Bro. Smith: Recently in looking over the subject of the four universal kingdoms, my mind has been a little confused relative to the time when they arose, more especially the first. In your representation of the image of Dan. ii, you place against the head, B. C. 677; but I see that some place the rise of Babylon B. C. 667.
Ques. 1. What event marks the establishment of this kingdom?
Again, some place the date when the Roman kingdom succeeded the Grecian, B. C. 30. Your date is B. C. 161. In Sacred Chronology, p. 160, I see that this date is the commencement of the Roman ascendancy over the Jews; but,
Ques. 2. How does the covenant between the Romans and the Jews (here spoken of) mark the rise (or commencement) of the Roman empire?
A. S. HUTCHINS.
ANSWER. In the Bible the people of God are the great object in reference to which all other things seem to be taken into account. The Bible attaches no importance to anything with which they are not in some way connected. Hence we find that no nation or people is introduced into prophecy till it has assumed this relation. It is therefore most natural, and we believe most usual, to date a kingdom or power, in a prophetic point of view, from the time when it becomes thus connected with God's people. In the case of Babylon, the first of the four kingdoms, this connection took place when Manasseh was taken captive by Esarhaddon, B. C. 677, and the Jews became tributary to the Babylonians. This kingdom of course had an existence many years previous to this. It arose out of the old Assyrian empire, which was founded by Nimrod, great grandson of Noah, about 3000 years before Christ [Gen. x, 6-10], and which governed Asia for nearly 1300 years. Babylon, as a distinctive empire, dates from the year B. C. 747, when on the death of king Sardanapalus, the old Assyrian empire was divided by the two chief conspirators, Arbaces and Belesis, by whom the empire was subverted. In the division, Belesis had the provinces of Babylon, Chaldea, and Arabia; and Arbaces all the rest. See Rollin's Anc. Hist., and Prideaux's Connection. But Babylon not becoming connected with God's people, as before remarked, till the year 677, I give that as the date of the head of gold, in my representation of the image of Dan. ii. What reason any one has for dating it from the year 667, I am unable to determine.
The same principle holds good with the other kingdoms. They are introduced into prophecy when they become connected with God's people. The Medo-Persian empire came into the ascendancy over the Jews (the people of God at that time) when it subverted the Babylonian empire, B. C. 538. The Grecian did the same thing, when it succeeded to the Medo-Persian, at the battle of Arbela, B. C. 331. Rome assumed this connection when it entered into the famous league with the Jews, B. C. 161. Here then is the date at which prophecy first takes note of this power. Those who give A. D. 30 as the date when Rome succeeded to the Grecian empire, do it probably on the supposition that it could not be said to take its place till it had conquered all the territory of that empire; but in this they have evidently strayed from the prophecy; for that introduces it many years before that time. The four horns that came up when the first and great horn of the goat was broken, or the four kingdoms into which Alexander's empire was divided, were Macedonia, Thrace, Syria, and Egypt. Out of one of these horns, says the prophet, there came forth a little horn. This was Rome, the power that succeeded Grecia. Rome conquered Macedonia, one of the horns of the goat, and made it a part of itself, B. C. 168. Seven years from this time, in B. C. 161, it formed the before-mentioned league with the Jews. Being thus introduced into prophecy just after it had taken possession of one of the horns of the goat, it is represented as coming out of one of those horns. In B. C. 30 it conquered Egypt, the only province of the goat's dominions that then held out against it. It had now absorbed all the territory represented by the four horns of the goat; but it is introduced in the prophecy when it is coming forth from one of those horns, not when it has conquered and taken possession of them all. Those therefore who give B. C. 30 as the date of Rome's succession to Grecia, are 131 years too late.
God is sometimes long marshaling his agencies before he brings them upon the stage of action. Thus the kingdom of Babylon having arisen in B. C. 747 is not brought into prophecy till 677. And while the Babylonian kings were reigning in the hight of their glory, elements were forming among the Medes and Persians for the overthrow of that kingdom. The little governments that finally formed the Grecian empire had all been founded by the year B. C. 1516. And Rome, which was not to come into prophetic history165till B. C. 161, was founded B. C. 754, seven years before the rise of the kingdom of Babylon.
QUESTIONS BY BRO. McDONALD.
FIRST QUESTION. “What does Paul mean in 1 Tim. ii, 12?”
