Earlier text: General ArticlesS A B B A T O N : AN EXPOSITION OF MATT. 28: 1, AND PARALLEL PASSAGES. (Continued.)
By Uriah Smith
Now it is evident that the word sabbaton must here be taken in other than its ordinary sense; for “the first day of the Sabbath,” the Sabbath itself being only one day, would be a meaningless expression. Turning again to Robinson, we find under the word sabbaton the second definition given as follows: “Meton. [that is, by metonymy, a figure of speech in which one word is put for another], a Sabbath, put for the interval from Sabbath to Sabbath; hence a se'nnight, week.” “Only after numerals marking the days of the week.” Then he refers, for examples, to all those passages in which the phrase, “first day of the week,” occurs in the New Testament. And he adds, “In the Talmuds, the days of the week are written; the first, second, third, day in the Sabbath (week); see Lightfoot Hor. Heb. in Matt. 28: 1.” In the light of the foregoing facts, presented in a manner so plain that we trust all can understand them, it is not difficult for any one to see that a correct translation of the passage would be: “After the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first [day] of the week. One question more may arise: How is it to be known when sabbatone or sabbaton is to be rendered week, instead of Sabbath? Answer. It is to be rendered week whenever it is preceded by a numeral. It is so preceded in every case where the expression, first day of the week occurs, and also in Luke 18: 12, where the Pharisee fasted twice in the (sabbatou, genitive singular) week. Hence we translate the word sabbatone, as it first occurs in Matt. 28: 1, by the word Sabbath, because it has no numeral before it; and in the second instance of its occurrence, we translate it week, because it is preceded by the numeral mian. U. S. LUTHER LEE, in his “Theology,” p. 375, presents the following criticism on Col. 2: 16. The text reads thus: “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days.” On which Mr. Lee says: “To what Sabbath does the apostle refer? He uses the Greek word sabbaton, which is everywhere used to denote the seventh-day Sabbath, without giving any notice that he means anything else; and while, by a holy day and the new moon, he includes all other feasts and rests which might be called sabbaths, he leaves nothing but the seventh-day Sabbath to be meant by the sabbath days.” The arguments which Mr. Lee presents to show that Paul refers to the seventh-day Sabbath in Col. 2: 16, and that, consequently, that Sabbath is not binding on Christians, are these: First, the apostle uses the word sabbaton, which everywhere denotes the seventh-day Sabbath; and, secondly, the other terms used in the text cover all other kinds of sabbaths, so that this word must refer here to the seventh-day Sabbath. He evidently designed to convey to the mind of the reader the idea that the term sabbaton, always and in every place, means the seventh-day Sabbath; and we can see the object of this; for unless it does always have this meaning, his argument on the use of the term here is null and void. But it will be noticed that he does not directly assert this; nor do we think he would be willing to so far risk his reputation as a scholar as to make such a declaration. He says the term sabbaton “is everywhere used to denote the seventh-day Sabbath;” which is true so far as the fact is concerned that whenever the seventh-day Sabbath is spoken of, the term sabbaton or its synonym, sabbata, is used. But it is quite another thing to say that the word sabbaton never means anything else, as he evidently designed to have the reader understand. It may be used to denote the seventh-day Sabbath in every instance where Sabbath is brought to view; and yet it may have a much wider signification, and be applied, in many places, to other objects. The question to be decided is, Does the term sabbaton ever refer to the ceremonial sabbaths of the Jews? If it does, then the apostle may have used it in that sense in Col. 2: 16; and the argument of Mr. Lee so far falls to the ground. We therefore refer the reader to Lev. 16: 31; 23: 32; and 25: 2, 4, 6, as found in the Septuagint, where he will see that the term Sabbath is used in reference to the day of atonement, one of the yearly sabbaths of the Jews, and is even applied to the seventh year in which the land should rest. This is conclusive on this point. But there is in the New Testament evidence enough that the term sabbaton does not always mean the seventh-day Sabbath. Every lexicon tells us that it sometimes means the whole week, the interval from Sabbath to Sabbath; and Luke 18: 12, furnishes an instance where it must have this signification. So much for this argument on Sabbaton. Let us now look for a moment at his other statement, that the remaining terms in Col. 2: 16, namely, the “holy day” and “new moon” include all other feasts and rests which might be called sabbaths, so that the term sabbaton is necessarily restricted to the seventh-day Sabbath. The term translated “holy day,” is heorte, which is defined by Greenfield, a “solemn feast, public festival, holy day; specially spoken of the passover,” Robinson adds, “Specially a) The passover, and the festival of unleavened bread connected with it, the ‘paschal festival.’ b) The feast of tabernacles.” The passover festival occupied seven days, and the feast of tabernacles, eight. The first and last days of these feasts were special days. In them the people were to have a holy convocation, and perform no servile work. They were sabbaths. The other days of the feast were simply holidays, and were designated by this term, heorte; while the solemnity and cessation from labor that pertained to the first and last days called for another title, and they were termed sabbaths. So Kitto says, respecting the feast of tabernacles, “It began on the fifteenth day of the seventh month, and continued eight days, the first and last being sabbaths.” The new moon, noumenia, was another kind of festival, and did not include any which could properly be called a sabbath; that is, no day was a sabbath, or day of rest, on account of its being the festival of the new moon. Thus we see that the terms, “holy day” and “new moon” are not sufficient, as Mr. Lee asserts, to cover all the subjects which the apostle wished to introduce; namely, the ordinary feast days of the Jews, the new moons, and the sabbaths connected with their feasts; and these latter he designates by the word sabbatone, just as they were designated by the Greek version of the Old Testament then in use. But there are other considerations which should have been sufficient to save Mr. Lee from so false a criticism upon this text:— 1. The sabbaths here mentioned are those associated with meats, drinks, new moons, and festivals. But the seventh-day Sabbath never was so associated. 2. The sabbaths here spoken of were, like the new moons and feasts with which they were connected, shadows of things to come. But the seventh-day Sabbath never was a shadow; it was instituted before the fall, when, from the very nature of the case, a type could not have existed: This language of the apostle, therefore, in the most emphatic manner, excludes the weekly Sabbath from the days of which he speaks. 3. All that is mentioned in verse 16 is included in the handwriting of ordinances of verse 14, which was against us, and was blotted out and nailed to the cross. But the seventh-day Sabbath never was a part of these ordinances, as such. It owed its existence to enactments entirely distinct, not being written by the hand of Moses, but being proclaimed by the voice of God from the summit of Sinai, and engraved with his finger upon the tables of stone. And to speak of blotting out such a document would be to say that a person could, with pen and ink, erase the chiseled inscription of the marble monument. If Mr. Lee is correct, Paul did not write by inspiration of God; for that never thus bungles in the use of language. The word sabbatone is in the plural, and should here be so rendered. If it were in the singular number, it might with propriety be claimed that it referred to the weekly Sabbath. The context, showing that it must refer to the ceremonial sabbaths of the Jews, demands that the plural rendering be here given. So if the word days, which our translators have supplied, be omitted, it should be rendered sabbaths. In this manner God speaks of the sabbaths of the Jewish church, when by the prophet Hosea (2: 11) he calls them “her sabbaths,” and predicts that they should cease, as Paul here declares that they had ceased. Robinson says sabbatone, in Col. 2: 16, has a plural signification. Mr. Lee's criticism thus fails in every particular; for, 1. The terms holy day (or feast day) and new moon do not cover the ceremonial sabbaths of the Jews. 2. The term sabbaton is applied to those sabbaths, and is needed in this text to denote them. 3. The sabbaths of this text are associated with ceremonies. 4. They are shadows, or types. 5. They are blotted out. 6. The word is plural. All which considerations prove that the text has no reference whatever to the Sabbath of the moral law; and hence contains no evidence that we are not morally bound to observe it. U. S. Extracts from Both Sides, pp. 114–119.
