Your ShelfYour Projects

Review and Herald, Vol. 53, No. 9.

THE IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL

Review and Herald

Feb 27, 1879

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Feb 27, 1879

THE IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.

By Dudley Marvin Canright

ELD. D. M. CANRIGHT.

PLATO.

The greatest name that appears in the history of the doctrine of the immortality of the soul is that of Plato. He was a Greek, was born B. C. 428, and was one of the greatest philosophers of antiquity. “The influence of this sublime autocrat,” says Alger, “in the realms of intellect, has transcended calculation. However coldly his thoughts may have been regarded by his contemporary countrymen, they soon obtained cosmopolitan audience, and, surviving the ravages of time and ignorance, overlapping the bars of rival schools and sects, appreciated and diffused by the loftiest spirits of succeeding ages, closely blended with their own speculations by many Christian theologians, have held an almost unparalleled dominion over the minds of millions of men for more than fifty generations.”
Those who believe the soul immortal now quote his views on that subject with great satisfaction. So much did he do for that doctrine that he is often called the father of it. Mr. Anthon expresses the sentiment which has led so many Christians to put Plato almost on a level with the Bible when he says: “Whoever studies Plato is treading on holy ground. So heathens always felt it; so even Christians confessed.”
The reason why Plato is thus honored by Christians is revealed in the following statement of another author: “Plato is also celebrated as the first of the ancient philosophers who distinctly taught the doctrine of the immortality of the soul.” That it was not very plainly taught before, we have already seen. It needed the genius of a Plato to invent arguments to prove the soul immortal; and Christians, in their defense of this doctrine, have only been able to take up and repeat his arguments. This fact Dr. Knapp thus honestly confesses: “In the varied web of proof [of the immortality of the soul] in our modern philosophical schools, the chief threads, and, as it were, the entire material, are of Grecian origin.” “The followers of Socrates, however, did the most for this doctrine, and, especially Plato.” Enfield says, “Even to the present day Plato has many followers; his writings still give a tincture to the speculations and language of philosophy and theology.”
This is true; hence we shall be interested to learn about Plato and his doctrine of the soul. At the age of twenty Plato became the disciple of Socrates. At the end of eight years, Socrates dying, he left Greece in search of wisdom. “He first visited that part of Italy, called Magna Græcia, where a celebrated school of philosophy had been established by Pythagoras, and was instructed in all the mysteries of the Pythagorean system, the subtilities of which he afterward too freely blended with the simple doctrine of Socrates.”
Thus at an early period we find Plato a disciple of the Pythagoreans, and freely receiving their doctrines, the chief of which was the immortality of the soul. Then he traveled into Egypt. Of this event Enfield says, “Wherever he came he obtained information from the Egyptian priests.” “Whilst studious youth were crowding to Athens from every quarter in search of Plato for their master, that philosopher was wandering along the banks of the Nile, or the plains of a barbarous country, himself a disciple of the old men of Egypt.”
Returning to Greece, laden with all the theories of Socrates, Pythagoras, and the Egyptian priests concerning the nature of the soul, he proceeded to remodel and refine their doctrine according to his own fancy, and he brought it much nearer the present view on that subject than it had before been. Of this fact the historian says, “Plato himself, whilst he enriched his system with stores from the magazine of Pythagoras, accommodated the Pythagorean doctrines, as he also did those of his master, Socrates, to his own system.” Mosheim says, “Plato falsely attributed to Socrates what he had either learned from the Pythagoreans, or had himself feigned, in order to obtain for it greater currency.” That Plato represents Socrates as saying in the Phædo about the immortality of the soul, is only Plato’s own words and ideas put into the mouth of Socrates; hence these sayings afford no proof that Socrates ever held or taught that doctrine.
On this subject Enfield says: “Socrates left behind him nothing in writing; but his illustrious pupils, Xenophon and Plato, have in some measure supplied this defect. The memoirs of Socrates, written by Xenophon, afford, however, a much more accurate idea of the opinions of Socrates, and of his manner of teaching, than the dialogues of Plato, who everywhere mixes his own conceptions and diction, and, as we shall afterwards see, those of other philosophers, with the ideas and language of his master. It is related, that when Socrates heard Plato recite his Lysis, he said, ‘How much does this young man make me say which I never conceived.’ Xenophon denies that Socrates ever taught natural philosophy or any mathematical science, and charges with misrepresentation and falsehood those who had ascribed to him dissertations of this kind; probably referring to Plato, in whose works Socrates is introduced as discoursing upon these subjects.”
“When he [Plato] was twenty years old he became a stated disciple of Socrates, and remained with him in that relation eight years. During this period he frequently displeased the followers of Socrates, and sometimes gave Socrates himself occasion of complaint, by mixing foreign tenets with those of his master, and grafting upon the Socratic system opinions which were taken from some other stock.”
“It is remarkable,” says Leland, “that though there were several sects of philosophers which professed to derive their origin from Socrates, scarcely any of them taught the immortality of the soul as the doctrine of their schools, except Plato and his disciples, and many even of these treated it as absolutely uncertain.”

