Your ShelfYour Projects

Review and Herald, Vol. 53, No. 18.

THE EARLY FATHERS

Review and Herald

May 1, 1879

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · May 1, 1879

THE EARLY FATHERS.

By Dudley Marvin Canright

ELD. D. M. CANRIGHT.

THEOPHILUS, BISHOP OF ANTIOCH, A. D. 181.

Theophilus takes this position: “For man had been made a middle nature, neither wholly mortal, nor altogether immortal, but capable of either.” Again: “But some will say to us, Was man made by nature mortal? Certainly not. Was he, then, immortal? Neither do we affirm this. But one will say, Was he, then, nothing? Not even this hits the mark. He was by nature neither mortal nor immortal; for if He had made him immortal from the beginning, He would have made him God. Again, if He had made him mortal, God would seem to be the cause of his death. Neither, then, immortal nor yet mortal did He make him, but, as we have said above, capable of both; so that if he should incline to the things of immortality, keeping the commandments of God, he should receive, as a reward from Him, immortality, and should become God; but if, on the other hand, he should turn to the things of death, disobeying God, he should himself be the cause of death to himself.”
I commend the above to the careful attention of the reader, both as showing the faith of the church at that time, and as a very reasonable doctrine. What could be more reasonable than this, that God made Adam of a middle nature, capable of gaining immortality or of losing life? This is just what the Bible itself represents. See Genesis, second and third chapters. This we know was the faith of at least several of the prominent church fathers.
The church at Antioch was raised up by the apostles, and here the disciples were first called Christians. Theophilus was the sixth bishop of that church, which was one of the largest in all the world at that time. Besides this, says his editor, he “had a profound acquaintance with the inspired writings.” Hence, we may safely conclude that what he teaches from so high a station was the received orthodox doctrine of the church in that age. No one at that time censured him for thus teaching, so the doctrine of the immortality of the soul was not yet received by the church of God.

IRENÆUS, BISHOP OF LYONS, A. D. 185.

That the wicked will not always continue to exist, he states thus: “He thus speaks respecting the salvation of man: He asked life of Thee, and Thou gavest him length of days forever and ever; indicating that it is the Father of all who imparts continuance forever and ever on those who are saved. For life does not arise from us, nor from our own nature, but it is bestowed according to the grace of God. And therefore he who shall preserve the life bestowed upon him, and give thanks to Him who imparted it, shall receive, also, length of days forever and ever. But he who shall reject it, and prove himself ungrateful to his Maker, inasmuch as he has been created, and has not recognized Him who bestowed the gift upon him, deprives himself of the privilege of continuance forever and ever.” Again he says: To those who “are full of hypocrisy, and covetousness, and all wickedness, has he assigned everlasting perdition by cutting them off from life.” He says that Christ revealed “God to men through many dispensations, lest man, falling away from God altogether, should cease to exist.”
Of his faith Dupin says: “But he seems to have believed, as well as St. Justin, that they [souls] are immortal only through grace, and that those of the wicked shall cease to be, after they have been tormented for a long time.” The author of the Ancient History of Universalism confirms this statement of Irenæus’s faith thus: “Here he appears to think they will be annihilated; he contends that souls, or spirits, like all other created things, depend entirely upon the upholding providence of God for their continuance in being, and that they can ‘exist only so long as he will.’”
Another historian says of the doctrine of Irenæus, “And yet he did not believe that they would be punished endlessly; for he undoubtedly adopted the doctrine of the final annihilation of the disobedient and unrighteous.”
In another place he argues that immortality is a gift of God through Jesus Christ. Thus he says: “For by no other means could we have attained to incorruptibility and immortality, unless we had been united to incorruptibility and immortality. But how could we be joined to incorruptibility and immortality, unless, first, incorruptibility and immortality had become that which we also are [referring to Christ’s assuming flesh and blood], so that the corruptible might be swallowed up by incorruptibility, and the mortal by immortality, that we might receive the adoption of sons!” Again he says, “The friendship of God imparts immortality to those who embrace it.” This plainly shows his faith that none will have immortality except those who are the friends of God. Once more he says to the same effect, “Men therefore, shall see God; that they may live, being made immortal by that sight.”
Dr. Edward Beecher, in his late book on the doctrine of Scriptural Retribution, frankly confesses that Irenæus taught the annihilation of the wicked. Thus he says: “What, then, are the facts as to Irenæus? Since he has been canonized as a saint, and since he stood in such close connection with Polycarp and with John the apostle, there has been a very great reluctance to admit the real facts of the case. Massuetus has employed much sophistry in endeavoring to hide them. Nevertheless, as we shall clearly show hereafter, they are incontrovertibly these: that he taught a final restitution of all things to unity and order by the annihilation of all the finally impenitent. Expressed statements in his creed, and in a fragment referred to by Prof. Schaff, on universal restoration (History, vol. i. p. 490), and in other parts of his great work against the Gnostics, prove this beyond all possibility of refutation. He held that wicked men and devils would be consigned to the punishment of the world to come; and that this, at a time to be decided by the wisdom and justice of God, would result in their annihilation, and thus in the cleansing of the Universe from every form of sin.”
Again he says: “Returning, then, to Antioch, and passing to the north of the Mediterranean, we come to Asia Minor, the field of the seven churches of the Apocalypse and of the apostle John. As the evangelist Mark is said to have founded the school of Alexandria, so the apostle John is regarded as the founder in Ephesus of the school of Asia Minor, from which came Polycarp, Melito, and Irenæus, the great defender of the church against Gnostic heresies, and Hippolytus, his hearer and follower.”

