IN 1893, a few of our members who lived in Bellshill began to meet as a Church there. After some time, this Church moved from Bellshill to Uddingston. These places being in the district round which I laboured, I now and again helped them in Gospel work. But I had not many uncommon experiences in connection therewith. I may mention one thing. The Millenial Dawn people tried to make themselves felt in Uddingston, and I was asked to give a few lectures in reply to them. Our people engaged a hall, and I delivered four lectures, in which I touched upon the main points in Mr. Russell's plea. It is better named Russellism than Millenial Dawnism, for beyond all question Mr. Russell is the inventor and promoter of the whole thing. I left myself open for questions for an hour at the close of each lecture. They went in for questioning with some vigour the first evening, but they became milder as the lectures went on. When we got to the "Future of the wicked," though it is such a favourite subject with Mr. Russell, I passed very easily out of their hands. We have a Church at Overtown. They called upon me to review a lecture by a Dr. Edgar from Glasgow on "Where are the dead?" They took a hall for me in Wishaw for this purpose. I gave an hour for questions at the close of this lecture also. I had large audiences at all these lectures. These are the only times which I have required to pay public attention to Millenial Dawnism. I have often had to deal with it privately and have often come in contact with its literature.

Its literature is its main feature. Mr. Russell is more anxious about selling his literature than he is about preaching the Gospel, converting sinners, or establishing Churches. All this is quite consistent on Mr. Russell's part. His God does not wish to have sinners saved at present. He only wishes Mr. Russell and a few others just now, and he is willing that Satan should blindfold the rest. It is too much to expect, if we expect Mr. Russell to do better than his God. Why should he put off his time, trying to have sinners saved, when he believes that it is not God's will that they should be saved? In this respect Mr. Russell is as far from the first preachers of the Gospel as darkness is from light. It is very hard for me to look upon Mr. Russell's day-dreaming as a religion of any kind; you strike nearer the centre of it if you look upon it as an American bookselling speculation. The bulk of Mr. Russell's actions gather round that centre.

It is not my intention to give outlines of my lectures, I shall only touch upon a few of Mr. Russell's errors for the sake of those who do not understand his teaching.

An outstanding feature in his teaching is that mankind, with few exceptions, will have an opportunity of salvation after the resurrection. If it had pleased God to say this as plainly as Mr. Russell says it, then no one who believes the Scriptures would have any fault to find. But that is the trouble, you search the Scriptures in vain for a distinct statement of that kind. It does not seem to be any trouble to Mr. Russell to speak positively where the Scriptures do not speak, nor does it seem to be any trouble for a number of his followers just to accept his word without any clear Bible statement. If Mr. Russell believes the Bible to be the Word of God, he is one of the most stupid or most daring of men.

He knows that the Bible makes no clear statement that any sinner will have the Gospel preached to him or have a chance of salvation after this life. He has to depend upon reason and inference to make out his case in regard to this, his foundation principle. The man must have a large amount of daring presumption who asks another to risk eternity upon his deductions.

Mr. Russell affirms that no one can be saved till they hear the Gospel of Christ and accept it. The acceptance of this affirmation is essential to Mr. Russell's reasoning on the point in question. Accept it and he gets along so far with a fair show of reasoning; deny it and he stumbles at the beginning. As this is a foundation stone in his building, let us ask, "Is it true that no one can be saved unless he hears the Gospel of Christ and accepts it?" We call attention to the fact that there is no passage of Scripture which says so. When you call for a passage of Scripture which makes this pet affirmation of his, it is not forthcoming. This single fact should stop him from making it. That the Bible does not plainly say what Mr. Russell wishes it to say is a small matter in his eyes, he goes on confidently affirming it all the same.

Here is the use which Mr. Russell makes of the affirmation referred to. "There are millions of heathens who have lived and died without hearing the Gospel, it is impossible that any of them can be saved until they hear and accept the Gospel. If they never get an offer of the Gospel they must all be lost. But it would be unjust to condemn the heathen without giving them an opportunity to hear and accept the Gospel. They did not get this opportunity while they lived, therefore they must, in justice, get it after the resurrection." Mr. Russell often reasons after this fashion, and many of his dupes believe that there can be no mistake about his reasoning. We have pointed out that this reasoning rests upon the affirmation that no one can be saved until he hears the Gospel of Christ; and we have called attention to the fact that the Scriptures do not contain this affirmation. But not only is there no Scripture for it, the second chapter of Romans proves that it is not true. Paul there informs us that "As many as have sinned without law, shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law, shall be judged by the law, ... in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my Gospel" (Romans ii. 12-14).

Here you have three different standards by which men shall be judged in the same day. Those who have no written law, shall be judged by the law written in their hearts. The Jews, who had a written law, shall be judged by that law, in the same day that those who have heard the Gospel shall be judged by that Gospel. This puts it past doubt that God will judge all men according to the light which lay within their reach. We can all see the justice of this principle. But it puts an end to Mr. Russell's theory: for it proves that some will be saved under all three standards of judgment, and therefore some will be saved who did not during their life on earth hear the Gospel of Christ. "Therefore, if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who with the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?" (Romans ii. 26, 27). This passage makes it certain that God will commend the heathen who has lived up to his light. But this is the very thing which Mr. Russell denies. The second chapter of Romans moves the foundation from beneath this part of Mr. Russell's theory.

To be consistent, Mr. Russell should deny the possibility of any Jew being saved before the time that the Gospel of Christ was preached. If no one can be saved till he hears and accepts the Gospel, no Jew heard or received the Gospel till after Christ came, therefore all the Jews who lived and died before Christ came, lived and died in a lost condition. But though Mr. Russell, to be consistent, should push the Jew to the front just as much as he does the heathen, he is more cautious about the Jew. If he were to tell the people that Noah, Abraham, Moses, Samuel, Jeremiah and Daniel would all rise from the dead as lost sinners, and Mr. Russell and his friends would require to preach the Gospel to them before they could be saved, that story would not tell so well. He can run his theory better by keeping the heathen to the front. I do not see how Mr. Russell could get along without the heathen. If you took the heathen and hell and the devil out of Mr. Russell's writings, you would make a great gap.

When we appear before the judgment seat of Christ it is to "receive the things done in the body" (2 Cor. v. 10). That any one will have the gospel preached to them after this life is a delusion. When Christ comes again, He comes to reward the righteous and to punish the wicked; that is abundantly certain. But there is not a single hint that He is coming with a message of mercy to any one who has lived and died in sin. When Christ comes again, He is coming "In flaming fire, taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of His power: when He shall come to be glorified in His saints, and to be admired in all them that believe" (2 Thes. i. 8-10). If this takes place when He comes, what room is there left for mercy to any sinner after that?

Let us look at another quotation of the same kind:: "But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up" (2 Peter iii. 10). If Christ comes as a thief in the night and does what is here stated, who shall be saved after that? When Christ comes again the state of every man, good and bad, is fixed for ever. It is impossible to harmonise the speculations of Mr. Russell with these and many other passages of a like nature.