ELD. T. M. PREBLE says: “Now it is evident that the traslators had just transposed the word sabbaton, in these nine cases just examined, as they did in the other fifty-nine instances already above referred to, then we should have had clear, blazing light shining on this glorious subject; and we should see that, at the END of the seventh-day Sabbaths—(or at the end of the LORD JEHOVAH'S Sabbaths—which he gave to the ‘children of Israel to be a ‘sign’ unto them ‘throughout their generation’) THERE would be the BEGINNING of the LORD JESUS CHRIST'S SABBATHS. Or, in other words, where one series of Sabbaths ended, there another series of Sabbaths began.” “If the translators had just ‘transposed’ [transferred?] the word sabbaton, in nine cases where it is rendered week in the New Testament, ‘then we should have had clear, blazing light shining on this glorious subject.’” So, then, the “clear blazing light” on the Sunday Sabbath lies in the fact that the word sabbaton is incorrectly translated week nine times in the New Testament! And Eld. P. takes it upon himself to correct the translation, and bring out the blazing light! We are glad the controversy is narrowed down to this point. If left here, it would soon be disposed of; for it will not take long to sweep this objection back into the depth of night from whence it sprung. It is a fact that the word sabbaton is rendered week in the nine instances Eld. P. has referred to. Is this rendering correct? “For some cause unknown to me,” says he, “the translators saw fit to render the word sabbaton by the word week in nine cases out of the whole number sixty-eight.” The translators certainly had a reason for translating it as they have done; and we can tell Elder P. how he might have “known” what it was. It is to be presumed that he possesses a copy of the common edition of Greenfield's Greek Testament. If he will look in the lexicon attached to that Testament, under the word sabbaton, he will find the third definition reading like this: “A period of seven days; a week.” If this word in certain relations means week, it is certainly proper so to translate it. And one of the instances to which Elder P. has referred, renders it necessary to good sense to give it this meaning: Luke 18: 12: “I fast twice in the week” (sabbatou). Now if the word here means the Sabbath, the seventh day of the week, and not the whole week, we have the singular spectacle of the old Pharisee claiming to fast twice in a day of twenty-four hours, which would be, of course, between meals! Bloomfield, in his note on this place, says that this fast was on the second and fifth days of the week, according to Epiphanius and the Rabbins. Robinson, under the word sabbaton, says, “2. Meton., a sabbath, put for the interval from Sabbath to Sabbath, hence a se'nnight, week.” From the foregoing it is evident that the word sabbaton sometimes means the whole week. How, then; shall we determine when it has this meaning? Easily enough. Robinson says that it has this meaning “after numerals denoting the days of the week.” We now inquire, Does the word sabbaton, in those places where the expression, “first day of the week,” occurs in the New Testament, follow a numeral adjective denoting the day of the week? We answer, Yes, in every instance. Then no one can deny, without discarding all authority, that in these instances sabbaton means week, and the translation of our common version is correct. The numeral adjective used in Matt. 28: 1; Mark 16: 2; Luke 24: 1; John 20: 1, 19; Acts 20: 7; 1 Cor. 16: 2, is mia or mian; in Mark 16: 9, protee. One instance will suffice for the whole, and we will take the first one, Matt. 28: 1. The words are mian sabbaton (pronounced with long o, as in tone). Mian is the numeral adjective meaning one, or according to Hebraism, “first.” It agrees with day, understood. Sabbaton is in the genitive plural, literally answering to the English words, “of the week.” So we have, as plainly as language can say it, “first day of the week.” Pld. P. argues, however, that here the Lord Jehovah's Sabbaths ceased, and the Lord Jesus Christ's Sabbaths were introduced, or one series of Sabbaths there ended, and another series of Sabbaths there began. But this little shift in favor of Sunday, involves a fatal violation of grammar which he has apparently overlooked. If his rendering is correct, and first day of the week should be rendered, “one of sabbaths,” meaning one of the new series of Sabbaths then introduced, then the word one, mian, must agree with sabbaton understood. But sabbaton is neuter, and mian is feminine. Grammar will not submit to any such treatment as this. The word mian, being in the feminine gender, shows that the noun understood, with which it agrees, is a feminine noun. And there is no word which can be introduced to supply the ellipsis, except the word which the translators of our Bible have supplied, namely heemeran, day, which renders the sense complete, and being a feminine answer to the feminine adjective, mian, and makes the construction harmonious and perfect. We accordingly find in the margin of the Greek Testament a reference from the word mian, saying, “Heemeran understood.” And we are forced to the conclusion that Greenfield, Robinson, and Liddell and Scott, in their lexicons, and the forty-seven learned men of England who made our version of the New Testament, are correct in their translation, and Eld. P. is wrong. Another conclusion is no less apparent, namely, that this great “blaze” of “light,” with which Eld. P. hoped to dazzle us from the Greek, has proved but another ignis fatuus, which, after leading its victim into inextricable bogs, has—gone out! U. S. True Source of Comfort.
