OUR FAITH AND HOPE; Or, Reasons Why We Believe as We Do
Page 1
Review and Herald
Nov 23, 1869
Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Nov 23, 1869
OUR FAITH AND HOPE; Or, Reasons Why We Believe as We Do.
By James White
NUMBER TWO—THE WORLD'S CONVERSION.
BY ELDER JAMES WHITE.
Enter ye in at the strait gate; for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat; because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. Matt. vii, 13, 14.
The doctrine of the world's conversion, and that of universal salvation, are both directly opposed to the text. The one has the way to life narrow at first, but growing wider, until all walk in it; while the other has the way to life always wide enough for all the world. To be of real service to Universalism the text should read: Wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to life, and all go in thereat; because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto destruction, and none can find it. Our Lord states a great fact in the text which existed when spoken, ever had existed, and which would exist until the close of probation; namely, that the way to destruction was broad, and many would go in it; and that the way to life was narrow, and few would find it.
From the very nature of the case, the conversion of the world is an impossibility. God is the same during all time. He deals with men and nations impartially. The devil is the same, excepting that the experience of six thousand years has made him more artful in seducing men and women into sin.
The fallen race is the same, only that each succeeding generation degenerates physically, mentally, and morally, till the world becomes fully ripe for her final doom. This is seen in the metallic image of Dan. ii. Here five universal kingdoms are the subject of prophecy. Four of these pertain to the mortal state, one to the immortal. The four earthly monarchies, Babylon, Persia, Grecia, and Rome, are severally represented by gold, silver, brass, and iron. We not only see in the symbol the depreciation of value from gold to silver, to brass, and to iron, but the last divided condition of earthly governments, just before the opening glories of the immortal kingdom, is represented by iron mixed with miry clay.
God's plan to convert sinners, and save all who would obey him, and believe in Jesus, has been in operation about six thousand years. A crucified and risen Jesus has been preached with the Holy Spirit sent down from Heaven, for more than eighteen hundred years; and yet the world has not been converted; and the prospect of its conversion to Bible holiness never looked darker than at the present time. In the words of another we would inquire,
“And what are the present prospects of a church that has set out in all confidence to convert the world? How may those now putting on the harness boast of greater expected success than is warranted by the experience of those who have put it off after having fought the good fight? The prophets could not convert the world; are we mightier than they? The apostles could not convert the world; are we stronger than they? The martyrs could not convert the world; can we do more than they? The church for eighteen hundred years could not convert the world; can we do it? They have preached the gospel of Christ; so can we. They have gone to earth's remotest bounds; so can we. They have saved ‘some,’ so can we. They have wept as so few believed their report; so can we. They have finished their course with joy, and the ministry they have received to testify of the gospel of the grace of God; we can do the same. Can we reasonably hope to do more? ‘It would take to all eternity to bring the millennium at the rate that modern revivals progress,’ said the venerable Dr. Lyman Beecher, before a ministerial convention, held close by old Plymouth rock. And what hope is there that they will progress more rapidly? Is it in the word of God? Glad would we be to find it there. Sadly we read that ‘evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived.’”
“Has God a mightier Saviour—a more powerful Spirit? Has he another gospel which will save the world? Where is it? Is there any way to the kingdom other than that which leads through much tribulation? Is there another way to the crown besides the way of crosses? Can we reign with Him unless we first suffer in his cause?”
“No doubt the world might be converted if they desired to know the Lord. And so, had all who heard received with gladness the word of God, the world might have been converted within twenty years of the day of Pentecost. If each Christian had brought one single soul to God with each successive year, the calm170splendors of the millennial era might have shone upon the declining years of the apostles of Jesus Christ. But instead of this, ages of darkness came on. The world did not repent, but the church apostatized. If the gospel were to convert the world, we should have seen tokens of it ere this. But where are such omens to be found? Shall we look at Judson, who labored ten long years before one sinner yielded to the claims of the gospel? Shall we look to the dense darkness of the heathen world? Shall we look at the formalism of the professed church? Shall we look at the wide extension of infidelity? Shall we look at the abounding of iniquity and the waxing cold of love? Shall we look at a world where eighteen hundred years of toil and tears have not brought one-twentieth part of mankind even to a profession of true Christianity; and where not more than one-fifth claim for themselves the dubious title of Christian nations? Shall we look over a world in which we cannot find one nation of Christians, nor one tribe of Christians, nor one city of Christians, nor one town of Christians, nor one village of Christians, nor one hamlet of Christians, save here and there where a questionable faith has led a few, with hypocrites even then in their midst, to withdraw themselves from the world, and cherish the untried virtues of secluded life? Surely, after eighteen hundred years of experiment with that system which was to convert the world, men might point to some country, to some province, to some nation, and say, Behold the commencement of a converted world.
