Your ShelfYour Projects

Review and Herald, Vol. 53, No. 11.

THE IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL

Review and Herald

Mar 13, 1879

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Mar 13, 1879

THE IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.

By Dudley Marvin Canright

ED. D. M. CANRIGHT.

GREAT POPULARITY OF THE ECLECTIC SCHOOL.

We will briefly notice how popular and extensive this school became. All agree that it acquired a wonderful degree of eminence, and soon extended itself over most of the Roman empire and eclipsed the glory of all other sects. To this effect writes Mosheim: “While the emperors and magistrates were striving to subvert the Christian commonwealth by means of laws and punishments, it was assailed with craft and subtilty, during this whole century, by the philosophers of the Ammonian school, who assumed the name of Platonists, extended their disciples over nearly all the Roman empire, and gradually obscured the glory of all other sects.” Again: “The school of Ammonius, the origin and dogmas of which have been already stated, gradually cast all others into the background. From Egypt it spread in a short time over nearly the whole Roman empire, and drew after it almost all persons inclined to attend to metaphysical studies. This prosperity of the sect was owing especially to Plotinus, the most distinguished disciple of Ammonius, a man of intellectual acumen, and formed by nature for abstruse investigation; for he taught first in Persia, and after ward at Rome and in Campania, to vast concourses of youth; and embodied his precepts in various books.” Says Enfield: “The pernicious influence of the Eclectic system, both upon opinions and manners, through many succeeding ages, will be seen in the sequel.”
Says Mosheim: “It is almost incredible what a number of pupils, in a short time, issued from the school of this man [Ammonius]. But among them no one is more celebrated than Porphyry, a Syrian, who spread over Sicily and many other countries the system of his master, enlarged with new discoveries and sedulously polished. At Alexandria, almost no other philosophy was publicly taught from the time of Ammonius down to the sixth century.”
The first step which was taken toward apostasy was attending the school and cultivating a taste for its philosophy. An eminent historian says: “Of these [changes] the most considerable and important are to be attributed to a taste for the cultivation of philosophy and human learning, which, during the preceding [first] century, if not altogether treated with neglect and contempt by the Christians, had at least been wisely kept under, and by no means permitted to blend itself with religion; but in the age of which we are now treating [the second century], burst forth on a sudden into a flame, and spread itself with the utmost rapidity throughout a considerable part of the church. This may be accounted for, in some measure, from its having been the practice of the many Greek philosophers, who, in the course of this century, were induced to embrace Christianity, not only to retain their pristine denomination, garb, and mode of living, but also to persist in recommending the study of philosophy, and initiating youth therein. In proof of this, we may, from amidst numerous other examples, adduce in particular that of Justin, the celebrated philosopher and martyr. The immediate nursery, and very cradle, as it were, of Christian philosophy, must, however, be placed in the celebrated seminary which long flourished at Alexandria under the denomination of the Catechetical School. For the persons who presided therein in the course of the age of which we are treating, namely, Pantaenus, Athenagoras, and Clement of Alexandria, not only engaged with ardor in the cultivation of philosophy themselves, but also exerted their influence in persuading those whom they were educating for the office of teachers in the church to follow their example in this respect, and make it their practice to associate philosophical principles with those of religion.”
The reason why that heathen doctrine spread so widely and so rapidly in the church, is shown by the following from an eminent historian: “Many from the different sects of philosophers, especially from the Platonists, and also from among the rhetoricians, embraced Christianity; and they were honored for their erudition and talents by being made bishops and presbyters.” The learned Platonic Christians, being now made teachers and ministers in the various churches, soon disseminated their Platonic doctrine of the soul everywhere throughout the Christian church.
And the same author says: “In fact, there are but few points of Christian theology which the teachers who were inflamed with this eager desire to produce a union between Christianity and philosophy left untouched.” Another historian bears this testimony: “Very soon after the rise of Christianity, many persons who had been educated in the schools of the philosophers becoming converts to the Christian faith, the doctrines of the Grecian sects, and especially of Platonism, were interwoven with the simple truths of pure religion. As the Eclectic philosophy spread, heathen and Christian doctrines were still more intimately blended, till at last both were almost entirely lost in the thick clouds of ignorance and barbarism which covered the earth.” Of the Eclectic school he says: “The muddy waters sent forth from this polluted spring were spread through the most celebrated seats of learning, and were even permitted, as we shall afterward see, to mingle with the pure stream of Christian doctrine.” Once more: of the teachers of the church, he says: “Through several centuries they partook of the spirit of the Alexandrian school, and the Eclectic method of philosophizing Platonized Christianity.”
Though this is astonishing beyond measure, yet we readily see how it was accomplished. All the sects of heathen philosophers except the Platonic denied any future life to man; but Plato strongly contended for a future state of rewards and punishments. This naturally led the Christians to regard the Platonists as friends and allies upon this great question of the fact of a future life, though they differed as to how it was to be obtained. Christians rested their hope upon the resurrection of the dead as promised in the Bible. At this the heathen philosophers mocked as being unreasonable and unphilosophical, as they cared nothing for what the Bible said. See their answer to Paul at Athens in Acts 17. Now the Platonists came in with their philosophical argument to meet their antagonists, and prove a future life by means of the soul’s immortality. In this way reason and philosophy could be made to support the hope of the simple-minded Christians, which before rested solely upon the promise of the Scriptures. The promise of relief and help, and of having a more philosophical faith, was a very flattering one. As Eve listened to, and was beguiled by, the serpent, so they listened to these philosophers, were flattered with their praises, accepted their help, adopted their notions, and finally united with them.
Reader, here is the origin of the present orthodox doctrine of immortal souls, disembodied spirits, ghosts, eternal hell, etc. Thus the learned commentator on Cudworth’s Intellectual System says: “The Platonic philosophy, indeed, which was approved by the ancient Christians, has been abandoned, and another substituted in its place; but the dogmas and conclusions derived from it have been retained by most men in all their pristine integrity; and any one conversant with the ancient philosophy, might write a long and copious commentary upon the relics of the Platonic philosophy among Christians. Thus happens it with mortals. The primary and fundamental doctrines of a sect are very often repudiated by those who preside over communities; while they either are unwilling to interfere with the consequences and institutions that proceed from them, owing to their ignorance of their origin, or are unable to do so, because the people are not easily prevailed upon to abandon inveterate customs. In the course of time, many opinions and rites are held sacred, which those who are addicted to them would hold in far different estimation if they were thoroughly aware of their origin.”
Yes; the immortal-soul theory is a relic of Platonic philosophy which thousands would quickly drop did they know its origin.