We might look at this subject from another standpoint. Four times in the sixth chapter of John we are informed that the saints will be raised up "at the last day" (John vi. 39, 40, 44, 54). According to Mr. Russell, the saints are to be raised from the dead at the beginning of the thousand years mentioned in Revelation xx. Then there has to be a dispensation of wickedness after the thousand years, then comes the end. That is, Mr. Russell teaches that the saints will be raised from the dead two dispensations before the "last day". But when Jesus says that He will not raise the saints until the "last day", most people will conclude that Mr. Russell is mistaken. If Mr. Russell be not raised up till the last day, he will not have time to carry out the programme that he has sketched for himself and his home-made "Little Flock." In I Cor. xv. 52, it is said that the saints will be raised at the sounding of the "last trump." But if the saints are raised at the time Mr. Russell states, that will mean that the "last trump" is to be sounded two dispensations before the end. Ordinary mortals will be apt to think that this is too early to sound the "last trump." If the saints are not raised till the "last trump" sounds the chance of salvation after the resurrection preached by Mr. Russell is a dangerous delusion.

That we are in a state of probation in this life and that our condition in the world to come will depend upon the use we make of our time here, is beyond all dispute taught in the Bible. But nowhere does the Bible clearly and intentionally teach that there will be a time of probation after the resurrection. If in this life only we have the opportunity of putting ourselves right with God and therefore right for eternity, how terrible is the responsibility of the man who makes light of or teaches men to trifle with this their only chance of making sure of eternal bliss! I have no hesitation in saying that Mr. Russell is the most guilty man in creation in this respect. The whole trend of his teaching lies in the direction of misrepresenting and undervaluing man's present responsibility to God.

He is all the time pressing upon men that they all, with few exceptions, will have at least a hundred years of an opportunity of being saved after the resurrection. They will have better natures then than they have now, more knowledge and better preachers, and the chances are that very few will then reject God's offer of mercy. That is a Gospel that a great many people would like to believe, and when people wish to believe a thing they can often be satisfied with very questionable evidence. Mr. Russell is constantly leaving the impression that men are not disinclined to do what is right, but Satan is blinding them and God is willing in the meantime that it should be so; he will therefore not hold them responsible for the mistakes of this life, but will give them another chance.

The very reverse of this is true. The Prophets, Christ and His Apostles charged men's guilt and responsibility home upon them as Mr. Russell never does. The Bible from beginning to end rises in rebellion against Mr. Russell's preaching. Every sane man is conscious of his responsibility. Notwithstanding this very few men have made up their mind to live in harmony with that responsibility. This consciousness of responsibility is not confined to any one class of men - heathen, Jew and Christian are all alike conscious of it. Personally I have no fear for the man who, taking advantage of all the light that has come within his reach, does his best to live in harmony with his responsibility. Let that man be heathen, Jew or Christian, God is not unjust, He will take every man's circumstance and ability into consideration. But the man who shirks responsibility and lives as he pleases, the Bible holds out no hope of mercy to that man. I do not mean that only the perfect man can be saved.

John says: "If any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: and He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the whole world" (I John ii. 1, 2). The propitiation of Christ looks back to Adam and forward to the last man. But it is only those who earnestly seek to serve God who will receive the advantage of it. But all those who have done their best to live up to the light within their reach, their defects will be covered by the death of Christ. This view is in harmony with all the teaching of the Scriptures. But the idea that the saints of the Old Testament will require to rise from the dead to have the Gospel preached to them by Mr. Russell and his followers before they can be saved, is not only absurd, it is a presumptuous shocking absurdity.

Mr. Russell's Christ is a very long way from being the Christ of the New Testament. Mr. Russell says that Christ was the first and highest of all creatures. He existed before He took human nature upon Him. In nature he was higher than an angel but lower than Deity. When He became a man He was nothing but a man, there was no mixing of natures. After His resurrection he became Deity and nothing but Deity, nothing of the human remained in Him. If you ask what proof there is for all this, we have to inform you that Mr. Russell says so; and whatever Mr. Russell says is just "as sure as anything." Ordinary men find that they are unable to conceive of even the highest of creatures becoming "Deity" or "part of Deity." But Mr. Russell can quite easily do what is impossible for ordinary men. To the ordinary thinking mind, there is a gulf between Creator and creature which cannot be crossed, even in imagination.

To Mr. Russell, when Christ was here He was only a man. Mr. Russell has the same idea of the constitution of man that the Christadelphians have; that is, man is not a twofold being, the body and its attributes make up the whole man. So when Christ died, the dead body that was laid in the tomb was the only individual thing of Him which remained in existence. Mr. Russell says that the body of Christ never was raised from the dead. It was hid away somewhere, Mr. Russell does not know where, but he does know that the body of Christ never rose from the dead. In Uddingston, while delivering the lectures referred to, in one of them I said that the Millenial Dawn people virtually denied the resurrection of Christ.

In a moment one of them was on his feet calling my statement in question. I said, "You question the truth of my statement, friend? "Yes," he replied. "Well, will you just keep your feet, please, and answer a few questions to me?" He consented, and I proceeded, "You believe that when a man dies, the body is the only individual thing of him which remains in existence?" "Yes." "When Christ died His dead body was all that remained of Him?" "Yes." "Mr. Russell teaches and you believe that Christ's body never rose?" "Yes." "If that dead body was all that remained of Him, and that did not rise, what rose?" I got no direct answer, but he stammered out, "There is nothing impossible with God." "Oh yes!" I said. "It is impossible even for God to resurrect nothing."

He then took his seat and I pressed upon the audience the fact that when Mr. Russell spoke about the resurrection of Christ he meant the resurrection of nothing. I at that same time pointed out that the Christ that Mr. Russell believed in was a deliberate fraud. His Christ, after the pretended Resurrection, showed his hands and side, making people believe that his body was the body which was nailed to the cross, though that body never was on the cross (John xx. 24-29). I then addressed the friend who called my statement in question and said, "Friend, what kind of conduct do you call that?" He did not answer, but some one at the far end of the hall shouted "Fraud." "Yes," I said, "that is the correct word, 'fraud'; Mr. Russell's Christ is a fraud."

Mr. Russell's belief about Christ makes havoc of the Atonement. He believes that Christ was only a man when here, and he tries so far to bring his theory into line with that. We have all to admit that the stream cannot rise above the fountain. In like manner Christ could not by His Atonement raise men higher than He was Himself. So Mr. Russell teaches that the Atonement of Christ cannot raise men higher than Adam was before he fell. Any height you rise above that you must rise by your own merit. Mr. Russell and his "little flock" expect to rise up to Deity by their own merit. That is a long way to rise, but of course Mr. Russell is a very great man. Those who believe in the Christ of the New Testament expect that then will be in glory with Christ through the merits of Christ (Col. iii. 1-4). But Mr. Russell says no, that if you get to glory you must get there by your own merits. The Scriptural conception of the merits of our Lord and Saviour is thus degraded by Mr. Russell.