“But will not the gospel then prove a failure? That depends upon what is to be expected of it. If the gospel was to effect the eternal salvation of all mankind, then failing to accomplish that work is a failure of the gospel. If the gospel was to convert the world, then if it is not done it will prove a failure. But if the gospel was preached ‘to take out of the Gentiles a people for His name,’ then it is not a failure. If it was given that God might in infinite mercy and love ‘save some,’ then it is not a failure. If it was given that every repentant sinner might have eternal life, and that every good soldier might receive a crown of glory, then it is not a failure. If it was given that an innumerable company might be redeemed out of every nation, and kindred, and tongue under heaven, then it is not a failure. If it was given that the vales and hills of Paradise restored might teem with a holy throng who shall be ‘equal to the angels, and be the children of God, being the children of the resurrection,’ then it is not a failure. If it was given that the elect might be brought into one great family of holy ones, then it is not a failure. And was not this its object, rather than the exaltation of a worldly church to the splendors of earthly prosperity, while beneath the theater of their easy triumph there slumber the ashes of prophets and the dust of the apostles? Are they to hold jubilee a thousand years, while the martyrs’ unceasing cry, ‘How long, O Lord,’ goes up to God? Are they to have their songs of triumph, while the whole creation groaneth for deliverance, and while that longed-for day of the redemption of our body is postponed? Nay, verily, the hope of the one body is one hope. The hope of the church stops not at death, it sweeps beyond earth’s scenes of tempest and of storm, and reposes in the calm beamings of that Sun of Righteousness which shall glow above the bosom of Paradise regained.”171
The last days of human probation have been regarded as the favored period for the completion of the great work of converting the world. But the prophets of the Old Testament nowhere represent God as saying that the last days would be glorious. Jesus and the apostles of the New Testament never speak of the last days as a period of triumph to the church; but, rather, as the days of her peril, which demand especial watching; the days of her mourning and tears and importunate prayers for deliverance.
The last days embrace the very last, reaching down to the coming of the Son of Man. The days of the coming of the Son of Man are represented by those of Noah and Lot, when the measure of the wickedness of the people was full, and God visited them in judgment.
“And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of Man. They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; but the same day that Lot went out of Sodom, it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all; even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of Man is revealed.” Luke xvii, 26–31.
Paul describes the last days thus: “This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come; for men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, truce-breakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, high-minded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.” 2 Tim. iii, 1–5.
Persecution and tribulation was to be the portion of the church of God in all ages. The apostle speaks of the faithful who had lived and suffered before, who “had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment; they were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword; they wandered about in sheep-skins, and goat-skins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented; (of whom the world was not worthy;) they wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth. And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise; God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.” Heb. xi, 36–40. He also points to the future, and says, “Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.” 2 Tim. iii, 12.
And when the few of each successive generation, from righteous Abel to the close of probation, who have bent their lonely foot-steps in the narrow path to Mount Zion, shall reach their everlasting rest, they will constitute that “great multitude which no man could number of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues,” arrayed in Heaven’s purity and brightness. Not one of these had come out of that imaginary period of a converted world. No, not one. What an imposing scene! “And one of the elders answered, saying unto me, What are these which are arrayed in white robes? and whence came they? And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said unto me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.” Rev. vii, 14, 15.
THE SABBATH DAY.
By T. B. Brown
A Metrical Version of the Fourth Commandment.
Keep holy thou the day of rest,
The Sabbath of the Lord,
The day thy God Jehovah blessed;
'Tis his commanded word.
Six days of toil, with plenty blest,
The Lord to thee has given;
The seventh is his holy rest,
Pledge of thy rest in heaven.
In it thou shalt from labor cease,
Thy daughter and thy son,
Thy servants, too, thou shalt release,
'Till the broad sun goes down.
Nor shall the stranger in thy gates
Disturb thy holy joy;
He too shall rest, and in thy streets
No work his hands employ.
