ZION'S WATCH TOWER TRACT SOCIETY: THE EARLY YEARS

Author	Topic: STORRS: CONTEMPORARY ANTAGONISTS
Ruth Monroe (Moderator)	posted 3/1/03 4:47 AM George Storrs was well known amongst the Adventist community. Another measure of his influence is response from his contemporary antagonists. I will post a few excerpts from such writings. This first excerpt is from Alexander Campbell's "Life and Death": But here is a pamphlet of no less than four small pages, purporting to prove that man is all soul! The first sentence is, "What, in the language of the Bible, constitutes the living soul?" Answer: "The man." The next, "Is not the soul distinct from the man as the jewel from the casket? And does it not reside in the body as a bird in a cage? No; for the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and MAN became a LIVING SOUL. (Gen. ii. 7; 1 Cor. xv. 44, 45.)" "This," he adds, "is God's definition." So publishes to the world a very sincere Adventist of the Miller school, baptized into Elder Storrs's newly-improved system of spiritual mortality, enlarged and improved by one of our most gifted "investigators" of the school of Dr. Priestley. It is, then, the quintessence of what was formerly called "materialism," refined and condensed into a single tract of four small pages, from the pen of Elder J. B. Cook, a good and excellent man, for whom I entertain a very high regard. But our friend Cook, in the warmth of his feelings, assures us that he gives us "God's definition" of the soul. It is neither Storrs's, nor Priestley's, nor the more profound Thomas's, but "God's own definition." Of course, in that view of it, it is scarcely a proper subject of examination. I must, then, powerful though it be, respectfully say that God has never given us a definition of the human soul, much less such a one as defines man to be the soul, and then the soul to be the man. I am obliged to take this ground before I dare to object to a definition purporting to be of such awful authority. It is, then, but Elder Cook's definition--unless we may suppose that every definition is God's own definition to which any one may choose to append a passage of scripture. We shall, therefore, presume to show that it is Elder Cook's, or Elder Storrs's, or Dr. Priestley's definition. God has not said that the living soul is man; but he has said that "man became a living soul." Now, when any one says, "Mary became his wife," does it not mean that Mary existed before she became a wife? As this expression intimates that Mary and wife are not convertible terms, or that the one is the meaning of the other, why should we conclude that man and living soul are convertible terms, or that the one is the meaning of the other? Such, however, is the license which this school of Biblical expositors assume to themselves--a license which no literary tribunal can possibly concede to them. If, therefore, the constitution of man is to be inferred from the words cited, we must, according to every law of interpretation, consider that man existed before he was possessed of a living soul, or before God breathed into his nostrils the breath of lives. These words, then, are to be qualified by some other explanations. And, as much capital has been sought to be manufactured out of these, I may perhaps be indulged in a somewhat extended examination of their current acceptation.
Ruth Monroe (Moderator)	posted 3/1/03 5:23 AM THE ANNIHILATION OF THE WICKED SCRIPTURALLY CONSIDERED. BY REV. W. McDONALD Page 20 Mr. George Storrs is bold, and says: "I regard the phrase 'immaterial' as one which properly belongs to the things which are not: a sound without sense or meaning; a mere cloak to hide the nakedness of the theory of an immortal soul in man."? --Six Sermons, p. 29. The question at issue being a question of fact, our appeal must be to the word of God. Ile who made us, and appoints the destiny of all souls, is supposed to be able to impart the most satisfactory information on the subject. And here it is but just to say that our opponents seem to rely less on the word of God than upon other sources of evidence. Pages 41-50 1. It makes no distinction between the state of a sinner before and after the resurrection, raising him from a state of non-existence to consign him to the same state again. A large majority of those who believe in the final annihilation of the wicked, believe also in a resurrection, "both of the just and of the unjust." But why raise the wicked from a state of unconscious, if not absolute, non-being, to consign them to the same state again? Many Annihilationists, not being able to see the reason for this, reject, consistently, we think, the doctrine of the resurrection of the wicked altogether. 2. The doctrine makes no distinction in regard to the degrees of punishment - a doctrine clearly set forth in the word of God. Rev. George Storrs says, (Herald of Life,) "As to degrees of punishment in a future state we challenge the evidence in the word of God of any such thing. It is purely a human speculation." We will let the word of God speak for itself. Christ says of the "Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites," "Ye shall receive the greater damnation." Matt. xxiii, 14. Does not this teach that there are degrees of "damnation " for the wicked? If there are no degrees of damnation it would be impossible for it to be "greater" in one case than in another. Luke xii, 47, 48: "And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required; and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more." Do not the "many" and the "few stripes" clearly prove that there are degrees of punishment? When the Scriptures speak of receiving according to the "deeds done in the body," and "according to their works"? when they represent that it will be "more tolerable in the day of judgment" for one class of sinners than for another? he must be blinded by his dogma God, who is not able to see degrees of punishment for the unsaved. There are no degrees in annihilation; consequently, if that be the penalty for sin it will fall on all alike; but as punishment will not fall on all alike, annihilation cannot be the penalty for sin. 3. This doctrine makes death the extreme penalty of the law, in opposition to the Scriptures, which speak of a "much sorer punishment" than death for those who do "despite unto the Spirit of grace." Heb. x, 28, 29: "He that despised Moses's law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under fbot 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?" Death, which, our