PLATONISM OPPOSED.

But was all this heathen philosophy and pagan doctrine received into the church without opposition? No, indeed. Many, nay, all, of the more pious men warmly opposed it, for they foresaw its effects. Mosheim thus records the controversy: “The rise, however, of this taste for philosophical speculation, and the ascendancy which they perceived it gradually acquiring in the minds of so many of their teachers, became a source of the most poignant regret to all such as continued steadfastly attached to that ancient and simple species of piety which had been delivered down by the apostles and their disciples, inasmuch as they saw reason to fear that the cause of celestial truth might be thereby materially injured, as in reality proved to be the case, and that divine wisdom would not long retain either its proper value or dignity in the estimation of mankind. In consequence of this, the Christian church became divided into two parties, which opposed each other with the utmost warmth. The issue of this dispute, which lasted for a considerable while, at length was, that victory declared itself in favor of the patrons of philosophy, and that those teachers came to be most respected, who, in unfolding the doctrines of religion, called in the aid of philosophical principles and precepts.” This was the very thing against which Paul had warned the church: “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy.” Col. 2:8. The better class of Christians remembered this, and were opposed to receiving this heathen philosophy into the church.
In his “Ecclesiastical History,” Mosheim, after naming the class who were in favor of introducing Platonism into the church, adds: “But a great majority thought otherwise.” “But gradually the friends of philosophy and literature acquired the ascendancy. To this issue Origen contributed very much; for, having early imbibed the principles of the new Platonism, he inauspiciously applied them to theology, and earnestly recommended them to the numerous youth who attended on his instructions. And the greater the influence of this man, which quickly spread over the whole Christian world, the more readily was his method of explaining the sacred doctrine propagated.” Hence, in a short time, Bible truth and those who advocated it were put down and held in contempt. Says our author: “There were various persons of this sort in the fourth century, who were disgusted with the progress of superstition and of errors respecting the true nature of religion, and who opposed the general current; but the only fruit of their labor was, that they were branded with infamy.” Rome came in and condemned them as heretics, and thus silenced all opposition.

