“BE ye therefore perfect.” And the son, “Saved to the uttermost,” which has just been sung, is sufficient ground for the “therefore,”—“Be ye therefore perfect.” Matthew 5:48. You know that such is the word of God. You know that we are exhorted to “go on unto perfection.” Hebrews 6:1. You know that the gospel, the very preaching of the gospel which you and I preach, is to “present every man perfect in Christ Jesus.” Colossians 1:28.ARSH July 18, 1899, page 455.1

Then it is not for us to say that perfection is not expected of us. It is expected of us. You must expect it of yourself. I must expect it of myself. And I must not accept anything in myself or of myself that does not meet in perfection the standard of perfection which God has set. What could possibly prevent us from attaining perfection more than to think that it is not expected? I say again, What could possibly prevent you and me from attaining unto perfection more than for us to say that it is not expected that we should be perfect?ARSH July 18, 1899, page 455.2

Then, as it is settled that the Word says that you and I are to be perfect, the only thing for you and me to consider is the way. That is all. Let it be settled by you and by me that perfection as God has set it, is to be expected of you and me; and that you and I will not accept anything in ourselves, in what we have done, nor anything about us, that is a hair’s breadth short of perfection as God has set it,—let this be settled by each one, and settled forever,—then inquire only the way; and the thing will be accomplished.ARSH July 18, 1899, page 455.3

What is the standard, then? What is the standard which God has set?—“Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.” The perfection of God is the only standard. And you and I must set ourselves right there, and stand face to face with ourselves, always demanding of ourselves that there shall be perfection such as God’s is, in us; and that we will not look with a particle of allowance upon, we will not apologize for nor excuse, anything in ourselves that is in any conceivable degree short of that perfection.ARSH July 18, 1899, page 455.4

It is plain enough that we can not be perfect in greatness as God is, nor in omnipotence as he is, nor in omniscience as he is. God is character; and it is perfection of perfection as his is, that he has set for you and me, to which we shall attain, which alone we are to expect, and which alone we are to accept in ourselves. Then when it is God’s own perfection which you and I must have, and which alone we will accept of ourselves, and we hold ourselves to that standard always, you can see at once that that will be for you and me only to hold ourselves constantly in the presence of the judgment of God. There is where every one of us expects to stand, whether we are righteous or wicked. Why not stand there, then, and be done with it? It is settled that you and I are to stand at the judgment-seat of Christ, and there every one of us shall be measure by the standard. God “hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.” Acts 17:31.ARSH July 18, 1899, page 455.5

The resurrection of Christ is God’s pledge to the world that every man shall stand before the judgment-seat of Christ. That is settled. You and I expect it, we preach it; we believe it. Then why not put ourselves there, and stand steadily there? Why wait? Those who wait, and continue to wait, will not be able to stand there. The ungodly can not stand in this judgment; but those who put themselves before the judgment-seat of God, facing the standard of judgment, and hold themselves there constantly in thought, word, and deed, are ready for the judgment any moment. Ready for it?—They have it; they are there; they are passing it; they are inviting the judgment, and all that the judgment brings; they stand there expecting to be passed upon: and only he who does this is safe. The very blessing that comes in that thing is all the reward that any person needs for putting himself just now before the judgment-seat. And standing there, what has he to fear?—Nothing. And when all fear is cast out, what is it that does it?—Perfect love. But perfect love can come only by our meeting that perfect standard of the judgment, in the judgment, and can be kept only by standing there.ARSH July 18, 1899, page 455.6

That being settled, let us inquire the way,—the way; that is all. It is settled, then, that mine is not the standard. Think of it! “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.” His perfection is the only standard. Then whose measurement of the standard, whose estimate of the standard, is the proper one?—Not mine. I can not measure God’s perfection. You remember the verse—perhaps it occurs to you this moment: “I have seen an end of all perfection: but thy commandment is exceeding broad.” Psalm 119:96.ARSH July 18, 1899, page 455.7

No finite mind can measure God’s perfection. Then it is settled, so far, that we are to be perfect; our perfection is to be as his perfection is, and according to his own estimate of his own perfection. Then that takes entirely away from you and me the whole plan, and everything about it as to the doing of it. For when I can not measure the standard, how should I attain to it, even if it were given me to do? Then let it be settled also that as to the doing of it, it is put utterly beyond you.ARSH July 18, 1899, page 455.8

This also was said long, long, ago: “I know it is so of a truth: but how should man be just with God? If he will contend with him, he can not answer him one of a thousand.... If I speak of strength, lo, he is strong: and if of judgment, who shall set me a time to plead?”ARSH July 18, 1899, page 455.9

