ; and upon it is based the idea of the priceless value of the soul. It is very easy, however, to see that it is the life the Saviour is speaking" of and the text might be read is follows : “For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own life? or what shall a man give in exchange for his life?” The context in this case entirely excludes the idea of "immortal soul " as we shall presently see. To say the least there must be a word added by the reader to make the case suit the theory of the immortal soulist. The word immortal is not in the text, and, as we have repeated, it is never prefixed the word soul. Our substituting the " word life' for soul is strongly objected to by those who are determined to cling to the Platonic dogma, who, loving to have it so, snatch at what appears to them on the surface and run a way with their fingers in their ears when one says to them, Come, and let us reason together." Now, the fact is that in verse 25 the very word is translated life, Which in the verse in question (verse 26) is translated soul; and now it will be clear how the context shows the case to be entirely opposed to the theory of the immortality of the soul The way those who contend for the theory would like to read the twenty sixth verse is this : “For what shall a man profit if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own immortal soul? Or what shall 'a man give in exchange for his immortal soul? To suit the contention it is necessary for him to read in ." Since the ,Saviour used the very same word in verse 25 that he did in verse 26 ; and since the theorist is determine to have “immortal soul” in verse 26 let us read it the same way in verse 26 "For whosoever will save his immortal soul shall lose it and whosoever will lose his immortal soul for my sake shall find it The text it once condemns the immortal soul theory and proves it had no place in the Saviours mind, and that it is the life he is speaking of.

It happens that one of their own commentators bears testimony to the truth upon this portion of Scripture. Dr. Adam Clarke, in his Commentary, says : 'On what authority many have translated the word pusche in the twenty .fifth "verse life, and in this verse (26th) soul I know not ; but I am

Pg 126 certain it means life in both places.” In the Revised Version, too, life in used in both verses. “CANNOT KILL THE SOUL.”

Of all the texts in which the word soul occurs, Matt x: 28 is the one most confidently relied upon in support of the immortality of the soul, it is thought that this text fully refutes the idea of the soul being destructible and sustains the theory of its never. dying and indestructible nature. The phrase “cannot kill the soul” is seized and loaded down, as it were, with the claim that it is not only out of the power of man to kill the soul, but that it is, by reason of its essential nature, absolutely indestructible and must live eternally. Of course, if the soul is immortal it can never be destroyed, any more than angels can. If it can be destroyed, it follows that it is not immortal; for to speak of destroying an immortal being is a contradiction in terms. So far as we have gone in our examination of the subject we have found nothing that would indicate that the soul is immortal; and, no doubt, it is the consciousness of the fact of the entire absence of words in the Scriptures in any way supporting the theory that arouses its advocates to almost stake their all upon the text in question; feeling that it is their last and only chance. “What will you do with Matt. x: 38, where it says, ‘Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul?’ “ask the zealots of the theory with an air of triumph. Well, let us examine it critically and carefully; and if we find that it teaches the immortality of the soul we shall be prepared to admit that the doctrine is taught in one text; and it will then be necessary for us to account for one text being contrary to the general tenor of the Bible. That the word soul as used in the text as something distinguishable

10 from the body we admit; and it is clear in “killing the body,” whatever that may mean as used here, the soul was not “killed.” in admitting this, however, we are standing firmly to the position we have maintained all through, namely. that the word soul is variously used for body, life, mind, etc., and that the text and context must always determine its application. When the Apostle Paul says, “Stand fast in one spirit. with one mind (psuche, soul) we have no trouble in seeing that soul here is used for mind, and not both’ or life. When, in speaking of Epaphroditus, he says, “he was nigh unto death, not regarding his life” (psuche soul). we can readily see that he is using soul for life, and not for mind or body. When it is said, “Neither shall be go in to any dead body (nephesh, soul) it is clear that soul here stands for body. in each case one must be reasonable in discriminating between the various uses of the word and a satisfactory conclusion can be reached.

Pg 127 In the verse in question, then, it is clear that the word soul does not stand for body ; but that is no reason that it means “immortal soul.” Unless the immortality of the soul can he proved before going to this text it will not do to assume that that is the meaning here. All that the phrase “cannot kill the soul” will justify one in saying is that soul as used here refers to something that man cannot kill. The reason why is not because it is essentially indestructible, we may be sure, from the fact that the word destroy” is applied to the soul, coupled with the body in this very verse. Many reasons may exist why man could not kill a soul and yet the soul be capable under other circumstances of being killed. The question is one of prerogative, of nations in some cases, and of God. For’ instance, when a criminal is condemned by the law of the land to be put to death, no man can, in the eyes of the law, kill that criminal. The State and the State only, “is able to destroy” him. So it will be with those who are condemned at the judgment seat of Christ. The life of the condemned is not left within the reach of man’s whims or choice, nor to the chances of accident. It is in the hands of a judicial authority whose prerogative alone it is to take it or to destroy it. Now it is safe to say that the word in this text either stands for life or mind. If for life then it refers to the life which will be restored at the resurrection, when the just and the unjust shall be judged according to their deeds (II. Tim. iv: 11. Cor. v : to). God, through Christ, will then be the only one who can “destroy both body and soul ;“ for it will be his righteous judgment that will decide when the “weeping and gnashing of teeth” shall end in destruction in Gahenna; he alone will regulate the ‘‘few and many stripes’’ and determine when the second death shall take place. And in view of this, He is the one to fear. hence the Saviour says : “Fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell” ( Gehenna). If the word soul in the text is understood to be used for mind, as it is in other cases, then a critical examination of the text and context will make the matter quite clear as to the Saviour’s meaning. Let not the caviler deny that soul sometimes means mind, for in addition to the proofs we have already given we submit the following texts in which psuche, the Greek word frequently rendered soul, is translated mind : Acts xiv : 2 Phil. i: 27; Heb. xii: 3. The Hebrew word nephesh, which is mostly rendered soul, is also translated mind in many cases, of which the following are a few : Gen. xxiii : 8; Jer. xv: i ; Ezek. xxxvi: 5. If, then, the word is used for mind in the verse in dispute, it is not an exceptional case. In verse i6 the disciples were warned that they would be as “sheep in the midst of wolves ;“ and from verse 17 to 28 that they would he persecuted and scourged in many and various forms—all of which would be bodily’

Pg 128 . punishment. It is a well-known fact that, while the martyrs were subjected to every conceivable form of bodily torture, they were calm, composed and cheerful in mind. Their faithfulness maintained its life

10 while bodily they were “tortured, not accepting deliverance, that they might obtain a better resurrection.” And they “had trial of cruel mockings and scourging, yea, moreover, of bonds and imprisonment. They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword. They wandered about in sheep-skins and goat-skins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented”—and yet their tormentors could not “kill” that mind or soul that had been begotten and was sustained by the hope of the gospel. Although they were then “killed (or tormented) all the day long” by them that could “kill” or torture the body, they feared not, knowing that so long as they maintained the mind of the spirit of Christ—the. soul——they need not fear those who could kill the body, and after that had no more that they could do”(Luke xii: 4). The only one for them to fear was Him who has power to do more than “kill’~——torture----the “body,” namely to destroy utterly the entire man—body and mind, or soul, in Gehenna. We have used the word kill as synonymous with torture; and the word destroy we have taken in the absolute sense. It must he noticed that not only do we have two words in the English Version—”kill” and “destroy”—but Matthew used two different words in the Greek, and the latter of the two is a much stronger word than the former. The word for “kill” in the verse is apok!eino, and some of its meanings as given in Donnegan’s Lexicon and others are, to torture, torment, condemn to death. The word “destroy” in the verse is from appoleumi,’ and the definitions given of it are, to abolish, to waste, to cause to he lost, to perish, to be annihilated, to destroy totally. Now it is the latter word that is used to describe the final end of “both soul and body in Gehenna;” and when this fact is seen it seems very strange that anyone should attempt to use the verse in support of the immortality and indestructibility of the soul. The advocates of this dogma may refuse the explanation we have given if they please; but they cannot refuse to believe that the Saviour is here speaking of a soul whose destruction is expressed by the same word as that of the body. Gehenna was not a place in which to preserve alive those who were cast therein. It was a place where the victims were devoured, either by worms or fire. And it will be the same again ; and there the just and righteous judgment of God will destroy utterly the entire being of those who shall have been unfaithful. No countenance whatever is therefore given to the soul’s immortality in this verse upon which so much dependence is placed; hut, on the other hand, it proves the very opposite, in that the soul spoken of. whether applied to mind, life or what not, is shown to be as destructible as the body.

Pg 129

THE SOULS UNDER THE ALTAR.

Rev. vi: 9, 10 is the only passage that remains to be examined as a stronghold of the popular theory of the immortality of the soul; that is, of those texts in which the word soul is found: others we shall examine under their proper headings. Superficial, indeed, must he the mind that cannot see that, instead of this portion of Scripture favoring the immortality and immateriality of the soul, it is directly opposed to such a theory. One would think that the fact of these souls being under an altar, and of their having blood would he sufficient to show that they are not immortal or immaterial. Suppose the words are taken in the most literal sense, we should, standing beside the Apostle John, see a heathen priest place a per. son on an altar, slay the person or soul, who in the struggles with death falls from the altar and under it cries Out, “How long, 0 Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood (which we see running from the wounded soul) on them that dwell on the earth ?“ What! Slay a soul! cries out the astonished immaterialist. How can you slay that which is immaterial? If it has no size, weight or dimension ; if it cannot he seen or felt, how can it be put on an altar and slain and how can it be said to have blood? We grant the force of the questions; but they are all based upon “if the soul is immortal or immaterial ;“ and if that were true the text would be inexplicable. But that is just where the evil is—in reading the verse with the preconceived dogma in the mind, and therefore allowing a distorted imagination to take the place of reason and Scripture. The apostle was not speaking of immortal, immaterial, bloodless souls. Such souls were only found in the myths of those who slew upon the altar souls that were real and substantial. Why be astonished at the idea of souls being slain, when it is said

10 that “Joshua took Makkedah, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and the king thereof he utterly destroyed, them and all the souls that were therein” (Josh. x : 28, 39)? Why should it he thought incredible that souls have blood, when the prophet Jeremiah says, “In thy skirts is found the blood of the souls of the poor innocents” (chapter ii: 34)? To a mind in harmony with and familiarized with the Word of God the text in question presents no difficulty whatever in the way of the materiality and mortality of the soul. Neither is there anything in the fact of their crying out, to prove that they were disembodied entities. We would ask the immaterialist, Have the souls of your theory blood? Can they be slain upon an altar? and the answer is, No. Then you have nothing to do with Rev. vi: 9, 10—in fact you have nothing to do with the souls of the Scriptures. Your sphere is in the realms of pagan and Roman myths whose heavens are filled with imaginary dead men’s ghosts. Now as to be the real meaning of the verses in question, we have to

Pg 130 take our stand along with the Apostle John before we can discern it. We must remember that the things John is seeing are “signified” to him ; that is, they are shown by signs. In this way he is shown things before they actually come to pass. “I will show thee things which must be hereafter,” says the Spirit to John (chapter iv : 1). In this way he saw the resurrection of the dead, and heard the redeemed sing the song of Moses and the Lamb after they had been raised ; and he saw them live and reign on the earth with Christ for one thousand years (chapter v : 7—12 ; xx :4). So in the verses in question, he is relating the signs of what was to take place tinder the fifth seal, when the Roman persecution and martyrdom of the saints filled to overflowing the pit, as it were, under the altar with the blood of the innocents and faithful. John himself knew from experience that the cruel hand of persecution and death would be imbrued in the blood of his brethren, and his anxiety was to know the outcome. 1-Ic first sees the scroll sealed with seven seals ; and when he hears that no man is worthy to open the hook, he says, “I wept much, because no man was found worthy to open and to read the book” (chapter v: 1—4). Now the breaking of the seals and unrolling of the scroll are to he seen in the actual events that have transpired and will yet transpire in the world from John’s time down to the fulfillment of the promise, “Behold I come quickly, and my reward is with me, to give to every man according as his work shall be” (chapter xxii : 12). John, hoping to he one of those to be rewarded, and knowing that the reward could not he received till the coming of the Lord (chapter xvi: 12-16) it is no wonder he was so anxious to know the course of events during the interval. His anxiety is soon ended by the information that the “Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, had prevailed to open the book and to loose the seals thereof” (chapter v :5). Thus by the signs he is shown what would take place, not in heaven, God’s holy habitation. hut in the earth and the political heavens thereof. To signify what would he the treatment his brethren would receive at the hands of Roman persecution, of whose cruelty he was himself a victim, the Spirit causes a panoramic view to pass before his vision, showing him that the faithful souls would be slain upon the altar of Romish superstition, whose blood would cry to heaven for just vengeance upon the enemies of God, His troth and His people. To show John that there would he a grand sequel to the dreadful drama that was being performed before his eyes, as the canvas, as it were, passes, a vision appears of those souls being given white robes, indicative of the glorious reward of immortality to be bestowed upon them by him who declared, “Behold I come quickly and my reward is. with-me to give to every man (or every soul) according as his work shall he.”

The only shadow at which the believer in the immortality of the soul

Pg 131 can snatch in this case is, that the souls are represented as crying out. “Can dead souls speak ?“ they triumphantly ask. To which it would be excusable to retort, “Can blood speak” (Gen. iv : In; Heb. xii:

10 24)? Can the earth sing? Can fir trees and cedar trees rejoice (Isa. xiv: 7, 8)? The common sense that can see in a parable or a symbol how blood can speak, the earth sing, trees rejoice and clap their hands, will have no difficulty in understanding how souls, though dead, can be represented as crying out for to be justly avenged of the cruelty of which they have been the victims. There are some, however, who are possessed of common sense in common things, but who seem to he destitute of it when their cherished myths are in question. So long as men allow themselves to be intoxicated with the spirits of pagan and Roman beverages they can see nothing in this scripture except disembodied souls in a conscious state—alive and conscious because they are represented as speaking. But when the attention is called to the fact that John saw the “dead, small and great, stand before God” at the judgment day; and that he heard them sing the song of Moses and the Lamb (Rev. xx: 12, v: 9), they are able to see that men can be represented as having real bodily existence and as singing while they are dead—some of them, too, before they are born; for in the view that John had of the resurrection there must have been a representation of all that would die up to the time when the resurrection takes place. It may he asked, Where is this altar under which these souls are seen? If you say heaven, then we ask, Is there an altar in heaven upon which souls are slain and under which they cry for vengeance? Perhaps, if reason and Scripture will not persuade you of the folly of such a foolish thing, the prestige of a famous “orthodox” commentator might have some weight. Dr. Adam Clarke, in commenting upon this text, says: “A symbolical vision was exhibited in which he saw an altar, and under it the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God, martyred for their attachment to Christianity, are represented as being newly 3lain as victims to idolatry and superstition. The altar is upon earth, not in heaven.” We have now considered the Scripture teaching concerning the soul sufficiently, we think, to convince the reasonable and candid mind that there is no foundation for the Platonic theory as held in the popular schools of theology in our day. That the oft-repeated phrase “immortal soul” is never found in the Bible is a simple fact that can easily be tested by anyone of ordinary intelligence. When it is seen that the Spirit of God never moved a single one of the “holy men of old, who spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit,” to make use of the phrase or anything equivalent thereto, reason will at once recognize the differ pg 132 ence between the phraseology of the Bible and that of so-called orthodox teachers. The few portions of Scripture in which the use of the word soul is supposed to sustain popular belief we have shown to afford no support whatever when carefully examined free from prejudice.

Of late years some zealous advocates of the immortality of the soul, finding the application of the word soul to the beasts of the field as well as to man, have surrendered the argument so far as the soul is concerned, and admitted that it is a word expressive of animal being and animal life and not of the supposed spiritual entity in man. Realizing that the day had gone by when papal hulls declaring that the soul is immortal would suffice for the absence of the dogma from the Bible, they must find refuge somewhere rather than abandon a doctrine upon which all so-called orthodox churches are built, and upon the retaining of which depends their clerical positions, prestige and support. In the vain attempt to find the desired refuge spirit is seized as being the word in the Scriptures expressive of the theory of man being an immaterial, immortal entity capable of disembodied existence between death and resurrection. It will therefore now be our duty to examine the Bible upon the subject of the spirit.

CHAPTER V.

10 THE SPIRIT OF MAN—DO THE SCRIPTURES TEACH THAT IT IS AN IMMORTAL ENTITY

IN proceeding to consider what the spirit of man is, it will he well to give the definition of the word which we believe a careful examination of Scripture will bear out ; and it is the use of the word in the Bible that must be allowed to determine its meaning so far as the subject under consideration is concerned. It is the duty of dictionaries to give the conventional meaning of words, and it is not always safe to apply such meaning to words found in the Bible—indeed, it is seldom safe to attach the same meaning to words in one age that has been applied to them in another, for there is no uniformity maintained. The safest dictionary, therefore, of Bible words is the Bible itself. The use made of any given word by the Spirit can readily be seen by comparing scripture with scripture, and conclusions thus arrived at may always be relied upon as based upon sound premises.

A SCRIPTURAL DEFINITION OF SPIRIT.

Spirit in the Bible is used to represent a being, ii~finencc, disposition, mind, state of feeling, air, breath and life. Spirit in the Old Testament is translated from two words, neshamah

Pg 133

And ruach. The meaning of these words given by lexicographers is, wind, breath, life, mind and intellect. Neshamah only occurs twenty four times, and it is translated breath, blast, spirit, soul and inspiration. For example, neshamah translated breath: “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”—Gen. ii: 7.

“All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died”—Gen. vii: 22.

Neshamah translated blast. “And the channels of the sea appeared, the foundations of the world were discovered, at the rebuking of the Lord, at the blast of the breath of his nostrils”—.II. Sam xxii; 16. “By the blast of God they perish, and by the breath of his nostrils are they consumed”—Job. iv: 9.

The word is translated soul in Isa. lvii: i6, and inspiration in Job xxxii: 8. The Hebrew word ruach occurs in the Old Testament over four hundred times, and is translated wind, breath, mind, smell, tempest and blast. For example, mach translated wind “And God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters assuaged”—Gen, viii; I.

“The ungodly are not so, but are like the chaff which the wind driveth away”— Psa. 1~ 4.

Ruach translated breath

“And behold, I even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life”—Gen. vi: 17.

10 “Thou hidest thy face, they are troubled; thou takest away their breath, they die and return to their dust”—Psa. civ: 29.

Ruach, translated mind: “Which were a grief of mind unto Isaac and Rebekah”—Gen. xxvi: 35.

“A fool uttereth all his mind”—Prov xxix: iI.

Instances of the word ruach being translated smell will be found in Gen, viii: 21, xxvii: 27; of blast in Ex. xv: 8; II. Kings xix: 7. Now it is clear that the original words translated in our Bible spirit do not mean immortal entity. If spirit as applied to living beings had such a meaning in the minds of the inspired writers they never would have applied the word to the beasts of the field. In Gen. vi: 17 it is said, “I do bring a flood of waters upon the earth to destroy all flesh wherein is the breath of life ;“ and in this case breath is from ruach, the word that is most frequently rendered spirit Again in Eccles. iii: 19 “For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them; as the one dieth so dieth the other; yea they (man and beasts) have all one breath.” Here, too, the word breath is from ruach, and if our translators had maintained uniformity they would have given spirit instead of breath.

Pg 134

In the same hook, chapter xii : 7, they have given spirit, and the original word is ruach there, as it is in chapter iiii : 19. It would not do to read, “Yea they (man and beasts) have all one immortal entity.” ‘let if ruach or spirit means immortal entity why not so read it? Is it not clear that no such meaning was in the writer’s mind? When Moses and Aaron exclaimed, “0 God, the God of the spirits of all flesh,” they meant the lives of all flesh. They certainly did not mean the immortal entities of all flesh. It is by the Spirit of God! the life of all living creatures is sustained. When the spirit is withdrawn from the animals they die; and when it is withdrawn from men they die. Hence it is said, ‘”O Lord, how manifold are thy works in wisdom hast thou made them all; the earth is full of thy riches. So is this great and wide sea, wherein are things creeping in-numerable, both small and great beasts. * * * That thou givest them they gather ; thou openest thy hand, they are filled with good. Thou hidest thy face, they are troubled ; Thou takest away their breath (ruach, spirit), they die and return to their dust” (Psa. civ : 24—29). By the spirit of God then the creatures live. While they are allowed to breathe and thereby appropriate the spirit of life to their use, the spirit is called their spirit or their breath ; and if God “gather unto himself his spirit and his breath, all flesh shall perish together and man shall turn again unto dust” (Job xxxiv : 14). Since it is “the Spirit of God that hath made man, and the breath of the Almighty hath given him life” (job xxxiii : 4), it follows that when God withdraws His Spirit it ceases to be man’s spirit and man dies. Therefore the Psalmist says, “Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help. His breath (ruach, Spirit) goeth forth, he returneth to his earth and in that very day his thoughts perish” (Psa. cxlvi : 3, 4).

Now this is very easy to be seen when we compare the taking away of life with the giving of life. In the creation of man it is said that he was formed out of the dust of the ground, and the breath or spirit of life was breathed into his nostrils, and he became a living soul. God’s spirit is the essence of life, he imparts

10 it to the creature for a time, and it is breathed as a means of receiving and retaining life. Then it is the life, breath or spirit of the creature. When death comes, the breath, life or spirit is expired, breathed out, “returns to God who gave it,” and the creature, whether it be man or animal, is dead. The spirit which was given to man to make him alive is, at death, taken from him and as a result man becomes as lifeless as he was before he received the spirit.

“THE SPIRIT SHALL RETURN TO GOD WHO GAVE IT.”

The words of Eccles. xii : 7 are quoted by believers in the theory that the spirit of man is an immortal entity that survives the death of the body in a conscious state as a text that is thought conclusive. It is only to a

Pg 135 mind already filled with such a preconceived idea that the verse even seems to support the dogma popularly held. Allowing it to read as they would have it, thus, “Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was, and the immortal entity shall return to God ‘,~ ho gave it,” it would have to be revised to suit the claim made ; for the verse makes no exception. What then about those supposed immortal entities that are unfit to go to God, and that are supposed to go in art opposite direction? If it be said that Solomon is speaking of the good only, we answer. That is a mere assumption, worth nothing without proof. We have already seen that God takes away the spirit of the “creeping things” when they die, and is not the same true of man? Let the mind be freed from the bondage of a superstitious theory of an ‘‘immortal entity” and it will have no difficulty in seeing that the spirit that returns to God who gave it is the spirit that God breathed into man’s nostrils to give him life. To produce life the spirit was given to produce death the same spirit is taken away. The spirit was not an “immortal entity” before it was breathed into man’s nostrils ; neither is it after it returns to the source whence it came.

The spirit that “returns to God who gave it” is not the man. It is not the he or the him,’ it is the “it.” It is an it that was given to a him and at death is taken away from the him. It is therefore not the man that returns to God, for man never was in heaven and therefore could not return to a place he never came from. It was the spirit that was breathed into man’s nostrils to make him a living man that came from God, and therefore it returns to God. It surely was not an immortal entity that was breathed into man’s nostrils. It was not a being. It was not a person. It was that which in diffusion was capable of being breathed by the being, person or man to whom it was given. It came to the man from God ; in death it is breathed out into the great ocean of life or spirit and thus returns to God who gave it. The man himself to whom the spirit was given did not come from heaven, but out of the dust “The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground” (Gen. iii : 7). The first man is of the earth, earthy” (1 Cor. xv : 47). Hence the statement in the verse in question, “Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was,” is a simple declaration that the man that is out of the earth returns to the earth ; which is in accord with the sentence, ‘‘Dust thou —the man—art, and unto dust shalt thou return” (Gen. iii 19).

10 It is said that “the spirit of man is the candle of the Lord” (Prov. xx 27). It is that which lights up, as it were, with life. When a candle is blown out its light is gone ; darkness follows. So when the spirit of life is breathed out it is as if a candle were blown out; there is no light, no

Pg 136 life, the darkness of death is the result. The breath or spirit goeth forth, the man returns to the earth and his thoughts perish (Psa. cxlvi: 3 ). Spirit being the essence of life, it is used in various ways and applied to the various conditions in which life can be contemplated. Since there cannot he mind without life, mind is sometimes called spirit; and so with energy, disposition, etc. Hence it is said that Esau’s marriage was “a grief of mind unto Isaac” (Gen. xxvi: 35). “Mind” in this case is from ruach. If it had been translated spirit, as it is in numerous cases, it would have read, “which was a grief of spirit to Isaac.” But common sense would see that spirit meant mind. In Prov. xxix: 11 it says, “A fool uttereth all his mind,” It is said that when the Queen of Sheba saw the glory of Solomon’s kingdom there was no spirit in her; from which it is readily seen that spirit is used for energy. It certainly is far from meaning that there was no immortal entity in her. When we speak of a haughty spirit, a proud spirit, a meek spirit, etc., we are giving expression to the various characteristics of men, the word spirit representing the minds of men in their various shades of character or disposition.

“LORD JESUS, RECEIVE MY SPIRIT.”

Stephen’s dying prayer, as recorded in Acts vii: 59, is thought by some to be proof of the theory that the spirit of man is an entity separate from the body. Suppose we read it as such theorists would have it, it would he, “Lord Jesus, receive my immortal entity.” This would not suit the theory, for it would not prove that Stephen continued to live after he was dead, since ,the next verse says, “he Stephen fell asleep.” Reading the verse just as it is, with the mind freed from a false tradition, it is very easy to understand. When Stephen’s spirit had left him he was a dead! man; but he is in the resurrection to be made a living man again. To make him a living man his spirit will be returned to him. Left without the spirit he is a dead man; because “the body without the spirit (breath, see margin) is dead” (Jas. ii: 26). In the possession of the spirit he will be a living roan again.

Now, to state the same facts in other words, when Stephen’s life returned to God who gave it, he died. When the time arrives to raise him from the dead to live again, his life will be returned to him. Stephen, therefore, in the hour of death, with a hope of living again, commended his life into the hands of Him who is the resurrection and the life, and who said, “He that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live.”

Some ask, Where did the spirit go when it left Stephen? The answer is given in Eccles. xii: 7—”Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was; and the spirit (life) shall return to God who gave it.” From God

Pg 137

10 the spirits of all flesh come (Numb. xvi: 22 ;Job xxxiv 1 14), and in death to God they all return; for it is in Him all creatures “live and move and have their being.” Spirit, therefore, in the text under consideration stands for life, without which thought the words cannot be properly understood. “INTO THY HANDS I COMMEND MY SPIRIT.”

What we have said in relation to Stephen’s prayer is true also of our Saviour’s dying words, “Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit” (Luke xxiii: 46). Having uttered these words it is said, “He gave up the ghost,” or spirit, the word here rendered ghost being the same as is rendered spirit in the previous verse. When Jesus had given up His spirit or life He was dead, having “poured out his soul unto death.” But God raised Jesus from the dead (Acts iii: 15), and therefore returned to Him His spirit or life. With the understanding that the word spirit in the Bible represents influence, disposition, mind, state of feeling, air, breath and life, its meaning in any particular text can readily be seen by keeping in view the context; and in those we have been considering it is clear that life is meant. SPIRIT APPLIED TO BEING.

In our definition of the Bible use of the word spirit we have said that it represents a being. God is a spirit, and yet we read of His Spirit. He is everywhere present by His Spirit; but He, who is a spirit being, has a “dwelling place.” Hence in the prayer we say, “Our Father who art in heaven.” As a being, therefore, He dwells in heaven; but flowing out from Him as the center of the universe comes His Spirit, as it were, in diffusion, filling, upholding and sustaining all things. When we speak of God as a being we have in mind Him “who dwells in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can See” (I. Tim. vi:16). He is spirit focalized, as it were, into being, form or personality while that which we speak of as His spirit is the effluence and influence flowing out from His presence. While we can thus in measure “know God,” to know whom is life eternal (John xvii: 3), we cannot fathom the depths nor ascend the heights of His unapproachable being.

Moreover, there are created beings who are spirits; for of the angels it is said, “Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall he heirs of salvation?’—Heb. i: 14. The angels having become spirit beings are consequently deathless beings; they “die no more” (Luke xx: 36). Notwithstanding that they are spirits, they are real, substantial personalities. They have appeared like men; have had their feet washed and partaken of food (Gen. xviii : i_6). Now the difference between angels and men is that the former are spirit beings or bodies, and the latter are natural beings or bodies. The popular

Pg 138 theory that men are spirit entities dwelling inside natural bodies makes men to be like the angels now, which was what the serpent claimed would be the case if our first parents partook of the forbidden tree. “Ye shall be as gods,” he said; and the believer in the theory that man is an immortal spirit must believe that the words of the serpent came to pass—indeed, some of the popular leaders do not hesitate to say that every man is a god, because he partakes of the immortal nature of God. Very few, if any of them,

10 will hesitate to say that when men die and thus escape the burden of the “mortal coil” they become as gods, immortal spirits. This theory is quite an invention in helping to prove that the serpent was right. It is an attempt to reconcile the words of God, “Thou shall surely die,” with those of the serpent, “Ye shall not surely die,” by saying, “Yes, they die, as God said; and yet they did not die, as the serpent said; for death was only the means of liberating the immortal spirit, which is the real man, from the body, and giving it its freedom to roam in the heavens like the angels or gods. What a good thing, according to this, it was, after all, that Adam sinned; for if he had not sinned he would not have died; and if he had not died he never could have been liberated from his body; and if he had not been liberated from his body he could not have become as gods to roam in the heavens above; so it was a good thing the serpent opened up the way by preaching the first popular theological sermon that was ever preached. Readers, are you prepared for this? If you are, you must believe the serpent’s lie and deny God’s Word. If you are, you must believe the serpent to have been a good creature instead of a “liar from the beginning,” a thing which, upon sober reflection, you certainly are not prepared to do.

We have seen that angels are spirit beings. That men are not like them now in nature is shown by the words of the Apostle Paul, when speaking of man on this side the resurrection as compared with what he will be on the other side. he says, in 1. Cor. xv: 44, “There is a natural body and there is a spiritual body. * * * Howbeit, that is not first which is spiritual, but that (is first) which is natural; and afterwards that which is spiritual.” Man is therefore first a natural body or being, and he may “afterwards” become a spiritual body. After what? After the resurrection; for he says, “It is sown a natural body and raised a spiritual body” (verse 4.1.). This is in harmony with our Saviour’s words concerning the same subject— the resurrection—when lie says, “They which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; neither can they die any more, for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection” (Luke xx: 35, 36). On the other side of the

Pg 139 resurrection, therefore, men who are worthy become like the angels, to die sio more, having then been raised spiritual bodies. Of this spirit nature, which Paul says comes after the natural state, Christ is the “first-fruits ;“ and since God’s plan is orderly, it is “every man in his own order; Christ the first-fruits ; afterwards they that are Christ’s at his coming” (I. Cor. xv: 23).

By His power through His Spirit God created all things and formed all creatures. In the halo of His Spirit all creatures dwell, and by breathing it are sustained in life ; and thus “in him live and move and have their being.” So long as they thus live they have the spirit of life, and consequently have mind, and may be in “good spirits” or “had spirits.” They may he of “haughty spirit,” “proud spirit” or “humble spirit.” These are phrases descriptive of the various aspects in which living creatures are seen —all the result of “the spirit of God who hath made us, of the breath of the Almighty who hath given us life” (Job xxxiii 4)~ While those phrases, however, would seem to convey the idea of various kinds of spirits, being accumulative terms to express the various shades of human experience, primarily there is only one spirit —---the spirit of God and so long as the creature lives he breaths it ; and therefore ‘‘all the while his breath is in him and the spirit of God is in his nostrils” (Job Xxvi : 3), which is true of all creatures ; for ‘‘they have all one breath” ruach, spirit — —Eccles. I: I 9).

No room is therefore left for the tradition of the spirit of man being an in mortal entity dwelling in the body in life and con ti ii ui ng to he a conscious entity dwelling out of the hotly in death.

10 CHAPTER VI.

MAN IS A CREATURE OF THE DUST AND MORTAL BY SIN. HAVING seen that man is not an ‘‘immortal soul” or “never-dying spirit,” we are prepared to accept the clear and unmistakable scriptures which say that “the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground (Gen. ii: 7); that “the first man is of the earth earthy” (I. Cor. xv : 47) and we can understand the following testimonies Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the Lord, which am but dust and ashes,” Gen. xviii; 27. Remember I beseech thee, that thou hast made me as the clay, and wilt thou bring me unto dust again--- —Job x 9, iv 19. Man that is born of a woman is of few days and full of trouble. He cometh forth like a flower and is cut down; he fleeth also as a shadow and continueth not. Man

Pg 140 dieth and wasteth away; yea man giveth up the ghost and where is he_Job xiv: 2, 10

He knoweth our frame, he remembereth that we are dust—--Psa. ciii:14 For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man is as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away --I. Pet. 24; Jas.1:10,11.

It would be impossible to understand these testimonies and many more of the same character if man were such a “precious immortal soul” as he-is claimed to be by popular theology. That he is mortal is the only view consistent with the Bible, reason and the facts of human experience. “Mortal man” is what therefore, he is declared to he (Job iv: 17).

Coming to see that man is mortal, we are able to understand the Scripture use of the word death, and thereby see that “By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin ; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned” (Rom. v: 12). It is God’s universal law that “the wages of sin is death” (Rom. vi: z3). Our first parents having sinned, the “wages” necessarily followed ; the penalty was pronounced. “Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return”——--Gen. iii : i~. By- sin they were stricken with mortality, passing from a happy, healthful state into one of sorrow, pain and death; ending at last in the darkness of death itself. The causes that would produce death were set at work in their physical nature as soon as the law of righteousness was broken. Thus the stream of human life, having been poisoned by sin at its head, has carried sickness, sorrow, pain and death down through all its channels, until universally it is “appointed unto men once to die’’— Heb. ix : 27, and death has passed upon all men —Rom v: 12. It is safe, therefore, to conclude that had not God’s love moved Him to offer a means of redemption, all the race would have gone down to dust under the sentence ‘‘unto dust shalt thou return,” there to have remained eternally. This the Apostle Paul assures us of when arguing so eloquently and so reasonably for the doctrine of the resurrection. ‘‘if,” he says, “the dead rise not, then is

10 not Christ raised ; and if Christ he not raised, your faith is vain ; ye are yet in your sins. Then they a/so which are fallen asleep in C/iris? are perished”—I. Cor. xv i6-18. “I know,” he exclaims “that in me, that is in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing.’’ ‘0 wretched man that I am who shall deliver me from the body of this death ?“—Rom. vii : 18—24.

This is the universal cry of man. The spectacle presented by human life, past and present, is a world shrouded in the gloom of death, with its vast millions being carried down as by an ever restless and resistless stream into the dark depths of the dismal grave.

The writers of popular theology have “made a covenant with death” by persuading themselves that it is a friend instead of a foe. This is a logical sequence of the false and elusive theory that man is an immortal spirit

Pg 141 entity dwelling in the body till death liberates him. If man is all entity capable of conscious existence separate from the body, and if as soon as death takes place every good man eaters a state of happiness, and if death must take place before he can enter such a state, it follows that death is indeed mall’s very best friend, and the poet might well say

“I’ll praise my maker with my breath, And when my voice is lost in death Praise shall my nobler powers employ.”

But this would put a premium upon sits ; for it was sin that brought death into the world. It makes death the “gate to endless joy” instead of the “wages of sin”—Rom. vi: 23. The cunningness of the serpent has taxed its most eloquent powers in the use of enticing words in both prose and poetry to persuade men that the death which its words of falsehood brought upon man is, after all, a good thing. Sometimes it even has the audacity to attempt the justification of its words, “Ye shall not surely die,” by saying:

“There is no death; What seems so is transition. This life of mortal breath Is but the suburb of the elysian, Whose portal we call death.”

But nature protests against this and cries out, “Death is a self-evident fact. I am stricken with the poisonous fangs of death. I am sick, I am pained, I am dying. Had I all that the world contains how willingly I would give it to save myself from death. ‘All that man hath will he give for his life.’” It persistently refuses to he silenced by the sanctimonious rebukes and frowns of the ministers of satan feigning to he angels of light and knowing from experience and observation apart from revelation that it is right, it confidently answers back, declaring, “Death is a fact?.”

If it is too glaringly false to say “there is no death,” the serpent’s subtlety is not to be daunted by nature’s protests nor to he defeated by positive facts. Its inventive powers of deception try other tactics,

10 cunningly admitting that death is a fact, but claiming that the dread fact is a blessing with which delusion it attempts to captivate the feeble mind when overwhelmed with that grief and sadness that death inflicts upon the bereaved. Calling again to its aid the enchanting power of poetry it exclaims

Why do you mourn departed friends Or shake at death’s alarms? Tis but the voice that Jesus sends To call us to His arms.”

Having been first led into the snare of the popular delusion that man is a spirit that can fly to realms of bliss its a disembodied state, many easily pg 142 become victims cf this falsehood and deink deep draughts of the intoxicating cup of the strong delusion.

“Console as you will, they receive it As a well-meant alms of breath But not all the preaching since Eden has made death other than death.”

If death is a “call to the arms of Jesus,” why did lie weep ever Lazarus’ death, and why must He reign till death as the last enemy is destroyed? Can it he that “death is the gate to endless joy” and yet the Son of God came to “destroy him that bath the power of death, that is the devil” (Heb. ii I4)? Is it that the devil has the power of death, and yet that death is the “gate to heaven?” Has the charm of the serpent’s seed cheated men of all reason, that they can believe that “death is the gate to glory” and yet to it the redeemed are to exclaim, “0 death, where is thy sting ?“ is it that the cup of delusion is so intoxicating as to cause minds that are reasonable in ordinary things to believe that death is a friend and yet that “the sting of death is sin?“ How marvelous is the power of the serpent’s craft and cunning, that it can persuade men to believe that death is the gate to heaven, while they hold in their hands the Book that says that Jesus offered up prayers and supplication with strong crying and tears, unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared?” (Heb. V : 7). A companion in labor, a fellow- soldier with the Apostle Paul, who ministered to his wants, was “sick nigh unto death’ -Phil. ii -25—27, which according to popular tradition, was to be nighl unto heaven and yet it is said that “God had mercy on him,” and saved him from dying which was to save him from going to heaven if death is transition and transmission front earth to heaven. Is it that God’s mercy by saving one from dying, prevents him from passing from sickness and sorrow into joy and glory ? Would it not——if “death, translated into the heavenly tongue, means life’’——would it not be more merciful to allow death to do its work and relieve those who say

“Burdened with this weight of clay We groan beneath the load Waiting the hour that sets us free And brings us home to God.’’

To prevent such from dying is certainly not an act of mercy ; it is cruel for they claim to

10 ‘‘Know that when the soul unclothed Shall from the hotly fly, ‘Twill animate a purer frame With life that cannot die.”

With the Apostle Paul, however, instead of death being such a blessing as tradition has poetically and logically from false premises concluded,

Pg 143 it was a thing to be saved from which was an act of mercy, even in one individual case. How much more will it be so for God to at last save the world from it, when the last enemy, death, is destroyed? To Hezekiah the prophet Isaiah was sent with the message of death, which he delivered in the following emphatic words: “Thus saith the Lord, Set thine house in order, for thou shalt die and not live”——Jsa. xxxviii: 1 Notwithstanding that Hezekiah believed that he “had walked before God in truth and with a perfect heart, amid had done that which was good,” the thought that he must die caused him to “weep with a great weeping ;“ and he prayed that he might be spared from dying. Why was this if death is the beginning of a life of bliss? The popular delusion afforded no consolation to Hezekiah; to him death was death. The words, “Thou shalt die and not live” meant to him the cessation of life, sweet life; and all that he had would he give for his life. For his prayer to be answered to the extent of adding to his days fifteen years was to him a cause for deep thankfulness to God.

Now it is clear from this that Hezekiah’s view of death was very different from that of the popular Christianity of our day. instead of expecting death to transport him to “the Eden above,” he declared that it would have been the “cutting off of his days ;“ that he would “go to the gates of the grave ;“ that he would “not see the Lord in the land of the living,” and “behold man no more with the inhabitants of the world.” In the contemplation of death, instead of “peace he had great bitterness ;“ and in that God had caused him to recover, and had made him to live instead of die, lie had “in love to his soul delivered it from”—Where? From heaven? Yes, says the advocate of the great delusion that death is the gate to heaven. Was Hezekiah thankful that his soul was delivered from heaven? Did God in love to his soul deliver it from that “heavenly place beyond the bounds of time and space, the saints’ secure abode?” What folly men become victims of! Let Hezekiah proceed: “Thou hast in love to my soul delivered it from the pit of corruption.” What is the pit of corruption to which his soul or he himself would have gone had he died? He answers, “For the grave cannot praise thee, death cannot celebrate thee; they that go down to the pit cannot hope for thy truth.” Thus we see that death is death amid not life; that death begins where life ends, and that instead of deluding ourselves that death is an escape front a world of woe to a world of bliss, we must face the grim monster as an enemy from whose relentless grasp we can find escape in Him only who is the resurrection and the life ; for “by man came death ; by man came also the resurrection from the dead”— I. Cor. xv : 21 There are some who are deceived as to the meaning of death by the cunning use their leaders make of the word where it represents a moral state DEAD IN TRESPASSES AND SINS.

10 The words, “You hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins” /Eph11:1, are quoted and commented on in an attempt to prove

Pg 144 that men are not really dead when they are said to be. But if the word death means life, why is it used as the opposite of life? Why not dispense with the word entirely and use the word life? Why not read the verse referred to thus: “And you hath he made alive who were alive?” Is it not clear that when they were quickened or made alive they were in the opposite state from that represented by the words “dead in trespasses and sins ?“ So far as their physical life was concerned no change had taken place. Physically they were alive, though they were bodies of death that would ultimately die. So long as they were alive physically they were not in this sense dead ; for it is a contradiction of terms to say that one is dead and alive in the same sense at the same time. What kind of death had the Ephesians been made alive from? This question can be answered by asking, What kind of a life had they received? They had been dead in trespasses and sins; they were now alive in the righteousness of Christ. In other words, they had been quickened into a state of moral life from a state of moral death ; and when they were in the former state they were in the opposite of the latter, and vice versa, So when they were dead in trespasses and sins they were dead in that sense; and when they were quickened from that death they were alive in righteousness. “IS DEAD WHILE SHE LIVETH.”

The text, “But she that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth” (I. Tim. v : 6) is often quoted in an endeavor to prove that death does not mean absence or cessation of life. Triumphantly we are asked, “Is this woman destitute of life ?“ Our answer is, In the sense in which “she liveth” she is not destitute of life, or dead. for the very reason that “she liveth ;“ and in the sense that “she is dead” she is destitute of life, for the very reason that she is dead. There is one sense in which “she liveth ;“ there is another sense in which ‘she is dead “ Physically she is alive and therefore is not dead ; morally she is dead and therefore is not alive. The most ordinary powers of discrimination are all that are needed in reading such words; and if it were not for a blind zeal to sustain a dogma no trouble would be experienced. The word death would be seen to he a necessary word in our vocabulary to express the opposite thought to that represented by the word life. WHAT IS DEATH?

There is no use trying to evade the force of facts and Scripture teaching on the question of what is death. We are all subject to its universal power ; the rich and the poor, the great and the small, the old and the young are subject to death’s tyrannical reign. To call it a friend does not change the fact that it is a foe ; that when it enters our homes to snatch from us

Pg 145 our wives, husbands, children or friends, it is the most unwelcome visitor and one against which we would close our doors had we the power. We may believe as strongly as it is possible for man to believe in the deceptive theory that “death is the gate to glory,” but our whole being rebels and protests with all its might when we are threatened with a visit from death. The self-evident fact that death is an enemy will not allow even the strong power of superstitious delusion to hold hack the burning tears that its

10 presence will cause to spring forth and trickle down our cheeks. You may talk and talk to the grief- stricken one who bends over the corpse in the coffin about death being a transition from a world of woe to a world of weal, and the distressed one may try to cherish the thought and proclaim belief, but the tears cease not to flow, the pain and anguish written upon every feature of the mourner refuse to give place to joy and gladness. Tell us not then that death is the “voice of Jesus to call us to His arms.” It is the voice of sin, being its penalty : “Wherefore as by one man sin entered into the world and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned”—Rom. v : 12. it is not the “gate to heaven,” but the gate to the grave. It is not the beginning of life—a better life—but the end of life ; and since “all that a man hath will he give for his life,” he naturally revolts at death as his worst enemy. When death is viewed in its proper light it is seen that for the dead resurrection is the only hope, and that resurrection out of death is the “gate to glory,” the beginning of another life; and therefore it is said man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead”—I.Cor. xv : 21 At the resurrection the judgment will therefore take place, when “every man will he rewarded according to his deeds”—II Cur. v : 10. It is not that good men are rewarded in heaven and wicked men are punished in hell from the time of their death till the time of resurrection and then judged. the foolishness of which would be too great for even a fallible human judge, to say nothing of Him who is great and wise and good and whose ways are the perfection of order. We do not depend, however, upon facts and reason only, nor upon Scripture testimony that may be regarded as inferential. The Word of God is quick and powerful in proclaiming to us what death is, the state of man in death and his hopelessness apart from resurrection. It is because death destroys life and places man in total unconsciousness that so much importance is attached to the resurrection. Some in the church at Corinth having denied the resurrection of the dead, the Apostle Paul is inspired with a marvelous earnestness and logical power to show how utterly subversive of the truth such a denial was ; that it formed one of the chief elements of the gospel and that salvation depended upon “keeping it in memory.” How can the doctrine of resurrection be held as important by those who believe that death does not end life for the real man ; that it only relieves

Pg 146 . him of the burden of the “mortal coil” and sends him to a land of bliss in the sky? Resurrection with such, instead of being gospel or good news, is an encumbrance to their belief and an event that will be a encumbrance to the happiness to which death is supposed to send them. If at death they “mount triumphant there” to unspeakable joy, surely to compel them to leave their “thrones on high” and return to their houses of clay to be judged, to be placed in jeopardy, to be weighed im the balances, would be the most awkward, inconsistent and unwelcome arrangement. To those in Corinth who had denied the resurrection the apostle says “Awake to righteousness and sin not for some have not the knowledge of God ; I speak this to your shame”-—-I. Cor. xv : 35. He had to declare over again the gospel he had previously preached to them and“by which they were saved if thy kept in memory what he had preached to them, Unless,” he says, “YE HAVE BELIEVED IN VAIN” (verses 1,2). Believers in the popular theory of death being the beginning of a better life might, from their point of view, well reply to Paul with a rebuke for pre- dicating so much upon the resurrection. ‘‘Why, Paul,’’ they could consistently say, and do in effect say,

10 “do you not know that the dead are ‘not dead but gone before, to bask in bliss, and that it matters not to them whether there is ever a resurrection or not? The body, which is all that is dead, was an encumbrance to them before they died, before death, ‘their friend,’ the ‘gate to heaven,’ liberated them from their mortal coil ; and now that they from their bodies have fled’ and are ‘animated by a purer frame,’ why do you force upon us the doctrine of resurrection of that body from which we are so thankful to death for freeing us? Let the body remain where it is let the resurrection go. We would rather not be disturbed by resurrection after ‘death has called us to the arms of Jesus’ ‘‘ To such, however, the inspired apostle rejoins with an irresistible and overwhelming force that crushes the serpent’s head in its attempt to palliate its crime of causing death by deluding its victims with the fatal falsehood that death, even though it did come by sin, is man’s best friend. With the burning words of the Spirit of truth the apostle declares: “For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised ; and if Christ he not raised your faith is vain ; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ ARE PERISHED” (I. Cor. xv : 16, 17). The dead in Christ are dead and in their graves ; and if there is no resurrection they will never see life again, they- are perished. Death robbed them of life and imprisoned them in the grave and if he ‘who holds “the keys of death and the grave,” who, “opens and no man shuts and shuts and no man opens ;“ if He who is the “resurrection and the life’’ - does not sound the trump and raise the dead, then there is no hope for the dead, because they are dead and not alive. If there is no resurrection of the dead, he continues to show then in this life pg 147 only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most miserable” (verse 2 ) ; and if by man came not the resurrection of the deal, then “in Adam all die” (verse 22) and there is no making alive in Christ. ‘‘But now is Christ risen from the dead and become the first-fruits of them that sleep” (verse 23) Christ the first-fruits, afterwards they that are Christ’s at his coming (verse 23). Then at the end of His reign, when “he hath put all enemies under his feet,” the last enemy shall be destroyed, DEATH” (verses24— 26).

The process by which man was formed and made alive is given very clearly in 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.” In this we see that, first, man is formed from the dust, second, the breath of life is breathed into his nostrils ; and third, he--the man formed out of the dust —becomes a living soul or creature. As the result of this we now behold a living man. Now death being the opposite of life there ought not to be any difficulty in understanding it. What made the man alive? The breathing into his nostrils the breath of life, and thus starting respiration. What would take away his life? The breathing out of the breath of life. expiring, and thus stopping respiration. When lie life is thus expired, or gone out of the man, he is dead. and when dead he is lifeless as he was before the life was breathed into him. We have now a dead man who is “out of the earth, earthy,’’ whom “the Lord God formed of the dust of the ground ’and of whom it is said, “Dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return. When this dissolution has taken place the man, as a living, formed being is no more. Death and dissolution have reversed what formation and life did. Hence inspiration says : Put not your trust in princes nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help for his breath goeth forth (death), he returneth to his earth ( dissolution); and iii that very day his thoughts perish (unconsciousness) --—Psa. Cxlvi 3. So far as death is concerned, there is no difference in its results in man and animal; all die alike, the difference being in man’s relation to resurrection Hence Solomon’s inspired words declare: ‘‘I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the Sons of mern that God might manifest them, and that they’ might see that they themselves are beasts.” For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts ; even one thing

10 befalleth them : as the on dieth, so dieth the other-; yea, they have all one breath ; so that a man (in death) hath no pre-eminence above a beast ; for all is vanity. All go to one place,- all are of the dust and all turn to dust again” Eccl. iii :18-20. Then, as a challenge to the believers in disembodied spirits, and at that time in transmigration from creature to creature, he asks : “Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth” (verse 21) Let the reader ponder

pg 148. over what has been said amid carefully read the testimonies following, and he will see that man’s hope of a better life is not in death, but by a resurrection from the dead For I know that thou wilt bring me to death and to the house appointed for all living Job xxx: 23. Is there not an appointed time to man upon earth? are not his days also like the days of a hireling ?---- Chapter vii: 1. What man is he that liveth and shall not see death? ,‘shall he deliver his soul (himself) from the hand of the grave — Psa. lxxxix: 48. For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them as the one dieth so dieth the other * * * all go one place; all are of the dust and all turn to dust again Eccl iii:19,20

All flesh is grass, and all the goodness thereof is as the flower of the field; the grass withereth, the flower fadeth, because the Spirit of the Lord bloweth upon it:surely the people is grass-- Isa. xl: 6.

Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might: for there is no work, nor device, no,- knowledge, no, wisdom in the grave whither thou goest— Eccl. ix: 10.

In death there is no remembrance of thee, in the grave who shall give thee thanks?-Psa. vi: 5.

For the living know that they shall die, but the dead know not anything- EccI, ix: 5. 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 H1S THOUGHTS PERISH- Psa. cxlvi: 3. 4. The grave cannot praise thee, death cannot celebrate thee. They that go down into the pit cannot hope for thy truth” Isa. xxxviii: 18, 19.

CHAPTER VII.

RESURRECTION THE ONLY HOPE OF LIFE FROM THE DEAD.

10 DEATH having passed upon all the race in Adam when he sinned. escape from death is what is needed as man’s salvation. Since the sentence is, ‘‘Dust thou art and unto dust sha/t thou return,” the escape can be found only in resurrection. “By man came death ;‘‘ and if the race had been left in this condition and no other provision had been made, every descendant of Adam must go down to dust without a shadow of hope. Having sinned and thus lawfully brought himself into this hopeless and helpless state, man had no one to blame but himself ; and if means of escape are provided it must be an act of hope and mercy and not one that could be claimed upon a basis of justice. Therefore if salvation is offered to fallen men it will be by love ; and so it is said : “God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him might not perish but have everlasting life”—John iii : i6. Perishing, therefore, man is,, and if the

Pg 149 love of God is not accepted by faith and obedience perish he will, for ‘’In Adam all die” (I. Cor. xv: 22). Death is the legacy, so to speak, Adam left to his entire family, and in him it is all that can be hoped for. We are “by nature children of wrath,” ‘‘without Christ,” ‘‘having no hope and without God in the world” (Eph. ii: 3, 11, 12).

Realizing that this is the condition the human family is in, we see that a gospel that will meet the requirements of the case must provide for resurrection. ‘‘By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned’’——Rom. v : 12 By man came death” (I. Cor. xv : 22), and “in Adam all die” (verse 21). How can escape be found except through resurrection? Exclude resurrection from the gospel and it will be no gospel to man in the plight in which scripture and facts prove him to be. Spiritualize the resurrection and you might as well deny it altogether ; for what is the use of a ‘‘spiritual resurrection’’ as a means of reaching the literal fact of death and dissolution in the dust? Death, as we have seen, is terribly literal, and a resurrection that does not deal with the fact of death as it realty is a delusion and a snare. The cure must reach the disease ; the plaster must suit the wound. It is worse than vanity to theorize about the resurrection of supposed spirit entity out of the body and lose sight of the resurrection of that upon which death and dissolution to dust came. It is grasping at an imaginary shadow and losing the substance. It is the substantial man that Is the thou of the words “Dust thou art and to dust shalt thou return; and it is this man that must be the subject of resurrection if the requirements of the case are to be met. In view of the reality of this it is said By man came death; by man came also the resurrection of the dead “ 1 Cor. xv : 20. The first man gave all who were his, death ; the second man will give all who will be truly his, life ; for as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive’’-I. Cor. xv : 22. Related to the first by nature, we are related only to death; related to the second by grace, we are related to resurrection and life.

Whenever mini wherever the gospel is made known to man the resurrection must be found in it, either expressed or implied ; for if it is not, then in this life only we have hope and we are most miserable ; since death is the extinction of life, if there is no resurrection there is no hope beyond the present life. It is said by some who ought to know better that resurrection is a New Testament doctrine, and that scarcely is it referred to in the Old. If the gospel was made known to Adam and Eve when they found themselves alienated from God and sentenced to death, it must have offered a hope of real deliverance

10 from the real destiny brought upon them. The serpent’s lie, “Ye shall not surely die,” was what had caused them to

Pg 150 sin. On this account the serpent became a representation of sin, and sin became personified and was called a serpent. The effectual way to kill a serpent is to crush its head ; and this is used to represent the taking away of sin and redeeming from its power. What power has sin obtained? It has power to take life, for “the wages of sin is death” (Rom vi: 23), and it has power to take man into its prison house, the grave. This is the power that must be destroyed if escape is ever made possible; and what will release the captives from the prison-house? Resurrection and life is the only answer—-the only provision fully meeting the requirements of the situation ; and therefore resurrection is implied in the first gospel words that were ever uttered-—--”I will put enmity between thee (the serpent) and the woman ; and between thy seed and her seed ; it shall bruise thy head aid thou shalt bruise his heel”-—-Gen. iii :15. To bruise the heel of the woman’s seed was to put him to death but not destroy Him ; to bruise the serpent’s head was to destroy sin’s power to hold the woman’s seed in death and the grave, and therefore resurrection was promised in the gospel when it was first preached, afterwards more fully made known as God’s plan of redemption became unfolded, and clearly demonstrated when “the God of peace brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus Christ, that great Shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant’’—Heb. xiii : 20.

“It will be seen from the ‘‘bruising of the heel’’ of the Seed of the woman in the crucifixion of Christ that as a means to the removal of sin and its destruction of its power God saw fit to require sacrifice , even that of his beloved Son. All the sacrifices of the law of Moses were shadows of the “better sacrifice” made by Christ. With this lesson we may go back to Eden and see the resurrection implied in a another other way besides in the words concerning the bruising of the serpent’s head

THE COATS OF SKIN. Death is not brought to view, either in man or animal, until after sin is committed. The first intimation we have of it as a matter of fact is in the words “Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins and clothed them’’-- Gen iii : 21 . The forgiveness of sin is spoken of in the Scriptures as a covering of nakedness. David says : ‘‘Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered”---- Psa. xxxii :

Again: “Thou hast forgiven the iniquity of thy people, thou hast covered all their sin.’’ Sin having caused shame of nakedness literally in our first parents, nakedness became a representation of man’s unfitness to be in communion and conciliation with God. By the s sacrifice of Christ he became an acceptable mediator between God and man and the “Holy’ place,’ as it were, in which God would become reconciled to maim. By another

Pg 151

10 figure of speech we are spoken of as “putting on the new man, ”and are “in Christ new creatures”—II. Cor. v: 17. Having “put on the new man”—Col. iii : 10, He is to us a garment of righteousness to hide the nakedness of sin in which we are placed by the disobedience of the “old man”—Col. iii : 9. In all this we see sacrifice, a garment for covering sin, amid redemption; and all brought about by the death, burial and resurrection of Christ.

For “coats of skins” to be made for Adam and his wife there must have taken place the death of the victims from which the skins were procured; and is it going too far to say that their death was sacrificial, typical of Christ’s death, and that the clothing made from the skins represented redemption in Christ? The death of Christ without His resurrection would not have procured the necessary release for all. “Christ died, yea rather, is risen,” says the Apostle Paul ; and “if Christ be not raised your faith is vain ; ye are yet in your sins”——I. Cor. xv: 17. So the resurrection is the vital question —-that which the sacrificial death leads to and makes possible. What then is implied by the slaying of victims to provide coats of skins for Adam and Eve? Is it not resurrection from the dead, a release from the sentance and its effects that sin had brought upon man? In the very beginning, therefore, when we have death as a fact, we have resurrection from the dead as a promise ; and the vital element of the gospel as first preached is resurrection.

ABEL’S OFFERING.

Coming one step down, we next see resurrection typified in Abel’s “excellent sacrifice,” speaking of which the writer to the Hebrews says : “By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain”--—HeB. xi: 4. There must have been instruction given to Adam’s sons before they could know that sacrifices were required by God ; and that the instruction was sufficient to render it possible for them to offer acceptable sacrifice is shown by the fact that Abel had a faith that enabled him to make one that was more excellent than that of Cain’s, and by which he “obtained witness that he was righteous.” To be righteous is to believe and obey ; and to do this there must be a knowledge of what to believe and what to do. The only faith that will please God and without which “it is impossible to please God” (Heb. xi: 6) is one that “cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God”——Rom. x : 17. It must have been by a faith of this kind that Abel was moved! to offer “a more excellent sacrifice.” We may be sure of this from the fact that time apostle preferences what he says the ancient worthies did by faith by clearly defining what faith as used by him is. The first verse of the chapter begins : “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not

Pg 152 seemn For by it (this defined faith) the elders obtained a good report.’’ Then e~ proceeds to state what the elders did by the power of this faith.

Abel, therefore, hoped for something so promised; and his intelligence in the promise is exhibited in the excellence of his sacrifice. Christ the Seed of the woman who would “bruise the serpent’s head,” had been promises-promised as a sacrifice , the lamb to be slain whose blood would bring remission of sins, the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world” Here is

10 Christ crucified and buried and raised again from the dead and here therefore is resurrected for all in him who have Abel’s faith.. Did Abel by faith” show forth in his sacrifice of the” firstling of his flock” Christ put death only? Belief in the death and burial of Christ, unless he saw His resurrection to “die no more,” would not have been belief in good news of deliverance ; But seeing that the sacrifice of Christ would give him power over death and the grave, he saw in Him the “resurrection and the life,” and his faith taught him that he that believeth in him though he were dead yet shall he live- John xi: 25 Thus the resurrection is seen in every step as we come dosn the ages to Him who broke the barriers of the tomb and came forth and declared : I am he that liveth and was dead; and behold I am alive for evermore, Amen and have the keyes of hades and of death --Rev. i : 18

NOT THE GOD OF THE DEAD

That the resurrection is not so clearly and fully set forth in plain language in the old testament asd it is in the New is no doubt the reason some think it is almost exclusively a New Testament doctrine. Being of little importance, too to a theory, that sends good men to happiness and the wicked to torment at death It has not been viewed as a serious omission even if the old testament did have but little to say upon the subject -Indeed popular theory would be much relieved if the doctrine were not taught in the New testament With a few clear exceptions resurrection in the Old Testament is shown by types and taught by implication. Wherever the gospel is set forth resurrection is seen in the words “I am the God of thy fathers , the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob. Ex ii:6 One who believed that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were alive in heaven would not see resurrection implied in these words, Indeed the verse is often quoted to prove the disembodied existence of these fathers in a happy state.. But to one who believed that they were dead and “gathered to their fathers” in sheol or in the “dust of the earth “ (Dan xii:2) the passage would be an implied proof of resurrection, It was the Saviour’s clear discernment of this that en-

Pg 153

Abled Him to silence the Sadducees, who denied the resurrection. They were sticklers for the writings of Moses, and from a passage in these writings Jesus proved! the doctrine they denied. “Now that the dead are raised,” He says, “even Moses showed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord the- God of Abraham, and the God! of Isaac and the God of Jacob. For he is not mm God! of the dead, but of the living ; for all live unto him” Luke xx : 37, 38. To fully -see the force of this argument the facts most be kept in view. The Sadducees denied the resurrection; Jesus is proving the resurrection. He is not proving that the fathers were alive and stood in no need of resurrection, as believers in the immortality of the soul claimfrom this passage. If it were true that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were alive in happiness and that they –their “immortal souls” never died the Saviour’s argument for resurrection based on the words quoted utterly without force and entirely irrelevant The believers I this conscience state of the dead when they usae this text to prove that doctrine in effect declare it to be useless for the purpose quoted by Jesus“ They say it does not prove resurrection, but it proves conscious existence independently of resurrection. The argument as used by our Lord, however, is this : Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are dead; God is their God, and he is not God of the dead, but of the living ; therefore they must have a resurrection from the dead. They ‘‘live unto him’’ now, because it is his purpose to raise them to life. As a matter of fact they

10 mire dead ; and it is because they, are dead that resurrection is necessary to make them alive ; and Gods purpose to raise them is irresistibly proved by His words, ‘‘I “I am the God of Abraham,and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. Let there not be an attempt to evade this by saying that our Saviour was speaking only of the body, He is speaking of the men named. God wasGod of these men, not of bodies of which they could live independently and better without them than with. They were among those who had ‘‘died in the faith, not having received the promise’’—Heb. xi: 13. ‘‘Having obtained a good report through faith, they received not the promise ; God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect Heb. xi : 40.

THE OFFERING OF ISAAC.

In the offering of Isaac we have another way of showing forth resurrection. Many claim it was unnatural and cruel of Abraham to be so willing to make an offering of his beloved son, and that the demand that he should do so was inconsistent with a God of love and justice. This disparagement of Abraham’s faith and reflection upon the character of God exhibits destitution of the faith which made such an act possible for a lov-

Pg 154. ing father. It also shows ignorance of God’s ways and his object in making trying demands.

If Abraham had seen only the death of his son the demand would have been greater than human nature could bear and the object in view would not have been reached, namely: to make a practical test of his faith. Faith here, as in the Scriptures generally, must not be viewed as blind trust, but as intelligent confidence. The faith that sustained Abraham in such a hard trial is defined by the writer to the Hebrew as the “substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen.” And then it is added: “For by it the elders obtained a good report,” etc. (Chapter xi). We have already shown that a faith pleasing to God is based upon His promises. It was confidence that what God “had promised He was able to perform” that constituted a faith intelligent and strong enough to stand such a rigid test as Abraham was subjected to. Belief that God would restore his son to life was the faith that inspired Abraham and prevented him -from “staggering at the promises of God.” The promises that had begotten this great faith were as follows : “For all the land which thou seest to thee will I give it and to thy seed forever. And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth”—Gen xiii: 15, 16. “And the Lord said, Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do; seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great amid mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him”— Gen. xviii: 17, 18? The fulfillment of these promises depended upon Isaac, for it had been said to Abraham, “In Isaac shall thy seed he called” (chapter xxi: 12). How could he reconcile promises of blessing of all nations through Isaac with Isaac’s death when a youth? Only by believing that God would raise him to life again, lie would reason thus: God has said that from me through Isaac a great nation shall come, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed; He now requires me to take Isaac’s life ; God’s promises cannot fail ; therefore if I take my son’s life God will restore him to me alive and thus fulfill His promise. That this was Abraham’s view of the case is shown by the Apostle Paul in the words, accounting “that God was able to raise hint up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in

10 a figure”--Heb. xi: 19. Here then is a figure of resurrection through Christ, who was offered as a sacrifice in order that He might be practically the resurrection and the life”—John xi: 25. Redemption is nothing without resurrection. Resurrection is a necessary part of redemption. Therefore the offering of Isaac was a type fully showing forth redemption in its various aspects and especially foreshadowing resurrection. In it the great love of God is seen; the willing resignation of the Son to the Father’s requirements; the necessity of offering for

Pg 155 sin; the fact that God only could provide. the sacrifice; that death by shedding of blood must take place and that resurrection would surely follow; thus redemption would be complete when every child of God would be brought out of death into immortal life, and be received into the love of a Father’s embrace without danger of ever more falling. In the history of Israel as a “nation and in what is yet to take place in their national revival the resurrection is represented, and when the types amid shadows of the law are considered it is continually brought to mind. Passing these by we come to positive and literal declarations in the Old Testament that cannot be misunderstood, and about which it would seem no dispute could possibly arise JOB’S HOPE OF RESURRECTION.

The patriarch Job, after taking a view of the work of death among men, and showing that in general man “.lieth down and riseth not,” cries out in the great agony he was then suffering, “0 that thou wouldest hide me in the grave, that thou wouldest keep me secret until thy wrath is past, that thou wouldest appoint me a set time and remember me”-_Job. xiv: 1—15. Then he asks: “If a man die shall he live again ?“ and his faith in God’s promises answers : “Thou shalt call and I will answer thee; thou wilt have a desire to the work of thine hands.” The “set time” that God would call and he would answer was the time of resurrection. Then will Job. with all of like faith, answer. This “call” is undoubtedly the same as that in the New Testament which is spoken of as the “sound of the trump. Further along Job gives still clearer expression to his knowledge of resurrection. He says: “For I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth; and though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God; whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold and not another, though my reins be consumed within me” _Job xix : 25—27. DAVID’S HOPE.

In the Psalms there is abundant proof of resurrection. In chapter xlix the Psalmist, like Job, declares that the masses of men, who are without understanding and are “like the beasts that perish,” die in their folly without hope of resurrection. But in contrast with this he says : “But thou wilt redeem my soul from the power of the grave; for thou wilt receive me.” Of the resurrection of Christ and of his own through Christ he says: “Therefore my heart is glad and my glory rejoiceth; my flesh also shall rest in hope. For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell (sheol, the grave), neither wilt thou suffer thine holy one to see corruption”—Psa.xvi: 9, 10. That this refers to resurrection is made more evident by the Apostle Peter’s reference to it in Acts ii: 27—3 1. Referring again to the

Pg 156

10 destiny of men in general and in contrast with his hope concerning him-self and all of his faith, the Psalmist prays to be delivered “from men of the world, which have their;“ portion in this life” and then of himself he says: “As for me I will behold thy face in righteousness; I shall be satisfied when I awake with thy likeness”— Psa. xvii: 14, 15. It was hope in resurrection to the Divine nature, which he terms “thy likeness,” that inspired David’s last words. The “everlasting covenant, ordered in all things and sure,” which “was all his salvation and all his desire” (11. Sam. xxiii: 1—5’) depended upon resurrection ; without it the covenant could never come into force. in making this covenant with David, God assured him that he would raise up Christ to sit upon his throne and that of his kingdom there should be no end”—ii. Sam. vii: 12—16; Luke i: 32, 33; Acts ii: 30 lie knew that Christ would suffer death, and yet God covenants that he should rule upon David’s throne forever. How could this be without resurrection? How could David derive consolation from this covenant unless he understood and believed the doctrine of resurrection? The fulfillment of the covenant he knew was not to be until “a great while to come”—-II Sam. vii: 19. he had been told that when he would “sleep with his fathers,” his “days having been fulfilled” (verse ‘2), his Son and heir should be raised up. Then he is assured: “Thy throne and thy kingdom shall be established forever before thee” (verse z6). It followed therefore that his resurrection must take place. Let It not be forgotten that “the dead know not anything;” for if the reality of death is not kept in view the absolute necessity of resurrection in these cases will not be seen. If, as is popularly claimed, David did not die, only forsook his body and went to heaven in a disembodied state, it would be difficult to see why he exulted in hope of resurrection and declared that he would be satisfied when he would “awake.” It is quite difficult to persuade believers in the disembodied existence of the dead to look at the words of scripture that assure us that David is “both dead and buried” (Acts ii: 29); that he “fell on sleep and saw corruption” (Chapter xiii: 36); that “David is slot ascended into the heavens” (Chapter ii: 34’). These truths must be accepted, however, before the importance of resurrection can be seen.

ISAIAH AND EZEKIEL.

The Prophet Isaiah is very clear in declaring his hope in the resurrection. After speaking of some who were dead and should not live, deceased and should not rise, he exclaims; “Thy dead men shall live-,, together with my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing ye that dwell in dust; for thy dew is like the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out her dead”—- Chapter xxvi: 19. In the prophecy of Ezekiel there is a

Pg 157 very remarkable representation of resurrection. It is a vision of the national death state and resurrection of Israel (Ezek. xxxvii 11); but it is based upon the literal resurrection of the dead. It would be without force if there were no resurrection of the dead. This vision of dry bones is not only a case of Old Testament proof that there is to be a resurrection, but it shows the state of the dead and the process of resurrection in such a way as to utterly condemn the notion of man’s disembodied conscious existence when dead. The prophet is carried in spirit and “set down in the midst of the valley of dry bones,” and the question is asked, “Can these bones live?” when the prophet answers, “0 Lord God, thou knowest.” He is told to prophecy upon these dry bones, and say unto them, “0 ye dry bones, hear the words of the Lord” (verses 3, 4). The process of resurrection then commences: “There was a noise, and behold a shaking, and the hones came together, bone to his hone. And when I beheld, lo, the sinews and flesh came up upon them and the skin covered them above; but there was no breath in them.” Then “the breath came into them, and they lived and stood upon their feet, an exceeding great army.” To a believer in the immortality of the soul this vision of resurrection must appear very deficient indeed ; so much so that the most vital part of man, yea, the man himself, is left out entirely. There is not a word about calling hack ‘-immortal souls” from hell and heaven to reinhabit their resurrected bodies. Ezekiel’s vision of resurrection is as silent about the supposed ‘immortal soul”— the real man -—as Moses is in giving account of man’s formation. In the formation he is formed of the dust of the ground. the breath of life is breathed into him and the formed man is made alive, in the reformation or resurrection, bones, sinews, flesh arid skin came together; then the breath is breathed into the formed man and he is thereby restored to life. How much more suitable to popular theory this vision would have been if it had clearly stated that only the bodies of the dead were reformed ; and when it was said “there was no breath in them,” instead of calling for breath to be breathed into them. if the happy “immortal souls” had been called down from “heaven,” and the miserable “immortal souls” called up from “hell,’’ and all had been commanded to reenter their rebuilt houses of clay, how convincing it would have been that the popular theory of man in death is true, It would have been very easy for a popular theologian to state the case in this way. Why did riot the Prophet do so? The answer is, Because the “immortal soul” is a fiction, and it is man that is dead, and it will be the dead man that will be the subject of resurrection.

10 ‘THE PROPHECY OF DANIEL.

The resurrection is set forth in symbol and in plain words ill the book of Daniel. The prophet sees in vision a man clothed in linen, whose loins

Pg 158 were girded with fine gold of Uphaz; his body was like the beryl and his face as the appearance of lightning, and his eyes as lamps of fire, and his arms and his feet like in color to polished brass, and the voice of his words like the voice of a multitude”—chapter x: ~, 6. This description is similar to that given in the hook of Revelation, and represents Christ as the multitudinous man—that is, Christ returned to the earth, the dead saints raised and with the living glorified with immortality. These saints will, after resurrection and glorification, constitute the one body of which Christ will be the Head to rule the world in righteousness. Since they have been redeemed and glorified by one man, even Jesus, the aggregation is represented. in the picture of a wonderful man portrayed in the words quoted, “When he shall appear,” says John, “we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is”—I. John iii: 2. It follows, therefore, that this vision represented the resurrection state of the redeemed; and therefore the resurrection is implied by it. Having seen the glory of the resurrection state, the prophet is personally caused to pass through a symbolical death and resurrection. Death is symbolized in the words, “Therefore was I left alone and saw the great vision, and there remained no strength in me; for my comeliness was turned into corruption and I retained no strength.” After this a hand “touched me, which set me upon my knees and upon the palms of my hand,” etc. This would seem to be a fitting representation of death and resurrection. In any event, the doctrine was clearly revealed to the prophet, as will be seen in chapter xii: 1,2. Here we have words about which we cannot be mistaken. The prophet is taken down in the program of events to the time when “Michael shall stand up, the great Prince which standeth for the children of thy people.” The angel is speaking to Daniel of the end of the kingdoms of men and the establishment in their place of the kingdom of God. This great revolution, he shows, will cause “a time of trouble such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time.” Then he continues: “And (at that time) many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.” Daniel is not given to understand that he or any of his faith will receive reward before their resurrection. He is told that it is after resurrection that “they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament, and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.”

In the interval that he is informed must elapse between his time and the resurrection the program of events previously symbolized will be carried out in the world. Periods of time represented by “time times and a half” “twelve hundred and ninety days” and a “thousand and three hundred and five and thirty days” were to intervene between an event subsequent

Pg 159 to the prophet’s time and the “time of the end ;“ and Daniel is given no hope of salvation till the end of the events symbolized, or “that time” when “Michael shall stand up” and “many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake.” The last words spoken to him give him the only consolation that could be given to one who must “sleep in the dust of the earth.” No use is found for the common custom of consoling men with the hope of soon shuffling off the “mortal coil,” and “mounting triumphant there” to realms of bliss. Such delusive hope was not given by the angel ; but he says : “Go thou thy way till the end be; for thou shalt rest and stand in thy lot AT THE END OF THE DAYS” (verse 13).

RANSOM FROM THE POWER OF THE GRAVE.