“DR. SCHAFF ON IRENÆUS.”

“Of this father Dr. Schaff says: ‘Irenæus was the leading representative of the Asiatic Johannæan school in the second half of the second century, the champion of Catholic orthodoxy against Gnostic heresy, and the mediator between the Eastern and Western churches. He united a learned Greek education and philosophical penetration with practical wisdom and moderation, and a sound sense of the simple and essential in Christianity. We may plainly trace in him the influence of John.’—Church History, vol. i. p. 488.”

“DR. KURTZ.”

“Of this school Dr. Kurtz says that it was ‘distinguished for its firm adherence to the Bible, its strong faith, its scientific liberality, its conciliatory tone, and its trenchant polemics against heretics.’—Text Book of Church History, p. 137, Philadelphia.
“It is therefore the more remarkable that the doctrine of future eternal punishment was not taught by any of this school so far as we know, nor the doctrine of universal restoration, but, on the other hand, the doctrine of the final annihilation of the wicked was clearly taught by so eminent a man as Irenæus. Thus, in five out of six of the early theological schools we do not find the doctrine of eternal punishment.”
“Irenæus, like Justin, calls those ‘heretics’ who expected the saints’ glorification to follow immediately after death, and before their resurrection.”
From these statements, it appears that Irenæus did not believe in the natural immortality of man, nor in the eternal conscious existence of the wicked. He was one of the most famous church fathers, and bishop of a noted church. He was instructed by the venerable Polycarp, who had conversed with the apostle John; hence he was well acquainted with the doctrines of the apostles. The fact, then, that he taught the mortality of man and the annihilation of the wicked is an important item in this history.

POLYCRATES, BISHOP OF EPHESUS, A. D. 196.

Polycrates bears this interesting testimony: “In Asia, great lights have fallen asleep, which shall rise again in the day of our Lord’s appearing, in which he will come with glory from Heaven, and will raise up all the saints; Philip, one of the twelve apostles, who sleeps in Hierapolis, and his two aged virgin daughters; … moreover, the blessed Papirius, and Melito, the eunuch, whose walk and conversation were together under the influence of the Holy Spirit, who now rests at Sardis, awaiting the episcopate from Heaven, when he shall rise from the dead.” Here we have this ancient bishop of a church which Paul had planted and Timothy watered, and where John died, bearing a good witness to the faith of the church in that age in the sleep of the dead, the advent of Christ, and the resurrection. These saints were not in Heaven, but asleep, waiting for Christ.

