DG1

An Answer to Dr. Gray

An Elder of the Minneapolis Ecclesia of the International Bible Students' Association

COPYRIGHTED 1912. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

[Note.-As Pastor Russell has said, "If we stopped to kick at every dog that barked at our heels, we would be a long time reaching our destination." The attack of Dr. Gray's is so comprehensive, however, that when he is answered, so are nearly all others. Hence this is well justified.]

In the March, 1912, issue of the "Christian Yorker's Magazine" of Chicago, there was published by the editor, Rev. James M. Gray, D. D., dean of the Moody Bible Institute, an attack on what he styles "Russellism" or "Millennial Dawn." Dr. Gray's assistant, 'Mr. Stephen A. Woodruff, being a former neighbor of the writer of this answer, and knowing the latter to be a believer in the doctrine attacked by Dr. Gray, mailed to him in the spirit of a challenge a copy of the magazine ten days before a copy of It was procurable in the book stores of the city. The writer promptly prepared a most careful reply, addressed to Dr. Gray, and sent it to Mr. Woodruff to deliver. Mr. Woodruff delivered it in person to Dr. Gras, and the latter requested Mr. Woodruff to read it for him and report. Mr. Woodruff took It to his home and burned it. We have these facts froth his own personal testimony to us. After all this had happened. Dr. Gray caused his attack to be printed in pamphlet forth and widely circulated by mail through the country, and the writer has frequently heard It quoted by unknowing persons as evidence from a high source. -In view of the fact that Dr. Gray has thus circulated his attack in the fare of an answer which 6e has refused even to examine, we present the same statement in this manner, leaving the candid reader to form his own conclusion as to the honesty and Christian integrity of the Doctor's course.

We will pass by as unworthy of notice the derogatory epithets and insinuations put forth by the doctor and confine our efforts to three principal ends, viz:-first, to make it plain who it is that be has attacked, for he himself does not seem certain as to the personalities behind the system he attacks; second, to point out wherein he has distinctly misstated plain facts regarding the teachings in question; and third, to show by Scripture citations that his doctrinal deductions are unfounded, white those he attacks have a substantial Scriptural basis.

Dr. Gray say's that "Millennial Dawnism" is represented only by one man, named Russell, with headquarters in Brooklyn, although he thinks there is probably an organization

DG2

behind the man, judging by the "enterprise and zeal shown and the large outlay of money" agent in "advertising, rent of public halls" and "distribution of literature" to an "almost incredible extent." Dr. Gray's uncertain tone is splendid evidence that be lacks information regarding the system be attacks. He speaks of "the damage it has done and is doing to countless souls in every state of the Union, across the border and beyond the sea." If it is doing such incalculable damage everywhere, and if he is the zealous "watchman" of Zion he regards himself to be, then he ought to be finding out fir a certainty whether it is a single man in Brooklyn, or an organization, or who or what is the source of the evil: a "watchman" who does his work at random will not fulfill his mission, and is not fit to be trusted. Light Easily Obtained.

If Dr. Gray had ever closely examined a copy of the Watch Tower, which he attacks, he would have perceived that the teachings he attacks are being promulgated by The International Bible Students' Association. If he had ever carefully examined the church notices in the dally papers of his home city, he would have learned that said association holds public services every Sunday at 3 p. m. in Recital Hall of the Auditorium; and if be had then as a "watchman" really cared to discover the exact proportions of the foe, he could easily have done it at close range, and with little cost or difficulty. His confessed ignorance of the movement, therefore, will enable the discerning to judge how zealous he to as a "watchman."

It is the association named that is teaching throughout the world the doctrines that Dr. Gray condemns. Of this association Charles T. Russell Is President and Pastor-in-Chief by the voluntary and unanimous annual vote of its members. Associated with him are over 60 talented men who travel constantly, lecturing on the doctrines to all the cities and villages of America. In every large city are strong classes that not only cover their own territory, but send out their best workers to the surrounding country also, on extension work. The country is dotted everywhere with faithful little classes and every class holds regular public meetings, besides frequent Bible study, prayer and testimony meetings. Each has Its band of volunteers, who every week distribute free literature. The Chicago class alone has over 50 elders and deacons, all of whom have regular supervisory work, besides a much larger number of colporteurs and volunteers, and a membership that flits Recital Hall at' ordinary meetings. Studies in the Scriptures, the set of six volumes containing the teachings attacked by Dr. Gray, have now passed their seventh million of sale, absolutely the largest book sale in the world's history, save the Bible only, and vastly greater than any other religious work that was ever written. Pastor Russell's sermons are published weekly in 2,000 newspapers, having probably an aggregate of 5 million circulation, giving him, to use the words of Editor Wm. T. Ellis of the Continent, the official organ of Presbyterianism, an audience "greater than any other living man, and greater, doubtless, than the combined circulation of the writings of all the priests and preachers to worth America; greater even than the works of Arthur Brisbane, Norman Hapgood, George Horace Lorimer, Dr. Flank Crane, Frederick Haskin, and a dozen other of the best known editors and syndicate writers put together."

The Association distributes far more literature annually than does

DG3

the Moody Institute or any denomination. To quote again the language of Editor Ellis: "I know of no organization for the publication and spread of religious literature-and I do not except the American Tract Society, the American Bible Society or any denominational publishing house-that has ever had such success in getting its output into the hands of the people as the Russellites have shown." Mr. Ellis also makes this statement; "No theatrical star entour is better advertised than Russell:"

In view of these facts there can be no possible excuse for Dr. Gray in betraying ignorance of the system he has essayed to attack. A very ordinary "watchman" would be well informed of so conspicuous a foe.

Dr. Gray accuses Pastor Russell of saying: "Accept my interpretation of the Bible and I will prove everything I say." When he thus deliberately prints in quotation marks language absolutely foreign and contrary to anything that he can possibly prove that Pastor Russell ever said, what language shall we employ to fitly characterize the Doctor's conduct? To avoid the appearance of violence, we leave the question to be answered by the reader.

Dr. Gray neat offers another alleged quotation from Pastor Russell, claiming it to be from the Watch Tower of Sept. 15, 1910, page 298, whereby be accuses Pastor Russell of being "a mouth speaking great things," purporting to show that the Pastor exalts his Scripture Studies as superior to the Bible for the purposes of the student. A careful examination of the article which Dr. Gray purports to quote proves his quotation to be a grossly garbled one. He has taken fragments of sentences here and there, omitting connecting portions at his pleasure without introducing the customary marks of omission, even omitting words vital to the sense, where their presence would manifestly have been contrary to his purpose in quoting, and he has united these violently treated expressions with connective words supplied by himself, and presented them to us within quotation marks as a continuous utterance of Pastor Russell. It this is not studied and deliberate misrepresentation for a calculated purpose, we will lease the reader to properly characterize it, and to say If it is conduct befitting a "watchman" in Zion.

The true spirit of the article in question, so opposite to Dr. Gray's characterization, Is sufficiently shown by a sub-heading in the article, set in black-faced capital letters, as follows: "Scripture Studies not a substitute for the Bible." The author's attitude in this matter could easily be further
proved by copious quotations from his so widely circulated "Studies:" Ridicule Instead of Reason.

Dr. Gray proceeds to ridicule the Pastor's interpretation of the parable of Dives and Lazarus. lie produces no argument, whatever, and suggests no other interpretation, contenting himself with ridicule, the last resort of the man who is lacking every other weapon. An answer to such is unnecessary.

He says the literature of which be complains affects the "spiritually minded" in the churches, but not the "scripturally intelligent." This constitutes the world's first information that the scripturally intelligent are a class apart from the spiritually minded. The great apostle says that "to be spiritually minded is Life and Peace" This is surely a satisfactory condition.

The Doctor approvingly quotes Prof. Stevens, charging the Pastor with paraphrasing, mistranslating and

DG4

sacrilegiously altering the language of the Bible. Neither Stevens nor Gray attempt to cite a single instance such an they allege, and this fact should be carefully noted. We invite them to quote an instance to prove their charge, and careful thinkers will await and long await their effort to produce any proof before forming a verdict in their favor.

Gray's effort to discredit Pastor Russell with disloyalty to the Bible to eloquently refuted by the Pastor's 5972 citations from the Bible in the Scripture Studies. Where is there another set of theological writings based so thoroughly on the Bible as this number indicates? Is it possible for a man to easily distort the Bible to his own ends while quoting it 5972 times? And would not the quotation of such a mass of Scripture be at least presumptive proof that the scheme of interpretation containing it is worthy of at least a careful examination?

Gray says that -- generally speaking -- "Russeliism" denies almost every fundamental of revelation respecting Jesus Christ. Coming to specific charges, he says it (1) denies His deity, (2) conceiving film to be a created being, a creature (before the incarnation) higher than the angels, but like them and (3) not their creator.

If by (1) Gray means that Jesus in His prehuman state was a god, a mighty one, we must agree with him. It he means that 'He was "very God," -- Jehovah, we must decidedly differ, because of the following Scriptures: Rev. 3:14, "The beginning of the creation of God," and if a creature, then manifestly separate from His Creator and lesser. Col. 1:15, "The first born of every creature." In fact, our Lord is not represented as equal to the Father at any time in the whole boundless sweep of eternity, either heretofore or henceforth; for He Himself said, while in the human estate, (John 14:28) "The Father is greater than I;" and we are told regarding him in the ages of ages to come (1 Cor. 15:28 ) "Then shall the Son also himself be subject unto Him that put all things under slim, that God may be alt in all." These Scriptures certainly show our Lord In a state of continuous subordination to Jehovah God; "Russellism" thus appearing to take absolutely the Scriptural view regarding the deity of Jesus-that He is, was and will be a god or mighty one, but never the supreme God.

From two of the passages already quoted it is apparent that Dr. Cray is unscriptural in point (2) in denying Jesus to have been a crated being. The correct thought is further emphasized in Psalm 2:7, where Jehovah is represented as saying of Him: "Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten Thee." This unmistakably sets a day as the beginning of the existence of Jesus Christ as the work of God; and in this connection we call attention to the fact that the very frequent Scripture expression "only begotten Son" can have no possible significance if Jesus was not a being created by God; for the act of begettal is nothing if not an act of creation. To rob it of this meaning leaves it without a vestige of content for the a intelligent mind.

Dr. Gray's statement (3) that "Russellism denies that Jesus Christ (prehuman) was the creator of angels" is another of his unqualified misstatements of fact; Pastor Russell teaches with emphasis the very thing that Dr. Gray says he denies. In his argument on page 87 of volume 5, the Pastor quotes John 1:3 "All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made." His

DG5

recognition of this verse alone is sufficient evidence to close this point. But of course, when it is said that He created all things, it is evident that lie Himself is excepted -- He could not have created Himself. It Is evident, then, that the Logos was the first, last and only direct creative work of Jehovah -- to which fact He undoubtedly referred when He said "I am the first and the last." And in this connection let it be noticed that if He is not the work of God, then the word Father as applied to God is robbed of its significance. For if He did not create the Logos, in what possible sense is He a father?

Dr. Gray says that "Russellism" denies Jesus Christ's incarnation of the virgin Mary; that it denies that HP was a combination of two natures, human and spirit; that It present Him to view as merely a perfect human being, claiming that only after He had sacrificed the human nature in death did He become a full partaker of the divine nature. All of this Dr. Gray contradicts and cites to uphold his position three Scriptures, (1) "Emmanuel - God with us;" (2) "God manifest in the flesh;" and (3) "that holy- thing that shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."

Incarnation and Trinity Unreasonable.