And when I should come to plead, what then?—“If I justify myself, mine own mouth shall condemn me.” If I can measure up myself to the satisfaction of myself, and pronounce the balance settled; when it is set alongside of his estimate, my own estimate is so far short that it condemns me utterly. There is in it no basis of justification. “If I say, I am perfect, it [my own mouth] shall also prove me perverse.”ARSH July 18, 1899, page 455.10

“Though I were perfect, yet would I not know my soul: I would despise my life.” My own standard of perfection, when set in the presence of his, and seen in the light of his, would be so far short that I myself would despise it. “If I wash myself with snow-water, and make my hands never so clean; yet shalt thou plunge me in the ditch, and mine own clothes shall abhor me.” Job 9:1, 2, 19-21, 30, 31.ARSH July 18, 1899, page 456.1

That is as near as we could come to the standard, if it were given to us to do. Then let us forever abandon all idea that perfection is anything that we are to work out. Perfection is that to which we are to attain, nothing but that. God expects is, and he has made provision for it. That is what we were created for. The only object of our existence is to be just that,—perfect with God’s perfection. And remember that we are to be perfect with his character. His standard of character is to be ours. We are not to have one made like it: it itself is to be ours. And that alone is Christian perfection.ARSH July 18, 1899, page 456.2

Now that we must have that, the whole story is told in three texts. The first one is in the first chapter of Ephesians, beginning with the third verse in order correctly to get the story in the fourth verse:—ARSH July 18, 1899, page 456.3

“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: according as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world [now notice what he chose us for; this is the object he had before the foundation of the world, in choosing you and me, and bringing us to this hour. Then let us face the issue], that we should be holy and without blame before him in love.”ARSH July 18, 1899, page 456.4

That is his only thought concerning us. That is all that he made us for; that is all we exist for. Then another word right there: When that is so, why shall we not face it? Why shall we not just now meet the object of our existence and be holy and without blame before him in love?ARSH July 18, 1899, page 456.5

The next text is Colossians 1:19-22: “It pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; and, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death, TO PRESENT YOU holy and unblamable and unreprovable in his sight.”ARSH July 18, 1899, page 456.6

First: He made us for that purpose. By sin we were swung entirely out of that purpose, the whole purpose was frustrated; but he endured the cross: it pleased God thus to do, and it pleased Christ thus to do it, that his original purpose might be fulfilled. The point it, that by his cross he reconciled us, in order that this original purpose might be met in us,—the purpose that he had before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love. The blood of Christ, the reconciliation of peace which is brought to the world by Jesus Christ, is in order the HE might present us holy,—that HE might do that very thing that he had in mind before the foundation of the world,—that HE MIGHT PRESENT YOU AND ME “holy and unblamable and unreproveable in his sight.”ARSH July 18, 1899, page 456.7

The way to Christian perfection is the way of the cross, and there is no other way. I mean there is no other way for you and me. The way to bring it to us, the only way, was by way of the cross. He came that way, and brought it; and the only way for you and me to get it is by the way of the cross. He has made provision that he himself shall do this; we do not come into it at all, for the doing.ARSH July 18, 1899, page 456.8

Now notice (Ephesians 4:7-13) what is really done in this, how fully he has supplied the need.ARSH July 18, 1899, page 456.9

“Unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ.” Now think. What did the gift of Christ do, so far in our study? It “made peace through the blood of the cross,” and reconciled all to God. And it did it to make US what, before the foundation of the world, he designed we should be,—“holy and unblamable and unreprovable in his sight.” That is the measure of the gift of Christ in this thing. And it accomplished the purpose for all so far that it opened the way for all. And unto every one of US, just now, is given grace according to the same measure. Then what the cross brought TO us, and put within our reach, the grace of God GIVES us, and accomplishes in us.ARSH July 18, 1899, page 456.10

Now let us read right on, and you will see that this is all so, right up to the very word perfection itself: “Unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ. Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and GAVE GIFTS unto MEN. And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers.” What for?—“For THE PERFECTING of THE SAINTS.” Brethren, when those gifts are given for that purpose, what are we doing when we do not face the fact, and long for the gifts, and pray for the gifts, and receive the gifts, which accomplish the purpose? What are we doing otherwise?ARSH July 18, 1899, page 456.11

“For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, TILL”—given for an object; brought to us for a purpose, a defined, distinct, definite purpose; and UNTIL that purpose is accomplished. It is given “for the perfecting of the saints;” and it is given “TILL we ALL COME in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a PERFECT MAN, unto the measure of the stature of the FULNESS OF CHRIST.”ARSH July 18, 1899, page 456.12

Thus perfection is the only aim. God’s standard is the only one. “Be ye perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.” We can not measure it; and could not attain to it, if it were given us to do. It is the object of our creation; and when that object was frustrated by sin, he made it possible to all by the blood of his cross, and makes it certain to every believer by the gifts of the Holy Spirit.ARSH July 18, 1899, page 456.13

Then again I ask, Why should we not constantly face Christian perfection, and accept nothing of ourselves but that?ARSH July 18, 1899, page 456.14

(To be continued.)