THE LUCIANISTS.

Buck, in his “Theological Dictionary,” mentions a sect, about this time, called the Lucianists, who denied the immortality of the soul. Of their leader he says, “He denied the immortality of the soul, asserting it to be material.”
In all stages of the history of the church we find witnesses for God’s truth on this subject.

THE HERMOGENIANS.

Neander, in his “History of the Christian Religion,” mentions the Hermogenians, who denied the immortality of the soul. Of their leader he says: “At all events, Hermogenes denied the natural immortality of the soul, and regarded immortality only as a consequence of the new divine life imparted by Christ; hence he considers believers only to be immortal. All evil, evil spirits, and men who have not become partakers of the divine life, were finally to be resolved into the matter from whence they originally sprang.” Here we have still another evidence that this doctrine always had adherents in the Christian church.

THE ARABIANS, A. D. 244–249.

As we have shown in another chapter, the doctrine of the immortality of the soul began quite largely to be received by professed Christians in the first half of the third century. The primitive Scriptural doctrine of the mortality of man and the sleep of the dead was now quite largely abandoned. Yet here and there we find, as late as this, those who had not yet apostatized from the Bible faith, though they were so few as to be counted heretics. Thus of the Arabians, A. D. 244–249, Eusebius writes:—
“But about this time, also, other men sprang up in Arabia as the propagators of false opinions. These asserted that the human soul, as long as the present state of the world existed, perished at death and died with the body, but that it would be raised again with the body at the time of the resurrection. And as a considerable council was held on account of this, Origen, being again requested, likewise here discussed the point in question with so much force that those who had been before led astray, completely changed their opinions.”
1. They denied all consciousness of the dead till the resurrection. 2. Both soul and body were to live again at the resurrection. 3. The believers in this doctrine were so numerous as to require “a considerable council” to put them down; hence their number and influence must have been large. 4. “Origen, being again requested, likewise here discussed the point in question,” says Eusebius. This shows that Origen had, in other cases and before this, been called upon to defend his doctrine of the immortality of the soul. We have seen that it was chiefly through his great influence that it came into the church. The learned Dr. Neander thus candidly states the facts in the above case: “We must, however,” he says, “still mention that among the Christians of Arabia at that time, a party had caused a controversy, by maintaining that the soul died with the body, and that it would be raised again only at the general resurrection, at the same time with the body. *It was an old Jewish notion that immortality was not founded upon the nature of the soul, but was a peculiar gift of divine grace; a representation which had been transferred from Judaism to Christianity, traces of which we find in the theory of the Gnostics about the nature of the Psychici, in the doctrine of Clementine, and in the opinions of Justin and Tatian. Perhaps, also, in this district, the position of which placed it in close connection with the Jews, it was no new doctrine, but the predominant one from ancient times; and perhaps the influence of Origen (in whose system the doctrine of the natural immortality of the soul necessarily obtained a place) first effected the change that this latter should obtain universal acceptance among the church teachers of that district; and that the small party, which still maintained the old opinion, should appear heretical, although the predominant opinion had previously really pronounced itself against it (the new opinion). Hence we may understand how the convocation of a great synod was considered necessary in order to allay these controversies. When they were unable to agree, Origen was invited by the synod, and his influence prevailed upon the opposers of the doctrine of the natural immortality of the soul, to acknowledge their error and renounce it.”
These admissions from such an eminent historian as Dr. Neander fully confirm all I have claimed on this question. It will be remembered that Neander was a converted Jew, and hence well qualified to state what was the original Jewish doctrine of immortality. The Arabians held to the old and ancient doctrine of the people of God, the sleep of the dead, and denied the immortality of the soul. It was not till the middle of the third century, and even then only by a mighty effort, that they were drawn from it. Dr. Good confirms Neander’s statements, by saying that the Arabians never believed in the immortality of the soul.