And not only so, but if Mr. Russell is right, and Christ was no more than a man when he was here, then it is impossible that the Atonement of Christ can even do as much as Mr. Russell says. When we read in Heb. x. 4, that "It is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins," we instinctively grasp the truth of it. To redeem is to buy back. The word has value in it. A bull cannot redeem a man, and price is not in it - the value is not there. If we give man for man, we have value; but bull for man will not do, the price is not in it. But it requires man for man to give value, one man could not redeem two men, he is only value for one. But Mr. Russell teaches that Jesus died for all men, and by His death all men can be raised to the state which Adam was in before he fell. This is impossible. Jesus was without sin, that being so He might if He was just a man redeem one sinner, but that was all, as one man, He was value for; He could not redeem two sinners. You can no more think of one man redeeming the whole world than you can think of paying a debt of a million pounds with a shilling. Mr. Russell's theory of the Atonement is absurd.

That Christ was Divine before He took our nature upon Him is distinctly stated in the New Testament (John i. 1; Heb. i. 8). And it is clearly implied in hundreds of places where it is not distinctly stated. In John i. 3, we are informed that Christ made "all things." In Gen. i. 1, we are told that "God created" the heavens and the earth. These two passages alone prove the Deity of Christ, and the number of such passages could be greatly increased. The evidence for both the Deity and humanity of Jesus is so abundant in the New Testament that the man who denies either of them has a wonderful amount of wriggling and twisting to do before he can find a way through. As to how the two natures were united I form no theory. I do not know how my own soul and body are united, but that does not lead me to deny the fact. The Deity of Christ lies at the very foundation of the Christian religion; Mr. Russell's error in denying it is enough to shatter his whole system.

I do not profess to know all about the Atonement, any more than I know all about the union of the two natures. But though I do not know all about the Atonement, that does not hinder me from believing that "He is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the whole world" (I John ii. 2). Nor does it keep me from being sure that in Him "We have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins" (Eph. i. 7). The union of an Infinite Being with the humanity of Jesus makes an infinite difference, and makes room for infinite possibilities. I therefore do not feel that my reason is outraged when Jesus is spoken of as the propitiation for the sins of the whole world; but when Mr. Russell says that Jesus was nothing but a man when He was here, and though nothing but a man he was a propitiation for the sins of the whole world, reason rises in rebellion and declares that it is not true.

There is an imaginary "Little Flock" which plays an important part in Mr. Russell's fanciful system. There is a "little flock" mentioned in the Scriptures, but that has very little in common with the "little flock" invented by Mr. Russell. According to Mr. Russell his "little flock" is all that God wishes to save in this dispensation. It is according to God's plan that the devil should blind all the rest. This "little flock" is raised by the death of Christ to the state in which Adam was before he fell. That is all that Mr. Russell's Christ can do for them, of course;. But they do not stay in that comparatively low condition. They, by their own merit during their life on earth rise up to Deity. From man up to God by their own merit during their short life on earth is very wonderful climbing; but then you must remember that this is Mr. Russell's little flock, and Mr. Russell is a very wonderful man.

Christ is not a complete Christ at present, He is only a head without a body. At the beginning of the millenium the "little flock" is to become the body of Christ and remain part of Him. None of the rest of humanity will ever have a chance of rising to the height of Mr. Russell and his "little flock", they will top creation to all eternity. The blasphemy, presumption and absurdity of all this shock one beyond all expression.

Mr. Russell is far more concerned about looking after the comfort of sinners than he is in trying to convert sinners. It is an awful thought to Mr. Russell that the dear people who reject God and Christ and wilfully live and die in sin, should suffer pain here or hereafter on account thereof. A fellow feeling makes him wondrous kind, and he enters his strong protest against these dear people being caused to suffer, he cannot allow more to happen to them than that they be quietly put to sleep. And there can be little doubt that when the millenium comes, Mr. Russell then being "part of deity," he will make his power felt as well as his protest, and he will see to it that no such thing as suffering will be allowed. This is Mr. Russell's most popular subject, and it gets a large share of his attention. It takes better with the careless and thoughtless than anything else that he preaches.

There was a time when preachers gave more attention to the punishment of the wicked than the New Testament gives to it. That extreme produced the opposite, and now preachers say far less about the punishment of the wicked than the New Testament does. That suits Mr. Russell's purpose and he takes full advantage of it. But though there was a time when preachers said too much on this subject, there never was a time when preachers believed all that Mr. Russell is constantly charging them with. There can be no real excuse for the caricature and misrepresentation in which Mr. Russell indulges on this subject. But there is a class that it pleases, and he seems willing to condescend to it. The present extreme will not last. When people say either less or more than the New Testament says on any subject, there comes a time when they regret it.

That Jesus said a good deal on this subject is beyond question. If any one will carefully read the four Gospels and take note of all that Jesus says about the wicked, if he believes what Jesus says he will never again doubt that "It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." The New Testament is a dreadful book to read on that subject. I can best account for Mr. Russell's preaching by doubting that he believes it.

Mr. Russell is pretty much in line with the Christadelphians in regard to the punishment of the wicked; that is, he believes that extinction of being is the punishment of the wicked. He also tries to prove his case in much the same manner that they do. The word death generally plays a part in the proof; "The wages of sin is death," they say (Rom. vi. 23). We say that "We admit that." They affirm that "death is extinction of being." We say, "prove that." You hardly meet a man belonging to that school of thought who does not try to take it for granted that death means extinction of being. To assume the point in debate is a very handy way of reasoning, but it is not a safe one. Whenever you call for proof on this point you soon find that the other side has a very weak case. They have nothing that can be called proof; it is only confident assumption. Jesus said, "Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul" (Matt. x. 28). Jesus here teaches that man can kill the body. I know of no one who denies that when the body is killed death has taken place. But Jesus here teaches that the soul is not killed when the body is killed. If the soul is not killed it exists, for it could not live without existing. We have thus the authority of Jesus for saying that death does not put the soul out of existence. And if the soul remains in existence, extinction of being has not taken place, though death has taken place.

Saul consented to Stephen's death (Acts viii. 1). But Saul was a Pharisee (Acts xxiii. 6-8). The Pharisees believed that the soul exists after death. Saul believed that Stephen died, but Saul, as a Pharisee, did not believe that Stephen had gone out of existence. That is Paul did not believe what Mr. Russell does. The man who undertakes to prove that the word death as used in the Bible always implies extinction of being has an impossible task before him. If you put a man out of existence, he is dead; but a man may be dead and not out of existence. Our friends on the other side will never be able to prove the extinction of the wicked by the word death.