ANSWER. We shall better understand this passage by giving its connections. 1 Tim. ii, 9-14. “In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broidered hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; but (which becometh women professing godliness,) with good works. Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, was in the transgression.”
We must regard this testimony as a sharp rebuke on those women who possess more self-esteem and haughty pride than religion or good sense, and who love to rule every body, their husbands not excepted. The apostle, to illustrate the fact that women may be deceived and mistaken quite as soon as men, refers to the facts in regard to our first parents.
But the passage in question—‘I suffer not a woman to teach’—must be understood in a limited sense; for it is most assuredly the duty of mothers to teach their children. And the apostle in Titus ii, 4, makes it the duty of aged women to teach the young women to be sober, and love their husbands and children. Hence we conclude that the teaching referred to bears a strong relation to usurping authority over the man, mentioned in the same verse.
SECOND QUESTION. “Will you please give an exposition of 1 Cor. xiv, 34, 35?”
ANSWER. 1 Cor. xiv, 34, 35, reads as follows: “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.”
We judge it to be an easier task to show what this passage does not mean, than to tell just what it does mean. We shall not attempt an exposition of the passage, but merely say at present, that if it proves that women should not speak in meetings of religious worship, the declaration, “let them ask their husbands at home,” also proves that they should not attend meetings of worship, but learn the facts in regard to such meetings, of their husbands, when they return home. But as no one can suppose that Paul would exclude women from the place of public and social worship, the rational conclusion is, that in this passage, he does not refer to religious meetings, but to those meetings of the church where the judgment and wisdom of the sisters are not especially needed, therefore they can remain at home, “and if they will learn any thing” in respect to such matters, “let them ask their husbands at home.”
FEET WASHING.
By Uriah Smith
No fact is more definitely recorded than that our Lord, on the occasion of the institution of the last supper, girded himself with a towel and washed the feet of his disciples. John xiii. What the intent of this ceremony was, has been the subject of much speculation. Was this act of the Lord's, something he designed his followers to perform? or did he only design to teach that we should cherish such a spirit of humility and service, as he manifested? Was it designed as a church ordinance, as much as partaking of the bread and wine? or was it only an act of hospitality? These are the questions to be decided; and between these two the whole matter rests. The usual objection against its being a church ordinance is that it was designed simply to teach the disciples a lesson of humility and hospitality; while it must be universally conceded, if anything more than this was meant, that our Saviour here set an example which he designed his followers to practice to the letter.
All then that is necessary to show that Christ here gave an ordinance to his church, is to prove that this act was not performed by our Lord on account of any physical uncleanness in the disciples, or in reference to the customs of hospitality existing at that time. With this fact once established, no other signification can be given to the Saviour's act and language, but that he set an example which he designed his disciples to follow in all coming time.
1. It is claimed, first, then, that in the East, where people went for the most part with the feet protected only by sandals, it was the custom for individuals to wash the feet of their guests; and that on this custom our Lord's act of feet-washing was based. But those who urge this position, mistake; for, so far as we can learn from the sacred record, the custom was, not for individuals to wash the feet of their guests, but to furnish them water, in order that they might themselves wash them. Thus, Abraham, Gen. xviii, 4, did not wash the feet of his guests, but only requested them to let a little water be brought that they might wash their own feet. Precisely so it was with Lot, when the angels came to him. Gen. xix, 2. He besought them to turn into his house, and wash their feet, not that he would wash them. So with Abraham's servant: water was given that he might wash his feet. Gen. xxiv, 23. So with Joseph's brethren. Gen. xliii, 24. See also Judges xix, 21. Not such a ceremony as this took place in that upper chamber where Jesus and his disciples were assembled on the night of his betrayal. Our Lord's act, then, was not based upon the customs of those times.
2. Had the washing of the disciples' feet been designed to set them an example of hospitality in accordance with existing customs, they would of course have understood it; for it cannot be supposed that they were ignorant of the usages of hospitality pertaining to their time. But it seems they did not understand it. It was to them surprising and unexpected. Peter rose up in opposition and refused to have the ceremony performed on him; and Jesus expressly said to him, "What I do thou knowest not now."
