Review and Herald, Vol. 53, No. 22. (5/29/1879)

Review and Herald

May 29, 1879

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · May 29, 1879

THE IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.

By Dudley Marvin Canright

ELD. D. M. CANRIGHT.

THE SOCINIANS.

Another large sect of the early reformers, called the “Socinians,” also denied the immortality of the soul, and held to the sleep of the dead and the annihilation of the wicked. Of the good character of this sect, Bayle says: “It is matter of public notoriety that, in respect to morals, no sect has approached more nearly to the simplicity and strictness of the early Christians than the Socinians.” Mosheim says that they taught that “those who obey the voice of this divine teacher,—and all can obey it, if so disposed,—being clad in other bodies, shall hereafter forever inhabit the blessed abode where God resides; those who do otherwise, being consumed by exquisite torments, will at length sink into entire annihilation.” Alger, in his “History of the Doctrine of a Future Life,” says of them: “The Socinian doctrine, relative to the future fate of man, . . . declared that the wicked, after suffering excruciating agonies, would be annihilated. Respecting the second coming of Christ, a physical resurrection of the dead, and a day of Judgment, the Socinians believed with the other sects.” This sect originated in the time of the Reformation. Says Mosheim: “Few are unapprised that the first originators of the Socinian scheme possessed fine talents and much erudition.” They also held to the sleep of the dead. The Religious Encyclopedia thus states their faith upon this point: “Many of them also reject the spirituality and separate existence of the soul, believing that man is wholly material, and that our only prospect of immortality is from the Christian doctrine of a resurrection. Of course, the notion of an intermediate state of consciousness between death and the resurrection is rejected; for, as the whole man dies, so the whole man is to be called again to life at the appointed period of the resurrection, with the same association that he had while alive; the intermediate portion of time having been passed, by him, in a state of utter insensibility.”

This is the Bible doctrine, exactly and well stated. The New American Cyclopedia gives the following facts in the rise and history of this denomination: “L. Socinus was an Italian theological writer of the noble house of the Sozzini, born 1525. He was highly educated, accomplished in the original languages of the Bible, an acute critic, and fearless in the pursuit of truth. He was also very wealthy. Of him Mosheim says: He was “a man of uncommon genius and learning; to which he added, as his very enemies were obliged to acknowledge, the luster of a virtuous life and unblemished manners.” He traveled over all Europe, and received the friendship of Melancthon, Caloni, and other reformers. He died at Zurich, 1562.

His nephew, Faustus Socinus, born 1539, embraced the views of his uncle, and in 1577, at Basle, began publicly to proclaim them. Of course, he met with opposition. He went into Transylvania, and finally into Poland, where he married into a noble family. Here the ruling families embraced his views, and gave power, influence, and protection to his converts. Says Mosheim: “Under the auspicious protection of such a spirited and insinuating chief, the little flock, that had been hitherto destitute of strength, resolution, and courage, grew apace, and suddenly arose to a high degree of credit and influence. Its number was augmented by proselytes of all ranks and orders. Of these, some were distinguished by their nobility, others by their opulence, some by their address, and many by their learning and eloquence.” A university for theological training was founded at Cracow, and endowed by the owner of the city. From thence went out many learned missionaries to other parts of Europe. A strong foothold was obtained in Transylvania, where numerous churches were raised up. Many of these continue to this day, and are protected by law.

Unfortunately, the Socinians embraced extreme Unitarian views on the nature of Christ. This served largely to hinder the propagation of the Biblical truths which they held concerning the state of the dead and the nature of man.

A BOOK.

In 1644, an excellent little work came out, having this title: “A Treatise, wherein it is Proved, both theologically and philosophically, that the Whole Man is a Compound wholly Mortal,” etc. It was signed, R. O. It provoked considerable controversy. A second edition was printed at London, 1655.

LOCKE.

