Review and Herald, Vol. 53, No. 12. (3/20/1879)

Review and Herald

Mar 20, 1879

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Mar 20, 1879

THE IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.

By Dudley Marvin Canright

ELD. D. M. CANRIGHT.

ALLEGORICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE SCRIPTURES ADOPTED.

How could these Platonic doctrines be harmonized with the Bible? How could the doctrine of the immortality of the soul, conscious state of the dead, etc., be reconciled with the opposite doctrine everywhere taught in the Scriptures? This was, indeed, a serious difficulty; but the genius of these Platonizing teachers devised a mode of harmonizing the two. It was this: They assumed that all the Bible was to be understood, not literally, or according to its plain, obvious meaning, but allegorically, or as metaphors under which the truth was concealed. By this method, of course, they could make it teach any doctrine they pleased! Clement and Origen, especially the latter, were the chief movers in this work.

So plainly and fully has the learned Mosheim, in his Ecclesiastical History, treated this part of my subject, that I have only to quote him. He says: “One of the earliest evils that flowed from this immoderate attachment to philosophy, was the violence to which it gave rise in the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures. For, whereas the Christians had, from a very early period, imbibed the notion that under the words, laws, and facts recorded in the Sacred Volume, there is a latent sense concealed—an opinion which they appear to have derived from the Jews—no sooner did this passion for philosophizing take possession of their minds, than they began, with wonderful subtlety, to press the Scriptures into their service in support of all such principles and maxims as appeared to them consonant to reason; and at the same time most wretchedly to pervert and twist every part of those divine Oracles which opposed itself to their philosophical tenets or notions.” Of Clement he says: “Whatever, therefore, appears to him just and consonant to reason in the maxims or tenets of the philosophers, he is sure to discover laid down somewhere in the books of the Old Testament; and this leads him, not unfrequently, to strain and distort, in a most extraordinary manner, the words of Moses and the other sacred writers, in order to make them, apparently, speak one and the same language with Plato and the rest of the philosophers of Greece.”

He also says they tried to make the Bible doctrine of the resurrection fit their immortal-soul theory. “The restoration, or resurrection of the dead, was so interpreted as to accommodate it to the tenets of the Grecian sages.”

Origen, who lived in the close of the second and the first half of the third century, was a disciple of Clement, and also for a long time sat under the teaching of Ammonius. These teachers he followed, and carried their Platonic doctrines still further, especially with respect to the immortality of the soul.

The following quotations from Mosheim will clearly show all this: “Origen’s new method of explaining and illustrating religious truths by means of philosophy, required also a new method of expounding the Sacred Scriptures; for, meeting with many things in the Scriptures repugnant to the decisions of his philosophy, he deemed it necessary to devise some method of removing this disagreement. And, as it would add confirmation to his opinions if he could make it appear that they were supported by the authority of Scripture, some plausible way was to be devised which should make his speculations appear to be taught in the holy Oracles.” Hence, “perceiving that many of the facts and declarations of the Bible conflicted with the principles of his philosophy, he felt the necessity of resorting to some means of escaping their force; and he could find none more easy and effectual than this assumption. Whatever in the sacred books conflicts with my philosophy must not be taken literally, but must be converted into allegory. Safely posted behind this rule, he could easily resist whatever the Scriptures might oppose to his opinions.” “I have,” says Mosheim, “already touched upon the causes which led him to adopt this very dangerous rule for interpreting sacred history. They are obvious to every attentive reader. The statements of the Bible respecting the creation of the world, the origin of man, etc., were contrary to the precepts of his philosophy, and, therefore, he would sooner deny the truth of a portion of sacred history than give up his philosophy.”