3. The washing Christ performed for his disciples, did not have reference to their personal comfort or outward cleanliness. When Jesus made to Peter the startling declaration that unless he washed him he had no part with him, then Peter in his usual zealous manner, was ready to submit not his feet only, but also his hands and his head. Now if reference is had to outward cleanliness, we must understand Christ to say to Peter that unless he washed his feet in order to cleanse them from the dust, &c., which might adhere to them, and by which they would be soiled, while walking from the bath, he could have no part with him—no share in his salvation! This would be absurd. And to show that he does not refer to physical cleanliness, Christ adds, "And ye are clean, but not all." In what respect were they not all clean? Physically? No. The next verse explains: "For he knew who should betray him; therefore said he, Ye are not all clean."
4. It is argued that feet-washing cannot be an ordinance of the church; for "all ordinances are calculated to lead the mind to the great Author of our salvation." But we ask, Does not this ordinance lead our minds to him? Who could perform it, as instituted by our Redeemer, without having his mind called to him? It is as effectual a remembrancer of his humility, as is the supper of his death, or baptism of his burial and resurrection.
5. It is said that it would be contrary to a sense of propriety for males and females to engage together in this ordinance; but to separate them is contrary to the spirit of the gospel. It is sufficient to reply that a strict adherence to the examples set us in the sacred record, involves no breach of propriety. We have the example of females washing the feet of males, but not vice versa.
6. Feet-washing, it is claimed again, is enumerated in the catalogue of good works, and hence cannot be a church ordinance; for had it been, Paul would not have enumerated this one to the exclusion of the other ordinances, among good works. See 1 Tim. v, 10. Those who make this claim, in order to sustain it, must show that what might be a good work on one occasion, might not on another occasion, and under different circumstances, be a religious ordinance. We have not yet seen any attempt in this direction.
7. It is objected, further, that feet-washing is never mentioned as an ordinance, whereas we have frequent mention of the breaking of bread. In answer, we inquire, is not the partaking of the cup, equally an ordinance with the breaking of bread, and equally imperative? No one will deny that it is. But have we not frequent mention of the latter, without a specification of the former? We have; and the omission can be accounted for only on the ground that it is an inseparable branch of the ordinance, and is therefore included under the general name of breaking of bread. So with the washing of feet. If it was instituted at the same time, and in connection with the supper, and is enjoined in as express terms as is either eating the bread or drinking the wine, which indeed it is, why is it not also an inseparable portion of the ordinance, and likewise included in the expression, breaking of bread? These questions answer themselves, and show us that it is.
8. Finally, say some, it was only an act on the part of the Saviour to show us that we must be humble. Very well. How can we better show our humility than by following the example which he has set us?
9. Mark the Saviour's language in the explanation of the ceremony. When he had finished washing their feet, and was set down again, he said unto them, Know ye what I have done to you? He now proceeds, according to his promise to Peter that he should know afterward what he designed in the matter, to explain the intent of his action. And what was it? In language as explicit as could well be framed, he says; "Ye call me Master and Lord, and ye say well, for so I am. If I then your Lord and Master have washed your feet, ye ought also to wash one another's feet." Oh yes, say some, we should wash one another's feet by good deeds of charity, humility and brotherly kindness. But had not our Saviour been acting thus toward his disciples, all through his ministry? And if this is all, what need was there, of further example? There was none. But a further example was needed to teach them a further lesson, and that was, that as he had humbled himself at their feet, and washed them literally, so they ought also to wash one another's feet. He continues. "For I have given you an example, that ye should do, as I have done to you." What need we more? How had he done unto them? He had performed for them every Christian duty for which there was occasion in the common intercourse of life, but he had also girded himself and actually and literally bowed down to their feet and washed them; and on the occasion of this ceremony, he tells them that so he had done to them, so they ought to do to one another. He who knows the secret springs of the human heart, its tendency to self-exaltation and pride, and the disciplining it needs, has laid down this as one of the rules by which to practice. Shall we pronounce this discipline unnecessary, and spurn the ordeal? We shall ever look with distrust upon the boasted humility of that man who is unwilling to bring it to the test the Saviour has here given us.