But when the Scriptures say that "The wages of sin is death," it must be the second death which is in view, for both saints and sinners die the first death. If the first death does not put people out of existence, Mr. Russell cannot be sure, just from the use of the word, that the second death will. Let us read something about the second death. "And death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death, even the lake of fire" (Rev. xx. 14, R. V.). We here learn that it is the second death to be in the lake of fire. Not that the lake of fire will produce or bring about the second death, but it is the second death to be in it. Mr. Russell may think that it is certain that the lake of fire will put sinners out of existence, but let us turn to Rev. xx. 10: "And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where are also the beast and the false prophet; and they shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever." We are here informed that there will be sinners in the lake of fire tormented day and night for ever and ever. That proves that the lake of fire will not, for certain, put sinners out of existence.

You have instead of that the very thing which Mr. Russell makes such wonderful fun of, that is, the everlasting punishment of sinners. No man can read that verse without everlasting punishment being present to his mind. Of course, Mr. Russell does not come to this verse when he is making fun of everlasting punishment. It takes better with the people to make fun of John Calvin than it does to make fun of the Bible, and Mr. Russell knows that and acts accordingly. But the man who makes light of Bible ideas will one day have to stand before a greater than John Calvin; the fun will be taken out of him then. We learn then from Rev. xx. 10, that the devil is to be tormented in the lake of fire for ever and ever. And Rev. xx. 14 informs us that it is the second death to be cast into the lake of fire beside the devil. This agrees with Matt. xxv. 41 where we are told that Jesus will say to the wicked, "Depart from Me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels." This does not differ from the second death described in Rev. xx.; but it all looks in the opposite direction from the second death being the entrance on a state of non-existence. The wages of sin is death, but the bottom idea in death is separation rather than extinction of being.

Our English word "hell" is now almost exclusively used to mean a place of punishment for the wicked. This was not always so; in Old English it had a broader meaning than this. It could then mean any concealed place. And it was often used for the abode of departed spirits, whether those spirits were good or bad. Old creeds represent Jesus, after His death, as descending into "hell." But those creeds never intended to convey the idea that Jesus descended into a place of punishment for the wicked. Perhaps I cannot do better than make a quotation from the preface of the Revised Version of the Old Testament. "The Hebrew Sheol, which signifies the abode of departed spirits, and corresponds to the Greek Hades, or the under world, is variously rendered in the Authorised Version by 'grave,' 'pit,' and 'hell.' Of these renderings, 'hell,' if it could be taken in its original sense as used in the creeds, would be a fairly adequate equivalent for the Hebrew word; but it is so commonly understood of the place of torment that to employ it frequently would lead to inevitable misunderstanding. The Revisers therefore in the historical narratives have left the rendering 'the grave' or 'the pit' in the test, with a marginal note, 'Hebrew, Sheol,' to indicate that it does not signify 'the place of burial'; while in the poetical writings they have put most commonly they have put most commonly 'Sheol' in the text and 'the grave' in the margin."

The foregoing brings out the fact that even where our translators have rendered Sheol or Hades by "grave," that even there "grave" does not mean "the place of burial." "Grave," as we commonly use it, does not exhaust the meaning of Hades. Hades is the name for the unseen world which we enter at death. Death and the grave are closely associated, and death is the gateway to Hades. But Hades has no plural, as "grave" has; it is a name for the invisible world to which all spirits go at death. But Mr. Russell does not believe that you have a spirit that can separate from the body, and go anywhere at death, so he must get quit of both Sheol and Hades as our translators define them. He thinks that he sees a loophole by which he can escape. Our translators sometimes render Sheol and Hades by "grave." So Mr. Russell tries to hold them to "grave," and says that Sheol and Hades mean "grave" and nothing but "grave". That is, our translators say that these words do not mean "the place of burial," and Mr. Russell says that they never meant anything else.

You wonder that a man who has any claim to scholarship can venture to say that Sheol only means "grave." Turn to Job xi. 8, "It is high as heaven; what canst thou do? Deeper than Sheol; what canst thou know?" Put "grave" in here instead of Sheol, and you make nonsense. "Deeper than a grave; what canst thou know?" As if a grave was the deepest thing known. To like purpose is Amos ix. 1-3, "Though they dig into hell (Sheol), thence shall Mine hand take them; and though they climb up to heaven, thence will I bring them down." Here as in Job the depth of Sheol is contrasted with the height of heaven. In this same context the top of Carmel is contrasted with the bottom of the sea, but nothing but the height of heaven will do for a contrast to the depth of Sheol.

Our friends sometimes tell us that we do not read about souls or spirits going to Sheol; but who ever read of any one digging down that depth to bury a corpse there? To translate by "grave" here is out of the question. "Hell (Sheol) and destruction are before the Lord; how much more then the hearts of the children of men?" (Pro. xv. 11). Here you have the thought that it is more difficult to look into Sheol, than it is to look into the hearts of men. As our translators define Sheol, you can believe that. But take Mr. Russell's explanation and you have the thought that it is easier to look into and read the hearts of men that it is to look into a grave, which is absurd. Mr. Russell's meaning of this word will not make sense in quite a number of places. I question if these words ever just mean "the place of burial"; and even if it could be proved that Sheol and Hades do sometimes mean "the place of burial," it is certain that they do not always mean that, and Mr. Russell has got the passages to deal with that will not admit of "grave," no matter how often "grave" may pass as a rendering.

Though the Scriptures teach that all go to Sheol or Hades at death, they do not teach that the wicked and the righteous will be mixed together there as they are here. In the story of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke xvi. 19-31), both the rich man and Lazarus are in Hades, but there is a gulf between them and they are in different circumstances. The Lord does not require to wait till the day of judgment to know the saint from the sinner, though neither will enter upon their full reward till then. In this story the word Hades occurs, but it could not be translated "grave". To say that the corpse of the rich man lifted up its eyes in the grave being in torments, is not only nonsense, it is ugly nonsense. But again, take the definition of the translators and you have sense.

There is another passage which suggests that the wicked will be in a place by themselves in Sheol, Ps. ix. 17, "The wicked shall be turned into hell (Sheol), and all the nations that forget God." This cannot just mean the grave, for good and bad go there, so it does not suit Mr. Russell. There is a threat in the verse; it means that the wicked have something to face in Sheol that the righteous have not. Take the light which the xvi. chapter of Luke throws upon it, and you understand it. The wicked go to where the rich man is described as being, and the righteous go to the place to which the angels carried Lazarus. We have thus Luke xvi. helping us to understand Ps. ix. 17.