THROUGH DARKNESS TO LIGHT.

By M. Boden

The city of God is fair, Untouched by pain or sin, No child of grief or care Shall dwell its walls within; For God shall wipe away our tears, And bless his own through endless years.
The way to this city of light Is long and often drear; We wander day and night, Sometimes in doubt and fear; And here and there along the way, We stop to weep, to plead, and pray.
Our feet grow weary oft Of plodding on and on, And as we look aloft, Our guiding-star seems gone; While hands that fondly clasped our own Slip out of ours, and we're alone.
Alone?—No, there is One Who stretches out his hand, And bids us follow on, Into the promised land; This Friend beguiles the weary hours— The way begins to bloom with flowers.
And as we near the end, Our journey almost through, Jesus, our blessed friend, Points to the prize in view. O rapturous sight! O glorious spot! Where earth-born care is all forgot!
For just before us lies The city of our King, Its walls of jasper rise, A grand, enduring thing; So beautiful this home, and blest, We gladly hail its offered rest.
O city of love and light Where only glad hearts be, No shadows of coming night Shall ever fall on thee; And time, decay, nor threatening storm Can ever mar thy beauteous form.
And thou shalt always stand, Blest paradise of God, Within the promised land, To Eden bloom restored. And those we loved shall gather here, To share thy comfort and thy cheer.
M. BODEN.
Romeo, Mich.

A FALLACIOUS ARGUMENT.

The argument of the vast antiquity of the earth, founded on elevations of coasts at a given rate of upheaval, needs circumscribing, when we reflect that two hundred and fifty years ago Sir Francis Drake’s fleet sailed into Albemarle Sound through Roanoke outlet, which is now a sandbank above the reach of the highest tides, and which only seventy years ago was navigable by vessels drawing twelve feet of water. The coast of South America has in some places been upheaved twenty feet in the last century; in others, depressed to the same extent. So with other arguments. Lyell thinks that the doctrine of the pristine fluidity of the earth, and the gradual consolidation of its crust, is one of the scientific theories which has been adhered to after the props by which it was first supported have given way, one after the other.
Again, geologists vaunt the long periods of time that roll by while the strata are forming, as if they had determined them with mathematical exactness, without reflecting on the fact that vegetables kept for a year and nine months in hot water have been changed into dark lignite; and a cloth, exposed to steam for six years, changed to black and glistening carbon. Moreover, to show how cautious we must be in arguing from these changes the great antiquity of the earth, let us remember that in tropical countries plains may be in a day converted into lagoons and marshes.
Two thousand four hundred years ago Nineveh flourished in all its grandeur; now, its very site is overwhelmed with sand. Old Tyre—the mistress of the sea, the queen of cities, two thousand four hundred and forty years ago—is now a bare rock in the sea, on which fishermen spread their nets. A thousand years ago, Greenland was a fertile and well-peopled land, and Iceland was covered with woods of birch and fir, with waving fields of barley and other grain.
So strange, so complete and comparatively rapid have been the changes wrought on the face of the earth in historical times, that we need no fabulous myriads of years to account for the formation of geological strata. Wisely on points like these, St. Thomas wrote: “In questions of this kind, keep fast to two things: 1. Let the truth of Scripture be held firm and unshaken; 2. When Scripture may be interpreted in more than one way, we must not stick so fast to any one interpretation that, if it be proved that what we held to be the sense of Scripture is false, we should still continue to uphold it; since this causes Scripture to be laughed at by unbelievers, and keeps them out of the way of believing.”—Selected.

HEARKEN UNTO ME.

