Review and Herald, Vol. 34, No. 16. (10/12/1869)

Review and Herald

Oct 12, 1869

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Oct 12, 1869

HOW THE SEPARATE EXISTENCE OF THE SOUL CAME TO BE BELIEVED.

By Dudley Marvin Canright

If the reader supposes that the first ideas which the ancients had of the soul were the same as those popular among us now, he needs to be undeceived. The idea that the soul, after the body dies, is an immortal, immaterial, conscious, and active personality, which goes immediately to Heaven or hell, was not arrived at immediately, but is the result of the fancy, the imagination, the poetry, the philosophy, and the laws of many ages. It is interesting to trace its gradual development. The first idea that the ancients conceived of the soul or spirit as existing separate from the body after death, was that of a shadow, or shade, resembling the body in shape, but larger in size. This shade was fancied to be a very thin, misty, aerial, material substance. At first the shades of all, both good and bad, were said to be gathered together under ground in hades, tartarus, or sheol. They were not permitted to visit the upper world among the living. They were said to be in a dreamy, partially-sleeping condition. Gradually they were, by poetic imagination, invested with more life and intelligence, and were assigned employments in hades like those they led on earth. Next, a few were said to come up from their dreary abode, and appear to the living. They represented hades to be a damp, chilly, dismal place. They sighed to return to earth.

Gradually the scene changed with them to still more activity, light, power, and intelligence, till a few privileged ones were raised to dwell on the surface of the earth, then higher in the air, and at last to Heaven. Here they were invested with mighty power as demons, demi-gods, and gods, to rule over the living. Finally, all the good were granted this privilege of going to Heaven. So it was with regard to the punishment of the wicked in hades. At first, only a very few were punished there; then certain crimes in all; at length all the wicked were punished there at death. But this change in the minds of the people was very slow, and reached over a period of many ages. Abundance of testimony could be offered on these points; but I shall only offer a few here. The origin of many of these ideas is thus stated by Alger: “The origin of many notions touching a future state, found in literature, is to be traced to those rambling thoughts and poetic reveries with which even the most philosophical minds, in certain moods, indulged themselves.” “Two general sources have now been described of the barbarian conception in relation to a future state. First, the natural operation of an earnest recollection of the dead; sympathy, regret, and reverence for them, leading the thoughts and heart to grope after them, to brood over the possibilities of their fate, and to express themselves in rites and emblems. Secondly, the mythological or arbitrary creations of the imagination when it is set strongly to work, as it must be by the solemn phenomena associated with death. But beyond these two comprehensive statements, there is, directly related to the matter, and worthy of separate illustration, a curious action of the mind, which has been extensively experienced, and fertile of results. It is the peculiar example of the unconscious impartation of objective existence to mental ideas. With the death of the body, the man does not cease to live in the remembrance, the imagination, and the heart, of his surviving friends. By an unphilosophical confusion, this internal image is credited as an external existence. The dead pass from their customary haunts in our society to the imperishable domain of ideas.” “Fancy and reason thus set at work, speedily construct a thousand theories filled with details. Desire fathers thought, and then thought woos belief.” “Future Life,” pp. 81, 88.

This was the real origin of the notion that the soul lives after the body dies—imagination and desire. Dr. Knapp, in accounting for this doctrine among the ancients, says: “They had dreams, in which the dead appeared to them speaking and acting; and in this way they found their wishes and the traditions they had received from their fathers confirmed anew.” “Christian Theol.,” p. 519. Even now, wishes, dreams, death-bed scenes, &c., are the best proof which many have for the immortality of the soul.

With regard to the first conception of the abode and condition of departed spirits, Dr. Knapp remarks: “Far more general was the opinion among the ancient nations that the abode of departed spirits is under the earth; because the dead are laid beneath the ground, and their body returns to the dust. The souls then separated from their bodies were regarded as a sort of aerial beings, or shades. Taken as a whole, the ancient Eastern nations and the Greeks agreed on this point.” Ibid., p. 524.