In the last half of the seventeenth century flourished that great Christian philosopher, John Locke, of England. In religious principles he was a Puritan. He was one among the few intellectual giants of the world, a ripe scholar, a profound reasoner, a friend and companion of the most renowned men of his time, a voluminous writer, and a man of world-wide fame. Of him the New American Cyclopedia says: “Early imbued with a zeal for liberty and with the principles of a severe morality, his whole life was a warfare against the enemies of freedom in speculation, freedom in worship, and freedom from every unnecessary political restraint.”

This great man took a bold stand against the immortality of the soul, and its immateriality. He made a clear and forcible argument against these heathen fables, and against the conscious state of the dead, as any one may see in his excellent book, “The Reasonableness of Christianity.” We quote only a few sentences.

Thus he says: “And by this fall, he [Adam] lost paradise; wherein were tranquility and the tree of life: that is, he lost bliss and immortality.” Again: “But an exclusion from paradise, and loss of immortality, is the portion of sinners.” Of the death threatened in Gen. 2:17, he says: “I must confess, by death here, I can understand nothing but a ceasing to be (that is, the losing of all actions of life and sense).” Again: “But it seems a strange way of understanding a law (which requires the plainest and directest words), that by death should be meant eternal life in misery.” Again Mr. Locke says: “But when man was turned out [of paradise], he was exposed to the toil, anxiety, and frailties of this mortal life; which should end in dust, out of which he was made, and to which he should return; and then have no more life or sense than the dust had.”

This was a heavy blow in the right place, and it had its effects.

JOHN MILTON.

In the middle of the seventeenth century lived that eminent Christian poet, the great John Milton, author of “Paradise Lost.” Whoever has read that work must feel that, as a man, he was largely imbued with the Spirit of God. He wrote many other works besides this. In 1655–58 he wrote his “Treatise on Christian Doctrine.” In chap. xii, vol. 1, he devotes a lengthy argument to proving the total unconsciousness of man from the time of death until the coming of Christ and the resurrection. He sustains his argument by sound reasoning, and abundant quotations from the Scriptures. His works have had a wide circulation, as all know; and this treatise on the “State of the Dead” has enlightened many souls upon this subject. It has been republished in America, both in the East and in the West, and hundreds of thousands of copies have been sold. The reader will notice, as we proceed, that some of the greatest minds, the ripest scholars, and the most devoted Christians in the world have been believers in the sleep of the dead.

BISHOP TAYLOR.

Bishop Jeremy Taylor, of the Episcopal church, did not believe in the natural immortality of the soul, as may be seen by the following: “Whatsoever had a beginning can also have an ending, and it shall die, unless it be daily watered from the stream flowing from the fountain of life, and refreshed with the dew of Heaven; and therefore God had prepared a tree in paradise, to have supported Adam in his artificial immortality. Immortality was not in his nature.”

ARCHBISHOP TILLOTSON.

In 1690, Archbishop Tillotson preached a famous sermon on the eternity of hell torments. This sermon created a great commotion in the theological world. He maintained that, though God has threatened impenitent sinners with eternal punishment, yet he keeps the right of punishing in his own hand, and may remit the penalty. This, as all saw, was virtually abandoning the doctrine of eternal torment. And it was so construed. Coming from so high a dignitary, it produced a great commotion among the advocates of an endless hell. He admitted that the doctrine of the “immortality of the soul was rather supposed, or taken for granted, than expressly revealed in the Bible.”

STOSCH.

On the continent, Frederick W. Stosch published, at Berlin and Amsterdam, in 1692, a work of 124 pages, which “maintains the materiality of the soul, and denies the doctrine of endless punishment.” The book was suppressed by the government, and was the cause of much trouble to the bold author.

DR. COWARD.

In 1702, Dr. William Coward, London, published a book with this title: “Second Thoughts concerning Human Soul, demonstrating the Notion of Human Soul, as Believed to be a Spiritual, Immortal Substance United to the Human Body, to be a Plain, Heathenish Invention.” Of this able scholar and Christian, Alger says: “The famous Dr. Coward, and a few supporters, labored, with much zeal, skill, and show of learning, to prove the natural mortality of the soul.” In 1706, Coward published another book for the same purpose. These works stirred up furious attacks from the churchmen, and he was denounced as a heretic. Of these books Mr. Abbot says: They “were ordered by Parliament to be burnt by the common hangman. The result was the immediate publication of a second edition.” Thus the truth of God has always fared. It has been persecuted and interdicted, but this has only caused it to spread the wider.

