Your ShelfYour Projects

Review and Herald, Vol. 53, No. 3.

THE SOUL'S IMMORTALITY

Review and Herald

Jan 16, 1879

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jan 16, 1879

THE SOUL'S IMMORTALITY.

By Dudley Marvin Canright

The Belief of Various Nations Concerning It.
BY ELD. D. M. CANRIGHT.

AFRICAN RACES.

The Damaras, one author says, “have no expectation of a future state.” Another author says, “Though the Damaras do not profess absolutely to believe in a life hereafter, they have a confused notion of a future state.” The reader will see that there is no countenance for the immortal-soul doctrine here.
Mr. Moffat, speaking of the Bechuanas, says, “Man’s immortality was never heard of among that people.” The East Africans have “no notion of a soul, or spirit.”
“The Bulloms and Timmanus have no fixed opinion respecting a future state; for, though they speak of future rewards and punishments, their ideas on this head are vague and fluctuating. They do not believe that the spirits of their deceased friends return to visit their former abodes, nor have they any word in their language to express a spirit, or apparition.”
The faith of the inland negroes is shown by the following:—
“The negresses of Matamba throw the corpses of their husbands into the water, in order that along with the body they may drown the soul, by which they would otherwise be troubled.” “The Wanikas of East Africa ‘have neither god, nor devil, nor heaven, nor hell, nor soul, nor idol.’”
Of the people of Madagascar, Mr. Ellis says:—
“Still more vague and indefinite are the ideas they entertain respecting the human soul and its future existence. They have no knowledge of the doctrine of the soul as a separate, immaterial, immortal principle in man, nor has their language any word to express such an idea. They speak of the saina, but mean by this the intellectual powers. They speak also of the fanaky, the nearest term found to express spirit, but it seems in their use of it to imply principally the moral qualities or dispositions. . . . The next question is, What becomes of the saina, or mind, when a person dies? To which the Malagasy replies, It is a part of the body. But does it return to dust with the body in the grave? No; the body returns to dust and the saina becomes leizona, i. e., vanished, invisible. And the aina, or life, becomes rivota,—air, or wind, not retaining its individuality; but absorbed and lost in mere aura—a mere breeze—a breath in the general mass of air floating around.”

TRIBES OF THE WESTERN CONTINENT.

As we have seen, the Chibchas of Central America expect a future life through a resurrection. The Peruvians hold the same doctrine. “With respect to the soul, the barbarians of Mexico, as they tell us, believed that it died together with the body.”
The inhabitants of Guatemala “were persuaded that to die by any other than a natural death was to forfeit all hope of life hereafter; and therefore left the bodies of the slain to the beasts and vultures.” They had no idea of the immortality of the soul; for they believed that some utterly perish, and that those who do obtain a future life gain it by a resurrection of the body.
The people of Nicaragua being asked what about the future state replied, “We only know that infants who die before they have tasted maize, or are weaned, will be raised again, and return to their father’s house; and their fathers will recognize and provide for them. Old people who die will not return nor be raised again.” Being asked where Indians go when they die, they replied that they go beneath the earth, where “they are buried; and all is over.” A few just and brave warriors are exceptions, as they ascend, to live somewhere else.

THE ESQUIMAUX OF ALASKA.

Some important facts with regard to these tribes are stated in the following quotation. Mr. Dall has traveled among them extensively, and hence is well prepared to state their belief. He says: “Many Indians, in fact all the Timneh that I have conversed with who have not been taught by the English or Russian missionaries, do not believe in the immortality of man. Of those who have a dim notion of the kind, none have any idea whatever of a future reward and punishment, of any Supreme Deity or power, of good and evil in a moral sense, or of anything which can be called a religion. Assertions to the contrary proceed from the ignorance or poetic license of the author, or from intercourse with the tribes that have derived their ideas from the missionaries.”
Yes; many of the assertions so confidently made concerning the faith of different barbarous tribes and nations in the immortality of the soul, proceed, as Mr. Dall remarks, from the ignorance or poetic license of the author, or from intercourse with those who have been taught by missionaries. No such doctrine was held among them when first found. Thus upon a little inquiry, we find that there are scores of barbarous tribes who have never dreamed that the soul is immortal.

THE INDIANS.