opponents say, is capital punishunent- and hence the extreme penalty of the law-was inflicted "without mercy" on those "who despised Moses's law." They received, say Annihilationists, by being blotted out of being, all the punishment it was possible for them to receive. But we are informed by Paul that there is a sorer or worse punishment than even death for those who reject Christ, and trample under foot the Son of God, and count his blood an unholy thing. Mr. Storrs attempts to dispose of this argument in the following manner. He says, "This objection is founded on one solitary text, and that misconstrued. The Syriac version, translated by Prof. Murdock, formerly of the Andover Theological Institute, reads, 'How much more, think ye, will he receive capital punishment,' etc., instead of sorer; making the greater certainty of the death punishment." -Herald of Life, March 10, 1869. This is a very remarkable authority. Instead of consulting the original, or some authorized translation, Mr. Storrs resorts to a translation of a translation- Prof. Murdock's translation of thls Syriac translation? and by this attempts to disprove the doctrine of the Authorized Version. But Mr. Storrs must know that the word rendered "sorer," has no such meaning as much more," or "more certain." Xetpov, (cheiron,) according to Robinson, means worse, spoken of a state or condition: of punishment, as worse, more severe. It is from ixaco-bctad, ill, evil- and never has the sense of nore certain, or much more. If we consult the New Testament use of the word we shall find that no such meaning is given to it as Mr. Storrs forces out of his secondhanld translation. With the exception of Heb. x, 29, the word is invariably rendered worse. Matt. ix, 16: "No man putteth a piece of new cloth unto an old garment; for that which is put in to fill it up taketh from the garment, and the rent is made (cheiron) worse; " that is, according to Mr. Storrs, much more certain than before mended. Matt. xii, 45: "The last state of that man is (cheirona) worse than the first;" that is, much more certain. He is more certain to have an end than a beginning. But how the taking of seven other spirits more wicked than himself could make such a result more certain we are not informed. Matt. xxvii. 64: "So the last error shall be (cheiron) worse than the first;" that is, much more certain. Mark v, 26: "And had suffered many things of many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and was nothing bettered, but rather grew (cheiron) worse," that is, much more certain. Much more certain than what? John v, 14: "Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a (cheiron) worse thing come unto thee;" that is, a much more certain thing. How a much more certain thing could come upon him than the "thirty and eight years" infirmity, we are not told. But how a worse thing could come upon him we can easily understand. 2 Pet. ii, 20: "For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is (cheirona) worse than the beginning," that is, much more certain. How the last or latter end of a man can be worse than the beginning is not difficult to understand; but how it can be more certain will require the logic of Mr. Storrs, or some other Annihilationist, to make plain. 1 Tim. v, 8: "But if any provide not for his own, and especially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is (cheiron) worse than an infidel," that is, much more certain than an infidel. 2 Tim. iii, 13: "But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived;" that is, doubly certain, amounting to a terrible certainty. Ordinary discernment, coupled with common honesty, will discover the utter fallacy, not to say unpardonable wickedness, of all such attempts to wrest the Scriptures for the purpose of sustaining a favorite dogma. 4. The doctrine of annihilation makes the punishment of the wicked to consist in simply non-existence, in direct opposition to those Scriptures which represent it as conscious suffering. Mr. Storrs says, "The Bible affirms the wages of sin is death, and nowhere represents the punishment of the wicked in the fiuture life to be conscious suffering." Herald of Life, May 10, 1869. Let us inquire what the Scriptures do teach on this important subject. Matt. xxv, 30: " Cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Luke xiii, 28: "There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out." Luke xvi, 23: "And in hell he lifted up his eyes, being in torments." Rom. ii, 8, 9: "Indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil; of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile." Luke xii, 47: " And that servant which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself; neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes." Luke xvi, 24: "Send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame." Mark ix, 44: "Where their worm dieth lot, and the fire is not quenched." These Scriptures relate to the punishment of the wicked. If "weeping and gnashing of teeth;" if "being in torments;" if "tribulation and anguish;" if being "beaten with many stripes;" if being "tormented in this flame;" if "their worm dieth' not " if all these do not teach conscious suffering, they do not teach any thing relating to suffering. If the penalty of the law be annihilation, conscious suffering is excluded. But conscious suffering is not excluded; therefore, annihilation is not the penalty of the law. 5. The doctrine of annihilation makes the sufferings of the wicked terminate at death, or, at most, at the judgment, in opposition to the Scriptures, which represent them as eternal. Mr. Storrs says, "Nowhere is there an assertion in the Bible that represents the conscious suffering of the wicked to be eternal." Let it be remembered that Annihilationists hold that the punishment of the wicked, whatever it may be, is eternal. "Death holds them," says Mr. Storrs, "in its eternal dominion; they shall never live again." He says again: "It is an unbroken death state that is the punishment." The only question to be settled is, Is that state one of mere non-existence, or is it a conscious state? All punishment must consist either in pain, or loss, or both. As Annihilationists exclude the idea of pain, the penalty of the law, in their view, must consist simply and solely in loss. But what is it the loss of? not of pleasure, for of that the sinner has none while out of Christ. It must be the loss of simple existence. But the loss of simple existence, under the circumstances, cannot be an evil to a sinner...