Was the Platonic, or Ammonian, doctrine of the soul among those errors which he wished to make the Bible uphold? Yes; hear our historian on this point: “The foundation of all his faults was, that he fully believed nothing to be more true and certain than what the philosophy he received from Ammonius taught him respecting God, the world, souls, demons, etc.; and therefore he, in a measure, recast and remodeled the doctrines of Christ after the pattern of that philosophy.” Here we have the doctrine of Christ recast and remodeled, and the Bible distorted, to make them fit the heathen doctrine of the soul, and other errors. Our author continues: “He could not discover in the sacred books all that he considered true, so long as he adhered to the literal sense; but allow him to abandon the literal sense, and to search for recondite meanings, and those books would contain Plato, Aristotle, Zeno, and the whole tribe of philosophers. And thus nearly all those who would model Christianity according to their own fancy, or their favorite system of philosophy, have run into this mode of interpreting Scripture.” Behold here the origin of the figurative interpretation of the Bible. It was invented expressly to harmonize that book with Plato’s doctrine of the soul.

So thoroughly was Origen possessed with Plato’s doctrine of the immortal soul, that, though he professed to be a Christian and to believe the Bible, yet, says Hagenbach, in his “History of Christian Doctrine,” “Origen teaches that a belief in the doctrine of the resurrection of the body is not absolutely essential to the profession of Christianity, provided the immortality of the soul be maintained.”

This is but the natural fruit of that doctrine. If the soul is immortal, and lives without the body, what is the use of a resurrection?

The influence and authority of Origen extended far and wide, so much so that Mosheim says: “It would therefore be no mistake to say, that, as Constantine the Great imparted a new form to the civil state, so this Egyptian imparted a new form to the theology of Christians. . . . Origen introduced the Academy almost entire into the church.” “Indeed, it is not to be concealed that he coincided with Ammonius in the belief that the popular religions, if their fables and superstition were excluded, might, in a measure, be combined with Christianity.” “He unhesitatingly applied to Christ’s soul whatever he had learned respecting the human soul in the school of his master, Ammonius.” Thus we have traced the history of the old heathen dogma of the immortal soul from Egypt, through all its developments, till it was received into the church. As we have seen, the last move was not accomplished without much opposition from the old-fashioned Christians, and a terrible distortion of the Scriptures on the part of its Platonic advocates. Platonism continued to obscure more and more the light of the gospel, till it deepened into the midnight of the Dark Ages. Thus of the fourth century we read: “Nearly all who attempted philosophy in this century were of the sect called Modern Platonists. . . . The Christians, from the time of Constantine the Great, devoted much more attention to the study of philosophy and the liberal arts than they had done before.”

Of the fifth century the same author remarks: “The superstitious notions and human devices by which religion was before much clogged, were very considerably augmented. As no one in those times objected to Christians’ retaining the opinions of their pagan ancestors respecting the soul, heroes, demons, temples, and the like, and then transferring them into their devotions; and as no one proposed utterly to abolish the ancient pagan institutions, but only to alter them somewhat and purify them,—it was unavoidable that the religion and the worship of Christians should in this way become corrupted.”

Will the reader mark well the fact here recorded, that the pagan converts were allowed to retain and bring into the Christian worship the opinions of their pagan ancestors respecting the soul? When were those pagan opinions ever cast out of the church?—Never; they are cherished to this day, and the man who now undertakes to reject them is branded as opposing the Bible! Alas, how hard it is to uproot an error when it has once been allowed to grow among the tender plants of truth!

But I need not pursue this painful subject further. The evidence is overwhelming that Christianity, in the third century and onward, was grossly corrupted by Platonic philosophy; and that here was where Plato’s doctrine of the soul found its way into the church. I will close with the following candid confession from an able orthodox writer: “We would express our conviction that the idea of the immortality of the soul has no source in the gospel; that it comes, on the contrary, from the Platonists; and that it was just when the coming of Christ was denied in the church, or at least began to be lost sight of, that the doctrine of the immortality of the soul came in to replace that of the resurrection. This was about the time of Origen.”

PAGAN AND CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES OF THE SOUL COMPARED.

I have already shown that the early Christians received from Platonism their doctrine of the soul. I have also shown that Christianity was grossly corrupted by the reception of pagan tenets, and that great numbers of the pagans who embraced Christianity still retained all their former notions, especially with regard to the soul. I will now present a few more points, and compare the pagan doctrine of the soul, and hell torments, with the views held by Christians on these subjects. This will show them to be the same. I have quoted good authors to prove that Christianity was deeply corrupted with pagan doctrines and practices from the last part of the second century till Catholicism was fully established, and the night of the Dark Ages spread its gloomy pall of superstition and heathenism over all the world.