PLATO’S DOCTRINE.

Having found the fountain whence Plato drew his doctrines, we will now briefly examine his theory of the soul. We find him agreeing with his master, Pythagoras, in the following particulars: 1. The pre-existence of the soul; 2. That it was an emanation from God; 3. That it was immortal; 4. That it transmigrated through different bodies; 5. That it would finally be absorbed into the Deity. We shall also find that he further improved and spiritualized this doctrine.
  1. Plato made the soul more ethereal than his predecessors had considered it, though he still held it to be material.
  2. He made the soul the real man.
  3. He made the body a prison, a real hindrance to the soul.
  4. Death was simply the freeing of the soul from gross matter, that it might act with more freedom.
  5. Plato made the transmigration of the soul a moral doctrine instead of one of necessity, as it had been held before.
Enfield thus describes Plato’s doctrine of God and matter: “Plato supposes two eternal and independent causes of all things; one, that by which all things were made, which is God; the other, that from which all things are made, which is matter.”
Plato held that God did not create matter, but simply molded it. He taught that baneful doctrine that matter is the source and origin of all evil.
Says a learned author: “It was also a doctrine of Plato that there is in matter a necessary, but blind and refractory, force; and that hence arises a propensity in matter to disorder and deformity, which is the cause of all the imperfections which appear in the works of God, and the origin of evil.” This is the cause of the mixture of good and evil which is found in the material world. The effect of this doctrine is to degrade matter and exalt mind, or the soul.
Again, the above author continues: “Visible things were regarded by Plato as fleeting shades, and ideas as the only permanent substances. These he conceived to be the proper objects of science, to a mind raised by divine contemplation above the perpetually varying scenes of the material world.” Here the same effort is seen to decry matter and exalt pure mind, spirit, or soul.
“Still further he taught,” says the historian, “that the body is a prison, from which the soul must be released before it can arrive at the knowledge of those things which are real and immutable.” In answer to the question how they should bury him, Plato makes Socrates say, “Just as you please, if only you can catch me.” And do not “say at my interment that Socrates is laid out, or is carried out, or is buried.” How many Christian funeral sermons have been modeled after this old heathen philosophizing!
One fact is worthy of special attention; viz., that Plato places his doctrine of the human soul at the head of his philosophy. Thus testifies Enfield: “Plato refers to the head of the philosophy of nature his doctrine concerning the human soul,—a doctrine which he treats obscurely on the ground of his assumed hypothesis concerning spiritual emanations from the divine nature. He appears to have taught that the soul of man is derived by emanation from God; but that this emanation was not immediate, but through the intervention of the soul of the world, which was itself debased by some material admixture, and, consequently, that the human soul, receding further from the first intelligence, is inferior in perfection to the soul of the world. . . . The relation which the human soul, in its original constitution, bears to matter, Plato appears to have considered as the source of moral evil. Since the soul of the world, by partaking of matter, has within itself the seeds of evil, he inferred that this must be the case still more with respect to the soul of man. . . .”
“To account for the origin and present state of human souls, Plato supposes that when God formed the universe, he separated from the soul of the world inferior souls, equal in number to the stars, and assigned to each its proper celestial abode; but that these souls (by what means or for what reason does not appear) were sent down to the earth into human bodies, as into a sepulcher or prison. He ascribes to this cause the depravity and misery to which human nature is liable; and maintains that it is only by disengaging itself from all animal passions, and rising above sensible objects to the contemplation of the world of intelligence, that the soul of man can be prepared to return to its original habitation.”
Thus we see that Plato held that the soul was a spiritual emanation from God; that the source of all evil is in matter; that the body is a prison for the soul; that by contemplation the soul may return to God, etc. “Lastly, Plato teaches, in express terms, the doctrine of the immortality of the rational soul; but he has rested the proof of this doctrine upon arguments drawn from the more fanciful parts of his system.”
The learned Mr. Anthon thus relates Plato’s arguments for the soul’s immortality, as found in the Phædo. Be it remembered that in this dialogue Socrates is only used as a mouth-piece through which Plato expresses his own ideas. “Socrates,” writes Anthon, “undertakes to prove the immortality of the soul by its spirituality; and we have here the first traces of a demonstration which modern philosophy, under the guidance of Revelation has carried on to so successful a result. The doctrine which Plato here puts into the mouth of Socrates is not entirely pure; it is amalgamated with the Pythagorean hypothesis of the metempsychosis, and with all sorts of fables borrowed from the Greek mythology.”
Here we have Plato proving the immortality of the soul by its spirituality, though by this he did not mean pure immortality, as is now taught. This was the first trace of that idea which modern Christian philosophy has carried on. This shows the origin of that doctrine. Plato was its legitimate father.
Plato taught that the transmigrations which any soul has to undergo are for its sins. When it is freed from sin, it will be freed from transmigrating, will no longer be connected with a natural body, but will return to God, and be re-absorbed into his being. If a soul has sinned much, and is very vile, it will be born into the body of a degraded animal, as a pig or a dog. If it has been pretty good, it will occupy the body of a better animal, as a horse or a man, etc. Warburton and Knapp say this was a refinement of Plato’s upon the original doctrine of transmigration. This was the only hell that Plato believed in. The vulgar notions of hell, hades, tartarus, and the torments there, he rejectedas fables, though he often speaks of them in an accommodation to the popular notion. So say Leland and others.
Plato held that the soul was a part of God. Thus writes Bishop Warburton: “Plato, without any softening, frequently calls the soul God, and a part of God.” This is one of his strongest proofs of the soul’s immortality. As a part of God, it will be re-absorbed into him either at death or as soon as it is sufficiently purified by transmigration. With Plato, the soul was immortal only as a part of God, into whom it would finally be re-absorbed, and lose all personal existence.

