The Republican. [volume] (Oakland, Md.) 1877-current, 1913-11-27

An error as plain and crude as any he
advocates. He did not come in 1874, be-
cause the second coming of the Lord is
not in the calendar of dates. He said,
''The Son of Man cometh in an hour
when We think not" Mark Is: 80.
By fixing the time at 1874, he assumes
a knowledge which the Son of God con-
tradicts. He did noticome in 1874, be-
cause when the Lord descends into the
air He will take the church to NEE:
Him. But the church has been on the
earth since 1874. 1t is here today. The
same evidences that the church was on
the earth prior to 1S47 exist today,
therefore the church is on earth today.
This fact makes it evident that the Lord
did not come in 1874.
He did not come in 1874, because when
He comes He will take the Holy Spirit,
the restraining power of wlckedness,
out of the earth as we'll as the church.
II Thes 2: 7. There is power which
convicts men of the sin of unbelief and
leads them to Christ. That power IS
the presence of the Holy Spirit in
the church. The Holy Spirit has not
been taken away yet and this is positive
proof that Christ has not vet come the
second time. The presence of the Holy
Spirit here is the official witness of the
absence of the Lord. John Is: Z. Jesus
said, IF | depart | will send Him (the
Comforter1 unto you" Jesus went, the
Comforter came, and His presence is
the witness of the absence Of the Lord.
Zech. IA: says, His feet shall stand
in that day upon the Mount of Olives. "
Jesus, in Matt. %: 80, says, ''All the
tribes of the earth shall mourn and they
shall see the Son of Man coming IN the
clouds of heaven"
Matt. %; 81, We shall see the Son of
Man and coming in the clouds
of heaven. His coming is literal, per
sonal. glorious and visible coming, vet
this man teaches that He came in 1874.
is now here as a spirit being and that
the millennium viii be inauguratei in
October. 1914. All Of which is positive
ly opposed to the plain teaching of the
Bible. as any horest scholar WHO'S com
petent TO interpret it viii testify.
The second coming Of Our Lord is re
ferred to 81, times in the New Tcsta
ment andfevery where it Is set forth it
refers to the literal and personal coming
and never does it mean death. the de-
struction of Jerusalem, any great ca
lahity. as cholera, the progress Of the
church, or any other event or proyj-
dence 1t refers 10 the advent OF Jesus
Christ a second time to tins earth. John
II: 3; John y % p; Actsl: II. Acts 3:
2o-2l; | Cor. IS: %; Col. 3: 4, II Thcs.
1: 10; Heb. 9. p; Jude a.
1t will be a glorious coming. Mark S..
IS; Luke 9.3G. He will come suddenly.
Luke y: 32-i6, II Peter $40. Rev. l6:
Is. Our attitude toward this great
event is set forth IN Cor. j rs. Phil.
3: 20-2l; Tim. 80. His people viii
be watching for Him as bride for the
bridegroom, and with those who are in
the grave they will be caughtup. prob
ably secretly, TO meet the Lord IN the
air. John Il: 8, -; Cor. ~: p, 5l.53;
Phil. 3. 2C-2I. / Thes. l.l5-ls. Then
will the Hinderer" the Holy Ghost. be
taken away with the church. the bride
of Christ and following this will be the
great trlbulaticn at the close Of which
Christ will come in visible and glorious
manner with His people and establish
His millenial Kingdom. This is vet
future. Col, 81; Thess. BIB -4.l4;
Rev. 1914. 1t will be visible, that is
when He comes with His people for
Rev. IL, Behold he cometh with clouds.
and every eye shall see Him. and they
also that pierced him. and all klndreds
of the earth shall wall because Of him,
even so, Amen.
If space would permit, | should like
to discuss this interesting subject
further. but enough has been said to
show conclusively the error and evident
inscripturalness of the views that have
been presented in our community Of late.
and by the false teaching Of the cult
known as Russelism.
By the way that statement Of Rus
sells, IN which he regrets his error. Is "a
peach. ~ First he says, he brought no
railing accusation against Rev. Ross,
but if your readers will refer to Russ
ellis reply in your issue Of October 2nd,
they will see that he refers to Mr.. Ross
as Hams fellow slanderer. OF course
any one VINO exposes his pernicious err
rors IS a slanderer in his estimation.
He says also The map ROSS is thor
oughly unreliable. loving and making
lies. Apparently he is incapable of tell
ing the truth. Financially irresponsible.
Isuit against him for damages could
neither punish him nor stop him from
lying. Yet this is is no railing accusa-
ton IN his opinion. His apology re-
minds me of that of small boy. who
got angry at his aunt and told her she
was awful mean. His mother required
him to make an apology to his aunt.
His apology was: Auntie, | am sorry
you are so mean.
Yours truly, HAN.
Mr.. E. ]. Frinser in Florida.