For in six days the Lord outspread
The earth, and heaven, and sea,
And when he all these things had made,
Did rest the seventh day.
And thus, because thy God did rest
Upon the seventh day,
The day was sanctified and blessed;
Remember, and obey.
—T. B. Brown.
SYSTEMATIC BENEVOLENCE.
By James White
“Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.” 1 Cor. xvi, 2. “For if there be first a willing mind, it is accepted according to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not. For I mean not that other men be eased, and ye burdened; but by an equality,” &c. 2 Cor. viii, 12–14. “That the same might be ready, as a matter of bounty, and not of covetousness. But this I say, He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and he which soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully. Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity; for God loveth the cheerful giver.” 2 Cor. ix, 5–7.
These texts relate to one purpose which the apostle was endeavoring to accomplish, which was, to send relief to the poor saints which dwelt at Jerusalem. We may learn from Acts ii, 44, 45; iv, 32–37, the reason why such assistance was needed by that church. They had expended their means in the cause of God at the very commencement of the work, and were thus reduced to poverty. Hence, when Agabus stood up at Antioch, and signified by the Spirit that there should be a great dearth throughout the world, “the disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judea; which also they did, and sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Paul.” Acts xi, 27–30.
It was fifteen years after this, that Paul wrote to the Corinthians to engage them also in this benevolent work. In the text cited from 1 Cor. xvi, he proposes the method which should be adopted by the churches in the prosecution of this object. And in the texts quoted from the second epistle he shows the motives that should actuate them in this work. That the great apostle succeeded in this effort, appears from Rom. xv, 25–31. “But now I go unto Jerusalem to minister unto the saints. For it hath pleased them of Macedonia and Achaia (Corinth was a city of Achaia) to make a certain contribution for the poor saints which are at Jerusalem.” We have an account of Paul’s visit to Jerusalem with this bounty for the saints. Acts xxi, 15. “And after those days we took up our carriages, and went up to Jerusalem.” The word rendered carriage is literally “baggage;” and such was once the signification of the word in English. Thus much respecting the circumstances that stand connected with Paul’s directions to the Corinthian church. It remains that we gather from these facts some instruction relative to our own duty.
If Paul found it essential to complete success, that method should be observed in raising means for benevolent purposes, it is certainly not unreasonable to conclude that we should find the same thing beneficial in promoting a similar object.
“Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store as God hath prospered him,” &c. This implies, 1. A stated time for the business; viz., the first day of the week. 2. The concurrent action of each individual; for he adds, “Let every one of you” lay by him in store. 3. And this is not a public collection, but a private act of setting apart for the Lord a portion of what one possesses. 4. The amount to be given is brought home to the conscience of each individual by the language, “As God hath prospered him.”
The children of Israel were required to give a tithe, or tenth, of all their increase. See Lev. xxvii, 30–35; Num. xviii, 21, 24–32; Deut. xiv, 22–26, 28, 29; xxvi, 11–13; 2 Chron. xxxi, 5, 6; Neh. x, 38. And it cannot be supposed that the Lord requires less of his people when time is emphatically short, and a great work is to be accomplished in the use of their means in giving the last merciful message to the world.
Says the prophet, Mal. iii, 8–10: “Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings. Ye are cursed with a curse; for ye have robbed me, even this whole nation. Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of Heaven and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.”
Who says that these “tithes and offerings” are merely speaking and praying in meeting? Away with such doubtful applications of Scripture. If the prophet Malachi is not here teaching the carrying out of the Israelitish system of tithing, he is certainly enforcing a duty of the same nature, and his words may come home to us with full force, and the principle be carried out by obedience to the language of Paul—“Upon the first day of the week, let every one of you lay by him in store,” &c. Says our Lord, Luke xi, 42: “But woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye tithe mint and rue and all manner of herbs, and pass over judgment and the love of God: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.”
How may we reduce to practice these excellent suggestions? We recommend the following plan, which all, with very few exceptions, can adopt:
Amount of Property
Names
Amount to be given on each first-day
Amount of personal donation on each first-day
Total
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
Jun.
Jul.
Aug.
Sep.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
$1000
Brother A.
20 Cents
10 Cents
30 Cents
$1.50
$1.20
$1.20
$1.50
$1.50
$1.20
$1.50
$1.20
$1.20
$1.50
$1.20
$1.50
Sister A.
5 “
5 “
10 “
.50
.40
.40
.50
.50
.40
.50
.40
.40
.50
.40
.50
John A.