Pastor Russell assuredly does not believe the foolish and unscriptural dogma of the incarnation, as it is commonly held to the churches. He teaches that the identity of the Logos was maintained in the fleshly Jesus born of the Virgin Mary, and that because of the perfect life given Him by His Father God, He did not inherit any of the human imperfections of his- earthly mother. Such a proposition is in accord with the truest deductions of science. The Pastor well rejects the nonsense that one of three portions of a triune deity was in form and substance transferred from the courts of glory, and temporarily encased in a human body, thus producing a peculiar combination of the divine and the mortal in one person. Such a condition is contrary- to nature and to reason, and cannot be proved by Scripture. Dr. Gray did not offer a line of argument to prove false the Pastor's contention that such a combination would be a hybrid. God's abhorrence of such unions is expressed in Jude 6 and 7, where it says that Sodom and Gomorra, in like manner as the angels that kept not their first estate, going after strange flesh, are set for an example. On the other hand, John 1:14 says "The Logos was made flesh" - not encased in flesh. Jesus, in John 17:5, says: "Glorify Thou me with the glory which I had with Thee." If He had at that time possessed the former glory, He would not have been praying its return. This is self-evident - 2 Cor. 8:3 says: "Though He was rich, yet for your sakes He became poor." Heb. 2:14 and 1n-13 says: "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise partook of the same; that through death He might destroy him that hath the power of death. For verily He took not on the nature of angels, but He took on the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behooved Him to be made like unto His brethren, that He might be a faithful and merciful high priest. For in that He hath suffered being tempted, He is able to succor them that are tempted." In connection with these verses take the 7th and 9th verses. The latter says that "for the suffering of death" Jesus "was made a little lower than the angels," precisely the same expression that verse 7 applies to Adam. When He laid aside the glory which He had with the Father and became flesh, poor for our sakes, He took not the

DG6

nature of an angel, which would have been a lower step for Him; but He went still lower, "a little lower than the angels," like Adam, in order that by being like Adam's race He might become its Savior. To make Jesus the man any more than a perfect man is to rob Heb. 2:18 of every vestige of significance and comfort and make It the most cruel of mockeries, making it seem to hold out a hope that is impossible; since If Jesus was more than a man He had more than human power to resist evil, and as we have only human power we could not then hope to follow in His steps in resisting evil.

To cap the climax of Scripture proof take Phil. 2:6-9: (R. V.) "Who existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant being made in the likeness of man; and being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself (still further), becoming obedient unto death, yea, the death of the cross. Wherefore also God highly exalted Him, and gave unto Him the name that is above every name." All these Scriptures conclusively prove that Pastor Russell's interpretation is correct and that Dr. Gray is in the dark, and unfit to be a "watchman" in Zion.

Dr. Gray's citation of 1 Tim. 3:16, "God manifest in the flesh," throws either his scholarship or his sincerity's in a most unfortunate light; for the Revised Version, the high merit of which he acknowledges, says in a footnote on this verse: "The word God, in place of He who, rests on no sufficient ancient evidence. Some ancient authorities read which." A man, claiming to be a scholar and yet quoting this passage from the King James version, by that very act acknowledges the "last straw" condition of his case.

He quotes Luke 1:35, where it was foretold that Jesus should be called "the Son of God." If this proves that Jesus was more than a man, then the identically same expression in Luke 3:38, there applied to Adam, must prove that Adam was more than a man. This dilemma Dr. Gray can scarcely enjoy.

Jesus' Own Testimony.

But one of the Doctor's citations remains to him, Matt. 1:23: "Emmanuel, God with us." His whole claim is left hanging on this slender thread. If by this he proves that Jesus was more than a man, a part of God, he will have great difficulty in explaining many Scriptures that are out of harmony with this thought. For instance, Jesus said "The Son can do nothing of Himself." This showed His utter dependence on God. If He was part of God, or God Himself with us, literally, as Dr. Gray contends, why did He profess such dependence? Was He shamming? It Dr. Gray wishes to hang his reputation as a Biblical scholar on such a slender thread, he will never, at any rate, in such manner overthrow a work built upon 5972 Scriptures.

Resurrection Misunderstood.

Dr. Gray accuses "Russellism" of denying the resurrection of Jesus by affirming that His body was not raised, but mysteriously removed without corruption. Attempting to prove his point, be quotes three Scriptures. Acts 1:3, "He showed Himself alive after His passion by many infallible proofs." To this we reply that the inspired Scripture means precisely what it says. It says "He showed Himself." It does not say that He showed His old body. The whole difference between Dr. Gray's position and ours hangs on this very point. To shows that our position is correct, let us look at 1 Cor. 15:35-38, where

DG7

Paul is covering this identical point of the nature of the resurrection body. "But some one will say, How are the dead raised, and with what manner of body do they come? (R. V.) Thou foolish one, that which thou thyself sowest is not quickened except it die; and that which thou sowest, thou sowest not the body that shall be, but a bare grain, it may chance of wheat or of some other kind; but God giveth it a body even as it pleased Him, and to each seed a body of its own." This is certainly so emphatic regarding our body an to leave no need of further word. And ii our bodies will not be raised, but new ones given to us by God, appropriate for us, and if we are after fruits to Jesus, who was the first fruits, will not His case be found similar to ours? But let Scripture answer -- 1 John 3:2: "It doth not yet appear what we shall be; but we know that when He shall appear we shall be like Him." Now if we have new bodies, as shown by Paul above, and He has the old crucified body of flesh, then this utterance of St. John is false, for we will not be like Him. On the other hand, if the old body of flesh is to be raised, it will be something well known to us from years of occupying it; whereas John says that we know not what we shall be, except that we shall be like Jesus. If John is true we shall not be in the old body.

Resurrection of Body a False Doctrine.

In the case of Jesus it is of the utmost importance to understand clearly that not only did he not take back the old body of flesh, but that He could not do it without vitiating the ransom. The whole problem of the world's salvation hangs on this point. If Dr. Gray is correct, then there is no salvation for him or for us or for anyone.

God's law of Justice required an exactly corresponding price, and this is precisely the thought of the Greek of our word ransom -- a corresponding price. A perfect man, Adam, fell under the curse of the law; a perfect man only could pay for him the penalty. An angel could not pay it, for Adam was not an angel. A fallen man could not pay it, since it was a perfect man that fell. Psa. 49:7: "None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him." It required a second Adam, and this Jesus was. 1 Cor. 15:45, "The first man Adam was made a living soul; the fast Adam a quickening spirit." Also verse 47 - "The first man is of the earth earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven."

No Salvation If the Man Jesus Rose.

To be this ransom, the Logos must needs become man; hence (Heb. 10:5) "A body hast Thou prepared me." And this body had to be placed in the hands of Justice as an offering, to take the place of the man who had forfeited all right to life. Heb. 10:10 -- "By the which will we are sanctified by the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all;" also verse 20 -- "A new and living way, which He hath consecrated for us through the vail, that is to say, His flesh." By these verses it is plain that the body, the flesh of Jesus was given as a sin offering. Heb. 9:23 tells us that the services of the Jewish tabernacle were patterns of the better sacrifices. Go back, then, with the thought in mind that the body of Jesus was a sin offering, and see in the pattern shown in Leviticus what happened to the sin offering. It was totally consumed: and the priests were accountable on pain of death for the exact literal fulfilling of the minutest detail of the service, as God had shown to Moses. Every particle of the sin offering must be consumed. Jesus Christ is the anti-typical priest, offering the antitypical and only sufficient sin-offering, His flesh. For further Scriptural

DG8

evidence on this point take Heb. 9:11-17; 25-28: "But Christ being come an high priest of good things by His own blood entered once into the holy place . . . How much more shall the blood of Christ who . . . offered Himself without spot unto God, purge your conscience? And for this cause He is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death . . . they which are called might receive the promise. For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead; otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth . . . . Nor yet that He should offer Himself often . . . for then must He often have suffered. But now once in the end of the age hath He appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many."

Words of Jesus Silence Opposition.

Now, to put the last touch on an argument already possessed of surpassing Scriptural strength, take Jesus' own words in John 6:33-66: "The Bread of God is He that cometh down from Heaven and giveth life to the world. . . I am the Bread of life. . . This Is the Bread that cometh down from Heaven, that a man way eat thereof and not die. The bread that I will give is My flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. . . Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood, hath eternal life. For My flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink Indeed. He that eateth me, even he shall live by me . . . Many of His disciples . . . said. This is a hard saying; who can hear it? From that time many of His disciples went sad walked with Him no more."

What a tragedy this was -- disciples offended at the doctrine that the flesh of Jesus was to furnish life to the world! And yet we have found that many who profess to be disciples are offended at the teaching of this doctrine today, and we see that Dr. Gray is arraying himself in the same class with these disciples of old who turned their backs on Jesus because He taught that His flesh was the offering for sin, His flesh and blood, and all that constituted Him a perfect human being, and in that sense the second Adam or equivalent of the first Adam who fell.

Now it is certainly self-evident that if Jesus' flesh was laid on God's altar as an offering for sin, it could not be taken from the altar. A ransom price cannot be taken back without canceling the ransom. And if the world eats Jesus' flesh for the obtaining of life, Jesus surely- cannot retain that which He presents to the world as a gift, and which the world consumes. Jesus by keeping it would prevent the world from eating it, and hence from having life. The Scripture teaching is overwhelmingly evident that if Jesus took back the flesh, then there is no ransom for any one and no salvation whatever.

Dr. Gray quotes Luke 24:39-"A spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have." This is the only Scripture we have been able to find that appears on the surface to lend plausibility to Dr. Gray's idea; and every other Scripture bearing on the subject contradicts the apparent surface teaching of this one. We are bound, then, to squarely meet the question: Will we reject all other Scripture in our determination to cling to our thought of this one verse; or shall we endeavor to understand this verse In the light of and in harmony with all other Scripture? Manifestly, the

DG9

latter method is dictated by sanctified common sense. Let us then examine the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus, to see what they teach regarding His body.

First He appeared to Mary. If He had appeared in the crucified flesh which she had known so well, would she not instantly have recognized Him? But she did not recognize Him at all -- she took Him for the gardener, the keeper of the cemetery. -- John 20:14, 15. Jesus then addressed her, and revealed himself to her by his well-known voice. It was the manner of speech and not the form at all that brought Mary in as the first of those who should be witnesses to his resurrection. And this was the undoubtable cause of his appearances to establish the fact of his resurrection in the testimony of sufficient witnesses convinced of the fact. Mary did not demand recognition of form --- his speech sufficed to enroll her as the first witness. Blessed Mary!

Luke 24 records His appearance to the two disciples walking to Emmaus. They had known Him well; nevertheless, though He walked some distance with them, talking with them continuously, and expounding the Scriptures to them, and even entered the house with them as if to abide for the night, and sat at meat with them, they did not recognize Film, but took Him for a stranger. This is incomprehensible from the viewpoint that lie was in the old body of flesh, so well known to them. But they knew Him instantly in His manner of breaking bread. They, like Mary, required not the sight of a familiar form; the sight of His distinctive manner of breaking bread added them to the list of witnesses of His resurrection.

Next He appeared to ten disciples, Thomas being absent. John 20 says they were intrenched behind barred doors, for tear of the Jews. Yet Jesus suddenly appeared before them, regardless of the bolted doors. Could a fleshly body perform such a feat? And Luke 24:37 says they were terrified at His appearance. Would His familiar form of flesh have terrified them? If so, why? Even His word, speaking peace, tailed to allay their fear. They- had already received the testimony of Mary and the Emmaus disciples; yet they failed to see in this appearance their risen Lord. But their recognition was very essential; hence lie opened the way for them by materializing for the moment in a fleshly appearance exactly similar to the form well known to them. It is well proved in Genesis and elsewhere that angels had in times past appeared as men and disappeared at their will. Even Jesus Himself in fits prehuman state had thus appeared and disappeared. Will we deny such power to the glorified risen Lord by whom it was claimed: "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth?" Assuredly not. He materialized before them, creating both a body and the clothing to take the place of His which was then in the possession of the Roman soldiers to whom it fell at His crucifixion, and showed them the eight that brought their joyful recognition. Can it be said that He practiced deception upon them? By no means! He a used d a legitimate power of materializing, appearing and disappearing inherent in a spirit being and in no other, and His identity was maintained inviolate throughout; and it was this fact of His identity drat He came to establish in their minds.

Later be appeared to them again, Thomas being present. Thomas had the testimony of alt the others to fits resurrection, yet had declared that he would not believe unless he could

DG10

touch the wounds for himself. The reef had seen and believed; but the sense of eight would not suffice for him-he must touch. It a as very essential that all the twelve become Active witnesses of the resurrection; and we may well think what a calamity it would have been if Thomas had held out, and borne testimony ,contrary to all the rest. Recall the picture of Paul, chosen of the Lord to take the place of Judas, added to the fold of actual witnesses by a vision of the risen Savior, now highly exalted, by which he was blinded, and iron which he never fully recovered, carrying a "thorn in the flesh."