10. Although modern commentators assert that this should be taken in a spiritual and not a literal sense, it has not always been so regarded. Says Matthew Henry, "Observe the lesson which Christ hereby taught: 'Ye also ought to wash one another's feet.' Verse 14. Some have understood this literally, and have thought these words amount to the institution of a standing ordinance in the church; that Christians should, in a solemn religious manner, wash one another's feet, in token of their condescending love to one another. St. Ambrose [A. D. 340-397] took it so and practiced it in the church of Milan. St. Austin saith, that those Christians who do not do it with their hands, yet (he hoped) did it with their hearts in humility; but, he saith, It is much better to do it with the hands also, when there is occasion, as 1 Tim. v, 10. What Christ hath done, Christians should not disdain to do. Calvin saith, that the Pope in the annual observing of this ceremony on Thursday in the passion week, is rather Christ's ape than his follower; for the duty enjoined in conformity to Christ, was mutual: wash one another's feet. And Jansenius saith, 'It is done frigidly and unlike the primitive model.'"
11. In conclusion, we invite the honest inquirer after truth on this point to study carefully the testimony of John xiii. Weigh well the language of Jesus. Study its bearing and its import. We are confident if you do this, that there is but one conclusion to which you can arrive; and that is, that Jesus has left us an example, which we are to follow as literally as it was given. We are equally confident that in your endeavours to follow this example, you will share largely in that blessing which his holy lips pronounced, when, in closing his instruction to them on this point, he said, If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them. U. S.
THE TWO LAWS, AND TWO COVENANTS.
By Moses Hull
BY MOSES HULL.
The great point of difference between us and one class of our opposers, is the fact of the existence of two distinct and separate codes of laws during what is called the Mosaic dispensation. We are well aware that they can prove that there has been a law abolished. Hence if there is but one law, we must acknowledge that they have the advantage of us, inasmuch as they prove that one law has been done away. But if there are two laws, as we claim, then the fact of their proving the abolition of a law does not weaken our position, for we agree with them that one law has been abolished.
Our opponents with their one-law theory have never been able to harmonize the seemingly discordant expressions of the Bible. They must acknowledge that some of the scriptures are out of harmony on this great subject, or admit that there are two classes of scriptures which speak of two kinds of laws.
In Matt. v, 17, 18, the Saviour says, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled." He further states that "whosoever shall break one of these least commandments and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven." But in Acts xv, we have the history of an apostolic conference, in which they decided to lay no greater burden upon their brethren than these necessary things: To "abstain from pollutions of idols, and fornication, and things strangled, and from blood." If the ten commandments are embraced in the law which was the subject of controversy in this chapter, then the apostles have released the church from under the obligation to obey any one of them, and thus rendered themselves "of no esteem in the reign of heaven." But if on the other hand Christ is speaking of one law and the apostles of another, all is plain.
Again, in Rom. iii, 31, Paul says, "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid; yea, we establish the law." But in Eph. ii, 15 he says, "Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances." With the idea that Paul is speaking of one and the same law in both166of these passages, we must decide that he is out of harmony with himself.
The phrase translated "make void," in Rom. iii, 31, is καταργεω [katargeo], the same as that rendered "abolished," in Eph. ii, 15; hence all the way to avoid a positive contradiction in the two passages is to say that one law is the subject of remark in one place, and another in the other.
In Rom. iii, 31, Paul not only meets the idea of abolishing the law with a "God forbid," but says: "We establish the law." The word rendered establish, is ἱστῶμεν [histomen], which Greenfield defines to "cause to stand firm, confirm, strengthen, establish." Then while one law is abolished, the other is caused to stand firm, strengthened, established, &c.
All must acknowledge that at one time there was a law which embraced ceremonies, and yet no one can deny that there was at the same time a law which had not a ceremony in it. When the above fact is proved, the two-law position is established beyond a doubt.
In Isa. i, 10, God commands his people to hear the word of the Lord, and give ear unto the law of our God. But in verse 11 he says, "To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me, saith the Lord? I am full of the burnt-offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he-goats." Here God commanded them to hear the law, and at the same time declares that he would not accept of obedience to the very things commanded in the ceremonial law.
Now if there is but one law, God has commanded the people to obey that, at the same time refusing to let them obey it, declaring that "incense is an abomination unto him." But to allow that there were two laws, and that God would not accept of obedience to one while they were violating the other, produces a harmony that cannot otherwise be obtained.