I know it is often asserted that the different Indian tribes of America all believe the soul immortal; but I have looked in vain for the proof. They have some vague ideas of a future life, but their ideas are all very gross and material indeed. They expect to be in the next world much as they are here,—to take their dog, and knife, and arrows with them, and use them there the same as here. This is far from indicating a belief in an immortal, immaterial soul. The least hint that they have any idea of a hereafter has been taken as positive proof that they believe the soul immortal. But this is an unwarranted assumption. There are no facts to sustain it.

CHRISTIANS.

From the days of the apostles to the present time, there have been more or less Christians who have rejected the dogma of the natural immortality of man. Of late their numbers are rapidly increasing. They are found in large numbers both in Europe and America. With a very few exceptions, the whole body of Adventists are of this faith; so also are thousands in other churches. They believe the Bible implicitly, and believe in future rewards and punishments, and eternal life for the saints; but they do not believe in the immortality of the soul nor in the conscious state of the dead. They hope for a future life through the resurrection.
Another class must be counted out, as non-believers in man’s immortality. We have traveled from the Atlantic to the Pacific, from Minnesota to Alabama, and preached the doctrine of the mortality of man. Wherever we go, we find a large class of persons who say that they were never satisfied about the immortality of the soul, and never could really believe it. We find these persons both in the churches and out of them; yet they are commonly counted as believers in that dogma. Again, there are many thousands of intelligent skeptics who do not believe the soul immortal.

SUMMARY.

We confidently believe that the facts we have presented fully explode the oft-repeated argument that the immortality of the soul has been universally believed. Facts are against it. But if it had been generally believed, so have other monstrous errors. The oldest idea of a future life was, that it is obtained through a resurrection. This view was held by the Egyptians, Persians, Arabians, Mohammedans, Jews, Christians, Peruvians, and even some barbarous tribes of all countries.
We have shown that the doctrine of the immortality of the soul was first taught by the Egyptians; that there is no trace of it in the early history of ancient nations; that it was denied by most men in the time of Socrates; that the masses did not believe it in the time of Polybius; that the contrary of the soul’s immortality was the prevailing opinion in the time of Cicero; that this disbelief was full as extensive in the first century; that nearly all the great schools of philosophy openly denied it; that even those who professed to believe it held it only on the principle of emanation and re-absorption, which virtually annihilates all individuality; that none of the ancients could possibly believe it, as they all held to a great periodical destruction of all things; that the Arabs were ignorant of the doctrine; that the Jews did not believe it; that the Hindoos and Buddhists, comprising fully one-third of the human race, implicitly hold to the annihilation of all men; that the Chinese do not believe it; that many of the Mohammedans believe in the sleep of the dead; that many of the natives of Asia, of Polynesia, of Africa, and of the Western Continent have no such doctrine among them; that it is not proved that the native Indians believe it; that there are many Christians who deny it; and that, finally, there are thousands of others who have no faith in this doctrine. These facts show that but a small portion of the race have ever believed in the immortality of soul.

THE ORDER TO BE PURSUED IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ORDINANCES.