In the New Testament, the Revisers have not translated Hades; they have passed on the Greek word to us. But that has not relieved Mr. Russell from seeing the word "hell" in the Revised Version of the New Testament. The Greek word Gehenna is used as a name for the place of punishment for the wicked, our Revisers have, therefore, translated by the word "hell." Take one occurrence of it. "And I say to you, my friends, be not afraid of them which kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. But I will warn you whom ye shall fear. Fear him which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell (Gehenna). Yea, I say unto you, Fear him" (Luke xii. 4,5). Mr. Russell has trouble in trying to get clear of a passage like this. Punishment after death gleams out from it. Mr. Russell would like to persuade people that Jesus only meant, that if you do not behave well, after you are dead your body may be cast into the Valley of Hinnom. What difference does it make what is done with the body after death? Think of any one daring to put a childish threat like that into the mouth of Jesus!

In seeking to prove that extinction of being is the final punishment of the wicked, the word "destruction" is often made to play an important part. They quote such passages ;as Matt. x. 28: "Fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell (Gehenna)." They call attention to the fact that the punishment is destruction, and then add that destruction means extinction of being. We admit that the punishment is said to be destruction, and we admit that if you put a person out of existence, that person is destroyed; but we deny that "destroy" always means to put out of existence. A person or thing may be destroyed without being put out of existence. Let us look into this matter a little. The Greek word which is translated "destroy" in Matt. x. 28, is translated "lost" in the sixth verse of the same chapter. "The lost sheep of the house of Israel." They were away from God, hence "lost," "destroyed," but they were not out of existence. In Matt. xii. 14 we have, "Then the Pharisees went out, and held a council against Him, how they might destroy Him." Here we have the same Greek word and it is again rendered "destroy." But observe that it is the Pharisees who took counsel to destroy Him. The Pharisees believed that the soul exists after death, and they did not believe that they could put any person out of existence. The Pharisees took counsel to destroy him, but the Pharisees never did take counsel to put him out of existence. This proves that the word "destroy," in the New Testament, does not always mean to put out of existence. That being so, it cannot, as a word, prove their case. More proof of this kind could be advanced, but this is enough.

Mr. Russell and those who agree with him in regard to the punishment of the wicked use the word "perish" in the same manner and for the same purpose that they use the word "destroy." They say that the Scriptures teach that the wicked will "perish." We admit that. They say that "perish" always means to "put out of existence." We deny that. We admit that any person or thing put out of existence has perished. But we say that "perish" does not always mean "to put out of existence." Suppose we admit that "perish" may mean to put out of existence, that is no use to them for what may be, may not be. Unless they can prove that "perish" always means to "put out of existence," it does not prove their case. It is not what may be but what must be that is of any real use as proof. "Perish" occurs in Acts v. 37, but it does not there mean to "put out of existence." It is used by Gamaliel with regard to Judas of Galilee. Gamaliel says that Judas "perished." Gamaliel was a scholar and knew the meaning of the words he was using. But he was a Pharisee, and the Pharisees believed that the soul exists and is conscious after death. Gamaliel believed that Judas "perished," but Gamaliel did not believe that Judas of Galilee had gone out of existence. Again more might be said, but this is enough to spoil the case for the other side in so far as the word "perish" is concerned.

We have followed the arguments for extinction of being with regard to the wicked, and have found that there is nothing solid or certain with regard to any or all of them. We again call attention to the responsibility of those who misrepresent, minimise, tamper or trifle with what God has said in regard to the punishment of the wicked. There can be no doubt that such words as "perish" and "destroy" mean "utter ruin," but the nature of the ruin must be learnt from the context, or from what is said elsewhere, the words themselves do not settle that. And not only do these words fail to prove extinction of being, but you search the Scriptures in vain for a passage which distinctly says that the wicked will cease to be. It is not easy to explain why men dare so persistently affirm what the Bible does not say.

On the other hand, we have already pointed out that Rev. xx. 10 distinctly teaches endless conscious suffering. This is in harmony with Matt. xxv. 46, "And these shall go away into eternal punishment; but the righteous into eternal life" (R. V.). The duration of the punishment of the wicked is expressed by the same word as the duration of the reward of the righteous. And you cannot punish that which does not exist. It is as certain that God is just as it is that He is merciful. Those who reject God's mercy will be forced to accept His justice, and what punishment a rejection of God and His offers of mercy deserve, we are in no position to judge, and we can only know what God has been pleased to tell us. It is God and not Mr. Russell who will fix the punishment of the wicked. And Mr. Russell's inexcusable misrepresentations of the Bible and religious people on this subject, will not save those who have allowed themselves to be deceived by him in that day when Christ will say to the wicked, "Depart from Me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matt. xxv.41).

I have perhaps paid more attention to Mr. Russell than he and his absurd system deserve. To touch upon all his errors would be almost an endless task, and there is no need for it. His teaching is not well known, and his literature is pushed in a number of places, and my object is to point out a sufficient number of errors to prevent those who believe in Christ and in the Scriptures from having anything to do with Russellism. And I consider that the errors which I have called attention to are quite sufficient for that.

Chapter XV
Reference to several debates in different places with a Christadelphian

SINCE the year 1900 we have had a Church in Motherwell. A few members from other places had gone to live there. It was considered a good centre in which to have a Church. The Scotch Evangelistic Committee consulted with the Slamannan District Committee. It was agreed that the Scotch Committee should bear the expense of halls, advertising, etc., and that the Slamannan Committee should send their evangelist to Motherwell for a time to see what could be done. The few members in the neighbourhood were gathered together, and some who had formerly been members with us but had dropped out were induced to again meet with us, and a beginning was made.

We are not believers in the "One Man System," and to keep down as far as possible even the appearance of that, it was arranged that, when convenient, a brother from Hamilton should come and preside at the meeting for Breaking of Bread on Lord's day. Thus began a Church which has gone steadily on. It has done a good deal of uphill work. A considerable quantity of our literature has been distributed in and around Motherwell. A good deal of open-air work has been done by the members and by others whom they have called in to help. It is not a large Church, but they have a number of men who intelligently take part in conducting and addressing meetings. They have been diligent sowers, and I cannot help thinking that there is a reaping time before them. If they have not had the success which they deserve, they are at least better men on account of their hard work than they would have been if they had not tried.

Until age and failing strength recently compelled me to give up regular evangelistic work, I now and again helped Motherwell with their Gospel work, inside and outside; and I always found them willing workers. Like some other Churches, they have suffered a good deal from emigration. But this has to some extent a bright side. The Slamannan District has good men, here and there over a large part of the world, and some of them are doing good work where they are now placed.

I have had opposition in connection with my Gospel work at times in Motherwell, just as I have now and again had at other places. I have had a little of this from more than one class of religious people. I might notice the most pretentious of these. It came from our old friends the Christadelphians. I had been speaking on the street, but in no way referring to them nor to what they believe; one of them began to put questions and led round to one of their pet subjects - the constitution of man. He must have intended to have a debate, if he could manage it; for we had but a few questions and answers when he challenged me to debate the subject, saying that he would bring a clever and scholarly man to meet me. We thought that he had said too much in public to be allowed to go, so we accepted. We then asked him whom he was going to bring, and he said "Thomas Nisbet, of Glasgow." We then informed him that we were old friends. I do not think that the Christadelphians of Motherwell knew when they gave the challenge that Mr. Nisbet and I had met before. They seemed to have every confidence in him. There is no doubt that he was their cleverest man. I offered to affirm, "That there is something in man that survives death."