The following gives a good general idea of ancient thoughts with regard to the state of the dead. It will be noticed that they all regarded the soul material. “The disembodied soul, as conceived by the Greeks, and after them by the Romans, is material, but of so thin a contexture that it cannot be felt with the hands. It is exhaled with the dying breath, or issues through a warrior’s wounds. The sword passes through its uninjured form as through air. It is to the body what a dream is to waking action. Retaining the shape, the lineaments, and motion, the man had in life, it is immediately recognized upon appearing. It quits the body with much reluctance, leaving that warm and vigorous investiture for a chilly and forceless existence. It glides along without noise, and very swiftly, like a shadow. It is unable to enter the lower kingdom and be at peace until its deserted body has been buried with sacred rites; meanwhile, naked and sad, it flits restlessly about the gates, uttering doleful moans.” “Doctrine of a Future Life,” pp. 175, 176. Thus the happiness of the soul was intimately connected with that of the body. With regard to the gradual development of their ideas of hell, ghosts, &c., he says, “First, then, from a study of the Greek mythology we find all the dead a dull populace of ghosts—fluttering through the neutral melancholy of hades without discrimination. And finally we discern in the world of the dead, a sad middle region, with a Paradise on the right hand, and a hell on the left, the whole presided over by three incorruptible judges, who appoint the new-comers their places in accordance with their deserts.” Ibid., p. 179.

A gradual but constant change, or, if it sounds better to modern ears, improvement, in the ideas of all the ancient nations with regard to the condition of souls in hades and tartarus, is clearly discernible. 1. All, good and bad, went to hades alike. 2. A few of the worst of men were punished in tartarus. 3. Next, certain crimes were punished there, whoever committed them. 4. And, finally, it was the place where all the wicked were punished. 5. So of the good. At first only a few heroes and great men were rewarded in Elysium; then a large class; and finally all the righteous. These facts are clearly stated by Dr. Geo. Christian Knapp, D. D., in his lectures on Christian Theology, now so extensively read. He says, “Both the Hebrews and Greeks describe this under world as a great kingdom, and both use the phrase, gates of death, or hades. Cf. Homer. Here, according to the ideas of men in the earliest ages, the shades of the good and bad dwell together, without any distinction or any marked separation. Thus it is where sheol [?] is introduced in the Old Testament—e. g., Isa. xiv, where there is a kind of distinction of rank, and kings sit upon thrones; but where nothing definite and clear is said respecting a distinction in the places of the pious and the wicked. Thus in Homer, too, even those who are punished are in the same place with the other shades.” “Odys.,” xi, 575, seq.

“But, after a time, those places in the lower world were divided, and the residences of the righteous and the wicked were conceived of as separate.” Sect. 150, pp. 524–526. One important fact cannot fail to be observed, viz.: Instead of the ancients having among them, on the start, a clear and well-defined doctrine of the immortality of the soul, and the conscious state of the dead, these ideas have gradually grown up among them, not from an early and clear tradition, but from the causes already given, and others to be named. This is an important fact in our inquiry, and should be well weighed. Another cause which greatly aided the development

of early conceptions concerning the state of the dead, was poets and poetry. These have always had a great influence in shaping the ideas and traditions of rude nations. No subject ever furnished a better theme for poetic fiction and imagination than that of the state and condition of men after death; and in none has greater liberty of fancy been taken than in this. Whoever wishes proof of this may look into the pages of Homer, Milton, Virgil, Dante, &c. These poets have given loose reins to their warm imaginations, to revel in the most horrid scenes. These productions have been eagerly listened to by the people, and the effect has been marked and lasting. These poets were the ones who first taught the ancient heathen their religious tenets. Thus writes Herodotus: “For I am of opinion that Hesiod and Homer [poets] lived four hundred years before my time, and not more, and these were they who framed the theogony for the Greeks, and gave names to the gods, and assigned to them honors and arts, and declared their several forms.” “Herod. Euterp.,” ii, 55, p. 116.