Inspired men foresaw and forewarned the church of this apostasy. To the elders of the Ephesian church, Paul said: “For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.” This apostasy from the truth was to begin, then, even in the days of the apostles, and was to arise among their own disciples. To the Thessalonians, Paul wrote: “For the mystery of iniquity doth already work.” Even while the apostles were alive had this delusion begun. Paul warned his brethren not to be deceived by any man, but to “prove all things,” and “hold fast that which is good.” Yet men now think that the teachings of any professed Christian who lived as early as that, or even two hundred years later, are as good as the Bible, and not to be questioned. Hence, notwithstanding Paul’s warning, many have been deceived. Some were so far deceived by vain philosophy, even in a large and flourishing church which had long enjoyed the watchcare of the apostle, as to deny the resurrection. Hence Paul’s inquiry of the Corinthians, “How say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?” As we have seen, all the authority of the apostles was not able to crush this false doctrine; so of other heresies. Of these early corruptions, Mr. Dowling, in his “History of Romanism,” thus remarks: “There is scarcely anything which strikes the mind of the careful student of ancient ecclesiastical history with greater surprise than the comparatively early period at which many of the corruptions of Christianity which are embodied in the Roman system took their rise.”

Robinson, author of the “History of Baptism,” thus writes: “Toward the latter end of the second century, most of the churches assumed a new form, the first simplicity disappeared; and insensibly, as the old disciples retired to their graves, their children, along with new converts, both Jews and Gentiles, came forward and new-modeled the cause.” Yes; and this new modeling was done to make it fit their old pagan doctrines. Archibald Bower, in his valuable “History of the Popes,” has clearly demonstrated that Catholicism is only paganism with another name. This he repeatedly declares and proves. He says that the Christians of Rome, in the fifth century, who had come over from heathenism, “were yet but half Christians, and had only grafted the Christian religion on the old stock of pagan superstition.”

Of the influence of heathen converts upon Christianity, Mr. Bower says: “For those rites and ceremonies, however heathenish, instead of ever being given up by them, were by degrees adopted by the Christian inhabitants of the countries where the new-comers

settled. And thus the half Christians, for they were no better, remained half Christians, while the true Christians became half pagans. Thus we may well account for the many errors and corruptions that overspread and disfigured the whole face of the church, after the irruption and conversion of the barbarous nations that broke into the empire in the fourth and fifth centuries. Their usages were first connived at, and afterward adopted by the church.”

Can any one wonder that pagan doctrines came into the church and supplanted the doctrines of Christ?

Be Strong, My Heart.

By Constant Harte

Be strong, my throbbing heart, be strong! Let not the mighty flood of wrong Bear thee from what is right and true. “Some drink life's wine and some its rue;” For some 'tis mixed, of both a part; Be strong, my heart.

Be true, my human heart, be true; Say not, “There's naught for me to do;” See, here are poor and wronged and blind, Something to do can'st thou not find? Nay, nay, for thee there is a part; Be true, my heart.

Be glad, my human heart, be glad; Earth hath enough, enough that's sad; Help to draw back the pall of sin, Help to let Heaven's pure sunlight in, Shrink not from doing all thy part; Be glad, my heart.

Be kind, my heart; around thee lies Enough of pain; sad, hungry eyes Ask thee for pity; hearts that ache Appeal to thee before they break; Be not thou dumb, and weak, and blind, My heart, be kind.

Be kind, be true, be glad, be strong; Stand fast, my heart, against the wrong; Hold up the Right, crush Evil down, That thou may'st claim at last a crown, Having been wise, and done thy part, Having been strong and true, my heart.

—Constant Harte, in Advance.

The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald

“Here is the patience of the Saints: Here are they that keep the Commandments of God, and the Faith of Jesus.” Rev. 14:12.