LAWYER LAYTON.

In 1706, Henry Layton, a rich gentleman and a lawyer, came to the aid of Dr. Coward, and published a book entitled, “A Search after Souls,” in which he answers, at full length, the arguments used to prove the soul immortal. His book, however, seems not to have had an extensive circulation. These books brought out numerous answers from the orthodox, and so gave the doctrine a wide circulation.

In the year 1703, Jonathan Edwards preached a sermon on the end of the wicked as contemplated by the righteous, in which he advocated the abominable doctrine that “the sight of hell torments will exalt the happiness of the saints forever.” We are sorry to say that such blasphemous views have found other advocates in later times.

PITTS.

In 1708, John Pitts, of London, issued an able work against the immortality of the soul, vindicating, from Scripture and reason, the sleep of the dead. He was a presbyter of the Church of England. In the same year, Mr. Pitts published another book advocating the same views.

THE LEARNED DODWELL.

In the same year, Henry Dodwell sent out another book, in which he brings forward testimony from the Scriptures and the fathers against the immortality of man. This was answered, in the following year, by a Mr. Whiston on the opposite side.

In 1720, an anonymous writer in London published a book maintaining the mortality of the soul and the unconscious state of the dead. The frequency with which these books were published shows that there was much controversy upon the subject, and that this doctrine had able advocates in the learned world at that time.

WATTS.

Dr. Isaac Watts, 1733, the great church poet, whose hymns are sung throughout the world, taught the annihilation of infants who died without baptism. Says Buck, in his “Theological Dictionary,” “The great Dr. Watts may be considered, in some measure, a destructionist; since it was his opinion that the children of ungodly parents, who die in infancy, are annihilated.” It further appears that he was strongly inclined to believe in the utter destruction of all the wicked. Hear him:—“Let us consider it [death] as it relates to the soul of man. The soul is an immaterial and thinking being; it has in itself no natural principles of dissolution; and, therefore, so far as we can judge, it must be immortal in its own nature. But who can say whether the word death might not be fairly construed to extend to the utter destruction of the life of the soul, as well as the body, if God, the righteous governor, should please to seize the forfeiture. For man, by sin, has forfeited all that God had given him; that is, the life and existence of his soul, as well as his body. All is forfeited, by sin, into the hands of

God; and why might not the threatening declare the right that ever a God of goodness had to resume all back again, and utterly destroy and annihilate his creatures forever? There is not one place of Scripture, that occurs to me, where the word death, as it was first threatened in the law of innocency, necessarily signifies a certain miserable immortality of the soul, either to Adam, the actual sinner, or to his posterity.” This clearly shows the faith of this great man.

WARBURTON.

Bishop William Warburton, in his “Divine Legation of Moses,” London, 1738–41, styled the believers in everlasting misery, “the unmerciful doctors”; and seriously inquires, “Doth annihilation impeach that wisdom and goodness which God displayed when he brought the soul out of nothing?”

Thus we see that many of the most devout and learned writers in the church all along, if they have not openly advocated the annihilation of the wicked, have looked with favor upon that view.

J. N. Scott, a minister of London, in 1743, in two volumes of published sermons, maintained “the doctrine of the destruction of the wicked.” On the other hand, in 1746, J. Bödicke, Berlin, issued a book in which he maintains the doctrine that “the torments of the damned sprung from pure benevolence in the Deity, because the happiness of the elect will be so heightened and intensified by the contemplation of their sufferings.” Thus, while light upon this question was spreading all around, there were still found some in the midnight darkness of barbarism, uttering against God such blasphemies as this.

THE VACANT PLACES.

By Sel.

How much soever, in this life's mutations, We seek our shattered idols to replace, Not one in all the myriads of the nations Can ever fill another's vacant place.

Each has his own, the smallest and most humble, As well as he revered the wide world through; With every death some loves and hopes must crumble, Which never strive to build themselves anew.