By A. W. Jenson

“Come, ye children, hearken unto me; I will teach you the fear of the Lord. What man is he that desireth life, and loveth many days, that he may see good? Keep thy tongue from evil, and thy lips from speaking guile. Depart from evil, and do good; seek peace, and pursue it,” Ps. 34: 11–14; 1 Pet. 3: 10, 11. I know of no man who is not willing to pronounce this good counsel; but I know of thousands who, saying Amen to this advice, still live and act in open disregard of it. To such I would say, Remember that “if any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man’s religion is vain.” James 1: 26. “Evil communications corrupt good manners. Awake to righteousness, and sin not.” 1 Cor. 15: 33, 34.
But guile and deceitfulness are not the only evil communications spoken of in the Bible. Paul, in Eph. 4: 29, says, “Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.” “Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient; but rather giving of thanks.” Chap. 5: 4. Jesting and foolish talking can, I understand, properly be called corrupt communications. Dear brethren and sisters, how often you have disregarded the solemn warning against this sin I know not, and care not to know; for I have enough to do with myself. I tremble when I look at the past, and ask, Will all my foolish talking, jesting and idle words meet me in the Judgment? Oh, what a question! But, praise God, “if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.” 1 John 2: 1. To him let us go for the past; but let us for the future remember the solemn saying of our Saviour, “But I say unto you, that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of Judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.” Matt. 12: 36, 37. The apostle James tells us, “The tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison.” Chap. 3: 8. Let this, therefore, be our constant prayer, “Set a watch, O Lord, before my mouth; keep the door of my lips.” Ps. 141: 3.
A. W. JENSON.
Kaufman Co., Texas.

THE FIVE BOOKS OF MOSES.