VOLUME 53. BATTLE CREEK, MICH., FIFTH-DAY, MARCH 20, 1879. NUMBER 12.

CAN SAINTS APOSTATIZE ?

By S. Osborn

ELD. S. OSBORN.

(Concluded.)

Now let us turn to Heb. 12:14–17: “Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord; looking diligently lest any man fall from [margin] the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled; lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright. For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected; for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears.” They must follow peace and holiness in order to see the Lord, and to prevent them from falling from the “grace of God.” This plainly implies that it is possible they may fall. And to make it still more forcible, Paul brings up the case of Esau. It was impossible for him to regain the blessing, though he sought it carefully with tears; so it will be with some who apostatize. They go so far back that it is impossible for them to return, though they may use their utmost endeavors to do so. The case of Esau illustrates how easily we may sell our right to eternal glory. Oh! may those who are in the light, walk in it, hold fast, and grow continually, and not be deluded by the fatal deception that there is no danger of falling away.

Let us consider one more portion of Scripture found in Heb. 6:1–6: “Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of the resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. And this will we do, if God permit. For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.”

Notice the following points: first, they have tasted of the heavenly gift; secondly, they have been made partakers of the Holy Ghost; thirdly, they have tasted of the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come; fourthly, they were baptized, and received the laying on of hands; fifthly, they were required to leave the first principles of Christ, and not lay the foundation of repentance once again. These points show their condition as converts to God. He adds that it is impossible (having fallen away) to renew them again unto repentance. It is evident that the impossibility spoken of in verse 4 does not refer to the falling, as it is asserted by some, but to the renewing again unto repentance. The context confirms this: “Seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.” What could be plainer? And in verse 8, Paul tells us of their final destiny: “But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned.” Thus they are finally lost. These texts prove beyond a doubt that final apostasy is taught in the Bible.

Now let us notice a few objections. John 3:36: “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life; and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life.” Chap. 6:47: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that believeth on me hath everlasting life.” From these texts it is asserted that those who are truly converted have everlasting life at the present time. This we admit; but the point to be considered is, Will they lose it? What is everlasting life? John 11:25: “Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection and the life.” 1 John 1:1, 2: “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled of the Word of life (for the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and show unto you that eternal life which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us).” Again, 1 John 5:11: “And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.” Now carefully notice verse 12: “He that hath the Son, hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God, hath not life.”

These texts show as plainly as language can express it, that eternal life is not inherent in our being, but is the gift of God through faith in Christ.

Let us see if Christ will abide with the professor under all circumstances. 1 John 2:23, 24: “Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father.” “Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning: if that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father. And this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life.” He promises to be in us on condition that we abide, remain, continue, in him. Once more, 2 John 8, 9: “Look to yourselves that we lose not those things which we have gained (margin), but that we receive a full reward.” He continues, “Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.” Could language be plainer? In verse 10 the apostle says further, “If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine (that is, the danger of losing our religion and not abiding in Christ), receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed.”

CONCLUSION.

This doctrine against final apostasy is one of Satan’s devices to keep men at ease in Zion, a condition upon which a “woe” is pronounced in Amos 6:1. It is self-evident that a person will never make advancement in any respect while he is satisfied with his present condition and attainments. Men are willing to labor perseveringly with untiring effort to obtain knowledge and the perishing riches of the world, because they know that in no other way can they be obtained. But let them become convinced that they would have these things whether they labored for them or not, and they would very soon become careless and unconcerned. So whenever a person becomes satisfied that he is sure of eternal life, he will lose his interest to strive for it. May the Lord help us to prove all things, and hold fast that which is good.

ACTS 4 : 28.

By J. O. Corliss

This text is as follows: “For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.” Some have found it difficult to harmonize this language with the idea of man’s free agency, but the difficulty may be readily removed by taking into consideration the particular point aimed at in the united testimony of the apostles. They did not on that occasion render praise because Herod, Pilate, and the Jewish people had taken the life of Jesus; but because in the death of Christ was accomplished that which the hand and counsel of God had before determined,—the opening of a fountain of life to mankind.