Another cause, and, perhaps, the chief one, which aided in developing and supporting a belief in this doctrine, was the interest and authority of priests and lawgivers. Commonly these two offices were united in one person. Of course, the more importance the priests could attach to the soul, and to rewards and punishments after death, the greater influence would they have with the people, and the more readily would they support them. Hence their interest was to build up this doctrine at every opportunity; and history shows that from the Egyptians to the Roman Catholic priests they have not been slack in doing this. So, also, the magistrate found that it greatly aided him in controlling the people, and in keeping them under by threatening them with the wrath of the gods, and future torments for disobedience to his laws. “Hence, also,” says Dr. Horne, “the most celebrated legislators of antiquity, as Zoroaster, Minos, Pythagoras, Solon, Lycurgus, Numa, &c., &c., all thought it necessary to profess some intercourse with Heaven, in order to give the greater sanction to their laws and institutions, notwithstanding many of them were armed with secular power.” Hence he also united his interest with the priest in helping forward this doctrine. Volumes might be, and have been, written, showing that this was the case. The very learned Bishop Warburton, in his “Divine Legation of Moses Demonstrated in Nine Books,” has abundantly proved by copious quotations from ancient writers, that what was said about the infernal regions, Elysium, &c., was all invented by the priests and lawgivers to frighten the people, and keep them in subjection. To him and others the reader is referred, while I shall content myself with offering only a few short testimonies. That great historian and geographer, Strabo, thus gives the reason why hell torments were invented by the lawgivers. He also shows the influence poets have had in the matter. He writes thus: “So numbers of our citizens are incited to deeds of virtue by the beauties of fable, when they hear the poets in a strain of enthusiasm, recording noble actions, such as the labors of Hercules or Theseus, and the honors bestowed on them by the gods, or even when they see paintings, sculptures, or figures bearing their romantic evidence to such events. In the same way they are restrained from vicious courses, when they think they have received from the gods, by oracles or some other invisible intimations, threats, menaces, or chastisements, or even if they only believe they have befallen others. The great mass of women and common people cannot be induced, by mere force of reason, to devote themselves to piety, virtue, and honesty; superstition must therefore be employed, and even this is insufficient without the aid of the marvelous and the terrible. For what are the thunderbolts, the aegis, the trident, the torches, the dragons, the barbed thyrses, the arms of the gods, and all the paraphernalia of antique theology, but fables employed by the founders of States, as bugbears to frighten timorous minds. Such was mythology.” “Strabo,” b. i, chap. ii, sec. 8, p. 30.

Yet, indeed, such it was—a mass of frightful fables and bugbears to scare the people into submission. Of the ancient Brahmins, this writer says, “They invent fables also after the manner of Plato, on the immortality of the soul, and on the punishments in hades, and other things of the kind.” “Strabo,” vol. iii, b. xv, chap. i, sec. 59. What Plato and others said about the immortality of the soul, punishments in hades, &c., were understood to be only fables. Another eminent Greek historian, Polybius, b. c. 208, bears a similar testimony, thus: “Since the multitude is ever fickle, full of lawless desires, irrational passions, and violence, there is no way to keep them in order, but by fear and terror of the invisible world; on which account our ancestors seemed to me to have acted judiciously, when they contrived to bring into the popular belief these notions of the gods, and of the infernal regions.” B. vi. 56. Dr. Horne bears this testimony: “For, though the poets have prettily fancied, and have portrayed in beautiful and glowing verse, the joys of Elysium, or a place and state of bliss, and the miseries of tartarus, or hell; and though the ancient philosophers and legislators were sensible of their importance to society, and also of the necessity of the doctrine of future punishments, yet they generally discarded them as vain and superstitious terrors.” “Introduction,” vol. i, p. 18. Watson says the same. “Theo. Inst.,” vol. i, part first, chap. vi, p. 54. Says Warburton, “They enforced the belief of a future state of rewards and punishments, by every sort of contrivance.” Alger truthfully observes, “The doctrine of the soul’s survival and transference to another world, where its experience depends on conditions observed or violated here, conditions somewhat in the control of a select class of men here—such a doctrine is the very hiding place of the powers of priestcraft, a vast engine of interest and sway which the shrewd insight of priesthoods has often devised, and the cunning policy of States subscribed.” “Future Life,” pp. 39, 40. The above author thus sums up the causes which operated to establish the heathen nations in these doctrines: “Finally,” says he, “by the combined power, first, of natural conscience affirming a future distinction between the good and the bad; secondly, of imperfect conceptions of God as a passionate avenger; thirdly, of the licentious fancies of poets, drawing awful imaginative pictures of future woe; fourthly, of the cruel spirit, and the ambitious plans of selfish priesthoods; and, fifthly, of the harsh and relentless theories of conforming metaphysicians,—the doctrine of hell, as a located place of manifold, terrific physical tortures, drawing in vast majorities of the human race, became established in the human creeds and enshrined as an orthodox dogma.” “Doctrine of a Future Life,” p. 512.