In the prophecy of Hosea (chapter xiii : 14) the restoration of Israel to national life is spoken of as resurrection from the grave. This is a similar comparison to that of the Prophet Ezekiel, where the “whole house of Israel” is represented as a “valley of dry hones,” a passage we have already considered. There is a fitness in this, for it is said of Israel as a nation, “0 Israel ! thou hast destroyed thyself” (verse 9). While the children of Israel have been preserved from destruction in spite of attempts of all nations to blot them out of existence, as a nation they have been dead. When the restoration of the kingdom of Israel shall take place it will he a national resurrection. “What shall the recovering of them be but life from the dead” asks the Apostle Paul (Rom. xi: 15). Israel after the flesh is nationally dead, and some of Israel after the Spirit are literally and individually dead. Both will he the subjects of resurrection ; and the words of Hosea, though the context seems to confine them to Israel nationally, are applied in I. Cor. xv : 54,55 to the literal resurrection of the dead, or of Israel according to the

10 Spirit. God through the prophet says “I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death. 0 death! I will be thy plague; 0 grave! I will be thy destruction” (verse 14). This is the “saying that is written” referred to by the Apostle Paul, and when fulfilled he says: “Death is swallowed up in victory.” There are many testimonies of resurrection in the rest of the minor prophets, hut sufficient have been given to show that it is a doctrine underlying the entire teaching of the Old Testament. Without it the ancient worthies would have been just as hopeless as those living in the apostolic times, when it was said : “If there be no resurrection of the dead * *** our preaching is vain and your faith is also vain.”

RESURRECTION IN THE NEW TESTAMENT.

The resurrection is so fully taught, and there is so much predicated upon it in the New Testament that he who runs may read the doctrine there, and special examination of numerous testimonies is unnecessary, even if

Pg 160 our space allowed. A careful reading of one chapter—I. Cor. xv—is enough to convince anyone of the truth of the doctrine. But it is not as necessary to prove the resurrection as it is to show what it really is and that future life depends upon it. Few there are professing to believe the Bible who will not admit that it is taught; but it is nullified by the tradition that “immortal souls” go to heaven and hell at death. After proving resurrection by showing it to have been a fact in the case of Christ, the apostle emphasizes its necessity; and in doing so shows that the dead are dead, and that without resurrection dead they must remain. This chapter (I. Cor. xv.) is nearly always read at funerals; and the speaker is sometimes ~ into the powerful current of the apostle’s argument, until one is almost persuaded that he accepts the doctrine of resurrection as of vital ‘importance— so much so that the only hope for the dead is in resurrection. But we are soon disappointed when the “orthodox” creed begins to assert itself and breaks out in such expressions as “He is not dead but gone before.” “Weep not ; our friend is better off,” “He is in the land of bliss,” etc. This not only spoils what the officiating preacher has said when he is in the current of the teaching of the chapter, hut it entirely destroys the force of the apostle’s argument—rather the apostle’s argument utterly destroys the orthodox tradition expressed in the forgoing quotations. If “he is not dead but gone before,” is “better off” and in “the land of bliss,” why read a chapter that has not a single word in it about one that is dead having “gone before” to “the land of bliss” to be “better off?” Why read n chapter that only treats of resurrection and that predicates all upon it? If the resurrection has nothing to do with the real man who has “gone before,” and only provides for the re-forming of the body, what consolation can there be in it when it is claimed that the “departed” is “better off without his body than he was with it? When the “departed” was in the body before “he went before” it is claimed he was of those whose experiences: “Burdened with this weight of clay We groan beneath the load; ‘Waiting the hour that sets us free Arid brings us home to God.”

If, now that he is dead, he is “set free” from the “weight of clay under which he groaned,” he has “gone home to God,” why read a chapter about a resurrection that is supposed to have to do with the “weight of clay” only, and what consolation can there be in contemplating a time when the “departed” must return from his “home with God” to his “load” and “weight of clay?” Resurrection in this case is surely the most awkward and inconvenient prospect for the “departed” to contemplate. To them the prospect of a resurrection would make them “miserable ;“ but with

Pg 161

Paul it was, If there is no resurrection of the dead there is only this life; and “if in this life only we have hope in Christ we are of all men most miserable” (verses I6-l9). Now it is safe to say that any theory that ’will destroy the force of an argument of an inspired apostle must be false. .The burning words of the Spirit enable the apostle in this chapter to present one of the most powerful, logical arguments to be found in the Bible. In it he lost sight of no truth that could in any possible way be used to weaken his force or in any manner oppose his trenchant position. This must be admitted by all who accept the inspiration of the apostle in this chapter. Yet, if the popular theory of heaven-going at death for the righteous be true, Paul’s argument is absolutely destitute of force, truthfully or logically. This arises from the fact that the apostle on the one hand starts out with the postulate that the dead are dead and not alive, and that if they ever live again it must be by resurrection. On the other hand the advocate of the popular tradition starts out with the assumption that the dead are not dead, Only their bodies, and that they are better off since they

10 died than they were before. With premises so opposed how can a conclusion be reasoned out without conflict? The inspired apostle starts with the truth and finishes with the truth. The advocate of the popular theory starts with a false position and his finish must necessarily he false. The result is collision in this way : Paul’s argument is that, since all who have died are dead, if there is no resurrection then “they also which hare fallen asleep in Christ are perished.” It follows, therefore, that our “faith is vain” if in “this life only we have hope ;“ and we who have supposed ourselves to be in Christ and are thereby in the resurrection “are of all men most miserable.” But a champion of the “orthodox” theory steps forward and says: You are, wrong in the start, Paul; the dead are not dead, only their bodies. “They that have fallen asleep in Christ” are not asleep; they are awake in the happiness and bliss of heaven, and when we die we shall go to them. Therefore you attach too much importance to resurrection ; ‘we can do without it; for death to us is what resurrection is to you. Let them deny the resurrection and our faith is not vain; neither are we “miserable,” for our faith is not dependent upon resurrection; it is that we shall be happy in heaven as soon as we die; and therefore for you to say that if there is no resurrection they that have fallen asleep in Christ are perished is without foundation. Thus a false theory nullifies the word of God : and the fact that it does is sufficient to expose its fallacy and render it worthy of condemnation by all who are willing to “let God be true though all men are liars.” With these truths kept in view a simple reading of the following scriptures affords all that is necessary to show that man’s relation to the

Pg 162. law of sin and death necessitates resurrection, in other that he may enjoy the blessings of life and immortality:

The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection. * * * Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither many nor are given In marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which is spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the Gad of Isaac and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living—Matt. xxii: 23-33. And thou shalt be blessed; for they cannot recompense thee; for thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just— Luke xlv: 14.

Marvel not at this; for the hour Is coming in which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice and shall come forth; they that have done good unto the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil unto the resurrection of damnation—John v: 28,29.

These things said he and after that he said unto them: Our friend Lazarus sleepeth, but I go that I may awake him out of sleep. * * * Jesus said unto her, Thy brother shall rise again. Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day. Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection and the life; he that believeth In me, though he were dead yet shall he live—John xi: II, 23—25.

Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection—Acts 1: 21, 22.

He (David) seeing this before, spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell (hades, the grave), neither did his flesh see corruption. This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses —Acts ii: 31, 32.

The Sadducees came ‘unto them, being grieved that they taught the people and preached through Jesus the resurrection from the dead—Acts iv: i, ~.

And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus—Acts iv: ~. Then certain of the philosophers of the Epicureans and of the stoics encountered him. And some said, What will this blabber say? others say, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods; because he preached unto them Jesus and the resurrection-— Acts xvii: 18.

10 When they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked; and others said, We will hear thee again of this matter—Acts xvii: 32.

But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, he cried out In the council: Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee; of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called In question—Acts xxlli: 6. But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets and hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there

Pg 163 shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust—Acts xxiv: 14,15, See also verse 21. Who (Christ) was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; and declared to be the Son of God with power according to the spirit of holiness by the resurrection from the dead—Rom. 1:3, 4. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection—Rom. vi: 5; 1 Cor. xv, the entire chapter. I count all things but loss, * * * that I may know him, and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made comfortable unto his death; if by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead .-Phil. iii:8-11 Therefore leaving the principle of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith towards God, of the doctrine of baptism and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead and of eternal judgments—Heb. vi: I, 3. Women received their dead raised to life again; and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection —Heb. xi: 35. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead—I. Pet. 1: 3. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us * * * * by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead—I. Pet. iii: 21. Not only do these testimonies show that the resurrection is an essential part of the gospel, that salvation depends upon it, but they contain irresistible proofs that death ends the present life and holds man helpless and unconscious in its grasp, and that no future life can be reached by the dead except through resurrection. It is “in the resurrection that we are to be made like the angles to die no more.” it is in the resurrection that the just are to be recompensed. It is in the resurrection that the righteous are to come forth to eternal life and the wicked to condemnation. It was “in the resurrection at the last day” that Martha believed her brother would rise again. Since all depended upon the resurrection of Christ there must be ‘ordained witnesses” to testify of its truth. Since David could not hope for the realization of God’s promises without resurrection he spake of the resurrection of Christ; and in fulfillment of the promises of Christ’s resurrection, and as assurance that all depending upon it would at last be fulfilled, it says: “This Jesus hath God raised up.” It was the part of Epicurean. and Stoic philosophy to deny and mock at the resurrection of the dead. It was for the hope of the resurrection of the dead Paul was called in question. He had “hope towards God that there would be a resurrection of the dead both of the just and of the unjust.” It was by the resurrection of Christ from the dead that He was “declared to be the Son of God with power by the spirit of holiness.” The hope of the Roman believers was that they would be “in the likeness of Christ’s” resurrection. Paul counted everything as nothing “if by any means he

Pg 164. might attain to a resurrection from among the dead.” The doctrine of the resurrection of the dead is one of the principles of the foundation upon which the church of Christ is built. The sufferings of the ancients were that they may obtain a “better resurrection.” By the resurrection of Christ the apostles were “begotten again to a lively hope,” and without resurrection their hope would be a dead one, for nothing but death would be their lot. Baptism doth now save us “by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.” Everything, all things everywhere in the Scriptures in relation to future life and happiness depend, absolutely depend upon the resurrection of the dead ; yet we are asked by a paganized and papalized Christianity to believe

10 that all good men have gone and now go and will continue to go to the happiest realms of bliss conceivable at and through death before, without and absolutely independent of resurrection. 0 ye priests, ye parsons ye preachers, why will ye pervert the ways of the Lord? We hurl back your God—dishonoring, truth- nullifying, soul— damning heresies to the darkest dungeons of a heathen, priest-ridden, superstitious, savage past, and we declare before God and man that you and “your fathers have inherited lies, vanity and things wherein there is no profit.”

THE RESURRECTION OF LAZARUS

In John xi. we have an account of a case of a once happy little family stricken with sorrow by the visitation of man’s great enemy, death. A loved brother had died and two loving and devoted sisters were left to mourn his loss. Here is the scene that death, cruel death, always brings to view wherever its cold, withering hand clutches. Who is there that has not been in its presence, and witnessed aching hearts, agonizing cries and scalding tears? • And who can be there and not feel the darkness of the hour, and not be touched with the sympathetic chord that vibrates through every throbbing heart? Why these pangs? Why this pain, this sorrow and sighing? What is the cause? The answer to it all is in the dreadful word, death. Yes, it is death that makes the heart ache and the tears burst forth. In its presence the Son of God, “Jesus wept.” What a rebuke to the false tongues that in death’s presence say it “is the voice that Jesus sends to call us to His arms “ “Our friend Lazarus sleepeth,” said Jesus. “If he sleepeth he doeth well,” said his disciples, speaking of natural sleep. And if he sleepeth in death he doeth better, say the modern believers in the conscious, happy state of the dead of Lazarus’ faith ; for he is not asleep but basking in bliss. Look at those loving sisters weeping. Send some one to console them. Whom shall we send? Shall we send one who will console them with the words, “He is not dead but gone before?” Or shall we send one who will console them with the words, “Thy brother shall/ rise again?” If you send a popular preacher who Pg 165 has “made a covenant with death” he will use the former method; if the Son of God go He will use the latter—He will give resurrection as the consolation. Why this difference? Because one represents the lie of the serpent, “Ye shall not surely die,” while the other is the “seed of the woman” and represents the truth of God, “Thou shalt surely die.” Let the preacher say “He is .not dead,” “There is no death,” and let the serpent hear him, and if he still has the power of speech he will say, “That is right; that is the doctrine 1 taught when I said ‘Ye shall not surely die,’ and I am pleased to hear preachers faithful to me in saying that ‘there is no death.’” Let the Saviour say plainly “Lazarus is dead,” and “Thy brother shall rise again,” and let the serpent and the popular preacher hear Him and they will charge Him with being a materialist, believing that the man is dead and unconscious depending upon Sing again for life. Let them stand by when Jesus calls Lazarus back to life as an act of kindness, and they will charge Him with an act of cruelty; because to them it is calling a man back from bliss to re-enter a life of woe. How can these things agree? How can truth and falsehood walk together? They cannot; and now whose consolation to the two weeping sisters is consolation? Is there consolation in a lie? No; there is only deception in it, cruel deception; and this is the deception of popular funeral sermons, rebuked and condemned by the Son of God in words that sound out, echo and re-echo the mournful sound, “Lazarus is dead,” and rebuked again in words of cheer that give hope, the only hope, “Thy brother shall rise again.” The resurrection of Lazarus had for its object more than simply temporary gratification of the two bereaved sisters. Its object was to manifest the power of God in Christ and to give a practical demonstration of the words Jesus uttered, “I am the resurrection and the life.” The real and permanent benefits of resurrection were not realized by Lazarus, and will not he till the time contemplated by Martha when she said, “I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.” This miracle of our Lord’s was therefore an illustration of the resurrection, and shows us the meaning of the word of which resurrection is a translation—that the word is anastasis and means standing again, that is, a standing again in life. For one to stand again in life implies that he stood once, then fell from standing in life, and then was made to stand again in life; and this implies that during the interval between there was no life, but death. This is why Jesus could say plainly, “Lazarus is dead,” and then promise, “Thy brother shall rise again.” If we follow the Saviour to the tomb of Lazarus we shall have the question of the state of the dead and the resurrection from the dead decided by the highest authority and in the most demonstrative manner.

10 Pg 166

A believer in the conscious happy, state of the righteous in death would expect to hear Jesus call Lazarus down from heaven ; and since they expect to see their friends in heaven, bodiless though they be, the; would expect to see Lazarus come and re- enter his body. On the other hand, a believer in the Scriptures, that the dead are “asleep in the dust of the earth” and that “the dead know not anything” would expect to see Lazarus called out of the grave where he lay dead and buried. Of course the expectations of the One are doomed to disappointment, as all theories and hopes contrary to the Word of God are, while the other will see just what the Scriptures prepare him to expect. Jesus is at the tomb; the stone is removed therefrom ; prayer is offered to God, and the Son of God “cried with a loud voice, Lazarus come forth. And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with grave-clothes, and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him and let him go.” Surely there is no room here for the popular theory of the consciousness of man in death.

“WHOSOEVER LIVETH AND BELIEVETH IN ME SHALL NEVER DIE.”

With an air of triumph the question is asked, What will you do with the words, “He that liveth and believeth in me shall never die ?“ Our answer is, believe these words just as fully as those that immediately precede them, namely : He that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live.” Lazarus had believed and he was dead, yet he should live. Jesus had said plainly, “Lazarus is dead.” Who shall say he never died or apply the words “shall never die” to all men? He who would must use one scripture to contradict others and would support the serpent’s lie, “Ye shall not surely die.” The two statements of verses 25 and 26 must be true ; and therefore one class will be dead but shall be made alive by resurrection, while the other class will be alive and not dead ; and Christ, at the time referred to--the “resurrection at the last day”—having come to change the mortal to immortality ‘‘in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye” (I. Cor. xv : 51 ~, they will “never die.” This is the “mystery” that Paul said he would show and did show when he said ‘‘We shall not all sleep” (I. Cor. xv : 51, 52), for some would be “alive and remain to the coming of the Lord” (I. Thes. iv :15).

“MY BROTHER HAD NOT DIED.’’

When I’d Martha met Jesus she exclaimed : “Lord, if thou hadst been here my brother had not died.’’ It is possible she only meant that if Jesus had been at Bethany he would, by his power to heal sickness, have prevented the death of Lazarus ; but are not the words capable of a much more far-reaching application, especially in view of the saving of Jesus, “He that liveth and believeth in me shall never die?“ Let us suppose

Pg 167

Christ returned to-day, how would it be with those who live and believe? Would it not be as Martha’s words declare, and as more fully explained by the Apostle Paul: “We shall not all sleep,” or die? When the Lord does return our brothers and sisters who, like Lazarus, are dead, shall be made alive by resurrection ; and our faithful brothers and sisters (in the Lord) will not die, but will “be changed in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye at the last trump.” The whole matter concerning the “quick and the dead” is therefore dealt with in this narrative, and we can confidently say of all in Christ as Martha did: “I know he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.”

CHAPTER VIII.

ETERNAL LIFE A MATTER OF PROMISE AND HOPE AND NOT OF PRESENT ACTUAL POSSESSION.

10 TO the believer in the popular doctrine of the immortality of the soul and consciousness of the dead one who denies these theories is an infidel and a “materialist,” the latter word being used to represent wickedness as great as the former. To deny the popular theory is to its zealots to deny a hereafter and to hold man to be no better than the beasts of the field. Since, as we have seen, death is death, if there is only death and no future life by resurrection, there is some excuse for the indignation the popular theorists manifest. But they generally run off with uplifted hands shouting only half the truth—that part of the truth which is the sad and sorrowful experience of all men; and when to this half they add their own misrepresentation by the use of the alarming word “infidel” the indignation of their hearers is soon aroused and the power of prejudice and falsehood excited against truth. If we show that death is real, we also show that there is resurrection. if we show that in death life ends, we also show that in resurrection life again begins. If we teach that a man dies, we also teach that he may live again. If we, in harmony with Scripture, set forth that man has not now the power of endless life, we also show that if he complies with the conditions he “might not perish, but might have everlasting life.” Surely this is more consistent than to teach that every man, good, had and indifferent, is in possession of the power to live for ever. Reason would say that those only who are fit to live for ever ought to live for ever. There is a fitness for eternal life set forth in the Scriptures, and where this fitness is not, eternal life is not given. Everlasting life is therefore a matter of promise and may be hoped for by those only who believe the promise and do the commands. All must admit that salvation depends upon belief of the gospel. The principal promise in the gospel is

Pg 168. eternal life. Now if one believes that he is in possession of eternal life, or a “never-ending soul,” by birth independently of the gospel, he cannot believe the true gospel; for how can he hope for that which he already hath? The Apostle Paul says: “The wages of sin is death ; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord”—Rom. vi: 23. Here is death on one hand and life on the other. The “orthodox” theory is that all men will live for ever, the only difference between the good and the bad being in the place where they live. They say the good will live in “heaven” and the wicked will live in “hell ;“ and when they are asked bow long will the wicked live in “hell” they answer, Just as long as the good live in heaven, and that is eternally. Therefore the wicked have been given eternal life to live in “hell” and the good have been given eternal life to live in “heaven ;“ so that Paul’s words should he changed to read, the wages of sin is eternal life in hell and the gift of God is eternal life in heaven. With them the gospel is not to save men from perishing and to give them everlasting life ; for they are “never-dying souls” and therefore never perishing souls ; but according to the Word of God it is that they “might not perish, but have everlasting life,” that God has sent His son. Now that eternal life is a matter of promise to the righteous only the following testimonies will clearly show; and these carefully read and studied will make manifest that man by nature is not related to the law of life and immortality—only to the law of sin and death ; and that if he ever obtains eternal life it must be by becoming related to the law of life, which he can do only in the way God has marked out in His Word.

ETERNAL LIFE A HOPE AND PROMISE.

And this is the promise that he hath promised us EVEN ETERNAL LIFE, through Jesus Christ-—-I. John ii: 25.

Pan! an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, according to THE PROMISE OF LIFE which is in Jesus Christ—II. Tim. i : 1.

IN HOPE OF ETERNAL LIFE, which God that cannot lie promised before the world began -Tit. i: 2. That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to THE HOPE OF ETERNAL LIFE—Tit. iii: 7.

Who will render to every man according to his deeds; to them who by patient continuance in well-doing seek for glory, honor and immortality, eternal life-— Rom. ii:6, 7.

For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God; and when Christ, who is our life shall appear THEN shall ye also appear with him in glory—--Col. iii:3, 4.

All that are in the graves shall hear his voice and shall come forth; they that have done good unto the resurrection of life—— John v: 28, 29.

10 He that soweth to the spirit shall of the spirit reap life everlasting—Gal. vi: 8.

They which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world and the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage; neither can they die any

Pg 169 more; for they are equal unto the angels and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection —Luke XX: 35, 36.

Could anything be more clear than these testimonies? God “bath promised us eternal life through Christ,” not given it to us by natural descent from Adam; Paul was an apostle “according to the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus ;“ not a life in us regardless of promise. “In hope of eternal life,” not in possession of it. “Heirs according to the hope of eternal life,” not yet inheritors of it; to those who seek, God “will render eternal life ;“ not that it is the possession of all without seeking. “Your life is hid with Christ in God ;“ not hid in us in the form of an immortal soul—hidden so that it was never seen by anyone ;“ “Shall come forth unto the resurrection of life ;“ not that they are in possession of it when dead and do not need resurrection to it; “Shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting ;“ not that it comes through fleshly inheritance without sowing or reaping; “Shall be accounted worthy, * * * shall die no more ;“ not that they will never die whether they are worthy or unworthy. In the struggle to escape the force of these testimonies the immortal soul theorist falls back upon his inventive powers and produces a meaning for the words eternal life that is as much opposed to the Scriptures as the dogma he seeks to sustain. The meaning of eternal life, he says, is not a living without end, but it is happiness. No doubt if he were allowed to revise the Bible he would make many improvements (?) in the phraseology of the prophets, Christ and His apostles; and if his theory is the true one the words of inspired men need much revision—no; not revision, but radical change. When the angel declared to the Prophet Daniel that some who “sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake to everlasting life,” according to this “orthodox” invention that the meaning is happiness, the angel should have said “come forth to everlasting happiness.” The Saviour’s words, “Strait is the gate and narrow is the way that leadeth unto life,” should have been “leadeth unto happiness ;“ for the popular belief is that those who go in the “wide way” that our Saviour says “leadeth to destruction do not go to destruction, but to a life that lasts as long as that of those who go in the “narrow way.” Those however who reverence the Word of God will never allow such changes to be made by uninspired men. They will not charge men who spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit with using the word life instead of happiness. They will believe that the “narrow way leadeth to 1ife” and the “wide way to destruction,” and that eternal life is what the gospel offers to the good; and eternal destruction, not eternal preservation, to the had. Of course eternal happiness will be the boon of those who are given the power of endless life; for only those worthy of happiness will be allowed to live for ever; and therefore the great object is to get life through Christ, in whom eternal life is hid till

Pg 170

He appears. When this life is obtained at the appearing of Christ, “then shall ye also appear with him in glory” (Col. iii : 4), and that glorious life will necessarily bring happiness. Refuge is again sought in such statements as these:

“He that hath the Son hath life” (I. John v:2). “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life” (John iii:36). “He that heareth my word and believeth on him that sent me bath everlasting life” (John v:24).

With these quotations, snatched out of their connection, the champion of the immortality of the soul becomes vehement, especially when he presses down with all his might upon the little word “hath.” A man with a poor case has generally a poor memory and is sure to confuse and contradict himself. Our opposers when dealing with the testimonies quoted showing that eternal life is a matter of promise claim that the meaning is eternal happiness, and that we are not to enter upon a realization of eternal happiness till death; but forgetting this when quoting the texts now under consideration, they place all dependence upon the word hath as proving present possession of eternal life. Come, gentlemen, we must remind you of your own definition and hold you to At in these verses; and you must he prepared to read your definition into these disconnected statements you quote, in doing which do not forget to put your whole stress upon the word hath. You must now quote thus:

10 “He that hath the Son hath eternal happiness.” “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting happiness.” Do you really believe that he who is a true follower of Christ ha/h this happiness now? If so, how about the “much tribulation” through which we must enter the kingdom? Met in this way our opposers are quite ready to say that “hath” is used in a prospective sense. But this concedes the entire question; for if hath is prospective when applied to eternal happiness, and if eternal happiness is synonymous with eternal life, then eternal life and eternal happiness are prospective and not a present possession.

The texts are quoted with the emphasis on the word “hath” to prove the immortality of the soul. The claim is this : We have souls that are immortal and therefore must live forever. When we read such phrases as “hath life” they mean that we have immortality or “immortal souls.” Now let the reader calmly consider the disconnected quotations in the light of the context and it will be seen at once that if it he allowed that “hath life” means actual present possession, the possession is conditional upon believing in the Son of God, and therefore has no reference whatever to the delusion of natural inherent immortality. If the word “life” in the texts means “immortal soul,” then they could be read, “He that hath the Son hath an immortal soul.” “Yes,” say some of our opposers before they see what they are stumbling into, “that is just it; hath an immortal soul.”

Pg 171

But it is “he that believeth on the Son of God” that hath, while you claim that all men have immortal souls whether they know anything of the Son of God or not. And now if you will quote the verses in full you will see that they declare that “He that hath not the Son hath not life.” Let us now have a little emphasis upon the word “not” and it will relieve the hard-pressed little word hath of the ponderous weight you put upon it. For argument’s sake you may stick to your cherished unscriptural phrase “immortal soul” and read: “He that hath not the Son of God hath not an immortal soul.” This works disastrously to the “immortal soul” and present possession of eternal-life cause; and it shows that when it says eternal life it means eternal life, and that it is conditional upon believing in the Son of God, and therefore never to be the possession of the wicked.

A drowning man will snatch at a straw, and finding defeat inevitable on every hand our opposers will sometimes say: “Well, we will grant your claim for conditional life and that it is for the righteous only, and we will still hold you to the phrase ‘hath life’—-that is, that the believer hath eternal life as an actual possession; for the text says: ‘He that bath the Son hath life.’” Very well; stick to the text, the whole of it, and not a garbled part of it, and we shall soon see the fallacy of your present actual-possession theory. You now want to have it that every man who believes in Christ is in actual possession of eternal life. Now suppose there is a “falling away from the truth and a giving heed to fables,” does the actual possession cease to be actual possession? For when one departs from the Truth and “falls away” and “crucifies the Son of God afresh and puts him to open shame” (Heb. vi: 6), surely such an one “hath not Christ;” and the text says “He that hath not the Son of God hath not life.” Is it that one can come into actual possession of eternal life and then lose possession; and, if his sin is not unto death, again come into actual possession and so on and so on? No sane man would accept such an absurdity, and a theory that so enslaves one as to shackle him with such chains of darkness and folly had better he relegated to the darkness whence it came.

Now the words “hath life” are clearly explained by the Apostle Paul when he says: “Ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God.” It is yours so long as you believe in and are faithful to Christ; but you must thus hold fast to Christ in order to have the life ; for the life is in Him now, not in you. “When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory” (Col. iii : 3). “As the Father hath life in himself, so bath he given to the Son to have life in himself.” And now, as the Son hath life in Himself, so will He, at His appearing, give to the righteous man to have life in himself. The difference between now and then is that now the faithful man hath life in Christ, while then Pg 172 Christ will give him that life and he will have it in himself. Then it will be present actual possession ; but the possession of the worthy only, never of the unworthy. It is no use to deny facts. For poor suffering, mortal man to persuade himself that he is now in possession of eternal life is worse than folly, when his own feelings of weakness are a standing denial of such a delusion. Surely when we are thrilled with the power of endless life our experience and sensations will be very different from what they are now. The conception we can now have of the exhilarating delight the possession of such a boon will impart can only be of the faintest character, such as is felt in a living hope and longing anticipation. However brightly and warmly such a hope may burn within us, the actual fact of our present condition will cry out, “0 wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?” Why should it be thought for one moment that the power of endless life is the natural possession of all men, when it

10 is seen that it necessitates the eternal perpetuation of evil, sin and sinners? Ought not the beautiful thought that life eternal is only for the good, and that all evil, all sin and all sinners will at last cease to be; ought not, I say, such a consistent thought, based upon Scripture and commendable to the highest faculty of reason as it is, summarily and for ever banish from the mind any theory that would necessitate the endlessness of sin, sorrow and suffering? it is true and everything to the contrary is false, that “God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him might not perish but have everlasting life.” Let the glorious sound go out, “Ho every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters ;“ for He who is our life has said: “I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.” No longer let us “spend our money for that which is not bread and our labor for that which satisfieth not ;“ but let us hearken diligently and God will make with us an everlasting covenant; yes, a covenant of life and peace and joy, and give us at last the “sure mercies of David.

“IS PASSED FROM DEATH UNTO LIFE.”

When our Lord said “he who believeth on Him shall not “come into condemnation, hut is passed from death unto life,” He showed clearly that only those who believe are in any way related to the law of life and immortality. Before they “passed from death unto life” they stood related to the law of sin and death only; and therefore the only way one can pass into a relation of eternal life is by complying with the conditions laid down. This goes to more fully establish the fact that eternal life is conditional and not a natural inheritance. But the words, “is passed from death unto life” are sometimes used in the hopeless attempt to prove present actual

Pg 173 possession of eternal life, and the conditional feature of the text is ignored. We have said sufficient to show that actual possession now is out of the question; and it is necessary under this heading only to show how the words in question can be understood in harmony with the facts in the case and the general teaching of the Scripture.

We often say of one condemned, “He is a dead man,” as soon as the law has proven him guilty, though the execution may be put off for a considerable length of time. By this we mean that legally the man is dead, and his actual physical death is, as a consequence, only a question of time. When such a person is pardoned by the mercy of the officer having the legal power we can truthfully say, “He is passed from death unto life.” We are, of course, speaking of his relation to law. Under the sentence the person is legally dead, having no rights as a citizen. When he is pardoned he passes back into the relation he once was in and is again a living citizen, having the rights of a citizen, and is, as lawyers say, “known in law.” Now the Apostle Paul says: “By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.” So we are all born under the sentence of death that was passed upon Adam, he being the whole race in one man, and the condemnation following him as he became multiplied generation after generation. Men are thus “by nature children of wrath” (Eph. ii: 3). In addition to this all adults are sinners by personal transgression. Thus are all men by nature and by actions under the just condemnation of God, “born in sin and shapen in iniquity” and “dead in trespasses and sins” (Eph. ii: r). Here is relationship to the law of sin and death. Now when we by belief of the gospel and baptism into Christ pass out of this hopeless state and it Him who is our life are “made free from the law”—the condemnation or the sentence—”of sin and death” there is “no condemnation.” We are “in Christ Jesus.” The “law of the spirit of life in Christ hath made us free from the law——the condemnation—of sin and death” (Rom. viii : 1, 2) and the dead in trespasses and sins are quickened” or made alive (Eph. ii: 1). We were dead legally and morally; now we are alive legally and morally. When we were dead legally and morally we were waiting death physically without hope of life; now that we are alive legally and morally we are awaiting the “redemption of the body” (Rom. viii : 23). Legally and morally it is therefore true of one in Christ that “he is passed from death unto life ;“ and if he continue faithful he “shall not come into condemnation.” To understand the sense in which we are said to be alive in Christ now we have only to consider the sense in which we were dead in Adam before

Pg 174

10 we were baptized into Christ. It will then be seen that the present phase of the subject has to do only with our relation, our legal and moral status, while the future has to do with the physical change of our “vile bodies.” The passing from death unto life in the former sense is essential to that of the latter. But some ask, If we have passed from death unto life legally and morally why do we die? This question manifests a short- sighted view of the subject. Salvation in Christ is not necessarily to save men from dying, but to save them out of death. This will be clearly seen by the words of Heb. v : 7, where it is said Christ “offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death AND WAS HEARD.” His prayer was not that He be saved from dying; for in that He was not heard, for He died. It was that He be saved from death or out of death; and in that He was heard. Those who are alive when the Lord comes will necessarily be saved from dying; but that is only an incident in the working of the great plan of salvation which is to save us out of death. While mortal man is walking about the earth or lying in the grave he is in death; and when deliverance comes he will be saved out of death in whatever part of its domain he may be found. The final salvation out of death into immortality will be for those only who stand in the relation of things expressed in the words “passed from death unto life,” and who have thereby entered into the atonement provided in Christ by the goodness and mercy of God. How necessary, then, that we should make haste to place ourselves in a right relation now; put off our relation to the law of sin and death and pass into that of the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus, which is the law of life and immortality.

CHAPTER IX.

IMMORTALITY A CONDITIONAL GIFT AND NOT

NATURALLY INHERENT.

WHAT has been said in reference to eternal life is largely applicable to the subject of immortality ; for eternal life implies immortality, the distinction being only in that the former has to do with the duration of life, while the latter relates to the nature that is capable of enduring for ever and of sustaining endless life. The word immortal in its adjective and noun forms is only used in the Scriptures five times. So it will be an easy matter to examine and see what man’s relation to immortality is. Were we to confine our pg 175 gation of the subject in hand to the sense in which the Scriptures speak of immortality the only possible conclusion would be that man is mortal and can become immortal only by complying with the conditions laid down. Following are the passages in which the word is found: Now unto the King eternal immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honor and glory for ever and ever—-I. Tim. i: 17. Which in his times he shall show, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of Kings and Lord of lords; who only bath immortality, dwelling in the light, etc—I. Tim. vi: 15, 6. But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life’ and IMMORTALITY to light through the gospel-II. Tim. i: 10 Who will render to every man according to his deeds; to them who by patient continuance in well-doing seek for glory, honor and immortality, eternal life— Rom. ii:6. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must PUT ON IMMORTALITY. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall haze PUT ON IMMORTALITY, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory—I. Cor. xv: ~ 54. From the first text quoted it will be seen that the word “immortal” is used to describe God’s nature. May we not therefore safely conclude that it describes that, and that only, which is perfect, pure and holy? If the word can be applied to sinners and to the supposed personal monster called the devil, where would be the relevancy of the apostle’s words, “Now to the King immortal, invisible?” If the devil is immortal he could be addressed, Now to the devil immortal, etc.; and if any man is immortal any king could be addressed, “Now to the king immortal.” It must be seen therefore that the word is expressive of a nature that is pure and perfect and in no way applicable to. sinful mortal man.

10 In the second quotation given we have the word applied to God in this form: “Who only hath immortality.” This must mean that it is God’s underived, glorious nature; that He only hath it to give, which implies that when it is given it is a blessing of the highest nature. If, however, it is given to all men regardless of merit—to the most depraved as well as to the most noble and pure in heart—it is not a blessing; for surely the possession of a never-dying nature by the wicked is a curse, not only to them, but an eternal curse, an indelible blot in the universe of God. God only hath immortality underived; and from Him it must come to any of His creatures who may he in possession of it. He has blessed angelic “ministering spirits” with it. Who will say He has given it to one single being who is not good and acceptable to Him, worthy and fit for endless existence? To say so is to charge God with folly; for it charges Him with imparting His own underived and glorious nature to depraved beings, resulting in the ceaseless existence of depravity of the deepest dye.

The Apostle Paul means the same thing when using the word immortal

Pg 176 in reference to God as the Apostle Peter when he uses the words “divine nature.” What is the “divine nature ?“ we may ask. Immortal, Paul answers. What is man’s nature? let us ask. Only presumption will dare answer that it is also divine nature. What is the devil’s nature? we may also ask. Only blasphemy will answer that it is divine nature. God never did and never will give His pure and perfect nature to sinners. The word immortal, when used in relation to man, is spoken of as the great blessing he may attain to through Christ. It is “brought to light through the gospel,” hence offered to man in the gospel. To claim that all men are in possession of immortality is to deny the gospel ; for it is to claim possession of what the gospel offers and in effect to say we do not need what God in His righteousness offers us.

By “patient continuance in well-doing” we must seek for glory, honor and immortality” if ever we come into its possession ; hut one deluded with the belief that he is in possession of it by nature will not be apt to seek for it. To put ourselves in the right position to believe and receive the benefits of the gospel we must discard the tradition of natural immortality and accept the truth of man’s mortality and his natural relation to the law of sin and death. All who do this will seek for immortality, and at the resurrection “this corruptible will put on incorruption and this mortal will put on immortality, and then shall be brought to pass the saying, Death is swallowed up in victory.” Now we are suffering from the sting of death ; but then the righteous will triumphantly exclaim, “0 death! where is thy sting? 0 grave! where is thy victory ?“ And our praise will go up to a merciful and beneficent creator in the words, “Thanks be to God who giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.”

CHAPTER X.

SIN AND DEATH TO COME TO AN END AND GOD TO BE ALL IN ALL.

A CORRECT understanding of man’s relation to the law of sin and death and of life and immortality opens the way out of the dreadful and God-dishonoring thought of the perpetuity of evil, sin and sinners, and leads out into the light of Scripture and reason by which is to be seen the final end of evil in all its forms, leaving a world filled with the glory of the Lord as the waters cover the deep. In the brightness and glory of this view God is seen to be triumphant over all that defaces the beautiful work of His creative power and wisdom, and everything is removed that interferes with the exquisite joy and eternal well- being of the righteous. Why should it be thought for one moment by civilized, not to say reason-

Pg 177 able, people that if there is an Eternal God there must be an eternal devil? Why should it ever enter the minds of intelligent men that if there is an everlasting heaven of happiness there must he an eternal hell of misery? Does the existence of God depend upon the existence of the devil? Does His shining brightness depend upon the deep darkness of a monster of wickedness and woe? Does the happiness of the everlasting and glorious kingdom of God depend upon eternal and

10 indescribable misery of a kingdom of satan? Away with such heathen thoughts. They are clouds of darkness to he dispelled by the sunlight of truth and reason ; and when their thick darkness and depressing gloom are removed the mind can bask in the bright prospect and exhilarating anticipation of the day when every enemy, the last enemy, death, shall be destroyed and “God shall be all in all.’’

If immortality is the nature of the fabulous devil of “orthodox” religion, of course he must exist as long as God exists ; and if wicked and depraved human beings are immortal souls, as much in possession of immortality as the righteous will ever be, of course their existence must be co-equal with that of the good and the pure. But what a reflection upon the character of a wise and omnipotent Deity it is to entertain such heathen dogmas. The horrors of an eternal burning hell were conceived in the savage heart of heathenism and used by the “philosophers” as a “pious fraud” to frighten into submission brutes in human form whose depravity made reason and moral suasion absolutely useless and powerless. The theory was “with the people equally true, with the philosopher equally false, and with the statesmen equally necessary.” As with modern Jesuitism, the policy with the “learned” was to “do evil that good might come,” in pursuance of which Plato declared: “If falsehood be indeed of no service to the gods, yet useful to men in the form of a drug, it is plain that such a thing should be touched only by physicians but not meddled with by private persons. To the governors of the state then (if to any) it especially belongs to speak falsely for the good of the state.” “Not to deceive for the public good is wrong” was Cicero’s teaching, it is said, Upon the authority of Plato.

The savage doctrine of endless misery found fertile soil in what Luther terms the “Roman dunghill of decretals.” As some of the profligate emperors of Rome “exhausted the whole art of pleasure, so that a reward was promised to any who should invent a new one, so have Romish persecutors exhausted all the art of pain; so that it will now be difficult to discover or invent a new kind of it which they have not practiced upon those marked out as heretics.” ‘What was to he expected of men whose practices were so in this life, but that their theory of the future would manifest the same savage revenge on the one hand and a reveling in luxury and fleshly pleasures on the other? The powers have overcome and subdued

Pg 178. the power of priestcraft and put a stop to its wicked practices so far as the infliction of physical suffering goes; but the theory of the thing is still abroad, not only in Romanism, hut in so-called Protestantism. Public sentiment is against the present execution of the laws of this abominable doctrine ; hut the skeleton is still in the closet, and frequently is exhibited in the pulpits of so-called orthodox churches. If the “earth has helped the woman” and the “two witnesses” have shut the heathen heaven that it may not rain fire and brimstone upon the “heretics” now, the messengers of darkness fail not to give expression to their inmost souls in picturing tip the “infernal regions” of heathenism and the horrors they expect to witness in an “eternal hell.” while they enjoy in heaven the spectacle throughout eternal ages. “Listen,” they say in their lurid pictures of the future, “to the tremendous, the horrible uproar of, millions and millions of tormented creatures mad with the fury of hell. Oh the screams of fear, the groanings of horror, the yells of rage, the cries of pain, the shouts of agony, the shrieks of despair from millions on millions. There you hear them roaring like lions, hissing like serpents, howling like dogs and wailing like dragons,” and so on in language so overwhelmingly dreadful that the pen almost refuses to write. If there is a mind that can really believe this how can there ever he a smile? How can there ever be a peaceful moment in this life? Why did nature make a moment of this life sweet and become possessed of the power to sing or experience a moment of rejoicing? If it be said that it is so because of the possibility of a “few being saved,” how can the few, even with the hope of their Own salvation, spend one moment of peace of mind with the thought of witnessing or of even knowing that such a thing is as the eternal torture of mothers, fathers, children and friends, or even of creatures of their own nature and feelings whom they never saw? No rational mind can believe such a horrible thing : it is not for belief ; it is for delusion, not of civilized minds but of heathen, whose slavish subjection can be accomplished only by fears and frowns.

True the doctrine of endless misery is kept behind the scenes when “refined” audiences are addressed from the pulpits of our times; and some of the leaders are inclined to be ashamed of the common red pictures of some of the painters of the past; and this being looked upon as all artistic age the pulpit artists are softening the colors to suit the taste of modern religious art. The result is a modification in their teachings. But with all their fine art and soft colors they still will have an eternal hell of eternal misery.

10 Change it, if you please, from hot coals and burning brimstone to a deathless worm gnawing the conscious and you still have eternal misery, and you still keep the blot upon the character of a wise and just God. Some, it is true, of the “orthodox” leaders have renounced and denounced the doctrine; but they still hold to its parent theory, the pg 179 tality of the soul ;“ the one that is the root of all evil. So long as you keep in your creed the immortality of the soul you are bound to one of two conclusions, both of them bad, but one worse than the other—eternal torment of the wicked or their salvation in spite of themselves. That which is indestructible cannot be destroyed; and if the wicked are indestructible souls they must exist eternally somewhere and in some condition. The fact is, there is no escape except in relegating the fabulous thing to the myths of a superstitious, benighted past, amid in letting the light of Bible truth reveal to reason that man is a destructible being, and his destiny, if unfit for perpetuity, is destruction; and that only those who will be an honor to God will he allowed to survive and enjoy the power of an endless life.

The triumphing of the wicked is short and the joy of the hypocrite but for a moment, he shall perish forever like his own dung; they which have seen him shall say, Where is he? He shall fly away as a dream and shall not be found; yea, he shall be chased away as a vision of the night _Job xx: 5-8. For yet a little while and the wicked shall not be; yea, thou shalt diligently consider his place and it shall not be. But the wicked shall perish, and the enemies of the Lord shall be as the fat of lambs,’ they shall consume; into smoke shall they consume away—Psa. xxxvii:10,20 But the transgressors shall be destroyed together; the end of the wicked shall be cut off—Psa. xxxvii:38. Let the sinners be consumed out of the earth and let the wicked be no more— Psa. civ:35. The Lord preserveth all them that love him; but all the wicked will he destroy— Psa. cxlv:20. There is a way that seemeth right unto a man; but the end thereof is the way of death—Prov. xvi: 25. Behold all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine; the soul that sinneth IT SHALL DIE— Ezek. xviii:4. For, behold, the day cometh that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly shall be stubble; and the day that cometh shall burn them up saith the Lord of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root no branch. * * * And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall he ashes under the soles of your ,feet_ Mal. iv: 1, 3. Whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly purge his floor and gather his wheat into the gainer; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire—Matt.iii :12. As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire, so shall it be in the end of this world—Matt. xiii: 40. For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life, through Jesus Christ our Lord—Rom vi: 23. And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ; who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his power—II. Thess. i:7-9. But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not, and shall utterly perish in their own corruption— II. Pet. ii: 12.

Pg 180.

Many more testimonies could he added, but these are sufficient to show the general tenor of the Scriptures.

THE WORM DIETH NOT AND THE FIRE IS NOT QUENCHED.

Among the few texts that are made to seem to the superficial to teach the terrible doctrine of eternal torment is Mark ix : 43- —”And if thy hand offend thee cut it off ; it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell ( Gehenna), into the fire that never shall be quenched ; where their worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched.” Of Gehenna, here improperly translated “hell,” the “Emphatic Diaglott” says Gehenna the Greek word translated ‘hell’ in the common version, occurs twelve times. It is the Grecian mode of spelling the Hebrew words which are translated ‘The Valley of Hinnom,” The valley was also called Tophet, a detestation, an

10 abomination. Into this place were cast all kinds of filth, with the carcasses of beasts and the unburied bodies of criminals who had been executed. Continual fires were kept to consume these, Sennaeberib’s army of one hundred and eighty-five thousand men were slain here in one night. Here children were burnt to death in sacrifice to Moloch. GEHENNA, then, as occurring in the New Testament, symbolizes DEATH and UTTER DESTRUCTION, but in no place symbolizes a place of eternal torment

So long as fuel was supplied the fire burned, and so long as there were carcasses the worms lived!. Everything was burnt up and devoured ; and the fact that the fire was not quenched and the worm died not, instead of proving the eternal preservation of the fuel and the carcasses, it proved that complete destruction would take place. The prophecy of Jeremiah says : “I will kindle a fire in the gates thereof and it shall devour the palaces of Jerusalem and it shall not be quenched”—chapter xvii : 27. The fact that the fire should not he quenched is proof that it would devour; but no one is foolish enough to claim that the fire that was kindled is still burning and! will never cease to burn. Gehenna was a place to burn the root and branch and to devour every vestige ; and this fact is used to emphasize the total destruction of the wicked in the final day of judgment.

EVERLASTING PUNISHMENT.

Another text relied upon in support of eternal torment is Matt. xxv : 46— “These shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternal.” The words “everlasting punishment” are supposed to mean ceaseless conscious existence in misery. The fact that the word aionion, rendered in this place eternal, is sometimes used to represent an age is overlooked. Aaronic priesthood was called an “everlasting priesthood!,” yet it came to an end. The word “punishment” is from the Greek word Kolasum, which means cut off, used for the cutting off of branches of trees. The more literal rendering of the words would be, “These shall go away into the cutting off of the age.” But let it read, “These shall go away into the punishment of the age,” amid then the question is, What is

Pg 181 the punishment of the age? This is answered by the Apostle Paul in the words of 11. Thess. i : 9—”Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction.”

But, we are told, the word “everlasting” is from the same Greek word as “eternal” in the same verse, and if everlasting means age so does eternal; and so you limit the life of the righteous. There is no force in this when the matter is properly viewed. Read the verse thus: “These shall go away into the punishment of the age, but the righteous into the life of the age,” and then the question is, What is the life of the age? Other scriptures tell us that it is immortality, and since immortality is deathlessness the life to be given to the righteous in that age will be a life that shall never end. So the righteous will receive a reward in a life that shall never see death, amid the wicked will receive a punishment in a death that shall never see life.

The parable of the rich man is another supposed support of this heathen doctrine of endless misery, though there is not a word in it to show the duration of the torment of the rich man, even if it be allowed that it is a literal narrative. We have given a full explanation of this parable in our little book entitled “The Great Salvation,” and our limited space here compels us to refer the reader to that work.

Sufficient has now been said to show that sin, suffering and death will finally end, and there will be a survival of only the “fittest” when God’s great plan of salvation is complete. The last enemy will then have been destroyed and nothing will remain displeasing to the eye of Him who is the perfection of holiness. This final triumph of all that is right and good and glorious will render the glory due to the name of the God of heaven and earth ; and throughout the ceaseless ages to follow countless multitudes of grateful voices will give praise and honor to Him whose attribute of goodness amid mercy has been so g1oriousl~ manifested in the working out of such grand results.

CHAPTER XI.

THE TRANSITION FROM THE LAW OF SIN AND DEATH TO THE LAW OF LIFE AND IMMORTALITY.

10 THE important question now is, How we may escape sin and death and obtain life and immortality? There are two representatives of these two laws—-—-Adam and Christ. Adam brought sin and death and Christ will bring life and immortality, it was Adam’s sin that started the law of sin and death into operation, and it was Christ’s righteousness— prospective before His death amid resurrection—that set the law of life and immortality at work, Now which of these laws are we under? is the important question. If we are under the first, in Adam, our condition is thus described : “Wherefore remember, that ye being in times past Gentiles in the flesh, * * * that at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens

Pg 182 from the commonwealth ot Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world”—Eph. ii 11, 12. This is a hopeless state indeed. We are Gentiles by nature, and as such we are by nature under the dominion of sin and death. if we remain under the law of this dominion we shall continue citizens of the dominion of sin and death; and death, yes, eternal death is all we may ever expect. If ever we hope to escape this sad end we must change our citizenship, by passing out from under the law that Adam placed us under by sin to that which Christ only can place us under by righteousness. If this change from one law to another, from one dominion to another takes place, we shall then be under the law of life and immortality, called the “law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus” (Rom. viii : 2); and if we are loyal to its requirements so long as our probation may last we shall finally secure the glorious possession of life and immortality. We must therefore change our relation to law ; we must change our dominion. We must put off Adam’s dominion and put on Christ’s. We must pass out of Adam and into Christ. How can we do this? The Apostle Paul answers: “For ye are all the children of God by (the one) faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye he Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed and heirs according to the promise”—Gal. iii:2.29. Baptism, upon belief of the gospel, is therefore the act required to effect our transition from under the law of sin and death to that of life and immortality. The same apostle further says: “In whom (Christ) ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; buried with him by baptism, wherein ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who bath raised him from the dead”—Col. ii: 11, 12. This is called a new birth, a being born of or out of water (John iii : 5). And when the change is thus effected we have put off the old man and put on the new; we have put off the law of death and put on the law of life; amid “now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were afar off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.” “Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens of the saints and of the household of God” Eph. ii: 13, 19. Being now under the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus we are made free from the law of sin and death and waiting the time when we shall pass from these sin-and-death bodies into those of life nut! immortality ; for how “our citizenship is in heaven, from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able to subdue all things unto himself” (Phil.iii: 20,21). What a glorious hope this is! Well might we exclaim, “Behold what manner of love the Father bath bestowed upon us that we should be called the sons of God ;“ for “now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be ; but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.” “And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure” (1. John iii :1- 3). If the reader and the writer shall be at last blessed with a realization of this glorious hope happy, happy shall we he. Amen.

Pg 183 THE

PURPOSE OF GOD IN THE EARTH —AS REVEALED—

In the Promises Made Unto the Fathers

Setting forth the one Gospel which is the power of God unto Salvation as distinguished from the theories of so-called Christendom.

10 A LECTURE BY THOS. WILLIAMS

PRICE 5 CENTS; BY MAIL 6 CENTS; 6o CENTS PER DOZEN

ADVOCATE PUBLISHING HOUSE

Pg 185

The Purpose of God in the Earth As Revealed in the Promises Made

Unto The Fathers.

A LECTURE BY THOS. WILLIAMS.

RESPECTED FRIENDS :—The subject of our lecture tonight is one of vast importance to all who are in the least concerned about a future life. There are many in these times who rock themselves to sleep with the idea that it makes no difference what we believe doctrinally, if we only do what we deem right in the way of living an honest life and being good citizens, the matter of our belief matters but little—if anything—one way or another. This is a very mischievous theory, because it is a plausible one—one that can be used as a cloak for all the pernicious, heretical dogmas which are found in the creeds of the churches of the nineteenth century. It simply amounts to this: that it makes no difference whether we believe God or disbelieve Him, whether we regard His revelation to man as a revelation of truth or a declaration of falsehood. To assume that salvation may he obtained by one’s own works, or goodness, is to predicate the obtaining of salvation upon self-righteousness —upon works without faith, thereby giving the glory to the flesh which belongs to God. If salvation depends upon works— goodness, self-righteousness-—regardless of faith and doctrine, then it may pertinently be asked, Why was it necessary for God to send His Son into the world to suffer and die for man’s redemption? If belief were a matter of indifference, and the gaining of a future life depended simply on man’s sincerity and morality, surely these should have been sufficient to secure the great redemption that is believed to have been brought about by the Son of God passing through an ordeal of suffering that ended only in his death upon the cross. In that case, however, the great work performed by our Saviour is rendered val- ueless, being merely a work of supererogation.

10 The fact is, as abundantly revealed in the Scriptures of truth, that God requires men to believe Him as the first step towards reconciliation. He will not bestow His blessings upon men who will not believe His word. “He that believeth” (the gospel), says the Say-

Pg 186 lour, “and is baptized shall he saved, and he that believeth not shall be condemned.” The gospel then is that which is to be believed. But what is the gospel ? we think we can hear someone asking. This is a question which can only be answered by the Scriptures. Questions submitted to the theological teachers of so-called orthodoxy, will he answered according to the schools to which such teachers belong and judging from the many denominations constituting the religious world, it would appear that instead of using the word gospel in the singular number, the use of it in the plural would be more fitting. Paul, however, declares there is but one gospel. In his letter to the Galatians (chap. i 6-9) he says : “I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you, unto another gospel ; which is not another but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” Not only does this language show that there is but one true, saving gospel, but it also pronounces a curse upon the one who would dare preach any other, in view of this how important it is then, my friends, that we ascertain what the apostles preached as the gospel. Let us try, then, to follow the teachings of God’s “holy men of old, who spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.” Paul says in his letter, from which we have been quoting (chap. iii : 8), that God preached “the gospel to Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed, and in so doing, a promise was made to Abraham of an inheritance (v. i8). The question will naturally arise, Where is the inheritance God promised? a question we shall find answered in the book of Genesis—the

“scripture” to which the apostle refers. In chapter xii :1 etc.. it says, “Now the Lord had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, unto a land that I will show thee and I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and .make thy name great, and thou shalt he a blessing. And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.’’ In pursuance of this command we find (v.5) that “Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot, his brother’s son, and all their substance . . . and went forth to go into the land of Canaan ; and into the land of Canaan they came.” And now that he has removed from his native country, into the land to which God had commanded him to go we find, in chapter xiii : 14, the gospel (good news) was made known unto him. “And the Lord said unto Abram, after that Lot was separated from him, “Lift up now thine eyes, and look from the place where thou art, northward, and southward, and eastward, and westward; for all the land which thou

Pg 187 seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed forever. And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth ; so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also he numbered. Arise, walk through the land in the length of it, and in the breadth of it; for I will give it unto thee.” In this testimony we see that God promised to give to Abram the land which he (Abram) saw, and through which he walked “in the length of it and in the breadth of it.” There need be no misunderstanding of language so plain as this. Let me repeat, it is the land that is promised to Abram ; it is not heaven. God does not tell Abram to look up to heaven, promising him an eternal abode there, though this would certainly have been the occasion for making such a promise, if a promised inheritance of heaven were the gospel. The theory of heaven-going has become so stereotyped upon the minds of the people, that the plain statements of Holy Writ are overlooked. Heaven is nowhere promised to man. “The heaven, even the heavens are the Lord’s, but the earth hath he given to the children of men” (Psa. cxv : i6). “God himself that formed the earth and made it; He hath established it, He created it not in vain ; lie formed it to be inhabited.” Yes, inhabited in a state of blessedness, when all nations shall be blessed in Abraham and his seed, as declared in the promises to which we have called your attention. But some may say, Yes, but God fulfilled those promises when he gave the land of Canaan to Abraham’s seed—the children of Israel. But note carefully the language of the promise : “ To thee Abram and to thy seed will I give it.” Even if it were true that the Israelites under the law obtained the inheritance according to this promise, which we most emphatically deny, that would not have been a fulfillment of the promise, for Abraham was dead--- —had “died, not having received the promise’’ (Heb. xi: 13)—’long before his descendants went into Canaan under Moses and Joshua. There is no evading the fact that the promise was of sufficient importance to be made the subject of an oath. In Gen. xxii : 15—18 it is said that ‘‘the angel of the Lord called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time, and said, By

10 myself have I sworn, saith the Lord, for because thou hast done this thing, amid! bust not withheld thy son, thine only son ; that in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore ; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies ; and in thy seed shall all nations of the earth be blessed, because thou hast obeyed my voice.” “Thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies.” The pronoun his used here must refer to one particular person, and do you ask who it is? I answer, CHRIST, as we shall presently see. I will ask you to keep your mind upon that point for a moment or two till we revert to the question again : Did Abraham receive the promised inheritance? for if he did not, then we have a promise made pg 188 by the Deity, and predicated upon His oath, placed upon record, unfulfilled. That Abraham did not inherit the land promised or any part of it—according to the promise—is evident from the fact that lie had to purchase a burying place for Sarai his wife, of the children of Heth (Gen. xxiii : 3), and is said to have “sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob the heirs with him of the same promise” (Heb. xi 8, 9’). Moreover’ he and others are said to have “died” in the faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off” etc. (Heb. xi: 9). If, however, this plain testimony is not sufficient to prove that the promise made to the fathers or to Abraham was not fulfilled, then we call your attention to what inspiration says through Stephen in Acts vii:2-5. Stephen says, “Hearken : the God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Charran, and said unto him, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and come into the land which I will show thee. Then came he out of the land of the Chaldeans amid dwelt in Charran ; and from thence, when his father was dead, he removed him into the land wherein ye now dwell” (the land of Canaan). Stephen is here rehearsing the account of Abraham’s immigration from his native country to Canaan as given by Moses in what we have already quoted, and now the point we want settled is, Did Abraham get possession of the land? Will anyone within the hearing of my voice say, Yes, I will emphatically say, No. Who, then, is right? Let inspiration answer; “And he gave him none inheritance in it, no not so much as to set his foot on.” But did God promise him that which he did not receive? “Yet he promised that he would give it to him for a possession, and to his seed after him, when as yet he had no child.” Now, how does the question stand? First, we find the land is promised, and second, that it was not given. Those who would say that the promise was fulfilled, must now surrender, or place themselves diametrically opposed to God’s word. The infidel steps in here and, as you will find in a book called ‘‘One hundred and Forty four Contradictions of the Bible,” points you to the book of Genesis where the promise is made to Abraham ; he calls your attention to Stephen’s statement, that God gave Abraham “not so much as to set his foot on ;“ and then triumphantly declares that God has promised upon oath, and has not performed : and you, my friends, if you hold to the popular theory, sustain the infidel by teaching that God will never fulfill the promise. To put the matter still more pointedly, I will ask you, Do you believe God promised the land of Canaan to Abraham? Of course, you will say yes. Then I will ask you, Do you believe that God “gave him none inheritance in it” and therefore did not fulfill His promise? You are bound to answer: He did not

Pg 189 fulfill the promise. Then, I ask, Do you believe that God’ will fulfill the promise by giving the land to Abraham? Until you abandon orthodoxy, so-called, you will answer no. Then God has promised what he has not performed, and never will perform! Thus your theory leaves you helpless at the feet of infidelity ; and the Bible, God’s holy book, becomes a target for the poisoned arrows of its relentless enemies. Now I do not believe you mean to do this, hut you have had your minds crammed so full of tradition that unwittingly you make God’s word of none effect. Let infidels turn their attention to the true believer in God’s Word. Let them try the power of their weapons with him and they will find that their “sword shall enter into their own hearts and their bows shall be broken” Put the question in the same form to one who believes the gospel: Do you believe God promised the land of Canaan to Abraham? Yes. Do you believe the statement that “He gave him not so much as to set his foot on”? Yes, Then He has not fulfilled His promise? No. And never will? Ah! stop, sir; most assuredly he will. “Thou wilt perform the truth to Jacob, and the mercy to Abraham which thou hast sworn unto our fathers from the days of old,” was the exclamation of Micah long after the fathers were dead (chap. vii: 20), and the performance of “time truth” will be the establishment of Jehovah’s kingdom in the earth, resulting in the “blessing of all nations in Abraham’s seed.” But some will say that God did not intend to give Abraham that literal land, but pointed to it as a type of the spiritual Canaan in heaven. Well, that would be a strange way of teaching Abraham the gospel, to command him to go to a strange land to look east and west, north and south,; to walk through the land “in the length of it and in the breadth of it ;“ to say, “All the land which ‘thou seest will I give to thee,” and yet that was not the land at all, that there was no land intended, but that the promise all the time meant that Abraham would go to the sky for his inheritance. Do you not think that would he a strange procedure? But let us see. Grant for the sake of the argument, that the promise meant heaven. Then it follows that in Stephen’s time Abraham had not received of heaven “so much as to set his foot upon ;“ for Stephen says that he did not receive a foot of that which was promised. If the promise meant heaven, heaven was not received; if the

10 promise meant the land, the land was not received—that which was promised was not received, that which was not received was what was promised. it was the land that was promised, and that land must be received in order to fulfill the promise. To return to the words, “his seed.” I asked you to keep your minds on the fact that the “seed” spoken of is in the singular number, in the promise: “Thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies.” Now let us see if we can determine what particular person is repre-

Pg 190 sented by the pronoun “his.” The words, “To thee and to thy seed will I give this land for an everlasting inheritance,” are supposed to have referred to the children of Abraham going into the land under the law, but we find the words did not have such application; and by the same testimony we shall see that the “seed” referred to was not the children of Israel. Paul in Gal. iii: 16 says: “Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. he saith not, And to seeds as of many”—not to the many that went in under the law—’but as of ONE, and to thy seed which is Christ.” You will probably ask then, “How about the going in under the law? Did it interfere with the promise in any sense? and the apostle answers: “And this I saw, that the covenant that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul that it should make the promise of none effect. For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise, but, God gave it to Abraham., by promise.” “Wherefore then serveth the law?” What service was the law? “jt was added”—added to what? To the promise “that was confirmed (four hundred and thirty years) before of God in Christ—because of transgressions till the seed should come to whom the promise was made.” Who was he? “He saith not and to seeds as of many, but as of one, and to thy seed, WHICH IS CHRIST.”

Here is proof to a demonstration that the inheritance of the land—the earth which God created to be inhabited— is to be given to Christ, in whom “all families of the earth shall be blessed.” In preaching this glorious gospel to Abraham God made it the subject matter of a covenant, typically confirmed in the offering up of Isaac, but really confirmed in the offering up of God’s only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, who “was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God to confirm the promises made unto the fathers” (Rom. xv: 8). While it is true that the land of Canaan was the land that was promised to Abraham and his seed, the Christ, and will, no doubt, be the base of operation when Christ reign as King of the whole earth, “the law going forth out of Zion and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem,” the blessings to flow to “all the nations of the earth” must necessarily reach far beyond the boundaries of the land between “the river of Egypt and the great river, the river Euphrates”; therefore Paul says: “For the promise that he (Abraham) should be the heir of the world was not to Abraham or his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith” (Rom. iv: 13). Hence Abraham and his seed, the Christ, are heirs of the world.” Now to be an heir of an estate implies future possession, therefore in the—.we think now near—future Abraham and Christ will he put in possession of the whole earth, and the words of the Saviour will find their fulfillment: “They shall come from the east and from the west, and

Pg 191. from the north and from the south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of God’’(Luke xiii 29), in which kingdom Abraham, Isaac and Jacob will be seen (v 28). The gospel, then, brings good news to mankind, not of translation to heaven, or ‘beyond the bounds of time and space,’’ but of the future inheritance of the earth in a state of blessedness, peace, and prosperity. An inheritance that, instead of being beyond the bounds of time, will be for time without end, and instead of being beyond the bounds of space, will be in space co-extensive with the earth, for “The kingdom and dominion and greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most high, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominians shall serve and obey him’’ (Dan. vii : 17). It will probably be asked, How can we inherit the earth for time without end seeing we are mortal creatures, diving and passing away? The answer to this inquiry properly belongs to another subject, which, however, is involved in the one we are discoursing upon ; but for the present we will say that before the everlasting inheritance of the earth in glory can take place, Christ, the “seed to whom the promise was made,” must return from heaven and raise the dead, among whom are Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and make them along with the living, who have believed the gospel and obeyed it, the subjects of a change from mortality to immortality ; or as Paul says, “change our vile body that it may be fashioned like unto his own glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able to subdue all things unto himself” (Phil. iii: 21). hence eternal life, that is

10 to say, immortality of nature, and consequent freedom from sickness, and sorrow, pain, and death ; an unending abode upon the earth, in a condition free from the results of sin, tyranny and anarchy, crime and poverty, are the good news contained in the gospel, and preached by the prophets, Christ and the apostles. What could be more suitable to our wants than this ? Why is it that Christendom has strayed from this, and, turning a deaf ear to these glorious truths, giving heed to the uncertain sounds which have originated only in the imaginative brains of those who. forsaking God’s righteousness, have gone about to establish a righteousness’ ( ?)of their own. From what has been said, it will be noticed that all these good things, from Abraham’s time at least, have been promised to Abraham and his seed,’’ and the query will naturally arise If they are only to be given to Abraham’s seed, then we Gentiles are without hope? Yes, Gentiles, as such, are without hope. Nothing is more clearly revealed in the Scriptures than this. The apostle in Eph. ii: 11,12, says “Wherefore remember that ye being in times past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called uncircumcision by that which is called the circumcision in the flesh made by hands, that at that time ye were

Pg 192 without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.” This is the condition of all Gentiles. When God called Abraham out from his idolatrous neighbors, and preached the gospel to him, nearly the whole world was in a state of idolatry— all were Gentiles, and their descendants have never changed their relationship to God. It has been God’s good pleasure to commit His oracles to Abraham’s seed according to the flesh ; to give them the law, designed to lead them to Christ who is THE SEED in and through whom only the blessings of the gospel can be obtained. The possession of the inheritance is only for such as are heirs of it ; as Gentiles were never promised the good things never made heirs— therefore they can never come into possession. The text we started out with says, however, that “the Scriptures foreseeing that God would justify the heathen— or Gentiles—through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham.” Here we see a predetermination of God to justify the Gentiles, but you will please notice that this justification is through faith. Faith in what? For “without faith it is impossible to please God.” A faith to please God must surely be faith in what He has promised. It certainly will not please Him to have faith in what he has not promised. The faith that the Scriptures speak of that will please God, is “the faith which cometh by hearing, and the hearing by the word of God” (Rom. x 17 ) “Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness,” and if we in these times of the Genti1es will believe God in what He promised Abraham, and obey him as Abraham did, it will be counted to us for righteousness, too ; but it in it be a belief in what he has promised, and not in what we think, nor in what we hear from our neighbors, religions or otherwise. No doubt Abraham’s neighbors were religious in their way, but it was not God’s way, and therefore God told him to leave them. And so we must come out from them, even though they be our “kindred,” or “father’s house ;“ and the land into which Abraham actually went, we must go into by faith, the same faith that Abraham had, and after this sojourning is over, if the Lord does not appear, die in the faith as Abraham did. Then as the children of Abraham, who is the father of the faithful, we shall, having been raised from the dead, be blessed with him when the time arrives to take actual possession of the inheritance promised. But still it may be asked, How are we who are Gentiles without hope and without God in the world to become the seed or children of Abraham? God, my friends, has not left us in the dark upon this important question. He did not forget to do what He foresaw and promised. “When the fulness of time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman.” This Son did not take on the nature of an-

Pg 193 gels, but he took on, or was made in, the nature of Abraham, and was the “seed of David,” and consequently of Abraham “according to the flesh.” Christ, “the seed,” is the central figure in the promises, and is the “way” through which we can alone come into possession of the promise. This was made a matter of special revelation, it would seem, to the apostle Paul. He says, in his letter to the Ephesians (chap. iii:1) : “For this cause,” that is, as shown in verse 19 of the previous chapter, that although they had been strangers, etc., they were “no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints and of the household of God.’ “For this cause, I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles, if ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward; how that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit, that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs and of the same body and partakers of his promise IN CHRIST BY THE GOSPEL.” in Christ, then, we Gentiles may be made partakers of the promise contained in the gospel. But

10 inasmuch as we are “by nature children of wrath” (chap. ii: 3), “without Christ, having no hope, and without God in the world,” and in which hopeless condition we are said to he “aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise” (v : 12), what shall we do to get into Christ, to become of the “same body,” and thus “partakers of the promise”? Refer to Paul’s letter to the Galatians, third chapter—-the chapter we started from, and from which we have so frequently quoted- and in verses 27-29 you will find a direct answer to the query “For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female; for ye are all one in “Christ Jesus” And if ye he Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, amid heirs according to the promise.” here we see, then, that through faith amid baptism we can become one with Christ ; and as he is the real seed to whom the promise was made, by being baptized into him we become his, and consequently heirs of the same promises, or as the apostle says in another place, “heirs of God, joint heirs with Jesus Christ.” Now, my friends, let me again impress upon your minds the fact, though I may appear to be repetitious, that THE PROMISES are the subject matter of the apostle’s preaching and writings. We have shown from Divine testimony what the promises are, and we have no right to expect God to give us anything but what He has promised. Our opinions one way or time other will not affect the matter. If we persuade ourselves that He will give us what we expect, with out the assurance from His word, we shall deceive ourselves, for, as

Pg 194 we have abundantly shown, we must believe him --believe that He will do what he has promised. The most implicit faith that God will give us something He has never promised is not faith in him or in His promises. To have faith in what we think will be given to the righteous, is to set up our own thoughts against God’s, and virtually to declare that we do not believe Him, or are not satisfied with his promises. The way “that seemth right unto man, the end thereof is the way of death.’ Now we have seen that God has promised the righteous an everlasting inheritance in the earth, and if we believe this promise and obey God, we shall be made partakers of it. but if we persist in believing that we shall have an inheritance in heaven, we are believing another gospel, and cannot expect—-—have no right to expect------anything but a curse, as the apostle declares in Gal. i 8. There seems to be a chronic mental disease in these times among the majority of the people. It has a visionary effect upon the mind, causing it to “soar beyond the bounds of time and space’’ rather than anchor itself to the real things God has promised as the good time and space , when and where He will cause his glory and power to be known. Tradition of heaven- going has so enslaved the minds of most people that it is next to impossible to implant the germ of Bible truth. This beautiful planet is regarded is useless for anything except to be the scene of sin and misery. poverty and oppression ; to furish a few for the populating of another planet in a state of happiness. and countless millions for fuel for an unending fire of torture. The popular theories teach that after the earth has served its purpose thus far, it is to explode, and pass into a state of non-existence thus leaving it a dark spot—-a splotch upon the records of the divine chronicle. Can we reasonably persuade ourselves that God has created terrestrial orb for no other purpose than to be desecrated and polluted by sin for Six thousand years , more or less and, then to pass into oblivion? No. no, my friends, God’s work is not in vain; He will not allow his plans to be frustrated by any power in heaven, earth or hell. ‘‘For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens, God himself that formed the earth and made it he hath established it, he created it not in Vain, he formed it to be inhabited’’ Isa. xiv’. 15, “The heaven, even the heavens are the Lord‘s but the earth hath he given to the children of men” (Isa. cxv : 18). Iii the thirty- seventh psalm we find it frequently declared that “the meek shall inherit the ,earth and therein forever,’’ and that “the wicked shall be rooted out of it.’’ Our Saviour also consoles his despised followers with the words, “Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth” (Matt. v :5). These are words, however, that are utterly without meaning with so called Christian people at the present time. However eager they may be to inherit the earth during this life, which is far from being pg 195 the result of meekness, they don’t want it in the future. They In effect say to the Saviour, We cannot, by meekness, inherit the earth now, and in the future don’t expect it, nor do we want it; and so it is in vain to try to console us with the words, “Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth.” If you would tell us that we shall inherit heaven, that would be a consolation to us, for it is in heaven that we expect to be blessed.” This fairly expresses the real attitude of Christendom towards the words of Jesus and toward the whole Scriptures. “The righteous shall be recompensed in the earth much more the wicked and the sinner” (Prov: xi: 31) is the language of God-inspired men, and to try to persuade ourselves otherwise is folly in the extreme But you will ask, Does not Jesus say, “In my Father’s house are many mansions; I go to prepare a place for you, that where I am there ye may be also”? The verse is generally quoted, or rather misquoted, in that way, but a proper quotation is as

10 follows: “In my Father’s house are many mansions; if it were not so I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you, and if I go and prepare a place for you, I will COME AGAIN, and receive you unto myself that where I am there ye may be also” (Jno. xiv: 2, 3,). These words are thought by many to teach that Jesus promised the disciples they should go to heaven. I have no doubt there are many within the hearing of my voice who think so; but a careful reading will show that such an idea is entirely foreign to the text. Jesus does not say that his followers shall go to heaven to him, but he consoles them with the promise that although he was about to leave them and go into heaven, he would come again—come to them, not that they should go to him. Yes, you will answer, but does he not say, “In my Father’s house are many mansions”? Well, we may ask you what the Father’s house is and where it is? Oh, you will answer, it is in heaven, Then I would ask, did heaven need preparing? Was heaven in an unprepared condition before the Saviour ascended there? If so, then all who—according to orthodox teaching—had gone to heaven from the time of Adam to the ascension of Christ arrived there before it was prepared, and had any of the disciples died before the ascension of Christ they would have gone there and found no place prepared for them. No, no, my friends, the “Father’s house” is not heaven. There is such a thing as a royal house, such as the house of Brunswick, etc.. and in the Bible we read of the house of Jacob as descriptive of Jacob’s descendants. Hence the angel, in speaking of Jesus, says: “He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest, and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David; and he shall reign over the House of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end” (Luke i :32, 33). Jesus belongs to the Royal House of David, and when that house is prepared it will be the restoration of David’s kingdom.