In Jer. vi, 19, 20, we find the same ideas, but in different language. There God says, "Hear, O earth, behold I will bring evil upon this people, even the fruit of their thoughts, because they have not hearkened unto my words, nor to my law, but rejected it. To what purpose cometh there to me incense from Sheba, and the sweet cane from a far country? Your burnt-offerings are not acceptable, nor your sacrifices sweet unto me."
Offering incense, our opponents claim, is obeying the only law that God then had. But God declares that they are rejecting his law while offering incense, and at the same time declares, "Your burnt offerings are not acceptable, nor your sacrifices sweet unto me." The above scriptures clearly teach that God had a law which could be obeyed without offering sacrifices. But the ceremonial law could not; hence it must be the one written on tables of stone.
That there is a law—a finished law—written on tables of stone, can not be doubted by the one who has carefully examined Ex. xxiv, 12. Here God says to Moses, "Come up to me into the mount and be there: and I will give thee tables of stone, and a law and commandments which I have written, that thou mayest teach them." There are two ideas in the above text, which I wish the reader to observe: 1. The idea of the law being written on the tables of stone; and 2. That it was a law which God had written. The proof of the first is an evidence of the latter; for when it is proved that God wrote on stones, and that God wrote his law, then it follows that God wrote his law on stones, unless it can be proved that God has written somewhere else besides on stones, which cannot be done. Our opponents will not claim that God ever wrote any where else besides on the tables of stone. But God says, "I will give thee a law and commandments, which I have written." Therefore the conclusion is unavoidable that God has a law written on tables of stone.
But when our friends see that the above shrinks the staves of their positions somewhat, they say that God used Moses as an instrument through which to write on stones, as well as in the book. Hence, when the Bible says that God wrote, it means that he wrote through the agency of Moses; and when it says Moses wrote, it means that he was the instrument through which God wrote. But in this our opponents greatly err. The Bible does not say that God wrote on the tables of stone by or with the finger of Moses; but it does say, "And he gave unto Moses when he had made an end of communing upon Mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the FINGER OF GOD." Ex. xxxi, 18.
In Ex. xxxii, 16, Moses says, "And the tables were the work of God, and the writing was the writing of God, graven upon them." It is argued by some that Moses wrote on the second tables; but this is a mistake also. God says to Moses, "Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first, and I will write upon these tables the words that were in the first tables, that thou breakest." Ex. xxxiv, 1. Again in Deut. x, 1-3, God said to Moses, "Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first, and come up to me into the mount, and make thee an ark of wood, and I will write on the tables the words that were in the first tables which thou breakest, and thou shalt put them in the ark." And Moses says, "I made an ark of shittim wood, and hewed two tables of stone like unto the first, and went up into the mount, having the two tables in my hand; and HE wrote on the tables according to the first writing, the ten commandments, which the Lord spake unto you in the mount, out of the midst of the fire, in the day of the assembly; and the Lord gave them unto me."
The above testimony cannot be harmonized with the idea that Moses wrote on the second table; for he positively declares that "God wrote them and gave them to him." Ex. xxxiv, 27–29 is often quoted to prove that Moses wrote the covenant of ten commandments; but the text does not prove it. It only proves that Moses wrote words, "after the tenor of which" a covenant was made with Israel. The personal pronoun he, in verse 29, where it says "And he wrote on the tables," applies to God. This relieves the text from obscurity, and there is no dispute between it and the first verse of the same chapter where God says, "I will write," &c.
The above clearly establishes the position that God wrote a law on tables of stone, and the Bible as clearly teaches that Moses wrote a law in a book. Hence the conclusion that there were two laws in the former dispensation is unavoidable. The expressions, "Book of the law," "Law written in this book," &c., are of frequent occurrence in the Scriptures. But if all law was written in a book, why thus distinguish it? This query our opponents have never been able to solve.
That it is distinguished, as above mentioned, is proved by Deut. xxviii, 58–66; xxix, 20, 21; xxx, 11–14. As before remarked, the law written in the book was not written by the finger of God, but by the hand of Moses. In Deut. xxxi, 9, we read, "And Moses wrote this law, and delivered it unto the priests, the sons of Levi." Josh. xxiii, 6. "Be ye therefore very courageous to keep and do all that is written in the book of the law of Moses, that ye turn not aside therefrom to the right hand or to the left."
(To be Continued.)
A CASE WITHOUT A PARALLEL.
By L. M. GATES.