Having by these means invested the spirits of the dead with an imaginary existence, the next step was to provide a habitation for them while absent from their bodies. Here again they showed their strong attachment to their old materialistic traditions, and their utter ignorance of any purely spiritual, immaterial being. They supposed that, in order for the soul to live, it must be connected with some animal body. The soul came into life connected with a human body, which it reluctantly leaves at death for a certain period till the body shall live again, when the soul will return to it. But what is the habitation of the soul during this interval? The idea of the transmigration of souls was luckily hit upon to fill this want. This doctrine is, that when the soul leaves the dying body it immediately passes into another body which happens to be born at just that moment. When this body also dies, the soul takes possession of another body, and so goes on changing bodies till its cycle of transmigrations is ended, and it returns to its place of habitation. This idea originated very early in the history of the doctrine of the immortality of the soul. Of transmigration of souls, the “New American Cyclopædia” says: “The idea belongs to the oldest religions of India and Egypt, and is one of the earliest forms in which the doctrine of immortality appears.” “According to Herodotus, the Egyptians were the first to entertain this doctrine.” Art. Metempsychosis. These facts are important, and should be well considered. We have seen that embalming bodies was the first form in which immortality was held by the ancients. The next step in the development of this doctrine was that the soul could live without this body, by being connected with some other body. This was a very important improvement indeed.

This was “one of the earliest forms” in which the immortality of the soul began to be taught. Bunsen, as quoted before, says, “The Egyptians were the first who taught the doctrine of the immortality of the soul, a fact mentioned by all Greek writers from Herodotus to Aristotle, and one brilliantly confirmed by the monuments. A belief of the transmigration of the human soul into the bodies of animals, which was connected with it, is, as far as we can glean from the mythology of Asia, an Egyptian provincialism.”—“Egypt’s Place in Universal Hist.,” vol. iv, p. 639.

Thus it will be seen that these two doctrines, viz., the survival of the soul after death, and its transmigration into other bodies, were inseparably connected at first, and both originated in Egypt. In those early times they had not yet conceived the idea that the soul could live a moment unless connected with some animal body. This appears to be the true idea which originated the doctrine of the transmigration of souls. All souls, both good and bad, alike partook in this transmigration. At first the idea of rewards or punishments does not seem to have been connected with it. It was a natural condition to which all were subject. Afterwards this was refined and improved upon very much, as we shall see. On this point the learned Dr. Knapp remarks: “Originally this transmigration of souls was not regarded as a matter of retribution, or as a means of purification. This turn was not given to the doctrine until a period of higher cultivation.” “Christ. Theol.,” sec. 150, p. 523. We shall notice other improvements that were made in this doctrine gradually, and by different individuals.

D. M. CANRIGHT.

HOPE ON, HOPE EVER.

Hope on, though darkest clouds arise, Though angry billows roar; Hope on, when lowering are the skies, When fortune's clouded o'er.

Hope on, when plunged in deepest woe, When fears your joys molest; Hope ever, and your heart shall know, A holy, heavenly rest.

Hope on, though friends indifferent seem, When from loved ones you part; Hope ever, something bright will gleam O'er thy lone, sorrowing heart.

Hope still, thy Saviour waits to give A prize which fadeth never; Hope on, and happy thou shalt live Forever and forever.

CHILDREN OF GOD.

By John Matteson

“They are . . . the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.” Luke xx, 36. “Whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.” 1 John v, 18.

Many claim, from these two texts, that we are begotten of God in this world, and born of God in the resurrection. A right understanding of this subject leads into a right understanding of many other subjects. Therefore I would remark:

1. The words begotten and born in 1 John iii, 9, and chap. v, 18, are translated from one and the same original word. Likewise in 1 Peter i, 3, and verse 23, it is the same original word with the prefix “again.” Now these words are rendered “born” every time in the Danish version. Likewise in Luther’s German translation. What authority have we to give two different meanings to the same original word, in the same verse, applied to the same thing? This seems to be a parallel case to Mark viii, 35, 36, where the same original word is rendered, first life, and then soul, leaving the reader to draw wrong conclusions.

James i, 18, is another word in the original, ἀποκυέω: bring forth; beget; to adopt; assume as one’s child. Greenfield. It seems to me that the last two definitions convey the true idea, in perfect harmony with the Scriptures.