“Editorial” The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald 76, 29, p. 460.

OUR God, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, is the true God: all others are idols.ARSH July 18, 1899, page 460.1

He also is the working God: as it is written, “My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.” John 5:17. All others are idle.ARSH July 18, 1899, page 460.2

Now it is a principle in the very idea of worship, that the worshiper becomes conformed in character to the image of that which he worships.ARSH July 18, 1899, page 460.3

Every true worshiper of God therefore is a worker. He must be a worker to be a true worshiper; for, is it not written, “My Father worketh hitherto, and I work”?ARSH July 18, 1899, page 460.4

“Editorial Note” The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald 76, 29, p. 460.

IN Leviticus 16 is recorded the ceremony of the day of atonement, in the service of the worldly sanctuary. Two goats were presented before the Lord, upon which the lot was cast, to know which was for the Lord to be sacrificed, and his blood used in making the atonement. So it is written: “Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats: one lot for the Lord, and the other lot for the scapegoat.”ARSH July 18, 1899, page 460.1

Now the word here translated “scapegoat” is a proper name—“Azazel.” And so the Revised Version runs: “Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for the Lord, and offer him for a sin-offering. But the goat, on which the lot fell for Azazel, shall be set alive before the Lord, ... to send him away for Azazel into the wilderness.”ARSH July 18, 1899, page 460.2

Who, then, is Azazel?—Since no lot was for the Lord, and the other was for Azazel, it is plain that Azazel is a personality as really as is the Lord. And since only one lot was for the Lord,—the other being for Azazel,—it is also plain that Azazel is the opposite of the Lord. And as God is Spirit, and all this represents spiritual things, it follows that Azazel, being the opposite of the Lord, is a spirit personality, who is the opposite of the Lord. And, plainly, that is Satan.ARSH July 18, 1899, page 460.3

In a note to the passage, the Polychrome Version describes Azazel as “an evil spirit, suppose to dwell in the wilderness.” McClintock and Strong’s Encyclopedia, says: “Ewald agrees with Gesenius, and speaks of Azazel as a demon belonging to the pre-Mosaic religion. Others have regarded him as an evil spirit, or the devil himself. In the Apocryphal book of Enoch, Azazel is among the chief spirits whose doctrine and influence the earth was corrupted. The same title among the Gnostics signified either Satan or some other demon, on which account Origen did not hesitate, in the passage of Leviticus in question, to understand the devil as meant. Among moderns this view has been copiously illustrated. The following are the arguments used in its support: (a) The contrast of terms (‘to the Lord,’ ‘to Azazel’) in the text naturally presumes a person to be intended, in opposition to, and contradistinction from, Jehovah; (b) the desert, wither the consecrated goat of Azazel was sent away, was accounted the peculiar abode of demons (Isaiah 13:21; 34:13, 14; Matthew 12:43; Revelation 18:2); (c) this interpretation may be confirmed by the early derivation of the word, signifying either strength of God, if referred to a once good, but now fallen, angel; or powerful against God, as applied to a malignant demon. Hengstenberg affirms, with great confidence that Azazel can not possibly be anything but another name for Satan.”ARSH July 18, 1899, page 460.4

When the high priest had made an atonement “for all the congregation of Israel,” had cleansed and hallowed the altar “from the uncleanness of the children of Israel,” and had “made an end of reconciling the holy place, and the tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar;” then the live goat that was “for Azazel” was brought, and the high priest was to “lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat [“for Azazel”], and ... send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness; and the goat [“for Azazel”] shall bear upon him all their iniquities into a land not inhabited.”ARSH July 18, 1899, page 460.5