This view relieves the text of every apparent difficulty; yet the persistent objector arises and says, “Well, some one had to do that work, and whoever did it was only doing what God designed should be done.” But because God had before determined that Jesus should die for the sins of the world, it does not necessarily follow that those particular persons were fore-ordained to engage in the work of taking his life. Admit that they were, and the Bible immediately becomes a book filled with inconsistencies of the grossest character; since it tells us that sin unrepented of shuts one out of Heaven, and at the same time makes murder one of the most heinous crimes chargeable to mankind.

Now if it be true that those men did just what God ordained that they should do, it must be acknowledged that they were doing his will just as truly as were the followers of Christ, and their conduct was therefore as meritorious as that of the apostles. It would, then, seem very inconsistent for Peter on the day of Pentecost to upbraid them for killing the “Prince of life,” and more so for them to repent of having done the will of God, and in consequence receive baptism at the hands of the apostles.

How, then, shall we account for the part they each acted in the great tragedy, if their course was not fore-ordained, since it was determined that Jesus should die for the sins of the world? They acted out the promptings of their own perverse wills, stimulated by religious enthusiasm. As a teacher and reformer, Jesus exposed the corruptions and reproved the popular errors of the day. Not being able to refute his doctrines, the priests appealed to religious prejudice by misrepresenting his statements, and thus the people were gradually prepared to demand his death at the hands of Pilate and Herod, who, from selfish motives, yielded; and the deed was done. The fact that the deed was committed at that particular time and by that particular people argues nothing, since the same causes would have produced the same results at any other time or with any other people, as is plainly demonstrated by the religious bigotry and intolerance of succeeding generations, the results of which no one would think of attributing to any other cause than to the carrying out of the inclinations of a wilful, unregenerate heart.

J. O. Corliss.

DO THE LOWER ANIMALS THINK?

By G. V. KILGORE

Many suppose that the lower animals do not think and reason. This supposition arises from the doctrine of the immortality of the soul. Those who believe that doctrine say that only immortal beings have the power of reason, and that as man has this power, the souls of men must be immortal. But the actions of lower animals very often prove that they do think and reason, and therefore it must be acknowledged, either that other beings besides immortal ones have the power to reason, or else that dogs, horses, cats, etc., have immortal souls. The latter position will not be taken by any Christian, and if the former is proved to be true, then none can claim that man is immortal because he can think and reason.

Two anecdotes have been related to me lately, which I have good authority for believing to be true; and they show that horses and dogs have memory, and exercise the power of thought. Many such might be given to show the same fact.

A farmer had a very fine colt, which he kept in his barn haltered in a certain stall. Every time the man led the colt to water, he would let him go and play, and the colt formed the habit of taking a regular circuit, after which he would go directly to the stable

, take the pin out of its place, open the door, and go into his own stall. When the colt was large enough to be used, some one stole him. Two years afterward, the real owner put up for the night at a farmhouse about one hundred miles from home; and there he saw his colt. He said to the man who then had him, “That is my colt.” “No; I bought him,” was the reply. They contended for some time, and finally the real owner said, “You must go home with me, and if the colt does not do what I tell you, then he is not mine.” And he told him of the colt’s habit. “Well, I will go,” said the other. They both went; and at the proper time the colt was led out to water, as he had been two years before. After he had drank, the man let him go, and away he ran around his old circuit to the stable door, pulled the pin out with his teeth, opened the door, and went into his own stall. “Well,” said the other man, “he is your colt.”

The other anecdote is this: A minister usually took his meals at a certain house near his appointment, and the family always cooked a chicken for him when he came. One day he happened along; and the little dog, recognizing him as he came to the door, slipped out by him quietly, and in a short time brought a chicken to the door ready to be dressed for the preacher.

Such things prove that the lower animals have minds. The colt above referred to excelled his master in proving to whom he belonged; and men are no more ready to remember that horses eat corn than this little dog was to remember that the preacher ate chickens.