Who that has ever read the account of our Saviour's trial before Pilate has not been forcibly impressed that the whole process was without precedent or parallel in the annals of the world, and more resembled the examination of a sacrifice that it might be evinced to be without blemish, than the trial of a criminal for condemnation? One who was foremost in apprehending him, came before the council and openly declared, "I have betrayed the innocent blood." Even the judge who condemned him to so dreadful a death, unhesitatingly pronounces him a just person, and three several times asserts that he finds no fault in him, and declares that neither he nor Herod had found in him any cause of death, while the officer who superintended his crucifixion, affirms with a certainty that "this was a righteous man." Even those who so clamorously demanded his death, could allege no reason for their insane conduct, neither were they able to produce one particle of testimony which was deemed valid, even by that corrupt tribunal. Who, besides, was ever thus publicly condemned and executed, and, at the same time pronounced innocent and righteous by the very individuals who conducted the affair? Can we doubt for a moment that God in his providence wisely ordered these circumstances, that all might have the most incontestable evidence that the beloved Jesus thus suffered for no fault of his own, but for the sins of a guilty world, that offending man might through him be reconciled to God?
L. M. GATES.
Trenton, Wis.
CHARACTER.
By GEO. WRIGHT
OUR Creator has given us existence here for a wise and noble purpose; namely, to develop a character of holiness; to be real witnesses of the power of Christ on earth to forgive sins; to shine as beacon lights in this dark world all along the ascending path to the city of our God.
But how few are striving to answer the object of their creation, by humble submission to all the will of God, careful to maintain good works, prompted by living faith, kept alive by instant and earnest prayer. In short, how few among the multitude that are crying, Lord, Lord, are really forming characters of holiness by obeying all the commandments of God, and the testimony of his dear Son. There is no other standard by which we can test the genuineness of our Christian character in these days of peril, but the high and holy one presented by the third angel. May this solemn message, dear brethren, find a large place in our hearts, and be so magnified to our vision, that the world with all its allurements, may fade away in the distance, while we press our way on
"Till faith is lost in sight,
And hope in glad fruition."
The lives of truly good men may be studied with profit. But there is only one being whom we can safely follow in all things, among all that have ever lived on this earth. My sheep hear my voice and follow me, says Jesus. There is safety in striving to walk in the foot-prints of our Saviour. Says Peter, "Christ also suffered for us, leaving prints of his foot behind him, that we might follow in his steps." Wakefield's translation of 1 Pet. ii, 21.
Here we have a perfect character, one that is altogether lovely. And if you and I, dear reader, would attain to all the fullness of this lovely being, we must advance steadily onward, meekly bearing the cross and despising the shame; and if we patiently endure unto the end, the promise is ours, "Fear not, little flock, it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom."
The following from the pen of Hannah More, on the character of the apostle Paul, shows clearly the necessity of progression in the Christian warfare:
"If ever progressive sanctification was exhibited in the life, as well as writings, of any one man more than another, it was in this heroic champion of divine truth. If ever one man more than another had a right to depend on his own safe state, it was the divinely illuminated saint Paul. Yet did he spend his after-life in self-satisfaction and indolent security? Did he ever cease to watch, or pray, or labor? Did he ever cease to press the duty of prayer on his most established converts? Did he in the confidence of supremely eminent gifts, ever cease himself to pray? Were his exertions ever abridged? his self-denial ever diminished? Did he rest satisfied with present, though supernatural attainments? Did he remember the things which were behind? Did he live upon the good he had already done, or the grace he had already received? Did he count himself to have attained? Did he stop in the race set before him? Did not he press forward? Did not his endeavors grow with his attainments? Did not his humility and sense of dependence outstrip both? If he feared being a cast-a-way, after the unutterable things he had seen and heard, and after the wonders he had achieved, shall the best man on earth be contented to remain as he is? If it were attempted, the most sanguine men on earth would find it to be impossible; nothing either in nature or in grace continueth in one stay. He who does not advance, is already gone back. This glorious, because humble167apostle, went on in progressive sanctification. He continued to grow and to pray, till he at length attained to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ."
Reader, you and I have the same Saviour to go to that Paul had. We can attain the same fullness by pursuing a similar course, as far as God has given us ability. Let us then give all diligence to add to our faith all the christian graces, and be found without spot when the Life-giver comes. GEO. WRIGHT.