When he ascended, the material covering of his body was apparently dissipated, forming the cloud which received him out of sight. Although Jesus was then freed from the limitations of the "flesh and bones" (Luke xxiv. 39), which cannot ascend to heaven (1 Cor. xv. 50), he still retains the inherited immaterial soul and body, and is by them limited, so as to be really separate from the Father as when on earth, and is therefore spoken of as on his right hand. But when his mediatorial work is done, he lays aside these limitations; and the discarded soul and body, not of themselves constituting a person, have no reason for continued existence, but "perish" like the soul and the body of the beasts (Ps. xlix. 12), which probably means, reunite with the common soul and body from which they were derived, or individualized by the act of beginning a new individual existence.

The mere fact of death, or separation from spirit, does not cause this loss of individual existence, because there is reason for their continuance, in order that in the resurrection the man may be complete, and they are kept for this purpose (1 Thess. v. 23; 1 Peter iv. 19). Although this lower part of man does not have personality, yet it has individuality; and a considerable part of the activity of the man in life being dependent on this, it may be spoken of as the man, even when separated by death from the spirit which has the personality (John v. 28).

The spirits of the good are in heaven (Heb. xii. 23), becoming strengthened in holiness by communion with Christ and all holy spirits, until, in the resurrection, they are reunited with the body and the soul through which most of the temptations of the present life come, but then completely subservient, so as no longer to be agents of temptation. The "souls" seen under the altar (Rev. vi. 9) are not the spirits which are in heaven and would not call for vengeance (Acts vii. 60), but are the literal souls, uncon

VOL. LVIII. No. 232. 7

scious, but figuratively calling for vengeance, like Cæsar's wounds. It is these souls of martyrs that are raised to life at a special resurrection at the beginning of the millennium (Rev. xx. 4, 6). In them the lower nature has been so subdued as to warrant an earlier reunion without risk of sin, even as in Enoch and Elijah a separation was not needed.

We see from the above considerations, which might be confirmed by a multitude of scriptural allusions, that there is scarcely a more important subject in theology than the Tripartite nature of man.

ARTICLE VI.

THE SECOND-ADVENT THEORY REVIEWED.

BY THE REV. EDMUND B. FAIRFIELD.

By the "Second-advent Theory" I mean the theory that teaches a future personal coming of Christ to the earth; or, in other words, a future incarnation. With some, this advent is to be premillennial; with others, it is to be postmillennial. With many, it is an event to be looked for

soon.

That when Christ speaks of his "coming," he does not always refer to any reincarnation, or to any visible advent, will scarcely be denied, I presume, by any; for example, when he says, in the fourteenth of John: "If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also"; "I will not leave you comfortless, I will come to you"; "If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him"; and in numberless other similar examples. It is not to be assumed, therefore, that his "coming," sccalled, necessarily implies a second incarnation, either before the millennium or after it.

In discussing the theory, as I have defined it, it has not been entirely easy for me to decide as to the order of presenting the subject; but my final conclusion was, that I could perhaps not do better than to take up the different points in the same order as that in which I studied them.

In doing this I come first to the principle of interpretation that is generally, if not universally, assumed by Adventists of every type, that, in interpreting the prophecies,

the rule is, that in giving the time of any event predicted a day stands for a year. And so the passage in the eighth chapter of Daniel, speaking of two thousand and three hundred days, and also those in the twelfth chapter (verses 7, 11, and 12), “It shall be for a time, times, and a half" (meaning three and one-half years, or one thousand two hundred and sixty days), "From the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days," and "Blessed is he that waiteth and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days," mean respectively 2,300, 1,260, 1,290, and 1,335 years.

Now that a day stands for a year is not said in these chapters in connection with the mention of these numbers, and of course there must be some show of proof outside. This proof is submitted by a reference to Dan. ix. 24-27; also to Ezek. iv. 4-6.

We take up this last passage first. It reads thus: "Lie thou upon thy left side, and lay the iniquity of the house of Israel upon it: according to the number of days that thou shalt lie upon it, thou shalt bear their iniquity. For I have appointed the years of their iniquity to be unto thee a number of days, even three hundred and ninety days: so shalt thou bear the iniquity of the house of Israel. And again, when thou shalt have accomplished these, thou shalt lie upon thy right side, and shalt bear the iniquity of the house of Judah forty days: I have appointed thee each day for a year" (Ezek. iv. 4-6). This last clause is supposed by our Adventist brethren to be a general statement directing us how to interpret prophetic numbers. The pertinency of the argument does not appear. It seems, upon the face of it, to be simply an object-lesson, impressing upon the mind of the prophet the number of the years by representing them in this way. How many scores of

times I have heard this clause-"I have appointed thee each day for a year"—quoted as the law for all prophetic numbers, I cannot pretend to say. Enough surely to have made it true if the oft repetition of an idle fancy could transform it into solid fact. But I think we may waive this aside without further ceremony.

The passage from Daniel is a much more plausible and effective one, as it is addressed to a popular audience, composed of those to whom the original Hebrew is not familiar. This passage I quote in full: "Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people, and upon thy holy city, to finish. transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy. Know, therefore, and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem, unto Messiah the Prince, shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations shall be determined. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and upon the wing of abominations shall come one that maketh desolate; and even unto the consummation, and that determined, shall wrath be poured out upon the desolator" (Dan. ix. 24–27).

Now it being admitted on all hands that a week means here seven years, it is not unnaturally inferred that a day stands for a year. The whole difficulty has grown out of an unfortunate translation. The word translated "week" does not mean week at all in our ordinary sense. It means