“Whosoever is born of God sinneth not.” Why so? Because he “keepeth himself.” It is evident that the only way a child of God overcomes sin is by keeping himself. Watch, pray, and work. As long as he does this, God’s seed (or word of truth, 1 Peter i, 23, 25,) “remaineth in him: and he cannot sin.” But if he should depart from the truth, then the seed, or truth, would remain in him no longer. Then he could not resist sin.

2. The resurrection cannot make any one a literal child of God, any more than the creation could make Adam a literal child of God. A literal birth is a living creature’s bringing forth another living creature of its own kind. The creation, as well as the resurrection, resembles a birth in some respects, and is, therefore, represented by the same word. But this is using the word in a figurative, and not in a strictly literal, sense. Adam is called the son of God. Luke iii, 38. He came forth from the dust, by the hand of the Creator, free from sin, spotless and pure. So, likewise, those who are raised in the first resurrection, come forth holy and pure, and are made “partakers of the

divine nature. 2 Peter i, 4. This is not by virtue of the resurrection merely, but also by virtue of their obedience. Rom. ii, 7. And that obedience they were enabled to render, only through the mercy of God, he having provided for them “all things that pertain unto life and godliness.” 2 Peter i, 3. So, likewise, would Adam have obtained immortality if he had obeyed God. Gen. iii, 22. Adam was the son of God, without obtaining immortality, by virtue of his creation. And, if he had not sinned, he would have been the son of God, both by virtue of creation and obedience.

So may we become sons of God, before the resurrection, by obedience; and being obedient to the end, we shall also be children of God in the resurrection. In Luke xx, 36, Christ was reasoning concerning the resurrection. Abraham is now dead. God styles himself the God of Abraham. He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. Therefore Abraham must be raised to life again. “They are . . . the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.” They never could be the children of God in the kingdom if they were not raised to life again. Therefore they shall be raised to immortality. Then they cannot die any more.

3. Christ is the only literal Son of God. “The only begotten of the Father.” John i, 14. He is God because he is the Son of God; not by virtue of his resurrection. If Christ is the only begotten of the Father, then we cannot be begotten of the Father in a literal sense. It can only be in a secondary sense of the word. Moreover, we have all gone astray from God. Isa. liii, 6. Therefore we can never be any more than adopted children here, nor hereafter.

We were aliens and foreigners, picked up from among a rebellious and degraded family, and finally become naturalized as citizens of the New Jerusalem. Even in the first resurrection we come forth from the old mother earth, and when we step into the heavenly city, we come from that old country.

4. We are now the adopted sons of God on probation, and in the resurrection we shall be the immortal sons of God. “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God they are the sons of God. . . . Ye have received the spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. [We could not say Father, except we were born.] The spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God. And if children, then heirs.” Rom. viii, 14–17. Speaking about the Gentiles who receive the gospel, he says they shall “be called the children of the living God.” Rom. ix, 26. As many as have put on Christ are “children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.” Gal. iii, 26, 27. Do the children of the devil now fully exist? Yes, indeed! Elymas, the sorcerer, was pronounced by Paul a “child of the devil.” Acts xiii, 10. Jesus calls the devil the father of the unbelieving Jews; John viii; and the scribes and Pharisees children of hell. The unbelieving are “children of disobedience,” and “children of wrath.” Eph. ii, 2, 3. And so were we by nature. Now what does all this mean, children of the devil, of wrath, of disobedience, &c.? Not that we are literal children of the devil by nature, for we are neither begotten nor born of him literally. But it simply means that we are subject to the devil, subject to wrath, hell, &c. If we obey the devil, it makes us children of the devil; just so when we obey God, it makes us children of God. “In this the children of God are manifest and the children of the devil.” 1 John iii.

The words child, children, sons, &c., seem only to be used to illustrate the relation we sustain to God when we serve him. Like the branches grafted into the olive tree; Rom. xi; or the branches of the vine; John xv. “I am the vine, ye are the branches.” A branch draws nourishment from the tree. So does a child from the mother; so the children of God from Christ. The branches are purged to bring forth much fruit. The child is trained to obedience and good manners. The children of God are trained in the school of experience and adversity, sanctified by the word and the Spirit, that they may bring forth fruit. We are called children of light, because we believe or follow after the truth. John xii, 36.