If the fair race of violets should perish Before another spring-time had its birth, Could all the costly blooms which florists cherish Bring back its April beauty to the earth?

Not the most gorgeous flower that uncloses Could give the golden grace to vale and plain; Not even Persia's garden full of roses, Could ever make the world so fair again.

And so with souls we love, they pass and leave us— Time teaches patience at a bitter cost; Yet all the new loves, which the years may give us, Fill not the heart-place aching for the lost.

New friends may come, with spirits even rarer, And kindle once again the tear-drowned flame; But yet we sigh, “This love is stronger, fairer, And better—it may be—but not the same!” —Sel.

The Archæology of Baptism.

The N. Y. Independent, noticing a new book on Baptism by Henry S. Burrage, entitled, “The Act of Baptism in the History of the Christian Church,” gives the following article on “The Archæology of Baptism,” which will be of interest to our readers:—

In the Greek Church the act of baptism is immersion; in the Latin Church it is affusion. The Latins admit that the immersion of the Greeks is true baptism; the Greeks (at least, the more conservative among them) deny this of the Latin affusion. Whence the difference? If affusion was practiced in the Apostolic Church, either alone or together with immersion, why and when did the Greeks discard it? If it was not known in the Apostolic Church, when and why did the Latins introduce it? These and other questions regarding the baptismal usages of the Church are of much interest to the Christian archæologist.

Mr. Burrage’s Act of Baptism is made up of quotations from writers of different centuries of the Church, from the records of councils, and from other sources, showing what the act of baptism has been in different ages and nations. These citations (which in an appendix are presented in the originals) are accompanied merely by a few remarks, such as the author deemed necessary for a summing up of the facts presented. The book shows laborious research, while its tone is that of the earnest search for truth. The author writes in the spirit of the historian, rather than in that of the polemic. He holds that the practice of immersion has come down from the apostles. He fortifies this opinion by the authority of exegetical scholars like Ellicott, Lightfoot, Howson, Alford, Plumptre, Meyer, Lange, Tholuck, Olshausen, De Wette, and historical scholars like Schaff, Stanley, Pressensé, Döllinger, Kurtz, Guericke, Bunsen, and Mosheim. Indeed, on this question there is among scholars no difference of opinion whatever.

The first undisputed mention of the practice of affusion occurs in the letter of Cyprian to Magnus, written about 250 A. D. Certain persons, converted on a sick-bed and unable to be immersed, had been simply poured upon. Some had raised the question whether this was true baptism, and thus arose a controversy which has come down to our own day—the question whether anything else than a burial in water can be recognized as New Testament baptism. The opinion of Cyprian being asked, he replies “with diffidence and modesty,” thus recognizing that there was ground for serious doubt in the matter; but finally gives his opinion that, in case of necessity, a mere pouring may be regarded as valid baptism. This letter of Cyprian is quoted by immersionists as showing (1) that immersion was the (almost) universal practice of the Church of Cyprian’s day. (2.) That the use of affusion even in extreme cases was a novelty. Had it been practiced by the apostles, or even by the Church of the second century, Cyprian would certainly have referred to this action, by way of precedent. Indeed, the dispute would not have arisen. (3.) That the use of affusion for baptism took its rise from the superstitious idea that baptism was necessary to salvation.

The entire Latin Church finally adopted the opinion of Cyprian that affusion might be accepted for baptism when immersion was out of the question. But for a thousand years longer immersion continued to be the regular baptism of the Western, as it still is of the Eastern Church. Referring to baptism, Jerome says mergimur; Ambrose, mersisti; Augustine, demersimus; Leo the Great, demersio; Maximus of Turin, mergitur; Pope Pelagius, mergione; Gregory the Great, mergat; Alcuin, submersione; Hincmar of Rheims, mergitur; Lanfranc, immersio; Abelard, mergere; Bernard of Clairvaux, mersio. The testimony is superabundant that for twelve hundred years the Roman Catholic Church practiced immersion, except in case of sickness or other necessity. Taking together those who in all ages and nations have “professed and called themselves Christians,” the majority have been immersed. And the fact that originally affusion was used only when immersion was out of the question is put forward by immersionists as showing that, except for the idea that baptism was necessary to salvation, affusion never would have been resorted to at all; that, had no superstitious importance been attached to baptism, the original ceremony of immersion would have been used when practicable, and when it was out of the question the convert would have been allowed to die without any baptismal ceremony at all. In other words, that it is not immersion, but affusion, which is “ritualistic.”