By Editor
AN aged friend in one of the eastern States, has written a letter to us, in an excellent Christian spirit, criticising Bro. Canright's articles on the State of the Dead. We cannot promise to publish his article, which is somewhat lengthy, because its positions and arguments are such as are common, and well known to all who are at all acquainted with the subject. We judge the whole matter of controversy is new with the writer of the letter, who has lately become a reader of our paper. We therefore more highly commend the kind spirit in which his strictures are written. But one point we will notice because it has been so impressed on our mind by a recent occurrence. Our correspondent quotes Eccl. 12: 7, and Gen. 2: 7, and says here is found "all the comfort the true child of God has in this turbulent world," that when his body dies, "his better part shall live on" and dwell in glory. Against this we object,— 1. This comfort is derived from our nature by creation; not from that which Jesus does for us to redeem us from the ruin of the fall. That hope which is based on our natural relations is no hope at all. We therefore say that the doctrine of the immortality of the soul, even if it were true, could not be a gospel doctrine. All gospel truths and hopes grow out of the work of Christ for human redemption. But the immortality of the soul is in no wise connected with the work of redemption, for no one ever pretends that it is contingent. The immortality brought to light in the gospel is contingent; it is to be sought for, and put on. See 2 Tim. 1: 10; Rom. 2: 7; 1 Cor. 15: 53, 54. And they who do not seek for it will never receive it. Immortality is conferred—it is the gift of God, through Christ. We will not further notice that the inferences from Eccl. 12 and Gen. 2 are not by any means necessary, as proving the "living on" of any part of man. We leave that with the articles of Bro. Canright. 2. The Scriptures never offer the nature of man as the source of comfort, concerning those who fall asleep. In "Jesus and the resurrection" is found the true source of comfort and consolation. Jesus himself pointed the weeping sisters of Lazarus to the resurrection, and not to any intermediate "living on of the better part." Paul's words are pointed and decisive. He says, "Comfort one another with these words." What are "these words," to which he referred? He had just told them they should not mourn as those who have no hope. But what is their hope? (1) The Lord himself will come. (2) The dead in Christ will rise. (3) We shall be translated—caught up with them, and so—in this manner, and with them—shall we ever be with the Lord. These are comforting words,—they are words of truth. "This we say unto you by the word of the Lord," said the apostle. It is not based on the speculations of science, falsely so-called, nor the deductions of philosophy, nor even on inferences from the word of the Lord. It is the direct "word of the Lord" itself. It is sure. It is an unfailing source of comfort and consolation. 3. We object to the view of our correspondent, because it is as applicable, as available, to the infidel, or the spiritualist, as to the Christian. A true Bible hope—a Christian hope, and comfort—must be peculiar to a Bible believer, or to one who lives a Christian life. But a hope (if it can be called a hope) which is based on the immortality of the soul, or on the nature which man possesses by his creation, belongs to every son of Adam, without regard to character. Did Christ ever purchase an immortal soul for anybody? He purchased the right of immortality, which all may receive by accepting the means presented in the gospel. The "occurrence" to which we refer above, is this. In San Jose, Cal., there is a "haunted house," so reputed. It is occupied by spiritualists. A young man of the family, who was a printer and formerly worked in the office of the San Jose Mercury, died of consumption. During his sickness manifestations are said to have occurred, which were regarded as "affording consolation and comfort in giving tokens of the life beyond." Since his death these have increased, in the sight of those who are not spiritualists as well as of those who are. Concerning these the father writes:— "A heavy body was heard falling upon the floor, startling every one in the house. Doors were slammed, and numerous raps upon the window-glass were heard. Electric lights were observed, and the spirit of a man well-known in this community was seen, and correctly described as one who had committed suicide in this house previous to my occupation of it. Thus the shadow and gloom of death has been lifted a little from our hearts by these physical manifestations of spirit life." This may afford "a little" relief to those who are in the darkness of nature, who have no knowledge of the gospel of God's dear Son. But how a professed follower of Christ, a reader of the Bible, can build his hope on the vague idea that he possesses "a better part" by his natural constitution, which "shall live on" independent of the gospel and of gospel means, seems truly mysterious. It shows how greatly are needed such articles as Bro. Canright is now furnishing to this paper, to dispel the darkness of nature and of traditional superstition. What is Preaching?