Are we not children of God in the same sense, believing in God and following him? Eph. v, 8. Then as long as we obey God here, we are his children. And when we obtain immortality, we are also his children, all by adoption. Rom. viii, 23. “Waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.” Here the resurrection is said to be the adoption. And in verses 14 and 15 he represents us as adopted sons of God as soon as we begin to serve God. Therefore we are adopted children of God, both here and in the world to come. Here, on probation; there, in glory; here, in weakness; there, in power; here, in corruption; there, in incorruption. “Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be; but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.” 1 John iii, 2.

JOHN MATTESON.

THE BIBLE IN HOUSEHOLD DUTY—THE FAMILY CIRCLE.

“This Book of books I’d rather own Than all the gold or gems That e’er in monarch’s coffers shone— Than all their diadems; Nay, were the seas one chrysolite, The earth a golden ball, And diadems all the stars of night, This Book were worth them all. “Yes, yes, this blessed Book is worth All else to mortals given; For what are all the joys of earth Compared to joys of Heaven? This is the guide our Father gave To lead to realms of day— A star whose luster gilds the grave— “The light, the life, the way.”

Friends, parents, teachers, children, do you take the blessed Bible, and embrace it, clasp it to your bosoms as Heaven’s best gift? Is it your delight, your counsel, your hope, your joy, your exceeding great reward? Do you embrace it with your whole heart, saying, “Oh, how love I thy law! it is my meditation all the day;” “Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path?”

“What glory gilds the sacred page, Majestic like the sun!”

IN FAMILY GOVERNMENT.

Fathers, mothers, are you influenced by this Book of books in family government, in “rearing the tender thought,” and fixing right principles? Do you open this sacred volume reverentially, morning, noon, at even-tide, in your closets, at the family altar? Do you impart instruction from this heavenly guide to your little ones, rising up, lying down, going out, coming in? Parents, beloved, do you teach the words of the living God diligently to your children? Talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, when you lie down and when you rise up? Do you bind them for a sign upon your hand, place them as frontlets between your eyes, “write them upon the posts of your house, and on your gates” (Deut. vi, 7–9), that your offspring, like little Timothy, may become wise unto salvation from their early childhood? “The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul; the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple.” Whenever your sons or your daughters err in the least from virtue’s path, purity of thought, word, or deed, do you invariably point them to the “thus saith the Lord?” If ever they speak aught but truth in the heart, the inmost soul, in honest simplicity and godly fear, what now?—To the Light and the Life—the Book of books—the authority of the Infinite, the Omnipotent. Do you say to them what the law and the testimony saith, touching falsehood, deceit, or prevarication, that the slightest, minutest deviation from strict rectitude, honest integrity of purpose, and guiltless simplicity, proceedeth directly and uniformly from the devil, the old serpent, the father of all liars; and the awful doom which follows, the one follows the other, that “all liars shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone?” Rev. xxi, 8.

Do your little ones ever manifest the least possible inkling of disobedience, self-will, or insubmission to wholesome parental discipline? do you immediately open the big book—the Book of books—and direct their attention forthwith to the fearful, awful, terrible, judgments denounced against children who honor not their father and their mother, that he “that curseth his father or his mother, shall surely be put to death.” “The eye that mocketh at his father, and despiseth to obey his mother, the ravens of the valley shall pick it out, and the young eagles shall eat it!” Prov. xxx, 17.

Are your children in anywise indolent, inactive, disposed to sluggishness, to habits of idleness or dissipation? Do you show them the mandate of high Heaven, what is recorded from the inspiration of the Holy One, touching idlers, those who cry, “Yet a little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to sleep?” that “slothfulness casteth into a deep sleep?” “the desire of the slothful killeth him?” “Go to the ant, thou sluggard, consider her ways and be wise.” To the word omnipotent, omnipresent, in every instance of non-conformity to the law of love, in great folks and little folks, to the law and the testimony at the slightest deviation from things pure, lovely, angelic, open the Book of books, hear Jehovah speak, the Lord of lords, King of kings.

God’s authority is supreme, infinitely above all human authority or enactments; it settles all questions at once. When God speaks, let the earth tremble, “stand in awe, sin not”—all Heaven be silent. “Let all the earth fear the Lord; let all the inhabitants of the earth stand in awe of him.” Psa. xxxiii, 8. Once fix the idea of the terrible, merciful, gracious, glorious authority of the great I AM clearly and indelibly in the minds and hearts of children, and the work of discipline is measurably done, and well done.