Pg 196 If you will refer to Isa. ii:I-4, you will find what house it is that is now in process of preparation, and where it will be when it is “prepared.” “The word that Isaiah the son of Amos saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem. And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the LORD’S HOUSE shall be established.” Notice the marginal rendering is, “shall be PREPARED in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills, and all nations shall flow Unto it. And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord’s house, TO THE HOUSE of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways and we will walk in his paths; FOR OUT OF ZION shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.” The “Father’s house,” or kingdom-—the kingdom of Israel which is called the kingdom of the Lord in the hands of David”—will be the Royal House, the kingdom of God “under the whole heaven, shall be given to the saints of the Most High” (Dan. vii:19). In this house, the material for the building of which is now being prepared, there will be many mansions or habitations, and when the Lord Jesus Christ shall appear the second time, when he shall “come again,” he will invite his disciples to fill the place “prepared” for them as kings and priests” of the Royal House and REIGN ON THE EARTH (Rev. 5: 10). It may appear that his “going to prepare a place” implies that the “place” is in heaven ; but it must he remembered that though Christ is personally absent he is providentially shaping the course of human events here, both in the world and among his people, to the end in view—his glorious reign over all nations, when his people will be allotted their proper places as “kings and priests to reign on the earth,” each one having the “place prepared” according to his deserts. If a member of Congress promises to go to Washington to prepare a place in the post office, for instance, for one of his constituents, it does not follow that it is a post office in Washington. It may he in San Francisco, or Chicago; but Washington is “headquarters” to “prepare” it, especially if it he a new office to be appointed specially for the one desiring it. Christ is now preparing the earth for his kingdom and the royal house, consisting of Himself as the head and the saints as his associated subordinates. Everything is now in a process of “preparation,” and when the house is “prepared” in Zion each one will have his “place” in executing the righteous laws of the King to the ends of the earth. When Christ as the “nobleman” shall return and call his servants together, he will say to those on his right hand: “Come, ye

Pg 197 blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you (in God’s purpose) from the foundation of the world.” Now, my friends, do you desire to be among those who will hear the gladdening words from the lips of him who spake as never man spake?” If you do you must Comply with his conditions, viz: Believe THE gospel, be baptized into “the only name given among men whereby ye must be saved”—the name of Jesus Christ—and then. walk worthy of that high calling wherewith you have been called; for “If ye do these things ye shall never fall, for so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.” “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Under the smiling canopy of the heavens upon this beautiful planet, the earth, were placed the first parents of the human family with “everything very good ;“ but a transgression by them

10 of heaven’s law resulted in the spread of sickness and sorrow, pain and death, thus bringing a curse upon man’s beautiful, habitation, under which it has groaned now for nearly six thousand years. But thanks be to Jehovah’s name, the time is not far distant when the second Adam, who as the victor has been crowned with glory and honor, shall plant his feet upon God’s footstool, make the nations his inheritance, and take the uttermost parts of the earth for his possession.” Then shall the fields be joyful and all that is therein ; then shall all the trees of the wood rejoice before the Lord; for he cometh to judge the earth: he shall judge the world with righteousness, and the people with his truth. Come, Lord Jesus, come quickly. AMEN.

Pg 198 & 199 & 200 blank

Pg 201

THE KINGDOM OF GOD IN RELATION TO THE PLAN OF SALVATION.

A LECTURE.

RESPECTLED FRIENDS: If the subject of the kingdom of God stands closely related to the plan of human redemption its importance must be at once manifest to you all, and no apology is required for inviting your candid, sober, and careful attention to it. If you were asked the question, What is necessary to be believed in order to be saved? you would give the scriptural answer if you replied, The gospel ; for the Saviour in commissioning his apostles, says, “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature ; he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved ; but he that believeth not shall he condemned”—Mark. xvi :16. Whether the gospel involves the subject of the kingdom of God or not, whatever it consists of, it is evident, in the light of this testimony, that our salvation depends upon a belief of it. This is settled by an abundance of proof to be found in the Holy Oracles. For example, Paul says, in his letter to the saints in Rome, “I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ; for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth”—Rom. i : i6. The same apostle also assures us, in language too emphatic to he misunderstood, that there is but one true gospel : “But though we or an angel from heaven, “ he says, “preach unto you any other gospel than that which we have preached unto you let him be accursed”—Gal. i : 8.

Now, if upon examination we find that to preach this one true gospel is to preach the kingdom of God, that, in other words, the kingdom of God is the subject matter of the gospel, then it will be clearly manifest, not only that our subject is an important one, hut that it is an essential one—one upon the understanding and belief of which depends our eternal well-being.

The majority of professing Christians are led to believe that the gospel consists simply of the death of Christ, some going a little farther, and adding His burial and resurrection, which is termed “the

Pg 202. three-fact gospel.” While it is impossible to separate the death and resurrection of Christ from the gospel—these being means to the one great end of the things involved in the gospel—it is evident that the kingdom of God is the grand and all-absorbing theme of the good news, glad tidings, or gospel preached by our Lord and his apostles. If proof of this is necessary, we have only to remind you that, while the disciples had preached the gospel for about three and a half years, they were not aware that Jesus was to be crucified; and Peter, as the mouthpiece, it would seem, of the rest,

10 when Jesus informed his disciples that he must “suffer” and “be killed”, exclaimed’ “be it far from thee, Lord; this shall not be unto thee” (Matt. xv :21 ) After the crucifixion had taken place and they realized that their Lord had been killed, some of them sorrowfully and despairingly hung their heads, exclaiming, “We trusted that it had been he that should have redeemed Israel” (Luke xxiv :21). It is evident, therefore, that the gospel the disciples had been preaching up to the time of the crucifixion was not the death and resurrection of Christ, and the question naturally presents itself, What was the subject matter of the gospel they preached? We shall find no difficulty in getting an answer to this question. if we are willing to accept the testimony of Scripture, which I presume all of you are. Let me invite your attention to a few quotations. In Luke viii:1, it says, “And it came to pass afterwards, that he (Jesus) went throughout every city and village, preaching and showing the glad tidings of the kingdom of God; and the twelve were with him.” “Then he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over devils, and to cure diseases; and he sent them forth to preach the kingdom of God and to heal the sick”( Luke ix n). From this we see that the kingdom of God was what constituted the gospel preached by Christ and by his disciples up to his crucifixion, and in view of the fact that there is only one gospel. we must expect to find the same theme preached after the ascension of Christ; and this is just what we do find, as the testimony that I shall now quote will show. In the Acts of the Apostles, chap. xix: 8, we read: “And he (Paul) went into the synagogue, and spike boldly for the space of three months, disputing and persuading the things concerning the kingdom of God.” Phillip, it is said, went down to Samaria, and preached Christ unto them;” and that to preach Christ is to preach the kingdom, of which he is the Christ or King, is evident from the fact that Phillip’s preaching caused the people to “believe the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ,” whereupon “they were baptized, both men and women”(v. z a). pg 203

Now, YOU will please notice that there are certain “things contenting the kingdom of God.” When these are preached and believed, the truth of the gospel is preached and believed, and a belief of other things than “the things” will be a belief of things not true— things that will, as Paul says, pervert the gospel of Christ (Gal. I :7.) In view of this, therefore, how very important it is that we examine the things we believe to see whether they are true or false; for if we believe that the kingdom is simply “grace in the heart,” the church, as some claim, or a happy place in realms of bliss beyond the stars, and these are not the things concerning the kingdom of God preached as the gospel, then we shall he believing a false gospel— one that is not “the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth,” and shall, therefore, be in the position of those embraced in the words of the Saviour, “he that believeth not shall be condemned.” We do not deny that the love of God should dwell in our hearts, or that the precepts of Christ must be the rule and guide of the true church; neither do we question that God reigns in heaven, not only over this planet of ours, but over the vast and stupendous universe; hut to believe either or all of these to be the kingdom of God preached in the gospel is both absurd and false. A kingdom is composed of certain elements combined. It cannot be said to exist in the full sense unless all the component parts are united. These elements are: 1, territory, 2, a king, 3, royal associates, 4, laws, 5, subjects, and 6, a capital. These are the parts that must be combined before a kingdom can be said to be established. We may pause here and ask ourselves, Why has God promised to establish a kingdom? Is there any need for such a constitution of things as is implied by the word kingdom? If so, where is it needed? Now it would be no good news to be told that God is going to set up a kingdom. in the moon, or in the stars, or in any of the planets of which you have no knowledge, except, perhaps, the bare knowledge that they exist. You have no experience of the condition of things upon any sphere except this upon which we live, and therefore you can form no conception of what might be or might not be required there. In order to be able to appreciate good news it is necessary to have some knowledge or experience of the evils which the things promised in the good news are intended to remove. Where are the evils of which we have positive knowledge by observation and actual experience? Are they not right here upon this earth? Do they not result from man’s inability to establish a form of government capable of blessing its subjects? Every form of government man can think of has been tried, and a six thousand years’ tale of bloodshed in all its horrible

Pg 204 forms cries out in tones of thunder, Failure! Failure It is not that great men have no ideal state of things. It is that the multitude of evils that man has cursed the earth with stand in the way of reaching the ideal ; it is, therefore, not within the power of human hands to cure the ills and heal the wounds that torment the world socially, religiously, and politically. Look,

10 then, my friends, at the earth with its teeming millions of wretched and poor and miserable creatures of to-day. Glance over the six thousand years of human history, and in view of the dark picture can you come to any other conclusion than that it is right here upon this earth that the kingdom of God is needed? Is not a gospel that promises a kingdom that will remove the evils good news indeed ; and, rising to even a faint conception of the real situation, can you help but exclaim. “Thy kingdom come, thy will be done ON EARTH as it is in heaven r”

Returning to the six elements which we have stated must combine to constitute a kingdom, let us try to determine whether God’s kingdom will consist of these constituents, arid whether it will accomplish the grand and glorious end we have claimed. In doing this we shall discover what the kingdom of God is, and how it stands related to human redemption.

WHAT IS THE TERRITORY OF THE KINGDOM?

In preaching the gospel to Abraham, God made this promise to him : “I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven, and as the sand upon the seashore ; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; and in thy seed shall all nations of the earth he blessed” (Gen. xxii :16-I8). Again, in Num. xlv :21, we read, “As truly as I live all the earth shall he filled with the glory of the Lord.” Here are promises that have never been fulfilled, and the fulfillment of which necessitates the establishment of a Divine government upon the earth ; for how otherwise can all nations of the earth be blessed, and the earth be filled with the glory of the Lord than by the establishment of a kingdom that will rule the nations by Divine laws? With the matter thus broadly before us we may read a number’ of testimonies that are so plain that comment is unnecessary : “And the Lord shall be king over all the earth ; in that day there shall he one Lord, and his name one” (Zech. xiv :9). “For evil doers shall be cut off; but those that wait upon the Lord, they shall inherit the earth.” “The meek shall inherit the earth : and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace.” “For such as are blessed of him shall inherit the earth ; and they that he cursed of him shall be cut off.” “The righteous shall inherit the land, and dwell therein forever.” “Wait

Pg 205 on the Lord, and keep his way, and he shall exalt thee to inherit the land—Psa.xxxvii ~9, II, 22. 29, 34. “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth”----Matt. v : 5. From these testimonies it is clear that it is the earth in a state of blessedness—blessed with abundance of peace—that is to be the inheritance of the righteous; and it follows, therefore, that if they are to inherit the kingdom prepared (in God’s plan) from the foundation of the world” (Matt. xxv.: 34) that kingdom must be established upon the earth.

To make the matter, however, still more positive, I will read further: “Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession”— Psa. ii: 8, 9 “And the Lord shall be king over all the earth; in that day there shall be one Lord, and his name one”—-Zech. xiv : 9. These testimonies which, if time allowed, could be multiplied, are sufficient to show that the earth upon which we live is to be made the territory of the kingdom of God.

WHO IS THE KING?

We have already seen from some of the testimonies quoted, that the Lord 5 to he king over all the earth ; and that Jesus of Nazareth is the person referred to is evident from the words of the second Psalm, in which God, by the mouth of the prophet David, says:

“Thou art my son; this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession (verses 7, 8). When the birth of Jesus was heralded to the world, wise men came from the east to Jerusalem saying, “Where is he that is born king of the Jews?”— Matt. ii: 1, 2 ; and the “good confession “that Jesus himself “witnessed before Pontius Pilate “ was that he was a King, when, in answer to Pilate’s question, “Art thou a king? “ he answered affirmatively, in the words, “Thou sayest it.” Impressed with this, Pilate caused it to be written in three languages over the cross upon which the Son of God was crucified, “This is the King of the Jews” (Luke xxiii; 38) and to add still further to the evidence, the chief priests, in objecting to Pilate’s emphatic superscription, said, “Write not, The King of the Jews, but that he said, I am the King of the Jews _v. 20. After the resurrection and ascension of

10 Christ Peter declared, “Let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ,” or King_ Acts, ii :36.

Christ, then, is the King of the kingdom of God, and that you may see that the Scriptures abound with proof of this, your attention is called to the following further testimonies : “Unto us a child is

Pg 206 born, unto us a son is given ; aiicl the government shall he upon his shoulders ; and his name shall he called Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth, even forever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this”—Isa. ix : 6,7 . “Behold, a king shall reign in righteousness, and princes shall rule in judgment -, Isa. xxxii : 1. ‘‘And in that day- there shall be a root of Jesse which shall stand for an ensign of the people ; to it shall the Gentiles seek, and his rest shall he glorious”—Isa. Xi: 9, 10.

‘Behold the days come, saith the Lord, that I will perform that good thing- which I have promised unto the house of Israel, and to the house of Judah. In those days and at that time will I cause the Branch of Righteousness to grow up unto David, and he shall execute judgment and righteousness in the land’’ Jer. xxxiii : 14, 15.

Behold the man whose name is the Branch;-and, ; and he shall grow up out of his place, * * * and shall sit and rule upon his throne ; and he shall he a priest upon his throne”—Zec. vi; 12, 1 3.

‘‘The Lord hath sworn in truth unto David ; he will not turn from it of the fruit of thy body will 1 set upon thy throne’’— Isa. cxxxii : ii. See II Sam. vii : 12, i6. “He (Jesus) shall he great and shall he called the Son of the Highest ; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David ; and he shall reign over the house of Jacob forever ; and of his kingdom there shall be no end”— Luke i ; 32,33 ‘-Therefore, being prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his loins according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne,,—— Acts ii :3o.

WHO ARE THE ROYAL ASSOCIATES ?

In considering this question we come to see how the kingdom of God is related to human redemption, for we shall find that the gospel is Gods invitation to man to become inheritors of His kingdom as kings and priests to reign with Christ. The following testimonies will prove this : There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when we shall see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. in the kingdom of God,. and ye yourselves thrust out. And they shall come from the east, and from the west, and from the north, and from the south, and shall sit sown in the kingdom of God,”--. Luke xii : 28, 29.

And I (9901111 unto you a kingdom, as my Father bath appointed me, that ye nay eat and drink at my table, in my kingdom and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel”-—Luke xxii : 29. 30.

Pg 207

“Fear not little flock, for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom”— Luke xii : 31.

‘‘And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall he given to the people of the saints of the Most High.”—Daniel vii : 27

“To him that overcometh will I give to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and an set down with my Father in His throne.” Rev3 : 21.

10 ‘Thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God ~ and hast made us unto our God kings and priests ; and we shall reign on the earth’ —~ Rev. v : 10.

From these testimonies it is clear that the royal associates with Christ in his kingdom ——— the kingdom of God—will be all the redeemed from among men well from the time of Adam down to the second appearing of Christ.

WHAT WILL BE THE NATURE OF THE LAWS

In answer to this it is only necessary to remind you that concerning the kingdom of God We are commanded to pray, Thy kingdom come thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.’’ The laws being from God and therefore righteous, will meet the universal requirements of man kind in a way that will bless all nations with ‘‘peace on earth, good—will towards men’’ and cause the thankful hearts of earth’s inhabitants everywhere to give “glory to God in the highest”—Luke ii :14

WHO WIL BE THE SUBJECTS OF THE KINGDOM we must not forget that the kingdom of God is called the “kingdom of Israel,’ and that of Jesus it. is said, ‘‘he shall rule my people Israel.’’ This will remind us of the fact that the kingdom of Israel under David was called the kingdom of the Lord. ‘‘Of all my Sons,’’ said David, “for God bath given me many sons, he hath chosen Solomon, my son, to sit upon the throne of the kingdom of the Lord over Israel”

(I. Chron xxviii : 5).

The kingdom of the Lord over Israel in the past was a type of the kingdom yet to come ; and, by the way, a study of that kingdom will show that all the elements of a kingdom we are now considering entered in to the composition of that kingdom. While the kingdom of Israel was overturned because of the wickedness of the people, it was to be overturned only ‘‘until he come whose right it is’’ (Ezek.xxi : 27). In promising the throne of David to Mary for Jesus, the angel said, ‘‘‘The Lord God shall give (into him the throne of his Father David, and he shall reign over the house of Jacob forever,

Pg 208 and of his kingdom there shall be no end”(Luke. : i 32). The house of Jacob consists of the twelve tribes of Israel ; if Jesus is to reign over them as the angel says, they must be restored to the land promised to their fathers in order to become the subjects of the kingdom of the Lord, not under Solomon, but under Him who said, “A greater than Solomon is here.” Their restoration under Christ is clearly taught throughout the Scriptures, but one testimony will be enough to refer to now. In Ezekiel (Chap. xxxvii) we read of the prophet being commanded to take two sticks in his hand; and they became one. Then in verse 18 he is told, “And when the children of thy people shall speak unto thee, saying, Wilt thou not show us what thou meanest by these? Say unto them, thus saith the Lord God Behold, I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim and the tribes of Israel his fellows, and will put them with him, even with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they shall be one in mine hand. And the sticks whereon thou writest shall be in thine hand before their eyes, and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God : Behold I will take the children of Israel from among the heathen. whither they be gone, and will gather them on every side and bring them into their own land : and I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel ; and one king shall be king to them all : and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all.” Israel is to be “the head and not the tail” in the restoration of the kingdom of Israel ; and therefore they are to be the subjects proper of the future kingdom of God. Hence the prophet Micah (Chip. iv: 8) says, “And thou 0 tower of the flock, the stronghold of the daughter of Zion, unto thee shall it come, even the first dominion ; the kingdom shall come to the daughter of Jerusalem.”

Since the “blessing of all nations” promised to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob was to be in Abraham’s seed, it will flow out from Christ through his immortal saints, and from them through restored Israel.

The gradation will be first, Christ ; second, the immortal saints third, Israel in the flesh, fourth, all nations.

10 You will please notice that the text quoted from Revelation, chap. v: 10 does not speak of the end of human probation, the completing of redemption. The congregation of the redeemed who join in the song of victory at the time there alluded to, namely the coming of Christ to reign on the earth, are represented as saying, “Thou hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation,.” They are taken out of the world, and the words following show that the nations out of whom they

Pg 209 have ‘been redeemed still remain ; for they say, “And hast made us kings and priests, and we shall reign on the earth,” which implies that there will be peoples and nations to reign over. In this connection let me recall to your minds the second Psalm, which we have quoted several times : “Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.”

All nations and tongues in every land and every clime, therefore, will be brought under the righteous reign of Christ, so that they may be blessed with the abundance of divine blessing that will result from the establishment of the kingdom of God, Hence Daniel says, “And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall he given to the people of the saints”—ch. vii : 27.

WHERE WILL THE CAPITAL OF THE KINGDOM BE?

In answer to this we cannot do better than quote a few of the many testimonies whose meaning is so clear that comment is unnecessary : “Awake, awake, put on thy strength, 0 Zion ; put on thy beautiful garments, 0 Jerusalem, the holy city,’ for henceforth there shall no more come into thee the uncircumcised and the unclean”— Isa. lii : i. “But be ye glad and rejoice forever in that which I Create; for behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing and her people a joy” _Isa. lxv : 17, i8.

“And the moon shall he confounded amid the sun ashamed, when the Lord of hosts shall reign in Mount Zion, and in Jerusalem, and before his ancients gloriously”----Isa. xxiv 23.

And at that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of the Lord; and all nations shall he gathered (unto it, to the name of the Lord, to Jerusalem ; neither shall they walk any more after the imagination of their own hearts”-—Jer. iii : 17.

“And it shall come to pass that everyone that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go tip from year to year to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles”—Zech. xiv : i6.

“But I say unto you, Swear not at all * * * neither by Jerusalem for it is the city of the great King”—Matt. v : 3~, 35.

Now we have the six elements that constitute the kingdom ; amid these, when combined, will form a divine system of government as literal amid as real as any kingdom that has ever existed. With the whole earth as the territory ; Jesus the Son of God, as the Christ or King; the redeemed, immortal saints as his royal associates; the will of God revealed through his Son, as the laws ; all nations of the earth

Pg 210 the subjects and Jerusalem the city of the great King as the capital, there will be a system that will insure universal peace and blessings ,such as kings and potentates are powerless to establish, and for Jesus and his apostles to preach the constitution of such a kingdom was to preach a gospel fitting the condition of things on the earth, because it insures ultimately , the removal of every form of evil, political. social, and religious..

10 In view of the magnitude, glory and righteousness of the of the kingdom of God and of Christ as revealed in the scriptures what an insult it appears to call the present state of things “”Christendom” or the dominion o f Christ and what folly of any of the churches of our day to claim to be the kingdom of God! For nearly nineteen hundred years the church has existed in different forms and what fruits can it show of its labor. Instead of God’s will being done in all the earth, it is far from being obeyed in the best—if there is a best of so-called orthodox churches and even supposing all the so-called Christian churches could show a shadow of reason for claiming to be the kingdom of God what a comparatively limited institution it would be. Allowing for the sake of the argument that the hundred and sixteen millions of Protestants are the kingdom of Christ against them must be placed the Greek and Roman Catholics whom Protestants agree to brand as antichrist who number about two hundred and seventy four millions. And if we suppose Christendom as it is called to embrace both Catholic and Protestants an absurd supposition, in view of the mane Protestant – we should have only three hundred and ninety millions composing the kingdom o Christ , against one billion thirty four millions of subjects of the kingdom of the devil , counting Jews Mohammedans , and heathen . in the face of these facts what an insult to God, therefore, to call Christendom his kingdom! If the Catholics claim to be the kingdom of God, Protestants protest if the ; if the Episcopalians make such a claim, Dissenters object; and so on through all the subdivisions of the Dissenters , So that instead of finding a state of things having even a semblance of the kingdom of God , one is everywhere confronted with confusion worse confounded

The Gentiles have stumbled into the same mistake, in a sense that the Jew’s did, and that is as to the time when the kingdom of God should be established. The Jews thought that the Christ, when he made his appearance among them, had come to set up his kingdom then; ands the disciples, for a time, seem to have fallen into the same error; and in spite of the fact that the Saviour corrected the error in language it would seem impossible to misunderstand , the

Pg 211

religious people of our times are still clinging tenaciously to) it. claiming that Christ did set up his kingdom on the earth eighteen hundred years ago.

“Because they” (the disciples) ‘‘thought that the kingdom would immediately appear.” Jesus showed them by a parable that before the kingdom could be set up he must first go to heaven and return and judge his servants Luke. xix : 11, 27). -After the resurrection of Christ. this hope seemed to revive and they asked, “Lord with thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel ?‘‘ He answered, ‘‘It is not for you to know the times and the seasons which the Father hath put in his own power” The time when the kingdom will be established is at the second coming of Christ, not at the first coming. It was not for them to know the times and seasons, because the day of te coming of the Son of Man, as Jesus had previously told them , no man knew, not even the angels neither the Son but the Father. (Mark xiii:32) It was sufficient for the disciples to know that it would be at the second appearing of their Master, and that the judgment of the quick and the dead , the second appearing of Christ , and the establishment of the kingdom , will take place at the same time; hence Paul says to Timothy “I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing , and his kingdom II. Tim. iv : 1

In harmony with this Peter says, “Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure; for I fye do these things ye shall never fail; for so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and saviour Jesus Christ---II Timm:10,11. That the church is not the kingdom is evident, further, from the fact that its members are called heirs of the kingdom and that while they are in the church the kingdom is still a matter promise to them ; for James says ‘‘Hearken, my beloved brethren, hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which he which he hath promised to them that love him? —Chap. ii : 5. The question may be made still clearer by putting it in the following syllogistic form : ‘Those who are in the church are called heirs of the kingdom. While they are in the church they are not in the kingdom, being heirs of it ; therefore the church is not the kingdom. It is not much trouble to become a member of the church, It is through much tribulation we must enter the kingdom (Acts xiv’, 22); therefore the church is not the kingdom- there will be no tribulation there,

Those to whom Peter wrote his epistles were iii the church, Peter assured them that if they would do certain things” an entrance

10 Pg 212,

would lie granted them into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ”(II Tim I: 11); therefore to be in the church is not to be in the kingdom.

Those who will stand approved before the judgment seat of Christ will have been in the church before judgment. After their approval the invitation will be given them, “Come ye’ blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world” (Matt. xxv : 34) ; therefore having been in the church before their judgment and not inheriting the kingdom until after, being in the church is one thing, and inheriting the kingdom is another. We see, therefore, that the church of Christ is an institution preparatory to the kingdom of Christ that our faithfulness in the body or ecciesia of Christ is necessary to secure an entrance into tile kingdom of God.

Perhaps while these truths have been presented some of you have been wondering how a few portions of Sculpture often quoted in proof of the popular view can be harmonized with the many just read in your tearing. For instance, “The kingdom of God is within you”—-Luke, xvii 21. This is supposed to favor the theory of the present existence of the kingdom. In no way, however, does it suit the theory sought to be sustained, since the claim is that “Christendom” is the kingdom, or, as held by some a little more limited in their views, that it is the particular church to which such theorists belong in either case it is a question of men being in the kingdom, while the verse quoted as it is in the A. V. speaks of the kingdom being in men, So we may here use another syllogism The church is said to be the kingdom, and men are said to be in it. The text quoted speaks of the kingdom as being in men; therefore, the kingdom spoken of in the text is not the church as popularly understood. That the Saviour did not mean the kingdom of God as the kingdom of grace in the heart as some call it, is evident from the fact that he was addressing the Pharisees, who, he said “inwardly were full of rottenness and dead men’s bones,” It would be strange, indeed, if Jesus had taught that the kingdom of God was within such reprobates, while his own disciples were commanded to pray, “Thy kingdom come.”

Yes, you will say, but while your argument shows us what the text does not mean, we are at a loss to understand what the Saviour means by the words, “The kingdom of God is within you.” if you will look in the margin of your Bibles you will see that the words “among you” are substituted for “within you” and Professor Whiting menders the text “The king is among you.” Dr. Adam Clarke, commenting on the text, says ; “Perhaps these Pharisees

Pg 213 thought that the Messiah was kept secret in some private place known only to some of the other rulers ; and that by and by he should be proclaimed in a similar way to that in which Joash was by Jehoida the Priest.” This seems borne out by the context, and when we consider that Jesus himself was the kingdom in its germ, it is easy to see that in that sense the kingdom was among them. It is not the - only instance in which the king is made to represent the kingdom. Daniel, when explaining to Nehudchadnezzar the king’s dream, said, “ Thou art this head of gold. and after thee shall arise another kingdom” Chap. ii: 38. 39). The king in this instance represented by the pronoun “thou,” stands for the kingdom. Again, the Greek basileia , rendered kingdom, in the text in Luke has, in the secondary sense, the meaning of king. Parkhurst gives as its meaning, royal power, majesty, kingly dignity ; and the Emphatic Diaglott renders the verse, “God’s royal majesty is among you.”

Another text which is often quoted in proof that the kingdom of God ‘was set up at the first appearing of Christ is Luke xvi : 16 “The law and the prophets were until John ; since that time the kingdom of God is preached, amid every man presseth into it.” With an air of triumph our opponents ask, How could every man press into the kingdom if the kingdom was not in existence? The difficulty with such men is that they fail to see, important though it is, that the kingdom of God must be considered in two phases, a fact which may be illustrated by some of the great schemes of our times. For instance the Northern Pacific Railroad had first its preparatory phase, amid second, its completed or established phase; and it was known by its name “Northern Pacific,” long before the first act was performed toward the literal building of the road, It was preached, if you will allow the phrase, as a gospel to capitalists, and mans’ pressed into it. That is, they identified themselves with it and participated in the scheme ; but their actual possession of the road as a fact, and their realization of any benefits accruing therefrom, could not take place till the Northern Pacific became an established fact,

10 So with the kingdom of God. It has, first, its gospel phase, the present; and second, its established phase, the future. Men press into it now in the sense of identifying themselves with it, and thus become heirs of the inheritance they will enter upon as a matter of fact when the King shall say to them, “Come ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.”

The first chapter of Colossians (verse 13 ) is sometimes urged as a proof that the church is the kingdom, and that men are now in

Pg 214 the kingdom It reads : “Who hath translated us into the kingdom of his clear Son.’’ This text is explainable upon the same principle that we have before illustrated. Keeping the fact before the mind that the only sense in which the kingdom can be said to exist now is in the sense of a plan or purpose preached as’-good news, when men become identified with that plan by becoming Sons of God and heirs of an inheritance in the kingdom when established. they are translated into it for the present in its gospel phase, and in the future, ‘when they shall be “granted an abundant entrance into it (II. Pet. 1: 11), they will be translated into it as an established fact.

The truth of this text is, however, brought out in the Emphatic Diaglott translation, where the Greek preposition cis is rendered ‘‘for’’ instead of “into’’. In the 16th verse the same preposition is rendered ‘for’’ in the Authorized Version - “all things were created by him and for- him.’’ Consistently with this the Diaglott rendering is. (The Father) ‘- who delivered us from the dominion of darkness, and changed its for the kingdom of the son of his love.’’ The Father, through the word of the gospel, changed their minds and hearts for, or in order to, the kingdom i. e. that they may be prepared for that kingdom which they are to enter when our Lord will say, ‘Come ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world’ ‘—Matt. xxv :34.

There is still one more text which is often presented. and in order that you may see that it, too, is in perfect harmony With the general teachings of the Scriptures we have presented upon this grand subject, I will refer to it. It is found in Rev. i :9, and reads as follows

‘‘I, John. who am also your brother and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ,” etc. Upon the strength of these words it is claimed that John was in the kingdom when he thus wrote, and therefore the kingdom was then in existence as an established fact. Now to one taking such a short-sighted and erroneous view of these words there might be put some very inconvenient questions. Supposing he were asked, do you claim that John was in tribulation when he wrote the words in question? his answer would he, Yes. And was John in the kingdom of God at that time too? Yes. Then there is tribulation in the kingdom of God ? Yes. Then what advantage is there in entering into the kingdom, Seeing we get tribulation enough outside? We had always thought, inasmuch as it is said “that it is through much tribulation we must enter the kingdom,” we should be free from tribulation after entering therein, having passed through the Same, but it would seem from the position popularly taken, that we are not through even alter pg 215 we have entered the kingdom of God. Away with such folly If John were alive he would shame the man that would thus dare to make the words of his affectionate appeal to his troubled I brethren and companions subserve the interests of a theory that requires such perversion of simple language to sustain it. Suppose John had said, “1 am your friend in adversity and prosperity.’’ would there be any reason in claiming that he meant they would be in both adversity and prosperity at the same time? When the general. addressing The troops before starting for the field of battle, arouses their patriotism and valor by exclaiming, “I am our comrade at home and on the battle field, in peace and in war.’’ who would be unreasonable enough to claim that he meant they would be at home and on the battle field at the same time; that they would be in peace and war at the same moment? Does not every’ reasonable man know that his meaning is . I am your comrade, whether at home or on the battle field ; whether in peace or in war ? John, therefore, while an exile on Patmos, at a time when he and his brethren and companions were being subjected to terrible persecutions at the hands of the Romans, tried to cheer their drooping spirits, and fire their enthusiasm to stand faithful through all their tribulations, by addressing them in the

10 words, ‘‘ I John, who am also your brother, and companion in tribulation and in the kingdom‘‘ and those whom he thus addressed well knew that it was an eloquent expression of the hope that while they were called upon to be companions in the dire trouble through which they were passing, they may also by remaining steadfast to the end, be companions in the kingdom of God, where tribulation shall be known no more.

From the fact that the kingdom of God is seen from the testimonies adduced to be a real, literal constitution of Divine government to be established on the earth, it follows that the kingdoms of this world must be removed to give place to it. It is not a kingdom that is to exist contemporarily with the kingdoms of men ; but one that will destroy them from the face of the earth as institutions that for’ about six thousand years have proven themselves useless in securing a blessing for the human family, and that have made the history of the world an unbroken tale of despotism, tyranny, oppression, and bloodshed. The inauguration, therefore, of the kingdom of God must necessarily be expected to bring about a tremendous crisis, such as has never transpired in the history of mankind. Hence Daniel says it “shall be a time of trouble such as never was since there was a nation, even to that same time.” The reason why there will he such a terrible time of trouble is because it will be the great contest, not merely for a portion of the earth, but for the supremacy of the dominion of all Pg 216 the earth, between the Christ and antichrist, between the real King of all the earth and the pretended king, between him who by divine right is appointed King of kings and the “mystery of iniquity headed up in him who, by human authority and by his own arrogance amid blasphemy, has claimed to be king of kings.

A counterfeit will always try to imitate the genuine. And so the antichristian system, which has endeavored to rob Christ of his inheritance, has cunningly imitated, so far as form is concerned, the kingdom of Christ. The pope of Rome, to whom the kings and potentates of the earth have cringingly bowed, and whose polluted toe they have been compelled in slavish submission to kiss, has succeeded in persuading Roman Catholics and Protestants alike that Christ will make no further claim on the earth, and that when their earthly career is over they go to Him in heaven. Thus the antichrist thinks he has made himself secure in his blasphemous pretenses to be the God of the earth, with Rome as the “Eternal City.” his priests as his subordinate administrators of the ecclesiastical affairs of the people; the kings of the nations, his servants in the governmental affairs of the world, and himself the great dictator in the individual, social, religious, and political affairs of mankind universally. Thus has he fulfilled the prophecies concerning him, that he should, having eyes, declare himself the “Holy See of Rome ;“ with his mouth he should “speak very great things,” and having a “look more stout than his fellows” (Dan. vii: 20) would “oppose and exalt himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped ; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he (claims that he) is God”(II. Thess ii; 4). He is therefore styled “Our Lord, God, the pope, who may infallibly define both in faith and morals, whose power is greater than of all created beings; celestial, terrestrial and infernal ; yea, he doeth whatsoever he listeth, even things unlawful, and is more than God.”

When it is seems that this lying, iniquitous blasphemer has drawn the world away from the truth that Christ will return to the earth to claim it as his right, arid that as a consequence of the deception the people are not expecting that return, how, can it be otherwise than that the attitude of all nations will be precisely the same towards-Christ at his second corning as that of the nation of Israel at his first coming? “The nations will rage, and the people imagine a vain thing,” saying against the Lord and His Anointed—the Christ— “Let us break their bands asunder and cast away their cords from us.” ‘This hostile attitude on the part of the nations of the so-called Christian, but rightly named antichristian, world will bring the crisis

Pg 217 when ‘‘he that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh,’’ and “have them in derision ;“ when he will “speak to them in his wrath, and trouble them in his sore displeasure;“ for He has decreed it and it cannot fail, that He will ‘‘set his king upon his holy hill of Zion,” and give him the ‘‘nations for his inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for his possession.” Therefore will he “break them with a rod of iron, and dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel—Psa. ii. When this comes to pass then shall we have the Christ as the King of all the earth instead of the antichrist; Jerusalem the City of the great King, instead of “Rome the Eternal City ;“ the saints of the Most High the immortal kings and priests to administer righteous laws, instead of corrupt, soul destroying and blasphemous pretenders the hearts of the earth’s inhabitants filled with joy and gladness and ascribing glory to God in the highest, instead of teeming millions crying out in pangs under the oppression of a tyrannical system of kingly and priestly usurpation ; the darkness and superstition of long and dismal ages will be chased away as a

10 vision of the night, and glory and blessing shall make the very stones cry out in thanksgiving to a kind and beneficial God , because ‘‘the kingdoms of this world have’ become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ”--Rev. xi : 15.

In this glorious state of things the saints redeemed from among men from the downfall of Adam the first to the “restoration of all things spoken by the mouth of all the holy prophets” by Adam the second, will individually and as a happy company of divine princes realize the salvation now preached in “the things concerning the kingdom of God ;‘‘ for they will then “inherit the kingdom prepared for them from the foundation of the world”—Matt. xxv : 3~. All nations, too, although mortal, will rejoice in the national salvation which is also involved in the same gospel that God preached to Abraham when he said. “In thee shall all nations be blessed”(Gal. iii :8).

Thus the kingdom of God will become the means of individual amid national redemption to the children of Adam’s race, when “the Lord shall make hare his holy arm in the eyes of all the nations, and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God”(Isa. lii :10).

Pb 218 WORLD’S REDEMPTION According to the Eternal Plan

Revealed and Elaborated in the Scriptures of Truth, and Embraced In the Covenants of Promise and Hope of Israel

Intended to assist in rescuing honest hearts from the delusions of apostate Christendom, and to guide them into the strait and narrow way which alone leads to life and glory in the coming Kingdom of God.

By THOMAS WILLL MS

Author of “The Problem of Life,” “The Great Salvation,” and other works.

The book consists of 432 pages 634 x9X, printed on good paper and with clear type. Bound in cloth, gilt letters. The standard price has been $1.50, postage extra; by voluntary contributions from appreciative readers the price has been permanently set at $i.oo, postage extra, 17 cts.

ALSO IN GERMAN AT SAME PRICE.

This book will Instruct the reader in the entire plan of Salvation—setting forth what to believe and what to do— in a manner suitable to people of common sense and education, Advocate Publishing House, 701 Central Avg., Orlando, Pta.

10 ~ SECOND EDITION

MAN HIS ORIGIN NATURE AND DESTINY ADDDRESS BY ‘THOMAS. WILLIAMS Delivered in Union Hall, Masonic Temple, Chicago, Sunday, April 17, 1898.

From stenographic notes by E A Allen

The Great Salvation... COMMENDATION—

A few of the many words received: — This is a splendid thing and I will plant a few more of them. If this ‘~ book don’t cause a person to stop and think I don’t know what will. JOSHUA EASTW00D, Lawrence, Mass. ~

= I am wondering in what way you are connected with the World’s Congress of Religions. I suppose, however, you are attending some of their meetings arid actively distributing “The Great Salvation,” which is abundantly able to tell the story wherever a good and honorable heart is found. W. .J. Green Spottsville, Ky. I have just finished the reading of “The Great Salvation,’ My judgent is that it is by far the most effective publication yet issued bearing upon time elements of time Truth. The stranger who wilt take the pains to read it carefully can hardly fail to be impressed with the fact that here is something which appeals with equal force to his reason

10 and his affections. It ought to have a future of good before it which ~ should reap a harvest of salvation, It will be a weapon that will serve a glorious end in combating ‘spiritual wickedness” May God bless its work of love. C. C, Vreendenburg, New York,

I think it is one of the moxst convincing arguments that has ever = been put forth by any man, In getting up this work Brother Williams ~ has driven a nail in a sure place, which all his adversaries will not be able to draw out, May the Lord bless him in his good work, So says Bro, Greene, of Anaheim, Cal,. in a letter to me; and so say we also. = T, and E. M. Reith Summerland, Cal. ~

Writing to Mr. Leask. of Chicago: You sent “The Great Salvation,” for which I am very thankful, and as soon as I am able I intend to contribute something towards the expenses of publication and distribution of this wonderful little book, I don’t see how anyone could ~ read the book and not become convinced of the errors of modern “~ theology. W. H, Hobgood, Lunenhurg, N, C.

= I will send one dollar more for tracts and “The Great Salvation,” It is a splendid book. MARY E. DELOZIAR, Windsor, Fla,

I have Just finished reading your pamphlet, “The Great Salvation,’ __ It is as plain as A B C. I never saw so much rich matter crowded into so small a compass and so plain, It seems as though it must prove a ~ savor of life unto life with many. May God bless you and your work, ~ I can’t express my joy in reading it. B. J. Tows, Fort Ripley, Minn,

It will take the place of many tracts, It will present the Truth In a __ nutshell. A. D. Strickler , Buffalo, N. Y.\

The package of “The Great Salvation” was just the thing needed and was very, quickly distributed, It answers the purpose far better than any other small work we have, because it presents the Truth in better form, and appeals more directly to the personal consideration and moral conscience of welt-disposed and thoughtful persons into whose hands it can be placed by well-directed efforts of the brotherhood, H J, Jones, Montavilla, Oregon. = I have read “The Great Salvation” with much interest. I find It to be one of the plainest and most perfect evidences on the true Bible doctrine I ever read. A grand thing is the great Salvation M, A. MARSHALL, Blackfoot, Idaho.

Pg 221

AN ADDRESS BY THOMAS. WILLIAMS.

Delivered in Union Hall, Masonic Temple, Chicago, Sunday, April 17, 1898

10 FROM STENOGRAPHIC REPOST BY MISS E. A. ALLEN.

BETHREN and Friends: The Origin, Nature and Destiny of man is a subject of vital importance to us all. We certainly are all concerned in the question of what man’s destiny is. The gospel as revealed in the Scriptures of Truth is adapted to man’s needs, to fit the condition in which he is found, and unless we understand what man’s nature and condition and wants are we shall not be in a position to understand the gospel which is intended to meet his requirements, fit his condition, and to ultimately redeem him. Let us suppose that one entertains the idea that man is now an immortal creature ; that he has natural immortality ; that he is in possession of immortality by inheritance, by birth; that its possession is not a matter of merit on his part at all ; he is immortal because he was created immortal; he cannot help being immortal-—supposing this is the view one takes of man’s nature in the present state ; and then suppose, in addition to this, that the true and only gospel offers man immortality. You will readily see that the theory of such a one would stand in the way of his accepting the gospel. He would be able to say to one preaching the gospel of immortality as a matter of hope that he is not in need of such a hope; that he is immortal already and therefore does not need a gospel which offers him that which he already possesses. He will therefore be in a position which nullifies the gospel of Christ. We must therefore start right in order to receive the true gospel, in the belief of which only we may hope to be saved.

MAN’S ORIGIN.

In I. Cor. xv :44 the apostle Paul says, “There is a natural body.” That is a simple, clear statement. What does the apostle mean by natural body? The answer to this will help us to understand the truth concerning man’s origin and nature. He makes the statement first and then

Pg 222 proves its truth afterwards. After saying, “there is a natural body,” he proves the truth of that assertion by what is written. This is what we all ought to do. “To the law and to the testimony, if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them” (Isa. viii :20). “Prove all things,” says this same apostle, “and hold fast that which is good.” Hence we must depend upon the law and the testimony and abide by it. Now, then, what is written concerning the natural body? Again, let us repeat, “There is a natural body * * and so it is written “—here is the proof that there is a natural body found in what is written. Where does the apostle get his proof? Hear his words: “The first man Adam was made a living soul.” What follows? Why that “a natural body” and “a living soul,” according to the apostle Paul, mean the same thing. He does not say “immortal soul,” and let it be remembered that the phrase “immortal soul” is nowhere found in the Bible. It is a theological term, not a Biblical term. Now, “living soul” is synonymous with “natural body.” But, inasmuch as he has referred us to what is written, let us go back to the book of Genesis and see what is written, and we shall come to the same conclusion that Paul did. The first time we find the phrase “living soul” in the Scriptures it is applied to the beasts of the field (Gen. i: 20,21. See’ margin). This should show us at once that we cannot for a moment entertain the idea that the phrase means “immortal soul,” because it would prove that the beasts are in possession of immortal souls. But, keeping in mind the fact that to the apostle Paul the phrase “living soul” means “natural body” and “natural body” means “living soul,” let us read from 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.” Here is what is written to which the apostle has referred to show us the origin of man. In verse 47 of I. Cor. xv. he says: “The first man is of the earth, earthy,” more correctly, “The first man is out of’ the earth, earthy.” What is it that is out of the earth? The first man is out of the earth; he, the man, is earthy. Theologians will say, No, the first man is not out of the earth, for the real man is the immaterial, immortal soul which they suppose dwells inside ,the body. Hence their revision of this Scripture would be that the body of the first man is out of the earth, but the man, the real, vital part of man, the intelligent part, the thinking part, the part that always lives in happiness or misery that is not out of the earth, earthy; it is from heaven, part of the very essence of God’s nature.

10 We have no right to, try to revise the Scriptures in this way; we

Pg 223 must accept them as they are, and the statement is that the first man is out of the earth, earthy, and we must abide by that. So when it is said, “The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground” we must believe it. Let us suppose ourselves present, observing this work of man’s formation. Through the instrumentality of angels, who said, “Let us make man in our image, and after our likeness,” we see God forming man of the dust of the ground. This part of the work is finished, and here is the formation of the creature man. He is “fearfully and wonderfully made,” but so far he is lifeless. There must he something added in order to make the man a living man. It is not that a man is added to the body, but it is life that is added to the man. Hence it is said, “And he breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man—the very man formed out of the dust of the ground—became a living soul.” And this living soul, which is the result of the formation from the dust and animation by the breath of life, is the “natural body” or “living soul” of the apostle’s discourse. Here, then, we have the origin of man in terms clear enough certainly for us to understand. We may illustrate this. For instance, there is the dynamo. It is formed, using the terms that are applied to man, who has bones, sinews, arteries, capillaries, flesh and skin. Here in this motor is a mechanical organization, all the parts combined in mechanical perfection. Put alongside of this machine man formed from the dust of the ground, “fearfully and wonderfully made.” There you have two formations: one by divine power and wisdom, the other by means of that wisdom and power that God has imparted to man, who has mechanically constructed a wonderful machine; but so far they are both of them motionless, both, we may say, lifeless. Now, in the case of the dynamo, if we turn on the current, the electrical power that will impart life, what have we ? We have life, a mechanical, electric life, as the result of that combination. This illus. trates the case of man’s creation. Here is man formed of the dust of the ground, but he is as motionless, as helpless, as lifeless as the dynamo until the current of life is turned on. How is the current of life turned on in his case? We read that “the Lord God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life,” and the result is, man became a living man. You may, if you please, call this life electricity, or spirit, but do not forget that it is the same spirit which gives life to man that gives life to the entire animal kingdom. “If he set his heart upon man, if he gather unto himself his spirit, and his breath, all flesh shall perish together, and man shall turn again unto dust”—Job XXXivI4. 15. This is sufficient, it would seem, to show us the origin of man, but I will call your attention to a few other testimonies in addition to those

Pg 224 already referred to. In (;en. iii :23 we read, “Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden to till the ground from whence he was taken.” It was not that the Lord God, sent him forth to till the ground from whence his body was taken. It is in strict accordance with what we have read. “ The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground ; “ “the first man is of the earth, earthy.” In Gen. xviii :27, Abraham said, “Behold now, I have taken upon me to Speak unto the Lord, which am but dust and ashes.” You see the estimate Abraham placed upon himself. He regarded himself as a creature formed out of the dust of the ground. He did not claim that he was an immortal, immaterial soul, a vital spark worth ten thousand million worlds, as theologians declare, but he regarded himself as “dust and ashes,” a creature formed from dust and liable to return to dust. In Job x :19 we read, “Remember, I beseech thee, that thou hast made me as the clay; and wilt thou bring me unto dust again ?“ Notice that word “again.” Man was out of the dust in formation and in death be returns to the dust. In Psa. ciii :14 again, “For he knoweth our frame; he remembereth that we are dust.” These are sufficient, I think, to show the origin or creation of man. Now, to follow along to the next step, we come to MAN AS MORTAL THROUGH SIN.

At the present time man is a dying creature. He is sin-stricken, death-stricken. So much so that the patriarch Job declares: “ Man that is born of woman is of few days and full of trouble. He cometh forth like a flower and is cut down; he fleeth also as a shadow and continueth not” (chap. xix :12). The apostle Paul says: “The whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now” (Rom. viii :12). here is man then, in the condition, which this same apostle terms wretched. “0, wretched

10 man that I am,” he exclaims, “who shall deliver me from the body of this death ?“ We are, then, bodies of death, in a dying condition, subject to sorrow, pain and death.

How came man to he in this condition ? Is it the condition in which God created him? Here some one will ask, Do you think we have a different nature now from what we had when we were created ? No, not a different nature. The same earthy nature, the same flesh and blood nature, but nature now is not in the same condition that it was when it came fresh from the creative hand. When created, man, with everything else, was pronounced “very good,” and the reason why man is not now very good, but very bad-—sin-stricken, death-stricken----cannot be attributed to God or to God’s creation. We must find the cause of the sin-stricken, death-stricken condition in which the whole creation is “groaning.”

Pg 225. 5

In Gen. ii :17 we read, “ But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die,” or as the marginal rendering is, “dying thou shalt die.’’ Here is a law and a penalty attached to that law. If you eat of the forbidden fruit death shall be the punishment—” thou shalt die.” We may therefore conclude that the cause of death is sin, or transgression of law. Since the cause must always precede the effect, sin must have preceded death, for the wages of. sin is death.’ Therefore man must be before sin and sin before death. Man must have sinned before he became mortal. God, therefore, did not create man a dying creature, he created him “very good,” a creature capable of ascending to immortality, living forever, or descending to mortality, passing under the power and dominion of death. Now, it must be evident that he was created a flesh and blood man, but in a provisional state, in a state in which it was provided that he could ascend or descend. This would depend upon obedience or disobedience. If he ascended and attained to the divine nature, became immortal, it would be because of merit; if he descended or fell, he would merit the punishment God provided. So far we see everything is reasonable. Indeed, the Bible is the most reasonable book on the face of the earth. Now, how did the matter turn out ? Let us refer to Gen. iii :17. Of course, the history of the case is familiar to you all. You know our first parents did partake of the forbidden fruit. Having thus become disobedient to the command, they justly deserved the penalty to be inflicted upon them: “And to Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it; cursed is the ground for thy sake:in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life: thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat of the herb of the field. In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground, for out of it wast thou taken; for dust thou art and into dust shalt thou return.” This is clear enough. It needs no explanation nor interpretation. Let us go back to the illustration. Here is the process reversed. The machinist first of all forms the dynamo. He completes his work and turns on the current and you have electric light, or mechanical life, so to speak. He shuts off the current and allows the machine to go to ruin, to crumble to pieces, to go back to the dust. Some one may ask, What has become of the life of the machine—the electrical current that gave it life— where is it ? There is no one foolish enough to believe that that current exists somewhere as an entity, a separate being, a distinct individuality Pg 226 . They understand that it has disappeared, gone back into the great ocean of electricity. Now that it cannot be appropriated by the machine, to produce motion and light; and power, the machine is dead. Apply this to man and we have the same thing. God formed man out of the dust of the ground and turned on the current, as it were, applied to him the life principle called “the breath of life,” breathed into his nostrils, and now he is a living being. There is motion, life, vitality, animation; but when death takes place the current is “switched off ;“ life is taken from him and he crumbles into dust, verifying the words, “ For out of it wast thou taken, for dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return.” Here we see the origin of man as a living being, and what takes place, and what becomes of him when he dies. Let me call your attention further to the cause of death. In Rom .v: 12 the apostle says: “Wherefore as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.” Now this is the scriptural reason why death hangs over us all; why we are all subject to it. One man sinned and human nature was poisoned, as it were, at its fountain head, and all the streams flowing out from that fountain are poisoned in like manner. You will notice man was in the world first, then sin, then death. Here we have the cause and the effect. The cause was disobedience and we are experiencing the effect now. The real ,question is, What is death ? and here the issue comes at once between those who believe the Bible and those who prefer to believe theology and so-called science. We are told by some that “death is the gate to glory,” the entrance to joy, “The voice that Jesus sends

10 To call us to his arms.” Now, if this be true of death, then, since we are indebted to sin for bringing death, if it is a voice to call us to the arms of Jesus, we are indebted to sin for it. Let me repeat, “ By one man sin entered the world and DEATH—shall I say the voice which Jesus sends ?——by sin.” It would be an outrage upon reason. You know that death is an enemy of man and not a friend. If it is the voice which Jesus sends it is the best friend we have. If it is “the gate to endless joy,” we cannot have a better friend than death, but if death is the result of sin it must be the enemy of man. Let us suppose that theology is right when it declares that death is the gate to endless joy. Then let us read the Scriptures, and see if both will harmonize. It is said Christ was manifested that “through death, he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is the devil.” Whatever the devil is, he is here said to have the power of death, and if theology is right in saying that death is the gate to glory then the devil

Pg 227 has the key of the gate to endless joy. There is something wrong here, and you may depend upon it the wrong is not in the Scriptures. Death is not a friend, it is not a gate to joy, it is not the voice which Jesus sends, but death is what it is said to be in the Scriptures, the penalty of sin, “Dust thou art and unto dust thou shalt return.”

You will remember that after the penalty was pronounced upon man, it was said, “And now lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life amid eat and live forever,” the Lord God drove man from the garden. Now ask yourselves the question, carefully, calmly and reasonably, Why did God turn man out of the garden of Eden? For what purpose ? What was the object of it ? It was done to prevent something. To prevent what ? To prevent man’s living forever in a sinful state, was it not ? “ Lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat and live forever,” he was driven away from the tree of life, and was not allowed to perpetuate his life in this evil, sinful state. That was the object, was it not ? Now, did God accomplish the purpose he had in view in excluding man from the tree of life and in preventing him from living forever in a sinful state Yes, according to the Bible. No, according to theology.

You ask what I mean by this. I answer that if theology is right in saying that man is an immortal being, an immortal soul, that he will live forever in heaven or hell, then he does live forever. Millions who go down to hell live forever in misery, and God did not prevent man from perpetuating his life in a state of sin and misery by expelling him from Eden. But theology is wrong and not the Bible. Man, having fallen from the high estate in which he was created, God declares he shall not partake of the tree of life and live forever in that fallen state, so he is shut away from the tree of life which is guarded by a flaming sword. Now let me call your attention to a few passages of Scripture bearing on this point. “I know that thou wilt bring me to death, and to the house appointed for all living” (Job xxx: 23). Man must die and be brought to the house—the grave appointed for all living, because it is written, “Dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return.” “Is there not an appointed time to man upon earth? Are not his days also like the days of an hireling?” (Job vii:I). “What man is he that liveth and shall not see death ? Shall he deliver his soul from the hand of the grave ?“ (Psa. lxxxix :48). “For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no pre-eminence above a beast: pg 228 for all is vanity. All go unto one place ; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again” (Eccies. iii ~I9, 20).

“All flesh is grass, and all the goodliness thereof is as the flower of the field. The grass withereth, the flower fadeth, because the spirit of the Lord bloweth upon it. surely the people is grass” (Isa. xl: 6).

Here you see, then, man a dyinig creature. Now, how is it with him when he dies ? Is he conscious or unconscious ? We have previously illustrated this, but I will call your attention to the testimonies bearing upon the state of man in death

10 Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might ; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest” (Eccles. ix : 10).

Dust thou art amid unto dust shalt thou return.” Keep before your minds the sentence pronounced upon man. When he returns to the grave he returns to the dust from whence he was taken, and there is no work. nor device nor knowledge nor wisdom in the grave.

In death there is no remembrance of thee; in the grave who shall give thee thanks ? “ (Psa. vi: 5). “ For the living know that they must die, but the dead know not anything “ (Eccies. v: 5).

“ Put riot 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 “ (Psa. cxlvi: 3. 4).

Now this last verse brings us back to the subject as I was illustrating it a little while ago. We were showing that man was first formed of the dust of the ground. Let us suppose that here is a man formed. The creative work of Deity has produced this wonderful formation, a man complete, “ fearfully and wonderfully made,” but lie is lifeless. God breathes into his nostrils the breath of life and the man becomes a living man. He stands up in life, a living creature.

Now, death undoes this. It is the reversal of the process. Hence, when a man dies our last text declares “his breath goeth forth.” God breathed into his nostrils to give life; “his breath goeth forth” at death— he expires as we term it—breathes out his last breath and he tumbles down in death and dissolution takes place. Now, is he a conscious being or an unconscious being

The living, the living know that they Shall die, but the dead “—there is a dead man—does he know anything ? “The dead know not anything.” His “breath hath gone forth: he hath returned to his earth. In that very day his thoughts have perished.” What can he plainer than that ? Here is a man, a living, breathing, thinking, moving creature, possessing the five senses— seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, feeling. He is

Pg 229 au intelligent being, but he is not the only creature that is intelligent. The dog is intelligent. Here is an ignorant, depraved, idiotic man and here is a dog. They stand side by side. You speak to the dog and he understands you and will obey your command. you speak to the man and he does not understand you ; he is idiotic. This comparison has been made before amid it is a forcible one. Let me call your attention to it. A mother is down upon the bank of the river with her little babe. She leaves her babe on the bank of the river to prattle and bask in the healthful rays of the shining sun and she wanders about gathering flowers, her eyes, for a few moments, turned away from her infant. An idiotic man comes along, picks up the babe and throws it into the river. The mother, in a moment, sees what has happened. She is in terror and dismay; the poor idiot laughs and gesticulates; the babe struggles and gasps. Just then a noble Newfoundland dog comes along, sees the situation, bounds into the river and brings out the child alive and safe. Which is the more intelligent, the dog or the idiot The dog, you say, at once. then the idiot is inferior, and why ? If the immortal soul, which is supposed to come direct from God for every infant born into the world, is the intelligent part of man, why was there not a soul given the idiot that would teach him better than to throw the babe into the river ? And what was it that was in the dog that saved the child ? You will see that the theory of man’s intellectual superiority being the result of the possession of an immortal soul is shown by this illustration to be groundless and not worth considering for a moment. The reason that the man is an idiot is not that God has deprived him of an immortal soul, but because of some impaired or undeveloped condition of the brain, and this brings us back to the fact that instead of thought being the property of an immortal soul it is a property absolutely dependent upon organized matter which we call the brain. Real thought depends upon the development of brain power. Here is a man in the exercise of the five senses which nature has imparted to him; he can feel, smell, taste, hear and see, but with what does he take cognizance of the touch, taste, smell, sight and hearing ? Suppose you could “ switch off “--- disconnect—the current that leads from the fingers to the brain, would he be conscious of a touch ? Certainly not. Why ? Because, you would say, the seat of thought is the brain. That is just it. Therefore a man cannot think without brain. The brain is the seat of thought. Thought is a property of matter. The metaphysician says matter cannot think. Who told him that matter cannot think ? We see with our eyes and hear with our ears. if matter can see and hear why can it not think ? Oh, no, you say;

10 it is not matter that sees and hears and tastes and smells and feels ; it is the ego, that is the real, invisible man, that something called the immortal soul. The body is only the

Pg 230

. house. and the eyes are the windows of the soul. That looks very pretty. But here is a noble horse that can see better than the man can see and hear better than the man can hear. Are his eyes the Windows of the soul ? You must see by this that a being sees, hears, thinks, reasons because it has a normal organism of brain power. If you shut off the nerve current connecting the various parts of the body with the brain the creature becomes insensible.

To illustrate more fully YOU may administer an anesthetic ; what is the result ? The man becomes unconscious. What ! unconscious ? is it possible for a man to become unconscious in life? Why, yes ; you go into a physicians office and you see a man in an unconscious state. What do you mean by a man in an unconscious state? He does not think, he does not know anything and still he is alive. It is possible, then, after all, for a man to become unconscious. But if it is the immortal soul that is the thinking part of man, how do you account for the fact that chloroform applied to matter affects the immortal soul, which is supposed not to be matter—--- superior and independent of matter Here is an intoxicated man reeling along the street, jabbering the foolishness of the drunkard. What is the matter with him ? You say he has been drinking intoxicating liquors. Will drinking intoxicating liquors affect the immortal soul? How can that he ? Can it he possible that spirits of wine can affect the spirit “divine? “ It cannot be. The trouble with the drunken man is that his brain is inflamed by the alcohol. And brain is affected by what a man eats and drinks, and, the brain being the seat of thought, when that is inflamed by alcohol drunkenness is the result. You see from this there is no foundation for the theory that thought is the property of an immortal entity. Let us go hack to this unconscious man He is under the influence of chloroform, and in this condition it is admitted by theologians and scientists that he is unconscious. If you don’t believe that he is, wait until he recovers from the influence of the anesthetic and he will tell you he knew nothing about what took place, not even if a limb had been amputated; and of course you must believe him, he has no object in telling you a falsehood about it. Now, if a man can thus he unconscious in life, what do you suppose he will be in death Suppose a dentist should, unfortunately, administer a little too much chloroform and the man should cease to live. The doctor pronounces him dead. Now call in the theologian. “Well,” he says, “he knows all about it now—more than he ever did before he died.” What a fortunate thing! He has passed from unconsciousness to consciousness. What a benefactor was that dentist! You will readily see that from a scientific stand-

Pg 231` point as well as a Biblical standpoint there is absolutely no foundation for the theory of the immortality of the soul. Let us now return and recall the scriptures which declare to its that when a man dies “his breath goeth forth, he returns to the earth and in that very day his thoughts perish;” “for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom in the grave whither thou goest.” “Dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return.” “ Since by man came death by man came the resurrection from the dead.” “By one man death entered the world.’ In the thirty-eighth chapter of the prophecy of Isaiah we have the case of the king Hezekiah. It was said to him, “Thou shalt die and not live.” Hezekiah declared himself to be a pure man. He said, “I have walked before thee uprightly,” but when the message of death came to him he turned his face to the wall and wept sorely. He prayed to God that he would add to his days. Now when God answered his prayers and added to his days fifteen years, are you willing to believe that by doing so God kept him out of heaven, out of glory, for fifteen years That if he had died he might have gone straight to glory but God kept him here on the earth that much longer? Take the restoration to life of the widow’s son. Most people believe that when a child dies it goes straight to heaven. I ask, did the prophet do a good thing or a had thing in restoring the child to life? Do you believe that when that child died it became an angel and basked in the sunshine of bliss ? Would not the prophet have said, “ Why do you pray to me to bring your child hack from glory and transform it into a mortal child ?“ She would begin to consider: “Now, that does not look right. I cannot persuade myself after all that when my child died it became an angel. When my child died I saw it die. I did not want to lose it and I asked the prophet to restore its life.” That is what any reasonable mother would say, but if it is a

10 certainty that the death of the child transports it to bliss, it were better that every one die in childhood and thus avoid the risk of life in a cruel world that may result in eternal loss at last. So we see that man in death is dead and not alive. You will ask, What hope is there for man if death is really death This brings to mind a thought I want just to refer to a moment. Some will say, When Abel died he did not really die, and when Cain died he did not really die. What became of them ? Abel went to heaven, Of course his body died, that is the mortal part, and when Cain died he went to hell. The immortal soul, the vital spark that came from God, that part of God that is immortal, as God is immortal, that part of God that is supposed to have entered into Cain’s body, as soon as it “shuffled off its mortal coil,” went to hell, and has been tormented in hell

Pg 232 ever since. theologists say. That is a shocking thought, is it not ? Do you believe it ? I hope not.

But let us suppose for a moment that Cain went to hell and Abel went to heaven, and that Abel had been four thousand years in heaven at the time Christ appeared upon the scene. Now Christ is to suffer and finally to he crucified ; he came to be sacrificed for human redemption. We follow him through his life as “a man of sorrow,” and now he comes to face the ignominy of the death of the cross. He trembles, holding the cup of death in his hand, and we hear him cry. “ Father, if it he possible, let this cup pass from me ; nevertheless, not my will but thine be done.” It was the Father’s will that he should die. Why must it he so ? Why was it not possible for death to pass ? Because upon his death depends— what ? Upon his death depends the redemption of mankind; the redemption of every child of God. Think for a moment. Did the redemption of Abel depend upon it ? If he is in heaven, as we are told, let us call to him and ask him. Draw aside the curtain of heaven and cry out: “Abel, where are you “ In heaven, of which some sing,

“‘Beyond the bounds of time and space,

Look forward to that heavenly place, The saints’ secure abode.’

“As soon as I ‘ shuffled off the mortal coil,’ I ‘saw my title clear to mansions in the sky.’

“Are you saved ? Do you want anything better than you have ? Is it necessary for the trembling Saviour, who stands here asking that the bitter cup of death pass, if possible— is it necessary, Abel, for him to drink this cup to save you ? “

Not at all. I have been saved for nearly four thousand years-—-basking in the bliss of heaven.”

Ask all those who have died, from Abel down, and if they are in heaven they will answer in the same way. If they could he saved for four thousand years without the death of Christ, why not continue to save men when they die and let it go on and on in that way for four million years and let the trembling Saviour dash the cup from his lips ? Ah, friends, here is theology weighed in the balance and found wanting. Now take the case of Abel, of Noah, of Abraham, of all the worthies mentioned by the apostle in the eleventh chapter of Hebrews, of whom does he say, These all went to heaven as soon as they died! Not at all that is how the preacher in the pulpit would speak; but Paul says, “These all died.” This is what happened to them. ‘What do you mean, Paul, when you say they died ? I mean they died the death that came by

Pg 233 man, of which I wrote when I said, “ If there be no resurrection of the dead, then they also that have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.” Abel and all the ancient worthies fell asleep in death. These all died in faith, not having received the promises. They are asleep in the dust of the earth, and if there he no resurrection of the dead they are perished.

But, Paul, you have not studied theology. You predicate the future life of those who have died upon a resurrection. Don’t you know it is only their bodies that are dead ? They can get along better without their bodies than with them. It does not matter

10 whether there is a resurrection or not. Study theology, Paul, so you may become familiar with this matter, and you will see that these men are all basking in the sunshine of bliss, and you can dispense with a resurrection entirely.

Suppose you went to heaven when you died- suppose you, like Abel, had gone to heaven six thousand years ago and had been basking in bliss that length of time, would you like to be disturbed and brought back into the body and pass through the ordeal of judgment? Judgment for what ? It is impossible to say if men go to heaven or hell when they die. If, however, they are dead, then you can see judgment cannot precede the resurrection, and our hope is found, not in death, but in the resurrection from the dead. “By man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.” Hence we look to Christ who declared, “I am the resurrection and the life.”

He spoke these words when in the very presence of death, when a friend and brother was lying in the cold grave where he had been for three days. He told the weeping sister, “Thy brother shall rise again.” He did not say, Thy brother shall come down from heaven. Then he went to the tomb and cried out, “ Come forth,” and Lazarus came forth.

So here we have a case of death, burial in the grave and the resurrection from the grave, and the words of the Saviour with reference to this as a manifestation of his power were, “ I am the resurrection and the life.” Now you can see why Christ died, because Abel and all the ancient worthies have gone down into death in hope of a resurrection through Christ. With them the question of the patriarch Job is an important one. He asks, “ If a man die shall he live again ?” and answers it by saying:

“0, that thou wouldst hide me in the grave, that thou wouldst keep me in secret until thy wrath be past.”

Then what? “That thou wouldst appoint me a set time and remember me * * * Thou shalt call and I will answer thee: thou wilt have a desire to the work of thy hands” (Job xiv: 7—15).

He says again in the nineteenth chapter, “ For I know that my Redeemer liveth and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth.

Pg 234 And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God” (verses 25, 26).

This burning hope of a resurrection was in the minds and hearts of all the ancient worthies. Hence when they went down to the dust of death it was in the hope of a Christ to come and to open the way for their resurrection. In this hope the prophet Isaiah says: “Thy dead men shall live: together with my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust, for thy dew is as the dew of herbs. For the earth shall cast out her dead and shall no more cover her slain.” The prophet Daniel says that many that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake and shall come forth. The Psalmist declares, “Thou shalt deliver my soul from the hand of the grave.” Now, in view of the fact that all the worthies who had died during the four thousand years previous to Christ’s death were dead and dependent upon resurrection for a future life, and dependent upon Christ for resurrection, we can see that their salvation did not, as a fact, precede his, and that the realization of the hope in which they died depended upon Christ as the Saviour. Now we can, for a moment, return to Calvary and again look upon him who had passed the sufferings of Gethsemane, tremblingly holding the bitter cup of death in his hand and crying out, “ Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me.” Why must I drink it ? Ah, from Abel down, the worthy ones put their hope and trust in me. They went down into the tomb depending upon me to open it for them. If I die not, if I rise not, then there will be no resurrection of the dead, and then they also who have fallen asleep in me have perished, and all is lost and the gates of hades will forever prevail against God’s faithful people. I must not falter; the shame and ignominy of the cross must not daunt me. 1 must steady my trembling hand and nerve myself for the last tragic act of the drama in which I am the actor and upon which salvation for every faithful child of my Father depends —” not my will hut thine be done,” and

He drank the bitter cup of pain,

Then rose to life and joy again.

10 And now those who have fallen asleep in Christ have not perished, for Christ is their resurrection and their life, they having believed in him, “though they are dead yet shall they live:” for now the words sound out and resound, “I am the resurrection and the life.”, I need not quote further from the many testimonies that declare a resurrection, but a resurrection to what

MAN’S DESTINY.

Here we come to the question of man’s destiny. Man came from the

Pg 235 dust, in nature he is mortal, and in the death state unconscious. The resurrection is his hope, but a resurrection to what ? We read: “Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises, that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust” (II. Pet. i: 4). “Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that when he shall appear we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is “ (I. John iii: 2). “For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself” (Phil. iii: 20, 21).

“But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels, and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection” (Luke xx: 35, 36). “Who will render to every man according to his deeds: To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life” (Rom. ii: 6, 7). Here you find eternal life, immortality, offered to man upon the condition that they seek for it. Hence, immortality is synonymous with the divine nature, as in the first verse I read “that by these ye might be par-takers of the divine nature,” God is immortal. When we are made partakers of the divine nature we too, shall be immortal; but not until we have escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. When, then, shall we come into possession of immortality, and upon what conditions shall it be obtained ? It is declared here to be when the Lord Jesus shall return, and we shall be granted an abundant entrance into his kingdom.

In another verse the apostle says: “For our conversation is in heaven, from whence also we look for the Saviour, who shall (when he comes) change our vile body and shall fashion it like unto his glorious body.” It is at his second coming, then, when he comes to raise the dead and call the living into his presence. “When he shall appear we shall be like him. For we shall see him as he is.” He shall change our vile body like unto his glorious body. Hence, there is no hope of immortality until Christ comes, and no hope then except for those who by a patient continuance in well doing seek for it. Therefore, we see that to be made partakers of the divine nature is the greatest glory and exaltation man can attain to. How absurd, then, Pg 236 to talk about man being naturally immortal, and that every depraved wretch in human form is a partaker of the divine nature. Now, if we do not comply with the conditions God has laid down, what will be our destiny ? Preservation ? Why preserve man in a sinful, fallen state? That was the very thing God prevented by driving man from Eden. Man must first pass through the ordeal of probation he must ascend from the depraved state into which he has fallen, and become God-like in character, and when he has attained to the image of God he is then fit and worthy to live. But if he never ascends—-what then, what is the result “The enemies of the Lord shall be as the fat of lambs; they shall consume; into smoke shall they consume away.” The righteous he will preserve, but the wicked he will destroy. No, says the theologian, he will not destroy the wicked; he will preserve them as long as he preserves the righteous. The wicked will he kept alive in hell as long as the righteous are alive in heaven. But the Bible says, “The righteous he will preserve, but the wicked he will destroy.” But, says one, destroy does not mean destroy. What, then, does it mean ? It does not mean preserve, does it ? It means to blast their hopes and ruin their happiness.b Let us see

10 “Yet a little while and the wicked shall not be: yea, thou shalt diligently consider his place and it shall not be ‘~ (Psa. xxxvii: 10.) There will not be room for the wicked for when we shall have reached the time when God shall he all in all, there will not be a single individual alive in whom God will not dwell. he must reign until he hath put down all enemies, and the last enemy is death. When death is destroyed the last enemy is destroyed, and there will not be countless millions of enemies to curse God through all eternity, for God is to destroy every enemy. This shall not come to pass until Christ has accomplished his great mission. Paul, in proceeding with his argument, says “ For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality “ (I. Cor. xv : 53). The triumphant ones over death will then exclaim:

“0, death, where is thy sting P 0, grave, where is thy victory P When we have attained this glorious divine nature, then we are triumphant over death and made like unto the angels of God to die no more, because we are the children of the resurrection. Thus there will be the survival of those that are fittest to survive, and the utter annihilation of those that are not fit to survive. We are now living in the day of salvation, when it is possible for us to escape such a terrible fate. “ Why will ye spend your money for that which is not bread, and your labor for that which satisfieth not ? “(Isa. lv : 2, 3). It is possible for you to respond to this call and accept of immortality, and by patient continuance in well-doing obtain eternal life when, free from the evils of mortality, our vile bodies having been changed. “We shall mount up with wings as eagles. We shall run and not be weary and walk and not faint.” God grant that this may be our happy lot!

Pg 239

THIRD EDITION

HELL TORMENTS A Failure, A Fallacy, and A Fraud

A Lecture Delivered in Massey Hall, Toronto, Canada, Wednesday Night, January 31, 1906.

BY THOS. WILLIAMS, OF CHICAGO

Late Editor “The Christadelphian Advocate” and Author of “The World’s Redemption,” and other Books.

In Exposure of the Fallacy of

Torrey’s Torrid Hell Torments

10 Which he had recently preached in Massey Hall, during a series of Revival Meetings; and following his refusal to meet Mr. Williams in Public Debate upon the subject.

Price by mail, 6 cts.

Pg 241

Torrey’s Torrid Hell Torment.

HELL TORMENTS A FALLACY, A FAILURE, AND A

FRAUD. A LECTURE DELIVERED IN MASSEY HALL, TORONTO, WEDNESDAY

NIGHT, JANUARY 31, 1906, BY THOMAS

WILLIAMS, OF CHICAGO.

The rank hell torment preaching during a revival meeting in Massey Hall, by THE EVANGELIST, DR. TORREY, was the immediate cause of this lecture being given at this time. Dr. Torrey was first challenged to meet Mr. Williams in public discussion on the question: “Do the Scriptures Teach the Doctrine of Unending Hell Torment ?“

Upon his refusal, arrangements were made for the lecture. The audience consisted of about five thousand people, and with the exception of a few interruptions during the first part of the lecture, good attention was given, great interest manifested, and hearty acceptance, by many, declared. The chair was occupied by Mr. E. H. Chart, of Toronto, who opened the meeting with the following appropriate remarks: Fellow Citizens, Ladies. and Gentlemen :— In behalf of the Christadelphians of Toronto I extend to one and all a sincere and hearty welcome here tonight. The assembling together of this vast audience is a practical demonstration of your sympathy with that bulwark of British institutions—freedom of speech, freedom of thought, and, above all, an open Bible. Much has been said in this city during the past thirty days upon the doctrine of unending torment; the Christadelphians believing that theory to be contrary to Christianity, Science and Sense, and a gross libel upon-the Bible, which they believe to be wholly Divinely inspired, challenged Dr. Torrey to a public debate with Mr. Williams of Chicago, author, publisher and lecturer, to be held in this city, the metropolis of Ontario, that the searchlights of Divine Truth might be turned upon a question that has baffled so many and has been held up to the dissecting eye of an inquiring public. Dr. Torrey refused, declaring that lie had no time—no time, my friends, time to proclaim for four weeks in your midst the terrible

Pg 242 doctrine of hell torments, yet no time to defend it. If Dr. Torrey has no time, Mr. Williams has time, and has come from Chicago to acquit God of the blasphemous charge that has been made against Him and His Holy Word; and to demonstrate to you the scriptural teaching concerning the destiny of the wicked and the state of the dead. Beloved friends, we have no outstretched hand for your money, but we have this favor to ask of you, and that is, that you lay aside all prejudices and give the lecturer an impartial hearing.