Each side appointed a committee to make arrangements. Though I had made it clear what I was willing to affirm, there was the usual haggling in committee before they would consent to our proposition. The Christadelphian Committee urged that the immortality of the soul, or consciousness after death, should have a place in the proposition. One of our committee said, "We are not going to discuss whether a crow is black or white with men who deny the crow; let us decide about the crow first, gentlemen." Thus my committee held them to what I had offered to affirm. They pressed upon them the reasonableness of this, pointing out that it was not simply about the attributes of the soul that we differed; in the ordinary meaning of the word "soul" they denied that man had a soul, and our first real difference on this subject lies there and it ought to have our first attention.

Sometimes when they cannot turn you aside from your purpose, they try to limit your field of inquiry by asking, "What is it in man that survives death? You ought to name the thing and put the name in the proposition." It is unfair in them to ask this, and it would be unwise in you to grant it. Suppose you pledged yourself to prove that the soul survives death. You could do it, of course, but in that case they could confine you to passages where the word "soul" is used. There are many passages which prove that man is a twofold being and that there is something in him that survives death where the word "soul" is not used; and if you allowed the word "soul" to go into the proposition, it would shut you out from that field of evidence. A manly opponent would not seek to do this, and it is foolish on your part to allow yourself to be tricked into a position where you are prevented from bringing all the evidence you wish to bear upon the point at issue.

My committee at Motherwell were upon the alert and would not allow me to be put into such a position. They wished to have a fair, single, and pointed issue, and they took care to leave me free to bring all the evidence that I wished to bear upon it.

The length of speeches and the proportion of time for speeches and for question and answer were largely left to Mr. Nisbet; we accepted his suggestions. The committees made all the arrangements, and we met in the Y.M.C.A. hall; there was a large audience. As it was the same subject which Mr. Nisbet and I discussed at Armadale and Slamannan, I need not give many particulars. I may mention that Gen. ii. 7 did not come up at Motherwell at all; we had fought that to a finish at Slamannan. Matt. x. 21: "Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear Him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." This passage came up in all our debates on this subject. In question and answer we got to closer grips on this verse at Motherwell than we did anywhere else.

I was putting the questions, and I asked Mr. Nisbet, "Does this passage prove that man has a soul and a body?" "Not soul, as you understand it" he replied. "Never you mind how I understand it; does it prove that man has a soul and a body?" I drew a reluctant "Yes" to this question. "Does this passage prove that the soul is not killed when the body is killed?" "Not soul, I say, as you understand it." "Never mind what I understand; does this verse prove that the soul is not killed when the body is killed?" Again I got a very reluctant "Yes." "As you understand the word 'soul' you believe that the soul goes out of existence when the body is killed?" "That is about it," he said. "Come! come! Mr. Nisbet, you and I know each other fairly well now. Do you believe that the soul goes out of existence when the body is killed?" Again I got a "Yes." "You admit that this passage teaches that the soul is not killed when the body is killed; and you say that the soul goes out of existence when the body is killed; if the soul goes out of existence when the body is killed, how comes it that the soul is not killed when the body is killed?" His gun hung fire for a second or two, and then he replied, "That's the rub."

There was a round of laughter and applause all over that hall, which showed that the audience had been closely following the point and that the corner which he was driven into told heavily against him. It is perfectly impossible to harmonise this verse with the Christadelphian theory of the constitution of man.

What Mr. Nisbet, and the Christadelphians generally, mean by "The Spirit of God" was more clearly developed at Motherwell than it had been at Armadale or Slamannan. In question and answer something like the following took place.

"Mr. Nisbet, when you say 'Spirit of God,' you mean by that a force which has neither individuality nor intelligence?" "Yes."

"You believe that man is made up of a body and this force, which you are pleased to call 'Spirit of God'? "Yes."

"In like manner you believe that the spirit of man is a force which has neither individuality nor intelligence?" "Yes."

"When Stephen was stoned he called out, 'Lord Jesus receive my spirit.' Was the spirit of Stephen the spirit of an individual?" "Yes."

"And is the spirit of an individual not an individual spirit?" "No."

It was very evident that the audience resented this answer.

"You admit, Mr. Nisbet, that man has intelligence?" "Yes."

"Man, you say, has a body, but that body by itself has no intelligence?" "It has no intelligence by itself." "But you believe that 'Spirit of God' operates upon that body and thus human intelligence is produced?" "Yes."

"But 'Spirit of God,' you say, has no intelligence in itself any more than the body has?" "That is so."

"Thus two things neither of them possessing intelligence operate on each other and produce intelligence?" "Yes." "You believe then that intelligence came out of where it was never in?" "Yes."

In my next speech after this turn of questioning, I offered to meet Mr. Nisbet on the foregoing point alone. That is, I offered that if Mr. Nisbet would meet me and affirm that intelligence came out of where there never was any intelligence, I would deny, and we would spend an evening on that single point. He did not accept. Neither Scripture nor common sense can be made to support their theory of the constitution of man.

I may record another incident in connection with this debate. In one of my speeches I was dealing with Luke xxiv. 36-40, where Jesus after His resurrection came and stood in the midst of the disciples. They were afraid; they thought they saw a spirit. They had no doubt as to who was there, but they knew that Jesus was dead, so they did not believe that He was in the body; they thought that it was the spirit of Jesus. I called attention to the fact that these disciples had been three years under the teaching of Jesus, and, at the end of that time, they believed that man had a spirit that could exist apart from the body and was capable of being seen. I said that if Mr. Nisbet had a person under his teaching for three years, and at the end of that time that person believed that a man had such a spirit as the disciples believed in, he would consider himself disgraced as a teacher.

At that point Mr. Nisbet spoke; he said, "It is not pneuma, the ordinary Greek word for 'spirit,' that is there; it is phantasma, meaning 'phantom,' that is used there." I replied, "You are mistaken, Mr. Nisbet, it is pneuma that is used there." "If I am wrong," he said, "I shall write to the local papers." "All right," I replied, "you will write and say you were mistaken, or you will not write at all." I was about to proceed with my speech, when a man in the audience said, "I have my Greek Testament here, Mr. Anderson, and you are right." "Thank you," I said, "but I was sure that I was right."

This account of the appearance of Jesus to His disciples is enough in itself to destroy the Christadelphian theory of the constitution of man. Jesus did not rebuke them for believing that man had an individual spirit that could exist and possess intelligence apart from the body. No Christadelphian Body, so far as I know, would accept any one to fellowship who held that belief. They could be disciples of Christ and hold that belief; but they could not be Christadelphians and hold it. If to believe this is the great evil and error which the Christadelphians try to make out, it is an impeachment of Jesus as a Teacher that He had not His disciples better taught; and when you impeach the Master, whatever else you may be, on that subject at least, you are not a Christian. Mr. Nisbet saw that clearly, hence his attempt to turn aside the point of that argument.