Would we train up the children aright, we must train them in accordance with the divine requirements. The man of our counsel must be the unerring word of truth. If we are Christ’s, we shall seek to measure our conduct by his word, and equally anxious should we be to measure, or to have measured, the conduct of our children by his word. Whatever parents may require, or whatever they may forbid, should be in conformity with the instructions given them by their great teacher—God. Let this be done, and let children see it, and feel it; and then how infinitely more easy it will be to induce them to walk in the right way! Yes, as much easier as it is to obey God rather than man. Here the authority is stamped with the broad seal of Heaven, and is as much higher than that of parents merely, as Heaven is higher than earth, as the authority of the Infinite, the Uncreated, the Eternal, is higher than that of finite, created beings of yesterday.

Among the first lessons taught children from the Bible, those relating to parental obedience seem especially to claim attention. When the fact that God requires children to obey their parents is well established in their minds, a very important object is gained. Will they not listen with fearful attention, with filial confidence, when told that God says, “Hearken unto thy father that has begotten thee, and despise not thy mother when she is old.” “Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right.” “Honor thy father and mother (which is the first commandment with promise), that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest live long on the earth.” “Children, obey your parents in all things; for this is well pleasing unto the Lord?”

Then, when reminded that obeying their parents is not only right, but well pleasing unto the Lord, that with it is connected the promise of long life and well-being, and that disobedience is connected with fearful denunciations, when told these things, will they not feel that, with all the heart, they will seek to render cheerful and ready obedience?

Parents, in training your little ones, take the Bible, begin with the Bible, keep on with the Bible, end with the Bible. Let the Bible be first, midst, last, always.

“How pure the sacred words of truth! The blessed Book to guide our youth; Given by our Father and our God, To guide to Heaven through Jesus’ blood.” —Shining Light.

A Golden Age Ahead

Regret not a golden age that is behind. There is one before, and it beckons you. Its rewards are not for the idle, but for the brave heart disciplined to toil.

Pleasing God or Displeasing Him

the idea, but for the brave heart disciplined to toil.

THERE is no medium between pleasing God and displeasing him, and if we have not his approbation we shall assuredly have his curse.

DAVID THE MAN AFTER GOD’S OWN HEART.

INFIDELS are never weary of repeating the declaration that David was a man after God’s own heart, and yet he was guilty of crimes that are of the most outbreaking character. It is certain that David did commit great wickedness in the case of Uriah, and that he did thereby give great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme. This great transgression is not covered up by the sacred writers, nor is it in any way excused. On the contrary, the terrible denunciation of the prophet Nathan is placed on record, and the whole subsequent history of David shows how completely that prophetic denunciation was accomplished in the judgments which came upon him. Read 2 Sam. xi-xxiv; 1 Kings i; ii. Even David himself placed on record, for all future time, a most humble confession of his great transgression.

But infidels are inexcusable in the use they make of the case of David. Either they do not know the facts in the case, and therefore should not attempt to handle them; or if they do know, they are utterly uncandid in their presentation of them.

David was called a man after God’s own heart, not in connection with his crime, but a long time prior to it. The expression is found in only one place in the Old Testament, and that in connection with the announcement to Saul that the kingdom should be given to another man. Thus Samuel said to him: “But now thy kingdom shall not continue; the Lord hath sought him a man after his own heart, and the Lord hath commanded him to be captain over his people, because thou hast not kept that which the Lord commanded thee.” 1 Sam. xiii, 14. These words are quoted by Paul in Acts xiii, 22.

When these words were uttered respecting David, there was not one blemish on his character. It is therefore very unreasonable to use them as though uttered in connection with his transgression, which occurred many years later. The sin of David is to be greatly deplored, but it is inexcusable and wicked to represent him as a man after God’s own heart, while guilty of great crime before him. Next to David’s guilt in this matter must be placed the guilt of those who represent the God of the Bible as pleased with such conduct. Indeed, it may well be doubted whether that the wickedness of such misrepresentation is not as great as that of David. It is an awful act of wickedness to make the God of Heaven responsible for the crimes of those who transgress his law.

Continue reading: THE NIGHT IS FAR SPENT