So shall it be in the end of this world. When our great High Priest shall have blotted out all the sins of all his people in all ages, and shall have cleansed the heavenly sanctuary from all their transgressions in all their sins, then shall be brought Azazel indeed, Satan, the originator of all sin, and by our High Priest there shall be laid upon him all the iniquities of all the people in all their sins, putting them upon the head of Azazel. Then shall come the great and mighty angel having “a great chain in his hand,” and shall lay hold on Azazel, “the dragon, that old serpent, which is the devil, and Satan,” and shall bind him, and shall cast him into the wasted and desolate earth, and shall shut him up, and set a seal upon him, for a thousand years. And thus Azazel “shall bear upon him all their iniquities into a land not inhabited.” Read Leviticus 16:15-22; Revelation 20:1-3; Isaiah 14:22-27; Jeremiah 4:23-27.ARSH July 18, 1899, page 460.6

“More ‘Oppositions of Science Falsely So-called’” The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald 76, 29, p. 460.

SO-CALLED science has made another immense contribution to the tide that is already flooding the world. Prof. W. O. Atwater, of the Wesleyan University, has announced that “scientific” discovery that alcohol “is a food.” “After long and careful experiments on various men,” he made the announcement, June 13. Harper’s Weekly summarizes his report, as follows:—ARSH July 18, 1899, page 460.1

Alcohol in limited quantities is not a poison, but serves some of the uses of food, like sugar and starch: it supplies heat and energy, and protects the material of the body from consumption, but does not make new tissue. It is useful as a fuel, but not to repair the machine. Professor Atwater does not recommend it as a food. He says that its effect on the brain and nerves is often such as to counteract its food value, and that the moderate use of it often leads to excess. But he holds that, taken in small quantities, it is a food, and not a poison, and that from two to two and a half ounces may be consumed without harm in the course of a day.ARSH July 18, 1899, page 460.2

It would be difficult to get more false teaching and contradictions into the same space than is set down it that paragraph.ARSH July 18, 1899, page 460.3

1. Alcohol in any quantity is poison, and does not and can not serve any of the uses of food. Alcohol, in its whole course in the human system, acts contrary to nature. It affects the nerves first of all; indeed it affects only the nerves, first, last, and all the time. It tears down, instead of building up. It gets strength out of a man without putting strength into him. Anything that acts that way in the human system is a poison, and a poison only; and can not be in any sense a food.ARSH July 18, 1899, page 460.4

2. It is literally impossible to supply “heat and energy,” and to “protect the material of the body from consumption,” without making new tissue. The statements that it does do so are not only contradictory to the truth, but are contradictory to themselves; for it is recognized that new tissue must be made, that the machine must be repaired. Yet alcohol is given the wonderful property of supplying heat and energy, and protecting the material of the body from consumption! It is possessed of the amazing quality of causing the machine to go, and at the same time of keeping it from wearing out! That is simply not true. Alcohol is not divine, nor does it bear in itself “the promise and potency” of perpetual motion.ARSH July 18, 1899, page 460.5

The truth is, and is here recognized, that there is waste of tissue, in fact, every motion in or of the human system, even to thinking, consumes material of the body, and so causes loss of tissue. Now anything that induces energy without supplying tissue, does it simply, and can do it only, by consuming the material of the body. But anything that induces consumption of the material of the body without supplying new tissue, only tears down and destroys the human system; and that is poison. It is confessed in this “scientific” announcement, that alcohol “does not make new tissue,” does not “repair the machine” while it does induce energy; and that is in itself a confession that alcohol is not a food, but a poison.ARSH July 18, 1899, page 460.6

It is exceedingly proper, therefore, that Professor Atwater “does not recommend it as a food.” Yet what a contradiction it is that “a food” can not be recommended as a food by the very person who, by “long and careful experiments,” has scientifically discovered that “it is a food”!ARSH July 18, 1899, page 460.7

But he can not recommend it as a food because “its effect on the brain and nerves is often such as to counteract its food value;” that is to say, the effect of a food is such as to destroy its food value! That simply demonstrates again that it is not a food at all, but poison only.ARSH July 18, 1899, page 460.8

Yet after all this contradiction of the truth, and self-contradiction in the statements themselves, which demonstrate that it is a poison, he still “holds that, taken in small quantities, it is a food, and not a poison, and that from two to two and a half ounces may be consumed without harm in the course of a day.” Now when it is understood that alcohol can not be taken raw, and that in the course of a day a person must take about three average drinks of whisky, or two quarts—about fourteen glasses—of lager beer, or a pint and a half of claret, in order to consume two and a half ounces of alcohol, it can in some measure be estimated what an immense contribution to the tide of drunkenness is made in this latest “scientific” “discover” and announcement by a professor of high standing in his profession and in a Methodist university and theological school.ARSH July 18, 1899, page 460.9

If ever the divine warning were needed, to “avoid ... oppositions of science false so-called,” that time is just now, when all the evils of drunkenness and of Spiritualism are “scientifically” commended to the world.ARSH July 18, 1899, page 460.10

“What Is True Patriotism?” The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald 76, 29, pp. 460, 461.