10 Mr. Chart then read the 14th Chap. of Job and called upon Mr. Williams to come forward and deliver his lecture—”Hell Torments a Fallacy, a Failure and a Fraud.” Mr. Williams was received with applause.

THE LECTURE.

Esteemed and Respected Friends—Perhaps to many of you I may add, fellow countrymen, for although a resident of the United States of America for many years, Britain, the beautiful isles of the sea, is the country of my nativity. It is the thought that I am to address an audience of Britons tonight that gives me confidence that I shall be allowed a fair hearing, or given, as President Roosevelt terms it, “a square deal,” at your hands. To Britain, more than to any other nation, are we indebted for the liberty of the Press and the freedom of the Platform; and I must believe that this vast audience of intelligent, educated people, will respect and honor the inestimable principles which belong to every freeman as a legacy from the greatest nation upon the face of the earth today. Moreover, to Britain we are indebted for an open Bible, that glorious Book, which alone is a guide through the darkness and confusion of an evil world into the gladness and glory of the world to come. It is upon this book we all depend for a knowledge of the truth upon the important subject we are to consider tonight. No man, from the pope of Rome to a Dr. Torrey, can know anything about the future punishment of the wicked apart from what is revealed in the Bible; and the Bible is a book we all have in our possession, God in his providence, having given it to all the world in almost every known language upon the face of the earth, and to us in our own mother-tongue. Now we open this book Divine, and we read its first words: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” That is a simple declaration of a fact. We behold the heavens above that declare the glory of God, and the earth beneath shows forth His handiwork. But do we read, “In the beginning God created hell ?“ pg 243

We are clearly told of things that God did create—the heaven and the earth, the firmament, the waters, the creatures of the earth, the sea, and the sky; and we are told of the formation of man; but we read not a word about the creation of hell. Why? We have a right to ask, Why? Heaven is a created thing, earth is a created thing, all the things and the creatures named are created things; and if there is a hell it must be a created thing—where, I ask again, is there a word in the Scriptures about the creation of hell? It is supposed by a perverted Christianity that heaven was intended to be the eternal abode of the righteous. Its creation was worth mentioning in the Divine Revelation. If, as is supposed by Dr. Torrey and his fellows and followers, hell was intended to be the eternal abode of the wicked— of course I mean Dr. Torrey’s hell—why was there not the same reason for recording “In the beginning God created hell” as there was for recording, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth”? The Scriptures teach the existence of a greater number of savages, heathen, and wicked people, than of righteous ones, and the facts of history and of our own times make this quite manifest. The population of Dr. Torrey’s hell, therefore, must always be far greater than the population of heaven; hell, therefore, should be a much larger place than heaven. On this hypothesis, it surely deserved mention among created things, if it ever was created; and in view of the importance that Dr. Torrey and his fellow-advocates attach to it, and in view of its alleged horror and its great danger to mankind, the fact that no mention is made of its creation cannot be ignored upon the plea that it was too insignificant to be a matter of record when a record was being made of all created things. Now, I am not going to’ be technical, and limit my challenge to the fact that the creation of hell is not mentioned in the account of creation, but if its creation can be found further along in the Bible, I am willing to admit that there is some ground for the theory. But where is it? I press the question, Where is there any account in the Word of God of the creation of hell? Where? I will show you presently where the fable and the’ fraud originated, but now I am going to be bold enough to pass from the negative side to the affirmative side of the question, and to show that we can be sure and certain, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that there was no hell created, that there was no hell in existence when God created the heaven and the earth, the creatures of the earth, the sea and the sky. I call God to witness against the horrible delusion; listen to His words; “And God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.”-.—Gen. i. 31. Pg 244 If there was such a hell there as Dr. Torrey has been trying to frighten you with, do you think God would have declared that “everything was very good”? Was Moses inspired to tell the truth, the whole truth, and yet did his inspired pen write that “everything was very good,” when there was such a horrible place of lurid flame inhabited by a monstrous devil and his

10 victims waiting to engulf earth’s millions to roast them throughout the countless ages of eternity—could, I ask, “everything be very good” and yet such a hell form part of the “everything”? Let God be true, though it make men liars. THE ORIGIN OF HELL TORMENTS. Now as to the origin of the blasphemous doctrine of hell torments, its revolting horror, and its savage, insatiable vindictiveness are evidences that it never originated in the mind of Him who is a God of love and justice—yes, and a God of law and order. You may be sure that it forms no part of the plan of Him who is order and harmony to absolute perfection. Can you see order, can you see harmony, can you see sense, in a theory that sends Abel to heaven and Cain to hell, the one to bask in bliss and the other to writhe in indescribable torture for six thousand years, and that after that they, and all of their kind, are to be brought to judgment? Judge millions who have for ages been tortured! In the world; in the name of common sense, I ask you, my friends, I plead with you to think, to reflect, and as intelligent men and women, I ask you what in the name of common sense are such poor creatures to be judged for? With such flagrant confusion as this, with God so libeled and His book so slandered by the Dr. Torreys of the pulpits, do you wonder that there are infidels? If there were a God such as the popular fiction pictures, do you think sensible people and people who have hearts of love could devoutly worship him? They might cringe and crawl like the slave under the whip of the slave driver, but worship and love would be impossible, and, let me add, creatures upon whom the terrors of hell torments would have any effect in the way of intimidating or frightening them, are those whose existence is the result of that part of the curse ‘which sin brought, in the multiplication of “sorrow and conception!’: and these are so degenerate that they cannot look up into the heavens and behold the face of Him who is the perfection of justice and love. To preserve millions of such creatures in hell torment would be to add a thousand— fold to the curse, and to perpetuate evil instead of accomplishing ‘the restitution of all things spoken of by the prophets.” The hell torments fiction was not intended for decent, civilized, and educated people; it was invented as a “pious fraud’’ to frighten creatures who could not otherwise be kept from committing revolting crimes. Hence, as the famous historian Gibbon says, ‘‘With the masses it was equally Pg 245 true, with the philosophers it was equally false, and with the magistrates it was equally necessary.” Plato, the Grecian author of the doctrine of the immortality of the soul, declared it advisable to deceive the masses as a means of checking their lustful passions, and the silver-tongued Cicero, upon the authority of Plato, declared that “not to deceive for the public good was a wickedness.” Based upon the serpent’s lie in the garden of Eden, the mysteries of Egyptian darkness cherished and nourished the offspring of the first falsehood, and delivered it over to Plato, from whom the pulpits have received it under the name, “The Platonic doctrine of the immortality of the soul.” Hence the heathen theories of transmigration of souls, the Elysian fields, and the fires of Tartarus have been given Bible names, and these counterfeits have been passed as if they were pure coins from heaven. To the savage heart of heathenism, therefore, is due the origin of the blasphemous doctrine of hell torments and, to the shame of the clergy, bishops, D. D.s and Reverends be it said, thousands of ignorant people and innocent little children have been frightened out of their wits by so-called revival meetings, and their fright has been called “conversion,” and thus reports of so many “convents made to-night” are advertised by various devices in order to give prestige to professional “Evangelists.” So far as real conversion is concerned, hell torments is a failure, and to use it as it is used in so-called revivals is as much a “pious fraud” today as it was in the days of Plato and other heathen, so-called philosophers. Now I will read to you what a Bishop Hopkins has said about hell torments, and leave you to judge whether it was a compliment to the intelligence of Toronto for Dr. Torrey to flaunt the flames of such a hell in your faces. Listen to this: “The smoke of their torment shall ascend up in the sight of the blessed for ever and ever”— “in the sight of the blessed,” mark you’! so that parents are to be in sight of their children, and children in sight of their parents, and friends in sight of friends— what do you think, you mothers whose hearts throb with an unquenchable love for your children? What do you think of the prospect of spending eternity in sight of the writhing tortures and within hearing of the moans and groans of your children? Do you think you could be happy? Could even the bliss of heaven make you happy with such a spectacle before your eyes? Could you be happy in this life in view of prolonged suffering of those you love—yea, of those you do not love? If you could not be happy in this life in view of the sufferings of your fellow creatures are you willing to believe that transportation to heaven roots out every spark of a mother’s love from your hearts, and that you become such fiends as to be able to spend untold millions of years within visible distance of the unspeakable torture of countless num-

Pg 246

HELL TORMENTS A FALLACY.

10 hers of your fellow beings? I am sure you cannot entertain the shocking thought for a moment, and I cannot think that men of Dr. Torreys character can really believe it. But Bishop Hopkins has not yet finished his flaming picture of hell torments. Listen: “The smoke of their torment shall ascend up in the sight of the blessed for ever and ever, and serve, as a most clear glass always-before their eyes, to give them a constant and most affecting view * * * This display of the divine character”—”of the divine character”; 0 dear, is it not marvelous that God’s mercy can allow His character to be so shamefully defamed !—“This display of the divine character and glory will be in favor of the redeemed, and most entertaining, and GIVE THE HIGHEST PLEASURE TO THOSE WHO LOVE GOD, AND RAISE THEIR HAPPINESS ON INEFFABLE HEIGHTS. Should this eternal punishment cease, and this fire be extinguished, it would in a great measure obscure the light of heaven and put an end to a great part of the happiness and glory of the blessed.” What do you think of that for a bishop? Could the pen of man do more to blaspheme God, disgrace heaven, and outrage reason? I see from the newspaper reports—and perhaps we can depend more upon the Toronto papers for truthfulness than we can upon some of those of Chicago—your newspapers report Dr. Torrey as having spoken of hell torments in all its various forms as a place of literal fire, and as a condition of mental torture and an endless gnawing of conscience. But if the wicked are to be in such a condition endlessly, there must be a place in which the condition will subsist. So that it would seeing that Bishop Hopkins’ hell is not too horrible for Dr. Torrey, fearful and shocking as it is in the light of reason and Scripture. Dr. Torrey says his hell is the hospital for the wicked of this world. A hospital? Do you send your unfortunate ones to hos- pitals to be tortured ? Do they go there to be tortured without hope ? How quickly would your newspapers arouse the wrath of the people were it to be discovered that even one afflicted inmate of a hospital were subjected to unnecessary suffering under the surgeon’s knife or otherwise. A hospital, indeed! Do you not think that was a strange comparison for Dr. Torrey to make? But the doctor makes a better comparison when he says that hell is the insane asylum of the world. Yes, indeed, if there is such a place, a mad-house it is, sure enough. What else can it be? How long do you suppose a same person could exist in such a place before he would become a raving maniac? During the great Chicago fire, people were running through the streets carrying heavy loads of useless things, when their valuables were left to- be devoured by the flames. If a conflagration of that sort would drive men and women

Pg 247 into temporary insanity, what, think you, would the ceaseless flames or the unrelenting gnawing conscious of hell torment do? But an “insane asylum for the world” is it? What! torment millions of mad -men throughout eternity! Occasionally reports come of -cruel treatment in insane asylums, and society is all aflame, and cry, shame, shame; and demand the just punishment of the cu1prit. But in Dr. Torrey’s hell—and I do not wish to make him a scapegoat for all of his class; for he is but frankly confessing the creed of the popular churches, while some, not so frank, are trying to hide the hideous thing from decent society. Dr. Torrey’s hell is the hell of the popular creeds; and in that hell we are asked to believe millions of madmen are treated with indescribable cruelty while the poor creatures know not what their torture is for. Look at this picture, by a “Rev. J. Furness.” I quote from “The Bible Vindicated,” a compilation by the late Mr. Gunn, of Walkerton, Ont.: “Listen to the tremendous, the horrible uproar of millions and millions of tormented creatures, mad with the fury of hell. Oh, the screams of fear, the groanings of horror, the yells of rage, the cries of pain, the shouts of agony, the shrieks of despair, from millions on millions. There you hear them roaring like lions, hissing like serpents, howling like (logs, and wailing like dragons. There you hear the gnashing of teeth, and the fearful blasphemies of the devils. Above all you hear the roarings of the thunders of God’s anger, which shake hell to its foundations. But there is another sound. There is in hell a sound like that of many waters ; it is as if all the rivers and oceans in .the world were pouring themselves with a great splash down on the floor of hell. Is it, then, really the sound of waters? It is. Are the rivers and oceans of earth pouring themselves into lie11? No. ‘What is it, then? It is the sound of oceans of tears running down from countless millions of eyes. They cry for ever and ever. They cry because the sulphurous smoke torments their eyes. They cry because of darkness. They cry because they have lost the beautiful heaven.”—What do men “mad with the fury of hell” know about “the beautiful heaven” ?—“They cry because the sharp fire burns them.” My dear friends, you will recognize the fact that I am giving you these revolting pictures just as they have been given to the world by the Dr. Torrey class. They are written upon the pages of the books of popular churches, and until the books are committed to the flames, and the scandal is wiped completely out, and God’s justice vindicated and the Bible defended, the horrible doctrine must shroud the pulpits in the blackness of the libel and of the shameful slander.

10 Suppose one of your citizens had a dog that became vicious and bit Ins master’s children and endangered the safety of the neighbors. And suppose the owner of that bog discovered a chemical which.

Pg 248. when injected! into the veins and arteries of the dog, would make it impossible for him to die. Then suppose the owner kindled a fire in his yard and put the dog into that fire, and then, with folded arms, complacently looked on, beholding day after day, the writhings of the tortured creature, and happily listening to his groans and moans and to its constant howling. What would you think of such a man? How long could you endure such a sight? What would you do with that suffering dog? (‘Shoot him,” cried a voice.) Yes, indeed, you would make haste to put the creature out of existence ; and now are we to believe that God is more heartless than men? To worship a god that will endlessly torture millions of creatures with no possibility of remedy—if worship were possible in such a case— is to worship a being a thousand times more cruel than the most cruel among men. I may appear to be speaking irreverently, and I am, but not of God, glory be to His name; but of an invention, the offspring of the savage heart of heathenism, and for such a god I have no reverence, but the utmost contempt. There may be a few people in Toronto who are so degenerate as to require the fear of the flames of an invented hell to “convert” them. If there are, perhaps the “pious fraud” of Plato’s times is “equally necessary,” but for Dr. Torrey to preach his hell torment to the people generally is nothing short of an insult. Sonic years ago I delivered a lecture in Hamilton on the salvation of the righteous and the destruction of the wicked. At the close of the lecture a man came to me and said, “If there is no hell torment, what is there to keep me from thrusting a knife to your heart ?“ I was shocked for a moment, but asked the man, “Is it your fear of bell torments that keeps you from thrusting a knife to the heart of your fellow man ?“ He did appear somewhat ashamed, and made no reply. “My good man,” I said, “if it is the fear of hell that keeps you from such a crime, I would not change your mind for the world. It was for just such as you the fraud was invented.” But for an enlightened, educated gentleman, a D. D., to travel about teaching hell torment to intelligent people is another matter. Let me again suppose. Suppose there never was such a man and such a dog as I have supposed, and suppose someone falsely reported that one of your respectable citizens had so treated a dog, what would you do with such a slanderer? (“Shut him up,” came from the audience.) Well, the God of the Bible is not a vindictive monster. He is a God of love and justice, and every man that preaches hell torment a thousand times more outrageously slanders Him than would the falsifier we have supposed slander one of our fellow citizens. Here is what one of our “Revs.” says—the “Rev.” J. Furness, in a further description of this heathen hell. “The roof is red hot, the walls are red, the floor is like a thick sheet of red hot iron. See ! On the middle of that floor stands a pg 249 girl—she looks about sixteen years old.” Mark you, this youthful girl, only about sixteen years old. She had not lived long enough to have committed a multitude of sins, and was of such a tender age that we could hardly think she could have degraded herself greatly, and if she had been a degenerate by inheritance, that would surely be an extenuating circumstance. But even suppose she had lived three score years and ten, and had been a sinner during the years of her accountability, you shall judge when I have read this extract whether the punishment is consistent with the crime. When I was young I heard the eternity of hell torture illustrated by supposing one were to count every grain of sand upon the seashore; then count over again, one grain at a time, then again, and even then there had not been a beginning to count the number of ages during which the inhabitants of hell are to be tortured. Remember, this illustration did not come from a savage, either, but from a “clergy- man,” and now let me continue the story of the “Rev.” J. Furness and his red-hot furnace for tender girls sixteen years old: “Her feet are bare; she has neither shoes nor stockings on her feet; her bare feet stand on the red-hot burning floor. The door of this room has never been opened since she first set her foot on the red-hot floor. Now she sees that the door is opening. She rushes forward. She has gone down on her knees on the red-hot foot. Listen! She speaks. She says: ‘I have been standing with my bare feet on this red-hot floor for years. Day and night my only standing place has been this red-hot floor. Sleep never came on for a moment, that I might forget this horrible burning floor. Look, she says, at my burnt and bleeding feet. Let me go off this burning floor for one moment, only for one moment.’ “ My dear friends, I can hardly read this; I could not if I did not know that it is a clerical fiction and a palpable fraud. He continues: “Oh! that in this endless eternity of years I might forget the pain only for one single moment! The devil answers her question. ‘Do you ask for one moment to forget your pain? No! not for one single moment during the never ending eternity of years shall you ever leave this red-hot floor.’” If there is a devil that has charge of hell, whose business it is to so torture young girls and old people, he must receive his authority and power from God; for He only is the source of all power and authority. The very principle of hell torment theorists is that the punishment is divine retribution. The pagans did believe that Good and Evil were two antagonistic gods, wrestling with each other for the prey; and therefore the torture inflicted by the devil was in spite of the good imaginary god.

10 But the heathen theory, when transmitted into so-called Christianity, represents the devil as God’s agent to inflict the torture. Yes, and a Dr. Benson, a Methodist

Pg 250 commentator, says that “God is Himself in hell, exercising all his divine attributes to make the pains of the damned cut intolerably deep.” Now, I think it is time for us to leave this outrageous libel with those who think they can believe the lie to be the truth, and it will be our duty to examine the Scriptures as to what they really do teach. The word “hell” is in the Bible. What does it mean? Here I take ‘pleasure in complimenting Dr. Torrey. A very good little book of his (in some respects) on how to read the Scriptures has been kindly loaned me. Therein Dr. Torrey warns his readers against trusting dictionaries on the meaning of Bible words; and he rightly says that the only safe way is to compare the use of words in the Scriptures and thus the Bible will be its own interpreter. Dr. Torrey has here struck a Christadelphian way of studying the Bible, as their works will show. But if he had practiced in his study of unending hell torment what he has preached in this advice, he would not have left his Toronto- audiences under the delusion that the word “hell” in the Bible stood for the lurid flames of that horrible fiction of heathen invention. As a Bible student, a teacher and scholar, he should have told you the facts concerning the word ‘‘hell” in the Bible, the original words of which it is supposed to be a translation, and the use of those original words, rendered, as they are, by other words in the English Bible. Dr. Torrey must be supposed to have studied this subject philologically, and with a knowledge of the facts it is deceiving to quote the word “hell” without regard to what original word it is translated from. You are, no doubt, aware that the Old Testament was nearly all written in Hebrew, and the New Testament in Greek. The word translated “hell” in the Old Testament is Sheol, while in the New Testament there are two words for which the translation of the authorized version have made the word “hell” do service, namely Gehenna and Hades. By following Dr. Torrey’s advice, but not his example, by comparing the use of these words we can arrive at their Scripture meaning, and there is no danger of the Bible leading us into the belief of the pulpit theory of hell torments. By the use of a good concordance, one that gives the original words as well as those of the English translation, it will be found that the word sheol is not always translated by the word ‘‘hell.’’ In many cases it is rendered “grave” ; and this is one important fact which Dr. Torrey should have disclosed! to his Toronto audience. The word stands for the death state, the state of unconsciousness. The translators rendered it “hell” when the English reading would suit the theory they believed in ; and when to do this would manifest a glaring- inconsistency, they rendered it ‘‘grave,’’ leaving the casual

Pg 251t

English reader in the dark as to what the original word was. The cruel perversions which have taken advantage of this had their day, and we live in times of research, when it is the duty of teachers to reveal facts. For instance, Job in his sufferings cried out, “0 that thou wouldest hide me in the grave, that thou wouldest keep me secret, until thy wrath be past, that thou wouldest appoint me a set time and remember me.”—Job xiv. 13. The word “grave” here is from “Sheol” in the Hebrew, and the translators have acknowledged the true meaning by translating it ‘grave.” Suppose “hell” meant the popular—or rather now becoming unpopular—meaning that is attached to it, that of a place of endless torture; and suppose the word used by .Job, “Sheol,’’ had been translated ‘hell’’ here, it would have represented poor, suffering Job as crying out, “0 that thou wouldest hide me in hell.” It is clear that relief from his sufferings was what the patriarch was praying for, but if Sheol means Dr. Torrey’s hell, then he was praying for torment incomparably worse than that which called forth his prayer. The Bible is its own dictionary here, you see, because in this passage, like many others, we are surrounded by facts which will allow only that Job was praying to be hidden in the grave until Jehovah’s wrath should be removed from a sinful world, and his desire was to be remembered at the appointed time of the resurrection of the dead, when, he says, in answering the question, “If a man die, shall lie live again ?‘‘ (verse 14)—”Thou shalt call, and I will answer thee; thou wilt have a desire to the work of thine hands.” That this was his hope, resurrection from Sheol, or the grave, is further evident when he says : “I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand in the latter day upon the earth ; and though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God.”—Chap xix, 25, 26. In sheol, the grave, “worms destroy the body,” and from this sheol, or if translated as elsewhere, from this “hell,” he hoped to be redeemed in the appointed day of resurrection. Another case

10 illustrative of this Scripture meaning of the Hebrew word, Sheol, is that of Jacob, who mourned the death of his beloved son, Joseph, “and when his sons and his daughters rose up to comfort him”—I am quoting from Gen. xxxvii. 35—”he refused to be comforted; and he said, For I will go down into the grave—sheol—unto my son mourning.” Fancy Jacob declaring that he would go down to hell—the kind of hell Dr. Torrey says is a place or a condition of endless torture. In the forty-ninth Psalm, it says of those who are in honor and understood not, that “they are like the beasts that perish.” Verse 14 says: “Like sheep they are laid in the grave, death shall feed on them.” Death feeds upon those in sheol, because sheol is the death state, and not a place where life is perpetuated for no other purpose but to torture. With the popular view how strange it would sound

Pg 252 to say, “Like sheep they are laid in hell.” Yet, even with a proper understanding of the meaning of the word “hell.’’ which we will presently explain, there would be no incongruity, it is the pagan fiction that has been so inexcusably associated with the word that has caused the confusion. Where the translators of the authorized version have employed ‘hell” for sheol, it is only the perverted mind that reads into the passages the idea of endless torture. For instance, the words of the Psalmist, “The wicked shall he turned into hell, and all nations that forget God.” Keep in view the proper meaning of sheol, as shown in those passages where it is rendered grave, and the thought is that all the wicked will finally end in death, the grave—in oblivion—rather than that they will be the subjects of preservation for fuel for endless flames. This aspect of the question has been helped by the Revisers, who have in some cases transferred the word sheol instead of translating it; and in some cases they have rendered it “pit”—the “pit of corruption,” which is the grave. Let me give two more passages from the Old Testament to show the true meaning of sheol, the Old Testament “hell,” and then we will go to the New Testament. In Ezek. xxxi. 16 we read: “I made the nations to shake at the sound of his fall (the Assyrian), when I cast him down to hell with them that descend into the pit.” To go down to hell was to go with them that descend into the pit, into death, into the grave. In the next chapter and the 27th verse this is made quite clear, but notice verse 18, “unto the nether parts of the earth,” “unto the pit.” Verse 22. “his graves are about him’ verse 23, “whose graves are set in the sides of the pit,” and so on in verses 24, 25 and 26. Then in the 27th verse we read: “And they shall not lie with the mighty that are fallen of the uncircumcised, which are gone down to hell with -their weapons of war and they have laid their swords under their heads.” Are we to suppose that warriors take their weapons with them to the popular hell? how absurd to apply the word to such a fiction, when the facts are so clearly before us. For the “mighty” to go down to hell and for their swords to be laid under their heads was for them to he buried, and, according to the custom of those times, to have their swords placed in the tomb with them. This “hell,’’ this sheol, is the grave, and not a seething caldron of endless torturing fire. The popular hell is as foreign to the Old Testament as it is to reason and common sense. God has given us reasoning faculties to use, and He condescends to say to us, “Come, let us reason together ; though your sins be ‘as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow.” There are things that are thinkable and there are things that are not thinkable ; and the horrors of “hell torment’’ are not really thinkable. They arc blindly imagined, and reason refuses to try to explain the vicious theory upon any known or revealed principle of justice. The Old Testa—

Pg 253 ment leaves Dr. Torrey and all those of his class without the shadow of an excuse for teaching a doctrine which is an insult to reason, an outrage against justice, and a slander upon the character of God. About two hundred and fifty years before Christ there was produced a Greek translation of the Old Testament, known as the Septuagint. The word employed in this Greek translation for the Hebrew word sheol is hades. Therefore if we can find the proper meaning of hades, we shall be still further helped to the understanding of sheol. Let me give a simple illustration. In the- Psalms we have those familiar words of hope, “Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine holy one to see corruption.” For the word “hell” here we have in the Old Testament—the Hebrew— sheol. Now the Apostle Peter quotes these words from the Psalm in the Greek tongue; and for sheol he used the Greek word hades. You will find this in Acts ii. 31. Now it happens that the authorized version translates this word hades by “grave” in I. Cor. xv. 55. The Apostle Paul is here speaking of the resurrection, putting, as it were, upon the tongues of those who will have triumphed over death and the grave by a glorious resurrection, the exulting exclamation, “0 death, where is thy sting; 0 grave—hades—where is thy victory ?“ This is again a case where the Bible is its own dictionary, and where literal language is employed, it surrounds each case with facts and truths which allow of only one meaning for the word—the true meaning, with no possibility of reading the popular tradition into it. Dr. Adam Clarke, the great Methodist Commentator, whose scholarship no one will question, and in some instances whose frankness conflicts with his creed, gives the following as the meaning of the word hades:

10 “The original word hades, from a, not, and iden, to see—the invisible receptacle or mansion of the dead, answering to sheol in Hebrew. The word hell, used in the common translation, conveys now an improper meaning of the original word, because hell is only used to signify the place of the damned. But as the word hell comes from the Anglo-Saxon helon, to cover, or to hide, hence the tiling or slating of a house in some parts of England (particularly Cornwall), heling to this day, and the covers of books (in Lancashire), by the same name, so the literal import of the word hades was formerly well expressed by it.” “The gates of hades,” says Parkhurst, “may always be allusive to the form of the Jewish sepulchres, which were large caves with a narrow mouth, or entrance.” Now all this makes clear what I promised I would show—that the word “hell,” properly understood, is a good English word for the Hebrew word sheol; and hades, in the Greek, being the equivalent of sheol in the Hebrew, “hell” is, of course, a word that properly stands for hades—remember, 1 am not speaking of the Pg 254 traditional “hell,” for it is a gross perversion of the word to apply it to a place of fire and torture, such as preached by Dr. Torrey. I am not forgetting the parable of Dives, and I shall hope to have time yet, in one of my lectures, to show you the real meaning of that parable. Now, my friends, it so happens that all this is further confirmed by the Revised Version, where the Greek word hades has been transferred, the Revisers seeming to have realized what Dr. Adlam Clarke says, that to translate hades by hell, with the modern sadly perverted view of hell would be to perpetuate the false theory of hell torments. Dr. Torrey knew all this, and it was his duty to tell the people the facts, and not play upon the ignorance of “converts” to frighten them. It so happens that I can personally confirm this as the true meaning of the word hell. It is possible, yea, probable, that there are some here tonight who can testify to the truth of what I am about to say as to the use of the word “hell.” In the peninsula of Gower, Glamorgarishire, South Wales, let us suppose ourselves near a farm house. We are in the company of a Gowerian, and here is one of the workmen of the farm corning with a shovel on his shoulder. As he approaches, our Gowerian companion asks, “Where art gwain, boy?’ The answer is, “I’m gwain down to this yield to helly patatas.” There you have the verb “helly.” Now what is the noun form of this verb? After the “patatas” are bellied, where are they? They are in hell, of course; and that means that they are buried, put out of sight: and the essence of the word “hell” is invisibility. Light is absent from the place or state represented by the Saxon word “hell.” Those who are there cannot see or be seen. To show that a time is coming when there will he no more death, and consequently no more burying in sheol, hades, hell, or the grave, a vivid picture is presented in that wonderful hook of symbols, or pictorial representations. Revelation. “death and hell”—Hades—— are represented as being cast into the “lake of fire.” This would be a strange picture to see, hell cast into a lake of fire if hell itself is a lake of fire. The picture, however. means that death, man’s great enemy, and the insatiable grave shall have no more victims, for death shall be no more, and God shall wipe away the tears from all faces. GEH EN N A.

Gehenna is the other word for which “hell” in the New Testament is given erroneously as a translation. This word is the Greek form of the name in the Old Testament of The Valley of the Sons of Hinnom. It never is used in the Scriptures for a region away from this earth. Let me read to you from the Emphatic Diaglott. and Dr. Torrey and his hell torment advocates will not dare to question the truth of this: Pg 255 “Gehenna, the Greek word translated hell in the common version, occurs twelve times. It is the Grecian mode of spelling the Hebrew words which are translated, ‘The Valley of Hinnom.’ This valley was also called Tophet, a detestation, an abomination. Into this place were cast all kinds of filth, with the carcasses of beasts and unburied bodies of criminals, who had been executed. Continual fires were kept to consume these”—not to preserve them, notice— “Sennacherib’s army of 185,000 men were slain there in one night. Here children were burned to death in sacrifice to Moloch. Gehenna, then, as occurring in the New Testament, symbolizes death and utter destruction, but in no place symbolizes a place of eternal torment.” “Tophet” means a drum, and its application to the valley of Hinnom is in the fact that the beating of drums was kept up to drown the cries of the children sacrificed in the idolatrous fires kept burning in the valley. Josiah, in order to put a stop to this idol worship, caused the valley to be defiled, as we read in II. Kings xxiii. 10, “and he defiled Tophet which is in the valley of the children of Hinnom, that no man might make his son, or his daughter to pass through the fire to Moloch.” This frightful valley became the horror of the Jews, after the captivity, and the fear of being cast therein and deprived a burial was the most dreadful thought; but instead of being a place in which to preserve in torture, it was literally, and came to figuratively represent, utter destruction. Hence our Lord says, in Matt. v. 22, “But I say, that whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause, shall be in danger of the judgment; and whosoever shall say to his brother. Raca, shall be in danger of the council; but whosoever shall say,

10 Thou fool, shall be in danger of Gehenna fire.” Leaving his “converts” in ignorance of the fact that the original word is Gehenna, and emphasizing the word —a mistranslation—”hell,” well knowing the perverted idea of the people as to the meaning of “hell,” it is easy for Dr. Torrey to frighten rather than instruct his followers; but it is a “pious fraud” nevertheless. This word Gehenna occurs and is translated “hell” in twelve instances, but they are so similar that an explanation of one or two will be an explanation of all of them. The one already quoted refers to the three courts among the Jews—the highest of which only had the authority to condemn a criminal -to be cast into Gehenna. To be “two-fold more the child of Gehenna” was to be that much more deserving of this worst of condemnations and punishments known to the Jews. The word having such a dread, it became a figure of the future and utter and final destruction of the wicked. In Matt. v. 29, and in the corresponding passage in Mark ix :43-48, the Saviour says : “It is better for thee to enter into life with one

Pg 256. eye rather than having two eyes to be cast into Gehenna.” You will notice that it is a question of life, on the one hand, and Gehenna, on the other, which means life or death, preservation in life external, or destruction, death eternal, not eternal life in torture. Gehenna never was a symbol of continued torture, but of sure and certain annihilation of the being; yes, of it Jesus says that “God will destroy both body and soul in Gehenna..” But, you will ask, what about the “worm that dieth not and the fire that is not quenched ?“ In the loathsome valley of Gehenna, the refuse and carcasses thrown therein bred worms, and to prevent pestilence from unwholesome vapors, fires were kept burning up the rubbish thrown therein. But who with common sense would construe the words, “The worm dieth not,” to mean the preservation of the victim upon which the worm preys? Or who would conclude that because fire is “not quenched its victims are preserved instead of devoured? The fact that the de- vouring worn dieth not is positive evidence that it will devour its victim; and the fact that the fire is not quenched is proof that it will destroy whatever it is burning. Suppose this beautiful hall were to take fire, and we had to rush out on the street; we meet the men of the fire department coming in great haste, and we say, “It is of no use trying to quench that fearful fire; it cannot be quenched.” Would that mean to you, to the firemen, or to ally man of sense, that the building would be always burning, but never burned? How absurd! A pagan delusion of hell torments is responsible for such an absurdity. The thought represented by the “worm that dieth not,” and the “fire that is not quenched” is expressed in the words, “Whose fan is in his hand; and he will thoroughly purge his floor, and gather the wheat into the garner; but the chaff he will burn up with unquenchable fire.” Chaff, is it possible that the wicked in their punishment are compared to chaff? Do you think chaff, “fat of lambs,” stubble,” and such combustibles are fitting symbols of indestructible beings always burning, and never burned? Do you think chaff would suit Dr. Torrey as an illustration of the preservation of millions in his “hell torments”? Chaff! The bare idea of such a thing. Asbestos would be a much better and more consistent illustration. But you see, my friends, the “chaff” is “burned up” in this “unquenchable fire,” and that is what unquenchable fire always does— burn up, burn up, not preserve. Taking Dr. Torrey’s advice in allowing the Bible to be its own dictionary, we read in Jer. xvii. 27, that God would “kindle a fire in the gates of Jerusalem, and it shall devour the palaces thereof, and it shall not be quenched.” That fire was kindled by the Roman armies, A. D. 70, and it did devour the palaces thereof, but is there anyone foolish enough to believe that it is still burning, and must continue to burn because it is said “it shall not be quenched”? Thus we see that scripture explains scripture Pg 257 and it is by forcing scripture language to do service in giving expression to pagan fictions that true Christianity Ilas been perverted, God blasphemed, and His Word slandered; and for this outrage the pulpits are responsible—although, let me say, many preachers have become so ashamed of hell torments that they are protesting against Dr. Torrey evangelizing by the power of the lurid flames of a hell, which they well know has no existence except in the imagination of heathen, and heated revivalists. Now I think I have said enough on the three words, sheol, hades and Gehenna.; and now it is my duty to deal with that passage so much harped upon: “These shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternal.”—Matt. xxv. 46. Now here is a passage that a scholar, if he has no respect for his scholarship or for the true meaning of things, may misuse in frightening ignorant people; because the words employed in the authorized version, with the meanings in the minds of many people, seem, superficially viewed, to convey the idea of unending punishment—”torture,” rather, in the common mind. The same word, the people are rightly told, in the Greek stands for the two words in the passage, “everlasting” and “eternal,” on this a plausible argument is built to prove that the duration of the punishment of the wicked is equal to that of

10 the life of the righteous. But even this ought to suggest the question, Do the wicked, as well as the righteous, go into “everlasting life,” the difference only being in the condition of life? Would it not fairly seem that if the everlasting life is in contrast with “eternal punishment,” the latter must be eternal death, and not eternal life in misery? Again let the Bible be its own dictionary, and let the Apostle Paul tell us what the “eternal punishment” is—”who shall he punish-ed with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power.”—II. Thess. i. 9. “Everlasting destruction” cannot mean everlasting preservation, can it, think you? Their punishment is destruction from which there is no return to life; and therefore it is a destruction that is complete and irrevocable. But it was Dr. Torrey’s duty to tell the people that the word in the Greek for “everlasting” is aeonian, and scholars by the hundreds say that this word as to duration must be governed by the context, endlessness not being an intrinsic meaning of the word. But again the Bible is its own dictionary and does not leave us to depend upon scholastic philology. Tile word in the noun form aeon, is rendered for ever. In Exod. xxi. 6, we read of them boring the servant’s ear with an awl, and he was to be the servant of the master for ever, that is, for his age, or as long as he lived. Here, as in many other places, aeon means age. In the adjective form, we have it declared that the Aaronic priesthood—I refer to Numb. xxv. 13, should be an Pg 258 “lasting priesthood.” Yet Paul says in Heb. vii. 12, “For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law,” and the “everlasting priesthood” of Aaron gave place to Him who was a priest after the order of Melchisedec. The real meaning is, the priesthood of the age—the Mosaic age. So in the passage in dispute it is the “life of the age”—to come—and the punishment of the age—that age during which “The Lord Jesus Christ shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, taking vengeance on them that know not God, and obey not the gospel; ; who will be punished with everlasting destruction,” or tile destruction of the age. “The fire of the age,” too, is in another place. Now suppose we ask as to the first clause of the verse. What is the “life of the age”? What kind of life? not depending upon the word “everlasting,” or aonian to determine the duration of the life, except as we may be able to discover what kind of life is to be peculiar to that age as the reward of the righteous. Tile Bible as its own dictionary will help us again ; for Paul says “this mortal shall put on immortality.” Therefore we now know that the righteous will have immortal life as a reward. Will the wicked! have immortality, think you? If they are to endure hell torments endlessly they must be immortal; and not only the soul, but as Paul is speaking of the resurrection, he must refer to the immortalization of the body, when they triumphantly exclaim, 0 death, where is thy sting; 0 grave, where is thy victory? Now if the supposed immortal souls of the wicked are to re-enter their resurrected bodies to be judged, yes, to be judged, after years of torture; then if the body is to go to Dr. Torrey’s endless hell torment, it must be made immortal as well as the bodies of the righteous. So God, according to this absurdity, will impart His own immortal nature to the wicked in order to make them fireproof—asbestos, sure enough .Away with such perversion as the pulpits preach! To return to the passage, the second clause would read, “These shall go away into the punishment of the age.” What is the punishment of that age? Death, destruction, as we shall presently show. Now I fear I have not left sufficient time to do justice to the question as to what the literal language of Scripture says on the punishment of the wicked. But to save time, I will read a number of passages from my little book, “The Great Salvation,” where I have then collated, giving you chapter and verse. This will save the time of turning over the Bible, as our time tonight is precious. Rom. vi. 23. “For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life, through Jesus Christ our Lord.” To suit Dr. Torrey’s theory this should read, the wages of sin is everlasting life in misery, but let God be true, my friends. Ezek. xviii. 4. “Behold all souls are mine, * * * The soul

Pg 259 that sinneth it s/tall die,” not, “it shall live in torment.” I am aware that some try to evade this by saying that it is “spiritual death,” but since tile wicked are “spiritually dead” before the punishment is inflicted, and this is the very reason why it ‘is inflicted, how absurd to talk of inflicting “spiritual death” upon those who are already “spiritually dead”? Prov. xvi. 25. “There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof is the way of death.” The end is death, not life in torture. Psalm xxxvii. 10-20. “For yet a little while, and the wicked shall not be.”—Mark that, friends. Do you preserve that which is a nuisance to you? Do you think God will preserve endlessly millions of beings who will curse and blaspheme Him day after day throughout untold ages? While He permits evil for a time, and allows man to exercise free volition, do you not think— does not reason, does not Scripture tell you that He will reach a time when He will not have a single enemy in existence? Will that not be a glorious finish to the career of the race? Just wait, then, “a little while, and the wicked shall not be; yea, thou shalt diligently consider his place, and it shall not be.” There will be no room in God’s creation for any wicked when this time, this “little while,” shall come. What a glorious triumph over evil! Here is a God you can worship, love, and adore. This verse should be changed to suit Dr. Torrey, and made to read, “The wicked shall always be; yea, thou shalt diligently

10 consider his place (hell, it is claimed), and it shall always be.” If the wicked ‘shall not be,” what will become of them? Listen, and see if you can harmonize this with endless torture in hell: “But the enemies of the Lord shall be as the fat of lambs; they shall consume, INTO SMOKE SHALL THEY CONSUME away? Do you see endless torment in that, my friends? What use have tile advocates of that abominable doctrine for such clear declarations of divine truth as these? Mal. iv. 1, 3. “For behold, the day cometh that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly shall be stubble; and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith tile Lord of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch-. * * * And they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet.” Matt. xiii. 40. “As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire, so shall it be in the end of tile world.” Every passage, you see, makes such comparisons as are impossible to understand if endless hell torment is the fate of the wicked. Just imagine one preaching this revolting doctrine, and in support of it, quoting the Saviour’s words we have just read. You would consider him devoid of any appreciation of the fitness of things. But again, and here is the passage we have already alluded to when explaining the meaning of “unquenchable fire.”

Pg 260

Matt iii. 12. “Whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly purge his floor and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up tire chaff with unquenchable fire.” Job xx. 5-8. “The triumphing of the wicked is short, and tile joy of the hypocrite, but for a moment. He shall perish for ever; they which have seen him shall say, where is he? He shall fly away as a dream, and shall not be found, yea, he shall be chased away as a vision of the night.” Psa. xxxvii. 38. “But the transgressors shall be destroyed together; tile end of the wicked shall be cut off.” Psa. cxlv. 20. “The Lord preserveth all them that love him”— yes and all them that hate him, too, if endless hell torment is true. But what saith the Lord ?—“but all the wicked will he destroy.” Now, dear friends, if time allowed I could keep you for hours listening to scripture testimony of this sort ; but I must press on to a conclusion. We began with this Adamic world without a hell, without sin, sorrow or death; with every thing “very good.” Had mall never sinned, he would not have been consigned to return to dust, and there would never have been any use for the grave. We have seen that “hell” in the scripture stands for the grave, translated in the Old Testament from sheol which is frequently rendered grave; and, in the New Testament, from hades, which also rightly signifies the grave, and is so rendered in the passage, “0 grave where is thy victory ?“ Man would never have gone into sheol, to hades, to the grave—to this ‘hell” had he not sinned and brought death upon himself. So now we may say the cause of this “hell” is man himself and therefore it was not created —not among the created things, when, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” Now as to the word “hell” being made to stand for Gehenna, that is a shameful misuse of the word ; but Supposing we allow its application, the valley of Gehenna was part of the earth when God declared “everything very good.” The fact that it became a “hell” was due to sin and idolatry, and the abominable practices in the valley polluted that part of the earth, which by creation was ‘very good.” So again this “hell” is a state due to man’s corruption of the handiwork of God. But do you think God, who is all powerful, wise and good, will allow either of these “hells”—the grave or Gehenna—to last eternally? Is He obligated to continue perpetually the evils which man has caused by breaking the divine laws? When death is removed from this earth, there will be no use for the grave, and since only the righteous will finally survive, “The gates of hell” —hades, the grave—shall not prevail against them. So a time will come when not a single individual will be liable to go into the grave. Therefore this “hell” will be no more, and “everything will be very pg 261 good” again. The valley of Gehenna before sinful men devoted it to the abominations of idolatry was as pure as any other part of the earth; afterwards, it became the “valley of dead bodies.” But do you think it will still be a polluted place when God fulfills His promise “As truly as I live, the whole earth shall be filled with my glory ?“ This “hell” will also have ended then—and, indeed, of this very place the prophet says: “And the whole valley of dead bodies, and of the ashes, and all the fields unto the brook Kedron, unto the corner of the horse gate, toward the east shall be holy unto the Lord.” (Jer. xxxi. 40.) When this time comes, the two “hells” will be gone and there will be no more hell than in the beginning when “every thing was very good.” Now, friends, let us follow Dr. Torrey’s plan of God’s dealings with mankind for a moment. Even he must admit that God gave man a “very good” start; but shortly, a few began to go to heaven, and many began to go to hell. This goes on for, let us suppose, six thousand years, when the day of judgment arrives, then the bodies of all in heaven and all in hell are to be raised, and, of course, those in heaven are to be disturbed for a time, and must forsake their blissful abode to re- enter their resurrected bodies in order that they may be judged ! !—we will leave Dr. Torrey to say what they are to be judged

10 for. Then the inhabitants of hell will be given a respite, and leave their torment for a while to re-enter their resurrected bodies to be judged! !—again we will leave Dr. Torrey to say what the wretches, poor creatures, are to be judged for. After all this the ‘end of the world” comes, supposed to be the burning up of the earth; and the good are to return, with their bodies this time, to the eternal bliss of heaven; while the millions of bad ones are to return to hell. Now where are we? A few, comparatively, in heaven, the earth made a bonfire of, and untold millions groaning and moaning, writhing in indescribable torture and destined to so remain; cursing God as long as eternal ages roll. Do you not think Dr. Torrey, with all his fellow preachers of hell torment, has landed us at the end of the world’s voyage in a state ten thousand times worse than the first? In the beginning God had not one enemy—no one was suffering; but upon this fearfully blasphemous hypothesis, in the end He has millions upon millions of enemies who insult, blaspheme and curse Him, and this to know no end. Now are you not ready to relegate this damnable doctrine of endless hell torment to the blackness of the savage heart of heathenism, and lift up your voices in loud and ceaseless protest against any and every pulpit that will teach it to tile disgrace of civilization, the outraging of reason, and the slander of the God of all power, wisdom and goodness?” On the other hand, we begin with “every tiling very good,” may we not, think you. expect to finish with every thing at least as good

Pg 262 as at the beginning? What saith the Scriptures? “For he must reign till he hath put clown all enemies under his feet.” He gave man a good start; man threw his world out of equilibrium and almost every thing became bad; but God seems to say. Do not fret. My plan is not frustrated. I will permit you for a time to wander in this valley of the shadow of death into which sin has led you; but. listen, listen to the voice of God. Let His glorious words echo and re-echo, let them reverberate throughout the ages and to the uttermost parts of the earth. Listen, “AS TRULY AS I LIVE THE WHOLE EARTH SHALL BE FILLED WITH THE GLORY OF THE LORD.” If Christ reigns till he bath put down all enemies; and if he is to destroy the last enemy, will there be a single enemy in existence after the last is destroyed? God began without an enemy, but there were no redeemed ones of Adam’s race to honor and praise His holy name, and to bask in the bliss of a glorious immortality. God will finish His plan with not a single enemy, and with an innumerable host of redeemed ones to bless and praise and honor Him and adore His Son their Redeemer. And now when this triumphant, glorious, and unspeakable grand end is reached, man’s habitation, this fair earth of ours, that for ages has groaned under the load of sin, sorrow and death, will have reached a time when majestically she shall revolve upon her axis, bearing upon her throbbing bosom of love divine, a countless host of redeemed and happy people who shall ascribe glory, honor, praise and thanksgiving to him that sitteth upon the throne and to the Lamb forever and forever; and now, “God shall be all in all.” Man is blessed, and God through Christ has gloriously triumphed, and the last state is ten thousand times better than the first. May God speed the glorious day. Loud applause. (The applause was kept up throughout the lecture and helped the speaker to realize that he had sympathetic listeners, but we have omitted the record in this report, as unnecessary.)

pg 263- pg

The Paton -Williams Debate On Universal Salvation And the Destiny of the Wicked

HELD IN ASSEMBLY HALL, CHICAGO

On the nights of Monday and Tuesday, February 4 and 5, 1906

—BETWEEN— JOHN H. PATON, Almont, Mich.,

Editor of “World’s Hope,”

—A ND—

10 THOS. WILLIAMS, Chicago, Ill.,

Editor of “The Christadelphian Advocate.”

PROPOSITIONS:

1.—”The Bible Teaches that all Mankind shall Finally be Saved.”

Mr. Paton affirms; Mr. Williams denies.

2.—”The Bible Teaches that the Punishment of the Wicked will result in their Final Destruction.”

Mr. Williams affirms; Mr. Paton denies.

Price by mail, 27 cts.

ADVOCATE PUBLISHING HOUSE 6718 Oxford Ave., Chicago, Ill., U. S. A. pg 265

THE DEVIL His Origin and End

THE word “devil” is used by some flippantly and frivolously, and the subject of the devil is regarded as one to excite laughter and derision. While there is some excuse for this because of the absurd theories set forth in the religious world, theories in which there is a strange mixture of the sublime with the ridiculous, yet the subject deserves and demands most serious consideration ; which renders it necessary for us to include the investigation of it in our dealing with the great problems of the world’s redemption. The word “devil” comes from two Greek words in the Scriptures. It is not properly a translation of either of them, and its adoption by the translators of the Authorized Version to represent two words which are of different meaning, is quite confusing. It would have been better had the two words been transferred, or even if one of them had been represented by “devil” and the other transferred, so as to put the English reader on his guard and enable him to make a proper distinction. DIABOLOS AND DAIMON.

The two words are Diabolos and Diamon. Diabolos is the one demanding the more elaborate treatment, because it represents that from which the world, in the broad sense, needs redemption. When redemption takes place from the universal evils represented by the word diabolos, those evils, which may be termed incidental and special, which are represented by the word daimon, will necessarily he included, upon the principle of the lesser being involved in the greater. The meaning of the word diabolos is that causing to pass over, to cross the line from right to wrong, to overstep. A diabolos is an accuser, calumniator, slanderer, a traducer. The meaning of daimon is, as used by those who believe in disembodied spirits, deified spirits or spirit entities, which were supposed to be able to enter the bodies, singly or in companies, of mortal

10 people and to afflict them with various diseases, such as blindness, deafness, madness, etc. Hence one so afflicted was called a demoniac, one possessed. The word daimon or demon occurs about sixty times in The New Testament, and the

Pg 268 word diabolos thirty times. The apostle Paul used the latter in the plural number three times —1. Tim. iii: ii; II. Tim. iii: 3, Titus ii :3 —and applies it to both males and females. The two words must be kept distinct, for diabolos is never applied to demoniacs as descriptive of their condition or affliction.

As already observed, diabolos is the word which stands for the great evil of the world, from which the world needs redemption and which it is the purpose of God, in carrying out His great plan of salvation, finally to destroy.

Whether we view the subject of the devil from a Scripture standpoint or from the point of so-called orthodox religion it will be seen to he of vast importance; so much so that the plan of salvation, from either point of view—and they are widely different—cannot be understood apart from it. It may he said to he the cause or reason of religion, which is designed to cope with the devil, whatever it is or he is, or whether it is an it or a he. As to popular religion, its aim is to save immortal souls from being dragged by the devil into a hell of eternal torment. The aim of the religion of the Bible is to save men from the devil, which it is said “hath the power of death,” and to give them a free life from all the evils of the present and a nature invulnerable against temptation, sin and death.

In considering the subject it is necessary to compare the devil of the Bible with that of popular belief so as to accept the truth and reject the error ; and by such a comparison the striking contrast will largely help to a clear understanding of the truth concerning the entire subject —the origin, nature, and end of the devil.

The devil of popular religion is a personal being, an immortal being, an omniscient being, an omnipresent being. He is said to have a kingdom of his own, quite well regulated, with the reins of government well in hand ; and although the kingdom proper is located in a place called hell, supposed to be in the heart of The earth, its dominion extends throughout all the earth’s surface. This devil, though personally located, it is asserted, can be present in hell and on earth— in all parts of the earth—at the same time ; in hell tormenting, and in the earth influencing, enticing, deceiving and deluding millions of men, women and children. His success in this world-wide wicked work, if it be judged by the numbers of the subjects of his kingdom as compared with those of the kingdom of God, far exceeds that of the Creator’s in His salvation of the children of men. His power is represented as being sufficient to miraculously appropriate the laws of God to his own use in carrying out his evil de- pg 269

signs, and thus to change laws which were designed for good into the perpetration of evils the most deplorable, either in defiance of or by the permission of the Great Creator.

His advantage in his antagonism against God and in his contest for the greater number of souls, in addition to his marvelous power, his omniscience and his omnipresence, is in the fact that he finds mankind already to his hand, in that they are naturally weak and prone to do evil rather than to do good. The battle is therefore half won for him before he begins; and man, poor creature, already possessed of a sin-perverted and sin disposed nature, finds himself pitted against the most subtle and powerfully wielded hypnotic influence imaginable in his struggle to save himself from an eternal abode in a hell of indescribable torture.

IS THE DEVIL FROM HEAVEN?

10 The possession of such wonderful power as is attributed to the popular devil, and his vast kingly possessions in hell and upon earth, are said to be due to a rebellion which in a very remote past, long before the creation of man, he was guilty of inciting in heaven, where he had previously enjoyed the glories of a holy angel. A~ Milton poetically gives it— “Brighter once amid the host Of angels, than that star the stars among.”

As a punishment for this rebellion it is asserted that he was cast out of heaven, upon his declaring that he would rather rule in hell than serve in heaven,” and was given power and authority to rule in hell amid to perform his wicked work in the earth in the furtherance of a great kingdom of evil which is to be as eternal as heaven against which he-rebelled. Since that expulsion. “Satan, so call him now, his previous name is heard no more in heaven, He of the first, if not the first, archangel; great in power in favor and pre-eminence.” In the alleged fall of the devil from heaven it is asserted that others of his kind, but of lower rank, fell with him. Alexander Cruden, M. A “ says: “By collecting the passages where satan or devil is mentioned it may be observed, that he fell from heaven, with all his company; that God cast him down thence for the punishment of his pride, that by his enraged malice sin, death, and all the other evils came into the world; that by the permission of God he exercises a sort of a government over his subordinates; that God makes use of him to prove good men and chastise had ones ;that his power and malice are restrained within certain limits by the will of God; in a word, that

Pg 270. he is an enemy to God and maln and uses his utmost endeavors to rob God of his glory and men of their souls.”

If we reason upon this theory of the devil we shall be driven to ask, Is it possible that “he of the first, if not the first, archangel” in heaven could, with his company, he transformed into such a monster of evil? Is it possible that evil can arise even, in the thoughts of one who has, presumably after a successful probation, been admitted into God’s holy habitation? If so heaven itself is not secure front evil passion, and if one prominent angel with his followers can thus transform the whitest of holiness into the blackest of wickedness, why may not all the immortal angels, and even the mortals who shall “put on immortality” in the resurrection morn, be corrupted with evil thoughts and transformed from happy beings walking with the Lamb in the whiteness of the “righteousness of the saints’’ into the blackness and darkness and wickedness of this devil and his subordinate out-casts from heaven?

Moreover, here we are asked to believe that the flaming passions of the devil for power and dominion in opposition to God were punished by giving him exactly what he desired. He desired rulership in hell rather than to serve in heaven ; and as a punishment he is given hell inside of the earth as a kingdom and a free scope on the earth to play upon the weaknesses of its inhabitants in what must surely be a successful effort to add to the population of his kingdom in the dark and fiery regions he so well likes and so fully enjoys. Was it not a most singular way of punishing this disobedient angel to give him the very thing his wicked ambition craved and to thus gratify his most ardent desires?

If the devil is a being possessed of the marvelous powers attributed to him by popular belief, the question will obtrude itself upon reasonable minds, without in the least deserving the charge of irreverence, Why did God, who is the source of power, give such powers of evil to a being bent upon war against all that was good, even against God Himself? Of course if the devil was once a holy angel’ he was immortal ; and, indeed, he is declared to he immortal and therefore possessed of the power of endless life—to live as long as God lives—to live, too, in the hottest fire imaginable, according to the literal theorists of hell, and therefore he must he constituted of a fire-proof nature, which can be none other than immortal nature ; and that is the nature of God Himself. Then comes the question, Why did the All-Wise God ever impart His holy and pure nature to a devil of any kind, to say nothing of such a fiend as that udder consideration? If He did not impart His holy nature of immortality to this

Pg 271 nothing short of blasphemy to declare or to believe in the popular theory of the devil being when he was a devil, but before he became one, then, since He knows the end from the beginning, why did He impart His nature to one who He knew would become a devil notwithstanding the consubstantiality with God? But we cannot continue such questions as these without appearing irreverent, and so let no one say that the All Wise God of heaven ever did or ever will impart His pure and holy

10 nature to any but those who are worthy and who will, after the possession thereof, and by reason of the possession, forever continue worthy, since one possessed of Divine nature is so possessed because he has “escaped the corruption which is in the world through lust” and cannot then sin, any more than he can die; for the Divine nature is as sinless as it is deathless. It is therefore.

As already observed, man is in a fallen state, possessed of the “carnal mind, which is enmity against God,” and if in addition to this he is constantly exposed to the hypnotic powers of such a being as the popular devil, what chance has he to overcome? His case is a hopeless one indeed ; and to add to this the horrible thought that the result of captivity to the carnal mind, enticed and inflamed by such a powerful external influence from a being who plies his wicked work from behind the scenes invisible to the victim—I say, the very thought that the victim’s eternal fate is one so fearful, so terrible, so horrible that tongue or pen cannot describe it and eternity cannot end it, is most revolting to reason and a manifest libel upon the character of a just and beneficent Creator.

To a reasonable mind, therefore, a naked statement of the popular belief of the devil is all that is required to secure rejection, and at the hands of men who have escaped the superstition of the world’s darkest ages the theory is relegated to the myths of pagan and Roman traditions to renew its companionship with Pluto, Pan, and Nox, and with all other myths of ignorant and superstitious inventions.

The truth concerning the origin, nature and end of the devil can he learned from the Bible only. With this subject, as with all others which relate to man’s fall and ultimate rise through the beneficent plan of salvation, the rule must be, “To the law and to the testimony, if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” But it is claimed that the theory of the popular devil is derived from the Bible, and Cruden, in our quotation from him says, “By collecting the passages where Satan or the devil is mentioned, it may be observed, that he fell from heaven, with all his company,” etc. So we must examine the passages supposed to teach this and see wherein lies the mistake, for before we turn to them we may

Pg 272 he sure they do not teach a theory so at Variance with all that is reasonable and all that is revealed of the justice and wisdom of God.

LUCIFER’S FALL FROM HEAVEN.

One passage relied upon is Isa xiv ; 12— How art thou fatten from heaven, 0 Lucifer, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; I wilt also sit upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north; I will be like the Most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell (sheol) to the sides of the pit, etc.

Now we need not seek outside of this chapter to discover who this Lucifer is. In the margin it is “day star’’ instead of “Lucifer,” an epithet which can in no sense apply to a being who is said to love darkness and hate the light of day. This “day star” is spoken of as aspiring “to ascend into heaven” and to exalt his “throne above the stars of God,’’ while the devil of popular belief first comes into view as already in heaven, expressing a preference for rulership in hell.

The Lucifer of the passage seeks to ascend ; the popular devil desired to descend. The one desired to exalt his throne above the stars of God ; the other preferred to have his beneath the stars in a kingdom of darkness as deep down as possible, the deeper the better to suit him. This day star was to be brought down to sheol, to the sides of the pit, which is the grave (verse 11), which is no place for an immortal being. But to cut the matter short, the fourth verse leaves no room to doubt who this Lucifer is ; for it says : “ Thou shalt take tip this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! and then the prophet continues

10 The Lord bath broken the staff of the wicked, and the sceptre of the rulers. He who Smote the people in wrath with a continual stroke, he that ruled the nations in anger, is persecuted, and none hindereth. The whole earth is at rest and is quiet; they break forth into singing. yea, the fir trees rejoice at thee and the cedars of Lebanon, saving, Since thou art laid down, no feller is come up against us. Hell (sheol) from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy. coming; it stirreth up the dead for thee, even all the chief ones of the earth; it bath raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations. All they shall speak and say unto thee, Art thou become weak as we ? art thou become like unto us Thy pomp is brought down to the grave, and the noise of thy viols; the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee. How art thou fallen from heaven, 0 Lucifer!

Here is very glowing and highly poetic language describing the fall of the king of Babylon from his throne. Frequently the scriptures speak of the eminence of kingly powers and exaltation as heaven,

Pg 273 a figure drawn from the fact that in the physical world the heavens rule the earth; and this is not an uncommon figure in the newspapers of our times, when in speaking of the “political heavens,” “clouds,” “stars,” etc. From the political heaven of Babylon this king, as “day star” is represented as falling, having “weakened the nations.” It requires a most fertile imagination to discover an angel falling from the presence of God in heaven in a remote past, when there were no nations. The desire of this fallen king had been to exalt his throne on the “mount of the congregation,” in the sides of the north,” and thus to be “like the most High.” This place was none other than Mount Zion, of which the Psalmist says, “Beautiful for situation, the joy of the whole earth, is Mount Zion, on the sides of the north, the city of the great king”(Psa. xlviii: 2). Here the heaven of God’s kingdom was in the days of Israel’s glory, before her sun went down and here it will he re-established in the future days of Israel’s greater glory, when “her sun shall no more go down; neither shall thy moon withdraw itself ; for the Lord shall be thine everlasting light, and the days of thy mourning shall be ended”— Isa. lx : 20. This is the time the prophet is referring to in the chapter we are dealing with, as will he seen from verses 1 and 3. At that time the Prince of Rosh, or Russia, will “plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas, in the glorious holy mountain” (Dan xi 45), which is Mount Zion, in the hope of “being like the most High,” in having his throne established1 “upon the mount of the congregation in the sides of the north.” Then at the hands of Israel’s Messiah, returned to take his promised throne upon Mount Zion and to reign over the house of Jacob (Luke i: 32-33), the Russo-Babylonish king, who previously will have subdued the other nations, will fall to rise no more, Israel will take up the proverb of verse 4 and the “weakened” kings will taunt him with the words, “Art thou also become weak as we?”

Where now is there room in this passage for the devil of popular belief? If it be said that the devil is prompting the king, then we ask, Do kings, judging from their history, need such a devil to make them proud, ambitious, covetous and tyrannical? Are not all these natural to the hearts of kings? What is the need of calling ifs a supernatural devil when the natural devil is equal to all the requirements of the case? in any event, we must abide by the testimony, and to him who would read into it what is not there it might well be said, “Get thee behind me Satan.”

Whether we consider the existence of evil in all its forms and the perpetration of the many crimes of this wicked world as they are seen in high places of power, or among the lower masses in their

Pg 274 gratification of lust, we shall find a palpable case for it all without seeking for an omniscient, omnipresent person possessed of power to tempt nations and individuals to do wicked things. Man in his fallen state, degenerate man, giving unrestrained liberty to the promptings of the lower faculties and freely allowing the passions to play according to their natural tendencies, will be found to be of sufficient causative power to produce all that is to be seen in the phenomena of evil and therefore there is

NO NEED FOR A SUPERNATURAL DEVIL.

Some thoughtlessly say : “If there is a God there must be a devil.” If this were true the heathen notion of the eternity of two great antagonistic powers would he true. If there must he a devil because there is a God, then since there never was a time when God was not, there never could have been a time when the devil was not, Of the popular devil it might safely he said, If

10 there is a God there cannot be such a devil ; for God would not allow such a being existence, to say nothing of a co-eternity of existence of such a monster with God Himself.

As already observed, there is no need of calling in the supernatural where the natural will answer all the requirements of the case. There is no difficulty in accounting for the origin of evil and the universal existence of sin. This is easily done without calling in the aid of a supernatural wicked one. The Scriptures tell us that it is the flesh, the lower propensities of the flesh, uncontrolled by the higher faculties, which is the source of sin. Paul says, “For I know that in me, that is in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing.” “I find then a law in my members, warring against the law of my mind” (the higher faculties imbued with truth and righteousness), “and bringing me into subjection to the law of sin which is in my members”(Rom. vii :18-23).

The same apostle shows us what the flesh is capable of producing, indeed what it naturally produces now, since it has been poisoned by transgressions. He says— For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh and these are contrary the one to the other; so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. * * * now the WORKS OF THE FLESH are manifest, which are these: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like; of which I tell you before, as I have told you in time past, that they that do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. Gal. v : 17-21.

Let there be a careful examination of these things whichj7esh can do and which it does do —yea, which are characteristic of the flesh

Pg 275 uncontrolled, and then the question may well be asked, Wherein does the flesh need the help of a supernatural devil? What is there for such a devil to do? Is there any vice which he can add to those which the flesh is capable of? Surely there is no need of calling in a supernatural devil when we find the natural, the flesh, equal to the production of all the categories of evils which are in the world. In discovering the source, the cause, the fountain of all vices in the flesh, have we not discovered the real devil—that which causes to cross the line from right to wrong, from righteousness to wickedness, from virtue to vice?

If we keep in mind what the lust of the flesh is capable of doing, yea, what it is natural for it to do, we find no difficulty in finding a proper explanation of passages of Scripture which refer to persons, kings and nations as ‘devils” or “satans.” The diabolism of any form of wickedness will be found rooted in the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and the pride of life, in antagonizing that which is good and right and in inciting to that which is bad and wrong.

As a person, Judas was a diabolos, a traducer, a calumniator, because he betrayed his Master; and that which was the cause was the lust of the flesh, assuming the form of covetousness.

As a king, Herod was a diabolos, in that his lust for political power and his fear of being supplanted by him “who was born King of the Jews,” incited his cruelty upon the little children.

As a nation, Rome was a diabolos, in that it passed judgment against Christ and martyred His followers in an effort to stamp the truth to the ground and to uphold a superstition which deceived men and dishonored God. When Jesus said “I have chosen you twelve and one of you is a devil,” there was no thought of Judas being such a devil as that of popular belief. Judas himself became a diabolos by yielding to evil thoughts ; and this instance will illustrate all others of a similar character, and it will render it useless to seek for a cause beyond the lusts of the flesh. We must not forget that man is in a fallen state—a state in which his passions are inflamed and his natural proclivities bent upon wrong-thinking and wrong-doing.

This evil condition varies in different persons. One man may he possessed of a very “bad temper,” another of a “good temper.” What makes the difference? Is it that a separate personal devil excites “bad temper” in one and not in the other? Not

10 at all. The difference depends upon the phrenological make-up of the men; and this, too, depends upon the extent to which the passions have been yielded to on the one hand, and curbed and controlled on the other. A “bad

Pg 296 temper” allowed full scope will grow worse and worse and will create a condition of mind that will be transmitted to future generations, and this the diabolism of a “bad temper” becomes a “family failing.” The same is true of all the vices. Cultivate them and they will become master of the man ; check, curb and control them and the man will, to a degree, become master of them—never, however, so long as he is in the flesh, will it be safe to be off his guard ; and with the utmost watchfulness his mastery over himself will only he to a degree; for only one was ever able to overcome completely and that one was Jesus Himself.

Now these mental phenomena of human life as it is seen at present will help us to discover the mode by which the diabolos originated.

Pg 277

Let us call the present mental state of man an abnormal state; for we may safely conclude man was not created in his present mental state,

Then we can call his original state, before he fell, when “every thing was very good,” the normal state, The difference between the two states will then appear to he that one was not naturally bent in the wrong direction, while the other is. To cause the change from the normal to the abnormal, something must have occurred to affect, pervert, unbalance the mental and moral faculties and to cause evil results also in the physical man. What will intensify the abnormality of the mind flow? The answer is, A breach of law—sin. Passion propagates passion, theft propagates theft, and so on with all other things that are wrong to do. So we may safely conclude that the mental and moral abnormality of the human race was originally caused by sin.

The mind having perverted itself it became hard to control and thus brought the flesh into such a state that in order to do good and obey righteous law, the abnormal lusts, now impregnated in the very being, must be “overcome,” “crucified,” “kept under” ; and this because sin is now inherent in the flesh and antagonizes right thinking and right doing and is therefore the diabolos. There was therefore a time when “everything was very good,” and therefore when there was no devil, or diabolos ; and in the account of creation the Scriptures are as silent upon the creation of a devil as they are upon that of a hell. So now the question is, When and how did the devil originate? The history is clear as it is; any mystery about it is the result of an attempt to be wise above that which is written. Here it is.

Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, yea, hath God said, Ye shall

Pg 277

not eat of every tree of the garden? And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden; but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surety die; for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened; and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat; and gave also to her husband and he did eat. And the eyes of them both were opened and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves aprons. And they heard the voice of the Lord God in the garden in the coo of the day; and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God, amongst the trees of the garden (Gen.iii:i-8).

10 Now we need not speculate about what kind of a creature this“ serpent” was, what his mode of locomotion was before he was cursed to go upon his belly and to eat dust. The testimony declares his subtility was greater than that of the creatures of his kind, and informs us that he talked with the woman. That no such a creature exists now possessed of the same powers in no way lessens the truth of the history of the case as God has given it to us. God has spoken; it is for us to believe. To those who go further back than this history goes, seeking for a devil that will answer to the description of the popular monster, and who is supposed to have used the serpent as a medium, all we can say is, you presume to go further than the inspired Word permits you, and your devil-hunting in the garden of paradise, at a time when God pronounces “everything very good.” is a reflection upon the work of the Creator. Let us give Him the credit due to His holy name in admitting that He gave us a “very good” start; and let the fact of a subsequent existence of a diabolos or of a million of them be attributed to sin upon the part of the creature rather than to an evil work of a beneficent creative hand.

Keeping within the limits of what is written, limits which the wisest man has no more power or right to go beyond than has the simplest child, we have a creature which could talk and reason and hereby tempt Eve to cross the line from right to wrong by telling her a lie, the first lie we ever hear of. That lie is the father of all evil, the cause of sin ; and that serpent lie became sin on the part of our first parents in the transgression of the first law we have any record of. They were tempted, drawn away of their lust, the lust becoming inordinate by believing the lie, it conceived sin, and the sin, in accordance with the law, brought death. Here is the serpent begetting, and the woman giving birth to sin—a crossing the line from right to wrong, from which birth sin has been a power to

Pg 278 propagate itself and therefore in forms innumerable it is the diabolos, the great enemy of mankind. Hence to the wicked Jews who yielded to sin’s influence against Jesus, our Lord said, “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning and abode not in the truth because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own ; for he is a liar, and the father of it”_—John viii : 44. Now the origin of the whole matter is given clearly by the apostle Paul in the words, “By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed. upon all men, for that all have sinned”—Rom. v: 12. Man, according to this, was in the world before sin entered and therefore before there was a diabolos, and the order of entry into the world was, first, man ; second, sin; third, death; and now we have discovered an adequate cause for all evil and man’s greatest enemy death, and it is needless to seek for personal, supernatural, omniscient, omnipresent devil. A comparison of Scripture with Scripture will make this still clearer. We are told that Jesus came as the “Lamb of God to take away the sin of the world ;“ and we are also told that he came to “destroy the works of the devil “ (I. John iii: 8). We also find that sin is the cause of death, as declared in the words, “Sin when it is finished, bringeth forth death” ; and that the “devil bath the power of death” (Heb.ii :14).

THE PERSONALITY OF THE DEVIL.

When the Lamb of God shall have “taken away the sin of the world,” he will have “destroyed the works of the diabolos ;“ and when he has removed from the world the cause of death, he will have brought sin to an end and destroyed the devil. Since there is only one cause of death, sin and diabolos must be two words for that one cause. A person, a society or a nation becomes a diabolos by becoming a sinner, and becomes a sinner by becoming a diabolos. The great evil of the world consists of all evil things in their many and various forms ; and since these are inseparable from persons their aggregation as the world’s great evil, “or the sin of the world,” is personified and called the “evil one” and sometimes represented by personal pronouns, similarly to the common way in which we speak of drunkenness and mammon. AJ1 drunkards and every case of individual drunkenness are comprehended in the word “drunkenness,” which we sometimes term “King Alcohol ;“ and every act of covetousness is involved in the word mammon when we say “Mammon is the curse of the world.” So every act of sin is involved in “the sin of the world ;“ and every influence and incident which causes to

Pg 279 cross the line from right to wrong and incites to slander, to calumniate and traduce is a manifestation of diabolism, and the aggregation of all these is the diabolos which Christ came to destroy and which he will have completely destroyed when “he bath put all enemies under his feet and the last enemy is destroyed, which is death.” Then, having passed from paradise lost to paradise restored, everything will again be “very good” and there will he no more devil or diabolos.

10 The personification of principles and inanimate things is quite common with all good writers; and to this is largely due the poetic power of the Scriptures. For instance, “Sheol from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming.” Again, “Yea, the fir trees rejoiced at thee, and the cedars of Lebanon, saying,” etc. In the New Testament we have those eloquent words of the apostle Paul, “0 death where is thy sting; 0 grave, where is thy victory.” In all these instances, we have a personification of sheol, trees, death and hades, without the remotest thought of these being real personalities. Then, too, we have sin and obedience represented by personal pronouns, in the words, “Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?” (Rom vi: 16). No one supposes from this that sin and obedience are persons, but since neither can exist without a person, and since they are acts of persons, they are fittingly personified. So with the “evil one” and diabolos. These are words which stand for the aggregation of evils which man has brought tipon himself by transgression of the law, and which he is helpless to deliver himself from. But God has promised the complete end of every form of evil when He will he honored and man blessed. Now with these thoughts kept in ‘mind we shall have no difficulty in understanding scriptures which have been erroneously applied to a fictitious devil. In Luke x: 18, the Saviour says, “I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven,” and in this there is a supposed support for the popular theory of the devil’s origin in heaven. The mistake on this verse arises from a wrong view of the two words “satan” and “heaven.” As to “Satan” we will only say here that it means adversary, leaving the proofs to be considered further along in our investigation under its proper heading. But the word “heaven,” as we have already seen in the case of the king of Babylon falling from his throne, in which he is spoken of as falling from heaven, must he viewed in the scriptures in two senses—first, as a name for the

Pg 280. physical expanse above and the place of Deity’s dwelling; and second, as representing power and position, or rulership in the kingdoms of men. In modern phraseology this is termed the political heaven or heavens. Of the physical heavens it says, “And God made two great lights ; the greater light to rule by day, and the lesser light to rule by night; he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of heaven to give light to the earth”—Gen. i : 16-17. An- alogous to this the exalted positions of rulers is termed heaven and the ruled, the people or subjects of a kingdom, are called the earth. By referring to what we have said under the title “The Heavens and the Earth, New and Old” the reader will see this more fully elaborated.

The Apostle Paul says, “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against spiritual wickedness in high places, or in the heavenlies. The “wrestling” was with rulers, both of the Jewish heaven and the Roman heaven, who were adversaries or satans against the work of Christ and his apostles. In verse 15 of the chapter in which the words of Jesus occur with reference to satan’s fall from heaven, we read, “And thou Capernaum, which art exalted up to heaven, shalt be brought down to hell,” or hades, the grave; and the work of establishing christianity in the place of Judaism and paganism was to result in like manner in the fall of the rulers of both the Jews and the Romans who then ruled, and they were Satans in that they combined as an adversary against Christ first and his apostles afterwards. Therefore, foretelling the triumph of christianity over this political and spiritual satan he said, “I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.”