Bible Characters and Their Imperfections.

By William H. Littlejohn

BY ELD. W. H. LITTLEJOHN,
It is difficult for some persons to reconcile the sins of individuals who figure prominently in Holy Writ with the fact that those persons were employed by the Lord in the development of the great plan of human redemption. To them it seems incomprehensible that God should ever have spoken words of approval to those who had been guilty of great offenses, and utterly inconceivable that he should make them the direct mediums of revelation.
While sympathizing measurably with those who find themselves troubled in the manner in question, we nevertheless believe that their difficulties arise from a superficial view of the subject. More profound reflection, and a larger insight into the purposes and plans of God, would, we believe, enable them to see the matter in a very different light. While it should ever be a source of regret that any person, whether called good or bad, should yield to temptation and fall into sin, it by no means follows that such a person might not, after suitable repentance, be restored to full favor with God.
Before the skeptic rejects this proposition, let him pause and consider the terrible consequences which would necessarily follow if this principle were not defensible. Does he claim to be a sinless one himself? If so, we commend him to a deeper study of his own heart. But if he shall concede the fact of his own dereliction in duty, then we inquire whether he feels that he has been restored to full favor with Heaven. Should he answer in the negative, we ask again if he believes that his own iniquities have separated him forever from the loving consideration of the God of Heaven. Does he not believe thatin some way it either is now, or will be at some future time, possible for him to be reinstated in the divine favor?
Must he, throughout the endless ages of eternity, be held at a distance from the God who made him, and be debarred from full communion with him, as the penalty of past transgression? Does he really believe that God is irreconcilable to those who once have offended him?
If so, he has invented for himself a punishment as long in duration, if not as terrible in its pangs and sorrows, as that which it is claimed will be administered in that orthodox hell which he is so apt to repudiate as repugnant to every idea of right and dictate of reason. But, on the other hand, if he regards it as at least possible that he could, by a proper course of conduct, be brought into full fellowship with his Maker, we ask if he has any other method of accomplishing this except through repentance and reform. If not, are not these routes of return as available to others as to himself? Is it not possible that when Abraham, or Jacob, or Moses, or David did violence to their own convictions of duty, and broke the commandments of God, they, in like manner, might have returned, with suitable words and contrition of heart, to Him whose law they had trodden under foot? If they had done this, is it incredible that he would have received them with open arms, and placed the seal of his approbation upon them by admitting them into full communion with himself? Before the possibility of this is denied, let it be remembered that in doing so the attribute of God’s mercy would thereby be ignored, and the destiny of millions would become unalterably fixed and hopeless.
Should it be objected still that the sins of these men were so aggravated in their character that it is difficult to conceive it possible that God should ever condescend to speak through them by the Holy Spirit, we reply that among those whom God directly inspired to write and speak words of instruction for the ages which were to follow, were men of all types of character and shades of temperament. Among them were individuals whose lives were remarkably free from departures from the rule of rectitude, as well as those whose career was marred by transactions which it is not only difficult to justify, but which are unquestionably utterly indefensible. Should we judge of the first class from the standpoint of modern morality, we should not award to them the credit which they deserve; for we should fail to appreciate the unfavorable nature of the surroundings under which their characters were developed. Should we attempt to estimate the censure which should be laid upon the latter class, we should doubtless exaggerate the measure of their blame; for we should fail to make due allowance for the untoward influences which conduced to their fall.
The ages in which these persons lived were periods of great moral darkness. The virtues which they practiced were rarely exemplified by others; and the sins which they committed, and which shock us at the present time, were quite generally indulged in and defended by the nations of that epoch. This being the case, the credit due to those whose virtues, like those of Abraham, have hardly been equaled in this age, can scarcely be applauded too highly; while the occasional lapse into popular vices by such persons as Jacob and David must be treated with much greater charity than like acts could possibly be at the present time. The race has gradually moved out of the dim twilight of primeval conceptions of doctrine and duty into the full blaze of the gospel sunlight, which so perfectly illuminates the minds of all men that there is no longer room for doubt as to what course of action would be the proper one in a given set of circumstances. God’s plan seems to have been to lead men forward and upward, slowly it may be, but, nevertheless, as rapidly as the circumstances would admit of. As the mind of the child can only be developed by degrees, so it has been necessary for Providence to patiently lead men on, age after age, in the gradual process of enlightenment and reform. In doing this work, it has been a necessity that he should employ such instruments as were available to his hand. Had he acted upon the principle which some suggest by refusing to reveal himself except through persons of faultless natures, then he would never have revealed himself at all; for such persons could not have been found in the past any more than they can be at the present time.