By W. H. Littlejohn

BY ELD. W. H. LITTLEJOHN.
(Concluded.)
Let us advance now to an examination of what Matthew has said concerning the matter which is passing in review. It will be found in the twenty-sixth chapter of his Gospel, and reads as follows:—
“Now when the even was come, he sat down with the twelve. And as they did eat, he said, Verily I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me. And they were exceeding sorrowful, and began every one of them to say unto him, Lord, Is it I? And he answered and said, He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, the same shall betray me. The Son of man goeth as it is written of him; but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born. Then Judas, which betrayed him, answered and said, Master, is it I? He said unto him, Thou hast said. And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for the remission of sins. 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. And when they had sung a hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives.” Matt. 26:20–30.
The reader will observe that Matthew makes mention of four of the events spoken of by John, and one in addition, of which John does not take notice, i. e., the Lord’s supper.
He will also discover the fact that there is nothing that Matthew says which will enable us to locate the “breaking of bread” definitely with reference to the relation which it sustains in point of time to the “washing of feet.” Matthew simply remarks that the bread and the wine of the eucharist were partaken of while they were eating, without particularizing further. His statement must be taken as one that was not designed to be given in chronological order; else his account would disagree with that of Luke; since, if it is given in chronological order, Matthew places the “breaking of bread” after the identification of Judas as the traitor; whereas Luke locates it before that event in the most unqualified manner. Matthew evidently carries his history forward through the passover supper, the washing of feet, the sitting down again of Christ at the table, and the pointing out of Judas as the traitor, and then—in accordance with a custom often followed by the sacred writers—he falls back in his narrative once more in order to bring up the matter of breaking of bread (which he had previously omitted), in the use of the words, “And as they were eating, Jesus took bread,” etc.
We are now ready for the parallel passages in Mark, which we give verbatim herewith:—
“And in the evening he cometh with the twelve. And as they sat and did eat, Jesus said, Verily I say unto you, One of you which eateth with me shall betray me. And they began to be sorrowful, and to say unto him one by one, Is it I? and another said, Is it I? And he answered and said unto them, It is one of the twelve, that dippeth with me in the dish. The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him; but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had never been born. 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 when I drink it new in the kingdom of God. And when they had sung a hymn, they went out into the Mount of Olives.” Mark 14:17–26.
What has been remarked of Matthew is equally true of Mark.
He also omits the Lord’s supper in his general account, and then falls back in order to mention it in the use of a similar expression to that which Matthew employs; i. e., “And as they did eat, Jesus took bread,” etc.
As already remarked, any other interpretation would inevitably lead to inextricable confusion; for, as suggested above, it would leave Matthew and Mark in conflict with Luke; since Luke certainly represents the breaking of bread as having transpired before Christ pointed out Judas as the betrayer.
The only objection which could with any show of reason be raised to the interpretation which we have offered, will be found in the suggestion that Matthew and Mark speak of the breaking of bread as having occurred “as they sat and did eat.” This objection, however, we do not regard as valid. It may be met in one of two ways. 1. It is not impossible that the idea which the evangelists meant to convey was simply that the breaking of bread took place while yet they were at the table of the passover supper. 2. It is not incredible, or even improbable, that after the Lord arose and washed the feet of the apostles and sat down a second time to the table, they might have resumed their eating which had been prematurely broken off by the mysterious action of Christ in the washing of their feet.
Either of these hypotheses is preferable to a view which would make Matthew and Mark flatly contradict Luke, and at the same time put them out of harmony with John.
Should any person still insist that we have erred in reasoning that the accounts of Matthew and Mark do not give in consecutive order the events to which they make reference, then we reply: Should we grant the objector’s desire and concede that they speak of the transactions just as they occurred, and that their accounts should be taken instead of that of Luke, such a concession would not alter the conclusion reached materially; for by reading what they say with the understanding that it is connected history, they will be made to teach that the Lord’s supper followed what the Lord said to Judas about betraying him; this being so, then it must also have followed the feet-washing; since John shows that the washing of feet occurred before they sat down to the table the second time, that event being numbered two in his table, while the declaration of Christ to Judas, in the same table, is numbered four.
Thus it has been made to appear that—take whichever horn of the dilemma may please him—the objector will be compelled to admit that feet-washing must have preceded the breaking of bread on the memorable evening on which our Lord partook of his last passover supper.
Reconstructing, now, our table of the order of events based upon the account of John, and inserting therein in its proper place—as determined by the record of Luke—the celebration of the Lord’s supper, the reader will be enabled to obtain a consecutive view of the principal occurrences of the evening: 1. Passover supper; 2. feet-washing; 3. Sat down the second time to the table; 4. Lord’s supper (Luke 22:19–21); designated the one who should betray him; 5. Said to Judas, “That thou doest, do quickly;” 6. Judas went out to betray him; 7. Discourse to his disciples; 8. Went out to the Mount of Olives.
A brief summary of some of the principal points which have been made in the present article would run as follows:—
1. The supper mentioned in the thirteenth chapter of John was the passover supper.
2. The account given in the thirteenth chapter of John, being the fullest of any furnished by the evangelists, and giving, as it evidently does, the events which it enumerates in consecutive order as it regards each other, furnishes a basis for a table with which to compare the statements found in the other gospels.
3. In such a table it is manifest that the “washing of feet” preceded the pointing out of the traitor.
4. Luke mentions the Lord’s supper, while John omits that supper, and connects it with the pointing out of the traitor; which event is numbered four in the table of John.
5. Matthew’s account is not given in consecutive order, and therefore does not affect the question.
6. Mark’s account also is not given in consecutive order; and, therefore, it does not affect the question.
7. We are left, consequently, to the accounts of John and Luke for the settlement of the whole matter; and as Luke connects the Lord’s supper with the designation of Judas as the traitor, it must be joined with that event, i. e., the one numbered four in the table of John.
8. Uniting the Lord’s supper with No. 4 as found in John’s table, we ascertain that the Lord’s supper must have followed the feet-washing; since “feet-washing” is, in the same table, numbered two.
Having now, as we believe, removed all the difficulties which lie in the way of our theory that the feet-washing preceded the Lord’s supper, and having established that theory by a line of argument which is both natural and easy, and which cannot be successfully controverted, we leave the subject with the reader, trusting that what has been said will commend itself to his judgment.