But it is easy to see that when once it was established that, in case of necessity, affusion could be substituted for immersion, its greater convenience would cause the cases of alleged necessity to increase, and at last it would come to be freely resorted to simply as a matter of ease. We trace this tendency in the protests made against it. As early as the 9th century we find councils decreeing that the priest must not merely pour water on the child, but must dip it in the font; which action shows that affusion was coming to be practiced where there was no strict necessity for it. Thomas Aquinas (died 1274) declares that in his day immersion was “the more common” custom; but this very form of expression shows that affusion had become nearly as frequent. We see, moreover, another stage of the controversy in the suggestion of Aquinas that the apostles may have used affusion in the baptism of the three thousand—the first endeavor (so far as has been shown) to justify affusion by apostolic precedent, a thing which Cyprian did not attempt. Soon it was formally declared, as by the Council of Ravenna, in 1311, to be a thing indifferent whether the act of baptism were immersion or affusion; which point being reached, the more convenient affusion became the sole usage. And in later centuries the baptismal rubrics of the Latin Church prescribe affusion, without any mention of immersion. Used at first only in rare cases, it came in the course of a little upward of a thousand years to supplant immersion entirely in the Church of Western Europe; and when the Reformation came, the Lutherans and Calvinists not unnaturally followed the usage of the Latin Church, in which they had been reared, so that the Continental Protestants, together with the Presbyterian Churches of Scotland and America, employ not the immersion of the first thirteen centuries of the whole Church and of the Eastern Church of to-day, but the affusion of the Latin Church of later centuries.

In the English Church, however, immersion continued the standard usage down to the reign of Elizabeth. In Erasmus’s “Colloquies,” written in the reign of Henry VIII, we are told that in England they still dip children. William Tyndale speaks of the immersion as signifying burial and rising again with Christ; while in another place he tells how the people watch the priest, in baptizing, to see that he puts the child completely under the water. Bishop Horne, writing to Bullinger, in the reign of Edward VI, describes baptism in England as immersion. And the baptismal rubric of the Church of England of the present day commands the priest to “dip [the child] in the water,” adding, however, that, “if [the parents] shall certify that the child is weak, it shall suffice to pour water upon it.” The rubric of the Protestant Episcopal Church of this country says “shall dip it in the water or shall pour water upon it”; not demanding immersion, but giving it precedence, in which, as perhaps in the frequent practice of immersion in the Methodist Church, a daughter of the Anglican, we trace the influence of the English usage of the Tudor period. The disuse of immersion in England was through the influence of Protestant leaders who, on the accession of Elizabeth, returned from exile at Geneva and other Protestant cities, bringing with them Continental Protestant usages, among others that of affusion, which the Genevans had inherited from the Church of Rome.

Thus England, which up to that time had stood with the Eastern Church in the practice of immersion instead of following the Church of Rome in the practice of affusion, adopted the Latin usage at second-hand, through a Calvinistic influence. In the Church of England of to-day the practice of affusion (in the case of healthy infants) is Genevan, rather than Anglican. In this connection it may be noticed that the ritual of the English Catholics at Douay, in 1604, prescribed immersion, and immersion is sometimes practiced by the High Churchmen of to-day.