There were scarcely two opinions as to our having the stronger position in the debate at Motherwell. It did us good, but no harm.

Mr. Nisbet and I met five times in public debate; I have mentioned three of them; perhaps it will be as well to finish what we have got to say about our contact with each other. Our next meeting was in Kilwinning. The Christadelphians were causing considerable commotion in that town. We have a member in that town called William Neice. He asked me to come and deliver a lecture there. I did so. After our meeting we got into conversation with one of the Christadelphians. He informed me that they were willing to debate anything upon which we differed. I informed him that I was equally willing for that. "What about propositions?" he asked. "I shall leave a few propositions with Mr. Neice. He can form a committee to act for me, and you can form a committee to act for the other side." That was agreed to. I left a few propositions with Mr. Neice.

I expected that he would quietly put the propositions before the other committee, but he considered it best to let it be publicly known that we were willing to meet them. So he got the propositions printed in the local papers, and invited any Christadelphian in Scotland or England to debate these propositions. That led to considerable newspaper correspondence. My friend Mr. Nisbet appeared among those who wrote to the papers, and the Christadelphians seemed willing that he should represent them. "The constitution of man" was to be taken up first, and debated in Kilwinning. "The kingdom of God" was to be arranged for afterwards, and debated in the town of Irvine.

In Kilwinning we were meeting for the fourth time on the same subject, and Mr. Nisbet might have known by that time that I would watch their trickery; all the same there was the usual haggling and wriggling before Mr. Nisbet could be drawn right up to the point at issue. He knew all the time, of course, that I was holding out to him a fair, clear, single-pointed issue. He knew that that point was so important that, if he could win there, my position was ruined; and, if he lost, it equally meant ruin for him on that subject. That is the kind of thing a man should desire if he is sure of the truth of his position. Mr. Nisbet's reluctance to come squarely up only made me the more certain that he knew the weakness of his cause. However, he had gone too far to go back and ultimately had to face the issue. Mr. Neice said that "the drawing of Mr. Nisbet up to his line was an education in itself in regard to Christadelphianism."

There was nothing in the debate itself which calls for special remark. We went over nearly the same ground we had covered at Motherwell: and as at Motherwell, I felt my side the stronger all the time. Mr. Nisbet tried hard to raise side issues at Kilwinning. For example, he put a question which had no bearing upon the subject. I refused to answer. He said, "I shall compel you to answer." "Oh! will you? I do not know how you will manage that, but I am waiting to see how you are going to manage it." He said, "If you do not answer, I shall sit down and stop the debate." He sat down. My chairman, James Wardrop, is one of the quietest but firmest of men. He then rose and said, "We shall be very sorry if you stop the debate, Mr. Nisbet, but that question has nothing to do with the subject, and, even if the debate should stop, you must stop pressing that question." Mr. Wardrop's decision was supported by an outburst of applause that made Mr. Nisbet see that his little game was up, and he had just to go on again.

I was thanked by a good many people outside of our religious connection for the part I played in the debate at Kilwinning. I do not regret having met Mr. Nisbet four times on the same subject. So far as I know, he is the strongest man they have in Scotland. The strength of my position and the weakness of his became more evident every time we met. It leaves me as certain of the error of their position as I am of my own existence.

Some time after the debate in Kilwinning we met in Irvine. There was the usual wriggling over the proposition, of course, before we could agree about it. My experience of Christadelphians is that they love a catch as they love their life, and do their best to get it. No man should love debate for its own sake. He should only consent to it when he believes the cause of truth may be helped by it. No man has a right to take part in debate who is not careful about the propositions to be debated. You have no right to give away a battle before you begin by taking up a position which gives the enemy an advantage over you.

The debate took place in the Town Hall, Irvine, on 19th and 20th October, 1904. Mr. James Wardrop was again chairman for me, and Mr. Andrew Thomas, of Glasgow, was chairman for Mr. Nisbet. The proposition was, "That a kingdom of God which was at hand in the days of John the Baptist is now in existence, and is ruled from the throne of God, having laws and subjects on the earth." The debate is in print. We offered to share the responsibility of reporting and printing with our friends on the other side, but they did not accept. We were therefore responsible for reporting and printing.

In order to show the position I took up in that debate I think I cannot do better than quote my first speech:-

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Nisbet, Ladies and Gentlemen:- You have heard the proposition, that 'the kingdom of God which was at hand in the days of John the Baptist, is now in existence, and is ruled from the throne of God, having laws and subjects on the earth.' If you keep before you exactly and as clearly as you can where we agree and where we differ, it will help a great deal. Mr. Nisbet and I both agree that the Jews were a kingdom of God - that is, that there is a kingdom of God behind us, a kingdom that once existed, but does not now exist. There we are both agreed. Again, we both believe that there is a kingdom in the future, a kingdom of glory that is not here yet. Again, we are both agreed, and, as far as I know, both sides will admit that God exercises an overruling power among the nations of the earth. These are points we are agreed upon, and hence do not discuss.

The point is, has Christ a kingdom now? This is the point of difference: is there a kingdom of God, having specific laws that people may obey, to which they may become obedient subjects, and which is governed from the throne of God? Is there such a kingdom? I say, 'yes.' Mr. Nisbet says, 'no.' This is the point of difference, and, of course, it is for me to lead proof of what I affirm, and it is Mr. Nisbet's business to examine that proof.

We shall begin by looking at Col. i. 13, where Paul says, speaking of God, 'Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of His dear Son.' That affirms all that I require to affirm. It distinctly states that there is a kingdom of God's dear Son now, and that Paul and the Colossians were translated into it then. It had an existence in the days in which Paul wrote that epistle to the Colossians. The verse says distinctly what I believe, and distinctly contradicts what Mr. Nisbet says. Turn with me now to Hebrews xii., and there you will read at the second verse, 'Looking unto Jesus the Author and Finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.' I quote that passage because there is a throne named there, and a throne indicates a kingdom, and Jesus is there set down at the right hand of the throne of God. That He is not there simply occupying a seat of honour without the power is evident. If you turn to Matt. xxviii. 18, you have Jesus saying, 'All power is given unto Me in heaven and in earth. Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you, and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.'

My chief point here is, that Christ has all power in heaven and on earth. That is, He is seated on the throne of God; with all the power of the throne of God delivered to him. In I Peter iii. 22, speaking of Jesus, Peter says, 'Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God, angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto Him.' How a kingdom can be denied in the face of these passages is, I confess, a perfect mystery to me. If there was a kingdom into which the Colossians were translated and that kingdom was that of God's dear Son, and if you have that Son on the throne of God, with the power of the throne handed to Him, and angels and authorities and powers subject to Him - it strikes me as absurd to deny a present kingdom.