Jesus came to convince Thomas. Tie came through bolted doors, as before, which a fleshly body could not have done; and incited Thomas to the identical test he had required, for that purpose again materializing, again in the form of the crucified nosh, and afterwards vanishing in a manner impossible to any fleshly body. And to Thomas He administered a reproof of great significance: "Hast thou believed because thou bast seen? Blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believed!" It all of them and of us had required proof as Thomas did, few blessed there would hues been. Dr. Gray gives us to understand that he must eventually be convinced exactly as Thomas was-puts himself in the Thomas class. We prefer to have the blessing bestowed on those who accept by faith and not by sight.

Be it noticed that when Jesus first appeared to his disciples they thought they beheld a spirit-the sight way absolutely strange to them. Therefore they were affrighted. And it was not till Jesus had materialized before them that he could utter the words quoted by Dr. Gray:

"A spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me having." (R. V.) Does this mean that the risen Lord is not a spirit? 2 Cor. 3:17: "Now the Lord is that spirit." 1 Cor. 15:45: -- 'The last Adam was made a quickening spirit." Rom. 8:9: -- 'we are not in the flesh, but in the spirit, if so be that the spirit of God dwell in you." Did it-not dwell in Jesus the glorified; and is he less than his servants? And take Jesus' own ponderously emphatic words in John 6:62-63: "What and it ye shall see the Son of Alan ascend up where he was before? It Is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing." Did the risen Lord take and carry along with Him against the day of His reappearing something that by His own testimony was absolutely unprofitable?

In the tight of these facts, can we understand Luke 24:39 to mean that the risen Lord was not a spirit? It is impossible. He was a spirit as He stood before His disciples. But He told them that a spirit hath not flesh and bones. Therefore w e must understand that for the moment He was not only a spirit, but a spirit shrouded in a human form, more than a spirit, not less. Thus is the harmony of this passage with all other Scripture made manifest.

The Other Appearances.

Let us take the remaining post resurrection appearances. He appeared to the fishing disciples at the lane side They utterly failed to recognize him. See John °1:4. If He had appeared in the old familiar form, could they have failed to know Him? Those who believe in the resurrection of the body have failed to give these incidents their plainly proper significance. Jesus talked with them and they knew Him not. Finally He performed a characteristic miracle, end then John, quickest to discern, told Peter, "It Is the Lord." Even Peter

DG11

did not know till he was told, though he bad already several times seen his risen Lord. After they had landed, it is said, John 21:12, "And none of the disciples durst inquire of Him, Who art Thou? knowing it was the Lord." This language is very peculiar, and demands andysis. If the disciples had no misgivings, why does John say that they durst not ask Film? If they knew Him surely, why had they any desire to question Him? Who would have the slightest impulse to ask regarding a thing known? The intimation is strung that they desired to ask Him, but did not dare. Why not dare? Because they were ashamed to betray a lack of faith that the visitor was their beloved Lord. And yet, 3n the midst of their conviction of His identity there was manifestly a strange feeling. Why? Because of His strange appearance, which had hindered them from recognizing Him at the start. It %as manifestly not the body they had known n or had ever seen before that hour, hence the lurking desire to question His identity, a desire restrained by His clear revelation of His identity in His action.

Matt. 28:16 records His appearance to the disciples in a mountain appointed in Galilee, doubtless the appearance to the 500 mentioned in 1 Cor. 15:6. It is said that some of these then doubted His identity. Could they have doubted if they had seen all that Thomas saw? Nay not this, then a different manifestation, and a serious test to their faith? Is it not a tragic thought that these, who had followed Him during His ministry and had been favored with a glimpse of Him in the resurrection which He had foretold to them, should have refused to believe in film as the risen Christ: and how can their strange action be explained save by the unrecognizable strangeness of His appearance?

Finally, on this point, Dr. Gray quotes Acts 2:24, that God raised Him up." having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that He should be holden of it." As it was said of Acts 1:3, this scripture means exactly what !t says, and nothing else. It says not an iota about the fleshly body. It says Him and He-the Identity. Let the fact here be emphasized that the body and the ego are not inseparable; but that the ego, while requiring a body of some sort for its manifestation, is absolutely independent of any particular body-. Let those who lay so much stress on the resurrection of the body -- explain to us what body they mean. Science tells us that our bodies entirely waste away and are renewed by gradual process every seven years or oftener. Thus a man of three score years and ten has had ten bodies of flesh. Which will be raised? Probably it will be said, "the last." But what virtue is there in the last above the others? Suppose this man was a missionary to cannibals and was slain and eaten by ten cannibals, parts of his fleshly body being assimilated into the fleshly bodies of ten other men. 1n the resurrection, into whose body would these parts go? If into the missionary, then the other men must of necessity appear in the resurrection in a fragmentary condition. This merely suggests a myriad of difficulties into which the theory of the resurrection of the body leads us. The difficulties entirely disappear in the light of such scriptures as 1 Cor. 15:37, already quoted. Jesus in the resurrection was the same ego in a new body -- and it was not a human body; it was already proved a spirit body, and of the highest order. Witness 1 Cor. 5:16 (R. V.) "Though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet know we Him so no more." Eph. 1:20-23 "Set Him at His own right hand -- far above all principality and power and might and dominion and every name that is named, not only in this' world, but also

DG12

in that which is to come, and hath put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be the head over all to the church, which is His body." Phil. 2:9: "God hath highly exalted Him, and given Him a name which is above every name." Heb. 1:4: "Being made so much better than the angels."

See also 1 Tim. 6:16, where It is said of God that He dwelleth "!n the light which no man can approach unto, whom no man hath seen nor can see." But since Jesus is now sitting on the throne of God, at His right hand, He cannot any longer be a man. And if "blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God," It follows that they cannot remain as men. We are told in 1 Cor. 15:50 that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God." But Jesus has become heir of all things, by appointment of God, (Heb. 1:2), hence is no longer flesh; and the saints are to be joint heirs in this great inheritance (Ram. 3:17), and hence they can be no longer flesh.

Let it now be recalled that Dr. Gray has charged us with denying the resurrection of Jesus; and that Dr. Haldeman, who is quoted by Dr. Gray, charges that we teach the annihilation of Jesus Christ. In the light of the argument here given, which is but a reflection of our universal teaching, ice can plainly see out of how flimsy a texture these charges have been made up by their authors.

Further Scriptures Misapplied.

Dr. Gray's nest paragraph is crowded with error, some of which the scriptures already quoted have fully shown. He says we deny Jesus' ascension and high priestly intercession in the denial of the resurrection and ascension of His flesh, because "His priesthood is based on His human nature." He says we teach that He is now "simply a spiritual being," "though probably of a higher order than before." Do Dr. Gray's words "simply" and "probably" betoken much faith in the scriptures. in the light of such passages as Eph. 1:21, Phil. 2:9 and Heb. 1:4 already quoted? He says we deny that He will "come again as a human being-In face of the fact that His disciples saw Him ascend as a human being (Acts 1:9), that Stephen saw Him in the glory after He had ascended (Acts 7:55-56), and that the angels testified, 'This same Jesus shall so come in like manner' (Acts 1:11)."

In partial reply to this statement, let us call to mind the extended argument already made and amply backed with Scriptures, proving incontrovertibly that He cannot return as a human being. These many Scriptures demand consideration. No side-stepping of them can be tolerated.

The reference to Stephen proves the opposite of Gray's contention; for it says that Stephen saw Him in the glory, and not in flesh. (See Phil. 3:21.)

As to Acts 1:9, it sass absolutely not one syllable about a human being, and Dr. Gray's assertion is therefore calculated to grievously deceive any one who accepts his word without looking up the reference. How unreliable!

As to Acts 1:11, where the angels said He should return in like manner as He went away, Dr. Gray is so intent upon his theory that He falls far short of grasping the plain intent of this angelic utterance. How did He go away, and how, therefore, shall He return? Dr. Gray believes He went away in the body of flesh, and so expects Him to return in that manner; though we have already proved from Scripture that He did not go that way, and cannot return that way.

He appeared after His resurrection in various forms, not in the body of flesh, and for that reason was not

DG13

recognized to form by His most intimate friends. It was assuredly as such that He ascended. Therefore He shall come in like manner, in such manner that His presence will not be known even to His saints by His bodily form, but rather by other tokens. His ascension was viewed by His followers only, as were all His post-resurrection appearances; none of the world saw Him after He arose, even as He Himself said just before His passion foretold to the disciples (John 14:19) "Yet a little while, and the world seeth Me no more." And so in like manner, He will return, seen only by His true disciples. At His second coming, His true saints will shout, "Behold the Bridegroom!" while all others will deny His presence. And it is even so today. He is here, and His consecrated servants are acclaiming the present Lord, while the foolish virgins and the unwise servants are saying that He is not here "Our Lord delayeth His coming;" and they are smiting their fellow-servants who hold the contrary sentiment (Matt. 24:49). Among these smiters Dr. Gray assumes a place as chief. We do not envy him the position.

The situation today is the identical counterpart of that of the first advent. The world was then in expectation; it is now. The first advent was the subject of much prophecy; so is the second. The former prophecies were read in the synogogues every Sabhath; the latter .prophecies are in the possession of the present churches. But the Jews entirely overlooked a large mass of the prophecies they read, prophecies that minutely foretold the coming Messiah as a man of sufferings who should afterwards be elevated to a position of royalty; they looked for the royalty, and lost sight of the plainly foretold antecedents of the royalty; which was distinctly their fault, since their own Scriptures convicted them of their error; yet they persisted in the error and insisted on a royal Messiah; and when Messiah came exactly as foretold they rejected Him as an imposter because He was not in the form they required; and whereas the common people received film gladly (Mark 12:3 ) It was the religious leaders of the day, those who sat in Moses' seat, the chief priests, elders, scribes, and Levites, the Sanhedrin, the spiritual shepherds of the Jews, that fought the Messiah at every step of Ills earthly ministry, and wound up the huge sum of iniquity by crucifying Him as a malefactor. Behold the antitype today! Who are they that believe in the present returned Messiah? The common people, the foolish, the weak of this world, rich in faith (Tames 2:5). And who are they that scoff, that deny his presence, that fail to perceive it? It is the religious leaders of the day, the spiritual shepherds, the clergy, the doctors of divinity, the seminary professors, the official directorate of the churches. And why is It that we find them assuming such an attitude? Because, in like manner, He has not come in the form they required. They demand a fleshly Messiah; and because lie has come in different form they reject and deny, precisely as did their types of old. And yet some people today ask us, Why do not our ministers see these things, if they are true?

We remind them of the corresponding query in the type, (John 7:43) "Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on Him?" Their question is nearly twenty centuries old. Are not these facts remarkably significant? And do they not contain a solemn warning to all who hear?

Dr. Gray tells us, in black-faced type, that Jesus' "priesthood was based on His human. nature." Let us summon Saint Paul to answer Doctor

DG14

Gray. Heb. 7:13-9:11: "For He whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar. For It is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah, of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood. And it is yet far more evident; for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest, who is made not after the law of a carnal (fleshly) commandment, but after the power of an endless life. For such an high Priest became us, who is made higher than the Heaven. For if He were of earth, He should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law. But now hath He obtained a more excellent min ministry by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands.'

Also Heb. 7:11: "What need that another priest should arise, after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?" Nothing plainer than these Scriptures could be framed in human language; they utterly discredit Dr. Gray's black-faced theory. Our Lord's priesthood is not an earthly, but a Heavenly priesthood. It was the "new creature," begotten in Jesus at Jordan, and born in the resurrection, that became the great High Priest: the better priesthood is based on a "new creature." If it had depended, as Dr. Gray says, on the crucified humanity, which was never raised, but remained dead, we would now be without an advocate, there would be no high priest, and the world would be as surely without hope of salvation as if no ransom had been given, since there would be no one to apply the merits of that ransom. And so it is those who in this life are begotten, and in the resurrection born as "new creatures," who will be joint-heirs with Jesus in His Kingship and Priesthood, and those only. This doc trine of the new creature is not taught in present day churches; but it is taught plainly in Romans 8, Ephesians 4, Colossians 3, 2 Corinthians 5, Galations 6 and other scriptures; while the warfare between the "old man" and the new is plainly set forth in the latter part of Romans 7. What will t the exponents of the theory of the r resurrection of the body do with all these scriptures?