HISTORY OF THE PLATONIC SCHOOL.

We will now briefly notice the history and influence of Plato’s teachings and followers. After finishing his travels, Plato returned to Greece, where he established a philosophical school, in which he taught his theory of the human soul, etc. This school was largely attended, and became very famous and influential. Contemporary with the sect which Plato established, there were several other schools of philosophy, as the Stoics, Epicureans, Peripatetics, etc.; but as none of them taught the immortality of the soul, we are not now interested in them.
It was through Plato and his disciples that this doctrine came into the church; hence we are interested in their history. Enfield says: “The school of Plato long continued famous, but passed through several changes, on account of which it was successively distinguished into the Old, the Middle, and the New Academy. The Old Academy consisted of those followers of Plato who taught the doctrine of their master without mixture or corruption.”
The Old Academy continued till about three hundred years before Christ. Then, under the teaching of Arcesilaus, it passed into the Middle Academy. It differed from the Old in asserting that “everything is uncertain to human understanding, and, consequently, that all confident assertions are unreasonable.” This school tended strongly to skepticism. It continued less than one hundred years, and met with much opposition. The New Academy succeeded it.
Carneades, born B. C. 214, was the first teacher of the New Academy. Its doctrines came back nearer to those of Plato. It allowed that a strong probability of truth might be attained by sufficient evidence. This school continued about one hundred years. “The last preceptor of the Platonic school in Greece was Antiochus of Ascalon. . . . He resigned the academic chair B. C. 80. After his time, the professors of the academic philosophy were dispersed by the tumults of war, and the school itself was transferred to Rome.”
Platonism, having found its way to Rome, soon made its way into the Roman Church, as may be easily shown.