All men have sinned, and “like sheep have gone astray.” The bigot of to-day may wrap himself in the mantle of his own perfection, and indulge in hypocritical “cant” in regard to the sins of Bible characters; but let him pass through the same ordeal through which these men passed, and let his inner life be revealed through the pen of Inspiration, and we apprehend that—taking into account the difference in the opportunities and moral surroundings—there are few of this class whose lives would bear the scrutiny thus turned upon them as well as have those whose virtues they forget, and whose vices they never weary of condemning.
In the closets of many of the modern praters against Abraham, and Moses, and Jacob, and David are suspended skeletons the exposure of whose unsightly forms—should the door be set ajar by some modern Nathan—would at least rebuke their hypocrisy, if it did not correct their folly.
God, however, knows how to discriminate, and he has manifested his wisdom in speaking by those by whom he must have spoken if he spoke at all. We think also that he has displayed his divine love, as well as knowledge, in employing just the classes which he has employed in the work of making up the canon of Inspiration. Had he confined himself in the work of revealing his will to the world to men who, like Enoch, were able to walk with him without stumbling for three hundred years, it appears to us that his word would have lost much of its power in, and adaptation for, the work of saving men. While there are a few individuals who are comparatively blameless in their lives, the great mass of mankind, when convicted by the Holy Spirit, realize the turpitude of their sins so fully that unless God had made the most ample provision to counteract the reaction of the mind thus awakened they would fall into despair and discomfiture.
It would be in vain for you to try to help such by citing them to some sinless one whom God had loved, and to whom he had revealed himself. Turning away from you with an air of hopeless distrust you would receive this response: “His case was not like mine; God loved him because he had never sinned; but he cannot love me, because I am covered all over with pollution.” If, then, you should avail yourself of the opportunity with which God has furnished you in the cases of great transgressors in the past, and call his attention to the fact that the Most High could even so far pardon David and Jacob, and others who had been the perpetrators of great and terrible wrongs, as to make them the objects of his tender regard, and chosen instruments in the evolution of his great plan for the redemption of others, then you would pour courage into his soul and inspire hope in his dejected heart.
It is not enough that pardon simply should be offered to the erring one. He needs something more than this to assure his complete return to the path of virtue. It will be necessary that you should be able to promise not only that the penalty for his crimes shall be made void, but you must also be in a situation to declare confidently that his past sins shall not act as a bar to his future usefulness and full fruition of joy. Let him feel that it will be merely possible for him to be saved, but that his sins have so far estranged him from the God of Heaven that he can never again win his confidence and enjoy that fullness of fellowship which others may experience who have been less faulty than himself, and you hang over his spirits a dark cloud, whose shadow will be ever present to bring gloom into the soul, and to induce that fruitless regret for past mistakes which, if not dispelled, so often develops into despair and ends in ruin. He who has not made this phase of human experience a matter of study, has but little conception of the important place which it must fill in every successful plan for the redemption of men. The Christian minister not unfrequently finds it necessary to have recourse to the history of such cases as that of Peter, who denied his Lord and swore that he never knew him, before he can make the least impression upon minds which the enemy, having first led into sin, has afterward driven to despondency. The relief is not found simply in the fact that Peter was guilty of a terrible crime, but in that fact when coupled with another one, which was that the Lord did not cast him off entirely because of what he had done, but, after the hearty repentance of the apostle, brought him into a nearness to himself more close and sacred than he had enjoyed before.
The hopeless one sees in such a case not only pardon but restoration. He loathes his sin, and now with all his heart he loves the God who can pardon the sin, and open to the sinner the road of usefulness as fully as though he had never gone astray.
Here, then, we have the solution of the whole question. God has not erred in calling into his service men who either had previously been transgressors, or those whom he knew would fall thereafter.
The man who finds fault with him for so doing is quarreling with his own soul.
There is no feature in God’s work, as revealed in his word, which should inspire in our hearts such love for him as should the fact that he has given us practical demonstrations of his willingness to make, not only Enoch and Abraham, and Joseph and John, but also Jacob and David and Peter, the vehicles to bear his message of mercy to a fallen race.
Let us therefore praise his name that while everywhere throughout his word he condemns the wrong-doing of the sinner, and speaks in the most approving manner of holiness, he has nevertheless devised a plan whereby he that has gone astray can return to his Father’s house, feeling not only that there is bread enough there, but also that he will be welcomed to a place as near the heart of the great Father as is that occupied by other sons and daughters who have been more fortunate in their earthly pilgrimage.—Allegan County Democrat.