More Unreliability.

Dr. Gray quotes 1 Tim. 2:5, "one mediator between God and man, the Man (or himself man) Christ Jesus," and insists on the translation "Himself," using this as an argument for the priesthood based on the humanity. The Revised Version shows that the word Himself Is supplied in the translation, ion, and Westcott & Hort's Greek text contains there neither pronoun nor article, nor any other token of emphasis, is reading merely a man, -- another evidence to us of Dr. Gray's unreliability as a teacher. The teaching of this verse is that the man Jesus later becomes the mediator; just as we are elsewhere taught that the Logos became (in the sense of a corresponding price) the second Adam; the thought being that in all three forms there was the one continuous ego or identity. Dr. Gray's Interpretation of 1 Tim. 2:5 flatly contradicts the plain language of Heb. 8:4. We have shown their harmony. Can it be shown en any other basis? If so, we wait the proof.

In Dr. Gray's next paragraph he says that we deny the second coming in and scriptural sense; and he sneers at the teaching that it occurred in 1814, that the first resurrection began in 1878 and will be completed in 1914, and quotes in refutation of our position Mark 13:33, where he says we are told that we know not the day nor the hour. Most of this paragraph we hate already anticipated and refuted with abundant scripture. In

DG15

Mark 13:3 Jesus, speaking In the present tense, said, "Knoweth no man, no, no the angels which are in Heaven neither the Son." Plainly, Jesus did not then Himself know the day no the hour, for we have it on His own testimony. But will He never know?

Assuredly He knows in advance of Hi coming. Therefore a time came when Mark 13:3'? was fulfilled and ceased to be true, so tar as Jesus was concerned And if so of Him, is the same necessarily impossible of others? Will no others ever know? And mark the fact that this passage speaks of the day and the hour, while Dr. Gray sneers at Pastor Russell for discerning the year, which is quite a different matter. Pastor Russell has never essayed to mark the day or the hour. But to clench this master beyond cavil, let us cite further scripture, again St. Paul, 1 Thess. 5:1-5: "But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you. For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. For when they shall say, Peace and safety, then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child, and they shall not Escape. But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief. Ye are all the children of light and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness." according to this plain Scripture, the children of the light shall know the time and recognize the Lord's conning and presence by the proper tokens and evidences: while all others, here classed as of the darkness, resting in a false sense of security, will be overtaken a by a thief, and will not escape. This proves again that Dr. Gray is altogether wrong; and if Pastor Russell is as correct here as he has everywhere else been proved to be, then Dr. Gray by his deliberately assumed attitude here places himself in the ranks of those in darkness, apart from the light, who are overtaken as by a thief.

Rank Inconsistency.

Dr. Cray's next paragraph contains a marvelous inconsistency. He says our most dangerous teaching pertains to the doctrine of the atonement, undermining it in the denial of the deity of Jesus, "for," says Dr. Gray, "if He were but a man and not God, what efficacy could there be in His blood shedding for the sins of men? Who could trust the redemption of his soul to a mere man, even the greatest, holiest and wisest who ever lived?"

We have already shown by abundant Scripture that the law of God demanded a man, a corresponding price, a second Adam, and that none other would do; that for this very reason Jesus became a man, "for the suffering of death" (Heb. 2:9). Is it for us to say that there is no efficacy in and that we cannot trust that which is explicitly ordained by the plan of God? But note the consistency of Dr. Gray! He has just told us that the priesthood of Jesus was based on Ills Human nature, that the mediator must be a man, and that a being greater than a man will not do for a mediator, a reconciler of man with God. Now he says that a redeemer, a ransomer, must be more than a mere man, must be very God, and cannot otherwise be efficient. Dr. Gray would have his ransom price paid by the blood shedding and death of Deity, and then have that Deity rise from the grave as a mere man and ascend as man to the throne of God, and there as mere man intercede with God for sinners vitro have been justified by the blood-shedding of Deity: Was ever a greater jumble of senseless utterance mixed? And think of God shedding blood and dying and rising from the grave! Dr. Gray believes that Jesus was very God. Did God die-the immortal and eternal God? How can an immortal die?

DG16

What does the word immortal mean? Who occupied the throne of God while he was dead? And If Jesus was very God, and ascended as man to the throne of God, then are me to believe that God on the throne of the universe is a man? If Jesus is very God, did God raise Himself from the dead? And does He advocate the cause of the saints before Himself, and will He be the mediator between Himself and roan? Such madness falls of its own weight, and serves well to show into what depths of doctrinal darkens: those will go who are not walking it the light ''that shineth more and wore unto the perfect day."

Dr. Grays final and chief complaint regarding our teaching as to the work of Jesus is that we produce a worse blasphemy and sacrilege than Catholicism by claiming that the sacrificing of the Church is a continuation and completion of our Lord's own personal sacrifice, and that these sacrificed lives, counted in with His, constitute the blood of Christ that seals the new covenant, which covenant will-not be sealed till all the blood of the great Mediator has been shed. In answer to this be quotes Heb. 9:26 and Heb 1:3, "Put away sin by the sacrifice o1 Himself" and "when He had by Him self purged our sins." Dr. Gray seems to regard these two verses sufficient to refute what he regards as a most dangerous doctrine of the church's participation in sacrifice; and he definitely charges us with believing that tire church "are part of the ransom price for sin." The latter part of his charge is unqualifiedly false. 'We do not teach or believe as he charges. To show how be misrepresents Pastor Russell and us, let us quote from Studies in the Scriptures. Vol. 5, "The Atonement." Page 429, "The future deliverance, and alt the blessings that now or in the future will come to mankind by Divine grace, are of the Son, and through or by means of the ransom sacrifice of Himself, which He have on our behalf, and which was 'finished' at Calvary. -- John 19:30." That surely settles the matter of our belief.

In discussing tire participation of the Church in sacrifice. Dr. Gray tails to grasp distinctions that are essential when he quotes from Hebrews in answer to the garbled quotation from the Watch Tower of Oct. 15, 1903, which lies before me. Both the passages in Hebrews speak of the cancellation of sin, which was the work of Jesus alone. The quotation from the Watch Tower most plainly speaks of the Church as participators in the sealing of the new covenant. The making payment for the breaking of one obligation and the application of a new covenant are manifestly two different matters. Paul in Hebrews speaks of the first as the work of Jesus. Pastor Russell speaks of the second as the work of the Christ, the anointed, both Head (Jesus) and body (the Church). Hence we see that Dr. Gray, in attempting to answer Pastor Russell, does not speak to the point at all.

Let us now see if there is any Scripture authority for the position taken by Pastor Russell:

(1) Rom. 8:17: "Joint heirs with Christ, if so be that we suffer with Him, that we may be also glorified together."

(2) Phil. 1:29: "Unto you it is given, in the behalf of Christ, to suffer for His Sake."

(3) 1 Thess. 3:3: "That no man should he moved by these afflictions, for yourselves know that we were appointed thereunto."

(4) 1 Peter 2:1: "Christ also suffered fur us, leaving us an example, that we should follow in His steps."

DG17

(5) 1 Peter 6:10: "But the God of all grace, after that ye have suffered awhile, make you perfect.

(6) 2 Cor. 1:5: "For as the sufferings of Christ abound In us."

(7) 2 Cor. 1:6: "And whether we he afflicted, it is for your consolation and salvation:"

(8) 2 Cor. 1:7: "As ye are par. takers of the sufferings, so also shall ye be of the consolation."

(9) Phil. 3:10: "That I may know film, and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His suffer. ings, being made conformable unto His death, if by any means I might atlain unto the resurrection of the dead."

(10) Col. 1:24: "Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for His body's sake, which is the Church."

(11) 1 Peter 4:13: "Rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ's sufferings: that, when His glory shall -be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy."

(12) 2 Tim, 2:12: "if we suffer, we shall also reign with Him" (It is possible w e may here be accused of ignoring the reading of the Revised Version, which says "endure" instead of "suffer." To any who would stumble over this, we commend an examination of the Creek word, and its meaning in any good lexicon. It is better translated in the King James than in the Revised Version; but the real meaning is stronger than "suffer;" it means "to die with."

It is difficult to see how Dr. Gray can face these twelve strong Scriptures.

Is Backsliding Possible?

Dr. Gray believes the Bible to teach that he who believes on the Lord Jesus Christ has everlasting life from the moment be so believes. He understands the Bible to teach that to believe on Jesus Christ Is to be born of God. He professes to understand that "begotten of God" and "born of God" are interchangeable terms, and he ridicules Pastor Russell for differing from him on all these ideas.

It is from this teaching of Dr. Gray's (not original with him, however) that comes the doctrine "once in grace, always In grace." This is taken as a sweet morsel of comfort by many nominal Christians who therefore allow themselves to become "at ease in Zion," unconscious of the woe impending them (Amos 6:1.) There is no doctrine more full of peril, and the entire teaching of Scripture is to the contrary, viz.: that, having begun a good fight, we must maintain it with relentless vigilance, lest we should by any means fait at the end to win the prize of eternal life.

Temporarily passing the paragraph on Sanctification, to return to it later, we find the Doctor also saying that he understands that "they who believe on Christ and are born again shall never perish, neither shall any one pluck there out of the Father's hand (John 10:27-23)." He objects that Pastor Russell teaches that one may enjoy all the blessings of Christ's work and yet fall from grace, and utterly perish at the end, dying the second death. Dr. Gray has failed to read John 10:7 discerningly or be could not have quoted it here. The passage plainly asserts that no third party whatsoever can take His sheep away from Hi n. It assuredly does not sap that these sheep cannot wander away from Him if they will, and that He will force them to stay if they will to go. That is a totally different proposition from tile one presented by John.

Begettal and Birth.

But first let us straighten out Dr. Gray's 'ridiculous tangle over the human life as a picture of the spiritual life. He claims to see no difference between begettal and birth, making them identical terms. It Dr. Gray

DG18

has here faithfully represented his own mind, he presents a pitiable spectacle of ignorance In matters of common knowledge. A knowledge of the meaning of English words; a discernment of the facts well known in the experience of parenthood; an average appreciation of the teachings of the science of human life--all these shame the "Doctor" as a confessor of limited intelligence. Who is ignorant of the fact that in the human species nine months of development normally intervene between the totally different transactions of begettal and birth? In every created species there is an interval, quite definite in each species. Does Dr. Gray wish us to think of him as ignorant of these common facts?

The andogy between the human or animal and the spiritual life at this point is close and instructive. In both, begettal comes first. Then, after initial processes of development, comes quickening,-in the human species midway between begettal and birth. Then, after an important interval of nourishment and growth, comes the birth. Human birth ensues upon the travail of the mother, and the coming forth of the new creature from the place of its confinement. In spiritual birth, the great event ensues after the travail of the human body in death; it is the escape of the New Creature from the bands of corruption and death. There is absolutely no spiritual birth so long as the mortal body continue- to enshroud the new creation. Begettal and quickening belong to that period, but birth does not.

Let us get the Scripture evidence on this point. It is necessary here to closely watch the translations, inasmuch as many of the translators have been in the thraldom of the same contusion that holds Gray, and have handled the words in the original with a reckless disregard of tie principle of consistency. Reference to theoriginal words and to any good lexicon or concordance will clearly demonstrate to any inquirer the correctness of our position.

1 John 5:1 (R. V.) "For whosoever is Begotten of God overcometh the world." .

1 John 5:4 (R. V.) "Whosoever believeth that Jesus Is the Christ Is Begotten of God, and whosoever loveth Him that Begat loveth him also that is Begotten of Him."

1 Cor. 4:15: "In Christ Jesus I have Begotten you through the gospel."

Philemon 10: "My son Onesimus, whom I have Begotten in my bonds."

1 Pet. 1:3: "Who according to ha abundant mercy hath Begotten us again unto a lively hope."

1 John 5:18 (R. V.): "We know that whosoever is Begotten of God sinneth not, but he that is Begotten of God keepeth himself."

Rev. 1:5: Here the King James translators have made the reverse error, saying Begotten where they should have said Born; R. V.: "Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the first Born of the dead."