“LORD, IS IT I?”

By S. M. Spicer

“Is it I?” to betray thee, my dear loving Jesus, Even I, now sharing thy bountiful board? Am I so ungrateful, so vile and so cruel? No, never; ah never! I forbid it, dear Lord. I will ever befriend thee and stay by thy side, Naught e’er shall offend me, whatever betide.
Oh, weak human nature! though confident ever, How forgetful! how powerless in Gethsemane’s vale! In the garden of agony even found sleeping, Forgetting to watch while dark powers prevail. Now by the rude soldiers Jesus captive is led, “And all the disciples forsook him and fled.”
Do I too betray thee, my kind loving Saviour, Forget thee, forsake thee, when scoffers deride? And fearing, when sinners are near, to confess thee, Deny the Redeemer, who for me has died? How many prove faithless when dangers are nigh, And know not the Master. Dear Lord, is it I?
How many professing to follow thy pathway Traced in humility, patience, and love, Walk so far from thee in coldness and darkness, They forget the sweet Spirit that comes from above; So unlike the pattern, the faith they deny, And dishonor thy name. Dear Lord, is it I?
Many, while seeking the kingdom of Heaven, Love better the world, its false pleasures and show, Its riches, though cankered, its garments, moth-eaten, The heart with its treasures all centered below. How can they be fitted for dwelling on high While worshiping mammon? Dear Lord, is it I?
O teach me the meaning of life's holy mission! Let me fear not the foe, and choose not the world; Forgetful of self, let me scatter true blessings, Relief for earth's sufferings and sorrows untold, Pointing to others the way—true in word and in deed— May I gain that blest Heaven, dear Saviour, I plead. S. M. Spicer.

THE PROPER TIME FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ORDINANCES.

