I begin to-day the writing of my weekly contribution to the Standard under very solemn circumstances. J. B. Skinner, president of Hamilton Female College, has just been called away from his arduous responsibilities on earth to his rest in the spirit world. This is no place for the tribute that is due to his memory, but it is an hour for solemn reflection and sorrow. This is also the last day in the sixty-eighth year of my own life, and to-morrow I enter upon my sixty-ninth. Very appropriately I am called on by a brother in Indiana to discuss a phase of Bible teaching in regard to a future life. This brother has a theory by which to account for the oft-mentioned fact that Moses, or rather that God through Moses, made no mention of rewards and punishments after death. I am not sure that I exactly understand his theory, and he does not write for publication; so I will content myself with stating briefly my own opinion on the subject.

      Notwithstanding the silence of the Pentateuch, there can be no doubt on the part of those who believe in the New Testament that the future state of existence was known to the patriarchs and to the saints under the Mosaic economy. This being so, they must have passed their lives in anticipation of it, and they must have known that their conduct here would, under the rule of a righteous God, have much to do with determining their future condition. The way in which they could live and please God here, was clearly revealed, and they could but infer that if they pleased God in this life, they would be [286] blessed by him in the future life; but the exact conditions of future happiness were not revealed to them. Why? I think it was because it was then impossible. These conditions involved the death of the Son of God for our sins, and his resurrection for our justification. These events had not yet taken place, and it would have been impossible in advance of their occurrence to impart to the human mind an adequate conception of them. Moreover, this condition is unavailing without belief in it on the part of man, and loving obedience to him who died and rose again. These conditions could not have been complied with under the old covenants. Seeing, then, that the true and only conditions of obtaining eternal life were not known, and could not be known, before the death of Christ, silence in regard to the rewards and punishments belonging to that state was a necessity. To have offered men eternal life on the condition of keeping the law of Moses, would have been deceptive; for God knew then what was revealed afterward, that by works of law no flesh can be justified before him. To have threatened every man with eternal punishment who failed to keep the law of Moses, would have driven every man to despair; for every man was conscious of shortcomings. Nothing that was then required of men, or that then could be required with intelligence on their part, could secure eternal life, and it therefore became a necessity to omit all references to it in the law that was given. If this law had been a final expression of God's will, this omission would have remained an enigma; but as the law itself was but a stepping-stone leading up to Christ, the way of God in the matter is vindicated.

      While this is true, we must not forget that in the mind and purpose of God during those preparatory ages there was connected with the sacrifices then offered the [287] complete and final sacrifice yet to be offered; so that, in the language of the Epistle to the Hebrews, "a death having taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first covenant, they that have been called may receive the promise of eternal inheritance" (9:12). This all agrees with another statement in this Epistle, "that the way into the holy place was not yet made manifest while the first tabernacle was standing" (9:8).

[SEBC 286-288]