By A. Smith

Some one under an assumed name, through the columns of the Grand Rapids Times, assailed the authenticity of the Bible, and especially the genuineness of the Pentateuch. The following reply we think will be of interest to the readers of the REVIEW:—
“Please permit me to say a few words in reply to ‘Lycurgus,’ in regard to the genuineness of the five books of Moses, called the Pentateuch. We have a constant and uninterrupted tradition, going back to the very time when these books were written, to the effect that Moses was their author. The entire Jewish nation, from the very first, have always believed that Moses was the author of these books. On them they rested their civil, political, and religious institutions. At the time of Christ and his apostles the Pentateuch existed in its present form, and was believed to be from Moses. Christ and his apostles often refer to it and make quotations from it, as the New Testament shows. Josephus and the various writers of the Talmud say that Moses wrote these books. These books were in existence two hundred and eighty years before Christ, because about that time the Greek or Septuagint version was made; and this version is concordant in all points with the Hebrew text. It is true there is a difference in chronology between our present version and that of the Septuagint; but that is a question of translation.”
“We also possess the Samaritan version of the Pentateuch, which brings it back to the death of Solomon, which occurred about one thousand years before Christ.”
“After the death of Solomon the ten tribes separated from the tribes of Judah and Benjamin under King Jeroboam. 1 Kings, chapter 12. And those tribes carried with them their copies of the books of Moses. See also 2 Kings, chapter 17.”
“There was always great opposition between the two sections of the Jewish nation, and they watched over the Pentateuch jealously, so that it was impossible that any changes could have been made in it. The Samaritans would not accept of any other sacred writings than the Pentateuch. The Samaritan text is written in the ancient Hebrew letters. See Jonin’s ‘Evidences of Religion,’ p. 106.”
“The writings of Moses are referred to in many places in the books of Joshua and Judges. Thus it will be perceived that we have traced the Pentateuch up to the time it was written. I do not perceive how any one can get away from this powerful historical proof.”
“The last chapter of Deuteronomy was not written by Moses, because it relates his death and burial. It was probably written by Joshua, his successor. The classification of the Bible into books, and chapters, and verses is of modern date. Neither Christ nor his apostles anywhere refer by name to books, or to chapters, or verses.”
“‘And these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before there reigned any king over the children of Israel.’ Gen. 36: 31. The above words are to be taken in a prophetic sense. They had reference to Jacob’s prophecy, which Moses had in mind at the time. Jacob also prophesied kings to Israel. I have been unable to find the above verse, and the remaining verses of the 36th chapter of Genesis, in the first chapter of the first Chronicles, as ‘Lycurgus’ stated. [1 Chron. 1: 43, etc.]”
“The following passage in Ex. 16: 35 is to be construed in the same sense; to wit: ‘And they [the children of Israel] did eat manna, until they came unto the borders of the land of Canaan.’ Both of these passages are idiomatic, and they have been translated literally.”
“With regard to the giant mentioned in Deut. 3, who was Og, king of Bashan, and who had a bed of iron in Rabbah, Moses says, in the 13th verse, that he delivered all Bashan, the kingdom of Og, to the half tribe of Manasseh. In 2 Samuel 12: 26 we read: ‘And Joab fought against Rabbah of the children of Ammon, and took the royal city.’ How does that prove that Moses did not write Deuteronomy? Moses took the entire kingdom, including the city, in his day. Some four hundred years afterward, Joab took the same city. How can you say this did not happen?”
“I do not think Moses made use of the words ‘Gentiles’ or ‘Palestine.’ These are the words of the translators of King James’ version of the Bible. That that version contains thousands of [verbal] errors, I am willing to concede.”
“I would be pleased to be referred to the authority saying that St. Jerome doubted that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. Moses speaks of the city of Dan, which was called Leshem, which it is claimed only received the name of Dan after the conquest. The probability is that the city had two names, Dan and Leshem. Both of these words mean the same thing. This may have been the reason which prompted the Danites to take possession of the city, though not included within the limits assigned to their tribe. See Jonin’s ‘Evidences of Religion,’ p. 112.”
According to Buck’s Theological Dictionary, the Pentateuch, consisting of the five books of Moses, was held by the Jews in such veneration that they would not allow it to be laid upon the bed of any sick person, lest it should be polluted by touching the dead.
The following terse testimony to the authenticity of the Bible as a whole, I transcribe from “The Encyclopædia of Religious Knowledge”:—
“The scattered, despised people, the Jews, the irreconcilable enemies of the Christians, keep, with amazing care, the Old Testament, full of the prophetic history of Jesus Christ, and by that means afford the world a striking proof that the New Testament is true; and Christians, in their turn, show that the Old Testament is abundantly confirmed and explained by the New.”
“It is exceedingly remarkable that the more humble and holy people are, the more they read, admire, and value the Scriptures; and, on the contrary, the more self-conceited, worldly-minded, and wicked, the more they neglect, despise, and asperse them.”
A. SMITH.

“WELL DONE.”

By M. WOOD

You will find these words, dear reader, recorded by the inspired penman in Matt. 25: 21, 23. They are evidently designed to teach us a practical lesson. The Bible contains both practical and theoretical lessons, and many seem perfectly satisfied with the latter, and work upon the plan that what is mine is my own. In the parable of the talents recorded in Matt. 25: 14–30, we find a beautiful promise, soul-inspiring, and well calculated to stimulate and quicken our energies to work in the cause of God. But I fear that in many instances we lose sight of the real facts, and work as though we believed in the plan of universal salvation.
From the text referred to above, we can come to but one conclusion, that those who have done well, been faithful unto God according to the talents intrusted to them, will enter into the joy of their Lord. Is this boon of priceless worth given to those who thought to do well? Is it reserved for those who wait for a more convenient season? Is it for those whom God has made stewards over his household, and who have proved recreant to their trust? Is it for those who have run well for a season, but have become so captivated by the world and its evil influences as to lose their love for the truth? Is it for those who pocket their hundreds and thousands year after year, and yet permit the cause of God to be cramped and crippled for want of the means committed to their trust? Is it for those who with a well-filled purse allow their periodicals stopped, because they have either lost faith in the message, or are too penurious to renew their subscription? Is it for those who cease their efforts, because they can see no immediate good arising from their distribution of reading matter? Is it for those who grind the face of the poor into the dust of the earth? Is it for those of whom the prophet Malachi speaks in chap. 3: 8?
These are pertinent questions, and well worthy of our consideration. Jesus said, “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of Heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in Heaven.” It is God’s will that we improve upon the talents given to us, whether five, two, or one. God does not require us to perform impossibilities. What we need is to be wholly consecrated to him and to his service, to have a spirit of meek submission to his righteous will. Like the patient ox, we should be ready for either the plow or the altar. The reckoning day is fast approaching. Brother, if you have but a single talent, put it to usury, lest you hear these dreadful words spoken to you: “Depart from me, thou wicked and slothful servant.” “He that knew his Lord’s will, and did it not, shall be beaten with many stripes.”
M. WOOD.