By W. H. Littlejohn

ELD. W. H. LITTLEJOHN.
Having considered in a previous article “The Order to be Pursued in the Administration of the Ordinances,” I propose in the present paper to discuss the question of the proper time for their celebration.
The difficulties that attend the discussion of this branch of the subject are neither so great nor so numerous as were those with which we were confronted in the consideration of the points presented in the former article. Probably there are fifty who have been troubled as to which should take the precedence in administration, the washing of feet or the breaking of bread, where there has been one who has harbored any trouble concerning the precise time when the ordinances should be administered. Should there be but one, however, it would be our duty—provided he were sincere in his questioning—to assist him in the solution of what might, to his mind, appear to be a difficult problem.
So far as we are aware, those who hold to a specific time for the “breaking of bread” and the “washing of feet” are of the opinion that it is indispensable that they should be attended to in the evening.
It is difficult to say whence they get this opinion, unless it be either from the fact that Christ broke the bread and washed the feet of the disciples in the evening when he instituted the ordinances, or because it is supposed by these individuals that the ordinances take the place fully of the Passover, and are to perpetuate it under a different set of types, but subject to the same limitations and regulations.
So far as the first position is concerned, it may be properly remarked that more importance is attached to the fact that the “Lord’s supper” and the “washing of feet” were attended to in the evening than the circumstance itself will warrant. The element of time is never to be regarded as essential unless it is made so by the very nature of the duty prescribed, or by explicit declarations found in the command imposing the same.
To illustrate: “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature,” is an injunction which has imposed an obligation on every minister since the days of Christ. The exact moment, however, at which the preaching and the baptizing shall be performed is not thought to be a matter worthy of discussion, since there is no limitation as to the time when these things should be done, found in the original command. This being true, the preacher has felt free to present his message whenever and wherever he could get the ears of the people, and to baptize either by night or day, in the morning, or at noon, or in the twilight, all candidates who have met the implied requisition by believing on the Lord Jesus Christ.
Again, in the sixth chapter of Matthew and the ninth verse, the Lord’s prayer is introduced by the words, “After this manner therefore pray ye;” but who does not understand that the individual is left free to select the time and place for the repetition of that prayer in accordance with the opportunities or necessities which may surround him? The reason why he uses this liberty is apparent. It is because the precept was given without specification as to time and place, and he naturally and correctly concludes that he is left to select these for himself.
But without multiplying illustrations further for the purpose of proving a general principle of interpretation which is too obvious to demand further exemplification, we turn to apply it to the question before us.
Did the Lord, in the memorable evening of the institution of his supper, enjoin upon his disciples that they should commemorate the same thereafter in the evening, and in the evening only?
In order to discuss the question intelligently, we have transcribed all the passages which bear directly upon the subject. They are as follows:—
“But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.” Matt. 26:29.
“And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them; and they all drank of it. And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many. Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God.” Mark 14:22–25.
“And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table.” Luke 22:19–21.
“What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread; and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord’s death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.” 1 Cor. 11:22–29.
“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?” 1 Cor. 10:16.
“And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking bread, and in prayers. And fear came upon every soul; and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles. And all that believed were together, and had all things common; and sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, praising God, and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.” Acts 2:42–47.
“And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.” “And when he was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed.” Acts 20:7, 11.
In explaining the foregoing scriptures, the reader has discovered that in all which Christ said there is not one declaration from which it may reasonably be inferred that he designed to convey the impression that the evening furnished the only period of time in which the breaking of bread was to be attended to thereafter.
The scope of this injunction comprehends three things: First, it is fairly deducible from his remarks that they were expected to imitate his example; second, that when they did so, it was to be done in remembrance of him; third, that they should continue to commemorate his death in that way until he should come again.
The expression “as oft as ye do it” is general in its character, and, in the absence of any qualifying clauses, cannot be claimed to place any restriction whatever upon the free choice of the individual as to the time and the place when and where he shall commemorate the humility and death of his Lord.
Turning to Luke 11:2 we read, “When ye pray, say, Our Father,” etc. In this language we have a case nearly parallel to the one before us; for the expression “when ye pray” is nearly tantamount to the words “as oft” as ye pray. But will any one insist that the former expression furnishes any limitation as to the time when we may offer the Lord’s prayer? But the case is a parallel one; for our Lord himself had just been praying at the time he used the expression, “When ye pray, say, Our Father,” etc. Therefore, as this was doubtless done in the daytime, it would, according to the view which we are opposing, be equivalent to a restriction upon the disciples to pray only in the daytime. Such a restriction, however, is not acknowledged by those with whom we differ upon the subject before us, and we cannot therefore see how they can fail to comprehend that in this, as in many other cases, they have acknowledged a law of interpretation which, when properly applied, will remove all their objections to the administration of the ordinances in the daytime, which are simply based on the fact that Christ attended to them in the evening.