It will surprise many—Baptists as well as others—to be told that insisting upon immersion is a comparatively recent thing among modern Baptists. The “Anabaptists” of the century of the Reformation practiced affusion, with the Calvinists and Lutherans. They condemned the baptism of infants, but did not deny that affusion was baptism. The one who was sprinkled in infancy was on profession of faith merely resprinkled! Though immersion was practiced among them, none (so far as has yet been shown) of the Continental Antipædo-baptists of the sixteenth century, and only a very few in the seventeenth century, declared that immersion alone was baptism. But in England, during the reign of Charles I., the Baptists became strict immersionists, as they are familiarly known to be in England and America to-day. It will be seen, therefore, that the distinctive tenet of the Baptist denomination is not that immersion alone is baptism; but that baptism should be administered only on profession of faith. The fact that the English Baptists became strict immersionists, while their Continental brethren did not, may possibly have resulted from the fact that immersion was practiced in the Church of England so much longer than on the Continent.

Such are a few of the points in the history of baptism which are wholly or in great part covered by Mr. Burrage’s book. It is a work to be read by any one who is interested in the history of Church customs, and especially by each one who has occasion to give his opinion in controversy regarding baptism. A few of its translations from the fathers are somewhat awkward. In certain cases it seems as if one who had the matter in hand should have sought out the particulars a little more thoroughly; as, for instance, regarding the mode of immersion in the Milan Cathedral. But, on the whole, the book is far in advance of anything of its kind, and is a most interesting contribution to historical literature.

“GET THEE UP.”

By John O. Corliss

THESE words were addressed to Joshua at a time when, under trying circumstances, he fell on his face, and in great distress of mind offered prayer for light and knowledge to guide him in duty, to which the Lord replied as above, and in addition said reprovingly, “Wherefore liest thou thus upon thy face? Israel hath sinned, and they have also transgressed my covenant which I commanded them.” After the cause of Israel’s dismay had been revealed, it was necessary for them to do something that they might be relieved from their calamity, and when a willingness was manifested on their part to put away sin, pardon was granted and they were restored to the favor of God.

The principles of the gospel require the same submission of us, and unless we have this yielding disposition, it would seem by the word of inspiration that our prayers will be of no avail at the throne of grace; for David says, “If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me.” Ps. 66:18. Sin is of the same nature now that it has ever been. “Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law; for sin is the transgression of the law.” 1 John 3:4. Therefore, if we would avail ourselves of the benefits of the atoning blood of Christ we must put away our sins when they are made known to us.

Sometimes when persons are convinced of the claims of the fourth commandment, and stand halting, not knowing whether to follow convictions of duty and obey God, or to tread in the steps of the multitude and do evil, they are questioned by friends as to what course they intend to pursue. We hear them reply, “Oh, I’ll pray over it,” meaning, no doubt, that they intend to wait for the Lord to give them more light—some visible sign—which shall prove beyond a doubt that he requires them to comply with his requirements. To such, the words of the Lord to Joshua are applicable: “Get thee up;” for the written word is a light to our path, which if we walk in it, will bring the witness of God’s Spirit of our acceptance with him.

But when we stop to parley thus concerning duty, instead of yielding to the will of God, flesh and blood is conferred with, and, generally, excuses are framed to justify us in having our own way. And if we seek the Lord for counsel while in this frame of mind, we shall, unless very careful, approach him as the little boy did his father when desirous of going in company with others of his age. Said he, “Father, I’m going down town; now do say I may”!

It is God’s prerogative to command; it is our duty to obey. The gospel is not designed to bring the Lord to our terms, but as we have been the offending party, it becomes us to accede to his conditions with the greatest alacrity, and be able to say with the psalmist, “I made haste, and delayed not to keep thy commandments.” It is possible for us to be deceived by thinking that God will at last overlook our sins, but we cannot mock God. He will render to every one the fruit of his doings. If any sow to the flesh here, they will reap corruption; but all who will sow to the Spirit here shall reap everlasting life.

J. O. CORLISS.

THE OBJECT OF TRIALS.

By H. F. Phelps

IN the 73rd psalm we read that the wicked “are not in trouble as other men, neither are they plagued like other men,” and, “these are the ungodly, who prosper in the world;” but, of God’s people, “waters of a full cup are wrung out of them.” Now, we ask, Why this difference? Why do the wicked prosper, and why are God’s people chastened? Why do the wicked have more than heart can wish, and their eyes stand out with fatness, while to the righteous are given a full cup of trials, want, privations, temptations, trouble, and even persecution?