2 “
2 “
4 “
.20
.16
.16
.20
.20
.16
.20
.16
.16
.20
.16
.20
William A.
2 “
2 “
4 “
.20
.16
.16
.20
.20
.16
.20
.16
.16
.20
.16
.20
Mary A.
2 “
2 “
4 “
.20
.16
.16
.20
.20
.16
.20
.16
.16
.20
.16
.20
$2.60
$2.08
$2.08
$2.60
$2.60
$2.08
$2.60
$2.08
$2.08
$2.60
$2.08
$2.60
The above may do for a general rule, yet there are exceptions. Some of these we will name.
1. The aged, widows, and infirm, who are poor, and have but little or no income, should feel themselves exempt from this system of benevolence.
2. Those whose income is more than ten per cent on their property can pay higher in proportion to the amount of their income. A tithe, or tenth, of their increase is just exactly one-tenth of the increase of their property. Has a brother or sister increased his or her property during 1869 the sum of $1000, a tithe would be just $100. Again hear the prophet, “Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of Heaven and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.”
But let it be distinctly understood, that it is systematic benevolence, not systematic compulsion, that we are advocating. The scriptures of the Old and New Testaments require free-will offerings. Our people are invited—none compelled—to enter the arrangement, and then left to assess their own property, and give such a percentage as they choose. The subject is set before them as scriptural, and reasonable, and necessary, that there may be equality in sustaining the cause; then all are left to act in the fear of God.
This system casts no burden on the poor, and disarms the rich of every reasonable excuse. It tests the171sincerity of the wealthy, develops covetousness, and manifests the real friends of the cause.
The draft upon the poor man, should he put down the highest figures, is so very light that he would be ashamed to complain. And the rich man, who professes to believe that the present is the period for the last message of mercy to the world, would appear to ill advantage, as the veriest hypocrite, complaining of a system which calls from him only about one per cent annually of his wealth, to sustain the cause of truth. Such men usually add, annually, from ten to thirty per cent to their property. Let such blush to talk of sacrifice while their property increases. A sacrifice consumes.
The first design of our system of benevolence was to sustain the cause, as may be seen by the following from an address from the Battle Creek church to the churches and brethren and sisters in Michigan, published in the Review, Feb. 3, 1859:
“We wish to call your attention to a plan of systematic benevolence, to support the proclamation of the Third Angel’s Message.”
This was the original design of our plan of benevolence, and we regard it as a very great error in departing from it in any degree. Numerous have been the drafts upon the treasury of this system. The only safe course is to return to, and strictly follow out, the first design of our system of benevolence: namely, That the treasury be opened only to the maintenance of the cause of the Third Angel’s Message. It is proper to here state that most of our churches have adhered to this course, while some have opened their treasury to almost every trifling excuse, and have had little or nothing to help sustain the cause.
We would say to our brethren and sisters in the several States in which they live, that after they have paid their taxes to support our civil government, with its benevolent objects and ample means of sustaining the unfortunate and the poor, if they feel it their duty to do more for the poor, do it independent of that sacredly set apart to sustain the cause of truth, even if they do less for the cause. If it be necessary to divide your liberality, then let that consecrated to the cause of God, though it be a small sum, remain untouched, sacredly devoted to the cause for which it was designed.
We recommend to churches, and to individuals also, to re-arrange their s. b. figures annually. Property should be put down at what the owners would sell it for in bank notes, provided they wished to sell it.
J. W.
HOW THE GREEKS AND ROMANS OBTAINED THE DOCTRINE OF THE IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.
By Dudley Marvin Canright
That the Greeks and Romans received their religious doctrines and worship very largely from Egypt, is agreed by all historians. I have offered some evidence of this in the past, and will present more here. Alger writes: “It seems plain that the Greeks derived many of their notions concerning the fate and state of the dead, from Egypt.” Doctrine of a Future Life, p. 101. Herodotus says, “And indeed, the names of almost all the gods came from Egypt into Grecia.” Herod. II, 50. Another author thus remarks: “The ancient Egyptians are considered as the original inventors of the arts, science, and religion of Greece.” Elements of Mythology, p. 36. “The absurdities of Grecian polytheism, as we are abundantly assured, were derived principally from Egypt.” Mitford’s Greece. Vol. 1, p. 93.