AS there is much being said, and more will be said, especially in the United States, about patriotism, it is well to give the subject some consideration upon its merits. Many times, indeed it might be said mostly, the word “patriotism” is used without any true conception of the idea of it,—used in a way that is entirely foreign to any true meaning of the word.ARSH July 18, 1899, page 460.1

The principal notion attached to the word in its use nowadays is that it means to fight. It may indeed involve that; but not necessarily; and when it does, it is the last meaning that comes to the word.ARSH July 18, 1899, page 460.2

“Patriotism” is defined to be “love of one’s country.” The word is derived from the original word—in both Latin and Greek—“pater,” meaning “father.” The love of country expressed by the word is, therefore, love of the country of one’s birth, because it is the place of his fathers.ARSH July 18, 1899, page 460.3

This being so, it is evident that in this original idea of the word there is much involved before the thought of fighting can enter; and that even when the idea of fighting does enter, it never can be any fighting but in defense of one’s country. It is as plain as A B C that fighting for conquest, the invasion and subduing of other countries, can never in any sense attach to the idea of patriotism.ARSH July 18, 1899, page 460.4

After the organization of states—formal governments—an additional meaning attached to the word “patriotism;” namely, loyalty to the principles that are characteristic of the organized nation which possesses the country of one’s birth.ARSH July 18, 1899, page 460.5

This further meaning of the word may also involve the idea of fighting; though not necessarily, and certainly not primarily; for it is possible to conceive of a situation in which the truest patriotism, the truest loyalty to the principles of the nation, would be to refuse to fight.ARSH July 18, 1899, page 460.6

Conceive, for instance, a nation that had espoused the principles of justice, of natural right, and self-evident truth; that these were its characteristics. It is possible that an administration might take a course that was violative of these principles. In such a case, true patriotism—loyalty to the principles of the nation—would require that the people should not sanction the course of the government, nor support the administration in it, and actually refuse to fight, and tell others to refuse, if fighting were going on. However, if a majority of the people should support the administration in such a course, true patriotism would almost certainly be denounced as treason; nevertheless it would still be the only true patriotism in that country.ARSH July 18, 1899, page 460.7

Now, such a situation as that is not merely a conception: it has actually occurred in history, even to this last extreme. A people once threw off the yoke of the government with which they were connected, and set up for themselves, independent of all nations. The principles which they of their own choice espoused were the principles of justice and right, and God was invoked as witness to the transaction, and even partner in it.ARSH July 18, 1899, page 461.1

After a while they forgot justice and right; and when appealed to and pleaded with to return to, and hold fast, the original principles, they counted it rather a reflection on their wisdom and integrity, and therefore refused to listen. among the many evils incurred by such a course, they found themselves involved in war. The true patriots, those who maintained strict loyalty to original principles, spoke against their engaging in the war, told them that to make war under the circumstances would only involve the whole nation in more and more trouble until only ruin would be the result.ARSH July 18, 1899, page 461.2

Still the administration, supported indeed by the majority of the people, refused to listen, and went on with the war. Then the true patriots actually began to tell the people not only not to fight, but even to go over to the other side and give themselves up; that all who did so would be safe and would fare well, while all who did not do so would certainly suffer the worst calamities.ARSH July 18, 1899, page 461.3

Then the chief patriot especially was denounced and reported to the administration as weakening the hands of the soldiers and of all the people by speaking such words; they declared that he was not seeking at all the welfare of the people or the country, but the hurt; and they demanded that he be put to death. In response, the administration did not indeed put him to death, but did put him in prison, in a dungeon so noisome that he sank in the mire up to his shoulders.ARSH July 18, 1899, page 461.4

That nation was Israel; that administration was that of Zedekiah king of Judah; and that chief patriot, who was denounced and imprisoned as the chief traitor, was JEREMIAH.ARSH July 18, 1899, page 461.5

Read Jeremiah 21:12; 32:37; and 38:1-6,—yea, read the whole book of Jeremiah, and know forever that in a nation whose charter is the principles of justice and right, the only true patriotism is unswerving allegiance to those principles, even to imprisonment and death as a traitor.ARSH July 18, 1899, page 461.6

July 11, 1899

July 25, 1899