THE CHRISTIAN LIFE.

By Eliza H. Morton

The saints of God are saved by grace, And blessed with holy love; They have a peace, abiding, sure; A faith that soars above;
A hope like anchor strong and true; A joy so tender, sweet, That things of earth grow faint and dim, When cast at Jesus' feet.
The Spirit dwells within the heart, And angels hover near; The Saviour's smiles illum[e] the way, And banish every fear.
A “gate ajar” is seen on high, And gleams of glory fall Upon the path that upward leads, While loving voices call.
At times the vail seems scarce to hide That glorious far-off land; And eyes of faith can almost see The shining, singing band.
The heart cries, “Abba, Father,” God! O give the long-sought rest! O tear away these clogs of earth, And gather with the blest!
And thus it is the Christian lives, And, living, yearns and longs For greater peace and sweeter love, And higher, grander songs.
But soon will come the gala day, Soon Christ will claim his own; With power and might and glory bright, He’ll take the promised throne.
And then the gate will open wide That mansion hides above; And saints will find their heart’s desire In never-ending love.
A vail no more the land afar Will interpose between; But we behold its waters clear, And fields of living green.
The “King in beauty” there will reign, And joys eternal flow; The “earth will blossom as the rose,” And glory dwell below.
ELIZA H. MORTON.

Can Saints Apostatize?

By Eld. S. Osborn.