The doctrine of the immortality of the soul, as we have seen, was a leading notion in the Egyptian religion. The Greeks receive this with the rest, but at a later date than most other parts of their system. Says Herodotus, “The Egyptians also were the first who asserted the doctrine that the soul of man is immortal. Some of the Greeks have adopted this opinion, some earlier, others later, as if it were their own.” Herod. II, 123. This is a very plain testimony as to where the Greeks obtained that doctrine. Also, this doctrine was not known among them till learned from Egypt; even then all did not at once receive it.
Two among the Greeks have been named as first teaching the soul’s immortality to their countrymen; viz., Orpheus and Pherecydes. As to Orpheus, his history is all in fable. Indeed it is not certain that such a man ever lived; much less that he introduced this doctrine among the Greeks. See Enfield’s History of Phil., p. 63.
The general testimony is in favor of Pherecydes as the first who taught the Greeks the notion. He lived about 600 years before Christ. Enfield’s History of Phil., p. 200. He learned his wisdom and his doctrines of the Egyptians. Josephus asserts this of him. In his books “Against Apion,” he says, “But then for those that first introduced philosophy [among the Greeks] and the consideration of things celestial and divine among them, such as Pherecydes the Syrian, and Pythagoras and Thales, all with one consent agree that they learned what they knew of the Egyptians and Chaldeans, and wrote but little. And these are the things which are supposed to be the oldest of all among the Greeks; and they have much ado to believe that the writings ascribed to those men are genuine.” Book I, Sec. 2. The reader will notice that the teachings of Pherecydes and Thales are among the oldest things taught the Greeks, so much so that they hardly know whether to believe them or not. This was only 600 years before Christ. Moses had legislated for Israel about 1000 years before that, and even David and Solomon had slept with their fathers for about 400 years when this philosopher first taught the Greeks about the soul’s immortality. So this doctrine was not very ancient among them. But I am anticipating. Enfield indorses the opinion of Josephus as above quoted, and says with him that Pherecydes learned his doctrine of the Egyptians. Of his doctrine he says, “Another tenet which is, by the universal consent of the ancients, ascribed to Pherecydes, is that of the immortality of the soul, for which he was, perhaps, indebted to the Egyptians. Cicero says that he was the first philosopher in whose writings this doctrine appeared. He also is said, and not improbably, to have taught the doctrine of the transmigration of the soul; for this was a tenet commonly received among the Egyptians, and afterwards taught by the Pythagorians.” Hist. of Phil., p. 210.
He not only borrowed the doctrine of the immortality of the soul, and the transmigration of souls, from the Egyptians, and taught it to the Greeks; but he added to it a refinement of his own, unknown till he first broached it, this was the idea that the soul is a part of God. It was called the TO EN, the one. Mr. Warburton has argued this point at some length to show that this doctrine was of Grecian, and not of Egyptian origin, and that Pherecydes, and Thales, his contemporary, were the inventors of it. In this he is probably correct. Divine Lega., Vol. II, pp. 238–240.
This being true, we have found the date of another important step in the history of this doctrine. All agree that the Greek philosophers much improved the doctrines which they learned from Egypt. This was one of the first of these improvements.
The next great name in antiquity that appears in the history of this doctrine, is Pythagoras. He was a Greek, born B. C. 550. The exact date is not certain. Anthon. He was the disciple of Pherecydes. Enfield. “It is probable that his first journey from the Grecian islands was to Egypt, the country at that time celebrated, above all others, for that kind of wisdom which best suited the genius and temper of Pythagoras.” Hist. of Phil., p. 212. He passed twenty-two years in Egypt (Ibid.) and used great diligence in learning the doctrines of the priests. After traveling through many cities of Greece, he finally went to Crotona in Magna Græcia, where he established a flourishing school, which was attended by hundreds. Ibid. The school, or sect, thus founded by him, was called the Italic, or Pythagoric sect. Of his visit to Egypt, and the result, Warburton says, “The last sort of people who went for instruction, were the philosophers, properly so-called. . . . The first [as well as the most famous] of this class, and who gave philosophy its name and character, was Pythagoras. He and Plato, with others, traveled into Egypt, like their predecessors. . . . The ancients tell us of their long abode there; their hard condition of admittance into the sacred colleges; and their bringing away with them all the secret science of the priesthood. The result of all was, and it is worth our observation, that, from this time, the Greek sophists (now called Philosophers) began to cultivate the belief of a future state of rewards and punishments; and at the very same time, the practice of the double doctrine; which two principles were the distinguishing badges of their doctrine.” Divine Legation, Vol. II, pp. 108, 109.
