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 Constantine 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 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.

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.

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

Page 38

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 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, 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, Theophilus, 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.

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)

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.

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.”

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.”

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,

Pg 52

-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 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.

Pg 56

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.

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;

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 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 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

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.”

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’’ insteadof ‘‘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.”

Pg 68

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.”

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;

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.

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.

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 ramifications 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.

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.

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

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 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.

‘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 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 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

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

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

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

Pg 95

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.

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.

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 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 civilized¹and 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 high-

est pleasure to those who love Got, 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 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 he 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 he 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 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 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.”

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 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?”

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—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 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 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 Godwhich 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

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

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.

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 inmind, 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 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

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 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 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 isof 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 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..