KINDNESS

By Eliza H. Morton

The heart, the heart, oh, who can tell The secrets of the heart? Deep hidden woe may slumber there, Of human life a part.
Thy hand, perchance, can ease that woe, Thy voice sweet comfort bring, Thy finger guide the thirsty soul Where “living waters” spring.
O fellow-man! O mortal dust! Act well thy part below; Speak kindly words, do loving deeds, And seeds of mercy sow.
And thus thy name shall written be On fleshly tablets here, And far above, in “God’s own Book,” In glittering lines appear.
ELIZA H. MORTON.

INFIDELS AND LAW-ABOLISHERS.

By Roswell F. Cottrell

The repetition of the Sabbath commandment in the fifth chapter of Deuteronomy is seized as a strong fact both by infidels and those who would have the moral law abolished. The former class proclaim a contradiction between this and the same commandment in Ex. 20; but the latter, it would seem, can never find the commandment as given by the voice of God at Sinai, and engraved by his finger on the tables of stone, but endeavor to prove from Deut. 5 that the deliverance from Egyptian bondage was the reason for instituting the Sabbath; and hence that the Sabbath did not exist from the creation, and is therefore only obligatory upon the Jews. One who reads a whole Bible can see that the creation of the world in six days, and the rest upon the seventh, is the reason for instituting the Sabbath; and that the gracious deliverance of the Israelites from Egypt was only urged as an additional motive that they should “KEEP the Sabbath day to sanctify it, as the Lord” had commanded them before, in Ex. 20. See Deut. 5:12. Now both the infidel and he that would abolish the Sabbath of God, can find a refutation of their position on this text in the following extract from Scott’s reply to Payne:—
“The fourth commandment, as it stands in the fifth chapter of Deuteronomy, varies from the original law in the twentieth chapter of Exodus; hence it is inferred that the writer of these books received his materials from tradition, or invented them himself. But impostors do not admit such apparent inconsistencies, which may at all times be avoided with very little trouble; so that they are rather proofs of the writer’s conscious integrity. In fact, Moses, when delivering a most impressive and pathetic exhortation, did not confine himself to the words which he had recorded as an historian. The people very well knew the original ground for hallowing the Sabbath, in honor of the Creator; and he thought himself at liberty to remind them of their obligation to Jehovah their Redeemer from Egyptian bondage, and of the humanity due to their bond-servants; for this constitutes another important reason for hallowing the Sabbath. Distinct motives are not necessarily inconsistent. Mr. P., in writing his several pamphlets, might aim both to free mankind from vulgar prejudices, and to obtain celebrity for himself; and he might deem it proper on some occasions to insist on the one motive, and in different circumstances to bring forward the other, without being justly chargeable with inconsistency or self-contradiction.”
R. F. COTTRELL.

The Duty of Perfecting Holiness.