Look at Acts v. 31; the Apostles there make this statement, 'Him hath God exalted with His right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.' In the first place there is the word 'Prince.' He is exalted a Prince, and as a Prince He grants repentance. I know that our friends on the other side say, 'He is a Prince, that means the son of a king, but he is not the King.' I admit that prince sometimes means the son of a king, but it also sometimes means king, and it will have to be settled whether it is son of a king or sovereign here. In Chambers' Twentieth Century Dictionary the first meaning of the word 'prince' is, 'One of the highest rank, a sovereign.' And other good dictionaries give the same meaning. Whether 'prince' means 'sovereign' or 'son of a sovereign' will be settled by the context. It is quite clear that the context settles it here. Christ can save and forgive. Is that the work of a king, or of a king's son? If you have Christ as a Prince to save and pardon, He is by name and power the Sovereign Jesus. I am perfectly satisfied that these passages convey kingdom to any unprejudiced mind, and you cannot help thinking of a present kingdom when you read statements such as these.

All this is in keeping with what you read in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. You have the theme of 'the kingdom of heaven is at hand.' John the Baptist proclaimed that; Jesus preached the kingdom of heaven is at hand. The Twelve made their voices heard over the land of Palestine proclaiming the kingdom at hand. The Seventy were sent out preaching the kingdom of heaven is at hand, and that is eighteen hundred years since, and no kingdom has yet been set up! It is worse than absurd: it is misleading. It cannot be denied that something was at hand, something lived and died immediately after that. The Jewish temple was then standing, sacrifice being offered there. The Jews were exhorted that they should obey what God had commanded in that temple. But shortly after that Judaism came to a finish and Christianity sprang into being. Something had come and gone. That something which was at hand had all the essentials of a kingdom, even if you deny the name of it.

If there is a kingdom into which the Colossians passed, if there are laws that men can and do obey, surely you have all the essentials of a kingdom. I may be asked whether there is territory? I say, 'The earth is the Lord's and the fulness thereof,' and I am not badly off for territory. And that included you have all the essentials of a kingdom, even if you deny the name. But the name is there as well as the essentials, and you cannot get clear of that fact in dealing with the kingdom. From the first Pentecost after Christ's resurrection, the kingdom at hand was no longer the main theme of the twelve. They preached that Jesus was exalted at the right hand of God, that he was Lord of all and had all power, and that man should believe in and submit to His kingly power and glory: and the kingdom at hand was no longer the theme of the Apostles.

Take what happened immediately after, and you have in name, in theme, and in everything else, a kingdom now here. Keep this point well before you. Remember that the present kingdom is the thing disputed; that I have proven that there is a kingdom; that subjects are enjoined to observe all things which he commanded; and remember that he is seated upon a higher throne than ever mortal sat upon. Suppose we turn to Rev. i. 5, 'And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the Prince of the kings of the earth. Unto Him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in His own blood.' Here Jesus is called the Prince of the kings of the earth, and that does not differ from the King of kings.

The foregoing speech gives a fair idea of the position I took up. I gave more proof during the debate, but I do not know that more is required. Four or five clear passages from God's Word will prove a point just as well as fifty, and we often err in giving too many. A long string of passages often serves to confuse the mind rather than increase conviction. When possible let arguments be few, but clear and strong. Let weak or hazy arguments be kept out of the way; they only give an opponent something to play with. Those who wish to know more of this debate can see the printed report. In my opinion, it would have helped to clear up matters a bit if Mr. Nisbet and I had met another time or two on the kingdom. I heard one man express an opinion, which I think would be pretty general; he said, "We could always follow Mr. Anderson; we were often not sure what Mr. Nisbet meant."

The subject is an important one, and the point which Mr. Nisbet and I had before us is the first in natural order. Has Christ a kingdom now or has He not? should be settled first thing. And settling this settles more than appears at first sight.

I have said that this subject is important; let me give at least one reason for saying so. Nearly all those who deny a present kingdom undervalue this dispensation, and thereby undervalue the influence of the Gospel of Christ. They often tell us that this dispensation forms no part of God's real plan. That when Christ came His intention was to set up an earthly kingdom; but the Jews were hostile. He therefore could not get the intended kingdom set up. So this dispensation is just a kind of make-shift that he was driven to when he was unable to get His kingdom set up. In keeping with this we are told that there is nothing about this dispensation in the prophecies of the Old Testament, for the good reason that God never intended this dispensation to exist. All the prophecies, they say, speak about a kingdom; there is no kingdom now, therefore none of the prophecies can be applied to this time. How any person can read the New Testament through once, and after reading it say that no prophecy of the Old Testament applies to this time is more than I can tell. If there are "seven wonders" without this one, this may be put down for an eighth wonder. We had better be careful about adopting a theory, for it is evident that there are many people who, when they do adopt a theory, move heaven and earth to make everything bend to it. Let me in this connection just quote one passage out of scores that may be quoted. Acts iii. 24, "Yes, and all the prophets from Samuel, and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days." That passage alone is enough to upset the theory referred to.

This theory has a very bad effect. When a man gets it into his head that God never intended this dispensation to exist, it is very easy to get him to believe that you need not expect much good to come out of it. And that is the general effect it has upon those who believe it. They never expect the Gospel of Christ to do much good, they only expect the world to grow worse and worse till the Lord comes. They are anxious to have it made bad enough so that they may expect the Lord soon. If you venture to express an opinion that the Gospel of the Grace of God will have a thousand years of a victory among all the nations of the earth before the end comes, you only shock them. They believe in no such thing. If you hint that some of the good things foretold about the Jews in the Old Testament may refer to the Jews after they have accepted the Gospel which they are now rejecting, they will not have it. They do not believe that the Jews ever will receive the Gospel in the same way that we Gentiles have received it, though, in my opinion, that is taught in the 11th chapter of Romans. The Jews, according to them have never to know the individual bliss of yielding to a loving Saviour as we Gentiles have done. They have to be driven in in a crowd like a flock of sheep before a dog when the Lord comes the second time. Should these people chance to be right, I am glad that I am not a Jew.

But I see no chance of them being right. The middle wall of partition between Jew and Gentile has been broken down, and it never will be built up again. Jews and Gentiles are now fellow-heirs of the same blessings, and the Jews must henceforth be saved in the same manner as the Gentiles, or not at all. The Jews no longer exist as a nation. God has set aside the Law and made the Gospel binding in its place. We have a higher and better religion than the Jew ever had, and we shall never again be moved back to that system of shadow and symbol, now that the substance has come. The Gospel is God's last and best religion for man. Those who deny a present kingdom deny all this. It is no trivial error that leads a person thus to belittle the Gospel of the Grace of God that Christ left the glories of heaven and came to earth to establish.

(return to text index)      Continue to next page