G. V. KILGORE.

WORSHIP

By F. McCALLUM

WHAT matter if sometimes my lips No formal words of prayer repeat, If I in spirit serve my Lord, And learn his teachings at his feet?

If to his service all be given, Moments and days and weeks and years, What matter, so it all is his, Though filled with praises, prayers, or tears?

If in my heart his name I wear, And in my life confess his sway, What matter though I do not tell How learned the lesson to obey? F. McCALLUM.

HOME

By S. L. Guernsey

Who can be happy without a home? What sweet recollections linger about the most humble home. How we look back to the home of our childhood, and dream bright dreams of a future home; and we will spend years of our life to make those dreams actual realities. As we go beyond this life of sorrow and care, and by faith catch a glimpse of the home of the soul, how it thrills our hearts with unutterable gratitude to Him who has gone to prepare “a mansion” for us in that bright world to come.

How we should endeavor to make these earthly homes pure and beautiful. It is not the grand mansion or the elegant furniture that makes the home; but love, and kind words, and pleasant smiles, and harmony will make the plainest cottage a type of Heaven. The ideal home is the mother’s realm; and if she rules by the power of love, what a noble queen she is, and how willingly her subjects pay her homage.

While home is largely what the mother makes it, the father is the provider and guardian, and his responsibility is just as great as the mother’s. The science of making home happy is one of the most important subjects of study; for the homes of the nation shape its destiny. Let us not forget the power and influence of our homes on individuals and society, and let us endeavor to make them the glad refuge of the old and young.

Teach the children that there is no place this side of Heaven so lovely and beautiful as their home; that it is their duty to be pleasant and agreeable, and make others happy; and that they and their companions are always welcome here. Bring, make, and do everything in the home that your means will allow,—books, music, flowers, paintings, statuary, easy chairs, and comfortable furniture. But first of all bring love to God, one another, and humanity; for love is the only power that can rule the heart wisely.

There are many who are making happy homes the ambition of their lives, and it is one of the highest, noblest, grandest achievements that can be attained. No laurels of fame can compare with the assurance that we have made a complete, perfect home. Even death cannot mar it. We are but passing to another home to await the coming of our loved ones. S. L. GUERNSEY.

WALK IN THE LIGHT.

By Wm. Pepper

The light of truth is an advancing light; therefore those who have accepted present truth should be ever ready to receive additional light. The truth is like a lantern on a dark night; those who would be benefited, must walk in its light.

The following address, which Robinson made to the Pilgrim Fathers at their embarkation on board the May Flower about 258 years ago, is worthy of our consideration:—

“I charge you before God and his blessed angels, that you follow me no further than I have followed Christ. And if God shall reveal anything to you, by any other instrument of his, be as ready to receive it as you were to receive anything by my ministry; for I am confident that God hath more truth yet to break forth out of his holy word.

“I cannot sufficiently bewail the condition of the Reformed churches, who have come to a period in religion, and will go no further than the instruments of their reformation. The Lutherans cannot be driven to go beyond Luther; for whatever part of God's will he hath further imparted by Calvin, they will rather die than embrace it. And so also the Calvinists stick where Calvin left them—a misery much to be lamented; for though they both were shining lights in their time, yet God hath not revealed his whole will to them.

“Remember now your church covenant, whereby you engage with God and one another to receive whatever light shall be made known to you from his written word. For it is not possible that the Christian world is so lately come out of such thick anti-Christian darkness, and that full perfection of knowledge should break forth at once.”

Well does the historian remark: “This was the errand he gave them, and in this we have the fixed ideal of their undertaking. And they meant by ‘reformation’ all that God should teach them and their children of the coming ages, by the light that should break forth from his holy word.”

Wm. Pepper.

Woodburn, Ill.

THE BIBLE DAY.

By H. WOODRUFF

WHEN did the day begin in the days of Christ and the apostles? This is a question in the minds of many, and when we refer them to Mark 1 : 32 and similar passages, and try to convince them that we are keeping Roman and not Bible time, they say, “Yes; it may be that we are keeping Roman time; but where is your proof from the Bible that the day began with the setting of the sun?” This we think is made very plain by the language of Christ and the actions of Peter.