Ah! there must be some good reason for all this. Our kind heavenly Father doth not willingly afflict. We love our children, and would not punish them needlessly. But God’s love for his people cannot be measured by the love of poor finite mortals. It can only be measured by the fact that God gave his only begotten Son to die for us; and “greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” Is the servant above his master? He was tried. Are we above our Lord? He was tempted in all points like as we are. Indeed, we read that the Captain of our salvation was made perfect through suffering. Perfection, then, comes through suffering and trial. This is not all. Paul gives us to understand that “we fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ.” Christ has suffered; but something is left behind for his people to bear. We may be “heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if so be that we suffer with him.” Then this heirship comes through suffering. Our Master “learned obedience by the things which he suffered.” Are we such dull scholars that we cannot learn by the same means?

And Peter adds his testimony: “The God of all grace, who hath called us unto his eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after that ye have suffered awhile, make you perfect, stablish, strengthen, settle you.” He further says, “Rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ’s sufferings.”

How easy to rejoice in prosperity; but here is danger. How hard to rejoice in suffering and trial; but here is safety. Partakers of Christ’s sufferings! Exalted privilege! And Paul tells us, that our light afflictions work for us “a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory.”

By suffering, then, we become more nearly allied to Christ and Heaven, and a bright

prospect of eternal glory awaits us, if we only bear these trials as we ought. There are two sides to all our trials. If we come out on the right side of them we shall be nearer Heaven, and better prepared to do God’s will; if on the wrong side, we shall be farther away from God, and nearer our great foe. Which will we do?

H. F. PHELPS.

HOW MUCH CAN I DO?

By A. K. Hersum

This is a question that should be asked by every lover of present truth. We have only a little while to labor. How solemn the thought! How much can we do in the little while that lingers, to spread the light of truth and save the perishing ones around us? When I meditate upon these things, my soul cries out, O Lord, fit me anew to labor in thy cause. I know there is power in the truth. Jesus lives to-day, and we can rejoice in a whole Saviour. It was a whole Saviour that died on Calvary’s cross, a whole sacrifice that was made for us; and it is our privilege to enjoy a full and free salvation and to be where our efforts may be crowned with success. The great and glorious reward of eternal life is soon to be given to the faithful ones. I want to be among that class.

A. K. HERSUM.

MRS. JONES'S OPINION.

By M. W.

It is of no use, wife, for you to remonstrate any more about this matter; for I have fully made up my mind to carry out our original plan. Our land is quite as good as that of neighbor Brown's, and you know that his fruit is always in demand, and yields an immense profit for the time and means expended. It is quite true, I will admit, that our attempts in the past to compete with neighbor Brown in fruit-raising have proved a failure; nevertheless, it is no reason why we should abandon the project and give up in despair. Doubtless you remember the old adage, “If at first you don't succeed, try, try again.”

Yes, Mr. Jones, replied the devoted wife, I remember most distinctly the adage referred to; my mind has been refreshed with it annually for the past twenty years. And as you have again broached this subject, I will give you my opinion of the matter, then leave you to act as seems best.