Thus much for the example of Christ.
The next point to be considered relates to the proposition that the Passover was always partaken of in the evening, and therefore that the ordinances should be celebrated in the evening also.
A serious objection to this line of argument lies in the fact that it would prove altogether too much. If it is valid in one point, it is valid in all; i. e., if the Lord’s supper takes the place of the Passover, and must consequently be attended to in the evening because the Passover was attended to at that time, then, by parity of reasoning, it must, like the Passover, also be partaken of on the evening of the 15th day of Abib. This being true, then it is necessarily an institution which can be attended to only once in a year, instead of once a week, as is the practice of some, or once in a month, as is the custom of others, or once in three months, as is the habit of others still. But if this be so, it would be necessary that we should give far more attention to the Jewish calendar as formerly made up than we have hitherto been in the habit of doing, and we fear that it might puzzle some of us exceedingly to determine just when the 15th day of Abib will be reached. Not only so, but it is also apparent that if the Passover is the Lord’s supper, both are subject to the same laws as it regards the time at which they were to be administered, and it follows that the regulations which govern in the case of the former will apply equally to the latter, unless specifically repeated. As a consequence, all the specifications relating to posture, clothing, place, etc., which applied to the Passover, should be observed by us in partaking of the eucharist. As we receive it, it should be with our loins girded, our shoes on our feet, and our staves in our hands; and it should be eaten in haste. (Ex. 12:11.) Since the Passover was connected also with the feast of unleavened bread, who will say that all the regulations concerning this feast, all that was said concerning the cleansing of the house from leaven, and the abstinence from the use of leavened bread for one week, etc., is not still obligatory upon Christians for seven days in each year at the return of their annual passover ceremonies? Certain it is that it would be just as reasonable to suppose that these other ceremonial provisions which related to the old institution are grafted upon the new one, as it is to conclude that the peculiarity of the former as to the fact that it was necessarily attended to in the night, should still apply to the latter.
Nay, more; it is to us more probable that our supper should resemble that of the Passover in the particular that it should be celebrated once a year, than that it should be limited, like the latter, to the evening. This is so, first, because Christ was crucified in the daytime; secondly, because he was crucified but once, and will not be again, and, consequently, since a full year was formerly taken in the tabernacle service to represent the whole work of Christ from his crucifixion to his second coming, it would appear to be not altogether improbable—judging from the standpoint of the types—that the breaking of bread might be properly participated in but once a year, as were the passover solemnities formerly.
But this would be simply an induction of the human reason drawn from the probabilities of the case. Such induction, however, is not always safe. God’s plans are higher than our plans. His methods vary from our methods. That which appears to us to be highly proper might seem to him to be highly improper. The best thing we can do, therefore, is to leave speculation out of the question, and confine ourselves to the record. In that record we learn that Christ is our Passover. We also learn that the symbols to be employed by us in the celebration of our Passover are entirely different from those which the Jews employed. They slew, roasted, and ate the lamb; we break and eat the bread, and drink the wine. They partook of the Passover but once a year; we partake of it as often as circumstances render it desirable. Our justification for this deviation is made out in three ways. First, we understand that the original Passover was the creature of the Mosaic law, and that, consequently, when that law with all its types and ceremonies passed away, the whole Jewish Passover system was abrogated with it; and therefore we have nothing to do with its times and ceremonies. Secondly, the law of our eucharist was given by Christ himself, and in it there is not only no restriction as it regards the precise period when it is to be administered, but, also, that the language employed by the Saviour is of such a nature that it leaves us the prerogative of a free choice in that particular. Thirdly, the examples which are left us prove most conclusively that, so far as the element of specific time is concerned, it is not perpetuated in our institution.
In Acts 2:42–47 we read that the disciples continued daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart.
In regard to the signification of this passage learned writers have differed widely. Some have supposed that it related simply to a common meal, while others have thought that the allusion was to the “breaking of bread” in the “Lord’s supper,” which they claim at that time took place in connection with such meals.
We confess frankly that it is not clear to our own mind where the exact truth lies in this controversy. We feel assured, however, that the reference in verse 42 is to the sacrament, as any other view of the matter would affect the dignity of the record by making Luke appear to confound the sacred with the profane by uniting in the same sentence the mention of such Christian duties as fellowship, doctrine, and prayers with the eating of an ordinary repast. This would seem highly improper, both from the standpoint of its connection, and the application of the word “steadfastly” to the partaking of food in the ordinary way. But if the “breaking of bread” mentioned in verse 42 means the eucharist, then in order to avoid the conclusion that it means the same in verses 46 and 47, we must decide that there is an abrupt deviation within this brief space in the use of the term “breaking of bread,” by which it is made in the first place to point to the sacrament, and in the second place to something wholly secular in its nature.
Such a version, to say the least, appears to be strained.
But if it be not correct, if the same word in both instances is to be understood as representing the same idea, then we have the disciples “breaking bread” and eating meat daily, either in their own houses, or in those of one another.
This being true, however, then—as the “eating of meat” is admitted by all to signify ordinary meals—it is undeniable that they were in the habit of partaking of the eucharist in the daytime, unless resort be had to the violent presumption that they never ate meat except in the night season.
(Concluded next week.)

