Inconsistency with Itself.

Thames Star, Volume XIII, Issue 4296, 7 October 1882, Page 2

Inconsistency with Itself.

Gal. 6th Chap., 7 and By. At the Oddfellows' Hall, on Snnday evening, Mr E. H. Taylor delivered.§* address in reply to the Rev. H. Bull ■ sermon on "Conditional Immortality. He said : We do not imagine that Adam,invented his own language as he advanced in life, but think he was created with a full knowledge of the language he was to use. Now God said to him prior to. his sinning, " Thou shalt not eat of the fruit of a certain tree, for in the day thou eatest thereof dying, thou shalt surely die" (margin). As this is the first time dying and die are used they beair their original and pri* mary meaning only. Bickersteth, an / orthodox writer, says: "Down from its first example to the present day it has preserved this primary sense unbroken and unchasged, and it is understood alike by the savage and the civilised, by the ignorant aad the learned, by the degraded and the sensitive mind alike." We affirm, therefore, that the abstruse and metaphysical or secondary meaning of spiritual death was not understood by Adam whenr^V warning was given of the effect of dis» obedience. In insisting on the primary meaning here we are carrying out Mr , Bull's idea, that Scripture language was constructed to suit the popular mind. It is inconsistent to bring in an obscure sense* and apply it to this original, especially so, seeing this secondary sense did not obtain a place till some centuries later. We assert that words when applied to to future punishment should be taken in their primary sense, which in the beginning was their only sense, the secondary sense having been applied later on in the ages of civilization. There is a well known principle existent among mankind generally which settles this question, " All language relative to law and jurisprudence, all language setting forth the penalties of crime and disobedience, is to be Accepted in its primary sense and no other." On this principle we may set aside all secondary senses from the terms used relative to future punishment, and when death is announced as a penalty for a crime, there should be no need of controversy as to its meaning. I think Mr Bull inconsistent in first saying scripture was constructed to suit the popular mind and then import* ing an obsure sense which varies with the opinions and circumstances of men. Paul was a missionary to the Gentile or heathen and can we suppose, such an one as he would imply "that life or death, when spoken to the heathen would mean something different to what it would mean when spoken to the Jew. What then was Adam's condition when created P One of the Apostolic, " Theophilusof Antioch," says: " God made him capable of becoming either mortal or immortal, so that by keeping the commands of God he might obtain immortality as his reward and become Divine. But if he should turn to mortal things and disobey God, he would be himself the author of his own death, fojr___God_ made him free -an<r~~wifh power of self "control." Mr Bull makes another statement, which is inconsistent. "Adam died a spiritual death, and became subject to natural death ; Man is mortal and eternal." Now as spiritual death, so far as the record goes, was not mentioned to Adam, I regard it as a pure invention to support a theological theory. * See what it leads to: Adam died spiritually; then after walking about spiritually dead some hundreds of years, he dies physically. The intimation is that man being mortal and eternal, Adam, as soon as he was dead physically, went to live in spirit land. I would ask how came Adam with this spiritual life if he was dead spiritually hundreds of years before, seeing no resurrection of spirit is spoken of in Scripture? I conclude the idea is only clear in Mr Bull's mind, but certainly not in his statement. God sayß "Dying ye shall surely die*' : (marginal); the devil says "Ye shall not surely die"; Mr Bull says "Ye cannot possibly die." Which of these three is right. For my own part I prefer accepting God's statement. All the illustrations in the Old and New Testaments are alike clear as to the end of the wicked. It is only when we take our Church cateohisnts that we find secondary senses : applied. "Scientists," says Mr Bull, " hold the natural immortality of the soul firmly," To be consistent he should have said, and as many reject it; the inquiry into the origin of man is full proof of this. " The unconditional immortality of the human soul has been a subject of general belief in all ages." And yet were I to ask for a single passage from-the Old Testament in proof of this assertion, he could not produce one. Why this silence by \ God for 4003 years if natural immortality be true ? While in the New Testament immortality or eternal life is stated to be / something which should be sought for by patient continuance in well doing, and it is so many times explicitly stated to be a gift . of God through Christ. We must reject Mr Bull's statement as being without foundationeitherin the Old or the New Testament. Cicero says, relative to this matter, .." I have perused Plato with the greatest diligence and exactness, over and over again, but know not how it is whilst I read him lam convinced, when I lay tke book aside and begin to consider myself of the soul's immortality all the conviction instantly ceases." Another writer says, "It is indeed doubtful whether any of the great mind& antiquity in their inner faith held more than the tenet of Buddism, which teaches that the soul, originally derived from Deity, is at lengthto be re-absorbed and lost in Deity again." Consistency would have required the statement from Mr Bull that natural immortality had been as much doubted in all ages as believed, yea more doubt than belief. The last point I Jwill notice is, " Annihilation is repulsive to our best thoughts and feelings, and admits of no degrees of punishment." However repulsive extinction may be to Mr (Bull's thoughts and feelings, it is not to be compared to the teaching of the VVesleyan Church. It does seem, strange that putting a man biick from where he was taken—the earth—should be more repulsive than everlasting roasting alive. James says, lc. 15v., •• Then when lust bath conceived, it it bnngeth forth sin, and tin when it is finished bringeth forth death;" while Paul says in Romans lc. 32v., " SinDers are only wortby'of death." It would be b credit to Mr Bull simply to produce one passage of Scripture that spoke of "eternal life, or immortality of the wicked." Eternal life is always spoken of as being peculiar to the believe*. -