THE EARTH MADE NEW.

By J. S. Thorp

Back to this weary, weary world Jesus will come again, With love's fair banner wide unfurled, King of his saints to reign; His presence will dispel earth's gloom, And deserts will rejoice and bloom.
The wilderness and lonely place, Shall for them gladdened be, Instead of thorns and briers then Shall grow the myrtle tree; And thirsty land and parched ground In springs of water shall abound.
Ye who are of a timid heart, Be strong and do not fear; With vengeance and a recompense Your God will soon appear; Then ears long deaf unstopped shall be, And the blind eyes be made to see.
Then shall the lame leap as an hart, And the dumb tongue shall sing, And waters in the wilderness And desert, forth shall spring; And death, and pain, and tears, and woe, The earth redeemed shall never know.
Then shall the ransomed of the Lord Gladness and joy obtain; And unto Zion's holy mount Return, with Christ to reign; And 'neath Immanuel's peaceful sway Mourning and grief shall flee away.
There New Jerusalem appears, With walls and mansions grand;— The home of saints through endless years, Within the promised land; Blessed are they whose ransomed feet Tread its transparent golden street.
Within its walls the tree of life In vernal beauty grows, And forth from underneath the throne Life's deep, clear river flows; And flowers of tint and perfume rare With sweetest fragrance fill the air.
There, fairer than the fairest spot This world has ever known, The flower-decked fields of paradise Outspread before the throne; And earth to its remotest bound In living verdure shall be crowned.
Then let us to our trust be true, Still watching with the wise. Keeping our Lord's return in view And pressing toward the prize; For soon with Jesus we shall rest, Loving and loved, forever blest.
J. S. THORP.

DO THE TEN TOES OF THE IMAGE (DAN. 2: 42-44) SYMBOLIZE THE TEN KINGDOMS?