Bruce	posted 3/1/03 7:41 AM George Storrs' writings on the state of the dead, and those of others caused quite a stir. A number of books and booklets were written to refute the Biblical idea of conditional immortality. The Baptists commissioned J. G. Stearns to write a small book entitled The Immortality of the Soul: Being an Examination of the Peculiar Views of "Second Adventists" on this Subject. It was published in 1852. The Methodists responded several times. Their principal response was Robert W. Landis' book, The Immortality of the Soul and the Final Condition of the Wicked Carefully Considered. (1859) It was written specifically to reply to Storrs, Hastings, Whately, Grew, and Dobney. The list of opposition booklets and books is rather long. I have a number of these in my research collection.
Ruth Monroe (Moderator)	posted 3/1/03 3:31 PM THE IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL AND THE FINAL CONDITION OF THE WICKED CAREFULLY CONSIDERED (1859) BY ROBERT W. LANDIS PREFACE THE subject of the tractate here submitted to the public has been, for several years past, specifically before the mind of the author. While in the discharge of his pastoral duties in the city of Paterson, New Jersey, he delivered a course of sermons on the last judgment, and when treating upon the issues of that event, he received a request from a number of respectable gentlemen (to whom the Rev. George Storrs was statedly preaching) to discourse upon the immortality of the soul. He complied with the request, and, as one of the results, the contemplated enterprise of building a church for Mr. Storrs was abandoned. The author was then solicited to publish the three discourses delivered by him on the subject; but concluding that it would be better to present a more-extended discussion of the theme, he procured from the Annihilationists the works mentioned in the subjoined catalogue, with the mutual and distinct understanding that they should be considered as truly representing the theory in question; and every work which they recommended for this purpose he was careful to procure. These works he read and analyzed, and then carefully synthesized, studiously arranging, under every distinct feature of the' system, all that was therein alleged in its support; and thus having concentrated their whole force, he commenced the subjoined reply. ...
Bruce	posted 3/1/03 7:18 PM The Methodist Episcopal Church clergyman Hiram Mattison also opposed George Storrs. In his book The Resurrection of the Body (1866), he wrote of "the still more deplorable wanderings of Geo. Storrs and his followers first denying the immortality of the soul, then teching the resurrection and annihilation of the wicked at the day of judgment, and now (1866) in the face of the most explicit statements to the contrary, denying the resurrection and future punishment of the wicked altogether! Where they will next land in their self-styled "progress," Heaven only can tell."--page 326.