THE THOUSAND YEARS.

By G. V. Kilgore

The following statements, proved by the scripture references given, will show the Bible view of the thousand years of Rev. 20:—
1. The resurrection of the righteous will take place just prior to the thousand years. Rev. 20:4.
2. The resurrection of the wicked will not take place until the end of the thousand years. Rev. 20:5.
3. Christ will come before the thousand years, because he comes at the time of the resurrection of the righteous. 1 Thess. 4:16.
4. His coming will be personal and visible. Acts. 1:9-11; Rev. 1:7.
5. At this time he will take all the righteous from the earth to Heaven. 1 Thess. 4:17; John 13:33-36; 14:1-3.
6. They will reign with Christ on his throne during the thousand years. Rev. 3:21; 20:4.
7. The Judgment (to investigate and apportion the punishment of the wicked world) will be given to them. Rev. 20:4; Dan. 7:22; 1 Cor. 6:2, 3; Ps. 149:5-9.
8. When Christ comes to take the righteous, he will destroy all the wicked, and leave the earth desolate. 2 Thess. 1:7, 8; 2:8; Jer. 25:26-33; Isa. 13:9.
9. This will be just prior to the binding of Satan, and just before the thousand years. Rev. 19:11-21; 20:1-3.
This leaves no place for a world's conversion, nor for a time of peace on earth during the millennium spoken of in Rev. 20.
10. The bottomless pit, where Satan is to be bound, is nothing more nor less than this earth in its broken up condition as it will be after Christ comes. Rev. 6:14; Nahum 1:5, 6. The term “bottomless pit” comes from Abussos, which signifies “the deep,” “the abyss,” and is used in Gen. 1:2 to describe the earth when it was “without form and void.” At the great day of God the earth will be brought into a similar condition. Jer. 4:23-27. Hence the term Abussos is used in Rev. 20 to describe the condition of the earth when it shall be the bounds of Satan's habitation.
11. Satan is not now limited to the earth, but goes through the air, and with his legions of demons (Mark 5:9; Jude 6) tempts the people of all nations. Eph. 2:2, 3. But during the thousand years Satan will be cast down to the ground (Eze. 28:17; Isa. 14:12), and, without a human being to tempt, he will roam in solitude. Zeph. 1:2, 3; Rev. 20:1-3.
12. After the thousand years the wicked will be raised, Satan will be loosed from his limited power, and again go about his usual work, deceiving the nations. Rev. 20:5, 7, 8.
13. The city of God, with all the saints, will come down from Heaven and be on the earth at this time. Zech. 14:4, 5; Rev. 21:1-3; 20:9.
14. The wicked will be gathered around the city, and burned up with fire from God. Rev. 20:9; Mal. 4:1; Ps. 37:10, 20.
15. The devil and his host (his angels) will be destroyed at the same time. Rev. 20:10; Isa. 24:21, 22; Heb. 2:14; Eze. 28:17-19.
16. After this the earth will be free from sinners. All the universe will say, Blessing, and honor, and glory, and power, be unto God and the Lamb (Rev. 5:13), and the saints will enjoy abundance of peace forever and ever. Ps. 37:11. G. V. KILGORE.

HARD WORK.

“WHAT is your secret?” asked a lady of Turner, the distinguished painter. He replied, “I have no secret, madam, but hard work.”
Says Dr. Arnold: “The difference between one man and another is not so much in talent as in energy.”
“Nothing,” says Reynolds, “is denied well-directed labor, and nothing is to be attained without it.”
“Excellence in any department,” says Johnson, “can now be attained by the labor of a lifetime; but it is not to be purchased at a less price.”
“There is but one method,” says Sidney Smith, “and that is hard labor; and a man who will not pay that price for distinction had better at once dedicate himself to the pursuit of a fox.”
“Step by step,” reads the French proverb, “one goes very far.”
“Nothing,” says Mirabeau, “is impossible to a man who can and will. This is the only law of success.”
“Have you ever entered a cottage, or traveled in a coach, ever talked with a peasant in a field, or loitered with a mechanic at a loom,” asked Sir Edward Bulwer Lytton, “without finding that each of these men had a talent you have not—knew something you did not?”
The most useless creature that yawned at a club or idled in rags under the suns of Calabria, has no excuse for want of intellect. What men want is not talent, but purpose; in other words, not the power to achieve, but the will to labor.—Selected.
Continue reading: CAN SAINTS APOSTATIZE?