Yes, these observations are important. 1. Pythagoras went into Egypt. 2. There they learned the doctrines of the priests. 3. The result was, that from that time, the Greek philosophers began to cultivate this belief. Then they had not cultivated that belief before; much less had the people. There is an abundance of evidence to show that he is correct in these statements.
We will now briefly inquire into Pythagoras’ doctrine concerning man and the soul. He seems to have made some advancement upon the doctrine of his master, Pherecydes. He taught that God was the great fountain or universal mind, from whence emanated the mind or souls of all intelligent beings; that the soul existed before it animated this body; that it will transmigrate through different bodies till it returns to God, its original source, and is re-absorbed into his presence. Like all before him, he still held the soul to be material. With regard to his idea of God, Enfield says, “He does not seem to have had the idea of a pure spirit.” Hist. of Phil., p. 228. Enfield has thoroughly discussed the whole subject, so I glean the following extracts from him: “The account which we have given of the Pythagoric doctrine, concerning the Divine nature, is confirmed by Cicero, who asserts that Pythagoras conceived God to be a soul pervading all nature, of which every human soul is a portion. (Ibid.) Concerning man, the Pythagorians taught that, consisting of an elementary nature, and a divine or rational principle, he is a microcosm, or compendium, of the universe; that his soul is a self-moving principle, composed of two parts, the rational, which is a portion of the soul of the world, seated in the brain, and the irrational, which includes the passions, and is seated in the heart; that man participates in both these with the brutes, which are incapable of acting rationally, that the sensitive soul, thumos, perishes, but the rational mind, phren, is immortal, because the source whence it is derived is immortal; that after the rational mind is freed from the chains of the body, it assumes an ethereal vehicle, and passes into the regions of the dead, where it remains till it is sent back to this world, to be the inhabitant of some other body, brutal or human; and that after suffering successive purgations, when it is sufficiently purified, it is received among the gods, and returns to the eternal source from which it proceeded.” Ibid., p. 230.
1. We learn that Pythagoras retained all the advance steps which his master Pherecydes had made on the ancient faith. 2. He added much of his own theorizing. 3. He introduced a subtle mode of philosophizing, which confused the mind more than it enlightened it. He used many subtle divisions and distinctions, which were unknown before. He was the first one who assumed the name of philosopher. 4. He began to decry “gross matter” as corrupt, and far removed from God. 5. Yet he still held God, demons, and souls, to be material, but they were of subtle, ethereal substance. The discovery that mind is entirely independent of matter, was reserved for another philosopher, born about 50 years later than Pythagoras. This was Anaxagoras, one of the successors of Pythagoras in the Ionic school. Of this fact Enfield testifies thus: “Plutarch confirms this account of the doctrine of Anaxagoras, and shows wherein it differed from that of his predecessors. ‘The Ionic philosophers,’ says he, ‘who appeared before Anaxagoras, made fate, or blind necessity, that is, the fortuitous, or necessary motion of the particles of matter, the first principle in nature; but Anaxagoras affirmed that a pure mind, perfectly free from all material concretions, governs the universe.’ From these and other concurrent testimonies, it clearly appears that Anaxagoras was the first among the Greeks who conceived mind as detached from matter, and as acting upon it with intelligence and design in the formation of the universe. ‘The infinite mind, or deity, which his predecessors had confounded with matter, making them one universe, Anaxagoras conceived to have a separate and independent existence, and to be simple, pure intelligence, capable of forming the eternal mass of matter, according to his pleasure.’” Ibid., p. 87.
These facts are worthy of our notice. They show the gradual tendency among the ancients, to condemn matter, separate the mind from all dependence upon it, and finally to arrive at the conclusion that it is purely spiritual, and immaterial. But it required ages of philosophy to arrive at this conclusion! Anaxagoras broached his opinion as above stated, about 450 B. C. Even he did not arrive at the notion that man’s soul is purely spiritual and immaterial. This was reserved for another great philosopher, as we shall soon see. These things show what thorough materialists all the ancients were, and how long it took to philosophize themselves out of it. It was not till common sense, and sober reason were laid aside for “vain philosophy” and subtle sophistry, that they arrived at this sublime conclusion!