ELD. S. OSBORN.
(Continued.)
Take the case of Ahithophel, in 2 Sam. 16:23: “And the counsel of Ahithophel, which he counseled in those days, was as if a man had inquired at the oracle [word] of God; so was all the counsel of Ahithophel both with David and with Absalom.” This proves his standing with God and his people. Now for his apostasy and death. Chap. 17:23: “And when Ahithophel saw that his counsel was not followed, he saddled his ass, and arose, and gat him home to his house, to his city, and put his household in order, and hanged himself, and died.” This man was a priest. Chap. 15:12. He was David’s counselor, and because he sinned in that he turned away from David, God’s anointed, to Absalom, God, at the request of David, left him; and he was so grieved because his counsel was not taken, that he took his own life. Who will say that he is not a lost man?
One more individual case is found in 1 Kings 13:1. The record says: “Behold, there came a man of God out of Judah by the word of the Lord unto Bethel.” The context shows that the object of his coming was to cry against the sin of Jeroboam. Notice that he is here called a man of God. What stronger testimony do we want of his entire acceptance with God? He had a charge from the Lord, which was, “Eat no bread, nor drink water, nor turn again by the same way that thou camest.” But he was induced to disobey, by a lie told by an old apostate prophet. Verse 18. Here he finally apostatized, and was slain by a lion on his way home. Verse 24. These instances will satisfy any one who is honest, so far as individual cases are concerned.
Now let us take a general case, in Ex. 15. Moses and the children of Israel sang a song setting forth their condition before the Lord. The second verse says, “The Lord is my strength and song, and he is become my salvation. He is my God, and I will prepare him a habitation; my Father’s God, and I will exalt him.”
In verses 16 and 17, the expressions, “till thy [God’s] people pass over,” and “Thou shalt bring them in, and plant them in the mountain of thine inheritance,” show their acceptance with God, or, in other words, that they were converted. Notice, too, how he rained bread from heaven to feed them. And more, their names were all written in Heaven. Read again Ex. 32:31–33, already quoted. Now hear Paul’s comment upon it. 1 Cor. 10:2–4. They “were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and did all eat the same spiritual meat, and did all drink the same spiritual drink; for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ.” Does genuine conversion require more than is here expressed? I think not.
Now notice their apostasy, mentioned in verses 5–12. “But with many of them God was not well pleased; for they were overthrown in the wilderness.” In verses 5–11, he speaks of their deplorable condition, and exhorts us not to follow their example. Read carefully: “Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted. Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play. Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand. Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents. Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer.” The 11th verse is almost a repetition of the 6th, but its application to us is a little more forcible, as we live so near the close of time. But notice the apostle’s caution in verse 12: “Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.” Says the objector, “There is no danger.” But Paul thinks there is great danger. These scriptures show that we are subject to the same danger of falling as were the Hebrews.
This is further illustrated in the fourth chapter of Hebrews, as follows: “Let us therefore fear, lest a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it.” Verse 6: “Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it [the gospel] was first preached entered not in because of unbelief.” Verse 9 says, “There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.” And verse 11 exhorts, “Let us labor therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.” Still it is urged by some that there is no danger of a final fall.
Again, the identity and condition of the Jews and Gentiles, and the possibility of their falling, is fully sustained by Jeremiah and Paul. In Jer. 11:16, the Lord, addressing the Jewish church, says: “The Lord called thy name, a green olive tree, fair, and of goodly fruit; with the noise of a great tumult he hath kindled fire upon it, and the branches of it are broken.”
Paul takes this up in Rom. 11:17, where Jeremiah left off: “And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree, boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.” That is as much as to say they will give no honor to the parent stalk. The wild olive tree (which represents the Gentiles) is able in its own mind not only to nourish itself, but the parent stalk also. Oh, how unnatural, yet how true! Talk to them concerning the fall of the Jews, and they will disclaim all dependence upon that church for salvation. How boastful and independent the pretended churches of Christ are in our day. This is what Paul endeavors to correct. He continues, “Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off that I might be graffed in. Well, because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. [Caution] Be not high-minded, but fear. [Reason] For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.” What stronger language can be used to show the apostasy of some. And we are in greater danger than were the Jews; for they were the natural branches, and we are the unnatural ones.
Verse 22, it seems to me, establishes this point beyond cavil. It reads, “Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, [condition] if thou continue in his goodness; otherwise thou shalt be cut off.” If this does not prove apostasy, language cannot be framed to do it.
But a dying man will catch at a straw; thus they appeal to verse 26 for help. It reads as follows: “And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob.” Objectors know that in order to get help from this text they must show that this embraces the entire stock of Abraham. But this will not do, for the text places it on condition of being turned from ungodliness. Let Paul explain himself. Rom. 9:6: “For they are not all Israel which are of Israel; neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children.” Well, who are the seed, or Israel? Paul says: “They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God.” This defines the true Israel.
John 15:1–12: “I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. Every branch in me that beareth not fruit, he taketh away; and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit. Now ye are clean (truly converted) through the word which I have spoken unto you. Notice the condition. ‘Abide in meme, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine, no more can ye, except ye abide in me.’ Says the objector, If a man is truly converted, he will abide in the vine. If this is so, how vain the reasoning of Christ! Look at the figure. He takes a natural vine and branches to represent the church and its members. Now take a walk in Mr. ——’s vineyard. You will notice, on some of the vines, dead branches, that do not bear fruit. When the husbandman comes along, he will pare them off, and cast them out to be burned. These branches were once alive, and perhaps bore fruit. But branches sometimes die on the vine; and in such cases there is no bringing them to life again. Now if this figure is worth anything, it proves the final apostasy of some.
The same idea is continued in verse 6: “If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.” This illustration shows beyond doubt that man can apostatize. We may know whether we are apostatizing or not. The test is found in verse 8: “Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples.” Verse 9 exhorts us to continue in Christ’s love. Verse 10 tells us that we may abide in Christ’s love, by keeping his commandments. Verse 12 tells us what one of these commandments is; “it is to love one another as I have loved you.”
Now look at the several points made; viz., first, Christ is the vine (compared to a natural vine); secondly, the disciples are the branches (compared to the natural branches); thirdly, some of the natural branches will wither and die, and it will be necessary to cut them off (so will it be with the branches of the church); and fourthly, when the branches wither and die on the stalk, there is no restoring them to life again. This is so plain and natural that every one can see it if they will. I might rest the whole argument on this text, and consider the case fully made out; but as there are so many others having a bearing on this point, I ask the attention of the reader while I present a few more.
In Jude 6, it is said that some of the angels kept not their first estate. If angels, who were created so much higher and so much more perfect than man, could apostatize, why not man? 2 Pet. 2:15 says: “Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray.” Verse 20 is decisive: “For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.” He says further, “For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them. But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb. The dog is turned to his own vomit again, and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.”
Notice the points made in the foregoing: 1. Even angels have fallen; 2. The persons mentioned had been converted, for they are spoken of as having escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of Christ, and as having forsaken the right way; 3. The latter end is worse with them than the beginning; 4. It had been better for them never to have known the right way, than to turn from it.
(Concluded next week.)