By C. F. Phelps

To every true lover of Christ, the theme of holiness will not be unwelcome, and there is no class of believers that may more appropriately labor for the highest privileges of the gospel of Christ than those who acknowledge their obligation to the unchanged law of God, and are striving to live in obedience to its precepts.
“Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned.” 1 Tim. 1:5. Paul earnestly exhorted the church at Corinth, that were doubtless living in obedience to the law, and including himself he says, “Let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.” 2 Cor. 7:1. But in order that this work of purity and holiness may be truly wrought in us, the law of God must be appreciated, loved, and obeyed from the heart with no reservation; and having thus laid the true foundation of “a faith unfeigned,” we should leave these first principles of the doctrine of Christ, and “go on unto perfection, not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, and of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.” Heb. 6:1, 2. Having in these “principles” “a good conscience,” it is our privilege, yes, it is our bounden duty, to count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus our Lord, and, “reaching forth unto those things which are before,” to “press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.” Phil. 3:8, 13, 14. He has recorded for the encouragement of our faith and hope: “If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.” John 15:7. “All things are possible to him that believeth.” Mark 9:23.
To place the standard of the faith of Jesus lower than this, endangers our final salvation; for it is dishonoring to Him who has promised us such excellent gifts, and is at once a proof that our faith is not of that exalted character “that works by love” and purifies the heart.
At this time, when infidelity in the most alluring guise meets the unwary in every path of life, how great is the responsibility resting upon those who through the Spirit have become enlightened in the way of truth and holiness. The world needs the light that emanates from truly sanctified lives. It needs noble examples of a real faith in God and of trust in his word, and it needs those whose daily life exhibits that self-sacrificing spirit that would be expected in a people that confess themselves “pilgrims and strangers” here, looking for “a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.”
“Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned.” Sweet Charity, the crowning grace of redeeming love, how oft she veils her lovely face from the spirit of many professors of Jesus, who seem to forget her gentle admonitions, and suffer envy and jealousy to embitter their hearts against those they should love in Christian fellowship. This precious spirit of love is allied indissolubly to holiness of life, as the beloved St. John writes, “If we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.” 1 John 1:7.
It should be our constant aim to live daily in the spirit of Paul’s prayer for the Thessalonians: “And the Lord make you to increase and abound in love one toward another, and toward all men, even as we do toward you, to the end he may establish your hearts unblamable in holiness before God, even our Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all his saints.” 1 Thess. 3:12, 13. C. F. PHELPS.

ASKING FOR NOTHING.

The following simple incident strikingly illustrates many a prayer offered to the Most High:—
Little Bob begged hard the other day, when some friends were dining with us, to be allowed to come in and sit at the table during dessert, which I told him he might do, provided he neither talked nor annoyed people by asking for fruit. He very readily assented to this condition, which he honestly fulfilled to the letter. At last I heard the poor little fellow crying and sobbing most pitifully.
“What is the matter, Bob?” I said; “what are you crying about?”
“Why, pa,” he replied, “here I am, asking for nothing, and getting it.”
Look now at the promise: “He that asketh, receiveth.” “If ye shall ask anything in my name, I will do it.” “Whatsoever things ye desire when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them.” “Ask and receive, that your joy may be full.”
These are the promises of Him who has said: “All power is given unto me, in Heaven and in earth.” We ask for every good thing which God has promised; why are they not bestowed? Why do those who offer these petitions continue to cry, “My leanness, my leanness!” Has God closed his ear to the cry of the needy? Does he not intend to give what he has promised? This is the cause of failure: “Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss.” There is no faith that the prayer will be answered. Indeed, if one in ten of all the prayers offered to God were answered, the petitioners would be the most astonished persons in the world. We must remember that there is no real asking, unless it be “in faith.” For want of this faith, “we ask for nothing, and get it.”
How many addresses are made to God, without confession or supplication; giving him information on various subjects; telling him how great he is, how long he has existed, what he has done, and what we have failed to do. This is not praying. Prayer is supplication, entreaty; it is to urge, to implore; and all “in faith, nothing doubting.” This kind of prayer gets what it asks for, because it asks “according to the will of God.”—Advocate of Christian Holiness.
Continue reading: THE STREAM OF SACRED HISTORY