1 Pet. 1:23 (R. V.) : "Having been Begotten again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, through the word of God."

John 1:13: Here the Revisers have gone wrong; but the minority of them hate by vote placed the correct reading in a footnote: "Who were Begotten, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."

1 John 3:9 (R.V.) "Whosoever is Begotten, of God doeth no sin, because his seed abideth in him, and he cannot sin, because he is Begotten of God."

1 John 4:7 (R.V.) "Every one that loveth is Begotten of Cod."

Let us now see it the Scriptures bear out Gray's idea that a person having

DG19

once believed is thenceforth an forever saved, beyond all danger of eventually perishing. Let St. Paul again answer him (Heb. 6:4-6, R. V.)

"For as touching those who were one enlightened, and tasted of the heavenly. gift, and were made partakers of the holy spirit, and. tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the age to come, and then fell away, impossible to renew them again to repentance, seeing they crucify to them selves the Son of God afresh and put him to an open shame."

Dr. Gray must surely have forgotten this plain and emphatic passage. But let us not be content with one single Scripture. Heb. 10:26-27 (R. V.): "For if we sin willfully after that we receive the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment and a fierceness of fire which shall devour the adversaries." Also verse 29: "Of how much sorer punishment, think ye, shall be be judged worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the spirit of grace?"

2 Peter 2:20-21: "For if after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein and overcome, the last state is become worse with them than the first. For it were better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after having known it, to turn back from the holy commandment delivered unto them."

Jesus said (John 15:6): "If a man abide not in 'Me, he is cast forth as a branch and is withered; and men gather, them and cast them into the lire and they are burned."

1 Cor. 10:12: "Wherefore let him that thlnketh he standeth take heed lest he fall."

1 Cor. 9:27: "But I keep under my body and bring it into subjection, leaf that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway."

Heb. 10:38-39: "If any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him. But we are not of them that draw back unto perdition." Also verse 36: "For ye have need of patience, that, having done the will of God, ye may receive the promise."

See also Heb. 4:1: "Let us therefore fear, lest any of you should seem to come short."

Our blessed Master said (Matt. 10:22): "He that endureth to the end shall be saved." He did not say that he who believes is saved. In fact, the message of salvation, as delivered by Paul and Silas to the Philippian jailor, was "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shall be saved." The salvation is future, at the end of enduring belief. Everlasting life is not given at the moment of belief, as Dr. Gray contends, but at a future time, as Pastor Russell teaches. Let our Lord himself again be the arbiter between these two human teachers. (John 6:39-40)

"And this is the Father's will, which hath sent me, that of all which lie hath given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. .1 id this is the will of Him that hath sent Me, that every- one which seeth the Son, and believeth on Him, may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day." blow, If one has everlasting life from the moment of belief, there can, therefore, be no cessation of life. flow, then, can Jesus say that He will raise him up at the last day? In what sense can a being possessed of everlasting life be raised up? The same language is repeated in verses 44 and 54. What escape is there from this four times

DG20

repeated expression of our Lord?

Take also Paul's famous expression in 2 Tim. 4:6 and 3: "I am now ready to be offered, and the time of our departure is at hand. Henceforth there is laid up for Me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, shall give Me in that day." Manifestly, Paul believed that a period of waiting in death was to precede his receiving of the reward of eternal life.

Our Lord, glorified, speaking to one of the churches, said (Rev. 3:11)

"Hold that fast which thou hath, that no man take thy crown." This manifestly teaches that there is danger that the crown laid up for one may be wrested array by another, and that the receiving of it is future. Hundreds of similar scriptures might be quoted; but the testimony already is so overwhelming as to lead one to wonder whether Dr. Gray has made any study whatever of the Bible. How can anyone feel satisfied to follow such a teacher?

"Sanctity Yourselves."

In discussing Sanctification, Gray: expresses his belief that he who is justified by faith is sanctified in the same manner. lie says it is both an event and a process (as if such were possible), instantaneous and yet progressive; though as a process it is the work of God in us. He says Pastor Russell teaches that it is the result of our own works, certainly implying that he himself believes that it is not of our working at all.

On this point, note the following scriptures:

Ex. 19:22, "Let the priests sanctify themselves."

Lev. 11:44, "Ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves."

Lev. 20:7, "Sanctify yourselves therefore."

Num. 11:18, "Say unto the people, Sanctify yourselves."

Josh. 3:5, "Joshua said unto the people, Sanctify yourselves."

Josh. 7:13, "Sanctify yourselves against tomorrow."

1 Sam. 16:5, "Sanctify yourselves, and come with me to the sacrifice."

1 Chron. 15:12, "Sanctify yourselves, both ye and your brethren."

2 Chron. 29:5, "Fe Levites, sanctity now yourselves."

2 Chron. 35:6, "Kill the passover and sanctify yourselves."

These scriptures are in the imperative mood, the command of Jehovah. True, this was the typical sanctification, but the method is certainly similar in type and antitype, otherwise the type would have no instructive value to us as a picture of the antitype.

The New Testament has the same teaching for the antitype. 2 Tim. 2:21: "If a man therefore purge himself, he shall be a vessel unto honor, sanctified, and meet for the Master's use." 2 Cor. 7:1: "Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God."

There are scriptures showing flat we are sanctified by the influence of God's holy spirit, as 1 Cor. 6:7.

There are several Scriptures teaching that the word of God is the sanctifying influence; i. e., Eph. 5:25; "That he might sanctify and cleanse it by the washing of water by the word." Also John 17:17: "Sanctify them through Thy truth; Thy Word is truth." This line of scriptures is very important in this connection, for the Word is the great connecting link between God and man. He has dose His part in giving it; we must read and assimilate it to get any benefit from it--that is our part. It will not sanctify us if we do not apply it to ourselves.

There is a considerable amount of scripture tending plainly to show that

DG21

God sanctifies us. We need not quote it, for as Dr. Gray contends that the Scriptures teach this side of the question only, he could not desire proofs on this point. The task remains to harmonize all these Scriptures on the subject of sanctification. Dr. Gray does not attempt if, simply ignoring, as everywhere, those that impeach his position. The harmonizing is a simple matter. Sanctification is not instantaneous, but is a process, in which hath God and man have a part. Some of these scriptures show man's part; some, God's part; some show both. If we bear these facts clearly in mind, there need be no further occasion for the mysticism and confusion of thought, that has always prevailed among professed advocates oil this great doctrine of entire sanctification.

As the first step, the justified believer brings his ail in willing sacrifice to God's altar, consecrating his justified humanity, all his human rights, and all that pertains thereto, to God's service, absolutely laying down his own choice and will to accept instead for his guidance the will of God. This is man's part--to come into this attitude and remain there. It must be a clean sacrifice that is brought, hence; the necessity for washing; for God will not accept an imperfect offering: and, since we are by nature imperfect,' enough of Jesus' merit must be imputed puled to us to cover our imperfections; as with a robe, "the robe of Christ's! righteousness." This is the robe we, are to "keep unspotted from the, world," -- "the wedding garment."

The washing "with the Word" and putting on of this robe is our work; if we do not do it, it will never be done. God's part is three fold: -- first, He has given the word, with which we may wash ourselves; second, He has furnished us Jesus as our robe of righteousness (Eph. 1:4, 1 Peter 1:20) third, when our sacrifice is properly presented (Rom. 12:1) He accepts it, and our names are written In the Lamb's Book of Life as tentative members of His bride, -- the Church. That these names may afterwards be blotted out of that Great Book is plainly implied in Rev. 3:5. Such is the plain Scriptural truth regarding Sanctification, and no warrant of Scripture can possibly be brought to gainsay it.

A Big Problem for Dr. Gray.

Dr. Gray next avers that "be who finally rejects Jesus Christ in this life shall die in his sins, and shall not obtain salvation, either in this age, or in that which is to come." To this, in the exact words as above quoted, we agree. For him mho finally rejects Jesus, there can be no further hope. But how many do finally reject Him in this age, and what about those who do note Mrs. Bishop McDowell of Chicago, President of the world's Woman's Foreign Missionary Society (Methodist), in a recent camp meeting address, said that there are one hundred twenty millions of people in India today who have never heard the name of Jesus Christ. If they pace never heard of Him, surely they have not rejected Him, either finally or any- other way. What, then, has the future for them? We commend this question to every professing Christian. There is no room for evasion, for it is the problem of the destiny of, 120 million souls, every one of whom is as important in God's sight as are we (Acts 10:31.)

A Terrible Misrepresentation.

Dr. Gray accuses Pastor Russell of teaching that "be who does not believe; on Jesus Christ in the present age shall most certainly believe on Him under more favorable circumstances and obtain salvation in the age to come," and this he characterizes as Pastor Russell's most popular

DG22

appeal to the natural heart and his most harmful teaching.

Pastor Russell absolutely does not teach any such thing, and every one who has read his books through, even hurriedly, knows this. If Dr. Gray had read them, he knows it. If he has not read them, and yet presumes to say in public print what their teachings are, he is guilty of almost unbelievable presumption. We may well leave the reader to choose for himself which horn of this dilemma regarding Gray's attitude toward the virtue of common honesty be shall accept. For our own part, we are yet to be convinced that Gray or any of his associates from whom be quotes have ever given the books of Pastor Russell, which they attack, one solitary complete reading. Their attacks bear no evidence that they have read the works they have so freely attacked. May we again be pardoned if we inquire whether such conduct is befitting a "watchman of Zion" and a recognized spiritual leader of the people?

Pastor Russell and we believe in one complete probation for every man, embodying those features that are inseparably attached to the word probation, no less and no more; and we believe that those who have not in this life received such probation will receive it "in due time" -- 1 Tim. 2:6. Every one who has read our literature knows this thoroughly.

Dr. Gray disputes this and kindred thoughts at considerable length, quoting a few Scriptures, and laying considerable stress on the utterances of a Dr. Haldeman of New York City. As Dr. Haldeman is quoted by almost every one who opposes our doctrines, and is regarded by them as Pastor Russell's ablest opponent, and inasmuch as Dr. Gray's attack, to which this reply is directed, is plainly but a brief rehash of the bitter pamphlet of Dr. Haldeman, we may well, in passing, glue brief notice to the character of the Haldeman attack.

The last-named attack, the most widely circulated of them all, having reached 15,000 copies, bears the title "Millennial Dawnism, the Blasphemous Religion Which Teaches the Annihilation of Jesus Christ." And throughout the pamphlet, as it originally appeared, it distinctly carried the impression to its readers that we believe in the extermination of the existence of Jesus Christ. Since it is so apparent to any reader of our literature that we, above all others, exalt Jesus Christ, rather than annihilate Him. It finally became unavoidable for Dr. Haldeman to add four pages of postscript to his pamphlet, explaining that we teach the annihilation of the man Jesus. But still the pamphlet is run with the old, deceptive title, and is advertised giving the same old false impression, seeming to indicate on the part of the author and the publisher a desire to bear false witness to the utmost possible limit. Why do they not insert the qualifying word man all the way through the attack? Is this conduct befitting "watchmen in Zion'"

On pages 79 and 30 of the Haldeman attack, he accuses us of entertaining the following doctrines of belief:

"All the unrighteous and wicked dead will be raised and be made perfect and innocent like Adam before the fall."

"All the unrighteous and wicked dead will be given a second chance."

"The more wicked they have been in this life, the more likely they will be, through the 'experience' of sin, to accept the gospel of the second chance."

"Those who accept the second chance will have everlasting life."

"Those who get everlasting life will sustain ii by eating food."

DG23

"Those who do not want to live for ever will have the privilege of being asphyxiated in the lake of fire."

"The assurance given to the wicked and sinful is, that there is no suffering for sin."

"Those who do not care for Heaven, need not be afraid of hell."

It is hard to fully exercise Christian restraint in the face of such wholesale and sweeping misrepresentation as is crowded into the above quoted charges, every one of which is utterly and unqualifiedly untrue to the well known facts in the case. The seriousness of the offense, however, demands at this point a vigorous protest in the name of truth; and in the name of truth we call all who read these lines to witness that we challenge Drs. Haldeman and Gray and all who circulate their attacks to prove that one solitary utterance of the above quoted attack of Haldeman is warranted by the teachings that are to be found in our literature. We herald this challenge with all the strength we possess. Let no one whom our message reaches believe that he can again think or repeat these false charges against our doctrine without relinquishing claim to Christian honor! "Thou shall not bear fare witness against the neighbor." And what shall we think of such "watchmen of Zion" as will publish broadcast such false witness as Haldeman has projected and Gray has assisted in circulating? What can be their motives in such methods?