This fall so far as pagan Rome was concerned, was also symbolized to John when on the isle of Patmos, in signifying to him things that should be hereafter (Rev. i :1 ; iv 1). In chapter xii. it is said there appeared to him “A great wonder in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun and the moon tinder her feet,” etc. Here is the church in an apostate state exalted to political eminence in contrast to the pure woman which as “the chaste virgin espoused to Christ” was not of this world, and against whom the door in the political heaven is closed till the Lord comes to open it as a way into the “new heaven wherein dwelleth righteousness”(Rev. iv : 1; II Peter iii : 13). This exalted woman gave birth to a political “man child” (verse 5) when Constantine, the child of the church, was politically born, and he was caught up into heaven, namely, “to God and to his throne ;“ for He

Pg 281

10 who “ruleth in the kingdoms of men” had decreed that paganism should be dethroned by nominal christianity. The result was that, there “was war in (the Roman) heaven,” “Michael and his angels,” who were for God as Cyrus and his armies had been his “sanctified ones” in the destruction of ancient Babylon, “fought against the dragon ; and the dragon (the pagan Roman power) fought and his angels, and prevailed not; neither was there place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out that old serpent called the devil, and satan, which deceiveth the whole (Roman) world; he was cast out into the earth.” Thus satan as lightning fell from heaven and the “principalities and powers in the heavens” with which the apostles and all the followers of Christ for over two centuries had to “wrestle” went down when this satan, or adversary, the dragon, or pagan power of Rome, fell before the powerful wave of christianity headed up in Constantine the Great in A. D. 312. The fact that there had been a departure from the simplicity of the Truth and that a perverted christianity was the means of the great overthrow of the dragon power is not inconsistent with its being “on the Lord’s side,” since it was for a time the means of protecting the “remnant of the woman’s seed,” or the faithful adherents of true christianity.

It is remarkable that Constantine, after his victory, used words very similar to those of the scripture which had foretold the event. In a letter to Eusebius he says : “Liberty being now restored, and that Dragon being removed from the administration of affairs, by the providence of the great God, and by my ministry, I esteem the great power of God to have been made manifest even to all.” Eusebius also says that there was a picture of Constantine, which was set over the gate of the palace. Over his head there was a cross, and under his feet the great enemy of mankind, who persecuted the church by means of impious tyrants, in the form of a dragon, having his body run through with a spear and falling headlong into the sea. Constantine had a medal struck of himself, with a cross, and trampling a dragon.” History often repeats itself and since He who inspired the scriptures could forsee all events, the record of one future event is often analogous to another more remote. When Christ comes to “reign till he hath put down all enemies under his feet” satan, diabolos, and diamond or evil in any form will “be bound.” At the end of the days of the kingdom of men the diabolos spirit will assert itself in its struggle for political eminence, even against Christ, a greater than Constantine, but the “prince of Rosh” who will be the leading power of the nations and who will become the dragon Pg 282 power by his conquest of the seat of the dragon—-Constantinople—— will be “cast out of the political heaven,” and again the world will behold “satan as lightning fall from heaven” when the “new heaven and the new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness” shall be established in “the kingdoms of this world becoming the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ.

THE DEVIL THAT TEMPTED CHRIST.

Many suppose that the devil that tempted. Christ was the monster of popular belief; and some who have abandoned that fiction have a difficulty in understanding the narrative. Deity decreed that the plan of salvation should depend upon a complete victory over the evils which sin had subjected man to. The execution of this plan must therefore entail suffering under trial. None of the mere sons of Adam could meet the requirements without falling helpless under the load; and therefore God, in His love, laid help upon one born of the fallen race, who, by faithfulness, would he able to endure the trials and thereby be “made perfect through suffering,” and become the “Captain of our salvation.”

In the origin of the evils which salvation is designed to eliminate, there was temptation, sin and death; in the removal of the evils, there must be temptation, righteousness and life. The first Adam when he was tempted was “drawn away of his own lust,” his lust conceived sin, and sin brought death. The second Adam refused to, allow lust to draw him away, or to conceive Sin ; and therefore sin, on his part, did not bring forth death. Hence, though he suffered death because sin had brought it upon the entire race, of which race he was a member, he “could not be holden of death ;“ and therefore he triumphed over sin and death and thereby “destroyed him that bath the power of death, that is the devil”—destroyed him so far as Himself was concerned first, in order that he might destroy him for his people finally in a complete “taking away of the sin of the world.”

In considering the temptation of Jesus we must keep in mind the fact that in order to destroy the devil he was made of flesh and blood (Heb. ii: 14); and that he was in “all things made like unto his brethren” (Heb. ii :i7); and that therefore he “was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin” (Heb. iv :15). Now this would be a singular way to cope with an omniscient omnipresent, immortal devil. How could it be possible for one made of flesh and blood, in that fallen state susceptible of temptation in all points like to ourselves, to destroy such a powerful monster?

10 Pg 283

Is it not evident that the devil is a thing of the flesh, from the fact that Jesus was made flesh and blood in order that he might destroy the devil? What is it that tempts a man to do wrong? Answer, “A man when he is tempted is drawn away of his own lusts.” Then lust is the tempter, and lust has been inordinate ever since it was inflamed by the first sin committed. This is the devil, therefore, to be destroyed ; and since it is in the flesh, called sinful or sins flesh, Jesus was made of that very flesh in order that he might overcome and destroy lust, in the nature which had, by the first sin of man, become sinful. Therefore His destruction of the devil must be by the overcoming of the temptations which the flesh would naturally suggest and finally by voluntary submission to that death which would impale sin’s flesh upon the cross as a manifestation of God’s displeasure with the nature of a fallen, perverted, sinful race and! yet exhibit His pleasure with a character which was “holy, harmless and undefiled,” developed in that nature.

Now it will be readily seen that Christ’s temptation was necessarily a thing of the flesh, as all temptation is, and that there is no reason to seek further for an adequate cause; and now let it he observed that his temptation was such as to appeal first to the cravings of hunger ; second to presumption ; third, to forbidden ambition, involving covetousness.

It does not require a supernatural devil to tempt a flesh and blood man who is suffering the pangs of hunger to seek means whereby he may satisfy his cravings. No such a devil is necessary to tempt flesh and blood to show off, by the performance of a startling deed that will attract and arouse the wonder of the world. Nor is it needful to seek beyond flesh and blood for ambition for greatness and power in the political world.

It is not wrong to satisfy hunger ; but it is wrong to employ forbidden means to do so. It is not wrong to work miracles, when a manifestation of God’s power and glory is the object ; but it is wrong in one possessed of miraculous power, when the object is ostentation and the gratification of a love for notoriety. It is not wrong to strive for exaltation to rulership of the world to come, but it is wrong for a child of God to aspire to rulership in the kingdoms of this evil world.

Jesus was suffering hunger. He possessed the power to miraculously satisfy it ; and therein was the trial, the temptation to he overcome by such an implicit trust in God as could exclaim, “It is written, man shall not live by bread alone ; but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. By the way, it did not even

Pg 284 require any external personal natural tempter to urge this temptation—the natural cravings of the flesh, with the consciousness of the possession of the power to satisfy was an all sufficient tempter, and right and duty overcame, the diabolos received his first blow, and the victor was, by his success, in this his first trial, in measure strengthened for to meet the next.

Not only did this first temptation appeal to the appetite of the natural man but it involved trust in God, a trust which had examples to strengthen it. For had not Moses fasted forty days and forty nights and yet the Lord sustained him? (Exod. xxxiv 28). Had not the Lord provided ravens to carry bread to Elijah? Had not manna from heaven been given famishing Israel in the wilderness? The circumstances attending these instances were such as to place the recipients of providential provision in a situation of utter dependence upon God. So Jesus was likewise taken into a wilderness, beyond the reach of natural means of providing food and yet possessed of miraculous power to satisfy natural hunger. In the hunger accompanied by this power to supply its cravings consisted the real temptation. To have performed, the suggested miracles would have shown distrust in God’s power and goodness to provide bread in his own good time, consistent with the degree of trial He required. Surrender on the part of Jesus would have shown a lack of confidence in God’s power to sustain him through the trying ordeal. His miraculous power was not to be used for personal ends, not under the most severe trial. It was only for the glory of God and to attest the words and confirm the work pertaining to the public mission of Jesus. Success in this first trial would be a victory over the cravings of the flesh, and an exhibition of the most implicit trust in God, and again let me repeat, it was such a trial as needed no other tempter than the flesh, which, in its famishing condition would naturally suggest the exercise of possessed miraculous power as a means of relief. But the faithful Son held out to the end and vanquished the suggestions of the flesh with the sword of the spirit. here was a ‘‘war going on in his members, the spirit warring against the flesh,” and once the victory was gained Jesus was strengthened to meet the next trial, which would appeal to the natural presumption of the flesh.

10 In the wilderness our Lord is contemplating, and preparing for the great work before him, having just passed from private life into the official performance of the great work he came to do. He must meet the gaze of the world, though he was just emerging from obscurity. How could it be done? In a moment, the flesh would

Pg 285 be ready with a plan by which he would quickly become a hero in the eyes of the masses. And then had not scripture declared that God would give his angels charge concerning him? By one act he could test the truth of scripture and make a hero of himself. Would not this be what the flesh would naturally suggest? Did it require a supernatural devil to invent this temptation? And suppose it had been suggested by such a devil, or even by an external persona! natural devil, would it have been any more of a trial? Jesus was not yet an angel possessed of an impeccable nature. He must be tempted in all points like unto his brethren, and therefore sin’s flesh was his nature purposely in order that it might do just what it did do—suggest, in this case, a presumptuous test of the truth of scripture by a misapplication of scripture. But quick as a flash, the mind of the spirit was ready to resist the devil and make him flee—drive the fleshly thought out of the mind. Jesus was fortified with the knowledge that the promises of the scriptures were predicated upon a performance of duty, and realizing that the ‘path of safety was the way of duty” he quickly drove out the fleshly thoughts and braced himself with the words, “It is written, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord! thy God.” Another victory was won over what ? Over the flesh ; whose desire for unlawful notoriety by unlawful means had been peremptorily rebuked, and a noble, faithful and abiding trust in God was exhibited for our example.

One more trial must be met, and here again we may ask, did it require a supernatural devil to suggest this? Did Jesus depend upon such a devil for power to take the kingdoms of this world? Did he depend upon even a natural personal devil in the form of a king or any living man? Jesus knew very well that no such a devil as the popular persona! monster had the power to give him the kingdoms of the world ;.and with such knowledge wherein would be the temptation? He knew likewise that no man had the power, even if it could be supposed that he had the will, to give Jesus the kingdoms of the world. One would only bestow a laugh of contempt upon any kind of a devil that might offer what it were well known he had no power to give. There would be no real trial in such ‘‘temptation.’’ To give edge to a temptation the tempted must believe that the tempter has the power to fulfil his part of the contract. Now search for the power to take the kingdoms of the world , and the only one in whom you will find it is Christ ; and in the tact of ins consciousness of the possession of such power and yet that he resisted, and manifested the resignation to abide the Father’s time, is seen the real merits of the victory. To have allowed the

Pg 286

Jews to “take him by force and make him a king,” or to have exercised his miraculous power to seize the kingdoms of this world would have been worshipping the flesh instead of serving God. The flesh could easily, as it always does, quote scripture to prove that to the Messiah belonged the kingdoms of this world, and why not take them? But the mind of the Spirit knew the time allotted for each part of the mission of tile Saviour—that in which he must be ‘‘made perfect through suffering ;‘‘ and that in which he will rightfully transform “the kingdoms of this world into the kingdom of our Lord and his Christ.”

The ‘‘orthodox’’ theory is that Christ was ‘‘God very God ;‘‘ and that the devil is a hideous, cloven-footed, powerful personality. If these two theories are true the temptation of Jesus was a sham. How could such a devil tempt God to sin? Just imagine such a devil offering God the kingdoms of this world. If it be said that God assumed human form, that will not explain how He could cease to be God and forget His former omniscience and omnipotence and become actually a man, and really susceptible of such temptations as Jesus was subjected to. Jesus was the begotten of God, born of a woman and “made like unto his brethren ;‘ and his temptation was ‘‘in all points like unto theirs, yet without sin.’’ His education and preparation for the ordeal of his trial would forewarn and forearm him against temptation from such a being as the popular devil. He would know who he was the moment he presented himself, and he would have disdained to talk with such a creature for a single moment. For a low, besotted man to suggest an evil act to a respectable upright man would be no temptation at all. The very sight of the sot would be enough. If it be claimed, too, that the devil had the power to hypnotize, then again there was no real trial in the case; for one hypnotized is not a subject of a mental and moral trial; he is a helpless victim. To claim that it was the popular supernatural devil that tempted Christ is to exalt the devil above one who, according to the popular belief, ‘‘was God very God,” and to represent the devil as offering to give kingdoms to God himself. The temptation

10 of Christ cannot be explained upon any other basis than that it was a struggle of the mind in determining whether to yield to the natural inclination of the flesh to seize present, temporal gratification at the cost of future and eternal blessings; or to deny the promptings of the flesh, though for a time it would necessitate great suffering, in order to attainment to the eternal and glorious reward which God had in His wisdom and goodness placed, not at the beginning of proba

Pg 287 tion, but at the end. Jesus, therefore, succeeded as the ‘‘seed of the woman” against the ‘‘seed of the serpent” in a hard-fought battle which manifested that “enmity” which God in the beginning had declared should exist between sin’s flesh and the spirit of truth and righteousness. After this great victory the adversary, satan, or diabolos, would be certain of defeat throughout the Lord’s entire probation till he would attain to the ‘‘joy that was set before him” beyond the cross.

If in the Saviour’s overcoming the diabolos—destroying him and all his works—we find no place for any sort of a devil except the sinful proclivities of man’s fallen nature, is it to be supposed for a moment that we shall find any other devil as an enemy with which we must contend? When from scripture, observation and experience we learn the sinful tendencies and capabilities of the. flesh, it will be useless to look further for a satan, a diabolos or a devil. If in the “war in our members,” which must be waged in every one who strives to do the right, we give the mind begotten by and imbued with the spirit of truth and righteousness the preeminence, we shall have done our part in “resisting the devil” and in causing him ‘‘to flee from us.’’ Let us therefore consider well the task before us and we shall find where our enemy is and what he is, and thereby half the battle will have been fought.

A CORRECT TRANSLATION OF DIABOLOS.

As a further means of understanding the meaning of the word diabolos, which is rendered devil in our translation, we will now examine the use of the word where it has been properly translated. This translation will show that when there was no possible way to make the word mean the same as the word “devil” was intended to mean the translators could be true to the original word; for the translation we are about to consider gives the true definition of Diabolos. It is by comparing scripture with scripture that we can best arrive at the correct doctrinal meaning of scripture words. Dictionaries and lexicons often give theological meanings opposed to the Biblical meaning, and therefore they are not always safe to follow. This is apparent in the meanings given of “soul,’’ “spirit,” ‘‘hell,’’ etc.

In 1842 there was a book anonymously published on the subject of the devil. The author was evidently a scholar, and he treated the subject masterly, and elaborately, though on other matters incidentally introduced he was in error, which somewhat hampered him. The book has been republished by brother Thos. Nisbet of Glasgow,

Pg 288 Scotland. to whom we are indebted for a copy, which we have rend with much satisfaction. Upon that part of the subject now before us we cannot do better than quote from this valuable book. After giving a list of passages wherein diabolos occurs, the author says— What, then, is the word rendered “devil” in these passages? It is diablos. What does this mean? It Is derived from dioblallo, this itself being compounded. or made up, of two words, dia , through, ballo to strike, to pierce’ (as with an arrow]; diaballa. therefore signifies to pierce through: and as, when a man’s character is attacked by the false charges of another his character is pierced through with darts of calumny. And as the idea of this calumny implies that the accusations are false, the term lisbilo. mean. A false accuser , a calumniator. The proper meaning of the word therefore is The improper meaning of the word diablos is therefore false accuser, calumniator; the improper meaning is “devil”-- this improper interpretation having been first given by the translators into Greek; a rendering. Leigh remarks, “no when else implied (i.e., so used) ín any Greek author.” The derivation of this word thus proves that false- accuser, calumniator, is the correct translation. Additional evidence that “false-accuser” is the correct translation of diabolos is afforded in the occasional use of the proper meaning of the word in the common translation. A few passages may be noted. Paul, in writing ti, Timothy respecting the wives of deacons, observes, “Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in au things,” I. Tim. iii :11 The phrase “not slanderers” is in the original, ute daboli, not devils—that is, if the proper meaning of the word diabolos is “devil.” The translators here were obliged to translate the word rightly: for the same subserviency of mind that caused them to obey the audacious mandate of King James to translate the word ecclesia, ‘church” and not assembly or congregation ,

10 which is its proper meaning, would operate in making them avoid giving. offense to the fair sex, which they would have done had they rendered the word diaboloi “devils.” Their gallantry, perhaps it was, made them do right. This, then, is the passage the first, where the proper meaning has been given

Paul, in writing to Titus, uses the same expression: “The aged women likewise, that they be In behavior as becometh holiness, not as false-accusers, Tit. ii: 3. The phrase rendered “not false-accusers” is m diaboloni, not devils—. if “devil” be the proper meaning of the word diabolos. The translators, however, have here again, by the undoubted application of the term to women, been obliged to translate the word properly, and have themselves thus afforded a second evidence that the word diabolos means false-accuser. A third passage, confirming this as the proper interpretation, is the following: “This know also, that perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemer., disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy. Without natural affection, truce-breakers, false-accusers., incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good: traitors, heady, high minded, lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God; having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away” IL Tim. iii: 1—3. Here the word, correctly rendered “false-accusers”, is diabolos, “devils”— that is, if “devils” is the proper interpretation—-the interpretation given to it in thirty-five other passages in the common translation. But it is not the proper rendering: the proper translation has been given in this passage thus affording a third confirmatory evidence that “false-accuser” is the meaning of the word diabolos.

Pg 289

10 In all the passages thus quoted the word is applied to human beings, and not to any supernatural, invisible beings—a fact well worthy of being noted. The question here occurs, if the phrase ‘false-accuser” or that of “slanderer’’ is the proper translation in these passages, why should not a similar rendering be given throughout the Scriptures? Why should the Translators, or more correctly the revisers of the Scriptures, not have rendered the word uniformly throughout? The answers are left to be supplied by the common sense of each inquirer. It will he seen from the preceding remarks that false-accuser, slanderer, calumniator, is the primary meaning, and it may be added, the proper meaning of the word diabolos —a meaning which has this advantage, that all can understand it; a statement which cannot be made in reference to the word ‘devil for does anyone, adopting the common notions, understand what the “Devil” is? Doany two people agree on his character, his existence, his attributes? Seeing, then, that there is a simple meaning, and seeing there is a mysterious meaning, can it be proper, can it be advantageous, to substitute a word which has no definite meaning for one which has a fixed, a practical meaning?

Now with this definition of the word diabolos there is no difficulty in understanding any passage in which the word occurs. If it he Eph. iv : 27—’ Neither give place to the devil,’’ the meaning is not to yield to the lust of the flesh in any form. I. Pet. v : 8— ‘Your adversary, the devil, as a roaring lion walketh about seeking whom he may devour,’’ means the wickedness of sin’s flesh in the power of Rome, persecuting and putting to death the followers of Christ. This devil would “cast some of God’s people into prison” (Rev ii:10), an act which was within the power of the authorities of the government, and not that the popular devil had police power and was engaged in putting men in the Roman prison.

That devil that contended with the angel about the body of Moses (Jude 9) could not have been the creature of popular creeds, for if the “body of Moses” means Moses’ corpse, what would such a devil contend about a corpse for? No doubt “the body of Moses” meant the body politic; for it is said, ‘‘They were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea” (I. Cor. x: 2). Moses was the head and Israel was the body in a similar sense to Christ being the head of the body, which is the church. About the body politic of Moses there was a dispute, raised by Korah Dathan and Abiram; and this insurrection needed nothing more than the flesh to incite it for it is a common thing for flesh to do. It is jealous; it is ambitious; it is covetous and it is crafty; and these characteristics were present in the case of those who, combined, became a diabolos against Moses and the nation of whom, under God, he was the head and leader.

That which incites to do evil is diabolos. Let any honest man

Pg 290 take a retrospect of his life and consider well the trials he has passed though in refusing to do wrong and in determining to do right and let him ask himself what was the tempter in all cases. Persons may have tried to allure him by apparently fair words, but these would be natural tempters and not supernatural. Any tendency to yield to them would be characteristic of his own fleshly nature, and not of an invisible supernatural devil. An honest man, with the experiences of his life before him, will be frank enough to admit that in every case of temptation wherein he had failed he had himself to blame and wherein he overcame, he did so by a strength of mind which determined to do right. Such men as commit murder, and other crimes of the grosser sort, either from delusion or dishonesty, shift the blame from themselves to an imaginary supernatural devil and they are encouraged in this cowardice by the popular religious leaders. Were the civil government to admit the claims of popular religion, it would have no right to punish a man for a crime; for how can a man be held responsible for what he does while hypnotized by a being possessed of supernatural power? Viewed from any reasonable stand-point the theory of a supernatural devil must be seen to be a pagan fiction disguised by its devotees in garments made of scripture words. Every intelligent enlightened man will find enough to do in the struggle between right and wrongs if he overcome his own fleshly proclivities ; and in proportion to his failure will be his blame ; and in proportion to his success w ill be his merit.

DI AM ON.

10 The word “devil’’ in tile English version of the New Testament is also used to represent the original word diamon and the translation is tainted with the theory of the translators concerning disembodied spirits, or ghosts. We can the more boldly say this now, since the Revision has exposed the same weakness in the use of the word “hell’’ for two words in the original— Gehenna and hades. While tile modern leaders still hold to the ancient theory of disembodied spirits, they have made such changes in their belief as the result of superstition giving place to education that they have no longer any use for disembodied spirits for the purpose supposed to be involved in the New Testament account of demons. The prevalent idea in the days of Jesus was that diseases were produced by “spirits.’’ Blindness, dumbness, insanity, etc. , were all the work of “spirits’’ possessed by the unfortunate victims, but now religious leaders know better, and are able to dispense entirely with

Pg 291 such “spirits” in accounting for the same diseases. With the ancient mythologists spirits’’ were essential in accounting for diseases now they are not; therefore their existence is no longer necessary. If it is superstition to believe. now as in the past that diseases are inflicted by disembodied spirits, may it not be superstition also to believe in the existence of such spirits? The supposed utility of their existence having been seen to be a delusion, why retain them without any thing for them to do in the line of employment in which they were once supposed to be engaged?

Our language is full of words of heathen origin; but such words no longer mean what they did on the lips of a heathen. Our meaning is well understood now when we call an insane person a lunatic, without retaining the theory that the person is moon-struck. One using the word “lunatic,” would not thereby be committed to the ancient theory. So with our use of the names of the days of the week, as well as many names of diseases, for example, “St. Anthony’s fire.’’ St. Vitus dance,’’ We accommodate ourselves to the phraseology of our times without being held to the original meaning thereof. Now what is permissible in our times, in this respect was also so in the days of Jesus and His apostles. When a disease was miraculously cured, the act was described in the language of the times. Then as now, some held the heathen view, others the reasonable and truthful view. The words “soul” and “spirit’’ are used to-day by some wrongfully, by others rightfully; and time latter cannot be held responsible for the former. So with the word diamon and demoniac in the days of Jesus. Suppose we transfer the phraseology of those times down to our own times and use it in the description of curing diseases, would not the facts be precisely the same? The use of the words now would no more make the cure of disease a literal casting out of demons or “spirits” than the use of the words then and vice versa. The facts represented by the words are what we must seek to find, and not stumble over the words into the delusions generally associated with them. The following quotation from ‘‘Yate’s History of Egypt” will illustrate the truth in this matter very clearly:

It would seem that the same diseases prevailed then in Syria and Egypt as now, and the various practices adopted by the people concerning them have very little changed during a period of nearly two thousand years. Nothing is more common in the present day in the East than to be told that a person has a devil or is possessed of a devil; and the expression is applied more or less to every complaint. I had occasion to notice this immediately on my arrival in the country.

I have known the Rev. Mr. Wolff ridiculed for stating that one evening pg 292 when he was passing between Jerusalem and Cairo he ‘cast out a devil in the wilderness;” but I can only suppose he used the expression in the sense alluded to, and that he merely employed the native idiom,. I have often been applied to myself in Syria and other parts to cast out a devil; by which I merely understood that I was to cure the bodily ailments of the individuals-—- not that 1 was expected to perform a miracle on time occasion, further than that the cure of every disease is ascribed by the natives to a talismanic influence.

Now let us examine, for example, the first instance in the New Testament of castillg out a defllou. in Matt. ix ‘~2 we read, ‘‘As they went out, behold, they brought to him a dumb man possessed of a devil (diamonizomenon — being demonized ) , and when time devil (diamonion) was cast out, the dumb man spake.’’ What really was the matter with this man? He was dumb ; and the very same affliction is the sad lot of many persons to-day. Shall we say of the dumb of to-day that they are demonized? Yes, if the word is used to describe dumbness ; no, if it is used as meaning that every thumb person is possessed of a “disembodied spirit,’’ or ghost, afflicting a man with dumbness. To “cast out a demon” now, in a similar case, would be to cure the afflicted of dumbness; but a “spirit,” called a “demon” would no more be an entity leaving tile cured person than

10 fever would be a ‘‘spirit” or ‘‘demon’’ as an entity leaving a person of whom we may say, “Her fever left her.” So when it is said, ‘‘He lost his speech,,, ‘‘he lost his hearing ;‘‘ or his speech returned,” ‘‘his hearing came back to him.’’ A comparison of the facts in the case will show that it is only a difference in phraseology in different times, in different countries to describe tile same facts.

The relation of the two words —diabolos and diamon—may be said to be that of cause and effect. Therefore when tile former came into the world, the latter followed; and in the same order they will go out of the world. The apostle Paul says, “Sin entered into the world,” and when “the sin of the world is taken away,” sin will have gone out of the world. When sin entered, diabolos entered and thereby man’s nature became afflicted with diseases, or we may say, became demonized. When the diabolos is destroyed, the “demonized’’ condition of the fallen race will cease. No one supposes that when Paul says “Sin entered into the world,” he meant that sin was a “spirit” or an entity coming from one world to another. So when the “Lamb of God” shall have “taken away the sin of the world,” no one supposes that sin is an entity taken from one world to another. If sin could be said to have entered the world, and yet the statement not mean that an entity entered, then if we call sin diabolos, we can say diabolos entered; and when

Pg 293

Sin is destroyed and is no more in time world, diabolos will have been destroyed and will be no more in time world. Since the disease of the human family—mortality is the result of sin, disease may be said also to have entered into time world, and, using the heathen word, we may say that thereby the race became demonized, or became possessed of a demon in time forum of mortality. Now the work of time Redeemer is to cast out this demon ; and in the casting out of the demon there will no more be a personality or a million personalities than in the coming in.

Now transfer this from time race and time universal affliction of man with the demon of mortality to an individual afflicted with one of the many diseases resulting from a mortal state, and we can say of a certain disease that it entered man and that, when the man is cured, it left the man ; or to change it into Eastern phraseology of New Testament times, we would say a demon entered a man and, when he is cured a demon was cast out.

If a superstitious person were to say of a certain woman, ‘‘She is possessed of seven demons,’’ that person would have in mind that seven immaterial entities had entered time woman and that they were afflicting her with seven diseases. A more enlightened person might not deem it needful, and indeed might know it would be impossible for the time being, to correct the superstitious idea, and might use the same language, time ‘seven demons’’ meaning to him seven diseases. So even now in this western world and in this boasted age of enlightenment some who still hold to the fag end of heathenism, despite their education and their advantage in time advancement of science, say of a person when he dies, ‘‘His soul left him, ‘‘ meaning that an immaterial, conscious entity’ had left him ; but the language to one enlightened in the Bible and in true science would mean that time man’s life had gone out or had been extinguished.

A DIFFICULTY.

The greatest difficulty in understanding some of time New Testament accounts of casting out demons is in the fact that the language sometimes seems to make them appear to speak independently of the person whom they are supposed to possess. Allowing that this difficulty forces the conclusion that the demons were entities and that they actually did speak, the question will arise, Why is the same phenomenon not to be found in similar afflictions to-day? We may visit an insane asylum and hear much strange talk and see many distressing actions, but all would clearly be the talk and actions of the poor unfortunates who would be distressingly visible and not

Pg 294 a word would come from invisible entities, demons or “spirits.” Have facts changed? Have the “spirits” who talked in times of yore become dumb, or gone off on a journey, while the same diseases still remains to afflict mankind? No one is foolish enough to answer yes. The facts are the same now as then ; and therefore the difficulty is in the phraseology only, and it may be removed by a careful consideration of facts, with the mind freed from superstition.

10 Now let us examine a case where the demons appear to speak. Matt. viii :28-34 will illustrate all other passages of similar phraseology. Even in this, however, some allowance must he made for coloring on the part of the translators—not necessarily intentional but because of their holding to heathen demonology. In this passage we have a description of two insane men. They are said to be possessed of demons. Verse 31 says, “So the devils (demons) besought him” etc. If there were no demons there as separate entities or ‘spirits” how could they talk? Here is the difficulty. But we must not forget that we are in the presence of two insane men, and therefore we must not hope to listen to rational speech ; but we may expect to hear them speak in accordance with the deluded state of their minds. Even in our day some men profess to be incarnations of women. What is this, but a delusion or a fraud that the disembodied entities of dead women have entered into these men? One professes to be an incarnation of Elijah, etc. Now it would not be strange if these women-incarnated men should personate the women and use the feminine gender in speaking of themselves; nor if the pretended Christ-incarnate man should try to personate and speak as if he were Christ. It would he consistent with the delusion, but not with reason and facts, aad that is all that can be expected in such cases. We have heard of an insane man who supposed himself to be Queen Victoria. It would not be strange if he talked according to his delusion. Now suppose one deluded with the theory that he was not simply one immortal soul inside the body, but that he was many immortal souls—even “legion”—being, to use modern fashionable language, so many souls “incarnate.” Would he not be likely to speak of himself in the plural number? If he believed his plural self guilty and destined to be consigned by the Messiah, whom he recognized in Jesus, to disembodiment and then “torment” (verse 29) would he not be likely, consistent with the heathen theory of transmigration of souls, to beg that his plural spirit-self be allowed transmigration into an herd of swine rather than into the supposed “torment” ? It is not to be doubted that those deluded mortals who

Pg 295 prate in our day about being “incarnations” of this one and that one, had they the choice between transmigration into a herd of swine and transportation to the hell of “torment” they believe in, they would follow the example of those of their kind in the country of the Gergesenes. In the narrative the possessed are identified with the possessions in the style of the East without stopping to make a radical change, which would have been impossible with those who were so imbued with the spirit of demonology. For the demons to beseech was for the men who supposed themselves a legion of demons to do so, and if when their insanity was transmitted to the herd of swine they supposed the “spirits” had been “transmigrated” into them, to the enlightened then and now the meaning would be clear as to the facts in the case. Of course it required one “spirit” for every disease, and the insanity of one pig would not result from the possession of another, there must have been as many’ demons in the two men as there were pigs in the herd of swine—and there were two thousand.

But who that is sane would believe such a thing? The only conclusion therefore is that allowance must be made for the language of the times and circumstances in the case, and that two insane men were restored to their senses, and miraculously the herd of swine, which was kept unlawfully, was afflicted with a madness that proved their destruction. Indeed, according to the science of our times all diseases have their germs, which are transmissible from one person to another. And it is surely more reasonable to believe that the germs of insanity were transmitted actually from the insane men to the swine than it is to hold that so many immaterial, immortal disembodied ghosts passed from the one to the other. As to the insane when the cure had been performed it i, said of one of the men “he was sitting clothed and in his right mind” (Mark v: is.) In his madness he had torn off his clothes and raved; but now he was sane and acted accordingly. These are facts which show what was done, and are accounted for without the aid of the heathen theory of transmigration or incarnation of disembodied souls of dead men and women. Before dismissing this part of our subject it may be well to give a short history of demonology, as a means of showing that the popular theory of our times is identical with that of heathenism so far as the existence of departed disembodied spirits is concerned, the very theory to which demonology owes its origin. The absurdities associated with the theory by the ancient Greeks, Romans, and by the Jews after they became idolators, are now ridiculed by people of education, and yet many of them still cling to that which

Pg 296

was responsible for those absurdities. The foolish tales told about demons, and the attributing of jugglery by the ignorant to their supposed occult powers are no more absurd than is the theory of departed disembodied spirits itself. Perhaps the reading of the short history we are about to give will make this manifest; and the truth of the prediction of the Apostle Paul will be found exemplified in

10 quarters that will be a surprise to many. He declared, ‘‘Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter (later) times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils (demons); speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their conscience seared with a hot iron” (I. Tim. iv: 1, 2). The “doctrine of demons” is the doctrine of disembodied spirits, with all its attendant lies and frauds about purgatory, ghosts, apparitions, table rapping, etc. It is all the outgrowth of the immortality of the soul, which originated in the words of the serpent— “Ye shall not surely die; but ye shall be as gods.’’ This doctrine, Gibbon says, the Jews did not believe till they went to Babylon. When Jesus appeared it had so become interwoven in the language of the times that by the use of the language those who did not countenance the theory were forced into circumstances which compelled them to appear as if they did; and we are to-day in a similar predicament; and we are compelled to express truth in words which originally (and modernly with some) expressed heathen fictions. The following concise history we quote from the book previously referred to, entitled “The Devil, an Expose :“ HISTORY OF DEMONOLOGY.

In what sense then, was the word Daimon used by the Greek writers? A most extended inquiry by Mr. Farmer has established that the Greek writers used this word to express HUMAN “SPIRITS” of departed people. Many such “spirits” of departed human beings the ancients deified and worshipped: and hence the word daimon meant to the Greek and those who used their language, human departed “spirits,” raised to the rank of gods and deities. “Homer calleth all his gods, daimones, and Hesiod, the worthies of the golden age.” —Leigh’s Critica Sacea, Article Daimon. Hesiod maintains, indeed, that whenever a good man dies he becomes a demon; and Plato praises him for the sentiment. The heathen had two classes of gods: the world, together with all its constituent parts and principles, and the demons. “They conceived the world to be pervaded and animated by a vital and intelligent substance they regarded as a divinity which contained, framed, and governed all things.” Farmer on Miracles, p. 107. Cicero expressly asserts——”There is nothing more perfect than the world—it is wise, and, on this account, a god.” He further adds, “that although a Stoic, he acknowledged that this world is wise, has a mind, which

Pg 2797 has fabricated both itself and the world, and regulates, moves, and rules all things.” Balbus, the Stoic, maintains that ‘the world is a god, and the habitation of the gods.” These were designated as the natural gods. Besides these, the heathens maintained that certain “spirits” existed which held a middle rank between the gods and men on earth; and, because they were regarded as carrying on all intercourse between the gods and met,, as conveying the addresses of men to the gods, and distributing the benefits of the gods to men, they were called, from daio, to distribute, daimoius. The opinion further prevailed that the celestial gods did not themselves interpose in human affairs, but committed the whole management to these daimones, and on this account these demons became the great object of religious hope, of fear, of dependences, and of worship. A further consideration affording very strong evidence that these “demons” meant the “‘spirits’ of departed men” is that the parentage and, consequently, the human origin of almost all the heathen deities were known and recorded. Philo Biblyous, the translator of Sanchoniathon’s History of the Gods, expressly asserts, “That the Phonicians and Egyptians, from whom other people derived this custom, reckoned those amongst the greatest gods who had been benefactors to the human race; and that, to then,, they erected pillars and statutes, and dedicated sacred festivals.”—Apud Euseb. Prwp. Evangelica, lib. I, c. ix., p. 32. Diodorus Siculus states, “That there were two classes of gods, the one eternal and

10 immortal, the other such as were born on the earth and arrived at the titles and honors of divinity on account of the blessings they bestowed on mankind.—--Lib. i. and v. This writer describes Satnrn, Jupiter, Apollo, and others (the primary gods of paganism) as illustrious men. Plato remarks, “All those who die valiantly in war are of Hesiod’s golden generation, and heroine demons; and we ought forever to worship and adore their sepulchres, as the sepulchres of demons.”—--Plato de Republica, C. V. 468, torn. ii., editio Serrani. This transference of warlike heroes into Gods, and the worship of them, many regard as belonging peculiarly and solely to paganism: but have we not the same thing in our day? Do we not see statues erected in our streets to those chargeable with legal murder which are raised for the mental worship of our children?——the Wellingtons, the Nelsons, arid hosts of others. And with what is the cathedral of our metropolis filled? Is it with the ministers of peace? with the Fenetons, the Oberlins, the Whitfields, the Watts, the Arkwrights, the Townshends, the Benthatns, the Adam Smiths, the Raike’s? No. The interior of St. Paul’s presents, as Mr. Peter Stuart, of Liverpool, after a visit he paid recently to that splendid edifice, remarked, “an assembly of gladiators.” Add to the look of imitative admiration a mental worship (bestowed by the young on these gladiators), some regular ceremonies, and there would be no difference between the worship of Hercules and Mars of old, and of the Wellingtons and the Nelsons now. To return from this digression on modern hero worship, it is apparent that among the Greeks the term daimon expressed a “departed human spirit,” “DEIFIED . The Greeks held further that these daimones, or “departed human spirits,’” had the power of TAKING POSSESSION of other HUMAN BEINGS, and that they could be expelled from these beings so possessed. Hence Lucian, writing respecting an exorcist, one who so dispossessed the possessed, remarks, ekselaunei ton dzamona—he expelled the demon (Lucians’s Philospeudes,

Pg 298 p. 338, vol. ii., edit. Amstelodam Lucian affords, in a dialogue in the works from which the above is a quotation, the view entertained in his day regarding demons. Four parties are introduced in the dialogue; three, Ion, Eucrates, and Diognotus, being believers in demons, and the fourth, Tychiades, who is not a believer therein. Ion, after he had given an account of the person who cast out demons, adds that he himself had seen one (that is, a demon) so ejected. ‘Many others as well as you,” said Eucrates, “have met with demons(diamosiu). I have a thousand times seen such things.’’ In proof of this assertion, he assures the company that he and his family had often seen the Statue of Pelchus descending from its pedestal, and walking round the house ~pp. 338-339. In the sequel of the dialogue, Eucrates, who had been defending the doctrine of apparitions, says, “We have been endeavoring to persuade Tychiades (who sustains the character of an unbeliever in these points) that there are demons (diamonas tina cinai) and that the phantasms and souIs of the dead wander upon the earth and appear to whom they please,” p. 346. to confirm this sentiment, Diognotus, the Pythagorean, bids Tychiades go to Corinth where he might see the very house from which he himself expelled the demon (daimona) that disturbed It, which was the ghost of a dead man, p.348. Hippocrates expressly states that the Greeks referred possession to the gods and the heroes, all of whom were human spirits. He wrote an essay on epilepsy, which was called ,hievens uosos, the sacred disease, because the people believed what the priests taught, that epileptics were possessed; and the priests, the magicians, and the impostors derived a considerable revenue from attempting to cure this disease by expiations and charms. The essay was written to expose this delusion of his countrymen, he attempting to prove that this disease was neither more divine or sacred than any other.

10 The Latins also entertained the idea that “departed human ‘spirits’” sometimes possessed the living. Those so possessed among them were so called the Cerriti and the Larvati; the Cerriti from the goddess Ceres, who was supposed to possess them; the Larvati from the laros, gods, who were supposed to be the possessing. The correspondence between the possessing beings, the lares, and the daimones, Cicero testifies——They whom the Greeks consider deimones, we, I consider, [call] lures. Littleton, in his valuable dictionary, defines the larvae as the souls of the dead, which they elsewhere called shades ~ And Arnobius relates that Varro asserts that the larvae are lares, being as it were, certain genii and the souls of the departed. And Crito, a learned writer, thus writes: the larvati are dernonaics; and larvae, by which they are possessed, are human ghosts (De Crito, Vol. i. p. 238). Strabo, who flourished in the time the Emperor Augustus, calls the goddess Feronia (who was born in Italy) a demon; and says that those who were possessed with this demon walked barefoot over burning coals; and Philostratus, who was contemporary with our Saviour, “relates that a demon, who possessed a young man confessed himself to be the ghost of a person slain in battle”(Strabo, lib., v. p. 364.) Opinions similar to those held by the Greeks and the Latins were entertained by the Jews. Josephus, the celebrated Jewish historian, asserts that those called daimonia are the “spirits’’ of wicked men who enter the living, and kill those who receive no help (De Bell. Jud., lib. VII., 2, 6, 3). Very early in the history of the Jews they had become acquainted with the gods of the heathen, and showed a lamentable proneness to adopt the principles and

Pg 299 the practices of their superstitious and idolatrous neighbors. The philosophy of the east was greatly studied and admired by the Jews, and they came to regard persons possessed as possessed by the same “spirits” is those which their neighbors regarded as possessing. So strongly was this opinion rooted in their minds and so generally diffused among the people, that when the Saviour cast out (diamonia), the Pharisees observed, ‘‘He casteth out daimonia by Beelzebub, the Prince of daimonia” (Matt. ix: 34), a statement at which no astonishment was expressed; which, had not the knowledge of the doctrine of possession by “departed human spirits” been general among the Jews, would have excited astonishment. Who, then, was this Beelzebub, the prince, not of devils, as the Common Version renders the word, but of demons.’ We read in the Old Testament that one of the kings of Israel, namely, Ahaziah, ‘sent messengers, and said unto then,, Go, inquire of Beelzebub, the God of Ekron, whether I shall recover of this disease ?“ (II. Kings i: 2). This Beelzebub was esteemed a god -that is, a diamon, that is a deified human ‘‘spirit,” which “spirit” the Jews, like other nations, believed to possess people. The meaning of the word zebub is a fly, the God which the Ekronites worshipped. History informs us that those who lived in hot climates, and where the soil is moist (which was the case with the Ekronites, who bordered on the sea), were exceedingly infested with flies. These insects were thought to cause contagious distempers. Pliny makes mention of a people, who stopped a pestilence which these insects occasioned, by sacrificing to the fly hunting god (Plin. Nat. Hist. lib. x. c. 40). Influenced by this prejudice, Ahaziah, instead of applying to Jehovah God, applied to this God of Ekron for deliverance, or for a knowledge of his state in reference to the disease, which he most likely considered to depend upon the influence of these flies; and that, on this ground, Beelzebub could inform him of the result. (Beelzebub was, most likely, Jupiter, who is described by the Greeks as muiodes, the god of flies, and the muiagros, the fly hunter). The fact of Ahaziah applying to Beelzebub shows at what an early period the Jews were acquainted with the demonology of the surrounding heathen nations, and how they had adopted the notions regarding the power of these demons; a fact which explains the use of the phrase ,diamonion so frequently in the gospels. The existence of these diamones, as possessing and influencing human beings,

10 was recognized so fully among the Jews, that Josephus, already quoted, who was nearly contemporary with the apostles, dwells much upon the expulsion of demons; he gives an instance of successful expulsion when tried by a Jew in the presence of Vespasian; and further declares, no doubt with the view of elevating the great monarch of the Jews, Solomon, that God instructed Solomon in the anti,- demoniac,c art.

BEELZEBUB.

It will be seen front the foregoing that Beelzebub, or Beelzebul, was the heathen fictitious god of the fly. Of course it was not a god at all——had no existence only in .the demonized minds of pagans. This, which is now admitted, is quite helpful to us in understanding the Saviour’s use of words without being responsible for the errors associated with them. Even modern believers in pg 300 demonology will not claim that He committed himself to the heathen theory by not protesting against the use of the word Beelzebub, or even by using it himself, when he said, “And if I by Beelzebub, cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out?” In this passage we have the words “Beelzebub” and “cast out demons.” It would be quite as unreasonable to claim that the Saviour believed in the heathen god of the fly because He used the word Beelzebub as it is to claim that He believed in the heathen theory of “casting out demons” because he used their words.

That there are difficulties it cannot he denied ; but the difficulties arise from perversion of language by heathen dogmas, thousands of words having been invented to suit thousands of heathen fictions and so Jesus and His apostles in their times, and we in our times, are forced by stubborn circumstances to use an impure language, saturated with heathenism. All we can do is, keep the mind in a higher atmosphere than the tongue or pen, and “as through a glass darkly,” see truth in words which originated in lies. If any object to this let us ask what they mean when they name the days of the week. When the glorious time comes to put an end to the “strange language” of an idolatrous world, He who in the days of His humiliation was compelled, in measure, to take the language as it was, will “turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the Lord, to serve him with one consent” (Zeph. iii : 9).

SATAN.

Satan is a Hebrew word (Sathan), and it did not originate as a name for a heathen fiction. It had a legitimate birth; but it has not escaped improper use at the hands of a perverted theology; for it has been tagged on to the fictitious devil of popular dogma. In the use of this word it is a question of the mind as to whether it is employed truthfully or falsely. The word on the tongue of one whose mind is imbued with the personal immortal devil theory is a misuse; but uttered by one who understands its original and true meaning to be one who opposes, whether righteously or unrighteously, it is properly used.

The word Satan occurs in the Authorized Version fifty-three times, seventeen times in the New Testament and thirty~six in the Old. For the Hebrew word sathan the translators have not always given us “satan.” Instead of thus anglicizing the word in every case they have, and more frequently, translated it; and herein they have, perforce, given us the true meaning of the word. They saw that its use in many passages could not be made to mean the Satan

10 Pg 301 they had in their theologically perverted minds, and so they were compelled to properly translate it adversary. The word has not in itself a bad meaning; it may stand for a good intention and act as well as for bad ones; but always meaning that which opposes, and the meaning in any case can be ascertained by the context. It stands for an angel, whose opposition was for good, and of the Lord, in Numb. xxii: 32 where the messenger said to Baalam,”Wherefore hast thou smitten thine ass these three times? Behold, I went out to withstand (or to be an adversary unto) thee,” (see margin). Persons, good or bad, may be satans, and so may principles, or dispositions, or circumstances—anything that stands in the way or opposes. The use of the word, however, is more frequent in relation to evil or unrighteous opponents or adversaries.

An examination of one or two instances, where the word has been properly translated will serve to illustrate all others. For instance, the princes of the Philistines were afraid that David would turn out to be a satan to them; and therefore they said,” Make this fellow return * * * lest in the battle he be an adversary (sathan) to us” (I. Sam. xxix : 4). He would have been a personal human satan. Solomon said to Hiram, king of Tyre: “But now the Lord my God hath given me rest on every side, so that there is neither adversary (sathan) nor evil occurrent (I. Kings. v 4). His father had many adversaries in his wars —human adversaries, of course— but now Solomon had none of that kind. David said, “What have I to do with you, ye sons of Zeruiah, that ye should this day be adversaries (sathans) unto me.” (II. Sam. xix : 22). In I. Kings x~ 23-25 we read,” And God stirred him up another adversary (sathan), Rezon the son of Eliadah, which fled from his lord Hadadezar, king of Zobah. And he was adversary to Israel all the days of Solomon.” Let it be noticed that the word is used in the plural number as well as in the singular. The facts in these cases interpret the word, and there is not the slightest hint that it means the devil of popular belief. A case in the New Testament will help further to put the matter in the true light When the Apostle Peter, with good intentions, said of the Saviour’s predicted death, “Be it far from thee, Lord, this shall not be unto thee” (Matt. xvi: 22), the Lord answered, “Get thee behind me satan; thou art an offense unto me; for thou savorest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.” It was not a separate supernatural satan that inspired the words of Peter. No such satan is needed here in order to understand the words. It was Pg 302

Peter’s love for his Master and, no doubt, his thought of fighting for his protection that prompted the words. Nevertheless the apostle was opposing the right and was therefore an adversary. With these clear testimonies in mind as illustrative of the meaning of ‘‘satan” it is not difficult to understand any passage where the word is employed. It may stand for a state of mind adverse to one’s intentions and efforts; for a state of the body, adverse to health ; for a state of society or politics adverse to the performance of duty or the belief of truth ; and in no case is it necessary with “satan’’ any more than with “diabolos” to imagine the existence of the devil or satan of popular delusion.

PASSAGES EXPLAINED.

10 In the days of Job angels were “ministering spirits sent forth to minister to those who were heirs of salvation,” and their visits were sometimes personal, as in the case of Abraham. The conversation between the Lord and the satan was very likely between an angel of the Lord and an adversary who thought that Job served God for temporal and selfish ends. The passage reads as follows: Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them. And the Lord said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil Then Satan answered the Lord. and said, Doth Job fear God for nought? And the Lord said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power, only upon himself put not forth thine hand. so Satan went forth from the presence of the Lord,” (Job 1: 5’, 7, 8, 9, 12).

A very good description of this satan and Job’s trial at his instigation is given in a book entitled, “Diabolism” by Edward Turney (now deceased), and we cannot do better than quote from it. Pages 77,78 as follows If the reader had, not harbored an idea of a supernatural, black, malicious devil, taught him from childhood. I Venture to assert that out of these verses it would be impossible for him to invent such a being. There is no more ground for concluding that this Satan is such a monster, than there is for believing that “the -Sons of God” were such in a literal sense. These appear to be Job’s family; we might- say a company of true believers, while the adversary- or Satan was a person of nomadic habits, and evidently a hypocrite, envious. etc. It does not at all appear that he was more than an ordinary man; that is, a human being; and It would be a perversion of reason to assume that he was a fallen angel. a supernatural. powerful, malignant being. It does not even appear that Satan possessed any extraordinary power whatever, but was merely permitted to be the instigator of Jehovah to put His servant Job to the full proof. “Thou movedst me against him ”(Job ii: 3), The evil which befell Job was not from Satan, but from God. “What shall we receive good from the hand of the Lord,a nd shall we not receive evil?’(ch. 11:10), This is abundantly ,manifest- from the following statements in the nineteenth chapter. In reply to Bildad the Shohite, Job says., ”Know now that God hath overthrown me, and hath compassed me with His net. He hath fenced up my way. He hath stripped me of my glory. He hath destroyed me on every side. He hath also kindled His wrath against me. His troops come together, and raise up their Way against me, and encamp round about toy tabernacle. He bath put my brethren far from me. Have pity upon me. have, pity upon me, 0 ye. my friends: for the hand of God bath touched me.” (verses 6,8.9,10, 11, 12. 13, 21). This is always the case, evil does not come from the devil, but from God. Of good and evil God is the author: man is the author of sin. Evil is the punishment of God upon man the sinner. “I form the light and create darkness; I make peace and create

Pg 303 evil. I the Lord do all these things.” (Isa. xiv :7). “Shall there be evil in the city and the Lord hath not done it?” (Amos iii: 6). ‘-Therefore, thus saith the Lord, Behold, against this family do I devise an evil, from which ye shall not remove your necks”(Micah ii : 3), and so forth. The testimony before us conveys not the least suspicion that Job’s Satan was superior or inferior to man; my own conviction is

10 that he was a fellow-.worshipper, like Peter and Judas, who was full of envy at the favor and prosperity of Job. and insinuated to the Elohim that what Job did was from selfish motives. “Doth Job serve God for nought? But put forth thine hand and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face.” Where upon, the faith of the patriarch was put to the test, and what a noble example of patience and confidence in God he furnished for all after time, and how wonderful was it made manifest that “the Lord is very pitiful and of tender mercy toward all them that trust Him.” With the supposition that the book of Job is a drama. I have no sympathy. Parable is indeed common, both in the Old and New Testament; but the connection in which the man Job is mentioned, seems to more to show conclusively that the book is a narrative of facts. In his denunciation upon Jerusalem, Ezekiel twice repeats the following words: “Though these men, Noah, Daniel and Job, were in it. they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness. saith the Lord God.” we should never infer from this that Job was a fictitious character; nor from the allusion to him by the apostle James, “Ye have heard of the patience of Job,” etc. But if Job is not real, then the rest of the dramatis personae must be visionary. This would at once destroy all claim to the reality of 5atan; his personality would find no countenance whatever from the drama. Seeing, therefore, that in such an -interpretation of the book, the popular Satan could not be found, and that upon the other viz., that the book is historical, there is no clue to his existence, I think the impartial reader will determine that the Satan of the religious world has no existence. except in the imagination of such as are ignorant of the teaching of the scriptures upon the subject, and deluded by the ‘‘seducing spirits’ of the apostasy. In Zech. iii: 1, we read of Joshua the high priest standing before the Lord, amid satan standing at his right hand to resist him. And the Lord said unto satan the Lord rebuke thee, O Satan ; even the Lord that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee. Is not this a brand plucked out of the fire ?‘‘ In measure this was fulfilled when the Jews were restored from Babylon. Joshua was their high priest, and the satan that resisted in the repairing of the temple was that adversarial spirit which moved Tatnai; and Shethar— Boznai and their companions against Zerubbabel, See in the book of Ezra. But what happened then was typical of a greater governor than Zerubbabel and of a greater high priest than Joshua, and a more precious “brand to be plucked out of the fire” than Israel. Joshua and his fellows were ‘‘men of sign” (verse 8), anti Joshua was a sign or type of the BRANCH, which is Christ. When He appeared to perform the first part of his mission preparatory to the future rebuilding of Jerusalem and the restoration of her people, when “The Lord shall choose Jerusalem again” (chap. ii: i 2), satan resisted him, first in the tendencies of the flesh in His temptation, as we have already explained under the heading of ‘‘The temptation of Jesus ;“ then in “Herod, Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel . But the Lord rebuked this multitudinous satan and foretold its defeat in the words, “I beheld satan as lightning fall from heaven.” That satan did fall, and Jesus became high priest and is “a brand plucked out of the fire.” Whether the passage in Zec. iii. be confined to the history of the repairing of Jerusalem upon the return from Babylon, or be applied to the work Jesus has performed

Pg 308 and will yet perform—in any event the satan spirit, the opposition, the adversarial opponents were all human or natural and no place is found for a supernatural satan, indeed a supernatural satan would turn the facts into absurdities to become objects of jesting and ridicule.

In II. Sam. xxiv: 1 we read that satan (see margin moved I)avid to number Israel. This fact, whether suggested to the King by a person or by the pride of his own heart, showed a distrust in God and a confidence in the arm of flesh. It overlooked the well established fact that God had many times shown,

10 that numbers of soldiers were not necessary in the performance of His purpose. When the King realized the meaning of his act it is said, “David’s heart smote him” (verse To). No supernatural satan was necessary in this case. Indeed if the King had been “moved to number Israel” by a supernatural satan possessed of hypnotic power, there would have been no need of “his heart smiting him,” for surely he would have had the excuse of helplessness of a poor mortal in the hands of a most powerful immortal satan as a plea to satisfy his conscience and secure exemption from blame.

In Luke. xiii : 10 We read of a woman who had a “spirit of infirmity eighteen years, and was bowed together, and could not lift herself up.” To her Jesus said, “‘Woman, thou art loosed from. thine infirmity.” This kind act displeased the ruler of the synagogue, and to him Jesus said, “Ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom satan hath bound, lo, these eighteen years, to be loosed from this bond on the Sabbath day?” There are many such afflictions such as this poor woman had suffered from. What are the causes? Do even the devotees of his supposed Satanic Majesty believe that similarly afflicted women are “bound by” their supernatural satan? Many old women in obscure parts of the world who still ignorantly believe that the popular satan is the author of such afflictions are looked upon with an eye of pity by modern religious leaders; and they are called “poor superstitious old things.” Yet, the old woman may consistently ask, What is your supernatural satan for if he is not doing these deeds? The woman was cured of an “infirmity” of the body, a state of body which was an adversary to a normal state, and that “hound” her so she could not perform the acts which life’s duties require. Her satan was purely of the flesh, and it would he superstitious now as then to attribute it to a supernatural monster.

In I. Cor. v: 5 the ecclesia was commanded to put away a certain man who had committed a great sin. In this they would “deliver such a one unto satan for the destruction of the flesh, that

Pg 305 the spirit might he saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.” The object was present punishment for future good. What kind of “destruction of the flesh” will secure salvation? Not literal destruction, of course; but that which is represented by the Apostle Paul when he says “I keep under my body,” “crucify therefore your members.” “The flesh with the affections thereof.” ‘With a sinner there must be repentance, remorse, a mental suffering that will overcome the proclivities, the lusts of the flesh ; and thus the flesh is destroyed, dead. “How shall we that are dead to sin live any longer therein?” The man was to be put out of the ecclesia till he would become “dead to sin,” and the flesh, in its tendencies, destroyed and he began anew in an endeavor to “lay aside the sin which had so easily beset him.” Now the way to effect this was to put him outside the ecciesia, in a cold, heartless world which was a satan, or an adversary to Christ and His ecclesia and the members thereof. Any man who had enjoyed the spiritual associations of God’s people would soon realize that to him, then cast out of the ecciesia, the world was an adversary. He would, like the prodigal son, “come to himself.” He would feel himself to he a homeless wander in the enemies’ land, and would seek means of return to his own home. His remorse and sincere repentance resulting from having been thus “delivered over to satan” would prove the “destruction of the flesh” in that particular in which the flesh had proved itself to be alive and powerful to overcome him, when it ought to have been crucified and have died. The apostle’s command to deliver the person to satan is explained by a repetition in a different form of words, “Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person” (verse 13). That this had the desired effect seems clear from what is said in II. Cor. ii; 6, 7: “Sufficient to such a man is this punishment, which is inflicted of many. So

10 that contrariwise ye ought rather to forgive him and comfort him, lest perhaps such an one should he swallowed up wit/i overmuch sorrow.” Had they allowed the man to be “swallowed up with overmuch sorrow” satan would have got an advantage over them (verse 11) in that the adversary of the church, the world, would have rejoiced over the ecclesia’s loss of one of its members, a thing the world satan is always ready to do. The delivering of this man to satan was intended for good results and they were realized. Had he been delivered into the hands of such a monster as the popular satan how would that have resulted in the man’s reformation? Not only is there no need for a supernatural satan, but confusion results from entertaining such a heathen thought. Away with heathen superstition of days of darkness, and let Scripture and enlightened reason reign, and truth will shine in its purity and beauty and the mind will be emancipated from the slavery of sa pg 306 tan in one of its most dangerous and destructive forms—a popularized religion.

THE IMPORTANCE OF THE SUBJECT.

Salvation is predicated upon a belief of and obedience to the one gospel. The gospel consists of “thee things concerning the Kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ (Acts viii: 5, 13). The “things of the name” are those which involve what Jesus did and how he did them in bringing into effect the plan of salvation; and of this it is written, “Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same, that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is the’ devil (Heb. ii: 14). According to this Christ’s mission was to “destroy the devil,” in His work of bringing into force the plan of salvation. Therefore, there must be a correct understanding of what the devil is before the mission of Christ, or the plan of salvation, can understood. Now, according to this passage and the Scriptures generally, we must believe: 1. That Christ’s work was and is to “destroy the devil.” a. That He was made of the same flesh and blood as are the children of the fallen race of Adam. 3. That this was a necessity in order that He might “condemn sin in the flesh” and by His death “destroy “ him that hath the power of death, that is the devil.” 4.. That the devil is destructible, and will, when the plan of salvation is completed, be destroyed. To believe in traditions which make the word of God of none effect is almost equal to denial of God’s word; and the applicability of this fact to the doctrine of the devil is seen when we consider that the popular devil is believed to be immortal and indestructible, while the destruction of the Bible devil is the great object of the plan of salvation. hence no one can understand the plan of salvation who holds a false view of the devil; and since the plan of salvation is the gospel and salvation in any case depends upon a belief of and obedience to the gospel, the subject of the devil is one of vital importance. Now in conclusion, the devil primarily is “sin in the flesh,” by which is meant all the mental, moral and physical consequences, direct and remote, of the federal sin of the race in Eden. To summarize it, “sin in the flesh” means: 1. That inborn bent of the mind in the direction of wrong, which has to be overcome by a will- power begotten by a realization of right and duty as divinely revealed. ‘ 2. It is sometimes manifested In persons who try to entice and allure others to think falsely and to do that which is wrong.

10 3. It is manifested in political form in the principalities and powers of the world, in a ,usurpation of power on the part of the great, unrighteously wielded over the weak and downcast, and in the flatten, and pomp of flesh. wherein the true God is ignored and dishonored. 4. It is, in its physical effects, to be seen in the many diseases which afflict mankind, and which believers in the “doctrine of demons” attribute to possession of disembodied spirits. The devil in all these forms will be destroyed when sin and death shall come to an end. Then there will be no lust (inordinate desire) in the nature of the survivors of the fallen race and they will be free from temptation from without and within. There will be no person disposed to tempt another to think or do that which is contrary to the Divine will, which is always the standard of right. There will be no more kingdoms of men to flatter and gratify lust, and the Kingdom of God will be supreme. Then there will be no more disease in the flesh, no more sorrow, pain or death—the “devil,” “satan,” “demon,” in every form will have been completely destroyed. God will manifest Ills strong arm of righteousness. Christ will be the great and honored victor over all evil, and the redeemed out of a sinful race will be forever blessed with glory, honor and immortality, and “God shall be all in all.”

Pg 307 & 308 blank

Pg 309

TRINE IMMERSION

FEET WASHING

SHOWN TO BE UNSCRIPTURAL

TWO LECTURES BY THOMAS WILLIAMS

EDITOR OF THE CHRISTADELPHIAN ADVOCATE

CHICAGO

(From Short hand Report by Miss M. M. MERRY, Topeka, Kansas.)

10 TRINE-IMMERSION. Is It Of God Or Of Men?

‘~ We are met together to consider the question of trine-immersion—--Is it of God or of men? A great many people will regard this as a question of trivial importance, but the system of truth as revealed in the Scriptures is so beautiful and so harmonious that if any one element is not viewed in the proper light it will throw the whole system out of balance. It is so fitted together in all its parts that you must have every principle correct in order that there be harmony and beauty. We regard the doctrine of baptism as one of the fundamental principles of the gospel ; that gospel which Paul says “is the power of God unto salvation, to everyone that believeth” (Rom. i :16). Let us impress this thought upon our minds, that there can he no salvation apart from a belief in the one gospel. The apostle assures us of this in the words just quoted. It is the power of God unto salvation, he says, to every one that believeth; which of course implies that it is not the power of God unto salvation to those who do not believe it ; and the gospel cannot he believed unless it is understood. The importance of believing it is also shown by the commission which our Saviour gave the apostles when he said, “Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. lie that believeth and is baptized shall be saved ; and he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mark xvi : 15, 16). It is useless for us to deceive ourselves, then, upon this question. Salvation depends upon a belief of the gospel whatever that gospel is. Now it is reduced to a small compass by the Apostle Paul, when he says, “I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you unto the grace of Christ unto another gospel; which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you let him be accursed” (Gal. i:6-8). We have also seen from the chapter read that there is but one gospel. Now this gospel is composed of certain elementary principles, called “the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus pg 314

Pg 314

Christ.” When these things or doctrines concerning the kingdom of God, and the things or doctrines concerning the name of Jesus Christ are understood, then the gospel is understood. If it is received, believed and obeyed, it then, and only then, becomes the power of God unto salvation The subject of baptism is associated with the gospel in the commission which we have quoted—”He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved,” and we can no more dispense with the one, than we can with the other? We may just as well say that a man can be saved without believing the gospel as to say he can be saved without being baptized, for the Saviour places these two conditions together. Hence we see that baptism is an essential doctrine. But our purpose tonight is not so much to prove that baptism is essential as it is to show what baptism is; for there are many honest people, especially around this neighborhood, who claim that baptism cannot he performed in the scriptural sense without repeated action ; that is to say, there must be immersion in the water three times in order to constitute scriptural baptism. If this is the case we want to know it; for most of those who are here have been immersed only once, and we must be baptized in the manner the Saviour means, otherwise it will he of no Use to us. Hence it becomes us to reason together upon the subject, Sand that is what we are here for tonight.

10 Now those who claim that baptism is by trine-immersion base their doctrine upon certain elementary principles which might be stated in this way: FIRST—They say that history and tradition show beyond a doubt that there must be three immersions to constitute scriptural baptism. SEC0ND—They base their theory upon the meaning of the Greek word baptizo, claiming that it is a frequentative verb, signifying repeated acts, such as the verb to walk. We cannot walk without repeated action. Hence it is claimed that the Greek verb baptizo means repeated action. THIRD—They claim that trine-immersion is proved by the commission which the Saviour gave to the apostles, when he said, “Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit” (Matt. xxviii:i5). Fourth—They claim from the general teaching of the Scriptures of the New Testament that trine- immersion is scriptural baptism. It will be our duty to examine these claims, and the grounds upon which they are based first, and then endeavor to show what the Scriptures teach upon the question. As regards the historical phase of it, it would seem that this is the principal argument, much attention being given it and a great deal based upon it. It is claimed that from the first down to the fifteenth century

Pg 315 trine-immersion has been taught and practiced by those called Christians. That many of the Apostolic Fathers refer to it as necessary in order to be saved. Now we -would say that, so far as the historical evidence as to the practice of trine-immersion is concerned, we admit that those who believe in it have the best of the argument, if the fact of the majority of the so-called Christians practicing it is to be taken as evidence. You may think this is a strange remark, but it will not seem so strange when you come to take the matter carefully into consideration. You can prove almost anything you please from the Apostolic Fathers, because they say one thing at one time, and another thing at another; they contradict each other and are therefore unreliable so far as doctrinal matters are concerned. Too much importance is attached to the writings of the “Apostolic Fathers” by many theologians. A superstitious mind will not disqualify a man from being a good witness as to facts; but his testimony as to the. ones would he quite unsafe. So with the “Fathers,” their testimony as to facts is useful, but their doctrines as set forth in their writings are many of them false and foolish. For the sake of some, it might be well to state, that the “Apostolic Fathers” were not inspired men; but men who lived at and near the time of the Apostles. Their writings on doctrinal subjects are of no more authority than those of theologians of our times, who do not claim inspiration. It is not safe to depend upon history as to what has been the practice of the church from the first century down to the present, as a guide to the proper mode of baptism, whether it is single or trifle. When we consider the warnings of the apostles we find the reason for this. “For the time will come,,” said Paul, “when they will not endure sound doctrine, but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables” (II Tim. iv :3-4). Inasmuch as we are forewarned that teachers would arise who would turn away from the truth, may it not be that those very men were the ones who rejected single immersion? I will quote a few testimonies further from the Apostle Paul, going to show that they were to expect an apostasy from the truth shortly after his death. First let me refer you to what he says to the

10 Thessalonians: “Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto Him, that ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means, for that day shall not come except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition” (II. Thess. ii :1-3). Here we have a prediction that there would be a falling away from the truth and, it is said, “The mystery

Pg 316 of iniquity doth already work; only he who now letteth will let until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that wicked he revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming” (II. Thess. ii 7:-8). So that at the very time that the apostle was writing, the “mystery of iniquity” was already working, producing this apostasy from the, truth ; and therefore to go back to the first or fifteenth century to prove trine-immersion from history may prove nothing but the truth of the apostle’s statement, that the mystery of iniquity would work, causing a departure from the truth and a turning to fables. The same apostle says to the Corinthians: “But what I do, that I will do, that I may cut off occasion from them which desire occasion that wherein they glory they may be found even as we. For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ” (II. Cor. xi: 12.13). Right there at that time there were false apostles, transforming themselves into disciples of Christ. Hence if we find that history records the practice of these false apostles it will not prove that trine-immersion was the true apostolic custom. Further, “This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me” (II. Tim. I : 15). Even then you see how men were turned away from the apostle. having commenced, the mystery of iniquity would go on until there would be a falling away from the truth, and until, as Daniel predicted, the saints of the Most High would he worn out and the man of sin manifested in the earth (Dan. vii: 25). So then when we go back in history to the first and second centuries and find the Apostolic Fathers contradicting each other, and the majority of them teaching trine-immersion, may we not conclude that they taught one of these false doctrines? I am not saying that this was the ease, but I am showing that if it be a fact that the majority did practice trine-immersion in the first century, it doe not prove it to be the proper mode, but only proves that it was the popular method, which would justify the conclusion that it belonged to the “broad way which leads to destruction” and that single immersion belonged to the “narrow way which alone leads to life.” So far as history goes we can prove both methods, because some practiced one, and others the other, and in almost every case where you find trine-immersion spoken of you will find also single immersion alluded to, and the persecuted and the few who are called “heretics” practiced single immersion. Where history speaks it shows trine-immersion practiced by the majority and single immersion by the minority, which is evidence against trine-immersion, because we are assured that a falling away would wear out the saints, and that men were to wander from the right way. So far then as the historical phase is concerned we may dismiss it.