Of course you know that I am acquainted with your many attempts and oft-repeated failures to eclipse Mr. Brown in fruit-raising; and I tell you now, as I have told you heretofore, that unless you prune, strengthen, and support the few remaining trees, our fruit will be nothing but leaves. It is my opinion that planting a tree here, another there, then leaving it to wither and blast, is not only a shameful waste of time and means, but is well calculated to bring reproach upon us, and discouragement upon our friends. Had you heeded the advice repeatedly given relative to this matter, and followed the example of Mr. Brown, doing your work systematically, there would have been no such thing as failure, and to-day we could look over the broad field upon much fruit as the result of our labor. But instead of a thrifty, healthy orchard, there are withered branches, dead trees, and in every part of the field we find the remains of what might have been, with proper care, trees bearing fruit, some an hundred-fold, some fifty. When you commenced laboring in the vineyard, you were upon an equal footing with Mr. Brown; if anything, the odds were in your favor. You had a deeper experience, and your qualifications generally for a successful husbandman were superior to Mr. Brown's. It was generally expected when you planted that young orchard, the finest selection in all, that Mr. Jones would bear off the palm as a successful nurseryman. But you worked and toiled, studied and planned, devising ways and means to procure additional numbers to your infant orchard. It was numbers you regarded and sought for more than anything else. You should not have left the nursery to care for itself until the young trees were firmly rooted and able to stand the withering storms. Notwithstanding repeated admonitions to watch, water, and protect the young and tottering plants, they were left to the mercy of the “little foxes,” which speedily commenced their work of destruction, and ceased not from their gnawing and undermining until they had completely undone your work. The advice of those who had long labored in the vineyard as successful workmen you have disregarded, and have followed your own inclination. In short, when your work had just begun, you left it for another part of the field to go through the same experience in preparing the soil for the reception of the good seed, gathering out the stones, staking off the ground, and fencing it in with impassable barriers. After several weeks or months of hard labor, you have succeeded in planting another little orchard, to share the same fate as its predecessors. That is the way, husband, you have been laboring for a score of years. And the orchard which was the pride of our hearts, and the envy of our neighbors, where is it to-day? Scarcely a vestige of it remains. A few dwarfs only are left to mark the place of the once beautiful orchard that promised so bountiful a harvest.

Instead of watching the young scions with a parental care, until they become deep-rooted, settled, and grounded, you leave them for the wild birds of the forest to perch upon, or the ruthless hand of an enemy to destroy. Now, husband, it is my opinion that Mr. Brown's success is attributable mainly to his unceasing efforts to make every blow count. Where he planted one tree, you set out a dozen. He acted the part of a faithful husbandman, and as one who must give an account of his stewardship. In his declining days he has the satisfaction of looking over the broad fields and counting his fruit-bearing trees by scores, while you have scarcely a dozen live, healthy trees toward which you would like to call the attention of your friends as the result of your life labors. While you were spending time and means experimenting in different localities, Mr. Brown was carefully guarding every root and twig from the destructive palmerworm or caterpillar. Early and late he was seen passing from tree to tree. A limb was taken off here, another there. The pruning knife was not spared until the tree was brought into proper shape and good fruit-bearing condition. He not only planted, but he pruned and watered. He felt content to make haste slowly.

It is my opinion, husband, that you would not be under so great condemnation if you would visit your old orchard occasionally, and bestow some labor upon that which was once as choice to you as the pupil of your eye. Do not look so much to quantity as to quality. One tree firmly rooted, bearing fruit, gladdens the heart more than a thousand half-rooted, wavering, tottering dwarfs. Get your trees into good thriving condition, that they may not be blasted by every wind that blows. Prove yourself to be a workman that needeth not to be ashamed. By so doing you will find that your labor will not be in vain.

As husbandmen, we are accountable, and the fearful responsibility will rest where it rightly belongs.

Comments unnecessary. M. W.

THE FATHERS.

By J. Clarke

“SCRIPTURE without any comment is the sun from which all teachers receive their light. . . . We should not consult the fathers to throw light upon Scripture, but Scripture to explain the fathers.”—De Aubigne’s History of the Reformation, page 51, vol. 3.

The rule above quoted was the rule which led the early reformers out from the errors and darkness of the Romish church into the light and freedom of the gospel, and it is as necessary now as it was then, for all who would continue the work of reformation to the end.

Many suppose that Martin Luther, and other reformers of that period, completed the great work of reformation, and now we have only to follow in their path to win the eternal reward. But it is evident that they only began the work of purification. We live in an age of greater light, and we are called upon to complete the work they so nobly began.

Did Martin Luther study the word of God, to test the writings of those who went before him? We should do the same. Did he carefully reject the writings of the fathers when they conflicted with the word of God? So should we. Did he put the word of God above public opinion, above the custom of the church? We should do likewise.

The work of the Reformation in Luther’s time was a noble work, a divine work; the early reformers laid the foundation well, but the reformers of this age are called upon to build up the walls and finish the building. Shall we not each one aid in this work as we have the ability? J. CLARKE.

Continue reading: COUNT THE COST