YESTERDAY AND TO-DAY.

Out of the sunshine into the rain; The way is steep, and I walk alone; I call aloud, but I call in vain, Through the darkness comes no answering tone.
I have dreamed my golden dream, alas! I have buried my hope with a bitter pain;— Is it weak to weep when we sadly pass Out of the sunshine into the rain?
Into the sunshine out of the rain; The clouds peel off, and the sky is blue; I walk in the beautiful paths again, Where the song-birds built, and the roses grew.
O the new-born glory around me shed! O the voices that charm like a sweet refrain! Thank God for the hand that my footsteps led Into the sunshine out of the rain.
—Selected.

PARADISE

By J. O. Corliss

Where is paradise? and what does the Bible teach concerning it? Is it an intermediate state, in which the righteous rest between death and the resurrection? Though some, influenced by a sectarian bias, may answer the last of these questions in the affirmative, yet there are those who, upon what seems to them satisfactory grounds, arrive at different conclusions.
Our principal source of information on this point is the Bible; and by consulting this book in the original Greek and Hebrew, with the lexicons of these languages, the following prominent facts are learned: 1. That all the dead go to one place, Gen. 3:19; Eccl. 3:20; Job. 14:10-12; 2. That this receptacle for the dead is expressed by the word sheol in the Hebrew and hades in the Greek, and these words are properly translated grave, hell, or pit; we also learn that hades is located under the earth, Eze. 31:15-18; 3. That the entire man goes there, Gen. 37:35; Ps. 30:3; 89:48; Acts. 2:27, 31; 4. That it is a place of secrecy and silence, where there is no device, wisdom, or knowledge, Job. 3:11-19; Ps. 146:3, 4; Eccl. 9:4-6, 10; 5. That paradise is derived from the Greek word paradise, and has no meaning in common with hades, or its corresponding word in the Hebrew; 6. That it is located in Heaven, before the throne of God; compare 2 Cor. 12:2, 4 with Rev. 2:7 and 22:1, 2; 7. That it is a place where the song of redemption is sung by the righteous, who dwell therein forever. Rev. 4:6; 15:2, 3; 22:5.
From the foregoing we conclude that paradise is a place of life, joy, peace, and perfect bliss, the dwelling-place of God, and the future home of the saints; and that it is in wide contrast with hades, a place of profound silence and perfect unconsciousness, the resting-place of man in death, from which he can only be rescued by a resurrection.
J. O. Corliss.
Continue reading: THE OLD SCOTCHMAN’S PRAYER