Returning to Gray's arguments in their order, we find him asserting that Pastor Russell's definition of life is wrong, inasmuch as it is held to be "a principle common to all beings, whether God, man, animals or plants." And be says that it is the false idea of life that gives color to the teaching about "the sleep of the soul, and that when a man dies be passes out of existence until the resurrection." Let us inquire, then, What is life?

The Standard Dictionary gives as the primary definition of life, "the state of being alive," and it gives as the antonyms of life, "death, decease, dissolution." From this authority it is therefore apparent that the principle of life is something which is common to all beings that are not dead or without life which includes every being, from God to the lowest plant.

Turning to Biology, which is the humanly constructed science of life, we find it constantly speaking of the life principle, as though there could be but one such principle. Such being the case, we must look elsewhere than to the life principle for the difference in all these beings; and where else could we find it but in their varying organisms, as taught by Pastor Russell? And where could Gray have obtained his theory, for which we find no authoritative substantiation? We can but suspect that be got it in the manner common among theologians, -- that he constructed it in his own mental laboratory, to fit his other theological notions.

Whore did Pastor Russell get his idea of life? He got it by literally searching through the original Greek and Hebrew Scriptures and gathering up every instance of the use and application of the original words which mean life in the most pure and absolute sense. In this manner he found that the original words meaning life are applied throughout the Scriptures without distinction to every living being and organism. Any person, by following the occurrence of the words in Dr. Strong's Andytical Concordance, can verify for himself what Pastor Russell has found and taught. Any one who has read the fifth volume of Pastor Russell's Scripture Studies

DG24

knows how carefully and convincingly be has set all this evidence forth. Thus we see that Pastor Russell has the backing of the Dictionary and human science and the Scriptures in his opposition to the theories of Alchemist Gray. Let the reader choose for himself which sort of leadership he will follow.

Dr. Gray does not believe in the sleep of the soul; he does not believe that when a man dies he passes out of existence; and he says that the Scripture refutation of these ideas is cumulative. He quotes the words of Jesus. Luke 9:60, "Let the dead bury their dead," as showing that one may be dead and alive at the same time, in line with the position of the "Christian Scientists" who deny the reality of death. It is strange that so conspicuous a teacher of the people as Dr. Cray should fail to comprehend this plain Scripture. The message of Jesus was: You disciples have been called away from the dying condition in which Adam's entire race is plunged, at and into a newness of life; attend to the things therefore of this the true life, and leave the burial of the utterly dead to those who are not called to newness of life, but are still resting under the condemnation of death and gradually sinking therein. Let the dying attend to the dead. You are to be new creatures for the Kingdom; attend to the affairs of the Kingdom -- they demand your undivided attention.

Dr. Gray also quotes Eph. 3:1: "You hath He quickened who were dead in trespasses and sins." Here, likewise, the argument is along the same line: the apostle is talking, not to the world in general, but to the saints and the faithful (Eph. 1:1) and he is referring to the incipiency of the New Creature in them. Dr. Gray also quotes 1 John 3:14: "We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren." The same reply applies here. We refers to the brethren (see verse before) and the reference is to the beginning of the new Creature in the brethren. Inasmuch as these New Creatures are a very special class, a "little flock," in all 144,000 of every age and nation, (Rev. 14:1), and the Scriptures quoted by Dr. Gray will apply to this small class exclusively, it is difficult to see how they prose anything regarding the condition of mankind in general. This proves to be one of the many cases where Dr.' Gray has failed to "rightly divide the Word of Truth." (2 Tim. 3:15.)

Dr. Gray says that the punishment for sin is more than extinction of being, implying that it will be extinction plus. This is a manifest absurdity; for penalties cannot be inflicted on nothing, on a being that has become extinct. He quotes Luke 16.23: "Lifted up his eyes in Hell, being in torments." The Greek word is Hades, which means death, with not a suggestion in it of torment, or even of consciousness. (See Liddell & Scott's Greek-English Lexicon, the standard authority.) The condition of punishment is Gehenna, and not Hades.

Dr. Gray means that we shall take this parable of Dives and Lazarus literally, though parables are never so taken, and the explanations of them given by Jesus to His disciples prove such to be the case. In this dilemma he will probably say that the account its not to be regarded as a parable, though it has always been so regarded, as hundreds of biblical works will testify. If he insists on taking it literally, consistency requires that it be so taken all the way through. We are then to conclude that the rich, regardless of merit, will go to hell, for nothing is said in the account about the characters of the respective actors. We must believe that they will be

DG25

burned in a fire that will never consume them, -- a sort of fire unknown in all the realm of nature. We must think that every poor beggar who is full of sores will be carried by the angels and caused to recline in the literal bosom of Abraham, in which case Abraham must be a greater giant than the fabled Atlas to be able to accommodate all the earth's scabby beggars in his bosom. We must believe that hell and heaven are so close that their inhabitants will be able to converse back and forth; and that the inhabitants of hell will be more concerned over the salvation of the inhabitants of the earth than the inhabitants of heaven will be. We thus see the ridiculousness of Gray's position, when carried to its logical conclusion.

He claims that the saying of Jesus that it would have been better for Judas it he had never been born is Inconsistent with the theory that Judas ceased to exist. He dons not point out the inconsistency, however, and we fail to see where it exists apart from his own mind. The case of Judas was a hopeless one, because of the nature of his transgression, and the future holds nothing for him. His life went out into the blackness of darkness, beyond the reach of a ray of hope -- the death that knows no resurrection.

Gray Pointedly Unscriptural

Gray next claims that if everlasting punishment is only the extinction of being, then everlasting life must be only continuation of being "which is the boon even of Satan himself, who is to live forever." To prose this, he quotes Rev. 20:10, which represents the devil as cast into the lake of fire, to be "tormented day and night forever:" This verse includes in this punishment with Satan a false prophet and a beast. If the verse is to be taken literally, including the torment and the fire, then in consistency the beast also must be taken literally.. If this is not done, then all must be taken figuratively. But four verses beyond, we are told that Death (Adamic) and Hades were cast into the lake of fire --"This is the second death, even the lake of fire." If, then, Satan is cast into the lake of fire (verse 10), he is cast into the second death condition (verse 14). This accords perfectly with the apostolic utterance in Heb. 3:14, where it is said of Jesus that "through death he might destroy him that hath the power of death, that is, the Devil."

But in the face of these plain Scriptures Gray says that Satan will live forever in torment, and he declares this eternal torment to be a boon. The Standard Dictionary defines a boon as "a good thing bestowed." In other word. Gray considers eternal torment a good thing. Is it the sort of good thing he will be satisfied to obtain? We see that this "Doctor" places himself in a ridiculous position at almost every point. And yet he is regarded by the thousands as a reliable teacher!

It is very apparent that there is something wrong about the received version of Rev. 20:14, since it stands in direct conflict with all the other testimony of the Scriptures. Let us not take this verse as it stands and throw the rest away, as Dr. Gray has done, but let us make a reasonable effort to find the harmony of all. Taking the original Greek, as found in the test of Westcott & Hort (recognized authority), and making a strict, literal translation of it, according to the meanings of the words given by Liddell & Scott, we have: And shall be put to the test of genuineness by day and by night until the ages of ages. As further authority for our translation until, (Greek eis) we quote from the grammar of the great

DG26

German scholar Raphael Runner, page 433: "Eis is used in general to denote the reaching a definite limit. Of time, to denote a temporal limit: till, towards." (The words emphasized in the quotation are italicized by Kuhner himself.) We thus see that this eminent authority requires us to make a translation of this Greek that not only removes the idea of eternal duration, but absolutely contradicts it. We await the word whether Dr. Gray and his associates wilt reject the classical scholarship of Dr. Runner, who was not a theologian, and had no pet theories that, required bolstering.

Dr. Gray says that if death is extinction, then the resurrection must be a new creation, which he says is contrary to the meaning of the word resurrection, which is a coming back to life of the same person who passed out of it. In reply to this, let us call to mind the arguments we have already made regarding the resurrection of the body; that it is not the body, but the ego, the individual, the identity that is restored. This identity is preserved in the memory of God, and in the resurrection is exactly renewed in such a body as God pleaseth. If Dr. Gray wishes to call this a new creation, he may suit himself; his nomenclature does not change the plan of God. Paul must have had this preservation of his identity -- in the mind of God in his thought when he declared that he was "persuaded that He will keep that which I have committed to Him against that day," -- the resurrection day.

In his next utterance, the doctor grievously offends against truth, and, as it could seem, with the utmost deliberation. To seemingly prove his point, he quotes one portion of a verse, omitting the balance of the verse which flatly contradicts and upsets his point. Surely he had knowledge of the latter portion of the verse. What could have been his motive in suppressing it? Did he wish to deceive the unwary? His utterance is that "the Scripture especially says that the soul continues to exist, for Christ warns us in Matt. 10:38 not to fear them 'that kill the body, but have not power to kill the soul."' The balance of the verse says, "but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna." And Luke expresses it still more emphatically: "But I will warn you whom ye shall fear; fear Him who, after he hath killed, hath power to cast into, Gehenna; yea. I say unto you Fear Him." (Luke 13:5). Ezekiel 18:20 says: "The soul that sinneth, it shall die." This is plain. Gray will probably say that it does not really mean the soul. But the same Hebrew word is here used that is everywhere used for soul. If we cannot believe that it means what it says, how are we to know the meaning of any language?

As if inwardly conscious of the weakness of his position bore, the doctor proceeds to assert that this verse says nothing about the spirit anyway, and that the spirit never dies. Let us ask, then, what is spirit? It is the breath of life, and not a tangible quantity. To prove this, go again to the original Hebrew and Greek. The words used for spirit most unmistakably mean wind or breath. Note in this connection the words of Jesus in John 3:8: "The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou heareth the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh and whither it goeth; so is every one that is born of the spirit." If spirit is wind or breath or influence of life, is there much substance to the claim that spirit, cannot die?

Dr. Gray next claims that the Bible shows us men living after death, and

DG27

names Abraham, Samuel, Moses and Elijah. We can easily prove from the Bible that all these men died, but it is not necessary, since Gray clearly implies his belief that they died; he says they lived after death, or after they died.

his belief regarding Abraham is probably based on the parable of Dives, his interpretation of which we have already shown to be foolish. His belief regarding Samuel is probably based on the fact of the witch of Endor having made an appearance of Samuel to Saul. If he wishes to base his theology on witchcraft, it is at least a shame that he should teach it in "Zion." As well might we base our belief on the materializations of the spiritualistic seances of our day.

His mention of Moses and Elijah in this connection is probably based on the transfiguration. This Dr. Gray thus interprets literally, though Jesus Himself called it a vision, saying to the disciples as they came down from the mount, "See thou tell the vision to no man." And Peter, in the mature days of his ministry, discouraged the laying of undue stress upon the vision, when, after speaking of it, he says: "We have also a more sure word of prophecy, whereunto ye do well that ye take heed." The transfiguration was a panoramic picture of Christ's coming kingdom. To interpret it literally is as erroneous as to interpret any vision or dream or parable literally. The teaching of all these three classes of pictures in the Bible is uniformly couched in language that cannot be taken literally, but must become the subject of interpretation. All Bible students recognize this rule; and yet some, like Dr. Gray, insist upon breaking away from the rule when to adhere to it will throw their own theories in confusion.

If these four patriarchs have, as Gray says, become alive since death, then there has already been a resurrection. If so, when did it occur, and what will be the part of these men in the final resurrection, if they are raised already? Does not this theory make the resurrection a farce?

But if they are alive, where has been their abode during all this time? Dr. Gray does not say; but presentably ire thinks of them as in heaven since such is the common thought -- that at death the good go at once to heaven, while the bad go at once to hell and torture. In other words, death itself, they would have us think, is a sort of judgment day, separating the good and evil to their respective destinies. Practically every funeral sermon ever preached by the clergy has run along this line; and many a person has, as the saying runs, been "preached into heaven."