By George I. Butler

In my recent debate with Eld. Padget at Half Rock, Mo., I saw the importance of the above query as I had never before realized it. I had always held the view usually accepted among our people, that the ten toes represent the same fact that is symbolized by the ten horns of chapter seven. This seemed to me most reasonable, and more harmonious with other texts than any other view. But I did not realize that it was so vital a point till after the debate.
Among others we debated this proposition: “Do the Holy Scriptures teach that the kingdom of God, mentioned in Dan. 2: 44 and parallel texts, was set up on the day of Pentecost or during the lifetime of the apostles?” He affirmed, I denied. I had never heard this question debated; hence the ground was somewhat new to me; but, if possible, he failed more completely on this proposition than on any other. Our position on the “kingdom of grace” spoiled all the proof-texts from which he could make any argument worthy of the name, while those texts referring to the “kingdom of glory” he could not meet. He most strenuously contended that the term “these kings” in the expression “in the days of these kings shall the God of Heaven set up a kingdom,” must refer to the four kings or kingdoms; viz., Babylon, Medo-Persia, Grecia, and Rome; that no other “kings” are mentioned in the chapter, and hence as Rome has long since passed away this kingdom of God is already set up and so cannot be future; that it was positively set up as late as the time of Rome’s supremacy. He made the strongest effort on this point that he made in the course of the whole debate, even contending that the ten kingdoms were not mentioned in this chapter, while he admitted that they were mentioned in the seventh chapter.
He quoted Dan. 7: 13: “I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of Days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom.” He then quoted Acts 1: 9, where it is said that at Christ’s ascension a “cloud received him out of their sight,” and claimed that thus our Saviour was borne into the presence of his Father at his ascension, and received the kingdom. He contended that in Mark 8: 1, where it is stated that some there present should not taste of death till they should “see the kingdom of God come with power,” the setting up of the kingdom of God was indicated. But on no point did he labor so hard as on Dan. 2: 44: “In the days of these kings shall the God of Heaven set up a kingdom.” This he was sure must mean the four kings, for no ten kings, or kingdoms, were mentioned there; and hence the prophet predicted that Christ’s kingdom should be set up in the days of Rome, or during the lifetime of the apostles.
It becomes, then, a very vital matter to show that the kingdom set up “in the days of these kings” could not have been established in the time of Rome’s supremacy; that the term “these kings” refers to the ten kingdoms, and not to the “four;” and that the ten toes are designed to symbolize precisely the same as the “ten horns” of Dan. 7.
It will be readily seen in an examination of the great image of Dan. 2, that there are five symbolic substances brought to view,—gold, silver, brass, iron, and clay; and five divisions of earthly empire are represented by them, the last being represented by a mixture of iron and clay. It must be admitted that Rome in her supremacy is represented by the legs of iron with no clay ingredient whatever. If so, then the feet of iron and clay, before the development of the toes, would naturally represent Rome after she had become weak, and when she was upon the point of being divided into the ten kingdoms represented by the toes. That such a state of weakness existed, history plainly attests. The iron and clay-iron periods are certainly distinct from each other, and so that which is represented by them must be distinct, as much as the gold, silver, brass, and iron states are distinct one from another. In each enumeration of these substances, the clay element is mentioned as distinct. See verses 35, 41, 42 and 45. If the legs represent Rome in her supremacy, then the clay-iron period must represent something else, viz., that which succeeded the Roman Empire, a state of division. Verse 41. The legs of iron alone represent a kingdom which is a unit. The clay-iron toes represent several kingdoms existing cotemporaneously, hence a divided state. Such a state did not exist till hundreds of years after Christ, and this state or condition of the Roman empire is symbolized by the ten horns of chap. 7, and by the ten toes of chap. 2.
I introduced substantially the following conclusions, as positively settling this matter of the time of the setting up of the kingdom of God:—
1. The stone smote the image on the feet of iron and clay, and not on the legs of iron. As the legs of iron represent Rome in her supremacy, God’s kingdom could not have been set up during this supremacy, which would bring us hundreds of years this side of Pentecost.
2. The stone broke the feet in pieces. This could not have been done before they existed.
3. The mixed or clay-iron state did not exist for four or five hundred years after Christ, hence the Roman power at this stage of its history could not have been destroyed by the stone during the lifetime of the apostles.
4. No such result has been seen as that which the prophet states will occur when the stone smites the image; viz., the breaking and utter disintegration of the whole substance of the image. Hence the smiting of the image cannot be in the past.
5. The smiting of the image by the stone, preparatory to the setting up of the kingdom, is a violent process utterly inconsistent with the peaceful establishment of Christ’s church and kingdom of grace.
6. “In the days of these kings” cannot mean Babylon, Medo-Persia, Grecia, and Rome; for the kingdom was not set up during the time of Babylon, nor of Medo-Persia, nor of Grecia. Hence it should read, to sustain that theory: “In the days of one of these kings.” The language plainly implies by the use of the term “these kings,” those ruling cotemporaneously, viz., the ten kings.
7. The term “the kingdom shall be divided” clearly shows that the prophet spoke of the divided state of the Roman empire in the clay-iron period, and did not confine himself to the four kingdoms.
8. He speaks of this divided state as “the toes of the feet,” which were “part of iron and part of clay,” showing that some of these kingdoms would be strong and some weak.
9. And he says these should “mingle themselves with the seed of men,” and should not “cleave one to another,” showing that there would be changes among them, and unions would be formed which would not be lasting. Such a state of things requires several cotemporaneous kingdoms, and could not exist if there were but one kingdom. This state precedes the setting up of God’s kingdom.
10. The prophet then says, “In the days of these kings [or as the literal Chaldaic marginal reading puts it, in their days,] shall the God of Heaven set up a kingdom.” This must positively refer to the ten toes, or the kings represented by them, and it fixes the time of the setting up of God’s everlasting kingdom to the time of the ten kingdoms, and not to that of the four.
11. If the stone means the church, it would be far more proper to say that the image smote the stone than that the stone smote the image; for these persecuting powers have constantly smitten and slain the church, and the true church has never smitten these powers. They have put fifty-six millions of the church to death.
12. In smiting the image, the stone was to do a work of destruction which God’s church never has done and never could do. To war against earthly governments has never been in harmony with the principles of Christ’s church. We are to pray for kings and those in authority, pay taxes, and support governments. Hence, in that application, there is nothing answering to the destruction caused by the stone smiting the image.
13. The process of smiting is evidently a sudden and rapid one, for the stone utterly subverts and demolishes all earthly kingdoms; hence, in nothing does it resemble the establishment of Christ’s church. How could the church utterly destroy Babylon, Medo-Persia, Grecia, and Rome? It would be contrary to the whole genius of the Christian church.
14. This kingdom was not to be left to “other people;” but the church is left to generation after generation, as they come alternately upon the stage of action. Hence this kingdom cannot be the church, and hence it could not have been set up in the time of the apostles.
15. This kingdom could not have been fully set up while those other kingdoms existed; for in the process of its being set up, it was to destroy them and succeed them. As Medo-Persia succeeded Babylon, Grecia succeeded Medo-Persia, and Rome succeeded Grecia, so this kingdom of God destroys them all and reigns in their stead. But the church exists during the very time that these kingdoms exist; hence the church could not be the kingdom in question.
16. That the ten toes of the image represent the ten kingdoms, seems evident from analogy. There are five symbolic representations which commentators generally agree represent Rome and the ten kingdoms arising from the division of the Roman empire, unless this in Dan. 2 is an exception. These are the fourth beast of Dan. 7, the great red dragon of Rev. 12, the leopard beast of Rev. 13, the scarlet beast of Rev. 17, and the fourth division of the great image. In four of these there is no question but that the ten horns refer to the ten kingdoms; for the facts do not exist which would make it possible to fully apply these symbols till the ten kingdoms are developed, and there is nothing else for them to symbolize. In Dan. 7, the “little horn” rises among the ten, and they exist cotemporaneously. The dragon of Rev. 12 has the same ten horns, and it does its work of persecution several hundreds of years after the day of Pentecost. The leopard beast, with its ten horns, exists and persecutes during the forty-two prophetic months. The scarlet beast of Rev. 17 carries the church, the symbolic woman, who persecutes by means of the civil power. All these exist and persecute the people of God long after Christ’s ascension. How unreasonable and contrary to all analogy to suppose the ten toes of the fourth division of the image of Dan. 2, which division all must admit refers to the same Roman power, symbolize nothing.
Four symbols of Rome have ten horns to represent the ten kingdoms which rose out of Rome. Another symbol representing the same power has the same tenfold division, but these mean nothing! Who cannot see that to deny a truth so obvious is a desperate attempt to save a sinking theory? The ten toes of the image are a mere excrescence, and mean nothing, represent nothing, unless it be the ten kingdoms. Yet the prophecy represents the kingdom as being divided at the very time the ten kingdoms are developed. They are placed at the very same point in this prophecy that the ten horns of chapter 7 stand. If the horns represent the ten kingdoms, the ten toes clearly must, and thus the prophecy is perfectly harmonious with the facts, with itself, and with other prophecies covering the same ground.
GEO. I. BUTLER.