Pg 317

Coming now to the meaning of the Greek word baptizo, if it is true, as it is claimed, that it is a frequentative verb, if you cannot perform the act without repeating. if that he a philological fact, then of course the question is settled. If, whenever it occurs, the word’ has in it, intrinsically, repeated action, just as in the word walk or swim, then we cannot baptize by one act ; it must he repeated. But you will still have this difficulty in the case : When you use the verb walk you have repeated action, it contains the thought of repeated action ; but it does not tell you how many times repetition takes place. So then, taking this word baptizo to mean repetition, you cannot tell how many times to repeat. If it means to dip more than once the question is, how many times? for surely it will not be claimed that the verb repeats and also counts how many times it repeats. Where are you going for information as to how many times the act must be performed? Now the reasons given by the “ Fathers “ for trine-immersion are not worthy

10 of consideration. One says it must be practiced because the Saviour was three days and three nights in the grave, making baptism represent the number of days Christ was in the grave, which is too absurd for a moment’s consideration. But we will find presently that trine-immersion is based upon ‘false doctrine. When they have decided that the act must he repeated a number of times, they then say three times. But why three times? Because there are three Gods. But when they give this answer you know they have departed from the truth and have turned unto fables, for the apostle tells us, “ There be gods many and lords many, but to us there is but one God, the Father “ (I. Cor. viii : 6). So if immersion is practiced three times because there are three Gods then you are doing it for a reason derived from a heathen and not a scriptural source, for the Scriptures teach one God and not three. Butt, further, in relation to this supposed frequentative verb. Let us find out its use, or its meaning in the Scriptures. I will invite you now to a few cases where we have this verb, to show that it is not a frequentative verb, but that it can be fully performed without three acts or a hundred acts-—-- simply by one act. Let me call your attention to the text, “All our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea” (I. Cor. x : m, 2). Now here we have the word baptizo. What does the word mean here ? If the children of Israel could be baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea by one act, then of course we can conclude that men can be baptized into Jesus Christ by one act, and it is no more necessary that we should repeat the act by being baptized three times than that the children of Israel should be baptized three times in the cloud amid in the sea. This rep. resents their being baptized into Moses whereby they became one nation. Moses represents God to the nation, amid in this sense they were baptized

Pg 318 into His name. How was that performed? By passing through the depths of the Red Sea, under the cloud. Thus they were enveloped or immersed. Is any one foolish enough to believe that the children of Israel passed through the sea, and then returned and passed through again, and returned and passed through again? No man is foolish enough to believe that, and to base such a theory upon the word baptizo on that supposition would be absurd. Again, “Ye shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days hence” (Acts i: 5). Here we have a reference to the baptism of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost. Were they baptized three times? Not a word about their being baptized again and again, three times, in order to carry out the idea of the frequentative meaning of the verb. One immersion was all that was required to baptize them with the Holy Spirit. Now if this was true of the baptism of the Spirit, may it not be true of the baptism of water? But I will call your attention to another instance, that of Naaman, who was commanded to go and wash or dip (Greek baptizo) seven times in Jordan (II. Kings v: 10—14). What are we to understand by this? Are We to understand that when he had to immerse seven times that each of the seven times was frequentative in order to carry out the idea of the verb meaning repeated action? When he was baptized or dipped once, what had he done? If to be baptized once means repeated action, three times, then you would in Naaman’s case have three times seven, Or twenty-one, times. That would be the meaning of the command, “Go and dip seven times.” But our friends in their anxiety to prove trine-immersion have, as it were, stumbled over themselves; because they have based too much upon this frequentative meaning of the verb, that is, repeated action. When they Come to the commission the Saviour gave to the apostles they forget the stress which they have thrown upon the verb. “Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and baptizing them in the name of the Son, and baptizing them in the name of the Holy Spirit” (Matt. xxviii : 19) is the way our friends say we must read this, for they say we must supply the ellipsis. Then when they baptized in the name of the Father, what did they do? According to the frequentative idea they repeated the act three times; because each time the word baptize is used it means intrinsically repeated acts. Hence to baptize in the name of the Father means three dips; and three dips in the name of the Son, and you must repeat again in the name of the Holy Spirit, and so you have nine times instead of three. Hence we see they put stress upon one point and forget its destruction of the other. So far as the

10 foundation of the theory of the frequentative verb is concerned, it has none whatever, and we may conclude it is as the apostle says, “ One Lord, one faith, one

Pg 319 baptism.” Baptism into Christ can be performed in one act, just as well as the children of Israel could be baptized in the cloud and in the sea by passing through once, and the apostles could be baptized with the Holy Spirit by being once enveloped or overwhelmed by the Spirit. No room is left for the idea of trine- immersion. But the best way to understand the commission given by the Saviour to the apostles is to examine how the apostles baptized; how they did their work, and into whom did they baptize? There is a mistaken idea as to the commission that the Saviour gave. The common idea is that the apostles were sent out to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, as a man might be sent out in the name of a certain firm. That is a mistake. It is true they went out in the name; but that is not the idea in the commission. It is not that “ You go out to baptize in the authority of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit,” but that, “You go out baptizing them into the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.” I might say that a man went out working in the name of a firm, hut the idea in the commission is not this.’ It would be something like this : If a man were sent out to induct another man or to initiate him into the firm’s name, to constitute him a member of the firm, that would be the idea. Hence you see the apostles were sent out to initiate men and women into the name—-to induct them into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, that they may become part and parcel of the one body. This commission does not convey the idea of a man simply going out by authority to do certain things. It is claimed now that a man before he can preach must receive authority from another man, assuming that one man has authority to confer upon another. Where does the first man get this authority? Apostolic succession is based upon the theory that the commission teaches that the apostles were to go out in the name of the Father, the claim being that those who should follow after the apostles must have the same authority. There is no such idea as this, but it is, Go out, baptizing them into the name. Keeping this thought before our minds we can see clearly that we must not entertain the idea that there must be three acts, to show authority from three persons or Gods. I was talking not long ago with a gentleman of the Dunkard church, who claimed that we must be baptized three times because we must honor the Son as we honor the Father, and that we must honor the Holy Spirit as we honor the Father and the Son. This presents the thought that we must honor three persons. If we are to be baptized into three persons, we should honor one as we honor the other. But let us suppose that a man is sent out to represent a firm composed of three persons. Each man has a name to himself and they have a firm pg 320 name. They are on an equal footing and have an equal capital. When a man goes out to represent the firm he must honor each alike; but who would suppose that when be signs a document he would have to sign the name of each one separately? Do you suppose that one of the members of the firm would feel Insulted unless each name appeared in the signature? Though no personal name might appear, the firm name would be used, which would include each one. Supposing, for the sake of the argument, that there are three persons in the work of salvation, and that the apostles go out representing them, would it be necessary to baptize in each separate name in order not to honor one more than another? But supposing it is understood that to baptize in the name of the Father is to go out in the name or authority of the Father, then whatever one would say, or do in his work as a minister he would do in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. I will suppose that one who claims the doctrine of trine immersion to be right because he must honor the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit alike goes to a certain city to preach what he believes to be the gospel. Does he not go in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit? he says that is where he gets his authority from. But when

10 he says, I will preach this sermon in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, will he preach every sermon three times? According to his theory, if he preaches a sermon in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the holy Spirit, he will have to go over it three times. First, in the name of the Father, to honor Him; second, in the name of the Son, to honor him; and third, in the name of the Holy Spirit. But in this he is not so foolish as he is in his construction of the commission in relation to baptism. If a man can go and preach a sermon in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and only preach it once, then he can go and baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and need not baptize three times in order to do it. The best way to come to a knowledge of what the Saviour meant is to find out what the apostles did in pursuance of the command given to them. Certainly if they were commanded to dip three times they would do so; but this was not their practice. I will call your attention to the testimony showing what they did. In the first place, to the first letter to the Corinthians. Here we shall be able to prove it in a negative way, which is quite forcible. “Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were ye baptized in the name ~ Paul?’ (I. Cor. i: 13). Here you have proof of one baptism. If Paul had had the thought of trine immersion In his mind one baptism would have meant three dips, to represent three persons; then the possibility of their having been baptized in the name of

Pg 321

Paul would have been an absurd question for him to ask. The Apostle Paul says: “Know ye not, that as many of us were baptized into Christ were baptized into his death?” (Rom. vi: 3). Here we have a clue to the whole subject. Christ only died once. Baptism is intended to represent death. Consequently as many of us as were baptized into Christ were baptized into his death. I will just turn aside from this for a moment and call your attention to what our Saviour says on the subject. “ But I have a baptism to be baptized with? and how am I straitened till it be accomplished” (Luke xii: 50). What baptism was it that He had to be baptized with? It was his death, and therefore the apostle says that as many of us have been baptized into Christ have been baptized into His death. He calls His death a baptism that he must be baptized with—His death and burial. Now, the apostle speaking of Christ’s death, says: “He died unto sin once. So then here is Christ’s death represented by Baptism, and he was baptized once representing his death. You know Christ said when He came to be baptized of John: “Thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness.” “What righteousness did the Saviour fulfill by His baptism? He calls it all righteousness. Did He do everything literally in the act of baptism? Certainly not. What does righteousness mean? Why, God’s requirements. Did Christ fulfill all of God’s requirements by baptism? In one sense, yes ; in another sense, no. Literally speaking he did not, but representatively he did. You will remember that Daniel, in speaking of the Messiah, says: “Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity and to bring in everlasting righteousness” (Dan. ix : 24). The righteousness represents His purpose and the means by which He will accomplish that purpose. So Christ came to fulfill all righteousness pertaining to the purpose of God, but how did lie do it in the baptism of Jordan? In the baptism he performed a symbolic act whereby he representatively brought in everlasting righteousness. Hence the baptism of Christ you will see was representative of his death. Now he died once, he was buried once and rose once. A oneness is seen here, and hence you have no room for the thought of trifle immersion any more than you have for the thought of Christ dying and being buried three times and being raised three times. In the baptism of Christ by John you have the representation of “all righteousness,” which He fulfilled in suffering, even the death of the cross—the crowning act which brought in the righteousness of the age. Analogous to this we are baptized into his death and become clothed with His righteousness as with a garment; we enter into the name of the Lord as into the “strong tower into which the righteous enter and are safe.” But further in relation to the apostles’ method of baptism: “When they

10 Pg 323 heard this they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, Repent and he baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts ii: 37, 38). Now their practice is what we are searching for. ‘We are searching for the meaning of the commission which our Saviour gave his apostles. We hear Him telling them to go and baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and we want to see how the apostles did that, and in what way they baptized them into the name of the Lord Jesus and how they baptized into his death. We see then there is only one name in the text quoted, the name of the Lord Jesus; there is only one death, the death of the Lord Jesus. Again we read : “And he commanded them to he baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days” (Acts x 48). He commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord, and of course he was carrying out his commission faithfully. The Saviour had said, “Go and baptize them into the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and so the apostles went and commanded them to he baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. To be baptized, then, according to the apostolic custom into the name of the Lord was to be baptized into the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We read in the second chapter of the Acts, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts ii: 38). He does not repeat here, Repent and he baptized into the name of the Father, and then be immersed in the name of the Son, and then again in the name of the Holy Spirit. This would throw the whole system of truth out of balance. To claim three acts in the ease is to claim three names, three distinct persons, the trinity or a triune God, instead of the one God of Israel of which Moses says, “Hear, 0 Israel the Lord our God is one Lord” (Deut. vi: 4). “ There is one God.” “ To us there is but one God.” This is further affirmed by the Saviour when He says, “ This is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou Last sent” (John xvii : 3). In the Scriptures there is only one God, and therefore there is no foundation for a trinity, and hence there are not three persons, three gods or three names. Now, we are told in the fourth chapter of the Acts, “ This is the stone which was set at naught of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved” (Acts iv: ii, 12). Here we have testimony which proves that there is only one saving name, and there is no other given under heaven whereby we must he saved. And now, then, if we can find what that name is—but we have already -found it; because in baptizing into the name, we find them baptizing into the name of Jesus

pg 323

Christ; and, therefore, when they were baptized into the Lord Jesus Christ they were baptized into the one name. Now, then, when we look at one being baptized into the one name, by that one act which is in harmony with the apostle when he says there is “One Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all” (Eph. iv: 6), we see the one baptism into the one name. But here in the river we see the trine immersionist baptizing a candidate, and he dips him in the water once. We step forward and we ask him, “What have you done now ?“ “I have baptized him into the name of the Father.” “Then you have baptized him into the one name, have you ?“ “Oh, yes; but there are two more.” “But do you not know that -the Scriptures say there is one name and only one ?“ “I cannot help that. If we have three Gods I must honor them all alike.” And he baptizes a second time, and you ask, “ What have you done now ?“ “I have baptized him into the name of the Son.” “And you have another ? “ “Yes.” And so he baptizes him a third time, in spite of the fact that the Scriptures hold up before him that there is one name and only one whereby men can be saved. hence you see there is a flat contradiction of the positive testimony of holy Writ. But let us examine further. “ I am the way, the truth and the life ; no man cometh unto the Father but by me” (John xiv: 6). There is only one way and I am that way. Now we come back to the trine immer-

10 sionist who is baptizing a candidate in the river, and we see him performing the act of baptism, and we ask, “What are you doing ? “ “I have baptized him in the name of the Father but not yet in the name of the Son.” “Do you not know that the Saviour says, No man cometh unto the Father but by the Son ?‘ If you have three, should you not baptize him into the Son first, because no man cometh unto the Father but by the Son ?“ You see the only way to get to the Father is through the Son, for we are assured that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself. If then God is in Christ and we are baptized into Christ, do we not meet God there, as it were, and become reconciled in Christ ? And having been baptized into Christ we are in the one body, with God for our Father and Christ for our brother. As there is only one name, one baptism is all that is required to induct us into the one name. “ Believest thou not that I am in the Father and the Father in me ? The words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself, but the Father that dwelleth in me he doeth the works” (John xiv:10). Therefore when you are baptized into Christ you are in the one name, for the Father is manifested in Christ through the Spirit. “ But, without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness; God was manifest in the flesh” (I. Tim. iii: 16). When we are baptized into Christ we are baptized into the one who was a manifestation of God—God manifest in the flesh. “Have I been so

Pg 324 long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip ? lie that hath seen me bath seen the Father” (John xiv. 9). Yet he says, ‘ No man bath seen God at any time ; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him” (John i : 18). No man hath seen Him personally at any time. When baptized into Christ we become reconciled to God in Christ in the one and only saving name. Jesus says, “ I and my Father are one “ (John x : 33). “ For it hath pleased the Father that in him should all fullness dwell “ (Col. i : ‘9). “ For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily “ (Col. ii : 9). Christ is called Immanuel, God with us. In Isaiah you read, “ Behold, a virgin shall conceive and hear a Son and shall call his name Immanuel “ (Isa. vii : 14). ‘‘ For unto us a child is horn, unto us a Son is given ; and the government shall he upon his shoulder. his flame shall he called Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace “ (isa. ix : 6). Christ was to come in the Father’s name, you will notice, and when he thus came he was called Immanuel, which, interpreted, means, God with us. Here, then, we have God in Christ, and He is the fullness of the Godhead, and consequently He is the one and only one name, and as many as have been baptized into that name have put on Christ. “The name of the Lord,” says the wise man, “is a strong tower : the righteous runneth into it and is safe” (Prov. xviii : io). When we are baptized into Christ we enter into the strong tower and are safe, and this strong tower is represented as the ark of safety. Taking for instance the ark of Noah, Peter assures us that that was a type of Christ. Now we do not suppose that Noah went in and came out, went in again and came out, and again, three times. When we are baptized into Christ we enter into the ark of safety. “ The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us “ (I. Pet. iii : 21). how doth it save us ? Because when we are baptized into Christ we are in the ark of safety. We have entered the strong tower, the one name that has been given among men whereby we may be saved, and there is no other. To hold the idea that there must be trine immersion is to ignore the oneness of the truth ; to teach a triune God and to ignore the God of Israel. Coming back to the three acts: “ Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt. xxviii: 19), we have found out now that from the trine immersionist point of view to baptize in the name of the Father means inducting into a separate person having a separate name from the name of the Son and Holy Spirit. They ought to be able to give us the name of the Father; they ought to be able to pronounce it. They cannot do that because Father is not the name. It does not say we are to be immersed three times. It does not say baptize them into three names, but

Pg 325

10 into the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. What name is that God was in Christ. How was He in Christ ? Through or by the Spirit; the Spirit dwelling in Him without measure ; hence he became the fullness of the Godhead bodily. Hence you have God the Father in His Son Jesus Christ by means of the Holy Spirit. So then you have the focalization of God by His Spirit in Christ. he is the one, then, the representative of God who hears the name of Yahweh, who is the strong tower into which the righteous run and are safe. When you are baptized into Jesus Christ you are baptized into the only name, Immanuel, God manifest in the flesh. When you view the matter in this light there is no room for trine immersion in the oneness of God, of Christ, of the truth in its beauty and harmony. to entertain the idea of trine immersion is simply to hold fast to the teaching of paganism _of more gods than one——and to come under the condemnation of the apostle who says, “ For there be gods man and lords many, but to us there is but one God “-I. Cor. viii : 5, 6. The Saviour says, “ This is life eternal, that they might know thee, the on/y’ true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent “--John xvii : 3. Life eternal depends upon a recognition of this truth. What truth “ This is life eternal, to know thee, the only true God.” Then there is only one true God “ and Jesus Christ,” showing that God is one and Jesus Christ is His Son —not God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost. That, of course, is in the creeds but not in the Bible. You read of God the Father, it is true ; God, the Father, is the true God. If there is another he is not the true one ; for there is only one true God. It is Jesus Christ who is speaking of the true God, “To know thee, the on/y true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” Christ was limited in power and wisdom and knowledge. He says: “ I can of mine own self do nothing “— John v: 30. He was not very God, eternal and coequal with the Father, but deriving His power from the Father and dependent upon him. In addition to this He says that He derives His knowledge from the Father, for upon one occasion lie confesses that there was one thing which He did not know, which could not be affirmed of God, who knows all things. “But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father”—Mark xiii: 32. He had power imparted to Him by the Father. he was God manifested in the flesh, the representative of God among men, constituting Him the one name whereby we may be saved. By baptism into Christ we become part of the one body, looking forward to the time when we shall be fitted for an habitation of God through the Spirit. Pg 326 blank Pg 327

FEET WASHING NOT A RELIGIOUS ORDINANCE.

THE subject we are to consider to-night is suggested by the one which we considered last Friday night, because, generally speaking, those who believe in trine immersion also believe in feet washing as a religious ordinance. Of course, if it is our duty to observe this as a religious ceremony, we ought to know it, and we ought to submit to the precepts of Christ, whatever they may be. There is no reason why we should be above it; there is no reason why we should consider it too humiliating; there is no reason in the world why we should refuse to submit to it if we find it according to the teaching of the New Testament to be incumbent upon us. Those who come to a knowledge of the truth and obey the truth have to sacrifice a great deal more than would be expected or required of them in submitting to a ceremony of feet washing. They have to submit to humiliation to a much greater extent than would be required in performing this ceremony ; hence there is no reason why it should not be submitted to if it is found to he required by the precepts of Christ. But here the question is presented to us: Is it required according to Christ’s commandments ? Some will say it is safer to observe it even if it is not given as a direct command. But this is not the truth, because there is such a thing as being righteous overmuch.

10 God is not well pleased with those who invent new doctrines or new practices—who will do things which He has not commanded them to do—because, to do those things ceremonially which God has not commanded us to do is to say by implication that God has omitted some things that He ought to have given us plain and explicit commands on; that we have discovered that we should observe this notwithstanding the fact that God has not made it clear to us as to whether we should or not. We should be satisfied to do what God requires. He knows what is best for us, and accordingly He has commanded us to do what is best; and we cannot improve upon it by change, addition or subtraction. Coming, then, to the question of feet washing, let us examine, first of all, the claims upon which it is based by those who defend it. Of course you will understand that we are not objecting to the washing of feet; but what we are objecting to is its observance as a religious ordinance or a

Pg 328 religious ceremony. Now the claim that is made by those who practice feet washing as a public ceremony is, first of all, that the Saviour instituted a supper that is to he partaken of by his disciples at certain times that it was a full meal ; that the supper that the Saviour partook of, of which an account is given in the chapter we have read (Matt. Xxvi), was not the paschal supper, but a special supper of his appointment-—a full meal that it was the duty of His disciples to partake of at a given time annually. here, then, we are presented with a special institution involving our meeting together at given seasons to eat a full meal as a matter of ceremony or religious ordinance. Again it is claimed that when this super was instituted, at the same time and the same place the partaking of bread and wine was also instituted ; when the Saviour said, “Take, eat, this is my body ; “ and when he took the cup, saying, “ This is the new covenant in my blood,” then it is claimed that at the same time the washing of feet took place-— that our Saviour there and then washed His disciples’ feet. If this be true—if it be the case that the feet washing took place at the time the institution of breaking Of bread was given by the Saviour—then, of course, there would be some reason for the claim of those who hold the theory that feet washing is a public religious ordinance. They say : “You believe the Saviour instituted the breaking of bread; you believe that He performed that on the night of his betrayal. Now, then, if at the same time and the same place He performed the act of washing his disciples’ feet, why do you not accept it also as a religious institution to be observed as a public ceremony ? “ This would appear reasonable, but then it is a conclusion that is based upon false premises, and we must examine the premises, and not rush to conclusions without premises that are well established. Now that the supper they ate of on the night of the betrayal was not a special supper of our Lord’s, but the paschal or the passover, we will show first, and hence remove the false impression that exists in the minds of a great many that this supper or full meal must be partaken of as a religious ordinance under the delusion that it was an appointment of the Lord for the church. You will notice that in the chapter we have read the Saviour is speaking to his disciples and they are questioning Him in relation to the passover. “ Now the first day of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover .~ “—Matt. xxvi: 17. It is not, Where wilt thou that we prepare to eat the special supper that thou shalt institute ? but it is, Where wilt thou that we prepare to eat the passover ? a ceremony that had been observed by the Jewish nation from the time of their departure from Egypt down to the present. The time of the passover had come. It is sometimes called the feast Pg 329 of unleavened bread, and sometimes it is called the passover; of course referring to the Jewish national and religious institution. Their question is answered, “Go into the city to such a man and say unto him, The master saith, My time is at hand; I will keep the passover at thy house with my disciples “—Matt. xxvi: :8. The Saviour says positively, ~I will keep the passover at thy house with my disciples.” Now our friends, the Dunkards, claim that the Saviour did not eat the passover. If he did not then he made a mistake when he declared so positively that he would do so. He sent his disciples to tell this man that he would eat the passover, and yet, according to Dunkards, he failed to do it. Are our friends willing to

10 believe that the Saviour did not know, and that he risked the truth or the falsity in relation to the question when he made this declaration? It would hardly do for them to take such a position as this. The Saviour knew whether he would have the opportunity to eat the passover or not, and with that knowledge he declares that he would. So later on he says: “Go into the city to such a man, and say unto him, The master saith, My time is at hand; I will keep the passover at thy house with my disciples. And the disciples did as Jesus had appointed them “— Matt. xxvi: :8, :9. “And they made ready the passover.” It is not that they made reedy for a supper separate and distinct from the passover, but it is that they made ready the passover. “Now when the even was come, he sat down with the twelve, and as they did eat “— eat what? The passover, of course, that had been prepared according to the appointment -he said, “Verily I say unto you that one of you shall betray me “..._Matt. xxvi: 21. 1 call your attention to the twenty- second chapter of Luke, where there is a record of the same occurrence “Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh which is called the passover. * • • Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed. And he sent Peter and John, saying, Go and prepare us the passover, that we may eat” (Luke xxii: :, ‘, 8. There can be no question about what passover or what supper this is. “And they said unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare ~ And he said unto them, Behold, when ye are entered into the city, there shall a man meet you bearing a pitcher of water; follow him into the house where he entereth in. • • • And they went in and found as he had said unto them, and they made ready the passover. And when the hour was come, he sat down and the twelve apostles with him. And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer” (Luke xxii: p.-:5). He said He desired to do this. Now who will say He did not do it, in the face of the fact that he said, “I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God”— Luke xxil: :6). This certainly is sufficient to prove that it was the pass- pg 330 over that our Saviour ate of in that upper room in Jerusalem, and not a special supper of His own appointment. Now we shall next call your attention to the proof that they were not allowed to eat a full meal or supper in satisfaction of their appetite when they met to observe the institution of breaking of bread. If you will turn to what the Apostle Paul says to the Corinthians you will see: “When ye come together, therefore, into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper; “ that is to say, in the way you are doing it. What is it, then ? “For in eating everyone taketh before other his own supper,” or a full meal to satisfy his own appetite, and not the Lord’s supper, which is not intended to satisfy the natural body but the new man in Christ Jesus. To eat of a full meal is to satisfy your natural wants. This is not what the Lord’s supper is intended for. It is intended to satisfy the wants of the spiritual man in memorializing the death of Christ and pointing forward to His return, a mental feast upon the things that relate to our salvation. Therefore he says, When ye come together it is to satisfy your own bodies instead of eating the Lord’s supper. “One taketh before other his own supper,” or, in other words, “you are filled to the full,” which is the idea in the original, or the partaking of a full meal. What necessity is there to institute a supper for you to come together to gratify the natural desires or the natural wants ? No necessity for that. That can be attended to in your natural affairs, and it is not necessary for the Lord to institute a full meal. “What ? Have ye not houses to eat and to drink in ? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not?” some of you bringing in your luxuries and so shaming those who have not, comparing one table with another. “You despise the church of God and shame them that have not,” those who are not able o do as the rich among you. “ What shall I say to you ? Shall I praise you in this ? I praise you not. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat, this is my body, which is broken for you; this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord’s death till he come “—I. Cor. xi: 23—26. This is the supper that you are expected to meet together to partake of, which represents a spiritual feast and not a supper of your own

10 for the satisfaction of the natural man. Hence you see there is no such supper, and no such supper could have been instituted, and no feet washing could have taken place at that time.

Pg 331

The passover having been eaten of on the night of the betrayal then the bread and the cup are taken and presented to them. The passover is laid aside as a ceremony that pertains to the Mosaic system of things, and Christ having become “our passover that is sacrificed for us” we keep the feast, not with the old “leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth” (I. Cor. v: 9). Instead of the passover of the law we are now come into that system of which Christ is the passover. We are commanded to partake of the bread and the wine representing him as our passover, to look to his death and to his coming again. We see also there is not a word by Paul concerning feet washing, and as to a special supper at which feet .washing is supposed to take place, it is condemned. Hence the idea falls to the ground that a special supper was instituted. If therefore feet washing is claimed as a religious institution appointed at the same time, that too falls to the ground. There never was such a supper; therefore there never was such a time when feet washing was given as a religious ordinance. We come now to the question as to when and where feet washing did take place. Turning to the thirteenth chapter of the Gospel by John we read: “Now before the feast of the passover.” You see that we have found that the passover took place at Jerusalem, and that the Saviour ate of it, and that at that time he instituted the breaking of bread. Now it is said, “Before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end. And supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, to betray him” (John xiii: I, 2). Now here is a supper that is ended before the feast of the passover, and it was at this time that it was put into the heart of Judas to betray his Master; and it is at this supper that he washes his disciples’ feet. When is it ? “ Before the feast of the passover.” Therefore before the institution of the breaking of bread, and, as we shall presently see, not only before, at a different time, but also at a different place, for the passover was at Jerusalem. The breaking of bread was instituted at Jerusalem in an upper room where the disciples prepared to eat the passover with him. But we shall see that the feet washing was before the passover and at a different place and consequently at a different time. Now let us see where it was. “Then Jesus six days before the passover came to Bethany, where Lazarus was which had been dead, whom he raised from the dead. There they made him a supper (John xii: i, z). A supper, not any particular supper, not the paschal supper or the feast of the passover. He came to Pg 332

Bethany six days before the passover and there they made him a supper. When we go from the twelfth chapter to the thirteenth we again take up the thread : “ Supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, to betray him.” “ Supper being ended “ must relate to the supper that he had been speaking of previously. You go back through the details of the twelfth chapter until you come where it is said it occurred and you find it was at Bethany and not at Jerusalem, and that it was a family and friendly slipper and not a religious institution or ceremony. Now I will read from the three Gospels an account of the supper. The twenty-sixth chapter of Matthew reads, “Now when Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper, there came unto him a woman having an alabaster box of very precious ointment’’ (Matt. xxvi : 6,7). This is the same house, no doubt, for it is understood that Lazarus the son of Simon the leper, was the Lazarus who was raised from the dead, and it is understood that it was the house of Mary and Martha, and it was here that the supper was made. Coming to Mark we read, “And being in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at meat there came a woman having an alabaster box of ointment of spikenard very precious” (Mark xiv :3). In John, it is said, “Lazarus was one of them that sat at table with him. Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly” (John xii :2-3). Now what do we find that the three accounts give? In each case we find the Saviour at Bethany ; and we find supper prepared for him in the house of his friends ; and in each case we find a box of ointment of spikenard very precious with which a woman anoints him Now the very fact that this box of ointment was broken and was used where it was broken

10 will show us where the washing of feet took place. Turning to the thirteenth of John let us read again, “Now before the feast of the passover * ~ The devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, to betray him * * * Jesus riseth from supper, and took a towel and girded himself. After that he poured water into a basin, and began to wash his disciples’ feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded” (John xiii :1-5). here you have Jesus performing the feet washing in the house in Bethany before the passover, and here, as we have already seen from the three quotations, you have the alabaster box of precious ointment. We are not in Jerusalem ; we are not partaking of the paschal supper or the passover ; we are not at a supper of his appointment. Let me again call your attention to the peculiarity of the language. Going back to the eleventh chapter of Corinthians : “For in eating every one taketh before another his own supper” and this is not the Lord’s supper you will notice. Going back again to the twelfth chapter of John, “Then Jesus six days before the passover

Pg 333 came to Bethany where Lazarus was which had been sick, whom he raised from the dead. And there they made him,” not he made “a supper.” It was not a supper of his own institution. The very phraseology shows that the historian is here speaking of a supper to satisfy the natural man, as in the language of the Apostle Paul where he speaks of their own supper, using the term in contradistinction to the Lord’s supper. This supper at Bethany was not a supper that the Lord instituted. It might have been special so far as his friends were concerned. They made a supper for him, and they were, no doubt, glad to be with him and to listen to his words before his crucifixion. But the supper was an ordinary meal and had nothing whatever to do with the Lord’s supper. Upon the very occasion and at the very place when and where the ointment, according to the three historians, is poured upon him, then and there he washes his disciples’ feet; and that it was at Bethany and not at Jerusalem at the Lord’s supper, the breaking of bread. Why then should we conclude that because the Saviour when with his disciples partaking of an ordinary meal washed their feet, feet-washing must be considered a religious ceremony? As soon as we see that this feet washing did not take place at the time of the institution of the breaking of bread, but at an ordinary house under ordinary circumstances partaking of an ordinary meal you will see that the feet washing itself was only a custom of the time, the only extraordinary thing being that the Lord Himself performed it instead of the servants. There is a difficulty with a great many in this : It is said that Judas went out to betray his Master on the night of the paschal supper in the upper room at Jerusalem; and that it is at the time that Judas betrays his Master the feet washing takes place, and therefore the feet washing must have taken place at the eating of the passover. Now there are two occasions on which the wicked work of Judas is spoken of, and we must discriminate between them. I will call your attention to the difference between the two accounts. “When Jesus had thus said, he was troubled in spirit, and testified, and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me. Then the disciples looked at one another, doubtful of whom he spake. Now there was leaning on Jesus’ bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved. Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, that he should ask who it should be of whom he spake. He then lying on Jesus breast saith unto him, Lord, who is it? Jesus answered: He it is to whom I shall give a sop when I have dipped it. And when he had dipped the sop he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon. And after the sop satan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly” (John xiv :21-27). Here the man is identified. Not, however, that they understand who it is, for it is evident that they

Pg 334 did not hear the answer that the Saviour gave; but he is pointed out however, showing that the Saviour knows at this time who will betray him, that Judas was the man. Now I want to show that this occurrence cannot be at Jerusalem. It cannot be on the occasion of, the passover that we have read about; for it is said, “Now no man at the table knew for what intent he spake this unto him” (John xiii :28); and when Jesus said to Judas, “What thou doest, do quickly,” none of them knew what he meant by it, for

10 they thought “Because Judas had the bag, that Jesus had said unto him, Buy those things that we have need of against the feast; or that he should give something to the poor” (John xiii :29). If they had been in the tipper room at Jerusalem eating of the feast they would not have been buying things preparatory to the passover or the feast. We see that it was six days before the passover that it entered into the heart of Judas to betray Christ, and Jesus said, “What thou doest, do quickly,” and the disciples, not understanding the import of the words, supposed because Judas carried the money that Jesus was telling him to go and buy things for the feast that was close at hand. So we also see that what caused satan to enter into the heart of Judas to betray his Master was the waste of that very ointment that was poured out at that very house in Bethany. Judas objected to the waste of the ointment, not that he cared for the poor, but because he loved money. Here satan entered into his heart and he goes out and agrees or covenants with the Saviour’s enemies to betray him unto their hands. Having sought and found his opportunity for accomplishing his purpose, several days transpire before the Saviour enters into the upper room at Jerusalem to eat the prepared passover and to establish the breaking of bread. Every arrangement had been made between the supper at Bethany and the passover at Jerusalem for Judas to sell his Master into the hands of his enemies for thirty pieces of silver, and consequently all he had to do was to walk out and tell these men where to find Jesus and take him a prisoner and a captive. But some will say, he gives a sop to Judas to identify him. Yes; but a similar circumstance occurred upon the two occasions, and yet the distinction is sufficient to enable us to discriminate. Let us look carefully at the facts of the two different occasions. In the twenty-sixth chapter of Matthew we have one account: “Now the first day of the feast of unleaven bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover?” (Matt. xxvi :17). We can be sure that this is the passover that we are reading about. We follow them to the upper room where they were eating of the passover that had been prepared. “And they were exceeding sorrowful and began every one of them to say unto him, Lord, is it I? And he answered and said, He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, the same shall betray me” (Matt. xxi :22-23). This pg 335 is how he identified him here a/Jerusalem. But is there any difference between this identification and that which we claim was at Bethany? Yes: “He it is to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it~ John xiii:26). Do you see the difference: “He it is to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it” How is it in the other case? “He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, the same shall betray me.” Why is this? Because at Bethany he gave the sop to him, pointing him out in that way. In the upper room at Jerusalem he dipped his hand with the sop in the dish. But some will ask if the Saviour pointed him out at Bethany why did the disciples ask who it was again at Jerusalem? Because they did not understand his answer at Bethany. You remember Peter beckoned to John to ask Jesus who it was that should betray him. It is evident they did not understand the answer; for if they had they would have understood the words “What thou doest, do quickly.” They would not have mistaken these words and thought he meant that Judas was to go and prepare for the feast. Not having heard the answer then, six days after in Jerusalem they were still in ignorance, and they asked the question again, and he pointed him out in another but similar way. Now we can see that a close observance of these two narratives removes the difficulty. We can see the accounts of the historians perfectly agree with the fact that the supper was partaken of at Bethany before the feast of the passover; there the box of alabaster was broken, and there the feet washing took place. We see then it was not instituted as a religious ceremony because it was entirely apart from such a feast. But we are referred to First Timothy for a proof that feet washing is a religious ordinance. Let us examine that testimony for a moment. “Let not a widow be taken into the number under three score years old, having been the wife of one man, well reported of for good works; if she have brought up children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints’ feet, if she have relieved the afflicted, if she have diligently followed every good work” (I Tim., v: 9,10). Now here are certain conditions. ‘Who, however, would suppose that feet washing was here referred to as a public ceremony? The same reason would call for all these things as public ceremonies. Hence then the lodging of strangers would have to be a public ceremony; the relieving of the afflicted, the diligently following every good work, and so on. Why then is feet washing referred to? Because it is that which belongs to hospitality. I will call your attention to a text that will explain it. “And when she was baptized and her

10 household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there, and she constrained us” (Acts xvi: 15). There is an act of hospitality. The ancient custom was for the host to perform the act of feet washing for the guests, but in the time of

Pg 336 - 340 blank

Pg 341

THE DIVINE SONSHIP OF JESUS A Lecture by Thos, Williams

Delivered in the Masonic Temple, Chicago, in Answer to the Question

“Jesus Christ Whose Son Is He?”

AND IN REFUTATION OF

The claim that Jesus Was of Human Paternity.

The Divine Sonship of Jesus

A LECTURE BY THOMAS. WILLIAMS

DELIVERED IN THE MASONIC TEMPLE CHICAGO.

IN ANSWER TO THE QUESTION,

10 JESUS CHRIST—WHOSE SON IS HE?

— BRETHREN AND FRIENDS: The subject we are to consider this morning is one of great importance to us all. The truthful answer to the question, “Jesus Christ, whose Son is He?” is the fundamental principle of the true gospel; and therefore our eternal life depends upon a hearty unquestioned, and unquestionable belief of the truth, and a stern, unflinching, and uncompromising rejection of any and every theory that either inferentially nullifies it, or flatly opposes it. We are living in times when the world is secularized. Sacred subjects are carelessly, not to say recklessly, tampered with by vulgar hands, and the minds of some seem capable of changing upon momentous matters as easily as if it were the mere toss up of a penny. It is right and proper that we use our reasoning powers upon sacred subjects—indeed, God, Himself appeals to US to this end when He says, “Come let us reason together, though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow.” While it is our duty and privilege to reason upon the wonderful revelation God has been good enough to give us, there are times and subjects concerning which we should remember the words, “Take off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground.” The subject under consideration demands the careful, reverential attitude which these

Pg 344 words imply. Therefore let not foolishness rush where wisdom scarcely dares to’ tread.

WHY SUCH A QUESTION?

The humble, honest reader of the Scriptures will wonder why such a question is asked. “Jesus Christ, whose Son is He? is a question that is answered so clearly, so emphatically, so literally, and so abundantly that there is no need to wonder why humble, honest readers wonder why it is asked. Unacquainted with the subtlety and presumption of “higher critics” and their influence over deceived followers, the honest hearted Bible reader will point to the first chapters of the Gospel by Matthew and the Gospel by Luke, and ask, why is the question asked,” Whose Son is Jesus, the Christ?” when such words as the following are recorded in these books: “Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: when his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. Now this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us”(Matt. i: :8— 23). “And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city in Galilee, named Nazareth, to a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. And the angel came in unto her, and said, hail, thou that art highly favored, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. . . . And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary, for thou hat found favor with God. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name J ESUS.” . . . . then said Mary unto the angel, how shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, ‘the Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the highest shall overshadow thee: therefore that holy thing that shall be. born of thee shall be called the Son of God” (Luke ! : 36—-35). To the unsophisticated mind this is enough, the question is answered. But there are some who do not like what Matthew and Luke say, and they imagine they can see the hand of apostate Papal Rome in the words quoted. This imagination—for imagination it is, and that of a very wild nature—this imagination is the outgrowth of the present skeptical wave that is sweeping over a secularized world; a skepticism that is trying to get rid of miracles, and laboring to reduce everything to its own sphere—the

10 natural— to the denial of the spiritual or supernatural. What folly! What is this natural world but a miracle? What could produce this wonderful natural world

Pg 345 but a supernatural Power, a Power possessed of a wisdom equal to the production and arranging, and adjusting, and balancing of the vast and mighty universe, in which “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth his handiwork.” When one gets rid of miracles and the supernatural, he casts the Bible down from the throne of reason, and becomes “the fool that hath said in his heart, there is no God.”

But is there any evidence in these chapters that Papal Rome has meddled with them Papal Rome is the outgrowth of the true Christianity established by Jesus and his apostles, as a counterfeit is of the genuine coin. At first, Christianity was too small, and to that vanity which is characteristic of Papal Rome, it was too insignificant to be imitated. Even when Paul wrote to the Thessalonians Papal Rome had riot passed the embryotic stage. When the Gospels were made known to the public, writers began to quote from them, some regarding them as of Divine authority ; others as of human origin, and therefore false in their claims. While these books were before the eyes of the public writers of those early times, it was impossible for men to change them, or to add to them without being noticed. During the first centuries of the Christian era, the New Testament was quoted from to the extent that Dr. Hales says he could have reproduced all the hooks from quotations, had the New Testament been destroyed ; and he had collected every word of the New Testament, except seven, from the early writers known as the “Apostolic Fathers.” Among these quotations were the records of Matthew and Luke on the Divine begettal of Jesus. Justin Martyr was born in the beginning of the second century. His “Apology” was written A. D. 139. He quotes from the Gospel by Luke: “The power of God coming upon the virgin, overshadowed her, and at that time an angel coming to the virgin herself, brought joyful tidings to her”—__Apol. i : 54. “As also you can learn from the census that took place under Cyrenius your first procurator in Judea (Luke 2 : 2)— Apol. I :55. “Therefore moved by fear, he did not put her away.’ Ireneaus was born about the year A. D. 120. he was a disciple of Polycarp. he says “Luke also the follower and disciple of the apostles, referring to Zachariah and Elizabeth, of whom, according to the promise of God, John was born, says, They were both righteous before God” (Luke t : 6). Julius Africanus wrote about the end of the second century on the genealogies of Matthew and Luke, which is evidence that these Gospels existed then, and contained what they contain now. ‘Whatever modern critics may claim to he imperfections in Matthew and Luke, it will not remove the fact that such “imperfections” were not regarded as imperfections by those who lived and wrote at pgt346 the early time when men could better judge as to the correctness of what was written in the Gospels. BIBLE EVIDENCE THROUGHOUT.

The question of the Divine Sonship of Testis does not depend upon the records of Matthew and Luke. An intelligent reading of the entire Bible will see it set forth in “sundry times and divers man- tiers.” It is set forth in the very first promise, in Gen. 3: 15—Yes, even before this, it is revealed, to those who can see below the surface. Luke’s genealogy finishes with the words, “which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God” (Luke 3~ 38.). Now Adam was the son of God by miraculous creation, and he was a type of Christ, while Eve was a type of the Church, the “Lamb’s wife9’. Here we have a “son of God” by miracle, with his bride created from him while he had been caused to pass into a “deep sleep”. So in Jesus we have a Son of God by miracle, from whom, by reason of his having passed

10 into a “deep sleep,” His bride is formed. Thus the Divine sonship of Jesus is seen typically in the Divine sonship of Adam. But let us return to Gen. 3 : i5 : “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed: it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.” Is it not clear that the bruising of the heel, which was not to be permanently fatal, referred to the crucifixion of Christ by the “generation of vipers,” or serpent’s seed, who demanded and procured the death of Christ upon the cross? Is it not also clear that the bruising of the serpent’s head means the destruction of sin, first in the personal work of Jesus, and finally in the destruction of the “last enemy,” death? ‘ The grand and far- reaching truths concealed and yet revealed in this first promise identifies the “seed of the woman” with Jesus; and, mark you, he is the “seed of the woman”, a phrase which a mere physiologist will ridicule as absurd, and therefore a peculiar phrase, one of many in the Bible which by the mere natural mind cannot he “discerned, ‘as Paul says; but which to the spiritual mind, aided by the general teachings of the Bible, is fraught with a meaning that involves the foundation of the great plan of salvation. It is evident that Eve was caused by revelation to expect a redeemer from the Lord—the Yahweh, for at the birth of Cain this expectation caused her to exclaim, “I have gotten a man from the Lord,” or, more correctly, “I have gotten a man, the Yahweh.” The fact that she was mistaken in her application of the promise does not deprive the promise of its meaning, nor remove it from its proper application to the promised Yahweh. The special Divine origin of Yahweh is brought out more fully in the words which issued from the burning bush—”I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of

Pg 347

Jacob” (Ex. 3: 6). He who thus spoke explained to Moses that He would he manifested in One who should be “for a generation of the race ;“ and the promise of this redemption is to be seen in verse 14, which should read, “I will be who I will be.” “This is my name (Yahweh) for the Olam, and this is my memorial for a generation of the race” (verse. 15). I would like to ask, Is there any one here who would apply such heavenly, sublime language as this to a mere son of Joseph? Who that has spiritual eyes cannot see that God Himself so identifies Himself with the promised Redeemer as to represent the Redeemer as His name, and as the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob in manifestation, a manifestation and such an identity of the Father with the Son as enabled the Son to say, “He that bath seen me hath seen the Father” (John I4~ 9); such an identification as inspired the words, “Great is the mystery of godliness,. God was manifested in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles believed on in the world, received up into glory” (i Tim.3: 16). Just imagine, ‘brethren and sisters, a mere son of Joseph saying, “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father,” let any reasonable man try it and see if his conscience will allow him to read, “Great is the mystery of godliness, God was manifested in a natural son of Joseph, justified in the spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory”_ all this of a mere son of Joseph? Perish such a carnal thought. The sublime and the ridiculous will not mix, It is not necessary for me to impress upon your minds the fact that our salvation depends upon a belief in the covenants of promise. These covenants are Abrahamic and Davidic. In the Abrahamic covenant, the promised seed is typified by Isaac, and he was a child of promise, produced by miraculous interposition—not, of course, to the extent that He was who was the antitype; for the lesser in the type represents the greater in the antitype. In the covenant made with David the Divine Sonship ol Jesus is still more clearly revealed. It is not needful for me to dwell upon the question of the descent of Christ according to the flesh; on that there is no dispute at present. This aspect of the question is clearly brought out in both covenants. In this one with David, the words are, “I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels” (2 Sam. 7 : 12). But I think we can safely emphasize the words, ‘1 will set up,” and the meaning of these words in this connection is rendered clear in the 14th verse—”I will be his father, and he shall be my son.” Those who contend for the human paternity of Jesus reduce the Sonship of Christ to an adopted Sonship equal to and no higher than the Sonship of Moses, David, and Paul, a Sonship which all in Christ—in a mere son of Joseph ?—Oh dear! I a sonship which all in Christ can rightfully claim, if there was no other son- pg 348

10 ship meant in this covenant with David, why was the matter mentioned? David could have reasoned with himself, ‘-What is there in this promise worthy to be incorporated in this covenant, which is all my salvation, and all my desire. There have been many sons of God, and I am one of them. Why does God emphasize in this covenant, “I will he his father, and he shall he my son”? But David knew better than to talk thus. He knew that the sonship here was of such a character as entitled his son according to the flesh to be called “his Lord,” saying, “The Lord said unto my Lord,” etc. And, by the way, did not Jesus prove his Divine Sonship by quoting David’s words to the cavillers of His time who were mere Josephites, and whom he silenced by asking them to explain how David could call a me a descendant—a son of Joseph —Lord. Fancy a mere son of Joseph the subject of the words, “The Lord said unto my Lord, sit thou at my right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool.” This promised Son, to whom God would he a father was of higher rank, by reason of being of higher parentage, than any son of God had ever been, or ever would he by adoption. In fact the sonship by adoption is predicated upon the Divine sonship of Christ by supernatural begettal. With the divinity of this sonship in his mind, David exclaimed, “My flesh shall rest in hope. For thou wilt not leave my soul in sheol, neither wilt thou suffer Thine holy one to see corruption ;“ and from the fulness of his inmost soul he could give sublime utterance to his bright and shining hope in his last words: “He shall he as the light of the morning without clouds ; as the tender grass springing out of the earth by clear shining after rain.” And to this end God “bath made with me an everlasting covenant, ordered in all things and sure; for this is all my salvation and all my desire” (2 Sam. 23 : 4, 5) how grand ! How beautiful is such language as this, when applied to One who is the “Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending”; to Him of whom the God of heaven declared, “This is my beloved Son iii whom I am well pleased : hear ye him ;“ but how repulsively unbefitting is it of a mere man! For where is the rational mind that cannot see in the transcendent beauty and sublimity of such language a description of One who could say of Himself, “That all men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father” (John 5~ 23). What would you think of a mere son of Joseph who would say that all men should honor him even as they honor God—that’s Rome for you; for only Josephites and popes ever hail the audacity to claim that any mere man should be honored as the Great God of heaven is honored ; and had not Jesus well known that He was begotten by the Father through the Holy Spirit and was sent to “be about His Father’s business,” he would never have had the boldness to say “That all men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father.” It was this truth that was in the “word that was in David’s tongue,” which caused him to pg 349 declare that his promised son according to the flesh would he his Lord; and it is the peculiarity and singularity of David’s utterance that Jesus used to silence Joshephites and prove His claims to be the Son of God by begettal it is a principle evinced in the Scriptures, that the lesser represents the greater. This is true in regard to symbolic times and iii types and antitypes. The Apostle Paul says that the entire Mosaic economy consisted of types, and these were written for our admonition. The kingdom of Israel was not established simply for Israel and to make history. It was prophetic as well as historic, and the prophetic aspect is by far the greater and the more important. The kingdom itself was small, in its typical aspect, compared with what it will be in the antitypical fulfillment; and every constituent part of it was smaller than its antitype—even the territory will be vastly more extensive when the kingdom of Israel is restored. In the type, a mere natural begotten mortal man would serve the purpose of king on the throne of Israel; and one who could prove his royal descent according to the flesh could by that alone establish his right to the throne. But for the establishment of the right to the antitypical and final kingdom, a two-fold right must exist and be proved, since there is a two-fold aspect to the kingdom. If the right to David’s throne depended upon inheritance, why should not the right to God’s throne depend upon inheritance?

10 The throne of Israel is the throne of David, but what about “the throne of the Lord over Israel?” David says, “God hath chosen Solomon my son to sit upon the throne of the kingdom of the Lord over Israel” (I Chron. 28: 5). If the antitype must be greater and more complete than the type, ought not the One chosen, of whom David and Solomon were types, to be Son of God to inherit the right to “the throne of the Lord,” as well as to he son of David in order to inherit the right to the throne of David? The fitness of things seems to me to require this, anti the words “hath. by inheritance obtained a name above every other name” sustains this thought. That you may not think this idea farfetched, let me call your attention to Ezra 2 : 61-63, where certain men by alien marriage forfeited their right to the priesthood. Of them it is said that because they could not produce their genealogy they “were as polluted, put from the priesthood. And the Tirshatha said unto them, that they should not eat of the most holy things, till there stood up a priest with Urim and with Thummim.” Urim amid Thimmmim mean fulness and light. Now Jesus was “the light of the world,” and “in him dwelt the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” It was useless for Israel to look for another, since Jesus only would be able to produce the full credentials. Now let us apply to the kingship this principle, and why should not the same be true or the one office that is essential in the other? On this principle you will see that as

Pg 350

soon as the throne of Israel was over turned in the days of Zedekiah, to “be no more until he come whose right it is” (Ezek. 21 : 25~27). Israel was left without a rightful heir to the throne. Her kings had been “put aside as polluted,” and from that time till Jesus appeared, they could not find a man who could produce the credentials—the twofold right to that throne which was the Lord’s and David’s; and when they rejected the God-given One, God’s only begotten Son, they were left without a single one who would be eligible to restore the throne and reign over the nation. There they still remain in ignorance of the Divine Sonship of their king, and there they will remain, waiting for a mere son of David, or a son of Joseph, and depending upon an arm of flesh—there, I say, will they remain till God shall “make bare His holy arm in the eyes of all the nations, when all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God” (Isa. 5.2 : 10). Take the question of title into court, if you like. Let the Jews, upon their rejection of Jesus produce their man, and let him he cross examined. “What is the ground of your claim to the throne of Israel? My claim is based upon the fact that I am a descendant of David. That is all very well so far; but upon what basis do you claim the right to the throne of the Lord as well as to the throne of David?” He stands speechless, and is “put away polluted.” Let Jesus enter and stand before the court, and His credentials meet all demands—-He is the antitypical “fulness,’’ and the “Light”—the Urim and the Thummim, the “body prepared” to fit itself to be a “priest upon his throne,” when, for the first time, “the counsel of peace shall be between them both”— between the kingship and the priesthood, in modern language, “church and state,” and this, brethren and friends, mere humanity never could have attained to, and man would have been for ever lost, the priesthood a failure and the kingship a nullity had not God begotten his only begotten Son by which to impart the right to be “A priest after the order, of Melchizadec,” and a king with a right Divine to the throne of the kingdom of the Lord over Israel. This truth had been clearly set forth in Jacob’s prophecy of what would befall his sons. I cannot leave this part of the subject without calling you attention to this, in Gen. 49: 22-24. This prophecy of Jacob says, “Joseph is a fruitful bough, even a fruitful bough by a well ; whose branches run over the wall : the archers have sorely grieved him, and shot at him, and hated him but his bow abode in strength, and the hands of his arms were made strong by the hands of the mighty God of Jacob (from thence is the shepherd the stone of Israel) : even by the God of thy father, who shall help thee; and by the Almighty,

10 who shall bless thee with the blessings of heaven above, blessings of the deep that lieth under, blessings of the breasts

Pg 351 and of the womb,” etc. Notice the words, “From thence is the shepherd, the stone of Israel.” From whence? Not from Joseph, for the shepherd of Israel, the stone of Israel. did not descend from Joseph. He was of the royal tribe of Judah so far as fleshly descent was concerned. From whence, then, was He to come? The only answer the text will allow to he given is, that “From thence, from the mighty God of Jacob, the shepherd and stone of Israel” was to come; and through Him the God of their father was to help Israel, and bless Israel, yes, with “blessings of the breasts and of the womb” from her to whom the angel said, “Thou art highly favored, blessed art thou among women” (Luke 1: 28). Now do not let sophistry deceive you by the plea that of John it is said, “There was a man sent from God whose Dame was John,” in an attempt to show that the words “from thence” mean nothing more for Him whose shoes John confessed he was not worthy to unloose than they mean for John. If “from thence” means no more for the Shepherd of Israel than that He was appointed by God as all prophets were, why this special and impressive prophecy of Jacob’s, concerning the Shepherd? The fact is, all such special, heavenly language of Scripture is nullified by the Josephitc theory, and of its advocates it is true as it was of the Pharisees that “by your tradition you make the word of God of none effect.’ That which the Psalmist says of certain men—that “none of them can redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him”—is true of every mere son of Adam; for flesh cannot rise above its level. Man having fallen, it was God’s purpose to show him that he was helpless to redeem himself. The law of Moses was given to restrain sin to a degree, but it was also designed to show man ‘that God’s righteous demands as a condition of redemption were “a yoke that the Jews were not able to hear,” and therefore redemption was impossible, unless God Himself interposed and “laid help upon one that was mighty” (Psa. 89: 19). He did this by “creating a new thing in the earth,” in fulfillment of His promise to helpless Israel: “A woman shall compass a man” (Jer. 31 22) ; and this “new thing” is described in Isa. 7: 14—”Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign. Behold, a virgin shall conceive and shall bear a son, and shall call his name—a son of Joseph? Is that it? Would that be “a sign”? Would that be “a woman compassing a man”? What was to be the name of this sign-son that was to be’ born of a virgin? Listen to it, and then say whether it fitted a mere natural son of Joseph: “Thou shalt call his name Immanuel.’ Let quibblers quibble, if they will, in their fruitless efforts to avoid the divinity there is in this promise, the “sign” there is in it, the “new thing” there is in it, the inspired, genuine, unimpeached and unimpeachable words of Matthew’s Gospel shall and will settle the question of its inspired meaning and appli- Pg 352 cation. Here it is, yes, here it is iii a book whose genuineness, authenticity and inspiration cannot be set aside ; yes, here it is in a part of that book which cannot by history, doctrine or all the craft of so-called “higher criticism” be proven false; here it is, the New Testament explaining the Old Testament; here it is: “Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us” (Matt. I : 22, 23). Talk to a Christadelphian about cutting out two or three chapters from the New Testament, to suit a human invented theory that degrades into the depths of dust the most heavenly and sublime doctrine of the Scriptures, and those of them who have not become bewildered will ask you what is the matter with you, and do you intend so offer them

10 an insult. You cannot throw out the first chapters of Matthew and Luke without incurring the judgments of those awful words of Rev. 22 : 19 : “And if any man take from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life.” Does any one say this applies only to the book of Revelation? Then we ask, Why? Is it not because that book is God’s inspired book? Study the history of these books and you will find that where the book of Revelation has been questioned, Matthew and Luke have never, except by infidels, and they deny all the books:

JESUS GOD’S SON BY BEGETTAL.

The human paternity theorists try to evade the many passages which declare Jesus to be the Son of God, by asserting that He was made Son of God by resurrection. Quite recently I asked one to give me proof that Jesus was made Son of God by resurrection from the dead, and he innocently quoted—or rather misquoted, from Rom. 1 3, 4 : “And was made the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by a resurrection from the dead.” Jesus had always claimed to he the Son of God, yes, the ‘only begotten Son,” and the final and irrefutable proof that He was what He claimed to be, and what His enemies denied, was declared by the fact of His resurrection. Therefore the passage reads : “Concerning his son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; and declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by a resurrection from the dead.” The Greek word horizo Mr. Young says means to mark out, and this is the only place in the New Testament where it is rendered “declared”. By the greatest miracle of all, the resurrection of Christ, He was “marked out” as being what He had claimed to he, the only begotten Son of God. Wise men did not come from the east to worship a mere son of a mortal man. Mary’s inspired words are not to be degraded to an

Pg 353 application to a mere son of Joseph—_”For He that is mighty bath done to me great things; and holy is his name, and his mercy is on them that fear him from generation to generation. He hath showed strength with his arm ; he hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts. He hath put down the mighty from their seats, and exalted them of low degree. He bath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away. He hath holpen his servant Israel in remembrance of his mercy, as he spake to our fathers, to Abraham and to his seed for ever.” Here is Immanuel—”God with us,” for the fulfillment of all his promises. The human paternity advocates claim that the Divine Sonship of Jesus was sonship in the sense that all of God’s people are sons of God, as expressed by John, “Now are we the sons of God ;“ and they claim that this was the only sonship attributable to Jesus before his resurrection. Then by immortalization He became the Son of God miraculously. Yes, miraculously, the very thing that they seek to evade by denying the Divine begettal. Can you, brethren, understand how men can limit the Sonship of Jesus before His resurrection to an equality with our sonship to God, in view of the many Scripture statements that are unquestionable? Is not our sonship by adoption based upon a sonship more real and literal, one that “by inheritance (Heb. I : 4) obtained a name above every other name, that at the name of”— a mere son of Joseph every knee should bow. Is that it? Fancy things in the heavens and things in the earth (Phil. 2 : 2) -—-all things—bowing to a mere natural son of Joseph! A mere son of a mortal man like ourselves, and yet he is to be head over us all and over all things in the new heavens and the new earth!! Did you ever hear of a more degrading doctrine? “By inheritance Jesus obtained a name above every

10 other name,” and recognizing the Divine sonship in this, Paul exclaims, “Though he were a son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered” (Heb. 5 8). If His sonship was the same as ours, what force is there in these words? We might-answer Paul that instead of our sonship exempting us from suffering, it requires it as a matter of course; and if the sonship of Jesus was of no higher character, why should it be hinted that His was a sonship that one might think exempted Him from suffering? But if the Sonship of Jesus was Divine, Paul’s words are forcible and in harmony with the fact that “Though He was rich, he became poor” ( II Cor. 8: 9) ; and though being in the form of God (formed by God), yet He thought it not a thing to he grasped, equality with God (Phil. 2 : 5). In all such incidental expressions as these, the Divine sonship of Jesus is abundantly evidenced throughout the Scriptures—indeed, no one can intelligently read the Scriptures with the Josephite theory in his mind, and this, no doubt, was the cause of Unitarianism rejecting

Pg 354 the full inspiration of the Scriptures and reducing it to an equality with the so-called inspiration of Shakespeare. Modern new departures make a good start—or rather a bad one—in the same direction, when they, without any other reason than their own likes and dislikes throw out the first chapters of Matthew and Luke and even go so far as to call them “old wives fables.” The last verse we have quoted has no meaning if Jesus was not in a special sense “in the form of God,” such a form as would, in a sense, entitle Him to claim that which He, in His humility would not claim —”equality with God.” As the Common Version reads, the thought presented is, that because “He was in the form of, God,” He, on that basis, claimed equality with God. Brethren, you whose minds have been deceived, suppose you accept the Authorized Version, what would you think of a natural son of Joseph claiming equality with God on the ground that He was “in the form of God”? He would no more be in the form of God” than we are, and then Paul’s reasoning would be made of none effect, for all could make the same claim if the ground of the claim is applicable to all men. But the Revised and other versions have given, no doubt, the true meaning of the text, namely, that though He was “in the form of God,” yet He did not claim equality with God. But here, brethren and friends, you must see that the words “being in the form of God” must have a meaning that could apply to Jesus only and not to His disciples; and since His humility deterred Him, He did not assume to claim that which the apostle hints he could have claimed. Now tell me what can the words “in the form of God” mean, except that God formed Him by the power of His Holy Spirit? My dear brethren and friends, if you want your whole souls to rise up in revolt, read the following passages with the thought in your minds that they refer to a mere natural son of Joseph I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, make straight the way of the Lord. _John i: 23. He that cometh after me is above all.—he that cometh from heaven is above all.— John I : 30, 31. There cometh one after me, whose shoes of his feet I am not worthy to loose, Acts 13: 25; Mark I : 7. The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God [a mere son of Joseph !]that taketh away the sin of the world—Luke 3: 29. And lo, a voice from heaven, saying’, This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased—Matt. 3~ 17. Jesus answered and said unto them. Though I bear record of myself, my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go John 5:14. Jesus answered them, I told you, -and ye believed not the works

10 Pg 355 that I do in my Father’s name, they bear witness of me Jno. 10: 25.

Jesus heard that they had cast him out, and when he had found him, he said unto him: Dost thou believe on the Son of God?— John 9: 35.

The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God—.Mark i : i.

This is my beloved Son: hear him—Mark 9:7. {not, This is one of my beloved sons].

Therefore also that holy thing that shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God—Luke I : 35.

My Father worketh hitherto and I work—John 5:17.

Then said they unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye neither know me, nor my Father; if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also-_ John 5: 18. They knew Joseph, and they also knew that God’s people by adoption, in the spiritual sense, are sons of God and God is their Father. What relationship of sonship and Fatherhood does our Lord refer to, then, in this case, that they did not know? What else was it, hut the Fatherhood that Jesus Claimed, and that they denied? They would not deny that God was His Father in the sense that God is the Father of all who believe and obey the truth. The Fatherhood and sonship which they denied was the Fatherhood and sonship which Jesus claimed, and which caused them to say that His claim amounted to making Himself equal with God, and that was the Fatherhood which Jesus bore testimony of when He was only twelve years of age, when He said to His putative father and His mother, “Wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business? ‘—Luke 2 : 49. The advocates of the Josephite theory do not seem able to think about a virgin conceiving, and God begetting without associating the subject with vulgar thoughts, and many of them use words concerning this question that are too vulgar to he repeated in a public lecture. Imbued with such thoughts. they resort to the evil practices of lawyers when they have a had case. If the testimony of a witness is dam- aging to their cause, they sometimes compass sea and land to impeach the witness This is chiefly the work of Josephites, to impeach Matthew and Luke. They have become far better acquainted with the facts and dates of two thousand years ago than were those who lived at that time. Oh, yes, they can tell you when Herod died and when Cyrenius was governor of Syria, etc, etc, and one would think, when you see them put on airs, that they could give you a full account of what the great men ate for breakfast, dinner and supper. It never seems to enter into their minds that intelligent men living contemporaneously with those mentioned and with the events recorded had better means of knowing the facts than have men living two thousand years afterwards. Do you think that a clever, educated Roman

Pg 356.

Catholic engaged in fraudulently altering sacred scriptures would have been stupid! enough to blunder on the question as to who was governor the time he was writing about, even right before the watchful eyes of Matthew and Luke--- yes Luke, the physician—and hundreds of literary men who kept up with the times? If that supposed Roman Catholic did make the blunders claimed as to when Herod died!,

10 when the babe was taken to and brought from Egypt, whether or not wise men did come from the east to Jerusalem, and as to when Cyrenius was Governor of Syria—if I say, he did! make such blunders, is-it not strange that he was so well educated as to be able even to write his own name, to say nothing about imitating manuscripts and adding lengthy chapters and verses here and there in books kept jealously and sacredly by men who would give their lives for the books? Of course you will not expect me to enter into the historical details of this question in this lecture, for time will not allow. But it is enough at present for me to remind you of this “miracle” these men are willing to accept in order to get rid of a real miracle. Surely it is a case of straining out a gnat and swallowing a whole herd of camels. If what Matthew and Luke wrote was false as to facts that were before the public eyes, such as the Governor-ship of Cyrenius, the school children would have laughed!, and ridicule Would! have come there and then from the pens of the many writers who quoted the books. Since they did not see any thing wrong, do you think that Josephites two thousand years afterwards are better judges? All the arguments-of Josephites have been exploded a hundred times; but a new crop of youngsters keep coming up time after time, and think they have made wonderful discoveries that will enable them to impeach Gospels held! sacred by the people, in doing which, if they really do it, they impeach the Son of God Himself. Now for a moment let us look at the wisdom of God in the little family arrangement in which Jesus grew up to manhood ; and we shall see in this how God catches the wise in their own craftiness. A legal father was provided to prevent the awkwardness of a mother with a child! with no visible father. The enemies of the Divine Sonship were allowed! to live under a “strong delusion” to prevent their summoning Mary before the court and putting her to death and their view that He was the- Son, of Joseph tied their wicked hands, not only from assaulting an innocent’ woman, but it also silenced their tongues from denying the right of Jesus to David’s throne. Jesus could say to them, “You believe me to be the natural son of Joseph and Mary, do you not? Yes. Then according to your own belief 1 am not an impostor in making my claim. That you cannot discern my higher right by reason of my Divine Sonship is due to the fact that heavenly things must often be hidden from vulgar eyes, and pearls are not to he cast before swine. Therefore,

Pg 357 have it your way, and you cannot prefer a single charge against him you believe to he my natural father, nor against her who is my beloved mother, nor against me—your wicked hands are tied and your prating tongues are silenced.” Thus could Jesus hold down His enemies, while he revealed the truth to good and honest hearts, and could fully spend His three and a half years in fulfilling His mission. Standing as legal father to Jesus, Joseph “was supposed” to be His natural father, but Luke, to trace the descent of Jesus on His mother’s side, keeping to the Jewish custom of giving the males, passed over Mary’s name and gave her father’s name. Hence it was, Joseph, who was the legal or son-in-law of Heli; while Matthew gave Joseph as the natural son of Jacob by saying, “And Jacob begat Joseph.” THE ESSENTIALITY OF THE DOCTRINE.

Now I must call you attention to the essentiality of the question. In 1 John 4:15 we read, “Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God” Notice that this mutual indwelling is predicated upon a confession that Jesus is the Son of God. I wonder if it would not do just as well to confess that Paul is the son of God. What say you? If the sonship of Jesus was nothing more than that of Paul’s why would not a confession of the same sonship in another man do just as well?

10 Perhaps someone is saying, “Jesus is Son of God by resurrection,” Well, Lazurus was raised, will a confession that he was the Son of God do? “0 no, he was not immortalized. It was by immortalization that Jesus was made the Son of God.” Then, we answer, if the virtue of the confession of sonship is in immortalization, since Paul will he immortalized, why will not a confession of Paul’s sonship by immortalization do, since the nature of the sonship is claimed to be precisely’ the same, and the only difference is a question of the time of immortalization? Brethren, nothing will no but the truth. The truth only will make you free this God-dishonoring, mere man theory of salvation in an arm of flesh will shackle and bind you in the bonds of corruption. In 1 John 5:5 we read, “Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that”—Paul is the Son of God. Would that do? Is the power to overcome the world involved in the belief that any man is the son of God, except Jesus? And is not His Sonship, therefore, a sonship that no other person ever had, or will have? “Who is he that overcometh the World, but he that believeth Jesus is the Son of God”—-that’s the arm of the Lord stretched out and mighty to save and to rescue fallen man, whose fall had left him helpless and hopeless. Some resort to the quibble that these texts were written after Jesus was immortalized, and they claim that they do not apply to

Pg 358

Him when He was in the flesh. We have incidentally dealt with this, but to leave no excuse for such a quibble, let me call your attention to Jesus’ own words before His death and resurrection. In John 3: 16 Jesus says: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” Not only does Jesus here declare Himself to be the Son of God, but “the only begotten Son” of God. But, brethren and friends, what do you think some, in the straits to which they are put to evade the words of Jesus, are claiming concerning this verse. Some of you will be surprised, and another big slice will be cut off from your confidence in human nature, and you will be inclined to exclaim, “What’s the use?” Well, we have to face ugly things in these ugly times. Here is the frivolous claim, that Jesus did not utter these words at all; but that John wrote them after Jesus had been immortalized. That is not even cunning, is it? Is it worth answering? Well, lest it frighten children, let us look at it. “We are invited to verse 13, the last clause—”even the Son of man which is in heaven,” and we are told that it means that John wrote these words after Jesus had bodily ascended into heaven, and therefore all that we read after these words, is what John wrote as his own words, and that Jesus Himself never uttered them. So you, as intelligent people, are asked to believe that in the 14 th verse John wrote of a past occurrence, words that Jesus did not utter, saying, “And as Moses lifted tip the serpent in the wilderness, even so”—even so, what? “was the Son of man lifted up”? Is that how it reads? No, no, it reads, “even so must the Son of man he lifted up.” Here are the words of Jesus Himself, and He proceeds to say what we have already quoted, calling Himself the only begotten Son of God. And, by the way, read on, that the importance of the subject may be seen. Verse 18, “But he that believeth not is condemned already,” now note, “because he hath not believed on the name of the only begotten Son of God.” At your leisure please read verses 31 to the end of the chapter. Nathanael did not say to Jesus, “Thou shalt become the Son of God by resurrection.” He knew by the signs that Jesus was the promised One, and that the promised One was the Son of God. Hence, when Jesus told him of having seen him before He saw him with the natural eye, Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God ; thou art the King of Israel” (John 49). Had Josephites been there, they would have rebuked Nathanael, and given him a lecture on prospectives, but what did Jesus do? That’s the important question. “Jesus answered and said unto him,

10 Because I said unto thee, I saw thee under the fig tree, believest thou? he complimented Nathanael on his being convinced that Jesus was the Son of God by evidence that was small compared with the “greater things” he should see hereafter.

Pg 359

There is so much to say upon this subject that I find it difficult to bring my lecture to a close, but I must now conclude by calling your attention to a confession which I wish I could induce mistaken men to make. In Matt. t6: 15-18 the question which. is in substance the title of our lecture is asked and answered, and no room is left for doubt or cavil. You will find it in Matt. 16: 15-l8. Jesus first asks, “Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?” Let a Josephite answer that question. It is only a few days since I heard one refer to the words in this verse, “Son of man”, to prove that Jesus was the son of Joseph. What, I ask again, would be their answer to the question, “Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?” They would answer, “Thou art the son of a man, and that’s all there is about the question, and there is no need of going any further.” They really tell the Saviour’ that He has answered His own question, and that to press the question any further would insinuate that the Son of man was something more than the Son of man, and lead to the Romish theory, as they are fond of terming it, that He was the Son of God as well as the Son of man. Every thing these gentlemen do not like, every thing that conflicts with their mere man theory, they say is Romish, and therefore the first chapters of Matthew and Luke they cast out as “Romish.” Do you think Rome would have written, “And the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of His father David, and he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever, and of his kingdom there shall be no end?” Does that sound “Romish” to you? Well, it is Luke 1: 32, 33. But pardon me, I must return to the question in hand—”Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, some say that thou art John the Baptist: some Elias, etc., and if modern Josephites had been there they would have settled it easily by saying, “Thou art the Son of Joseph, of course,” and they would have been apt to rebuke the Lord for asking a question that everybody could answer before Rome wrote the first parts of Matthew and Luke. Well, He was neither of those they said He was, and He keeps pressing the question until the very point He has in view is reached and the vital truth is confessed—”But whom say ye that I am?” Now it was well known that He was the legal, adopted, putative son, or as we say, stepson, of Joseph, and any mere flesh and blood person, could have answered this question if there was nothing more to answer than that He was the Son of Joseph. Mark you, the question is not, “Whom do you say that I shall be after resurrection and immortalization? ‘ With verses of this kind, Josephites are fond of giving you a lecture on prospectives, “it is prospective, it is prospective”—”any port in a storm.” Now why did Jesus press this question if it was not the vital, the foundation question of the whole plan of salvation—if it was not the

Rock that was and is the foundation of the entire system of truth which constitutes the Gospel? “Whom say ye that I am?”—Yes, that I am?; not “that I shall be after resurrection;” Come now, you whose minds have been led astray, come now, be fair and frank, and answer this question according to the lesson the Saviour gives us here. Here is the answer that answers to Moses, the prophets and the Psalms. Here is the answer that justifies the bold and extraordinary claim that Jesus was constantly making and that blind Pharisees were disputing. Here it is, settled for ever for you and for me and for every broken

10 and contrite spirit that trembles at God’s word. Here it is: “THOU ART THE CHRIST. THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD.”

Was Peter mistaken? Had he become “Romish”? Had “old wives’ fables” hypnotized Peter? Who shall decide? ‘We are in the presence of the Holy One, the Just One, the Yahweh—”Take your shoes from off your feet, for the place where you stand is holy ground.” Listen, He who said, “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father” is going to either endorse or deny Peter’s confession, and here is just the time to nail the counterfeit to the counter if Peter’s answer that Jesus was there and then the Son of the Living God was false. Is there any one here who will drive the nail into this as a counterfeit? Let him that would do so seek companionship with the cruel hands that did drive nails into the hands and feet of Him whose Divine Son-ship they denied and ridiculed. The ignominy of the cross, the cruelty of the Jewish crime, the blasphemy of the noisy mob, the terror of tyrannical Rome, the vengeance of the Ignorant Jews—— none of these could frighten Him from saying. ‘Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee”—who did, and what was revealed? It was revealed to Peter that “Thou art the Christ. the Son of the living God.” Who revealed it. “MY FATHER WHICH IS IN HEAVEN.” And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this (thy confession that I am the Christ the Son of the living God) upon this Rock will I build my church.” Yes, this Rock,

“Rock of Ages cleft for me. Let me hide myself in thee.”

Where are you? Are you on this Rock, or have blasting and blighting winds blown you on to the sin king sands? If so, with God’s help, we throw to you the Life-line. Snatch it, and let us pull you out. Make haste to stand again upon the Rock of Ages, for on that Rock only are we safe from the coming floods and the blinding blizzards, and those who are firmly on that Rock are the only people against whom the gates of hades shall not prevail.

Pgs 361, 362, 363 364 blank

Pg 365

A LECTURE BY THOS. WILLIAMS. REGENERATION

BRETHREN, SISTERS AND FRIENDS: We hear much talk among religious denominations about regeneration, and we find it a subject very much misunderstood. To a large extend this is the result of misconception on the subject of man’s relation to God. “The Fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man” has come to be a popular phrase, and is supposed to express the universal relation subsisting between God and man. The idea it is intended to convey is that the members of the whole human family are the children of God; that He is the Father of all men, regardless of whether regeneration has taken place or not.

10 Of course God is the creator of all men, in the sense that He directly created our first parents and implanted a law of reproduction in their nature to be transmitted generation after generation. In this sense we are “the offspring of God” (Acts xvii: 29) : but this is not in a religious sense— not by regeneration, but by generation, and pertains only to the origin of our being. In the Congress of Religions of the World’s Fair the motto, “Fatherhood of God and Brotherhood of Man,” came into world-wide prominence. The motto at a religious congress was of course intended to represent man’s universal relation to man and all men’s relation to God religiously. In a souvenir of the “World’s Parliament of Religions” was a group of long-robed priests represented as in the act of shaking hands with the chairman of the Parliament. Issuing from near their heads was a flash-light, over which were these words: “Have we not all one Father? Hath not one God created us?”

This motto would be just as appropriate applied to a congress of infidels; for surely if the “fatherhood” is based upon the fact that God “hath created us,” all stand upon an equal footing. The popular view of man’s relation to God is that we are all His children by birth; that when we become sinners we are disobedient children of God; that when what is called conversion takes place it is the repentance of a child and its return to the Father. This is called regeneration. Now the mistake here is in confounding natural generation with spiritual; it is a failure to discriminate between generation and regeneration. OUR RELATION BY NATURE.

By natural generation no one is a child of God in the sense in which the relation of fatherhood and childhood is so frequently spoken of in the

Pg 366

Scriptures. On the contrary, the Apostle Paul says we are “by nature children of wrath” (Eph. ii: 3); in which condition he declares all to be “without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world” (Eph. ii: 12). It is because “we are Gentiles in the flesh” that we are in this hopeless condition and alienated relation. These words are expressive, not of what we become by personal sins committed, but of what we are by birth. It is by natural generation that we are “Gentiles in the flesh,” and unless regeneration takes place we remain in the condition that generation put us and die as “aliens,” “strangers,” “without Christ,” “without hope and without God.”

This is the natural condition of the Adamic race, and the cause of it is found in such testimonies as the following: “Wherefore as by one man sin entered into the world and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.” “The judgment was by one offense to condemnation.” “By one offense judgment came upon all men to condemnation.” “By one man’s disobedience many were made sinners.” “Sin reigned unto death” (Rom. v : 12-21). Man having poisoned himself by sin in the beginning, every generation is “born in sin and shapen in iniquity,” and is made of flesh and blood in the degenerate condition into which it descended in the “fall of man” from that status and “very good” condition in which he was created to the state in which he is now- found, where “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God” (I. Cor. xv 50). Generation, therefore, does not produce children of God ; and regeneration is consequently necessary to develop a class that shall be fit for the kingdom of God.

10 With this view of the matter we are able to understand the distinction between “sons of God and daughters of men” (Gen. vi: 2), between the children of God and the children of the devil.

FIRST THE NATURAL AND AFTERWARDS THE SPIRITUAL.

In God’s plan there are two generations, two creations, two births— “first that which is natural, and afterwards that which is spiritual” (I. Cor. xv : 46). This might he termed creation and recreation, generation and regeneration ; being born and being “born again.” Not only is man to he the subject of this regeneration, but the whole world is to be subjected to its wonderful and glorious transformation. This is progression in the true sense of the term ; a progression which is of God, while man must do his part in it by the help offered him of God. He generates and regenerates. He is the power and wisdom that begins it and finishes it. He is the Alpha and the Omega. In our hands is the Bible, God’s revelation of creation and recreation. We open it and upon its first page we see generation ; on its last page regeneration ; and in all its pages we read of the progressive steps taken in

Pg 367 the development of the latter out of the former. The first book has been wisely called Genesis, because it gives the only true account that can be given of the generation or creation of this terrestrial world. The last book is the Apocalypse, and dramatically reveals the end of God’s great and glorious plan. In the generation we have heavens and earth; in the regeneration we have the new heavens and earth. In the generation we have Adam the first, and in the regeneration we have Adam the second. The first fell, the second rose. The first disobeyed, the second obeyed. The first lost, the second gained. The first cursed all in him, the second will bless all in Him. The first brought dishonor, the second brought honor. The first brought alienation, the second brought reconciliation. The first brought bondage in the grave, the second brought resurrection from the grave. The first brought death, the second brought life. In generation it was Adam who became a sinner first, afterwards they that are his and belong to his sinful generation. In regeneration it was Christ who became righteous first, and it was therefore “Christ the first-fruits, afterwards they that are “Christ’s at His coming” (I. Cor. xv : 23). It is “every man in his own order,” whether we consider man federally or man individually and it is the world he inhabits in its own order too—first generated and afterwards regenerated.

THE-FALL OF MAN AND HIS WORLD.