If all are separated at death to their respective final destinies, let us urge the point: Why a resurrection and a judgment day? Do not these become superfluous and grotesque? And the churches teach us that in a literal day of 24 hours all the dead will he raised and will pass before the throne of judgment to hear their sentence. If such is to be the case, a little calculation on the number who have ever lived to become participants in a judgment, and on the number of seconds in 24 hours, will show that the dead, coming forth from heaven and from hell, whither they went at death (?), will have to fall in line at more than lightning sped, and be shot past the seat of judgment almost infinitely faster than the flight of the swiftest cannon shell, in order that all may pass in 24 hours; while the reading clerk who announces to them their final destiny as they whiz past will of necessity be

DG28

supplied with organs of speech capable of swifter action than our finite minds can possibly imagine, and the once judged will require to be specially endowed with equally miraculous facilities for haring and comprehension. And then these rapidly darting beings are to separate as rapidly into two classes and return to the places from whence they came -- to heaven and to hell. If this is not the quintessence of farce, it is absolutely unnamable. If destiny is adjusted at death, will the final judgment reverse any of the original sentences? And if so, are we to think it possible that the Judge will originally err in decision, and be compelled in justice to pull out of hell-torture some who were sent there mistekenedly, and to cool them off and apply healing salve) and hand them a transfer slip to glory? Or that He will find that some unworthy ones originally slipped past His undetecting eye into the Elysian fields? These commonly accepted doctrines are unspeakably ridiculous. How have reasoning beings ever professed to believe in them?

The Scriptural Teaching

Let us seek the Scriptural thought on the matter. Jesus said (John 3:13) "And no one hath ascended into heaven, but He that descended out of heaven, even the Son of Man." The authority of Jesus Himself should suffice to prove that up to His day no one had entered heaven. But takes another Scripture. In Peter's great Pentecostal sermon (Acts 2) he said: "Brethren. I may say unto you freely of the patriarch David (a man after God's own heart, and hence surely entitled to heaven, if any patriarch is so entitled) that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us unto this day. -- For David ascended not into the heavens," although, as Peter says, he was a prophet. According to the theories of the church-men, since the prophet David did not go to heaven, he must have gone to hell. But let us investigate the Bible testimony further.

It is the common thought that all the wicked are roasting in hell, and that a gang of demons are stoking furnaces to maintain the temperature, and that Satan is there in command of the fiery situation. But the glorified Christ says (Rev. 1:18) "I am alive forever more, and have the keys of hell." From this language it is manifest that Jesus Christ, and not Satan, is master of hell, and whoever is in there is locked in there, and Jesus has the key.

Is Satan in hell? Has he ever been in hell? Absolutely not -- strange as it may seem to some, he has never been in hell at all. Jesus speaks of Satan as "the Prince of this world" (John 12:31). Peter tells us (1 Peter 5:8) "Your adversary, the devil, as a roaring lion walketh about seeking whom he may devour," and warns them, on earth, to resist him. And we find, in Job 1:7, that the Lord said to Satan, "Whence comest thou?" "Then Satan answered the Lord and said, from going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it." Since Satan's angels or associate evil spirits are his assistants, working under his command, it is evident that they must be located in contact with him, or in the earth also. In other words, they are not in hell. Evidently, then, all the talk we have heard about Satan and his angels leading furnaces and brandishing pitchforks in hell has been the product of some over-heated human brains.

All the Dead Are in Hell

But who are in hell? The Scriptural answer is that hell is the abode of all

DG29

the dead. The Scripture already quoted regarding David makes him a resident of the grave. Job 21:13 says of the wicked, "They spend their days in wealth, and in a moment go down to the grave," -- the same destiny as signed to the prophet David. And Solomon, whose wisdom Jesus commended, (Matt. 12:42), tells us (Eccl. 9:10). "There is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest." The general thought has been that when a man dies he becomes more alive than he ever has been. But this scripture is a sweeping contradiction of the general thought. Take the fourth to sixth verses of the same chapter: "The living know that they shall die; but the dead know not anything. -- Also their love and their hatred and their envy is now perished." What do theologians do with these scriptures? Notice what they do. They throw the book of Ecclesiastes out of the Bible. Oh, you will find it in the copies they carry; but if you undertake to quote it, they will at once sagely inform you that Ecclesiastes does not bear sufficient credentials to admit it to their august society. But our duty as Christians is to understand the Bible, not to tear it to pieces and discard the parts that do not fit our own preconceptions. At any rate, those who scorn Ecclesiastes will scarcely reject the Psalms. Bear their testimony. Psa. 6:5: "In death there is no remembrance of Thee; in the grace who shall give Thee thanks?" Psalm 30:9: "What profit is there in my blood, when I go down to the pit? Shall the dust praise Thee?" Psalm 88:11: "Shall Thy loving kindness be declared in the grave? or Thy faithfulness in destruction?" Psalm 88:12: "Shall Thy wonders be known in the dark, and Thy righteousness in the land of forgetfulness?" Psalm 115:17" The dead praise not the Lord, neither any that go down into silence." The testimony of these scriptures is very plain that the dead are dead, nonexistent, utterly beyond all power of consciousness or sensation; and in the face of them it is doubly absurd to accept the manifest self-contradiction that the dead are not dead, that a man can be that which he is not.

Furthermore, be it borne in mind that the words grave, pit and hell in our King James Bible are all of them used by the translators where one common word, sheol, is used in the original Hebrew. Who gave these men license to thus make this word the object of their whim? Let it be distinctly remembered that sheol, the Bible hell, is the state or condition of death, oblivion, a state to which all alike go, both man and beast.

Where could Dr. Gray and the many others who hold this false theory of the dead not being dead have gotten it? We do not wish to be brutally frank, but there is only one truth of the matter: This doctrine came direct from Satan: it is his old lie, the original falsehood by which Satan earned his title as the father of lies. God had said to Adam (Gen. 2:17) "In the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die." Eve witnessed this command of God to Satan in yet more emphatic form (Gen. 3:3), and Satan replied, "Thou shalt not surely die," a direct contradiction of God, and therefore a lie.

The culmination of this tragedy of the first man is recorded in Gen. 5:5 in these simple words. "and he died." God's word was fulfilled, and Satan's was not. The further outreaching of the influence of this tragedy of death is recorded by St. Paul in 1 Cor. 15:22, "In Adam all die." while mans' other familiar passages in Paul's writings and elsewhere show that through Adam's transgression all have fallen

DG30

into death. God had never said that He would punish them in any living condition; He said, Thou shall die, and they died.

Adam did not go to heaven, as we have proved by the testimony of Jesus; and he did not go to what is commonly conceived as hell; for Jesus having become, as already shown, a second Adam, paid the penalty for the first Adam, canceling the condemnation of Justice, and securing a return of "that which was lost," (Matt. 13:11) providing him a hope in the resurrection, a thing that would have been impossible if Adam had gone to a place or state of eternal punishment
or torture. Adam, then, simply died, and God's word against him was fulfilled. But Eve believed Satan's lie, and Satan has contrived to have it believed ever since, and professing Christians universally believe it today, and Dr. Gray teaches it, in spite of Jehovah's plain penalty and its
manifest universal fulfillment and the teachings of the Scriptures in harmony therewith from cover to cover. If they persist in this course, are they not in grave danger of earning the condemnation bestowed by Jesus upon the religious leaders of His day? (John 8:44).

Dr. Gray and others who have called us "soul-sleepers" are much offended at the thought of the soul sleeping in death. But the Scriptures teach that the soul, as well as the body, dies, and drat death is a sleep, anti consequently that the soul sleeps in death. We have already referred to Matt. 10:28, half quoted by Gray, and the parallel passage in Luke, showing that God can destroy the soul, and Ezek. 13:4, showing that the sinful soul will die. Notice, besides these three very emphatic Scriptures, the following: Isa. 55:7 -- "Hear and your soul shall live," plainly implying, Hear not, and your soul shall not live. Heb. 10:39 gives a similar inference: "We are not of those who draw back to perdition, but of those who believe to the saving of the soul," implying that the s soul might fail to be saved. Likewise Exodus 30:12, "Then shall they give every man a ransom for his soul unto the Lord." Isa. 53:10, 12, speaking prophetically of Jesus, says: "When Thou shall make His soul an offering for sin," and "He poured out His soul unto death." These passages unmistakably prove the death of the soul, and they might easily be reinforced by many others. If it be wondered what is meant by soul, it may be briefly and accurately defined as the "sentient being." Pastor Russell exhaustively covers this matter in the fifth volume of Scripture Studies.

Again To the Scriptures

The proof that death is a sleep is voluminous. It is said of all the patriarchs and kings of the Old Testament that they died and slept with their fathers. It is said alike of good men who had bad fathers and vice versa, and of fathers and sons of like character. In fact, this is what we should expect from the teaching of Eccl. 9:2-3, "There is one event to the righteous and to the wicked -- there is one event to all -- they all go to the dead." The following Scriptures plainly teach the sleep of death: 1 Cor. 15:51, "We shall not all steep" or linger in death. 1 Thess. 4:14, "Them which sleep in Jesus," "the dead in Jesus," 1 Cor. 15:20. "Now is the Christ risen from the dead and become the first fruits of them that slept." This scripture proves that Jesus Christ slept in death, and also conclusively disproves that Abraham, Moses, Samuel, Elijah or any one before Jesus was alive from the dead, because Jesus Himself was the first fruits from the dead, or of "them that slept." Eph. 5:14, "Awake, thou

DG31

that steepest, and arise from the dead," while figurative, unmistakably identifies death and sleep. Dan. 12:20, "Many of them that steep in the dust of the earth shall awake." In John 11:11 Jesus says to His disciples, "Our. friend Lazarus sleepth." Later, to correct their misapprehension. He says plainly, "Lazarus is dead."

Death and sleep are thus interchanged because of their striking resemblances, by reason of which our intimate experience with the latter helps us to comprehend the former. Both are states of peaceful unconsciousness, and both are followed by an awakening. This is true, however, only in the light of the promised resurrection; and in that light it is so beautiful a figure, so full of hope and promise, that it is hard to comprehend the aversion of Dr. Gray and others to the use of it as in the Bible.

Dr. Gray professes to be horrified at the thought that Jesus became extinct at Calvary, and tells us in the language of Haldeman that "then the gulf between deity and humanity remains unbridged, redemption is a failure, and salvation beyond the hope of mortal man." If we will cut loose from Satan's old lie and adhere to the simple thought that death is death, a cessation of fife, being or existence, and couple this with the great fact so abundantly testified in Scripture that Jesus became a man for the very purpose of suffering death, there need be no trouble. Contrarily to what Gray and Haldeman insist, the Scriptures teach that if Jesus did not die, then there is no ransom. Heb. 2:9 -- "But we see Jesus, who was made a little loner than the angels for the suffering of death -- that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man. Also verses 14 and 15: "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, be also himself likewise took part of the same, that through death he might destroy him that hath the power of death." Heb. 9:15, 17 -- "And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death -- they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead; otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth." Also Heb. 9:26, 28 -- "He appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself -- So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many." Recall again also the verses from Isa. 5:3 -- "Stake His soul an offering for sin." and "He poured out His soul into death." Jesus passed out of existence in order that Adam and his race might pass back in; and the man Jesus, who consecrated Himself to death at Jordan and fulfilled that obligation by death at Calvary, thus went out of existence never to return; and only thus can we gee Him as the bearer of the eternal inheritance to those who received the testament, since "a testament is of force after men are dead, otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth." It was the new creature Christ, as shown before, begotten at Jordan, who was born in the resurrection; the man Jesus could not come back to life without annulling the covenant. How can Dr. Gray or my one escape this Scriptural conclusion?

Dr. Gray next contends that growing out of the idea of the sleep of the soul is the "equally unscriptural" one of a probation after death, and accuses Pastor Russell of getting "a semblance for this by fantastically applying all that refers to the earthly national restoration of living Israel In Palestine

DG32

to a restoration of all the nations and all the generations of men!"

We are glad to note that Dr. Gray admits the restoration of Israel, thus relieving us from the task of quoting the voluminous Scripture on that point. But he seems to limit the restoration to living Israel, which is a serious error. This is well proved In the 11th of Romans -- "For it the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead? -- Blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles he come in. And so all Israel shall be saved; as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: for this is my covenant unto them."