Ruth Monroe (Moderator)	posted 3/1/03 7:50 PM THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD; CONSIDERED IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY, PHILOSOPHY, AND DIVINE REVELATION (1866) BY REV. HIRAM MATTISON Pae 296 A few years ago George Storrs found the Bible full of proofs of the annihilation of the wicked at the last day; but now he finds that the wicked will not even exist at that time, much less suffer annihilation. These facts render it proper to devote a few pages to the proofs that the resurrection is to be universal. Page 326 To this may be added the history of the Miller excitement in 1841-3, and the still more deplorable wanderings of Geo. Storrs and his followers; first denying the immortality of the soul, then teaching the resurrection and annihilation of the wicked at the day of judgment, and now (1866) in the face of the most explicit statements to the contrary, denying the resurrection and future punishment of the wicked altogether! Where they will next land in their self-styled "progress," Heaven only can tell. And all this from the one original error of the Jews, that Christ's reign is to be personal and literal. IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL, CONSIDERED IN THE LIGHT OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES, THE TESTIMONY OF REASON AND NATURE, AND THE VARIOUS PHENOMENA OF LIFE AND DEATH (1867) BY REV. HIRAM MATTISON Footnote on Page 21 Mr. Geo. Storrs, a noted advocate of annihilationism, virtually admits that the fallen angels are spirits. When, speaking of their final annihilation, he says, "How indescribably tremendous must be that wrath which shall utterly consume A SPIRIT; a wrath so tremendous that even MIGHTY ANGELS utterly perish under it." Six Sermons, p. 34. Page 121 But there are two classes of theorists in this country, who, while they unite in denying the immortality of man, differ widely as to the grounds of this denial. One class, like Messrs. Storrs, and Ellis, and Hastings regard the soul as a material essence-in fact as part of the body-and as having no existence whatever when the animal organism is dissolved. Page 123-4 This theory is, if possible, more absurd than that of Mr. Storrs*; for if, as Mr. Hudson admits, the soul is to such an extent indestructible as to survive the dissolution of the body, and live for ages independent of it, that fact of itself furnishes a strong presumption against its subsequent annihilation, by any catastrophe that may overtake it Page 132 Mr. Dobney and Mr. Hudson, on the contrary, are plainly committed to a general resurrection, and the subsequent annihilation of the wicked; while Mr. Storrs teaches the resurrection of all, and the subsequent annihilation of all wicked men and devils. He says, "the death which is the wages of sin is an actual extermination of being;" and also that the wicked "are not punished till after the judgment of the great day." Sermons, pp. 16, 17. Of course, then, their annihilation does not take place till after they are raised from the dead.
Bruce	posted 3/2/03 3:01 AM George Nathan Dow published Materialism antiscriptural; or The doctrines of George Storrs refuted, about 1846.
Ruth Monroe (Moderator)	posted 3/2/03 4:39 AM Life Incidents In Connection With The Great Advent Movement (1868) By James White (A Founder of the Seventh Day Adventist Church) White's excerpt pertains to opposition to Storr's "soul-sleep" theology from the primary leaders of the Millerite Movement. However, it has been estimated that by 1845 approximately 25% of Millerites had accepted Storr's arguments, including leader Charles Fitch prior to his untimely death. ---------------------------------------------------- Page 154 There was a general agreement with all Adventists at that time, that the special providence of God had directed the Advent movement. But the farthest point to which the Jewish year could be extended, reaching from March, 1843, to March, 1844, had passed, and believers were left in a state of suspense and uncertainty, evidently not enjoying all the inspiring influence of the Advent hope and faith they felt under the proclamation of definite time. And there were other things besides the passing of the time, that cast a degree of general gloom over the Second-Advent cause at that time. Storrs' Six Sermons on the immortality question were being widely circulated among Adventists, and the doctrine of man's unconsciousness in death and the destruction of the wicked, was being adopted by some and regarded with favor by many. The time had come, in the providence of God, for this question to be agitated. But its importance could not then be seen by any as it is now regarded since the rise and wide-spreading, desolating influence of Spiritualism. Those Second-Advent editors and lecturers, such as Litch, Hale, Bliss, Himes, and Miller, who did not agree with Mr. Storrs, not only failed to see that good could result from the agitation of the subject, but were grieved that the once united and happy flock, who were looking for the immediate return of the great Shepherd, should have their minds divided by this question.
Ton de Geus	posted 3/3/03 12:35 AM Do I understand correctly, that George Storrs in his "Life and Advent Union" years (1863-1871)had an understanding of the resurrection much alike the view held by us as Jehovah's Witnesses today? In Advent Christian History, by Albert C. Johnson, pp 200-203 it says: "Others... taught that the Adamic death, which has passed upon all men, was in the case of the wicked a penal death, a full punishment for their individual sins, and that because of this none of the wicked dead would be raised to life or brought to judgment." This was apparently promoted by the Herald of Life and of the Coming Kingdom, of which Johnson mentions as editor George Storrs, and as asst. editors Rufus Wendell, Joseph T. Curry, W.S. Campbell and S.W. Bishop. Johnson later on (p203) says: "A peculiar feature is recorded regarding four of the early promotors of this Life teaching - Walsh, Storrs, Curry, and Wendell, all of whom, after further research and study abandoned the view and returned to the faith of a universal resurrection-though their future course showed that they were considerably unsettled by the experience through which they had passed."
Bruce	posted 4/15/03 5:43 AM Another early opponent of Storrs was John Batey who wrote Thoughts on the Immortallity and Future Condition of Man: Designed For all Who Deny a Future State, But more Especially as a Reply to Rev. Geo. Storrs' Inquiry, "Are the Souls of the Wicked Immortal?" Batey's booklet was published in Albany in 1843. Its very scarce, and it took me a long time to acquire an original copy.
Bruce	posted 11/12/04 6:35 AM Another book written in opposition to Storrs (and others) was Theories of the Annihilation Doctrine by E. B. Fletcher, published in 1869.

Post New Topic