THE POWER OF THE ENEMY.

By C. N. Suttle

Our Lord bids us watch and pray, lest we enter into temptation. How essential that we heed these words. We cannot lay our armor by and think there is no more danger; for Satan is watching to see if there is not some unguarded spot where he can enter. Let us remember with what a wily foe we have to contend.
Have you not in watching the spider seen how he overcomes his prey? When first caught in his web, the fly struggles hard and long to free itself. The spider watches him with great anxiety. Soon, seemingly exhausted, the fly ceases his efforts. Had he struggled but a moment longer, he would have been free. Unlucky moment! for now his enemy darts toward him, and throws his web around him. The efforts of the victim seem to be more feeble, but still he struggles on for a little time. Again he stops, and again the web is drawn around him. At last the spider has him in his power, and he binds him stronger and stronger until there is no hope.
Does not Satan work in a similar manner? He does not bind his cords around us all at once, but works so artfully that before we are aware we are in his power. Like the spider, he eagerly watches for a favorable moment, that he may bind about us, one by one, the cords of sin. He is well pleased with his success, and smilingly notes the effect on his victim. And so time after time he throws around us his web of deceit, till at last, like the poor fly, we cease to struggle. Satan has triumphed. Ah, how sad to contemplate! Had we struggled on a little longer, we might have come off conqueror; but now nothing but the infinite mercy of God will enable us to burst the bands that bind us.
Let us buckle on the armor of faith more firmly, and heed the voice of our Great Commander.
We cannot stop by the way, for there is danger. We may be sorely tempted and tried; but let us remember the trials of Christ,—that he was tempted in all points as we are,—and his grace will be sufficient for us. He says, “Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.” Let us struggle on a little longer. Soon we shall hear the voice of our Redeemer, and the victory will be won. C. N. SUTTLE.
Continue reading: Notes of News