When man and his world were generated everything was pronounced “very good ;“ and if man had kept himself and his world in that very good state, we might reasonably believe that all would have passed on into a still better state. There would have been no “fall,” no evil, no death. In that event “regeneration” would have been a useless word, expressive of no real fact. Man would have lived on happily and in sweet communion with God. The earth would have yielded her bountiful increase, with no thorns or thistles to grow up and choke its spontaneous production of the useful and the beautiful. Sorrow would have found no place in the hearts of Adam’s offspring; the “very good” would have passed on into the very good— no regeneration would have been necessary. The way of this glorious state was wide open to man ; only the way to evil and all its by-ways and highways was closed, forbidden. Sill, however, opened the closed and forbidden way; man entered and was lost; paradise was lost, a kingdom was lost,

10 communion with God was cut off, life was lost—all was lost and man left an “alien, a stranger without hope and without God in the world.” Man’s house is left unto him desolate, and his children are led away captive by sin to the ends of the earth, to find desolation and death wherever they go. Thus the generation that God had produced “very good” had been marred by sin and was rendered fit only for a temporary existence, and regeneration was indispensable to reach the grand end in view, when glory

Pg 368 4 REGENERATION and honor shall eternally crown the work of Him whose word shall not “return unto Him void, but will accomplish that which he pleases and prosper in the thing whereto he has sent it.”

THE FALL AND THE RISE FEDERAL.

Man was the first to fall, and he was the cause of the fall from the “very good” state generated and produced. Therefore man must be the first to be regenerated, and through him the remedy, regeneration, is to be effected. When it is completed it is the regeneration of a world, as it was a world that was generated and fell. The fall was in and through a federal representative; and the rise is to be in and through a federal representative. “As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive” (I. Cor. Xv :22). “By the offense of one judgment came upon all men (in him) unto condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men (in Him—I. Cor. xv : 22) unto justification of life” (Rom. v : 18). To the first man we are related and suffer the consequences of his sin by generation; to the second man we become related and receive the consequences of His righteousness by regeneration. The generation of man was the formation of a physical being possessed of mental and moral powers; but there was nothing that could be termed mutual in it; it was entirely the work of the Creator. In regeneration, while it must necessarily be of God, the work is mutual. There is a careful maintaining and guarding of the Divine power and majesty, and yet scope is allowed for the work of man’s mental and moral functions; and this brings man’s attitude into relation to merit and demerit. It makes him a responsible creature. The larger part of the human family stand related only to generation— this world or Kosmos; and they are responsible only to such laws and regulations as God sees fit to enforce in the workings of this world. So far as the future is concerned, the regeneration, they are “without hope and without God in the world.” They are “men of the world, which have their portion in this life” (Psa. xvii: ‘4). They have the “honor” of this life, but in relation to the future they are “like the beasts that perish” ( Psa xlix 12, 20). Many of them are “wise and prudent” (I. Cor. 1: 19), but only in matters of the present. Mentally and morally they are all unfit for regeneration, and the things pertaining thereto are therefore hid from them and “revealed unto babes.”

REGENERATION TAKES OUT A PEOPLE FROM THE WORLD.

The work of regeneration is therefore a taking out of a people for God’s name. “Simeon bath declared,” says James, “how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name” (Acts

10 xv: 14). In the process there is first the mental, secondly the moral, and thirdly the physical. In the fallen condition in which man finds himself in the gener

Pg 369 ation state he is not in harmony with God, not in communion, not in atonement. Regeneration is therefore necessary to bring him back into harmony and at last to make him a partaker of the Divine nature (II. Pet. i: 4). In this work there are truths to be believed, and that which is not truth to be rejected; there are right things to be done and wrong things to be left undone; there must be mental and moral harmony with God, who is a God of truth and righteousness. But how are we to know what truths to believe and what acts are right to perform in order that regeneration might result? The answer is, The holy Scriptures and the holy Scriptures only “are able to make us wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus” (II. Tim. iii: 15). “Without faith it is impossible to please God,” says the Apostle Paul in Heb. xi: 6; and the faith of which he is speaking is defined in the first verse as the “substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen.” Things hoped for must necessarily be things promised, and the promises must be found in the Scriptures of truth. Therefore it is said: “Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God”—Rom. x: 17. This shows us that there must be a degree of intelligence in those who become the subjects of regeneration—an intelligence exercised by promises and principles revealed in the Word of God. Indeed regeneration, as we have already seen, is first a matter of mind. Men whose “understanding is darkened” are “alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart” (Eph. iv: 18). In this state of darkness, ignorance and blindness regeneration can never take place. Its first work is to open the eyes of understanding and give light to darkened minds, to “deliver us from the power of darkness” and “make us wise unto salvation.”

THE MODERN METHOD A FARCE.

In the “regeneration” so glibly talked of by religious people generally it is not a matter of instructing and enlightening men. It is a matter of impulse and excitement. It is an instantaneous thing produced by the spur of an expert “evangelist,” aided by the charms of music or fright from a vivid picture of “hell torments.” For this work a plain, matter-of-fact man will not do, be he ever so well informed and able as a teacher. A teacher is not wanted. He is too slow. He is not fiery enough. He can only deal with the mind, and by a process of reason deal with evidence that will change the mind and instruct it what to believe and do. For modern methods of “regeneration” this is eighteen hundred years behind the times. It is not quick enough, not excitable enough; it will not get the crowds necessary to build and maintain fine churches with tall steeples. It will not support fine orators in the pulpits who can sing sermons charming to those who wish to “heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears’

Pg 370 for fine sounds without sense. No, no; this will never effect popular “regeneration.” Send for an expert, advertise and get the people excited about “Boy preacher” so and so, or “Blind” or “Black” so and so-— blind and black in more ways than one in many cases. Hire for a consideration in cash a good choir, good for singing sounds; never mind whether they can sing praises or not. Everybody ready, a large crowd assembled, work up the excitement in the whole house and let it mesmerically and magnetically concentrate upon the feelings of the most excitable; not upon the minds of the intelligent, reasoning

10 element, for they are not moved that way. A, B and C have “come to church” out of curiosity, just to see the doings and hear the singing, and because everybody else was going. They knew nothing about the teachings of the Bible before they entered. The “evangelist” taught them nothing, but he played upon their feelings and excited them. They “felt queer,” and he saw it and took advantage of it to tell them that it was “conversion.” They do not know any better, and give themselves up and into the hands of the church. They are pronounced “regenerated” and go home “feeling good,” but just as ignorant of the “things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts viii: 12) as they were before they went to the “revival meeting.” What a farce

THE NEW MAN, HOW FORMED?

Before generation took place there was no man; to produce man it required formation and life. Before regeneration takes place there is no “new man ;“ to produce one it requires formation and life, or begettal, development and birth. The Apostle Paul says he “travailed in birth until Christ be formed again in you” _Gal. iv: 19. In this formation the apostle is not speaking after the flesh. In writing to the Corinthians he says: “Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh. * * * Therefore if any man be in Christ he is a new creature; old things have passed away, and behold, all things are become new”—lI. Cor. v: 17. This “new creature” is “Christ formed in us;” but what do these words mean? They mean that Christ is an embodiment of the Truth. He is the Truth. His existence was the indispensable necessity of the Truth, and His life was and is a manifestation of it in word and deed and fact. For Christ to be formed in us, therefore, is for our minds to change from that which is not the Truth to that which is. This is repentance, which means a change of mind. The mind must be changed from believing in three gods, co-equal and co-eternal with each other, to a belief that “the Lord our God is one Lord.” It must change from believing that Christ was God, immortal and deathless, to a belief that He was “made in all things like unto his brethren,” and that He died, was buried and was raised again from the dead. It must change from believing that the Holy Spirit is one of three gods to a

Pg 371 belief that it is the Spirit of the One God, the effluence proceeding from Him and medium of His power, which is omnipresent. It must change from believing that there is an immortal, indestructible devil to a belief that through Christ being made flesh and blood He will “destroy him that hath the power of death, that is the devil.” It must change from believing that man is immortal by generation or by nature, to a belief that immortality is only for the regenerated after “seeking for glory, honor and immortality.” It must change from believing that eternal life is the possession of all men to believe that the gift of God is eternal life to the righteous only. It must change from believing that we have “never-dying souls” to a belief that souls are dying and salvation is to save souls from death. It must cease trying to fit immortal souls for the sky and try to be of the “meek” who “shall inherit the earth” (Matt. v: 5). It must stop trying to “sing its title clear to mansions in the sky,” and try and prepare to sing, “Thou hast made us unto our God kings and priests and we shall reign on the earth.” It must cease talking about the kingdom of God in the heart and seek to have an “abundant entrance into the kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.” It must no more believe that Christ is gone to heaven that He might receive us there, and must believe that “to them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.” It must stop the folly of despising the restoration of Israel and Israel’s kingdom and believe that God “hath put it in his own power to restore again the kingdom to Israel.” No longer must it delude itself that we are the children of God by nature, by generation; but it must come to see that to those only who believe

10 and obey the Truth God will give the “power to become the sons of God.” No more must it imagine that there is hope in Adam, but it must see there is “no other name given among men whereby we must be saved but the name of Jesus Christ.” It must change from believing that sprinkling a few drops of water in a baby’s face will make it “a member of Christ, a child of God and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven,” and believe that only upon obedience to the gospel by being “buried with Christ in baptism” and rising to a new life can we become “heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised.” When the mind has undergone these changes a new creature mentally is begotten and formed; and when in baptism the person emerges from the water there is a “washing of water by the word” (Eph. v: 26), and there is a “birth out of water” and a new creature in Christ Jesus is the result. Regeneration has taken place by the “washing of regeneration,” and the “new creature” is “clean through the word,” in a state of reconciliation with God, in the atonement. We have seen that man’s state of alienation and condemnation is the result of sin. All men are born in this state by reason of our first parents having sinned and brought death. “By one man sin entered into the world,

Pg 372 and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned”—Rom. v: 12. When death was pronounced upon Adam it was pronounced upon the Adamic race; for he was the federal head of the race. Therefore when paradise was lost to him it was lost to us. When the way to the tree of life was closed against him it was closed against us. Hence we find the entire race outcasts, under condemnation to suffer sickness sorrow, pain and death. These are the inherited evils that are all men’s portion in this life. This is the sense in which man is lost; and it is therefore to save men out of this state that salvation is by God’s love offered.

HOW JUSTICE AND LOVE WORKED TOGETHER.

In offering salvation, however, God’s love was not allowed to conflict with His attribute of justice. While He was to be justifier He was also to be just (Rom. iii: 26,). Through and in the federal head of the race He had, on account of sin, condemned all to death; and there was no man that could “redeem his brother nor give to God a ransom for Him.” If the sentence that had passed upon the race were allowed to remain all were lost; and yet there was no man able to remove it. Why did not God unconditionally and without a process make one complete sweep and pardon all? We answer, He could not. Could not I some exclaim. No, He could not. God cannot stultify His own attributes. He had decreed that the sin of a federal head should bring death upon all the descendants of that head; and since this decree was by Divine justice it could not be set aside by any means out of harmony with Divine justice. The predicament in which man was found, therefore, required a wonderful combination of love and wisdom, such as God only possessed; and all that man could do was to “stand still and see the salvation of the Lord,” for “salvation belongeth unto the Lord” (Psa. iii: 8). Since Divine justice had decreed that disobedience in a federal head should plunge all in him into the seething sea of death, the same justice could accept obedience in another federal head as a ransom. So that upon this principle as all has gone down into death in the first federal head, all in the second federal head could he redeemed out of death. In other words, “By man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead” (I. Cor. xv: 21). Left to die in the first federal head, death would eternally hold its victims; because by Divine justice the “one offense” (Rom. v: 17, 18) gave death the right to hold all who remained in the state and relation in

10 which generation produced them. Escape therefore could only be by obedience through and in a federal head who could meet the demands that would admit of Divine love co-operating with Divine justice. There was not a man to be found equal to the task of rendering the obedience that would antidote the disobedience of the first federal head; for the obedience must he perfect, else Divine justice could not accept it as a

Pg 373 ransom and still be Divine justice. This necessarily left man helpless,’ “without strength” (Rom. v: 6). What was to be done? 0, say some, you represent God as a tyrant demanding full pay as a ransom. No, no; not as a tyrant, but as a just God demanding what his attributes must of necessity require—right in place of wrong, righteousness in place of unrighteousness, obedience in place of disobedience; for God cannot save men in their sins; and if they were saved they would be worthless. Therefore what God requires is not only in harmony with His attribute of justice, but it is necessary as a means of making those who are saved useful after they are saved; for in the end sinners will be of no use to God. The righteous only “He will preserve; the wicked he will destroy.”

PERFECT OBEDIENCE REQUIRED—CHRIST THE ONLY ONE WHO COULD

MEET THE CASE.

What is needed now is a redeemer; and since man cannot provide one, here is place for the love of God to be manifested—manifested in such a wonderful manner as to show that God can unite love with justice, mercy with truth; be just towards sinners and yet justify sinners. Well might we exclaim: “0 the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God I” To meet the requirements of the case the redeemer must redeem in the most literal, real and practical sense. The first federal head was not only the cause of all in him being lost, but he himself fell experimentally. He was thus the way into death. So the one to redeem must himself be practically and experimentally the way out of the lost and condemned state back to the “well pleasing” state with God. He must be a manifestation of redemption in himself, as Adam was a manifestation of alienation in himself. As Adam in the loss passed under condemnation, so the second Adam in regaining must pass out from under the condemnation. As the first passed into sorrow and pain, so the second must pass out. As the first passed into death and the grave, so the second must pass out. As the first passed out of paradise, so the second must work his way back. And since all in the first Adam passed into condemnation, sorrow, death, the grave and out of paradise, he being the way, the sin and the death, so it is only in the second Adam we can pass out of condemnation, sorrow, pain, death, the grave and into paradise, he being “the way, the truth and the life.” But, brethren, sisters and friends, where does this lead us to? What are the logical sequences of these truths? Here they are:

1—Before Adam could pass into condemnation he must have been free from it; therefore before a second Adam could be the way out from under Adamic condemnation he must be under that condemnation. 2.—Before Adam could pass into sorrow, death and the grave he must have been free from them; therefore before the second Adam could be

10 pg 374 the way out he must be a “man of sorrow,” under the dominion of death and go into the grave. 3.—Before Adam could be cast out of paradise he must have been in paradise; therefore before the second Adam could be the way back from out of paradise into paradise he must have been outside to start with. AN ANGEL OR A MAN OUTSIDE THE RACE COULD NOT BE A REDEEMER.

Therefore the one to redeem must begin where the one that made redemption necessary left off. So an angel will not do for a redeemer, neither will a man in the condition and relation of Adam before he sinned; for it would not be in harmony with Divine justice for either of these to be afflicted with sorrow or death. Therefore the redeemer must be a man,’ yes, a man “made in all points like unto his brethren (Heb. ii: 17), yet a man possessed of a power that no other man ever possessed, and that no man could ever possess by natural means, and therefore a power that could come only from God. Consequently in the initial sense the power to redeem was of God; but in its ultimate manifestation we behold it developed into a life of perfect obedience in a second fedral head whose name is the “only name given among men whereby we must be saved” (Acts iv: 12), and that is the name of Jesus the Christ, the second Adam, the Redeemer. Before Adam sinned he had the moral and mental power in himself to attain to the prize set before him. After he sinned this power had become so weakened and his proclivities to do evil so strengthened that the obedience necessary to redemption was impossible. What was needed therefore was mental and moral help, or rather the power to develop the mental and moral faculties to the extent of being able to perfectly overcome the sin-produced propensities. This was the help rendered to human nature in the begettal of Christ as the Son of God. It was not the purchase price that would ransom from death, such as the theory of “free life” once claimed. It was not a something forced into Christ’s possession like immortal soulists force immortality into the possession of all men with’ out merit. No, no; it was the gift of mental and moral possibilities, latent in the start and their usefulness for the purpose intended dependent upon their exercise and development in a life. Yes, in a LIFE; but not in a life physiologically, but in a life biographically, which when complete was a life of perfect obedience, and that, yes, THAT, my friends, was the offering that went up to heaven as a sweet-smelling savor unto God, accepted for redemption, for ransom, for regeneration. Yet the glory is to God for making such a glorious end possible; and shall there not praise and honor be due to His Son in faithfully perfecting the help laid upon Him?

CHRIST CRUCIFIED ANI) YET WITHOUT SIN—WHY?

In this process in Christ two things must be kept in view—Christ suf’

Pg 375 fering and yet Christ righteous and approved. Christ crucified and yet Christ not crucified. This may appear to be a contradiction of terms, but it is not. It was just for God to require the crucifixion of Christ, else He would not have required it; and yet Christ was without sin, and one without sin ought not to be crucified. God’s justice must be seen here, and yet his love must find place. The explanation of this

10 paradox is found only in a discrimination between the life of Christ physiologically, and His life biographically. Physiologically His life was Adamic—the life and the flesh of the Adamic race, every member of which was condemned in Adam, Christ (considered as a descendant of Adam, as a man and not as a character) included; for if a chain is condemned every link in it must necessarily be condemned. 0, say some, how you dishonor Christ when you say He was under Adamic condemnation and that he needed cleansing and perfecting! Superficially viewed it may appear so; but look here, my well-meaning friend, come with me to the Garden of Gethsemane; look over there at the Son of God bowed in sorrow, bathed in tears, sweating as it were great drops of blood. Come along with me to Cavalry, and I will only ask you to glance at the spectacle of our beloved Saviour; it is really the Christ Himself that is nailed to yonder cruel cross. I will not ask you to go close to the sad scene nor to hear the heart-sickening words. “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” Let us turn back and I will now talk with you about this matter of dishonoring the suffering Christ by saying that He was not perfect and holy by birth, but had to perfect Himself in an imperfect and sin-stricken nature. I confess, my dear friend, that, judging after the manner of men, I am inclined to say as you do, yes, and to go as far as some have who have declared Him immaculate. Thinking of Him as the Son of God only I would naturally, yes, naturally, rush to the belief that He was as pure as Adam was before He sinned; yes, as good as an angel of heaven. But then what about the scene we have just witnessed? Were you to see Adam before he sinned on the cross what would you say? Were you to see an angel crucified, if it were possible, what would your inmost soul exclaim? Would you not declare it ought not to be, it ought not to he? And I would answer you, it ought not to be; and if Christ was as Adam before he sinned, I would say of Him on the cross, “It ought not to be.” Now, then, since He was crucified according to a pre-arranged plan of God, I am bound to say it ought to be; hut how can I intelligently say so? Shall I blindly say so, or shall I accept the Spirit’s offer, “Come and let us reason together?” When we do this, my brethren and sisters and friends, we shall see that Christ considered in His relation to Adam, Adamic condemnation that passed upon all in him and Adamic nature, I say, Christ considered legally’ and physically, typified by pg 376 Moses lifting up the serpent, a symbol of sin; typified by the scarlet of the dividing vail of the tabernacle, typified in many of the Mosaic shadows of sin condemned in the flesh that committed it; when, I say, Christ upon the cross is considered in these relations we can see how, according to God’s plan, it onght to he. But Christ considered in relation to developed character, “holy, harmless and undefiled,” and this side only kept in view, it ought not to have been. Let us keep both sides before us, and all will be as clear as the “great mystery of godliness” can be to our weak and finite capabilities. It was therefore Adamic life that was taken because of sin. It was Christ’s life legally and physiologically, if you will allow me the expression, that was crucified, and that because of His relation to Adam’s sin; and thus God’s justice was manifested in “condemning sin in the flesh.” Biographically Christ’s life was not Adamic; it was of God, heavenly. It never was under condemnation; and as soon as this life as a new mental and moral creature came to the birth in being “born out of water” Heaven’s approving voice declared: “This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased.” When Christ had finished His work in overcoming the evils the first Adam had entailed upon Him He passed out, on and up to redemption. He passed “through the vail—that is to say His flesh,” into glory, honor and immortality, and became federally for all in Him the “way, the truth and the life.” Now in the crucifixion of Christ there was the shedding of blood, without which there is no remission of sins. That God should require the shedding of blood is what causes many to stagger; and this arises from a failure to see the relation of the race to the law of sin and death. The law condemned the whole race in

10 Adam because flesh and blood became unclean in the sight of God through Adam’s sin. By the one sin of Adam flesh-and-blood man passed into a state in which the natural tendency of the flesh was sinful and therefore unfit for eternal living existence. God being holy and flesh-and-blood man being unholy in his natural tendency, the justice and purity of divine law lawfully required the crucifixion of the flesh, the taking of life from it by the shedding of its blood. This was the only way that God’s justice could ever admit of His mercy saving one who descended from Adam. But the shedding of the blood of a mere son of Adam would not admit of redemption. If the one whose blood is shed is a personal sinner as well as a sinner in Adam, neither justice nor mercy can save him ; justice cannot save an actual sinner, and mercy cannot interfere in his behalf without colliding with justice, which would place one attribute of God against another. There must be a situation formed in which justice can be met by the shedding of the blood of one of sin’s flesh and yet the one be saved. No man could form such a situation; only God

Pg 377 could do it, and in doing it He is the saviour and His goodness and mercy are manifested. This is what He did through Christ. Christ being one of the race, so related to Adamic sin that without the shedding of the blood of Adamic flesh, of which He was made, there- was no remission; His blood must be shed in order that God “may be just ;“ and He personally being “holy, harmless and undefiled,” God could also “be the justifier.” In Christ, then, the problem was solved, and regeneration made possible for the sons of a sinful race. Oh! cry some, where is mercy if God required and would accept of nothing without the shedding of blood? Well, suppose we cannot show this horrified inquirer a spark of mercy, the fact that God did require the shedding of blood is a fact. Suppose we hand the matter over to the inquirer and let him settle it, what will he do with the fact that God did require that the blood of Christ be shed? If he never sees mercy in the matter, he must see the blood shed, and he must admit that, according to God’s law, “without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin.” But the trouble with some is that they look for mercy in the wrong place; they look for it where justice and not mercy belongs. Justice finds its proper place in the shedding of the blood of Adamic man, while mercy began its work long before. Mercy began when God sent it down from heaven empowered to beget out of Adamic flesh and blood one possessed of heavenly mental and moral powers equal to the task of producing a holy character in an unholy nature—a new man in an old man, a heavenly man in an earthly man, a regenerated man in a generated man—in short, a man that was worthy of immortality, while the outer man, the mere flesh, deserved to be and was by justice put to death by the shedding of blood. ‘When the blood was shed the justice of God was manifested and satisfied ; but there being a new man in the sense of character, developed as the result of God’s mercy in making it possible and of the faithfulness of Him in whom it was made possible, the problem of salvation is worked out and complete in Christ as our Federal representative. He is therefore our Saviour and no man is his own saviour; for no man has the power to produce a holy character in an unholy nature, and that is the only nature the sons of Adam have. Christ having passed out from tinder the law of sin and death and out of death itself into life, He is “now the Captain of our salvation.

God’s requirement that blood be shed for the remission of sins must not be viewed as a gratification of vengeance, but as a manifestation of God’s abhorrence of sin and the evil state it produces. Death was upon the race of Adam because God’s law was broken by the progenitor of the race, and because that transgression yielded such a mental, moral and physical state as was naturally obnoxious to God and unfit for eternal existence. Like

10 Pg 378 the leper, man was “unclean, unclean”—yes, by inheritance; for the stream partakes of the pollution produced at its head. God seems to have said to man, “you have fallen by sin under the power of death. Death is your doom according to the law of righteousness. But if you’ will acknowledge the wickedness of sin in the way I appoint, and render to me perfect obedience, you shall be redeemed out of death. But I know you cannot render the perfect obedience required, because the sin you inherit has stunted your moral powers. I will therefore be merciful to you in laying help upon One whom I will produce out from among you. He shall be ‘a perfect obedient One and yet shall die ; but His death, instead of being the ordinary death naturally, which would avail nothing, since it would be devoid of merit, shall be a voluntary, sacrificial death, and that shall constitute Him the Head of all who shall become part of the corporate body. Then you shall be required to acknowledge the truth, mercy and justice of all this, and the cause which produced the sinful state, by a death that shall be voluntary on your part, and which shall identify itself with the sacrificial redemptive death of your Redeemer—a~ symbolic death, burial and resurrection.” Now let me ask, Whose righteousness brought salvation to Adam’s race? 0, say some, God’s righteousness. Yes ; of course it was God’s righteousness, but where is Christ? Where is Christ’s righteousness, my brother? ‘Was not Christ’s life a manifestation of God’s righteousness? And if you say that God’s righteousness is imputed to us but that Christ’s is not, do you make out that Christ’s righteousness was not God’s and vice versa? Whose righteousness, we again ask, brought salvation to us? ‘What answer can be given except that it was Christ’s righteousness? Let me repeat to you right here, brethren and sisters and friends, God could not righteously save a single son of Adam unless there was a life of absolute righteousness ;. I could not produce such a life, you could not; no man who was a son of Adam only could. Only one could. Who was that? Christ. Was the righteousness of Christ for Himself and for Himself only? If so, alas I for us. By Flis righteousness He obtained the power and the right to save us; and when we become united to Him in the way appointed, the salvation His righteousness attained to will he ours. Therefore we do not all have to be crucified, as He was. Our blood does not have to be shed, as His was, and yet it is true of us that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin. Whose blood? His. The sentence we are all under is a sentence of death and return to the dust, and die we must and be buried we must. If we wait for literal death and burial it will be too late; for then the power of death and hades will hold us and “prevail against us.” The only way Christ could pass out

Pg 379 from under the condition He was in through Adam’s sin was by dying, being buried and being raised again; and this is the only way we can do it; yet if we wait for real death and burial we shall not pass out. Is this a contradiction? No; we must die and we must be buried if ever we hope to he saved. How? Do not wait till death and the grave get a hold upon you without any other law having a claim, else they will hold you eternally. Die now, be buried now, voluntarily, as Christ did; but not literally, as He did, else every man would die for himself and it, would not he Christ dying for us. If not literally how can we die and be buried? I answer, Symbolically, by being “buried with him, Christ, by baptism unto death; that like’ as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted in the likeness of his death we shall he also in the likeness

10 of his resurrection ; knowing this, that our old man is crucified, with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed; that henceforth we should not serve sin. For he that died is free (margin, justified) from sin.” This is regeneration now in its first stage; and it will be complete when “redemption of the body” takes place. So if you do not want to he an eternal captive in the hands of death and ,hades (which you will if you do not die till you have to), you must voluntarily die and be buried in the way the apostle describes ; then Christ will he to you the “resurrection and the life.” Have you died? Have you been buried and raised? If so, you are in Him who is the resurrection and the life, and death has no claims upon you ; and when the Lord arrives there will be no law of death that can claim your life, for Christ has died for you and you have by a symbolic death passed into His death, died with Him, passed into His resurrection, been raised with Him. But, the question is asked, why do we die after all? We answer, Because the Lord is not here to give us deathless bodies. If He were, you need not die. Whereas if you had not died symbolically you would have to die even if the Lord were here, because you would still be in Adam and not in Christ. If you do die after you have been baptized into Christ you are one of whom it may be said, “Blessed are the dead that die in the Lord.” If you ask in whom could you die except in the Lord, I answer, In Adam; and it makes all the difference in the world whom you die in. Against the sweet words, “Blessed are the dead that die in the Lord.” you may place the words, Cursed are the dead that die in Adam. Make haste, then, and die out of Adam now voluntarily, and be raised to a new life; then a new life will at last be given to you “more abundantly.” But we must keep in mind that redemption from death is not redemption from dying. It was not in Christ’s case; it is redemption out of death—the death state whatever degree that state may have reached, whether it be on the earth, mortal, or in the earth, corrupted.

Pg 380

When the blood of Christ was shed and the law of sin and death removed it was only removed in Him. If we wish to pass out from under that law now we must go to the place, as it were, of freedom, where there is a law of liberty. That place is not in our native home. It is not in Adam. It is in Christ only. So we must change our relation from bondage to liberty ; from alienation to reconciliation ; from mere generation to regeneration. Here we are condemned, there we are not. Here we are without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, without hope and without God in the world.” There, in Christ Jesus, we who” sometimes were far off were made nigh by the blood of Christ” (Eph. ii: 11, 12) ; and we are no longer “strangers and foreigners, but fellow- citizens of the saints and of the household of God” (verse 19). We must now “Stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free” (Gal. v: I). Being free, “There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus ;“ and if you do not walk “after the flesh but after the spirit” you will never come under condemnation. “The law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made us free from the law of sin and death” Rom viii:1,2). Now, “having been born again,” we are free-horn citizens, and where is the man who will say we are under condemnation? Let him wait the judgment of this “born again,” regenerated family, and then and there condemnation will find those who, having been reconciled to God by the blood of Christ, have “crucified to themselves the Son of God afresh.” God forbid that such condemnation should find any of us. Now that regeneration has turned aliens into citizens, may we ask the question, When did our alienation begin? Will any mall say that it began when we committed our first personal act of sin? If so then we were not aliens before; and if not aliens what were we? Citizens? If so, then generation can make citizens of the commonwealth of Israel as well as regeneration. Where shall we trace our alienation to?

10 and where shall we trace our reconciliation to? The former to the first Adam, the latter to the second Adam, with baptism as the transition from the former to the latter. Being now in Christ we have access to the altar, on which the One great offering was “once for all made.” Do you through weakness sin? “Without the shedding of blood there is no remission.” What shall be done? Shed the blood!? No; that was done “once for all.” Go to the altar then and to the priest, confess and forsake our sins, and “the blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sin” (I. John i: 9). Despair not then. When we in our struggles to overcome sometimes slip and fall we can reach up our hands to Him whose helping hand is always outstretched and! always will he for such struggling ones so long as the day of salvation lasts. Sweet thought is this, my brethren and sisters, for poor, weak humanity, and with it let us take courage and press on, press on to the end, when the righteous “shall renew their strength, mount tip with wings as eagles, run and not he weary and walk and not faint.” God grant that we may he thrilled with the joy of this glorious regeneration.

Pg 381

RECTIFICATION REFUTATION of Subtle ERRORS

AND DEMONSTRATION OF TRUTHS ON

Mortality, Sinful Flesh, Immortality and Incorruptibility, Being

ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS:

Was Man Made Mortal? What Is Mortality? What Is Sinful Flesh? What Is Immortality? What Is In- corruptibility? ‘Was Jesus Mortal? Was Jesus Made of Sinful Flesh? What Does Baptism Do for the Believer? ‘When Was Jesus Immortalized? When will His true brethren be Immortalized?

By THOS. WILLIAMS

Pg 382 blank Pg 383

CHAPTERS DEVOTED TO THE REFUTATION OF SUBTLE ERRORS,

AND DEMONSTRATION OF TRUTHS ON MORTALITY, SINFUL

10 FLESH, IMMORTALITY AND INCORRUPTIBILITY, BEING

ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS

Was Man Made Mortal? What Is Mortality? What Is Sinful Flesh? What Is Immortality? What Is Incorruptibility? Was Jesus Mortal ? Was Jesus Made of Sinful Flesh? When Was Jesus Immortalized? When Will His true brethren be Immortalized?

BY T. WILLIAMS.

INTRODUCTION.

THE history of Gospel Truth has been one of many ups-and-downs. When freshly revived from the effects of the wounds received in the house of its friends, it’ has for short seasons been nourished, loved, and defended; but sooner or later—mostly sooner— subtle errors have crept in among its supporters, gradually and steadily supplanting it, not by openly denying its plainest principles; but by so mystifying some of its more difficult elements as to destroy its saving power.

Before the latter-day revival of the Truth as a system of salvation, there was not one of its fundamental principles that could not be found in the literature of religious authors; but these were fragments powerless to save, - since they were as helpless individual Israelites among hostile and ferocious Philistines. Of the principles of the Truth, possessed of the power to save, it must he recognized that “United they stand; divided they fall.” Whether the Truth is to suffer another fall before the Lord comes is a question; but if not, it will not be because of having been spared exposure to blighting winds of false doctrines. If the questions we have now proposed to give special attention to seem to some to be harmless and needless of attention, it is because their present dangerous attitude is not known and their forth-coming fatal effects are not foreseen. “While they slept an enemy sowed tares.” Whatever the dark future may have in store for that precious Truth which has spent so much of its history in exile as a homeless wanderer, its true friends must stand by, watch, quit themselves like men, and be strong. In making these introductory remarks, we are quite well aware that to those who have unfortunately fallen into the errors that are to be the subjects of our warning will, perhaps honestly, regard us as egotistic, perhaps conceited; but a zealous, valiant fight for right is

Pg 384 often nicknamed “Egotism ;“ and confidence in the right, branded “conceit.” To be frank, however, but not conceited nor egotistic, we believe we can refute the errors and rectify the wrongs, by the help of the Word of God. This belief, yes, this confidence, is what gives us the needed courage to undertake it ; and it is our candid belief that refutation is needful and rectification desirable that we must offer as apology ? No, it calls not for apology. What then ?—that we must offer as a reason for inviting our readers to the consideration of

10 MORTALITY, ITS ORIGIN AND MEANING.

THERE are subjects which in themselves are not of much importance, while in their hearings upon other sujects they are of vital importance. For example, the belief that the dead are immortalized in the process of resurrection or immediately upon their emergence from the grave, would he almost harmless apart from its hearing upon the doctrine of the judgment-seat of Christ. It is in its nullifying bearings its danger becomes apparent ; and a comprehensive view reveals it as one of many “traditions which make the word of God of none effect.”

There has been much dispute on the origin of mortality, some claiming that Adam was created mortal; others, that he became mortal by sin. The vital importance of the question is found in its hearings upon God’s plan of salvation generally. The meaning of mortality will help to the discovery of its origin, and the two aspects its meaning and its origin—_will be found to he mutually helpful. But there are two meanings, rather, the word mortal has two aspects—one legal, the other physical. While the dictionary will give us the meaning of the word mortal in the legal sense, the Scriptures only can give us the full meaning in the physical sense. But I must explain what I mean by legal mortality and physical mortality, and show the difference. The dictionary gives as the meaning of “mortal,” “destined to die, subject to death.” To be destined to die is to be the subject of a decree which declares that the one concerned shall die. “Destined to die,” therefore, is legal mortality because it is a sentence of law ; and for one to be the subject of such a sentence is for him to be mortal according to law. Now this kind of mortality may exist and yet the physical nature of the subject not he affected. A criminal at the bar is not legally destined to die for his crime until the sentence is pronounced ; and the passing of the sentence does not change the physical condition of the criminal ; therefore before the sentence is passed he is not legally mortal ; but when the sentence is passed he is legally mortal. As to destiny, allowance must be made for the difference between the finite and the infinite. Since all things are foreknown to God, all things

Pg 385 are destined ; but their destiny is in many cases predicated upon conditions that are to arise. From the stand-point of the finite, the destiny is not seen before the condition, or case, arises. If we mentally transport ourselves hack to Eden before man fell, deprived of the knowledge which developments have since imparted, we must say that man is now at our transported view point, before man has sinned, not mortal in the legal sense, because the law he is under has not yet decreed death, and cannot, until he produces the cause—sin. As soon as he sinned the cause arose and the effect followed in his becoming destined to die according to law, and this is what we, for convenience, have termed “legal mortality.” But while we are away back in Eden and can only see that if man sin he will become mortal, or “destined to die,” we do not know whether he will sill or not; but since the future is known to God, He knows what Adam, in the exercise of his free volition, will do, and therefore knows that the law will decree his destiny to death. Therefore in this sense, from the stand-point of the Infinite, man is destined to die, because God knows that he will produce the cause. God can judge from the remote ; we can judge only from the direct; God from the illimitable distance; we from the limited near by.

10 Now that the reader may not think our distinction between “legal mortality” and “physical mortality” is artificial and a distinction without a difference, we will give a case where there is physical mortality in the absence of legal mortality, a case that the enlightened reader will readily understand and appreciate. Let us transport ourselves mentally to the judgment-seat of Christ, and fix our eyes upon the approved. They have appeared there in those “mortal bodies” that are to be “swallowed up of life ;“ they have been judged and approved. A certain time must elapse between the declaration of approval and the “mortal putting on immortality.” During this time, are they “ destined to die”? Of course not ; then they are not “legally mortal.” But are they anything but mortal physically? There is only one kind of mortality here to be “swallowed tip of life,” and that is the kind! of mortality that we must be most concerned about, and it is the element in the case that is vital ; and, moreover, it is a vital element of the gospel that is made of none effect by theorists who are contending that Adam was made mortal, and who are manifesting their superficiality in ridiculing some writers for saying that Adam before he sinned was neither mortal nor immortal.

There are a few well-meaning brethren who, without carefully reflecting upon the bearings of the theory that man was made mortal, are impressed with it as a clever discovery, that God created Adam mortal, and then gave him the tree of life to hold in check the ravages of mortality so long as Adam remained obedient; and after he sinned all that was needful was exclusion from the tree of life, when and whereby the Divinely created ravages of mortality were left to do

Pg 386 their fatal work unchecked. I say,, to some well-meaning brethren this commends itself, but when the subject is more profoundly considered, they will see that its effects upon the fundamental principles of the Truth are as fatal as mortality is in its ravages in our nature, which evoke the cry, “0 wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from this body of death?” One way of arriving at a correct knowledge of the origin and meaning of mortality is to ask and consider, Is it a good thing or is it a bad thing? If it is a good thing, we can believe that it was part of the work of the creation, amid that it may have existed before sin, and that it was part of the “every thing” which God, before sin entered, pronounced “very good.” On the other hand, if it is a bad thing, no reasonable mind can, after careful reflection, believe that God created it before there was any other bad thing in existence; because it requires a bad thing to produce a bad thing, upon the principle that like produces like. Two things may be good in degree, one of them not as good as the other; but this does not mean that the one is bad; because a lesser degree of goodness is not badness. The “heavenly” nature of the angels is good, amid the earthly nature in which they created Adam was good, but not as good as the “heavenly.” But neither was bad. If, then, we find that mortality is a bad thing, we shall thereby know that it was not an element of the “very good” earthy nature of Adam when he was created and before he sinned. To say that mortality is a bad thing, and that God created Adam in a state of mortality, is to logically say that God created a bad thing. On the other hand, to admit that “every thing that God had made was very good,” and at the same time admit that mortality is a bad thing, is logically to admit that God did not make man mortal. The matter thus presented to some, evokes the thoughtless question, “Was the serpent good?” If it was not good, it was bad; and since “every thing that God made was very good,” the careless questioner is compelled to perch himself upon one of the two horns of the dilemma his question raises—either that God did not create the serpent; or the serpent was, when made, “very good,” and therefore not bad. It is the fact that the serpent became bad that inspires the thoughtless question, the questioner overlooking the fact that since the serpent became had, he was not bad before he

10 became bad. Before considering whether mortality is revealed as a bad thing or a good thing, it will be well to present it in another form, which will help to reach the same conclusion ; and this form of presentation will also make more apparent the importance of a correct understanding of the subject in order to avoid making the gospel of none effect by a tradition. For one who uses the word mortal in accordance with its correct meaning, and yet says God made Adam mortal, is for him to thereby nullify the true gospel almost as completely as does the believer in the immortality of the soul. But more of this farther along.

Pg 387

Let us ask and consider the question, Is mortality a thing, the thing, from which God, through the gospel, offers redemption? If it is, then another question forces itself, namely, If mortality is the thing God is good enough to offer us redemption from is He offering to redeem us from a thing He created before sin entered into the world? And still another question comes, If mortality is a thing of God’s creation before sin came, and if redemption is from this Divinely created mortality, did not the necessity of the operation of the gospel of salvation arise from a thing which God created before and irrespective of the advent of sin into the world?

‘Now these two forms of presenting the subject require the answers to two questions—. First. Is mortality a good thing, or a bad thing? Second. Is mortality the thing from which God, through the gospel, offers to redeem mankind? To realize fully the badness of the mortal state, it is necessary for the reader to know what the original word is for mortal, in its several forms. The original word is not many times translated “mortal” and “mortality.” This rendering of the word in a few cases, however, is enough to show that it stands for a condition that cannot be attributed to God’s creation of man. Following are the forms of the word in the Greek, and the number of times it occurs in each, with the translations MORTAL, from the Greek thnetos, occurs five times. Rom.vi: 12; viii :11; I. Cor. xv :53, 54; II. Cor. iv: 11 MORTALITY, from thnaton, once. II. Cor. v 4. MORTALITY, from thanatoo, once. Rom. viii 13, meaning “put to death.” DEADLY, from thanateephoros, four times, Jas. iii : 8; from thanatos, Rev. xiii: 3, 12 ; from thanasimos, Mark xvi: i8. DEAD, from thanatoo, once, Rom. vii: 4. DEATH, from thanatos, one hundred and thirteen times, only examples of which we can give, presently.

DEATH, from thanatoo, four times, Matt. xxvi : 59; xxvn: I Mark xiv: 55; I. Pet. iii: 18. KILLED, from thanatoo, twice; Rom. viii: 36; II. Cor. vi: 9. Now to emphasize the badness of mortality, and to make manifest that it is a deplorable thing, we have only to substitute the word, or keep it in mind, in reading all the foregoing scriptures; and then-ask ourselves, Do these words which stand for mortality describe or refer to what God created; or do they describe what sin produced? A reasonable man will shudder at the very suggestion of applying them to the condition in which Adam was made by the hand of Him who said that “every thing that he made was very good.” The word rendered “deadly” is used thus: “if they drink am-my deadly thing”; “an unruly evil, full of deadly poison”; “his deadly wound was healed”; “whose deadly wound was healed.”

10 Pg 388

The word rendered “dead” is used thus “Ye also are become dead to the law.” The word rendered “killed” thus : “we are killed all the day long” ; “as chastened and not killed.” The word rendered “death” is used thus : “cause death”; “and shall cause them to be put to death”; “shall they cause to be put to death .“ Out of the one hundred and thirteen instances of the word “death” from thanatos, we can give only a few examples, leaving the reader to examine all the passages by the help of the Concordance. Examples “The region and shadow of death”; “sit in darkness and in the shadow of death”; “condemn him to death”; “sorrowful unto death”; “loosed the pains of death”; “By one man’s offense death reigned”; “sin reigned unto death”; “The wages of sin is death”; “who shall deliver me from this body of death”? “Death is swallowed up in victory” ; “the last enemy, death, shall be destroyed” ; “hath abolished death”; “suffering of death”; “death, and hell cast into the lake of fire”; “There shall be no more death.” Now in the view of all this, can the reader see any thing but badness in mortality? Does he know of any thing worse that could befall mankind than mortality? (We are presuming. of course, that his mind is free from the pagan fiction of endless torture). Is not mortality man’s great evil? Is it not in mortality man groans for deliverance. Is it not from mortality God through Jesus will deliver His people? Now who will presume to say that mortality was an element of man’s nature when God made man, and before sin entered into the world? Did God create and call “very good” a “deadly (mortal) poison,” a “deadly wound, a “killing ” thing, a deathly region and shadow, a sorrowful thing, a painful thing (“pains of death, mortality), an “enemy” to he “destroyed,” a thing to be cast into the “lake of fire”? One who says Adam was made mortal has not carefully considered what he is saying -what an insult to God it must be, to claim that the worst evil the Bible deplores is a thing of God’s creation. Let him test his theory thus “0 wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from this body of death” (mortality)? Will the theorists say that this is a cry for deliverance from a condition God created? “Sin reigned unto death” (mortality). Will he say in the face of this that God made man a subject of mortality before he sinned? “By one offense death (mortality) reigned.” Will he say “By God’s creation mortality was in man ready to do its evil work unless man carefully and regularly took his medicine from the tree of life? That man could not get along without medicine, even before Sin made him sick? “The last enemy, death (mortality) shall be destroyed.” Does this mean that God will destroy that which He created in main before sin came?

Pg 389

What does a Paganized theology tell perishing people? It tells them that they must realize that they are destined to go to a hell of endless torment, and thereby understand what they are to escape and how to escape it by the gospel. Our readers have found this to be a fraud and a deception. And they tell perishing people that they must know that they are mortal in order to understand what salvation saves them from. That is right, and it is truth ; but what will perishing people think of one who will tell them that this mortality from which they are to be saved was the condition in which God created man? How can such an one understand the gospel in its application to man lost? Must not the seeker after truth come to see that the lost stale is the mortal state, and that mortality is the very thing he is to be saved from? Must he not, therefore, know the true origin and meaning, of mortality as well as the origin and

10 meaning of immortality? Here is the vital aspect of the question, and here the bearings of the erroneous claim that Adam was made mortal are seen in their nullification of the gospel, not to say in the insult such a view offers to Him who has emphatically declared that “every thing that he had made was very good.” Now to drive our stake at the point where mortality originated, we have only to recall the words, “The sting of death (mortality) is sin,’ and then we have the start of the pedigree of that evil thing whose name is Mortality. This creature was born in and by sin, and shapen in iniquity. He is the curse of mankind. He is the festering, torturing leprosy that makes sinful flesh “unclean” and unfit for the kingdom of God. He is the monster who made “very good” bodies “vile bodies.” His evil influences transformed man’s propensities from the normal equilibrium of a “very good” creation to that abnormal state of weakness in which no man can say There is no sin in me. This hideous, sin-conceived creature whose name is Mor. tality is the king of sickness, pain, sorrow, and death. He has caused tears to flow as rivers overflowing their banks. He has populated thousands of lonely, dismal cities of the dead with friends, brothers, mothers, fathers and children, torn from bosoms of love and from throbbing hearts bleeding from the stabs of his relentless, cruel hand; and he laughs in the faces of the sorrowing ones who in pain and anguish bend in solemn meditation over the silent tombs of their loved ones. he is the Evil one, the Diabolos, the Devil. His name is Death, he caused death, his pedigree is from sin all the way clown through the region of death, the valley of the shadow of death. There is no good in him ; he is had, all had. He is fit only for destruction, and destruction is his destiny. When he has finished his raging rushing mission through wreck and ruin, with hell, hades, following him to receive the millions of his slaughtered ones, he and his satellite—Hades-—-will find their well-deserved end in that “lake of fire” which means oblivion. And what then? What then?

Pg 390 Then the great victory is won, the triumph is complete, and with shouts of adoration, praise, and thanksgiving, tempered with the sweetness and melody of immortal tongues, hosannas will ascend from the saved to the Saviour on high and to His Son on the eternal throne of glory ; while to the vanquished foe the victors will exclaim, “0 Mortality, where is thy sting ; 0 hades, where is thy victory? Thanks be to God who giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.” Say not thoughtlessly that this is a triumph over an evil of God’s creation ; but charge it all to sin, date its origin from the first sinful act ”By one offense death (mortality) reigned”—and realize that the meaning of mortality is not to be learned from the dictionary, but from that human experience which causes “the whole creation to groan, and travail in pain together until now. And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the first-fruits of the spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body” (Rom. viii: 22, 23). “For in this (earthly house) we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon . . . that mortality might he swallowed up of life”—II. Cor. v : 2-4.

THE FACTS AS RECORDED.

There are some who confound an “earthy body” with a body in a mortal state; they think that if a body is earthy it must be mortal. This arises from the fact that all earthy bodies are now mortal, and we never saw an earthy body that was not mortal. But a close examination of the subject will show that what is, is not a criterion for what was, An earthy body now is a “body of sin”—”sinful flesh,” and we never saw an earthy body that was not “sinful flesh”; but this is no proof that an earthy body when created was “sinful flesh.” As a matter of fact, all must know that the earthy body of Adam when created was not “sinful flesh.” Now when the earthy body of Adam became “sinful flesh” its nature was not changed from being an earthy body, but the condition of the earthy body was changed. The condition of the sinful

10 flesh body is of sin-production, while the earthy body was originally of Divine production. So with mortality, it is a word descriptive of a condition into which an earthy body passed by sin, and the term “mortal body,” therefore, is not necessarily synonymous with “earthy body.” “But would not the earthy body of Adam have died in time if he had not sinned?” No, we may be sure it would not, since God had predetermined that the cause of death should not be a condition produced by His creative hand, but by the evil effect of sin. There was only one cause of death, and the effect could not come without that cause. That cause is what the Apostle Paul terms “the sting of death”—sin. “But how could Adam, an earthy body, live perpetually ?“ This question arises from the fact that earthy bodies cannot now live perpetually, and the mind seems bent, in some, upon making the now pg 391 decide what was possible then. But even after man became mortal, or sinful flesh, it was possible for him to live much longer than we can live now; and if we had a man among us now at the age of nine hundred and sixty-nine years, as was Methuselah (Gen. v: 27), it would be comparatively as great a “miracle” as for Adam, before he sinned, to have a perpetual life. Since the earthy body that God created for Adam was “upright,” “very good.” with supply and demand equal and all the functions normal, there was nothing to “wear it out ;“ and since every thing was Divinely balanced, and in perfect poise, accident was impossible. Men have racked their brains in attempts to produce machines of perpetual motion, and failed ; but who will question that God had the wisdom and power to produce an earthy body of “perpetual motion,” whose life could be interfered with by but one thing, namely, a breach of that law to which it was subjected? While the created earthy body was susceptible of being affected by sin, the cause that would start the decline of life must come from without ; it was a thing to enter into man, and not a lurking latent evil there by creation. Mortality, therefore, or mortification, could come only from what is termed the “sting,” and whether this “sting” fastened itself upon man’s vital functions through the medium of the fruit of the forbidden tree, or by a direct power, cannot he known. But this can be known ; that the sting entered by sin, and it will be pulled out by righteousness. THE ‘TREE OF LIFE.

The theory that God made man mortal must necessarily seek for all antidote ; for error is often logical. A mortal man means to this false theory a declining man, a dying man-if no antidote is at hand. Starting, therefore, with a man whose very nature, by creation, was deathful, a search for medicine must be made. In this search it is found that of the trees of the garden of Eden it is recorded, “And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food,” not for medicine (Gen. ii: 9). Where, then, is there a medicinal tree to prevent this mortal man and his mortal wife from dying? It cannot be the tree of knowledge of good and evil, for that is the one forbidden. There is only one choice ; this .man and his wife are a dying pair if no medicinal tree is found, and the “tree of life” is the only’ one to choose. Medicine this mortal man and his mortal wife must have, and if the record does not say that they ate of the tree of life, the absence of a record does not defeat this diligent, desperate search for medicine to keep this mortal man and his wife from dying. The theory of Divinely created mortality requires that Adam and Eve must either die or eat of the tree of life; therefore the theory says they did eat of it; and since the record does not say that they ate of it, so much the worse for the record, they ate of it, nevertheless—they had to ate of it,

Pg 392

10 or die that death which had been implanted in their natures by that creation which was pronounced very good! How often it was necessary for Adam and Eve to take their medicine, the theorist is modest enough not to Venture to say ; but since mortality is a very busy and persistent thing, frequent doses of the antidote must have been needful. In any event, eat of the tree of life they did, for the theory requires it, and therefore the theory declares it. and perhaps laments the brevity, not to say the delinquency, of that record which failed to record a word to confirm the assertion of this medicine-seeking theory that so earnestly is trying to obviate the death of a pair who had been created mortal beings. But what does the record say concerning the tree of life? Perhaps if it does not say that Adam and Eve ate of it, there will be a hint somewhere that implies that they did. “There no record that they were forbidden to eat of it.” No ; neither is there record that men are now forbidden to eat of the tree of life in the future paradise-- indeed they are invited to eat of it; but a probation, requiring time and merit, lies between them and the eating of the antitypical tree of life. Reasoning from antitype to type, one might infer, but not dogmatically assert, that an unrecorded arrangement provided for a time to elapse, and merit to develop, before the unforbidden0 tree of life could be reached. This may have been the normal state of things before sin, and the abnormal state after sin required exclusion from even the possibility of eating of the tree of life till the rescuing hand of love interposed. Perhaps it is more than vaguely implied that there was “a way” to the tree of ‘life —an intellectual and moral “way” — that had to be traversed before eating of it ; and failing to walk in that “way” and partake of the forbidden tree, all is lost. Most people read the words of Gen. iii : 24, “to keep the way of the tree of life” as meaning, “to shut the way” ; but the English form of words does not necessarily mean, ‘‘to shut the Way” ; and good scholars tell us that the Hebrew may mean ‘‘to keep the way,” in the sense of, ‘‘to preserve the way,’’ so that it might again be open to fallen humanity. ‘We all know what is meant now by “the way.” It is a process of intellectual and moral training, with Christ. the tree of, life as the did and object. “Strait is the gate and narrow is the way that leadeth to [the tree of] life.” I am not dogmatizing now, but suggesting, that by the analogy of the antitype we may allow that there was “a way” to the tree of life, not forbidden, yet not walked in to the end to which the “way” led ; and therefore our first parents never ate of it. We know they did not need it to keep them from dying, for as long as they refrained from eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil they were assured of their natural lives ; and the trees of the garden were good for natural life ; but here was a tree of life, peculiarly, emphatically, preeminently a tree of life, is there ally danger in suggesting that it

Pg 393

Was a tree of a higher life than those which sustained natural life? After Adam had sinned in partaking of the forbidden tree, it is said, “Now lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat and live for ever ; therefore the Lord Godl sent him forth from the garden of Eden” (Gen. iii : 23, 24). Now we do not suppose anyone claims that the eating of the forbidden tree was repeated. The one act was the “one offense.” The words “lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, seem, at least, to imply the prevention of one act similar to the other one. And this one act, if not prevented, would have caused a “living for ever” ; all this implies that, instead of Adam having habitually eaten of the tree of life before he sinned, he had not performed the one act of putting forth his hand and eating thereof. In the absence of a record that our first parents did or did not eat of the tree of life, the implications of the words of the record, and the inferences reasonably to be drawn therefrom, ‘are that they did not do so before they sinned. and were prevented from doing it afterwards. it is safer, therefore, to say they did not than it is to say they did,

10 “LIVE FOR EVER”

.” Some claim that the length of time allotted to Adam and Eve to live, in case t hey did not partake of the forbidden fruit, was one thousand years, and the term ‘‘for ever’’ is taken to mean one thousand years, the inventors of this claim basing it upon the fact that the Hebrew word is olam. To them, therefore, the words’’ lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life and live for ever, mean , “lest he live one thousand years, as he would had he not sinned.’’ Reason refuses to take the suggestion of this claim seriously’ ; for it would lead to the absurd conclusion that the punishment of Adam consisted Only of seventy years deprivation of life, since, notwithstanding that he sinned, he lived nine hundred and thirty years. The word 0/am cannot be made to always mean a definite period of one thousand years ; it sometimes means a limited time exceeding one thousand years, and sometimes, unlimited time. The Mosaic 0/am was about fifteen hundred years, and when we read, “The Lord shall endure for ever” (0/am).; and “For his mercy endureth for ever” (o/am ). it is manifest that the word stands for unlimited time. But the strange part of this claim is that it is made to support the theory that Adam was made mortal, on the ground that he would have died at the expiration of the supposed one thousand years lease of his life. If the tree of life was given as all antidote to mortality, why should the antidote suddenly lose its power at the end of the thousand years The fact is, no possible loop-hole is left in the record for the speculations of these theorists, and no speculation can improve upon what the record states and what it implies. Man is by creation given an earthy body. This body is capable of change to a higher or to a lower condition, dependent upon man’s

Pg 394 intellectual and moral actions. It is susceptible of being mortalized or immortalized. While susceptible of being immortalized it is not immortal; and while susceptible of being mortalized, it was not mortal. It was therefore an earthy body neither mortal nor immortal. Mortalization is a child of sin; immortalization a child of righteousness.

IMMORTALITY AND ETERNAL LIFE.

There is a theory advocated concerning immortality, similar to that we have referred to on the mortality of Adam ending with death in a thousand years. Its claim is that the terms “everlasting life” and “eternal life” mean the life of the aeon, or age, and that this age is the one thousand years reign of Christ over mortal nations. Based upon this is the claim that the terms “eternal life” and “everlasting life” do not mean immortal life. and the promise they involve only extends to an assurance that those who are worthy shall live for the thousand years ; and if they are ever immortalized it will be after the expiration of the “age.” This is another of those traditions which make the word of God of none effect. It is a theory, like many others, which is a slave of a technicality of words. With this subject as well as with that of mortality, the general teachings of the Bible are the best dictionary to define the meaning and use of the words. Limit the word! aeon to age, and the age to one thousand years, and let one tie himself to this technical meaning of the word, ignoring other explanatory parts of the Scriptures, and the promise of the glorious gospel is thereby limited to one thousand years lease of life, with no assurance of deliverance from our mortal nature. If a change of nature is not involved in the promise of “eternal life,” salvation is reduced to a small compass. It is “redemption of the body” we are “waiting for,” and if this is left an undecided

10 question and the gospel only assures us that we shall live a thousand years, postponing the “redemption of the body” indefinitely, disappointment makes hope hang her head muttering, “Hope deferred maketh the heart sick.” Now we need not here spend mulch time on the philology of the words “eternal life,” it is more satisfactory to study the doctrine of the terms. Presently we will give the original words and their meanings which stand for “immortal” and “incorruptible,” simply asserting here, that “eternal life” doctrinally means life manifested in and through incorruptible bodies. In Rom. ii. we are, in substance, told, “If you will seek for immortality, I will give you eternal life.” If “immortality” is superior to “eternal life,” and ‘The latter only means duration of life for a thousand years, then we are asked to seek for a superior thing and only promised an inferior thing. Reason rejects this as absurd, and! concludes that since we are exhorted to seek for “immortality” and promised “eternal life,” the one must be involved in the other, or, in substance, both mean the same thing Pg 395 and therefore to receive the “eternal life” promised Is to receive the “immortality” sought for. The most instructive and satisfying way to find truth is to compare scripture with scripture. We can be assured that to receive eternal life is to receive immortality thus : Christ is immortal (this is admitted), when He appears “we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.” In the resurrection we shall he made “equal to the angels” in that we shall “die no more.” In the resurrection, this mortal shall put on immortality ; and at the same time “eternal life” is received ; therefore “immortality” and “eternal life,” doctrinally and in essence, mean the same.

IMMORTALITY AND INCORRUPTIBILITY.

Here we have the words, mortality. and corruptibility, with the prefix “im.” This prefix has the effect of making the words mean the reverse of their meaning without the prefix, that is, not mortal and not corruptible. But here, again, what we have said concerning the two aspects of the word “mortal1 applies, and we must go beyond the bare technical meaning in order to fully appreciate the Bible meaning. Confining ourselves to the naked legal meaning, we may say that if a man is not “destined to die, ‘ he is not mortal, and therefore he is immortal. Since the prefix im means no , the words not mortal must mean immortal. But this reasoning will leave us on the surface without reaching down to the important meaning of the word, which we term the doctrinal meaning, which is the vital aspect of it. To emphasize this, we may be allowed to recall an illustration we have previously given : Of the living, righteous saints when Christ comes, it can truthfully be said, they are not destined to die, therefore, in the legal sense, if they are not destined to die, they are not mortal; and if they are not mortal they must be immortal. But will these saints he satisfied with this legal, technical immortality? No indeed; they will have hoped for a more substantial immortality than this, and will meet with disappointment if there is not something more real. A theorist may stand before them and give them a lecture on theoretical immortality somewhat after the following fashion: “You see, my dear friends, you have been righteous and lived such probationary lives as deserve the approval of the Judge, and of such we are told that they “shall never die.” Now, just think of it, you are not destined to die, and that means that you are not mortal; for ‘mortal’ means ‘destined to die.’ Now, my dear friends, try to realize it, that if you are not ‘destined to die’ you are not mortal ; and if you are not mortal, of course you can be nothing else but immortal, and so your hope of immortality is realized.” We can well imagine these saints replying: “Your reasoning is quite in accord with the dictionary, and it is quite logical. In fact, as a logician you have excelled even yourself. Your ‘immortality’ looks quite well—on paper—as a theory. Your theory assures us

10 Pg 396 that we shall never die ; but, sir, look here at our poor bodies There is a dear old sister, blind, another deaf; and look at that young man on crutches, a poor cripple. Yes, and do you hear those dear creatures over there coughing in a manner that prints upon your brain the fearful word “consumption”?—the fact is, despite your theoretical immortality, we are all more or less suffering creatures— in our very bodies, a suffering that your theory does not alleviate. If yours is the immortality we have been seeking for, we must hang our heads in sorrowful disappointment ; but stand aside, sir, with your superficial theory,- let the mournful echoes of your scientific, logical lecture die away, and listen to a prophet of the Lord giving us a lecture on what the immortality we have hoped for, and! lived! for will do for us : ‘Strengthen ye the weak hands, and confirm the feeble knees. Say to them that are of a fearful heart, Be strong, fear not : behold, your God! will come with vengeance, even God with a recompense ; he will save you. then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall he unstopped ; then shall the lame man leap as an hart, and the tongue of the dumb sing : for in the wilderness shall waters break out, and streams in the desert’ (Isa. xxxv : 3-6). ‘They that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength ; they shall mount up with wings as eagles ; they shall run and not be’ weary ; and they shall walk and not faint.’ Now, sir, while we are glad to have heard! your lecture on the theory of immortality, and to know that we are not ‘destined to die,’ we prefer the prophet’s ‘lecture,’ since its realization will be that which can be felt in ‘every fiber of our being to the glad and glorious extent of that poor cripple over there joyfully throwing his crutches away ; those eyes that are closed in blindness will open to behold the wonders of the Lord ; those ears, to listen to the strains of heavenly music ; the word “consumption” rubbed out never to torture—in short. God’s “saving health” will manifest itself in heavenly bodies that shall no more experience sorrow, pain, sickness and death—-this, sir, is immortality worthy of the name, this is immortality in its essence, its vitality, its substantiality, its reality.”

THE DIFFERENCE IN THE MEANING OF IMMORTALITY AND INCORRIUPTIBILITY.

Doctrinally there is no difference ill the meaning of these two words, that is to say, when we are immortal in the Scriptural sense, we are incorruptible, and vice versa. Still, a thing can be incorruptible and not be immortal ; but it cannot be immortal in the sense of the promise of immortality, and not be incorruptible. A substance that will not decay is incorruptible, such as gold and diamond, but the word life is not applicable to such incorruptible, inanimate things; therefore lifc is not necessarily an element of incorruptibility. But the word “immortal” means life, unending life. Paul’s employment. of the two words, therefore, is not redundant, when he says, “This

Pg 397 corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality” (I. Cor. xv : 53). Since God can perpetuate life, even in the physically mortal state, as He has prolonged it in the cases of Enoch and Elijah, and since the reward ‘of the worthy saints is to be more than this, the apostle’s words embrace the entire extent of the reward, ill that they provide for unending life in incorruptible bodies. Since immortality is God’s nature, it cannot but be good, pure and holy, and it must he impeccable. ‘While, therefore, we have seen that mortality is always spoken of as a bad, deplorable, and sorrowful state, immortality is always represented as a state to be sought for, to be earnestly desired, a state of goodness, gladness and joy. In view of the scriptural character of immortality, the idea of an immortal sinner and an immortal devil is inconsistent ; “immortal sinner” is a contradiction of terms, as much so as “white blackness.” Since God is immortal, immortality is the ideal nature to which man should seek to attain, as the highest

10 attainment possible. Peccability is a necessity for man while he is on probation, and this was an attribute of man when his earthy body was “very good,” and it is, in a greater degree, an attribute of man in his earthy mortal state. But when he has passed a successful probation, and thereby fitted himself for the highest nature, no further trial is needful, and he is therefore commissioned to do a heavenly, glorious work as a tried and perfected man ; and therefore he is impeccable because he is immortal. This is the Divine principle of the “survival of the fittest,” ‘and it is based, not upon the Darwinian theory of the survival of the most cunning and most brutishly strong ; but upon a “fitness” arising from the use, though feeble and difficult, of the higher intellectual functions and the moral faculties of human endow- ment. Since It is the scriptural view of immortality and incorruptibility that we should he concerned about, in its intended and promised! effect upon our physical nature, and in its relation to our salvation, it will do well to examine the words in their original and translated forms. IMMORTAL., Greek, aphthartos , I. Tim. i : 17—Now unto the King eternal, immortal/, invisible, the only wise God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen. IMMORTALITY, Greek, aphtharsia, Ronm ii: 6, 7—Who will render to every man according to his deeds; to them who by patient continuance in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life. II. Tim. i:10—But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel. IMMORTALITY, Greek, athanasia, L Cor. xv : 53——For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption; and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to

Pg 398 pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory’ I. Tim. vi: 16—Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honor and power everlasting. Amen. INCORRUPTIBLE, Greek, aphthartos, I. Cor. xv : 5z—The dead shall be raised incorruptible. INCORRUPTION, Greek, aphtharsia _So also is the resurrection of the dead.’ It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption. I. Cor. xv : 50—Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. I. Cor. xv : 53’ 54_For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. 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. These are all the texts where the words “immortality” and “incorruption” relate to the physical or bodily state, first as applied to God’s glorious nature; second, as the great reward man is to seek for; third, as that glorious state into which man will be changed when death (mortality) is swallowed up in victory. In the English Version in I. Tim. i: 17 the Greek word, aphthartos is rendered “immortal.” In Rom.ii :6,7 aphitharsia is rendered “immortality,” while in I. Cor. xv : 52 aphthartos is rendered “incorruptible” ; and in verses 50, 53, 54 aphthaisia is rendered “incorruption” In the Revised Version I. Tim. i : 17 the word is rendered “incorruptible,” and in Rom. ii: 7, it is rendered “incorruption.” Evidently, aphthartos should be rendered incorruptible, “immortality” is the word for athanasia. The word aphthartos does not always relate to bodily state. It is rendered “sincerity” in Eph. vi: 24 and Titus ii: 7, and it relates to our “inheritance incorruptible,” in I. Pet. i : 4 ; and it relates to the “incorruptible sect!,” in verse 23 ; also to the “incorruptible crown,” in I. Cor. ix : 25 ; and it stands for

10 “the hidden man of the heart in that which is not “corruptible” in I. Pet. iii: 4, meaning strength of character to resist temptation, as we sometimes speak of honest officers who are incorruptible in the sense that they cannot be bribed. Now the important thing is that all these scriptures represent immortality and incorruptibility as a state of goodness, glory and happiness, while mortality is the opposite. Mortality is a creature of sin ; immortality for man, worthy men, is the perennial fruit of the tree of Life, “the way” to which has been preserved by the mercy and goodness of God for poor, fallen, suffering man, hut “Every man in his own order, Christ the first-fruit; after they that are Christ’s at his coming.”

Pg 399 INCORRUPTIBILITY EXEMPLIFIED.

Ill II, Tim. i :10 we read that “Jesus Christ hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.” The Greek word here for “immortality” is aphtharsia, and should he rendered ‘‘incorruptibility,” or ‘‘incorruption,” as in the Revised Version. Now this passage will compel the intelligent student to discriminate between incorruptibility promised and incorruptibility realized; and it will show that the great desideratum of fallen, mortal man, whether it be termed immortality, incorruption, eternal life, or everlasting life, is the “redemption of the hotly,” the change of the vile body ; fashioned like into the body of Christ. This verse cannot be carefully read without suggesting the question, Was not incorruption brought to light through the gospel before Christ came in the flesh? We are assured that Abel had the one faith which was “once for all delivered to the saints,” and if he had the one faith, he had tile gospel; for these are but different terms expressive of the same thing. We are also told that the gospel was preached to Abraham; also Job’s hope was that in his flesh, by resurrection, he would see the Redeemer; and David said, “I shall he satisfied when I awake with thy likeness”; and Daniel understood that some would “come forth to everlasting life.” From the time of the fall of Adam the gospel had been revealing the doctrine of eternal life and incorruption of body. How, then, are we to understand Paul in saying that Christ brought life and incorruption to light, since it had been brought to light during four thousand years? To understand the apostle we are compelled to distinguish between the doctrine of life and incorruption, and the ,realization,, thereof. Indeed, this text is our best Bible dictionary meaning of the doctrine exemplified. There is reference here to a “bringing to light” in a sense never before exhibited. Glorious and glowing words of inspiration had heralded the truth to mankind through patriarchs and prophets, and ancient worthies had died in the faith thereof ; it had been the theme of prophetic poetry and it hat! been sung to the sweet, melodious strains of heavenly music; but where and When had it appeared as exemplified, realized, materialized? Where had a mortal ever been seen transformed into incorruptibility? Promises from Him who is able to perform will give hope the wings of an eagle to soar to lofty heights, and view the broad landscape of the Divinely planned prospect ; but there must be a spot, distant though it be, upon which it may light, fold its wings, and rest in sweet content and satisfaction. hope had heard of that Word (logos) which was “in the beginning,” and of the “seed of the woman,” and the “seed of Abraham,” and the “seed of David” ; but its four thousand years’ flight and happy anticipation must finally find the “word made flesh” and hear the angelic words, “Unto you is horn this day, in the city of David, a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord” before it

Pg 400.

10 could fully realize the meaning of that which made its heart beat with’ heavenly joy’. So in the promises which meant deliverance from mortality and the ecstasy’ of a thrilling deathless life, which “brought life and immortality to light’’ in promise, the question was, Where and when should these find their goal In whom should they be first fulfilled as the means of their ample and absolute fullment? Here He is, a babe in Bethlehem ; then behold him at twelve years of age about his “Father’s business’’ ; out of the rolling waters of Jordan He is coming and heaven declares, ‘‘This is My beloved Son in whom I am well pleased’’ ; tempted by every means that the subtlety of the flesh could suggest, but yet victorious ; suffering and triumphing in the sadness of Gethsemane; impaled upon the cruel cross ; buried in the darkness of the tomb ; soon exclaiming. “‘Touch Me Not, for I am not yet ascended ;‘‘ afterwards my inviting the closest scrutiny ; and then an apostle declares, “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled the Word of life ; for the life’ was manifested, and we have see;, it” (1.Jno. i :1’ 2)_ ‘This was incorruption brought to light as it never had been before—tangibly, corporeally, and in this fact is the assurance that hope, though it must wait still a little longer, waits not in vain ; but will yet be realized in the fulfillment of its own inspired and heart cheering words, “Our conversation is in heaven ; from whence also we look for tile Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ ; who shall change our vile body, that it may’ be fashioned like unto his own glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself” Phil. ii 20,

JESUS IN RELATION TO MORTALITY AND SINFUL FLESH

Under this leading’ the subject in hand naturally leads us to the consideration of mortality in relation to Jesus. was He mortal? If He was mortal, would that mean that He was made of sinfull flesh ? If He was mortal when did he pass from the mortal state to the immortal These are questions which, as experience shows. need answering many times on account of the persistency of errors respecting them which make the word of none effect. Many have become enlightened in most of the fundamental principles of the gospel. seem still to linger on the outskirts of Rome on the nature of Christ. ‘They protest against the Romish theory of immaculate conception. and declare that Jesus was made of our identical nature in that He was, mortal ; but the admission that Jesus Was mortal is logically contradicted by a denial that His flesh was the same as that of his brethren in the sense of being sinful flesh. By the subtlety of this deceptive distinction between mortality and sinful flesh many superficial. but well—meaning, minds are led astray, and conducted backward into the outlying ditches of Rome. Most of those who deny that Jesus partook of sinful flesh are

Pg 401 advocates of the claim that Adam was made mortal. Therefore when they say that Jesus was mortal and that He was not made of sinful flesh, they represent Him as completely free from any- effects of sin as Adam was before he sinned ; and thereby they nullify the general teaching of the Scriptures which describe Jesus as “a man of sorrow and acquainted with grief,’’ and they endeavor to evade the force of the declaration that ‘‘He bore our sins in his own body to the tree” by reducing the antitype to a level with the type. if Jesus did not inherit in His body the effects of sin, it follows that the only sense in which He could bear away sin was by our sins being imputed to Him ; and in that case the “substance’’ was no more substantial than the “shadow,’’ for it was only” by imputation the sins of the people of Israel were transferred to the sacrificial victim. But the experience of our Saviour in the flesh, wherein He was “touched with the feelings of our infirmities’ ( Heb. iv : 15), ‘‘was in all points tempted like as

10 we are, yet without sin,” suffering the pangs and pains which are the inherited effects of sin—all of this is a standing protest against the no-sin-in-the-flesh theory’. Some flippantly ridicule the thought of sin In the flesh by asking what it is, and can it be microscopically detected? Is it a chemical element running through the blood? They seem unable to believe that there is an evil in the flesh because thev cannot subject the evil to a microscopic examination or a chemical test. human experience and a sick, suffering and morally and physically weak and dying humanity render microscopic and chemical examinations needless to intelligent, observing minds. When Gahazi’s sin became an element of his flesh in the form of leprosy, there was such a manifestation of “sin in tile flesh” as needed no artificial means of examination ; and when Adam had sinned, no such means were necessary to inform him that he was naked, that shame had taken hold of him, and that his sin had become “Sin in the flesh” to the extent yielding that experience described in the words, “In sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life . . . and unto dust shalt thou return.” It is true that the primary meaning of sin is “transgression of law,” but transgression of law is an act only, and if it goes no further than this, it will remain an abstract thing which will not affect the sinner in the way of punishment. Transgression of law must yield its own retribution in some form unless the transgressor be allowed to view it as a mere act and an abstract thing at which he can flip finger and to which he can say, “ You cannot hurt me. for you cannot take effect in my flesh, in my body.” A better definition of sin in the flesh cannot be given than we will presently give, a definition which has been the butt of taunts from many who seem to imagine they can out shine the sun with farthing rushlights. The definition is from an uninspired man, but it is the teaching of inspired prophets and apostles reduced to few and convenient words. it is as follows

Pg 402

“The word sin is used in two principal acceptations in the Scriptures. It’ signifies, in the first place, ‘transgression of law;’ and in the next, it represents that physical principle of the animal nature, which is the cause of its diseases, death and resolution into dust. It is that in the flesh ‘which has the power of death;,’ and it is called sin because the development, or fixation, of this evil in the flesh was the result of transgression. Inasmuch as this evil principle pervades every part of the flesh, the animal nature is styled ‘sinful flesh,’ that is, flesh of sin; so that sin in the sacred style, came to stand for the substance called man, in human flesh ‘dwells no good thing ;‘ and all the evil a man does is the result of this principle dwelling in him (Rom viii 18, 19)-.... Elpis Israel, P• 113. This lucid defination is borne out by the following testimonies Job xiv : I ——Man that is born of a woman is of few days, and full of trouble. Psa. li: 5—-’Behold I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me. Verse 7—-Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean; wash me, and I shall he whiter than snow. EccI. ii: 23—For all his days are sorrow, and his travail grief yea, his heart taketh not rest ill the night.

Matt. xix : I7,18—And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

Matt. xxvi 38 Then said he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death. Rom. vii: 13—Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it may appear ,sin working’ death in me by that which is good. Verses 17, 18 -—-Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing. Verse 21—I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.