Jesus, as recorded in Luke 22 : 34, said to Peter, “The cock shall not crow this day, before that thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me.” Now the only questions to be settled are these: When was this said? and when did Peter deny his Lord?

When did this conversation take place? In Mark 14 : 17–20, we read that it was in the evening, or after the setting of the sun, in the first part of the night. (See verse 30.) This settles the point, so far as time is concerned. The next point is, when did Peter deny him? If it was before midnight, then so far as these texts are concerned the day might have closed at midnight; but if Peter did not deny him till just before daylight, the day could not have closed at midnight. From John 18 : 25–28, we learn that Peter denied his Lord just before he was taken into the judgment hall, and it was early, but whether early in the morning or in the evening this text does not say; but by comparing this with Matt. 27 : 1 and Luke 22 : 66, we find that the judgment hall is the same as the council of chief priests and elders, and that it was morning, daylight, when Jesus was taken there, and the crowing and denial took place just before this.

We have now shown that Jesus talked with Peter in the evening, or first part of the day, and told him that before the cock should crow that day, he would deny him. We have also shown that the denial of Peter and the crowing of the cock took place just before Jesus was taken to the hall of judgment. John 18 : 25–28. This was at daylight. Luke 22 : 66. Now if the day closed at midnight, Peter did not deny his Lord when Jesus said he would. Mark 14 : 30. Shall we believe Jesus? Yes, every time, before the traditions.

H. WOODRUFF.

FAITHFULNESS

By F. Peabody

It becomes us to be faithful, firm in adherence to the truth, not vacillating, but true and loyal. These traits have always characterized God's true Israel. No one has ever overcome but by being faithful in the hour of the trial of his faith. No doubt Noah had his faith tried many times while building the ark, yet he stood firm amid the scoffs of that wicked generation. He was faithful, and was saved when others were lost. Abraham was tried, but he proved true, and became the father of the faithful. Daniel proved faithful when one of earth's mightiest nations legislated against him. John, the harbinger of Christ, lost his life because of his faithfulness. The Papal power found millions of victims among God's faithful ones. It was to the faithful that Paul instructed Timothy to commit the truths he had learned from him. It was not to the rich, to the high, or to the great men of earth, but to faithful men, who should be able to teach others also.

Those who have been faithful to God are the ones whom he has honored in all ages. Noah could have escaped the derision of that wicked generation; Abraham could have saved himself the keen anguish he must have felt when called to offer his son; Daniel might have made a compromise with Satan, and refrained from praying to God for thirty days; John might have omitted part of his message, and lived a little longer; Paul could have eased his burdensome life by neglecting to declare the whole counsel of God; but they were faithful, and, for their faithfulness, Abraham became the father of the faithful, Daniel was greatly beloved, John was to be great in the kingdom, and Paul could anticipate a crown of life in “that day.”

God counseled his people in the Smyrna period of the church to be faithful, even at the expense of life. He now calls upon his people “to buy gold tried in the fire.” Those who are now saying, “I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing,” will not believe that those who have led out in this last, straight message have come up through such trials and tribulations, being pruned and trimmed until their faithfulness was proved. They think no such training is necessary. We look for faithfulness in them, because God has accepted them after thorough trial. God's hand is in this work. All must be tried and found faithful in a few things, before they will be called to rule over many. If we wish to be great in the world's estimation, we would do better to go and labor in its interest. This message has no place wherein such desires can be satisfied. This is a last message-bearing people, engaged in a high calling, with the interests of God's cause for almost six thousand years centering here and resting its heavy burdens upon them. We are sometimes told that we are too positive,—that we think we have the truth. Certainly, we ought to think we have the truth, and be very positive we have it. Our faithfulness will be in proportion to the confidence we have in the truth we profess. This is the last message. It embraces all Scriptural truth. It promises a consummation of redemption's plan. Oh, what a solemn work! What inducements to faithfulness! The eye of Heaven's King is upon us. All his faithful ones will win a kingdom.

F. PEABODY.

Continue reading: ETERNAL MISERY