The language of Ezek. 37:12-14 is very plain and pointed: "Behold, O my people, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel. And ye shall know that I am the Lord, when I have opened your graves, O my people, and brought you up out of your graves, and shall put my spirit in you and ye shall live, and I shall place you in your own land; then shall ye know that I the Lord have spoken it and performed it, saith the Lord."

Jer. 31:16 and 17 foretells the slaughter of the children at Bethlehem, (for proof see Matt. 2:17), and Jehovah assures Rachel that her children shall come again from the land of the enemy (death) to their own border.

Ezek. 16:55 (R. V.) says, "Sodom and her daughters shall return to their former estate: and Samaria and her daughters shall return to their former estate; and thou (Jerusalem) and thy daughters shall return to your former estate." These Scriptures emphatically settle the point that not only "living Israel," but all Israel shall be restored In Palestine.

Dr. Gray says that we teach the restoration of all mankind by a fantastic application of this restoration of Israel. He does not believe in the restoration of all mankind. Let us see whether the doctrine of the restoration of all is fantastic.

Is Restoration Fantastic?

God said to Abraham (Gen. 12:3) "In thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed." How fantastic! Heb. 6:17 -- "God, willing to show more abundantly unto the heirs of promise the immutability of His counsel, confirmed it by an oath." Again, how fantastic! Gal. 3:17 -- "And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was 430 years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect." The covenant with Abraham comprehended the blessing of every family of the earth; it was confirmed by the oath but as we know has not yet been fulfilled of God, and has never been annulled, and cannot fail. What is there fantastic about this?

See the light thrown by the New Testament on this problem: Heb. 2:3 -- "tasted death for every man." John 12:32 -- "And I, If I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me." Rom. 5:13 -- "So by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men." Rom. 8:32 -- "He that spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all." 2 Cor. 5:14-15 -- "If one died for all, then were all dead, and He died for all." 1 John 2:2 -- "And He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world."

Many Scriptures along this line might be quoted, to show that the whole world is included in the benefit of the ransom given by Jesus at Calvary. But the Scripture is equally

DG33

plain that salvation through Jesus comes only through definitely believing on Him. And "how shall the believe on Him of whom they have not heard?" (Rom. 10:14). How then can they
be saved who died before Jesus paid the ransom? And how will they be saved who died since His day without hearing of Him? Ah, 1 Tim 2:6 supplies the answer -- "a ransom for all, to be testified in due time."

And therefore "all that are in their graves shall hear His voice and shall come forth." (John 5:28).

Prophets and Apostles Agree

Surely none of these Scriptures are fantastic. They are very plain and direct. We have avoided the prophecies, since Gray may regard them fantastic.

Now, having made a clear case without the prophets, we will add their testimony also, in part, for it is very voluminous. Ezekiel, speaking to Jerusalem (which we have soon is to be restored) says (Ezek. 16:53), "When I shall bring again their captivity, the captivity of Sodom and her daughters, and the captivity of Samaria and her daughters, then will I bring again the captivity of thy daughters in the midst of them." The churches have taught us that Sodom's case was one of hopeless destruction for terrible sin. But here the prophet plainly makes the time of Jerusalem's restoration depend upon that of Sodom; and in Ezekiel 16:47-51 the prophet tells us that Jerusalem was more corrupt than Sodom, and twice as wicked as Samaria. And he says that all of them are to come back together. In the light of this prophecy take the utterance of Jesus to Chorazin, Bethsaida and Capernaum (Matt. 11:22, 24), "It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon . . . than for you." "It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for thee." What a brilliant light this throws on the character of the day of judgment! It is to be a tolerable time for Sodom and less tolerable for Capernaum. Why? "We shall have occasion to cover this point later.

Further Prophecies

Psa. 67:2-"Thy saving health among all nations."

Psa. 72:11-"All nations shall serve Him."

Psa. 72:17-"All nations shall call Him blessed."

Isa. 2:2-4-"It shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord's house Shall be established in the top of the mountains and all nations shall flow unto it. And many peoples shall go and say, Come ye and let us go up unto the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and He will teach us of ills ways, and we will walk in His paths; for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem And He shall judge among the nations and shall retake many people; and they shall beat their swords into plow shares," etc. These prophecies are very plain; we can plainly see that their fulfillment is yet future; and that, to make it possible, those who are In their graves must hear Ms voice and come forth to receive the testimony that is promised to be given "in due time." And we can very clearly see that justice demands such an arrange arrangement. We have the testimony of Jesus Himself that if the cities of the plains had received the preaching that He gave to the cities of Palestine. "they would have repented long ago." In Ninevah, which God once proposed to destroy, and which did finally go into oblivion, we are told there were many who did not even know their right hand from their left. They have no chance for salvation. How thankful we may be to realize that we have a God who is infinite in justice, who has a plan that includes a fair chance for every one of His creatures! How

DG34

many, indeed, might Lave been saved from infidelity if they could have been taught by Cod's professed children that Ile is in very truth a God of unerring justice! And not only do we find that future probation is a superlatively scriptural doctrine, but we find St. Peter declaring (Acts 3:21) that God hath spoken it by the mouth of alt His holy prophets since the world began. Surely we dare not dispute God Himself.

Dr. Gray next accuses Pastor Russell of teaching that God is at present permitting sin, with no restraint and no accountability attached to it. This is as absolutely false as an accusation can possibly be framed by use of English words; and if Dr. Gray has read Pastor Russell's books, he knows it. The only clemency toward this offender that charity can obtain from justice in this instance is on the abject plea of ignorance of the writings attacked. And again we press the query whether it is honorable for a "watchman of Zion" or any other gentleman to attack another publicly in the absence of information as to the basis of attach?

Pastor Russell very clearly emphasizes the present account accountability. He goes even so far as to aver that not only wilt each person come forth from the grace the same identical character that went down into death, bat that they will reappear will the same thoughts in their brains and the very same words on their tongues that were there at the moment of dissolution. And it is for the very reason of the inequalities that will thus come to light in the restoration from death, due to the unequal havoc wrought by sin, that the judgment will be more tolerable for some and less for others. Some will have erred in this life in the face of considerable light, while others hill have erred in utter darkness, blinded by "the god of this world." Some will have fallen lower than others, leaving them greater distances to retrace to come into harmony with God, and greater difficulties to surmount. Some will have much less to learn than others; some will require to be "beaten with many stripes." All will pick up the thread of life and of opportunity exactly where they dropped it in death. This is the true significance of Eccl. 11:3, "In the place where the tree falleth, there it shall be." It is therefore very important how this life is used.

False Accusation Compounded

In the light of this teaching of Pastor Russell, listen to Gray's next statement -- "Could anything have any ore satanic attractiveness than this? 'The man who broke all the laws of God will be brought to life again pure and spotless." To attribute such teaching to Pastor Russell seems little short of satanic in its reckless disregard of honesty. It would seem that Dr. Gray must be blind to the moral significance of misrepresentation. Is it any wonder that hundreds of professing Christian people have denounced Pastor Russell as an unsafe teacher, when they have been depending for their information regarding his teaching on such rack misrepresentations as Gray has in the above language put forth in his original article, all, then deliberately sent broadcast in his pamphlet in the face of our information, delivered into his very hands, advising him fully of the falsity of big charges? We do not wish to seem to press this point to the extreme of harshness or unenarizableness; but we do deem it high time that some one insistently challenged Gray and all his associates to desist from their utter misrepresentation and confine their attacks to matters of actual fact at issue. There is not one of tire Pastor's attackers, so fair as we are aware, that

DG35

would not be compelled to sweepingly revise his attacks in order to bring them into accord with the plain facts in the case. Let us hate common honesty.

Apparently possessed with the intent to fix his reputation as a dealer in misrepresentation, Gray informs his readers that "this is the system of the second chance." No accusation ever brought against Pastor Russell has been so mischievous in its effect as this one of the second chance, and it is as false and as far from the facts as all the rest. Pastor Russell and all his associates have for years and times without number asserted and proved that they absolutely do not believe to a second chance for any one, and if Gray had read the literature he attacks, he could not have made this charge with an unoffended conscience.

Where is there place for a second chance before there has been a first" Rom. 6:12 --"By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men:' Psa. 51:5 -- "I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did My mother conceive me." Ex. 20:5 -- "Visiting the iniquities of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation." Jer. 31:29 -- "The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge:" Let Dr. Gray show us where is any chance in such sort of arrangements. These scriptures declare every son and daughter of Adam to have come into the world a condemned criminal at the very start, under a penalty or curse. Do we often think of the condemned criminal as a man who has much of a chance? If a man who never had a chance gets one in a future life, will it be a second chance? There is no need of a second chance: but justice sorely cries for one. And God has guaranteed that one to every man who has ever lived.

Dr. Gray next quotes 2 Cor. 6:2, "Now is the accepted time; today is the day of salvation," as If this referred to the salvation of the world. The verse just preceding, as well as the opening verses of the book, decisively show that Paul was addressing the Church of God in Corinth and all the saints in Achaia, and that he was urging them to make their own calling and election sure. There is not the slightest intimation regarding the salvation of the world. This, then, is another instance where Dr. Gray has failed to "rightly divide the word of truth."

We may safely challenge Dr. Gray or anyone else to produce any- valid argument from the Scriptures or apart from Scripture to prove that this is the world's salvation day, or that God is now making any effort, or his in the past made any direct efforts to save the world. This is the salvation day of the church; the next age will be for the world. We are all well aware of the shock this thought contains for the nominal churches; smug as they are in their conviction that God is using them to bring the world to Himself, and depending on such efforts as they may be able or willing to make, subjecting the poor world to whatever degree of justice (or injustice) this arrangement may prove to have involved. Let us trace this proposition out to some of its inevitable conclusions.

In the first place, let us remember the scriptural presentation of the matter. We are told that without a parable Jesus did not speak to the people. His disciples inquired of Him why he spoke to the people in parables, and His own exact answer was (Mark 4:11) "Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done In parables: that seeing

DG36

they may see and not perceive, and hearing they may- hear and not understand." And in the remarkable prayer of Jesus, recorded in John 17, He said, "I pray not for the world, but for them which Thou halt given Me.

Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on Me through their word." And yet it is reiterated in tire Word that Jesus came into the world for the very purpose that the world through Him might be saved. Still we find that he neither taught the world nor prayed for it, but confined all His efforts to his disciples. Will Dr. Gray please explain?

If God is depending on the efforts of the churches to bring the world to Himself, what show has the world under such an arrangement? Let us see. Dr. Charles Bayard Mitchell, who recently came near election to the Methodist bishopric, declared before a large church assembly at a recent session of the Des Plaines Camp Meeting, "I sometimes even feel like praying for another Bob Ingersoll to stir us up and arouse us out of our lethargy-." Dr. Jenkin Lloyd Jones of Chicago, addressing the American Unitarian Association in Boston, said: "The churches of Chicago are menaced by empty Pews" Dr. M. E. Cady declared, in addressing the Chicago Methodist Preachers Meeting, "The average prayer heard today is the most vapid thing ever heard anywhere. Thought on religion has vanished from our prayer meetings." The report of the Committee on Narrative to the last Presbyterian Assembly at Atlanta deplored the "distressing loss of membership in many synods," reported that nearly 4000 churches had failed to secure a new member during the year, and confessed that some of the church's most intelligent and influential members spend the Sabbath on the golf links instead of attending Divine worship.

Dr. Andrew Gillies, tire foremost Methodist pastor In Minneapolis, In a recent signed article in the papers, made these utterances: "We have almost killed our religion . . . . We have lost the art of seeking out souls and bringing them into the kingdom.

Hordes of unsaved, with whom we brush elbows, are lost to the things of the spirit. I don't wonder at the pastor in Wisconsin who resigned his pastorate and gave as his reason that he wanted to go into religious work . . . . We are emasculating Christianity . . . . And in the meantime, home is neglected, crime is rampant, the juvenile courts are crowded, divorces increase, the altar of the church is vacant, the prayer meeting almost deserted, preachers talk at empty pews, revivals are unpopular, conversions almost unknown, twice born men suc