10 ‘Verscs 23, 24—But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in, my members. 0 wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from thus body of death? Chap. viii : 3__For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin condemned sin in the flesh (Likeness here means sameness. See Heb. ii: 14).

II. Cor. V 2 I—-For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin ; that we might be made the righteousness of God him . I. Pet. ii : 23—Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree.

Let the candid reader’ closely examine these passages, and he will find no escape from the fact that sin, as all act produces sin as a state,

Pg 403 and that sin as a state stops not with its actual producer, but is transmitted in the flesh, so that the sins of fathers are inherited, in their physical effects, by their children, and their children’s children. The first passage says that man is “full of trouble,” and observation and experience prove that this is not a truth simply to be seen, but it is felt, being all element of mortality ; and, of course, trouble of all kinds, bodily’ or mental troubles, have their origin in sin directly Or remotely. Psa. li: 5 evidently refers to Christ, and therefore the “iniquity” and “sin” cannot mean transgressions of law. The very words of this passage compel us to recognize the fact that sin is set forth in the sacred writings as a state as well as all act; and it is because the state is the product of the act that the name of the cause is given to the effect. “Who call bring a clean thing out of arm unclean? Not one” (Job xiv : 4)Since God’s plan was that, notwithstanding that Jesus would be Divinely begotten, He would be “made of a woman,” the “seed of tile woman,” -“made in all points like unto his brethren,” since flesh had become defiled by sin, it was a sinful state and an iniquitous ,state, and this is the only conclusion left to be derived from the words of this text. It is an unthinkable thing that one should he shapen in personal actions, and in personal actions he conceived from his mother ; but if the mother had inherited that sinful flesh state, mortality, which is “unclean” in the sight of God, and which deeds “purging as with hyssop ;“ and if this state had been Divinely named “iniquity” and “sin,” then in this nature of “iniquity” are we all shapen, and in this nature of “sin” are we all conceived!. To transgress the law is to do a wrong thing; but Paul represents sin as doing wrong. How could the doer and the thing done be sin? They could not both be “transgression of law ;“ only one of them—the thing done—could be sin in this sense; hut the apostle says that tile doer is “sin that dwelleth in me.” This sin was in all men to overcome them, and if itself were never to be overcome by any one, all were lost. But He who would overcome that kind of sin “that dwelleth in me” must have it dwelling in Him in order to overcome it; and His merit was not, therefore, in exemption from possession of man’s tempter, which exemption if by birth, would have been no merit at all ; but His merit consisted in His successful struggle with the inward sin natural to sinful flesh ; and this He completely overcame, first, in resisting its proclivities; and second, in “purging it as with hyssop” and ascending to the cleansed nature of immortality.

10 It is from mortality man needs redemption ; it is from sinful flesh man needs redemption ; it is from the diabolo.,’ man needs redemption. Does it follow that mortality, sinful flesh and diabo/os are three different enemies of man? No ; these are but different words, or names, for the one thing. Sinful flesh is mortal flesh ; and mortal

Pg 404

“The word sin is used in two principal acceptation’s in the Scriptures. It signifies, in the first place, ‘transgression of law;’ and in the next, it represents that physical principle of the animal nature, which is the cause of its diseases, death, and resolution into dust. It is that in the flesh ‘which has the power of death,’ and it is called sin because the development, or fixation, of this evil in the flesh was the result of transgression. Inasmuch as this evil principle pervades every part of the flesh, the animal nature is styled ‘sinful flesh,’ that is, flesh of. sin; so that sin, in the sacred style, came to stand for the substance called man. In human flesh ‘dwells no good thing ;‘ and all the evil a man does is the result of this principle dwelling in him (Rom. viii : 18, 19)_—Elpis Israel, p. 113. This lucid definition is borne out by the following testimonies Joh xiv : i-----Man that is born of a woman is of few days, and full of trouble. Psa. li :5 ——Behold, I was shapen in iniquity ; and in sin did my mother conceive me. Verse 7 Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean; wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow. EccI. ii: 23——For all his days are sorrow, and his travail grief yea, his heart taketh not rest in the night. Matt. xix: 17—And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

Matt. xxvi : 38—Then said he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death. Rom. vii:13—Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it may appear sin, working death in me by that which is good. Verses 17, 18——Now then it is no more I that do it, but s/n that dwelleth in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing. Verse 21—I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. Verses 23, 24—But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 0 wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from this body of death ? Chap. viii: 3_For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin condemned sin in the flesh (Likeness here means sameness. See Heb. ii : 14). II. Cor. v 2 ,—For he hath made him to he sin for us, who knew no sin ; that we might he made the righteousness of God in him.

I. Pet. ii : 23—Who his own self hare our sins in his own body on the tree. Let the candid reader closely examine these passages, and he will find no escape from the fact that sin, as an act produces sin as a state,

Pg 403 and that sin as a state stops not with its actual producer, but is transmitted in the flesh, so that the sins of fathers are inherited, in their physical effects, by their children, and their children’s children. The first passage says that man is “full of trouble,” and observation and experience prove that this is not a truth simply to be seen, but it is felt, being an element of mortality ; and, of course, trouble of all kinds, bodily or mental troubles, have their origin in sin directly or remotely. Psa. Ii: 5 evidently refers to Christ, and therefore the “iniquity” and “sin” cannot mean transgressions of law. The very words of this passage compel us to recognize the fact that sin is set forth in the sacred writings as a state as well as an act ; and it is because the state is the product of the act that the name of the cause is given to the effect. “Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? Not one” (Job xiv : 4). Since God’s plan was that, notwithstanding that Jesus would be Divinely begotten, He would be “made of a woman,” the “seed of the woman,” “made in all points like unto his brethren,” since flesh had become defiled by sin, it was a sinful state and an iniquitous state, and this is the only conclusion left to he derived from the words of this text. It is an unthinkable thing that one should he shapen in personal actions, and in personal actions be conceived from his mother ; but if the mother had inherited that sinful flesh state, mortality, which is “unclean” in the sight of God, and which needs “purging as with hyssop ;“ and if this state had been Divinely named “iniquity” and “sin,” then in this nature of “iniquity” are we all shapen, and in this nature of “sin” are we all conceived. To transgress the law is to do a wrong thing; but Paul represents sin as doing wrong. How could the doer and the thing done be sin? They could not both be “transgression of law ;“ only one of them—the thing done—could be sin in this sense; but the

10 apostle says that the doer is “sin that dwelleth in me.” This sin was in all men to overcome them, and if itself were never to be overcome by any one, all were lost. But lie who would overcome that kind of sin “that dwelleth in me” must have it dwelling in Him in order to overcome it; and His merit was not, therefore, in exemption from possession of man’s tempter, which exemption, if by birth, would have been no merit at all; but His merit consisted in His successful struggle with the inward sin natural to sinful flesh; and this He completely overcame, first, in resisting its proclivities; and second, in “purging it as with hyssop” and ascending to the cleansed nature of immortality. It is from mortality man needs redemption ; it is from sinful flesh man needs redemption ; it is from the diabolos man needs redemption. Does it follow that mortality, sinful flesh, and diabo/os are three different enemies of man? No; these are but different words, or names, for the one thing. Sinful flesh is mortal flesh ; and mortal Pg 404 flesh is that state of physical decline and mental and moral abnormality which sin produced. The “weakness of the flesh,’’ and its sin— inflamed proclivities and passions constituted the devil diabolos— that which is constantly striving to cause a crossing the line from right to wrong. If this diabolos was not in the flesh of Jesus, He was not ‘‘touched with the feelings of our infirmities; He did not overcome the diabolos in the same flesh as that of the children ;‘ but Paul says, “Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same ; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil” Heb. ii: 14. Therefore to say that Jesus was not sinful flesh, and yet that He was mortal, is to confuse scripture terms, and to very nearly answer John’s description of antichrist, more nearly, no doubt , that such thoughtless theorists are aware ; for the fact that they attempt to distinguish between things which do not differ shows they have not made the matter a subject of careful reflection.

WHAT IS ANTICHRIST?

John says, “Hereby know ye the Spirit of God : Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God : and every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God : and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come ; and even now already is it in the world”— I. John iv 3). The words “in the flesh” are omitted in a number of manuscripts, and by the Revisers ; but this is not a conclusive reason for discarding them. The fact that they are found in some ancient manuscripts and not in others would suggest a greater probability of the difference arising from the omission by some copyists rather than from an addition by others. The doctrine of Christ’s coming in flesh needed emphasizing in apostolic times, and its necessity has never ceased, for this was to be a doctrine destined to be perverted by the predicted antichrist. There are many who deprive the word “antichrist” of its specific meaning by giving it a general meaning, as any thing or all things opposed to Christ. But that “antichrist” was the name given by. John to Daniel’s little horn of the beast, and to Paul’s man of sin seems evident when the facts are carefully considered. Mr. Elliott, in his Horai Apocalyptica, on page 67, Vol. I., says “Indeed to himself, St. John, the same issue of events had been revealed’’ (as referred to by Daniel and Paul) ; ‘and he had been directed to remind the Christian Church of this great coming enemy under the very remarkable name of ‘the Antichrist.’ I say, a name very notable For it was not pseudo Christ, as of those false self-styled Christs (in professed exclusion and denial of Jesus Christ) that the Lord declared would appear in Judea before the destruction pg 405 of Jerusalem. and who did in fact appear there and then ; but was a name of new formation, expressly compounded, it might seem, by the Divine Spirit for the occasion, amid as if to express some idea through its etymological force, which no older word could so well express. ANT1CIIHIST ; even as he would appear some-way as a V/ce-christ, in the mystic Temple or professing Church; and in that character act the usurper and adversary against Christ’s true church and Christ Himself .” In support of the idea that “Antichrist” was a word having a special meaning, and not that in a general sense it meant and in the sense of opposed to, Mr. Elliott says “Antichristos. When anti is compounded with a noun signifying all agent of any kind, or functionary, the compound word either signifies a vic-functionary’ of the same kind opposing, or sometimes both.” He then gives sixteen words compounded in the same way as examples. Now what does this lead us to? It leads us to the fact that antichrist is no other than the man of sin, and the little horn of the beast. Then what follows? It follows that the meaning of John’s words respecting the denial that Christ came in the flesh is to be found in the theory of antichrist, or Rome. This theory is not a positive denial that Christ came in the flesh; but it is of that nature which makes the word of God of none effect, and this is the danger which John’s imperative warning should guard

10 against. The theory admits that Jesus was “made of a woman,” and therefore came in the flesh of mankind ; but it changes that flesh from “sinful flesh” to “immaculate flesh,” and this, in effect, is a denial of the true meaning of “Christ coming in the flesh,” “the same,” as Paul terms it. Now while we have not claimed that teachers among us are leading followers back to Rome, we have said that they lead them to the outskirts. And when they teach that Jesus in flesh “was holy spotless, and most holy,” and that “there was no sin in Him inherent, inate, nor acquired,” is not this a denial, similar to, but not to the full degree of, antichrist’s denial that Christ came in the flesh? The reason why antichrist’s theory nullifies the truth is because it allows not for Jesus being an exemplification of “the way” out of the lost state into the redeemed state. If, as those on the outskirts of Rome say, His flesh was “holy, spotless and most holy,” then, from this standpoint, He was not practically “the way” out of the fallen state into the redeemed state; and, moreover, if He was not made of sinful flesh, then He did not partake of that flesh in which alone, and no other, dwells the diabolos; and in that case He did not destroy the diabolos in the flesh; and if He did not do this He did not fulfill the most important part of His mission. Therefore it is needful that we repeat the warning John gives, “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits.”

Pg 406

REDEMPTION IN RELATION TO JESUS.

The word redemption, as expressive of man’s actual need, cannot he dated further back than sin. Sin which caused man’s fall, made redemption necessary. Sin was the cause; a state of nature and a relationship of alienation of man from God was the result; and redemption was the Divine institution to meet the demands of the situation and rescue man from passing for ever out of existence. If Jesus was born in a state and relation which needed redemption, amid if He was a subject of redemption, it follows that He was “made in all points like unto his brethren.” If He was not born in this fallen state amid relation, his sufferings must have been directly imposed upon Him, and were not the inherited consequences of sin, amid this would be unjust ; and all that He suffered, including His death, was for us and not for himself, and therefore substitutionary, and therefore, again, unjust. We have not carelessly said that Jesus was born in the-same fallen state of nature common to Adam’s race, and in the same relation in respect to redemption, we mean this ; but here a careful explanation is needed to calm the impulsive excitability of some who cry out, ‘What, Jesus an alien! “ “Was Jesus an alien from God ?“ Now let us reason here in the light of Scriptures, amid avoid the influence of that prejudice which, in intending to be complimentary to Jesus, robs Him of the honor of being the actual Redeemer in His own person, practically manifesting redemption in His own very self yes, redemption in respect to relationship and to state of nature. Failing to distinguish between things that differ, the question is indignantly asked, ‘‘Was Jesus ever an alien from God ?‘‘ and with many this seems to settle the question in the negative ; but it does not settle the real question involved. Let us put two questions and compare them, and then decide what answers to give Was Jesus ever am alien from God? Was Jesus ever an alien from the “law of the Spirit of life”? Here are things that differ ; for a natural-born Jew was not an alien from God ; but was he, by birth, an alien from the ‘‘law of the spirit of life”? To say he was not is to say that birth did for the Jew what was the work of being “born again” ; that relationship to the law of eternal life ran through the blood, instead of being dependent upon and resultant of faith in the gospel. The Jew was not an “alien from God” by birth ; neither was Jesus. But natural birth under the Mosaic covenant would give neither ordinary Jews nor Jesus relationship to the law of faith the “everlasting covenant.” Those who were in the Mosiac covenant were “nigh” to God (Eph. ii: 17), but they had to receive that “faith which cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God,” without which “it is impossible to please God’ (Rom. x : 17 ; Heb. xi: 6), before they became Subjects of the everlasting covenant ; and Jesus was no exception to this. in the Sense Pg 407 of being “nigh to God,” the Jews were “His own”; and “He Came to his own and his own received him not. But as many (of His own) as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God.” How? By natural birth? “Even to them that believed on his name” (John i : 12). There was a sonship to God for the Jew by birth; but there was a higher sonship by being “born again ;“ and with Jesus there was sonship by Divine begettal (Luke i :35); by birth under the Mosaic covenant (Ex. xiii: 2); by baptism (Matt. iii: 17); and, finally, by change to Divine nature (Rom. i : 4). For a Jew and for Jesus to enter that relationship to God which the law of the one faith only can produce, there had to be voluntary action, prompted by the knowledge and love of the Truth. Thus was

10 Jesus an exemplification of “the way, the truth and the life”; and in order that He might be this, He must start outside the law of faith, enter therein, live and die therein, and thus work His way to and into final and complete redemption for Himself in order that He might become our Redeemer. Therefore we read that “by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption” (Heb. ix: i 2); and He prayed to be “saved out of death, and was heard in that he feared” (Heb. v:7).

ANOTHER INVENTION.

There is another invention which nullifies the word of God and which has led some astray from the simplicity of the Truth. Recently it has been masquerading under the name of “new light.” It is related to the claim that “the sacrifice of Christ has nothing to do with Adamic condemnation,” and that “all that baptism does for us is remove the penalty of the second death, which comes upon us when we learn the gospel.” It runs as follows: There is no removal of the Adamic sentence; it must be paid by “natural death,” and by this death each one pays it for himself. Therefore a-Jew by keeping the law of Moses earned eternal life, and by dying a natural death he paid all that was against him in the Adamic sentence. On this basis it is further claimed that since Jesus kept the law, He was not required to shed His blood for His own redemption. All that was required of Him was that He die a natural death to pay off the claim of the Adamic sentence that was upon Him. The only reason why He had to die on the cross—by blood-shedding—was because those He came to redeem were guilty of personal sins. For these He must die a violent death; but were it not for these, a natural death would have been sufficient for Himself. To start with a false statement requires many more false ones to prop the first one up. The false one that started all this was, “There is no forgiveness” (remittance) “of Adamic sin”—the meaning being that there is no interference with the Adamic sentence; it must be met by natural death. The question of redemption for us from Adamic condemnation, and Christ’s relation thereto; also the second death theory, we have

Pg 408 dealt with in the pamphlet entitled, “Adamic Condemnation and Responsibility.’ Therefore we limit our remarks here to the question of natural death being sufficient for Jesus, while violent death was required for our personal sins. If Jesus could have obtained redemption by natural death, that would have been one way of salvation if we could obtain redemption only by violent death, that would have been another way of salvation; and there would have been two ways of salvation. If Jesus’ salvation could have been obtained by natural death, He did not die the death by which His salvation could have been attained. if it was provided that Jesus could save himself by natural death, then God made arrangement by which He could “enter eternal life alone.” If no such an arrangement was made, then the inventors of this theory have no right to say that natural death would have been sufficient for Jesus. Will they presume to say that God provided alternatives in the plan of salvation? They could present their case to Jesus like this : “Now so far as you are concerned, you need not “endure the cross” to obtain the “joy that is set before you.” You can prolong your days of natural life, evade the shame and pain of the cross, and obtain eternal redemption for yourself by allowing nature to take its ordinary course. True the Abrahamic covenant can never come into force without the death of the covenant sacrifice, and that sacrifice was always by blood-shedding in the types, but you can attain to all the blessings of that covenant for yourself by keeping the law of Moses, and evading violent death on the cross. If you die any other than a natural death, it will not be the death that would have saved you; and any sufferings and death that you may endure over and above that which would save you will not be for yourself, but for others, and therefore you, to this extent, will die as their substitute, and as their substitute only, since you will be doing what is not needed for yourself.” In all this speculation of minds anxious to pose as producers of “new light” God’s plan is represented as confusion worse confounded. The redemption of the first-born in Israel by the blood of the sacrifice is meaningless, and the atonement for the typical altar by the sprinkling of blood is without antitype, with many other beautiful forms of revealing the sublime truth concerning Jesus. In the days of His flesh Jesus was in the holy place; the vail hung between Him and the Most Holy place of complete redemption. In that vail is the scarlet color of sinful flesh. That vail represents His flesh. The scarlet represents the blood of the flesh, and the only way for Jesus to pass into the Most Holy was through the rending of the vail “from top to bottom,” thereby “consecrating for us a new and living way through the vail, that is to say, his flesh.” The only way that He could pass through was the one way God had provided for Him in order that it might be for us. Therefore “by his own blood” (not by natural death) “he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained Pg 409

10 eternal redemption” (Heb. ix : 12). In the face of Paul’s declaration that “By’ his own blood,” which means, by means of his own blood, “he entered in once into the holy place,” the so-called “new light” theorists assert that Jesus could have entered into the most holy place by allowing nature to take its course in natural death ; in other words, He could have reached the most holy state without passing through the vail. This absurdity would leave it optional with Jesus, whether He would enter the most holy state of salvation through the vail (which, by its scarlet color typified the shedding of blood) or “climb up some other way,” and thus obtain salvation for Himself alone leaving us unredeemed, because to save us He must allow His blood to he shed and thus die a sacrificial death. What a pity that superficial minds will meddle with and mar the complete plan of salvation As Adam was, as our federal representative, the way into the first state, into that state which necessitated the plan of salvation ; so Jesus was, as our federal representative, the way out of the fallen state of condemnation and mortality into the way of life everlasting. Look at the first man and you will see The fall of the race in him ; look at the second man, and you will see the rise of the obedient of the race in Him. As the first man was a personal participator in the fall; so was the second Man a personal participator in the rise. As the first man was the first to fall; so was the second man the first in the rise. Now of any further testimony be needed to show that natural death would not have sufficed for the redemption of Jesus, we have the positive declaration of Paul in Heb. ix : 22—”And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without the shedding of blood is no remission. It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these: BUT THE HEAVENLY THINGS THEMSELVES WITH BETTER SACRIFICES than these. . . . Now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And as it is appointed unto (the) men once to die, but after this the judgment; so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many,” etc. “The heavenly things themselves” must be purified by the blood of the antitypical sacrifice. Was not Jesus part of these “heavenly things”? What would purify him from the impurity of mortality? Natural death, in which there would he no sacrifice, but a helpless submission to nature? No, no, it required the blood of the “better sacrifices” to cleanse the antitypical altar, the victim, and the priest— him who was the end-the object—of the law in all its types. WHAT WOULD BE A KEEPING OF THE LAW?

To say that Jesus could have entered eternal life by keeping the law of Moses without suffering the death of the cross is as absurd as if one said Jesus could have entered eternal life by keeping the law of Moses without keeping the law of Moses. It is a contradiction of terms; for if the law of Moses required Jesus to do one thing more

Pg 410 than another, it required Him to “pour out his soul (the life that is in the blood) unto death.” Follow Jesus from His birth to the foot of the cross, and stop there for a moment and ask, Has He kept the law? has He completed what He said He came to do—”not to destroy the law and the prophets, but to fulfill. While He stood at the foot of the cross, He had kept the law that far; but He had not fulfilled it ; for He must be “obedient unto death, even the death of the cross” (Phil. ii: 8); and for Him to he obedient means that He had been commanded to die the death of the cross, and where is the command found? Is it not in all the types of the law of Moses? Therefore when standing at the foot of the cross Jesus had not kept the law of Moses, He had not “fulfilled” that which he came “not to destroy, but to fulfill,” the most essential part of the law remained yet to be fulfilled—the “cleansing of the heavenly things themselves by the better sacrifice” ; for “without the shedding of blood there is no remission” (Heb. ix : 22). If it he claimed that this “remission” relates only to our personal sins, and not to any thing to be remitted in Christ’s case, let the reader examine the context and the error will be corrected. Many quote this passage as if it read, “Without shedding of blond is no remission of sins,” adding the last two words. The apostle is speaking of “sprinkling both the book, and all the people. . . . Moreover he sprinkled likewise with blood both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry” ; and to all of these his words are applied—”without shedding of blood is no remission.” All these things, in their natural state, as parts of a world that had come under a common and universal curse, were “common and unclean,” and until they were sanctified, or the “uncleanness” remitted, they were unfit for spiritual use. By the sprinkling of the blood this “remittance,” or putting away of uncleanness was effected. An illustration of this is given in the atonement made for the altar, of which Jesus was the antitype, as shown by Paul’s words in Heb. xiii: 10 “We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle.” Typical of this Moses was told, ”And thou shalt offer every day a bullock for a sin-offering for atonement ; and thou shalt cleanse the a/tar, when thou hast made an atonement for it, and thou shalt anoint it to sanctify it”—Exod. xxix : 36. In this very type, as well as in many others, Jesus, who had spiritual discernment to perfection, could read a command to which He must be “obedient unto death, even the death of the cross ;“ and since this applied to Him specially, what folly it is for men to claim “new light” in the gross darkness of which they assert, to suit a preconceived theory, that Jesus needed not to suffer for Himself a sacrificial death by the shedding of blond, that for Him natural death would have sufficed, and the

10 death of the cross was for us only The shedding of His blood “remitted,” or put away, the sinfulness which makes flesh “sinful flesh”; it destroyed the diabolos

Pg 411 in His flesh; and thus, as the altar He was “atoned for,” cleansed, and anointed. Having fulfilled the law God’s requirements were met, and “righteousness delivered [Him] from death” (Prov. x: 2), and thereby He became our Deliverer from all that He was delivered from as well as from our own personal sins. THE COVENANT NULLIFIED.

By teaching that Jesus could have entered eternal life alone by natural death, the word of God, as embodied in the everlasting covenant, is made of none effect. The covenant could not come into force for any one without the covenant-sacrifice. In dying a natural death, Jesus would not have been the covenant-sacrifice; the sacrificial element is not to be found in natural death. Therefore had He died a natural death, the covenant would have been left without force. Since eternal life was one vital part of the everlasting covenant, and since the covenant would have been without force without the sacrificial death of the victim, how could Jesus obtain eternal life in a covenant that He had left without force by dying a natural death and not a sacrificial death by blood-shedding? For Paul to say that Jesus entered into the most holy place, into which he also says “we have boldness to enter by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way,” is for him to say that He entered eternal life. How did He enter? Answer, “Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in ,once, having obtained eternal redemption” [for Himself]. For Himself is the meaning of Paul’s words, and the Italic words of our translation, “for us,” were not in Paul’s words, nor in his mind ; for Paul’s teaching is that it was for Jesus in order that it might be for us. “it was therefore necessary’ that the heavenly things themselves” (of which Jesus was the most important) should be “purified with better sacrifices than these” (Heb. ix : 23). “Wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat to offer” (Heb. viii : 3). Natural death is not an “offering.” He offered for Himself and for us, for it is positively declared, “This he died once, when he offered up himself”—Heb. vii : 27. Attempting to limit the sacrifice of Christ to personal sins and to ignore its relation to Adamic or racial sin, a writer occupying a prominent position in the Truth’s affairs, has written and repeated as follows “Concerning condemnation : We believe that condemnation to death rests upon the race because of Adam’s transgression, and that this is its misfortune and not its fault. ‘Not willingly, but by reason of him who did subject it’ (Rom. viii : 20) was the creation made subject to vanity, or death. That personal condemnation is entailed by personal transgressions, for which alone men are personally responsible”(Ezek. xviii 2-4). A N S WE R,.

We have here first, condemnation because of Adam’s transgression

Pg 412 which is nothing else but racial condemnation ; and second, we have “personal condemnation ;“ and these are the two aspects we have constantly contended for as involved in the plan of salvation, to which Christ’s baptism and death, and our baptism into His death, stand related ; while our opponents have omitted amid sneered at the racial aspect. Of this aspect the foregoing says : “This is a misfortune and not a fault.’’ And the contention of our opponents throughout the controversy has been that, since racial condemnation ‘is a misfortune and not a fault,’’ baptism has nothing to do with it, nor it with baptism. Now let us quietly, calmly, yes, kindly, reason together upon this matter as it is focused in the statement that

RACIAL. CONDEMNATION IS A MISFORTUNE AND NOT A FAULT.

In doing this, hard words are mnot needed ; all that is needled is mutual frankness in accepting the facts and truths involved in the statement. Let us keep the affirmative and negative parts of the statement before our minds. Affirmative: Racial condemnation is a misfortune. Negative : Racial condemnation is not a fault. Now let us ask, ‘Was it not for the purpose of delivering us from “misfortune” that God in His goodness delivered the plan of salvation ? To make it as clear as possible, let us define the “misfortune” in Scripture words. Is not the “misfortune” “mortality,” the “sting of death,’’ ‘‘unto dust shalt thou return,” “body of death,’’ ‘‘sinful flesh’’

10 do not these wor(ls define the “misfortune’? Grant that these words do not express the “fault” of individual descendants, and grant that there are personal “faults” for which there is personal responsibility ; but leave this negative part of the above statement aside for a moment, and let us, by the aid of the simplest fundamental principles of the gospel, decide whether the plan of salvation was given to redeem man from the “misfortune” of “mortality,” the “sting of death,” ‘‘unto dust shalt thou return,’’ “body of death,” ‘‘sinful flesh.’’ Is it not the primary’ work of the plan of salvation to deliver from mortality, death, and the grave? Is not this the “misfortune” from which the gospel came to redeem? How can we be sure that this is the purpose of the plan of salvation? There is a KEY. Shall we mutually agree to accept this Key? Where is it and what is it? It will, yes, it must be seen in a moment by asking, Was Jesus a subject of redemption? If so, was He redeemed from the “misfortune”? If so, was He not redeemed by baptism, by a righteous life, and by an obedient, sacrificial death? If so, was not His redemption entirely from the “misfortune” and not from the “fault”? If so, was He not an exemplification of what salvation is? If so, do we not need the very same salvation, which can be obtained only by baptism into the very death which redeemed Him from the “misfortune”? Now add the negative part of the statement, amid let us also agree that in this great plan of salvation which redeemed One who was free from “fault” there is also provision for our “faults,” and let us praise God pg 413 that in His great love He provided a plan that comprehended redemption from racial condemnation and from personal condemnation—from ‘‘misfortune” and from ‘‘fault.’’ Shall we write this down as agreed to, and end the dispute so far as this part of it is concerned? If you say no, then we ask, Why? To make the matter doubly sure, let us recall how God’s law dealt with cases where there was “misfortune amid not fault.” Illegitimacy to the offspring was a “misfortune and not a fault.” Yet the law of God prohibited the unfortunate from entering the congregation of the Lord. Leprosy was a “misfortune and not a fault,” yet the poor leper must not approach the sanctuary ; and when cured and cleansed, a sin-offering must atone for him, and many other instances will occur to the informed reader illustrating how “misfortune” without “fault” estranged from God, and how atonement had to be made for such helpless “misfortunes” before the subjects could be received in the congregation of the Lord. Even to the age to come this principle is carried, when the “misfortune” of descent from unfaithful ancestors is required to bear its burdens “And the Levites that are gone away far from me, when Israel went astray, which went astray away from me after their idols; they shall bear their iniquity” _ Ezek. xliv:10. Let us illustrate this essential truth by

A PRINCE AND A PEASANT.

A benevolent prince is good enough to invite a poor peasant to the royal palace to receive much-needed help. While on the way the poor peasant falls a victim of a railroad wreck. He is thrown into a muddy ditch, his clothes torn and tattered. He emerges bespattered with mud from head to font and barely clothed with rags. He hurries on to the door of the Palace, and is about to enter, when one of the Royal Guards quickly shouts, “Stand back !“ “But,” says the peasant, “I have been invited by the Prince to meet him in this Royal Palace.” “I am aware of that,” says the Guard, “but the invitation meant that you must enter the Palace in a decent condition. Look at your rags, and your mud-bespattered body. Do you think the Prince will receive you in this unsightly state?” “But sir,” replied the peasant, “it was all a ‘misfortune and not a fault.’ I did not wreck the train, I was a helpless victim, had no hand whatever in the cause of this ‘misfortune.’ I hope neither you nor the Prince will hold me responsible for a ‘misfortune’ that was not a ‘fault’ of mine. It was purely a ‘misfortune,’ a ‘misfortune,’ sir, and why do you keep me from the presence of the Prince because of a ‘misfortune?’” “My dear, honest friend, I will not keep you from the presence of the Prince; but you will keep yourself therefrom if you do not put yourself in proper condition to approach the Prince.” “Put myself in proper condition, have I not told you that my condition is due to ‘a misfortune and not a fault?’ pg 414

I have no means of washing off this mud, neither have I a single garment to put on. All I have and all I am you see here now, and Just as I am I come to thee And humbly beg to make my plea.

10 “Do you blame me for this ‘misfortune?’ Does the Prince blame me for this ‘misfortune ?‘ It is mint my fault at I am in this condition.” “No, it is not your fault, but is your fact, and your condition is a fact that makes it utterly impossible for you to approach the Prince.” “Alas! my bright and burning hope is quenched by the cold, chilly waters of despair. What shall I do?” “Cheer up, my dear friend. You are only one of thousands who are victims of ‘misfortune,’ and one of many who have come to see the Prince. For all such as you the benevolent Prince has made ample provision for your ‘misfortune.’ Enter yonder door, and you will see the words written on the wall “Wash and be clean.” Every facility will be found there for you to carry out this motto. Hanging on a nail in a sure place you will see a clean, white robe. Upon your emergence from the cleansing waters, this robe will be thrown over you, your ‘misfortune’ will be thus hidden from the pure eyes of the benevolent Prince, you can then enter and he will receive you and bless you.” “Thank you a thousand times, and to the Prince be all praise due. But—— MY FAULTS I feel that it is not all ‘misfortune’ with me, for I have my ‘faults’ too. What will the Prince do for these?” “Fret not, dear friend, the Prince who has made provision for your ‘misfortune’ has, in his goodness, provided for your ‘faults.’ The same water that will so remove your ‘misfortune’ as to make you fit to approach the Prince will also wash away your faults. Make haste, believe and do, and God speed you.” Despair gives place to revived hope and joy, and the poor peasant is on his way to yonder door, when an enemy confronts him and says, “Do you think the Prince requires you to wash and robe yourself because of ‘a misfortune and not a fault?’ Pray, do not let that Guard deceive you. The Prince knows you are not personally responsible for your ‘misfortune’; you banish from your mind the thought that you must enter the water to cleanse you from your ‘misfortune’ or that a robe is provided to hide it from the eyes of the Prince. Entering those waters and putting on that robe will not affect your ‘misfortune’ in the least in the eyes of the Prince. All you must think about is your ‘fault,’ and with the mud and rags of your ‘misfortune’ you can pass into the presence of the Prince. The faithful and strict Guard will not allow you to enter, but you can enter some other way.” “Ah! I have heard about ‘climbing up some other way,’ and read of those who attempt it as ‘thieves and robbers.’ I am not going to be of that class. ‘Get thee behind me, Satan.’ I am going in here to ‘Wash and be clean.’

Pg 414

SINS OF AN OBNOXIOUS TYPE As to the Responsibility matter, there are two ways of viewing the question of rejection of the gospel. To illustrate : It is not often that a person in a sinking ship, if he realizes his predicament, will reject the offer of a life-boat crew. When he does, it is not regarded as a “personal transgression of a specially obnoxious type ;“ but attributed to various causes. He may not be fully confident that he is able to make the change and endure the hardship to be encountered before reaching the shore, and many other hindrances may appear to him to stand in the way, and these may be all imaginary, but there they are as they appear to him, and few will charge him with guilt of “personal transgression of a specially obnoxious type.’’ On the other hand, there is a class who have magnified the “rejecter question ‘ to the extent that instead of the gospel being an invitation of love extended to perishing creatures, it is an imperative command which threatens the penalty of the second death if not obeyed. It was enough for our Lord to teach poor, perishing creatures that they were already perishing, and if they did not believe and obey perish they would ; but modern methods with some require a threat reaching far beyond perishing under the weight of death under which creation groans, and constantly brandish over men already in this bad plight, the fearful sword of second death. In the parlance of royalty, a “command” is often an invitation to favor, such as when a king “commands” a company of musicians to render their music before him. Should timidity or any other cause be a reason for declining, the king would not regard it as “a transgression of a specially obnoxious type ;“ he would regard the loss of the honor amid the reward, as a loss for which the losers were to be pitied, rather than construe it into a “transgression of a specially obnoxious type.” These quoted words which we have purposely repeated, have been kept flaming before the eyes of some very much after the fashion of the Johnathan Edwards and Spurgeon manner of frightening children and ignorant people with the horrors of hell torment. The “conversion” of any one by such a method is no conversion at all. If a person will not be baptized unless there is a punishment of second death for refusing, that is the person that cannot be baptized into Christ, though he be dipped in water a thousand times. The one who can be baptized into Christ is the one who realizes that he is a perishing creature, that Heaven’s hand of love is within his reach, and who cries out, “Here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?”

10 The “good and honest heart” never thinks about future punishment; it is salvation and reward that is the power in his mind that hurries him into baptism. To him, the threat of a second death is useless; to another who, as some think, needs such a threat, it is worse than useless, since to offer such an one to God is to offer a polluted sacrifice.

Pg 416 But this oft-repeated expression, let us examine it. Here it is in full from the pen of one who seems unable to preach the gospel without it : ‘‘That condemnation to the second death is entailed by personal transgression of a specially obnoxious type, namely, a sinning against the light, whether on the part of those who have made some effort to obey God, as in baptism, or of those who have made no effort at all.” The phrase ‘‘sinning against the light” is found in Job 24 : 13 “Men groan from out of the city’. and the soul of the wounded crieth out ; yet God layeth not folly to them. They are of those that rebel against the light, they know not the ways thereof, nor abide in the path thereof.” The reader can judge whether this refers to “enlightened rejecters.” But the evil of the statement is to be seen by intelligent men the Truth in that it places unbaptized Gentiles on the same plane as baptized believers, as if they were under the same law ; while Gentiles, according to the most rudimentary principles of the Truth, are under “the law of sin and death,” ‘‘without Christ ;‘‘ and saints have passed from that law to “the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus.” The evil, further, is to be seen in the injustice it sets forth, to illustrate which, let us suppose two persons, one who lives a life of sin of every sort--—he lies, steals, commits adultery, murders and blasphemies. He knows that every sin he commits is contrary to the law of Christ; he is well versed in all the precepts but not in the doctrines of Christ ; to this extent he is “sinning against the light.” Bum the framer of the statement we are examining holds no threat of second death over him. The other man has from childhood known and striven to respect all the precepts of Christ, but he has not known the doctrines. At last he learns the doctrines, but, for some reason, refuses to be baptized ; and we are asked to believe that he is guilty of “personal transgression of a specially obnoxious type,” punishable with the second death, while the other man. the miserable wretch. never comes under the second death—Why? Why, if they are both under the same law ? If the latter is under the law of resurrection to the second death, why is not the former? Will any one dare say that the wretch of a long sinful life has not committed sins of “a specially obnoxious type?” If the one must come forth to the second death because he has committed sin of an “obnoxious type,” .it follows that if the other does not come forth to the second death his sins are not of the “obnoxious type ;“ this makes the “ways of the Lord unequal.” Now take the reasonable view, which is the Scriptural view, and regard those of this evil world as subjects of Satan’s kingdom, entitled, as Dr. Thomas says, “to all that Satan’s kingdom can give them,” left of God to take their punishment (and they all get it, though it may not be visible to the finite mind), and in special cases to have it visited upon them, like Nebuchadnezzar and Herod, all to go down

Pg 417 to oblivion, better for the world out of existence than in existence. “Like sheep they are laid in the grave, death shall feed on them.” “They are dead, they shall not live ; they are deceased, they shall not rise ; therefore hast them visited and destroyed them, and made all their memory to perish.” Now take those who have been redeemed from Satan’s kingdom and have -passed from (the sentence of) death unto (the sentence of) life,” out of Adam into Christ. They have received favors. To them “much is given,” and of them ‘-much is required,” for they are on a new and high plane, a plane of probation with a second life before them, on the one hand, and a second death, on the other hand. Having taken on the Great and Holy name of Jehovah, if they dishonor it, they surely will be guilty of “personal transgression of a specially obnoxious type; “and since they have become related to a law that has a day of reckoning beyond the resurrection, they must appear to receive, after judgment, not before, the penalty of the second death.

But thank God, if we honor His name we shall “not be hurt of the second (heath.” God punishes no one for “making an effort to obey Him ;“ what an absurd thing to say ; and what a mistake to impute to any sane man the belief that God will punish any man for “making an effort to obey Him ;“ the punishment of those who take on the name of Christ and dishonor it is not for “effort to obey,” but for desecrating sacred ground, to which love had admitted them. Let every one, therefore, ”count the cost” before he steps upon “holy ground,” and let no one press “fools to rush (under ignorant fear) where angels fear to tread” with solemn care and deepest concern .

10 BLOOD RELATIONSHIP

“Concerning our relation to Adam, we believe it to be a matter of blood relationship, that we are in Adam by flesh descent and therefore die.” This is intended to deny any change of relationship from “in Adam” to “in Christ” by baptism, and to hide the change of position on this which has taken place in late years. The “Declaration” was secretly changed. Originally, it declared baptism to effect a legal union with Christ,” that is, that the subject passed from one law to another, from the law of the Adamic race, the law of sin and death, to the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus. The change that reduced baptism to the remission of personal sins only, and ignored the passing out of Adam into Christ could not endure a “Declaration of First Principles” that declared a legal change at baptism, and without confession and without notice to the brotherhood, the “legal” was cut out of the plates and the “Declaration” as it is now, sails under false colors, as do other books of deceased authors which reckless hands have presumed to change to suit new theories sailing- under old colors. This change is a return to the Campbellite theory of baptism

Pg 418

, which allows only for remission of personal sins, a baptism which Dr. Thomas repudiated when he came out from that body with the full light of the gospel. But this “blood relationship” has deceived some. Let us examine it, whether there is not more than a “blood relationship,” one that can be changed at baptism. even though the ‘blood” remains the same. Dr. Thomas could see two states.” one before and one after baptism; two “constitutions,” one into which all are born, the other entered by being “born again.” This he illustrates as follows: “By constitution, then, one man is English. and another is American. The former is British because he is born of the flesh under the British constitution” (.‘blood relationship” and under the constitution of Britain.) “There are two states or kingdoms in Clod’s arrangements, which are distinguished by constitution” (but which our opponents fail to distinguish). “These are the kingdom of Satan and the kingdom of God. The citizens of the former are sinners; the heirs of the latter are saint.” (good or bad according to the law of saints). Please read the Doctor’s arguments in full in “Elpis Israel” pp. 114, 115, 118. Then on what baptism does in respect to the change of “constitution, read pp. 121, 122. Bro. ROBERTS says, “When he passes into Christ, his relation to the whole death dispensation which Adam introduced is put off.” “The (genuine) Declaration”—Baptism is the means of the present (legal) union with Christ. BRO ROBERTS “There is a passing out of Adam into Christ.” The present editor of the same paper: “We believe that the apostolic phrase in Adam, found once in the Scriptures (1Cor. I5~ 22) is expressive of physical mortal nature and nothing else.” Therefore Bro. Roberts is contradicted, since he said, “There is a passing out of Adam into Christ” at baptism, and of course he did not mean that the physical, mortal body was changed. The new editor can see nothing else but a changeless blood relation; the old one could see “a present legal union,” and a “passing into Christ” whereby is effected “his change of relation to the whole death dispensation which Adam introduced.” The new editor has departed from the simplicity of the Truth into a mere Campbellite baptism, and therefore can see “nothing else” but “flesh and blood” in the case. Dr. Thomas could see a change from the “constitution of sin to the constitution of righteousness.”

AN ILLUSTRATION

Let us take the Doctor’s illustration of the naturalized Englishman and try to make even those unwilling to see open their eyes and see. John has been a good, honest plow-boy most of his life. The furrows he had plowed across the fertile fields of old England were as straight as a line, and his “master” was proud of him. But

Pg 419

John was ambitions, and thought he would try to find fortune in a new land, and off he starts for America. Upon his arrival, he finds that he can not claim nor receive the benefits of the Republic unless he becomes a citizen thereof. ‘‘John’’ he is told, “you can not vote for any of the officers of this government. nor hope to become one yourself neither can you own land in some of our States unless you change yourself from an Englishman in to an American.’’ “Change myself’’ replies the astonished plow—boy. “I am an English man by ‘blood relationship.’ sir, and how can I change my ‘blood relationship,’ sir ‘‘But. dear John, although you were an honest plow—boy of old England you must have heard something about the British

10 Constitution’’ and of your relationship to the Government of Great Britain’’ I do not know anything about your hard words, ‘Constitution and all the rest of it,’’ replies John. ‘-All I know is that I am an Englishman by ‘blood relation,’ by ‘blood relation,’ sir. I belong to England, sir, by ‘blood relation’ and nothing else,’ I tell you.’’ But, dear John, you must try to learn that while you are an Englishman by ‘blood relationship ‘you are also a British subject according to law—-it is a question of law, you must understand ; and unless you change your relationship from being a subject of the law, constitution, or government of Great Britain and become a citizen of the United States, that is, declare your intention to obey the laws and accept the emoluments of this government, you cannot hope to be anything more than John the plow-boy. “Well, then,” says John, “I do not have to change my ‘blood relationship?’ “No, no, my boy, you cannot get rid of your English blood ; you had better keep that as long as you can in its good old English richness and redness. You are to cease to be a subject of the laws of Great Britain, and become a citizen, subject to the laws of the new country that will adopt you. In England you were a son by birth, here you will become a son by adoption. When you were in England you were not responsible to the laws of this country; when you become naturalized, you will cease to belong to the laws of Britain, and to our laws you must be obedient; for by them you will be commended or condemned according to the life you live. Now John, do you fully understand?” “It is clear enough to me now,” said John, “I change my relationship from England to America, but I thought at first, in my simple way that it was impossible for me to change, because, you see, I knew I was English by ‘blood relation,’ and I thought there was ‘nothing else.’ Excuse me for being so short-sighted, but in my plow-boy simplicity I had not thought of these—let me see, what do you call them over here—these politics.” “Yes, John, ‘politics.’ A polity is a government, in which there are laws governing the various policies to be carried into execution by the administrators of the law. So, to use this word you have just thought of, you have left the politics of England, and you are about to pass under those of a new country. Success to you, dear John.”

Pg 420

Paul says, ‘in Adam all die’ (1 Cor. 15 :22), in that ‘all’ he of course includes himself and all in Christ.’’ Indeed ? who said that “all of course includes himself and all in Christ”? is that the way to prove an assertion? “Jesus said they ‘cannot kill the soul,’ and the soul here, ‘of course,’ is immortal.’’ This is as good as that, Since this and that are mere assertions without proofs. Paul said that in baptism there was a “putting on of the new man ; ‘ and we cannot be subjects of both men’s politics or constitutions at the same time. When Paul said ‘in Adam all die’’ he declared that in Adam only death could be hoped for, since the sentence upon all in Adam, “dust thou art and unto dust shall thou return,” has never been revoked, and it will therefore hold its own ; while “even so in Christ shall all be made alive” is said of those who have, as Bro. Roberts says, Passed out of Adam into Christ.’’ Since Christ, and not Adam, is the resurrection, all in Christ are in the resurrection, to come forth for judgment by the law of Christ under which they started their probation as soon as they put off one constitution and put on the other. Instead of Paul ‘‘of course’’ meaning ‘‘himself and all in Christ” when he said “In Adam all die,” he “of course” did not mean “all in Christ,” for in the same chapter he said of some in Christ, “We shall not all sleep.” All these errors are the result of the theory that resurrection to the judgment seat of Christ is based upon “sins of in obnoxious type ;“ upon this basis, every miserable sinner of the Gentile world who knows that what he does is wrong, will he raised to judgment with the saints. The Scripture basis is clear. ‘.They preached through Jesus the resurrection from the dead.”-Acts 4:1 Heb. 13 :20 For the Editor of The C. in answering The A. to labor to prove that baptism is for the remission of personal sins, is for him to imply that we deny this truth ; but he must well know that we accept this as heartily as he does. Therefore the list of texts he gives proves for us what it proves for him, leaving the real issue to be decided by the evidence in its favor. To prove what is not denied is needless, and one truth will not cast out another ; each must he allowed to have its place. The issue is not what baptism does for personal sins, but it is, Does baptism have any thing to do with the effects of Adamic sin? The claim we are contending for is, that in baptism there is a transition from condemnation inherited from Adam, to reconciliation in Christ, and this is what our opponents deny, and assert that baptism and the sacrifice of Christ have nothing whatever to do with Adamic condemnation. In our contention for this we are contending for a principle which underlies the whole plan of salvation—the vital principle that was exemplified in the salvation of Jesus Himself, who was a subject of salvation, or redemption, yet free from personal transgression. This salvation was a needful thing for us before we committed personal sins ; and it is this “misfortune”

Pg 421

God’s love is primarily extended to, all other evils included as results of the fall of the grace of mankind in Adam.

10 TEXTS EXAMINED

On page 5 of the circular containing the “extracts” we are examining, our careless editor, who flippantly charges his opponents with dishonesty (page 3).refers to twenty-four texts without analyzing them in attempting to show that they prove what he asserts—the remission of personal sins only. Believers in the immortally of the soul and heaven-going and hell-going at death often print a list of texts, such as refer to the thief on the cross, the rich man and Lazarus. etc. But we all know how deceiving this is to ignorant people, and how fruitless it is to those who are intelligent, and who must see for themselves. An examination of these ~will show the short sightedness of those who quote them to prove they refer to personal sins only. It wil1 not be unprofitable to carefully examine them. Acts 2 :38_”Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.” Our critic is unable to see in this any more than all the sects see, the forgiveness of sins, which was all Dr. Thomas saw in it when he was baptized with a Camphellite baptism ; and this he afterwards found to be a useless baptism. since it did not comprehend all the truth. Upon further enlightenment, he saw a meaning in the word “repent”, a change of mind, and a change of sides from Adam to Christ. he also saw a meaning in the words, ‘‘baptized in (Greek cis, into) the name, a meaning which implied out of one relation into another, which he termed a “passing from (the sentence of) death unto (the sentence of) life.” Of this he said “The apostles taught that death had been canceled and immortality’, that is, deathlessness or life and incorruptibility, brought to light by Jesus Christ in the gospel of the kingdom that the writing of death against the saints had been crossed, or blotted out,” This is why death cannot hold saints in the grave ; while all who die without having death. or the sentence, “crossed out” are held in death under that sentence which had not for them been “crossed out.” This is what Bro. Roberts termed a “wiping out of the whole dispensation of death which stands against us in Adam,” when we, at baptism, ‘are, he said, “given a clean slate.” All this the present editor spurns, and reduces the object of baptism to the bare Campbellite limits. Allow the full meaning of “repent” and “baptized into the name” as well as that of the “remission of sins,” and you will have saving truth in this text. Acts 3: 19—”Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord ; and He shall send Jesus Christ,” etc. In this there is not a word about baptism, and the “blotting out of sins” is to be when “He shall send Jesus Christ.” These words were spoken

Pg 422 to representatives of the guilty nation, whose national sins will not be “blotted out” till the “times of refreshing shall come” when “he shall send Jesus Christ” and the “restitution” shall take place when; as “Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me : him shall ye hear in all things, “etc. Acts 5 : 31. here we have “repentance”— a change of sides— as well as “forgiveness of sins.” Accept the two and you will have the truth with its saving power ; separate them, and you make the word of God of none effect. Acts 10 : 43. What is the use of referring to scriptures if you do not try to understand the words they use. Open your eyes again here and try to see some thing more than “forgiveness of sins,” you will see in the words, “believeth in (rather, into) him” —a ‘‘putting on of the new man,” and you cannot “put on the new man’’ without “putting off the old man with his deeds” (Col. 3 : 9). Acts 13 : 38. Here we have, in addition to “forgiveness of sins,” “by him all that believe are justified from a// things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.” Jesus himself was a partaker of this “justification” though he had no personal sins (1 Tim. 3 16); you cannot partake of this justification unless you acknowledge God’s justice in condemning the race. This Jesus did by submitting to death and burial ; this we do by being “baptized into his death. (Rom. 6 :3). Acts 15 : 19. There is no issue here. Acts 17 : 20. This again provides for “repentance”—a changing of sides from the “old man” to the “new man,” whereby we may share rulership with Jesus in the day appointed to “rule the world in righteousness.” Acts 22 : i6—”Arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins.” This “washing” meant more than personal sins, for Jesus was “washed” in his baptism. Paul explains the nature of this “washing,” well understanding what his baptism was for. He says, “Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the was/iing of regeneration,” etc. Mark the “regeneration,” and ask what placed man in that condition in which generation was marred and made “unclean,” and then you will see where “ the washing of regeneration has its origin. This was what Paul was baptized for. But to be baptized for the forgiveness of personal sins only is to lose sight of the principal design of baptism, the very form of which relates to the death and burial which the “one sin” brought, and to the resurrection which is “through Jesus.” To be born is to be “born in sin ;“ to be “born again” is necessitated by the fact that we are “born in sin.” Acts 26: 18—”To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may

10 Pg 423 receive the forgiveness of sins anti au inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.” All in Adam are “under the power of darkness and Satan.” Baptism transfers from Satan’s dominion to a citizenship in the commonwealth of Israel. In the process of this transition, personal sins are forgiven or remitted. Another word in this text must be noticed —”sanctified.” The typical altar was sanctified ; and Jesus, as the antitypical altar, was sanctified, with personal sins absent. It is in baptism we are sanctified (set apart) from relationship to the Adamic system of sin and darkness, termed the “power of Satan ; ‘ and when sanctified thus, we are - in the atonement. Then. too, do not overlook the word “inheritance.” We are aliens to the inheritance while we are in Adam and “without Christ” (Eph.2 12), and from this alienation we, by being baptized out of Adam into Christ are ‘made nigh by the blood of Christ ;“ for this is “the blood of the everlasting covenant,” which to us is without force till we symbolically die and are buried, thus acknowledging the sentence of death upon the race, and coming forth new creatures in Christ Jesus. It seems strange that an intelligent man can refer to this text as proof that personal sins only are meant. Ron. 4 : 7—”Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, whose sins are covered.” Sinful flesh must be “covered” with the garment of Christ before there can he approach to God ; for in its inherited -,state of ‘‘nakedness’’ it cannot, shall not, approach. Jesus clothed himself with the garment of righteousness, and thus was admitted to God’s presence. By baptism into Christ He becomes a garment to us which renders us fit to approach God, and to address Him as “Our Father.” Dr. Thomas renders Jer. 30 : 21 as follows : “Who is he that pledged his life for approaching unto me, saith Jehovah?” Jesus pledged His life to approach God. Only when clothed with Jesus can sinful flesh man approach God ; and we must die, be buried, and rise new creatures in order to be sin-covered sanctified ones in God’s sight. Christ’s part in this process was performed without there being any personal sins ; our part includes personal sins. Our flesh nakedness is clothed or “covered,” and “our iniquities” are forgiven. Rom. 6 : 12.—”How shall we that are dead to sin live any longer therein ?“ In chap. 5 : 21 the apostle refers to that “sin which reigned unto death.” Before we died to this sin, it “reigned” over us as king, and we were in “Satan’s kingdom ;“ but having passed from the dominion of Satan’s kingdom into the dominion of righteousness in Christ, we have changed from one constitution to another, like the Englishman of Dr. Thomas’ illustration. Having renounced our former king, who brought death upon all mankind, and “reigned unto death, “we died unto him, and rose out of a watery grave quickened into a new life under a new king who reigns unto life. We “repented” (changed sides), we were “sanctified,” “regenerated,” “born again.” ‘The Diaglott renders this verse thus : “By no means : How shall we,

Pg 424 having- died in’ sin, live any longer therein ?“ Jesus is our forerunner in this, He broke through from Satan’s death-dominion into the constitution of righteousness. hence verse 7 says, ”He who died has been justified from sin. ‘ This in respect to Him without personal sins. When we are baptized into his death(verse 3), it can be said of us. “He who hath died (symbolically) has been freed from sin’’—Sins dominion. How an enlightened man can refer to this scripture to prove that baptism is for personal sins only is a mystery indeed. It is a pity to see such superficiality.. 1 Cor. 15 : I4—”And if Christ be not risen from the dead, ye are yet in your sins.’’ To be “in our sins” is to be in ‘‘Satan’s dominion’’ in that sin that ‘‘reigneth unto death,’’ in which dominion we serve our king in committing sins ; and in addition to our personal sins, we are ‘‘children of wrath.” If we remain in sin’s dominion, into which we are born and are not “born again,’’ we shall continue in Adam, in whom there is nothing but death to hope for. “For as in Adam all die.” But if we pass out from sin’s dominion and not remain ‘-in our sins.’ We shall be in Him who is “the resurrection ;“ “For even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” This change from “in Adam” to ‘in Christ” is effected by baptism, as Bro. Roberts says. ‘We pass out of Adam into Christ,” a truth which the present editor of the Christadelphian denies, and attempts to prove that all in Christ are also in Adam. 2 Cor. 5: 19—_”To wit, that God Gad was in Christ’ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them ; and hath committed to us the word of reconciliation.” Mark the word, “reconciliation.” Were we ever personally’ in conciliation with God? No; we “were without God.” (Eph. 2 :12). When were we in any sense in conciliation with God? Only in Adam before he fell, and therefore only as a race, not as individuals. ‘We were born aliens, out of conciliation with God, and we inherit this from our father Adam—it is a family legacy. By adoption into a new family we become , reconciled to God, and then our sins are not “imputed.” By the way, is there not a point here a little perplexing? Many times we read of

10 personal sins forgiven, if forgiven, how are they not “imputed ?“ What “transgressions” are not imputed? Peter says Jesus bore our sins (plural) in his own body. Our personal sins were not in His body, for they had not been committed, it was Adamic sin, in its effects, that He bore in His body. Why sins (plural)? Because the original sinner had multiplied into a plurality of persons, each having his share of the one sin multiplied, therefore “sins.” May not the “transgressions” (plural) in this text be the same? And may not this be the reason for the none imputation? That is, when we pass into Christ out of Adam, that sin (or transgression) that “reigneth unto death’’ in all who are in Adam, is not imputed to us in the sense of visiting death upon us without restoration to life.

Pg 425

Upon every Adamite it is fully “imputed” to the extent of death without hope; not so with those in Christ, with whom death is a temporary sleep. I am not dogmatizing on this, only suggesting an explanation of the phrase “not imputing.” In any event, we must see in the text the meaning of reconciliation, and we must not reduce such a far-reaching truth to a mere Salvation Army cry of “Get your sins forgiven.” Eph. 1 : i7_”In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins,” etc. Here are two things to be considered -redemption and forgiveness of sins. Of Jesus it is said He “obtained eternal redemption” (Heb. 9 : 12). Therefore redemption must he considered as needed and obtainable apart from personal sins ; therefore the “forgiveness of sins” of this verse is an additional thing in our case. Redemption has its root in the fall of man in Adam, and if it had been possible for all men to live free from personal sins, redemption would have been needed for fallen mall, and that by reason of Adamic Sin. This verse, like all others, shows that remission of personal sins is an incident in the great plan of salvation; and let it be understood that by this we do not, as alleged, mean to speak lightly of these sins, as if they are almost innocent; and for a brother to have represented us in this false light is worse than unfair, and it shows what extremes some will go to when they are hard pressed in an attempt to uphold a false theory. Col. 1:14 The words here are the same as those we have just considered. But notice verse 3, and give “translated” its proper meaning, and you will see that it provides for a translation from Adamic- alienation to reconciliation in Christ. I Tim. I : 15—”Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.” There is no issue on the question of saving sinners ; but you lose sight of the fact that the fallen condition from which sinners are saved precedes the commission of personal Sins, and has its origin in the fall of Adam. Then, too, do not forget that Jesus was saved, for “with Strong crying and tears he prayed to him that was able to save him out of death; and was heard in that he feared” (Heb. 5 :7). Titus 2 : 14—”Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity,” etc . Can you not see more than personal sins in “redemption from all iniquity ?“ Why can you not compare scripture with scripture? Why did not this verse remind you of Psa. 51 : 5—”Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me ?“ To be redeemed from all iniquity is to be redeemed from that state in which we are “conceived,” and Jesus was redeemed from this; and while He “gave himself for us.” He also gave Himself to effect redemption for Himself first, and by this He became our Redeemer. Heb. 9:14. This relates to what the blood of Christ

Pg 426 accomplished, and surely it is not in this letter limited to its effect on personal sins. Read verse 12—”By his own blood he entered,” etc. Read verse 23 The heavenly things themselves” (were purified), etc. Was not Jesus part of the “heavenly things?” Read chap. 13: 20, and you will see that it was through the blood of the everlasting covenant Jesus was redeemed out of that death which Adamic sin brought upon all the race. 1 Pet. i : 22. This relates to the same purifying, as does 2 Pet, 1:9. 1 John I :7. This relates to saints having their sins forgiven after they have been baptized into Christ, and does not touch the issue. 1 John 3 : 6. No one denies that He takes away our sins; but since He was “made sin,” He had this to deal with for Himself as well as for us. Rev. 1: 5. Jesus was a subject of “washing,” “purifying,” “justifying,” etc. Therefore the washing” means more than the forgiveness of personal sins. Read the first part of the verse, and you will see that Jesus was “the first begotten from the dead’.” In this you must see that He was redeemed from the death which came upon Him and upon us by Adamic sin. No where can you escape this fundamental part of the work of salvation. Rev. 7: 24. This is the same thing. Now we have examined every text given. To simply refer readers to these as proofs that baptism relates only to personal sins, is worse than “orthodox” methods of referring to texts popularly supposed to teach the immortality of the soul, etc. To print

10 the figures proves nothing. It is the careful examination in the light of the general teaching of the scriptures that will govern minds that refuse to be swayed by men, and require a reason. In all the passages there is clear reference to Adamic condemnation and death. We could add many more; but enough has been said. By the way, our editor has counted the pages we have written and called attention to this as compared with the few he wrote. But if the Christadelphian must break windows, THE CHRISTADELPHIAN ADVOATE must repair them, and it always requires more work to repair than to break. But we are writing to clearly explain to the simplest minds, and we are not stingy as to the number of pages we devote to this. Now let all keep in mind the general teachings of the scriptures and the truth will be seen. This is to be seen in “born again,” “passed from death unto life,” and such phrases. This will expand the mind to take a comprehensive view of the great plan of salvation, and lift it out of the dwarfed Salvation Army superficiality shouted in the words, “Get your sins forgiven.” Let us open our

Pg 427 eyes wide to the grand work of God, and we shall know the origin and meaning of the words. “restitution,” “reconciliation,’ ‘salvation,” ‘-redemption” “atonement,” etc. May our Heavenly Father help those blinded by invented theories to see the truth in its glorious fulness and beauty. Amen. WHEN WAS CHRIST IMMORTALIZED?

The question of w hen Christ was immortalized was much discussed in the early revival of the Truth ; and recently it has been given prominence by several who departed from what had come to be generally believed among the brethren. Some have sent us questions concerning it. and others have asked us to reply to the arguments of those who have recently changed their views. Having had in mind to deal with the question along with others treated under the title “Rectification,” we have not responded, except in the brief review of the pamphlet hearing the name of J. J. A. There are three answers given to the question. First, that Jesus was immortalized in the tomb and came forth immortal. Second, that He was immortalized in heaven after His ascension there. Third, That He was immortalized after He came forth from the tomb, during the interval between Mary’s interview with Him and the time He met His disciples. The first claim is based upon a private interpretation of types and upon the words of John 7: 39 and Heb 9:12. The text in John reads, “But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believed in him should receive : for the Holy Spirit was not yet given ; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.” Conclusions arrived at from types must allow all the types to fit their antitypes, which the claim that Jesus ascended to heaven mortal does not allow, as we shall presently show. On the verse quoted, the claim is that since it is said that the Holy Spirit was not yet given because Jesus was not yet glorified (assuming that “glorified” means immortalization) He was glorified (immortalized) in heaven when the Holy Spirit was given on the day of Pentecost. In this, logic limps somewhat; for it does not follow that if one thing has not happened because another has not. the first thing must happen immediately before the second. While the statement requires that the first thing happen before the second, it does not measure the length of time the one must precede the other. Christ’s coming as a lamb had to precede His coming as a lion, and the latter could not take place at a certain time because the other had not taken place; but a long interval separates the two events. Jesus, therefore, may have been glorified

Pg 428 or immortalized (admitting that time two words may mean the same thing) before He ascended to heaven, and yet it might be said of the giving of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, “The Holy Spirit was not yet given because that Jesus was not yet glorified.” The argument based upon this text must assume that the giving of the Holy Spirit referred to the day of Pentecost, and this is not without question. There was a giving of the Holy Spirit before Jesus ascended to heaven, as recorded in John 20: 22, and this was after His interview with Mary : “And when he had said this, he breathed on them, mind -saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Spirit.” The Pentecostal out-pouring of the Holy Spirit was specially provided for a special purpose, but it did not prevent previous impartation of the same Spirit for various purposes. The text principally relied! upon as proof that Jesus entered heaven in the mortal state is Heb. 9 :12 : “Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption.” The high

10 priest under the law took the blood of the victim into the Most Holy place; therefore, it is claimed, Jesus must enter heaven, the antitypical Holy place, with His blood. To make this fit the theory, the word “with” is substituted for “by,” because in the type the priest entered with the blood ; but the words used by the apostle’ mean, by means of, and the Diaglott renders the verse as follows : “He entered in once for all, into the holy places, not indeed by means of the blood of goats and bullocks, but by means of his own blood, having found aionian redemption.” Thus we see that the lesson of the type was that all depended upon the blood of Christ as the ratifying blood of the everlasting covenant, by means of which Jesus was brought again from the dead (Heb. 13 : 20).

The blood of the sacrifice which the high priest took into the Most Holy place was a token of death; it evidenced the fact of death having taken place outside the Holy Place. For Jesus to enter heaven with the blood of life circulating through His veins would not be a token of a sacrificial death having taken place outside the holy Place. There would be no fitness of type to antitype. A fitness would require the living lamb to have been taken into the Holy Place. Christ as the end of the law was the antitype of all-—the victim, the altar, and the priest. He is represented- by Joshua as “clothed with filthy, garments” (Zec. 3: 3), which can mean nothing hut mortality or “sinful flesh.” The high priest could not enter the Most Holy with unsanctified garments. He must “be clothed with change of raiment” (verse 4). Since the garments to be put off can mean only mortality. and since “change of raiment” must precede entering the Holy Place, Jesus must have been changed before “He entered

Pg 429 into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us’ (Heb. 9 24). Redemption, in its full and final sense, is the “change of our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body” (Phil. 3~ 21). The apostle Paul says, “We are waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body” (Rom. 8: 23). Redemption is not a glorious experienced fact till this redemption of the body takes place. This redemption Jesus obtained for Himself in order that He might have it to impart to us. When did He obtain redemption of the body’? Whenever He did He was changed from mortality to immortality. “He entered in once into the holy place” (heaven itself, verse 2 1). not to obtain, but “having- obtained eternal redemption.” Therefore we must conclude that Jesus was immortalized before He ascended to heaven. Concerning the second theory, that Jesus was immortalized in the grave, does it not seem incongruous that God should immortalize a corpse in a grave, both of which —the corpse and the grave—were constantly represented by the law as specially unclean? Of the saints we are assured that it will be “mortal bodies” that will be quickened (Rom. 8: 11); that “mortality shall be swallowed up of life” (IICor. 5 : 4); that both quick and dead shall be “changed in a moment” (I Cor. 15 :51, 52) ; that the “mortal shall put on immortality,” etc.(verse 53) ; and we read of persons raised out of the grave in the mortal state. but of such a thing as the immortalization of a corpse, never. Even recent changes admit that their claim makes Jesus an exception in this respect. But why claim such an exception, unless it be one invented theory put forth to sustain another of like character? The typical high priest, Joshua, when he “stood before the angel of the Lord” in “filthy,” or common, “garments,” was not a corpse. He was a living, mortal man of sign. He was an observer of the change and the subject of it; and there is joy and gladness in the thought that the change from the weak, mortal body to the glorious immortal body will be an actual experience that will thrill with ecstasy and delight, and why should this not be the actual experience of Him who is our forerunner? The thought of placing holy garments on a corpse in a grave is repulsive, and it is repugnant to the types of the law. Paul calls Christ our passover, who was sacrificed for us. On the Sabbath after the passover He rested in the tomb. On the day after that Sabbath He was the first-fruits of the new harvest. Forty. nine days were to elapse from “the day after the Sabbath, that is, from the day “that ye brought the sheaf of the wave offering; even seven Sabbaths” (Lev. 23:15) to Pentecost. Of this, Smith’s Bible Dictionary says, “On the morrow after the passover Sabbath, i. e., on the 16th of Nison, a sheaf of new corn was brought to the priest pg 430 before the altar, in acknowledgment of the gift of fruitfulness” (Lev. 23 : 5, 6, 10, 12). At the expiration of seven weeks from this, i.e., at the feast of pentecost. an oblation was made of two loaves,” etc. From this we see Jesus as the antitype of the passover ; He was in the tomb the Sabbath after. On the day after this Sabbath. that is, the first day of the week (for two sabbaths met) we must look for Jesus becoming the first-fruits from the dead and the first-fruits of the harvest of the immortal

10 state. It was a living priest that waved the sheaf of first-fruits before the Lord. Jesus v, as at once the priest and the sheaf. Could he be this as a corpse in the grave? Where is the fitness here? Does not the type require that He first come forth a living priest and then offer the first-fruits or become the first-fruits. “green ears of corn dried by the fire” (Lev. 2 : 14) --—the immortal fire that swallows up mortality Now we are first going to assume, and will then prove, that Jesus had not yet become the first-fruits of the immortal harvest when He met Mary after His coming forth from the tomb; and that this fact is expressed in His declaration, “I am not yet ascended to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God” (John 20: 17). The mode of resurrection is implied in the words of Rom. 8 :11 —“shall quicken your mortal bodies-.” I say implied, because for mortal bodies to he quickened for those who have gone to dust there must be a restoration of mortal bodies. It will be admitted that these words will he fulfilled in the case of those who will be alive when the Lord returns. The quickening of their mortal bodies will be the immortalization of mortal bodies actually in existence. Does this not give us the proper interpretation of the words? If so, it follows that the dead will he restored to mortal bodies and stand on an equality with the quick, when the words “quicken your mortal bodies” will be fulfilled in that “change” of “all” that is to take place in one and the same moment for quick and dead, “in the twinkling of an eye.” This lays down the mode of resurrection and immortalization, and unless an exception to this is very clearly revealed it is presumption to assume that there is one. This same rule or mode is declared by our Lord Himself in John 5~ 2 1—”For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.” The quickening according to His “will” must be subsequent to the “raising,” for some will he “raised” whom He will not “will” to “quicken” because they will be declared “unjust.” Why is this mode not as applicable to the Head of the body as it is to all the members of the body? The word “them” in this verse is supplied. Would it be straining the text to keep Jesus himself in mind in the first part, and the worthy saints in the second? We will not press this, but suggest that our Lord may mean that “as the Father raiseth up the dead (Christ), and quickeneth (Him); even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.” In any event, the latter part of the verse is a

Pg 431 sequence of the former, and we may paraphrase the verse thus: “As the Father would raise up Christ, and quicken Him, so He would give to the Son power and authority to raise up the dead and quicken whom of them He willed or found worthy.” In the absence of any clear proof to the contrary, and with this mode or process of resurrection and immortalization laid down for the members of the body of Christ, we may accept Rom. 8 :11 as corroborative: “But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised tip Christ from the dead shall also” (for you as for Jesus) “quicken your mortal bodies.” Let us now look upon Christ in the presence of Mary as “raised” but not having had His mortal body quickened into immortality, and see if we cannot find in His words, “I am not yet ascended,” a statement that He was not immortalized; and in the words “I ascend to my Father,” etc., a declaration that He was immediately to be immortalized, “quickened,” and become the wave sheaf of the first-fruits of the harvest of immortality. The question depends largely upon the meaning here of the word “ascend”—does it mean bodily ascent literally to the Father? or does it mean an ascent or exaltation of nature? It will be admitted that the words ascend and descend are used to describe a going up in the air and coming down; and also to describe aspirations and degradation. If we can rightly say of a bad man, “He descends to the lowest depths of vice,” we can also say of a good man, “He ascends to the highest realms of purity. Many other words may be quoted, but this will help us to free our minds from the thought that “ascend” must be confined to a bodily going up. It is true that the original word for “ascend” more often relates to bodily ascent, but this is because bodily ascent is more frequently spoken of than ascent of character or of nature, or of condition. If there were no instances of the original word being applied to ascent in any other sense than that of bodily ascent, it would seem like begging the question to insist upon an exceptional meaning in this text. But the word is used, for instance, in Luke 24 : 38, “And why do thoughts arise in your hearts ?“ Mark 4: 7, “The thorns grew up;” and in verse 32, ‘”It , groweth up.” Matt. 13: 7, “The thorns sprung up.” Also Mark 4 : 8, “sprang up”; and in Rev, 11: 12, “Come up;” and chap. 4: 1, “Come up hither.”

10 It will readily be seen that the word anabano, rendered in the verse in question “ascend,” sometimes means a change of condition from lower to higher, an ascent that takes place within the thing spoken of, the springing up of seed, the growing of thorns, etc. When John was invited to “come up hither,” he did not bodily ascend, but, first, it was an assent of mind, to see in vision the great and high things of the future; and, second, he was carried forward in spirit to the Lord’s day, and his ascent means his becoming spirit, Pg 432 when he will he exalted (ascend) to the throne with Christ. Here is a case where anabano means an ascent from mortality to immortality, and therefore we may, all things else being equal, take it to mean the same when Jesus says, “I ascend to my Father, etc. The full text in question is as follows: “Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God and your God” (John 20~ 17). Let us observe first what the words, “I ascend” could not mean here. They could not mean His bodily ascent forty days hence, for His message to His brethren was, “I ascend,” etc. Since He was shortly to meet His brethren and be with them during the forty days, He cannot be supposed to be sending a message concerning an ascent that He would have ample opportunity to tell them of during forty days. This is evidently seen by those who recently have made a new departure in teaching the immortal emergence of Jesus from the grave; and they had to get rid in some way of the idea that He was changed after He sent Mary with the message. So they assumed, as a means of escaping a difficulty growing out of a false notion, that Jesus must have meant that He was going to heaven bodily as soon as Mary left Him with the message. It is wise to seek any port in a storm, but it is unwise to make the storm. Assume a false premise, and many truths will arise that will not fit, and assumption will not find a stopping place. To assume that Jesus ascended to heaven and returned during the short time that elapsed between His giving the message to Mary and His meeting the brethren himself, upon the face of it is a makeshift; and since there is nothing in words, type or symbols hinting at such a short visit to heaven it is—well, it is assumption ; and that is not all, it is a contradiction of testimony. In Heb. 9~ 12 we read, “Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in”—and came out and entered in again? “He entered once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption.” This holy place is called “heaven itself” in verse 24, and verse 28 says, “So Christ was once offered to hear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear”-—the third time? Yes, the third time, if He went to heaven when the new theory claims he did, and came back, and then went to heaven again. But the testimony, in opposition to theoretical assumption, declares, “Unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.” We have now seen that the words I ascend” could not mean his bodily ascent forty days hence, nor a supposed immediate bodily ascent; and there is only one kind of ascent left, and that is, ascent to Spirit nature. The question has been clouded by disquisition’s on the meaning of “Touch me not,” which raise a separate issue not relevant to the

Pg 433 real one. We may read, “Touch me not,” “Hinder me not,” “Retain me not,” etc., and yet the reason why will remain the same, namely, “For I am not yet ascended.” This none ascent—this ascent that was to take place before He met His brethren, and which was the matter of the very message sent by Mary to His brethren—this was the gist of it all, “I am not yet ascended,” but go and tell my brethren that before I see them myself, “I ascend to my Father and to your Father, to my God and to your God.” Thus the mode of resurrection and immortalization which He had laid down for His brethren, He was subject of as the Head of the body, as the “forerunner ;“ and of Him it was true that “God raised up the dead (Christ) and quickened” Him. Thus He was the subject of the “change of raiment,” the quickening of the mortal body, “mortality was swallowed up of life.” He was changed in a moment, in the twinkling an eye a change experienced, the heavenly thrill felt in the whole human frame, the mortal put on immortality, and He who voluntarily allowed the enemy death to place its tyrannical feet upon Him, He who fell to conquer, rose triumphant from the grave and then ascended from mortality to immortality, and turned upon His momentary captor with the withering words of a glorious triumph, “0 death, where is thy sting? 0 grave, where is thy victory ?“