By Editor
Philip expounded the prophecy of Isaiah to the eunuch, and the historian says he "preached unto him Jesus." Every sermon given in the New Testament is an exposition of the Scriptures. When Paul preached at Thessalonica he "reasoned with them out of the Scriptures." But what is that which is called "preaching" at the present day? For years the sermon, so-called, has been degenerating into a moral essay, but it has now become a discussion of passing events, local history, or political issues. A San Francisco correspondent of the Mendocino Beacon truthfully represents the case; we extract from the letter:— "The ministers of our city in order to draw audiences take their text from Jules Verne or some other author. It is because of this evil, that we have come to be a city that cares less for sermons or lectures than any other in the land. The pulpit in stepping out from its rightful path has taken away the zest of the lecture field, and weakened its own hold on the general public. Each Sunday evening our ministers offer from their desks a variety of topics, choosing generally some secular subject in which prayer and song is mixed in a most curious way. As a consequence, the ranks are thinned and divided. Those who would like to listen to theology, don't care for the lecture, so stay at home. While those who enjoy the lecture fields prefer it on other nights and without any side issues. Each Sunday our papers have a long list of church services, and the subject of the discourse. They range over 25,000 miles in circumference, and embrace almost every conceivable thing outside from the Bible. Sometimes when Dr. A. gets a chance to answer Bro. B., there is some variety with a little pepper sauce mixed in, and the audience seem as nonplussed as if reading a mixed editorial written by Pickering and De Young jointly. I do not wish to narrow religion down to a Puritanical level; but I do not wish an adulterated article. It is impossible for any lecturer to obtain a fair audience here, for we are surfeited with them weekly. Ingersoll would draw a crowd. So Victoria Woodhull, or any one who is sensational. Set up any figure-head like a savory calf and the masses will rush pellmell to do homage. I contend that when the pulpit seeks to become a rostrum of the lecture, everything else should correspond. And when it does so lower its influence on Sunday, it only adds, to the world at large, confusion regarding the dividing line which should mark where the lines of God's sanctuary begin and end." The reference to the "editorial" will be better appreciated when it is known that the persons named are editors of two rival papers, who treat each other with unusual bitterness. But such is the medley. The Chinese, and the New Constitution, are the texts for many eloquent "sermons" from "orthodox" pulpits. The early history of California was quite recently a pulpit theme, while her prospects, and the duties of her citizens, give variety to "the gospel of the period!" We have for years insisted that, as a denomination, we are somewhat at fault for giving "aid and comfort" to those who maintain this false standard of "preaching." Our ministers preach a series of good expository and practical sermons, and both advertise and report them as "lectures." The distinction between the lecture and the sermon, which is made by the world at large, is, that the lecture is of a secular, and the sermon of a sacred, nature. But, surely, an exposition of a Bible subject in the enforcement of Christian duty, is not secular; nor is an essay on a political subject, or on "The Early Literature of Virginia," entitled to the name of sacred; but this latter was the subject of a recent "sermon." We lately received a letter from one who is preaching the doctrines of the Seventh-day Adventists with some success, who writes:— "Cannot you write something to induce our people to stop talking and writing about their 'lecturing?' I can see the bad effect of it wherever I go. I cannot see the propriety of calling a mass of words, embodying somebody's own ideas without Scripture proof, preaching, and the exposition of Bible truth, lecturing. It causes people to look slightingly on our work; and our ministers, by making the same distinction, lessen their own influence." With this we fully agree. We ought to have all the influence for good to which we are justly entitled. We have made it a practice to remove the word, lectures, from all reports of labors which we publish. But this does not go very far while our ministers (lecturers ?) advertise and speak as they do. We believe this subject is worthy of their attention. The New Constitution.
By Editor
THE State of California is entering upon a very exciting election canvass, which can hardly be called a political one. The new constitution is to be voted upon, May 7. We are frequently asked our opinion of it. We have no opinion to give. Though it is not strictly a partisan matter, it is too nearly related to politics to admit of our giving attention to it. We have not time to devote to it sufficient to frame an intelligent opinion. In saying it is not a partisan matter we must make one exception. It is the political watch-cry of Denis Kearney's party, ranking with that of "The Chinese must go." We heard Kearney recommend it on the ground that it will throw out of office all present office-holders, even to the Judges of the Courts, (which is true), and give a chance to fill the offices with their candidates. If we thought their wishes were to be gratified in this respect by its adoption, we should greatly deplore its being adopted. Professedly the advocates of freedom of speech, they have adopted the rule that no one shall be permitted to speak against the new constitution in the meetings of the "Workingmen's party." As indications we notice two things. Several papers which were favorable at first, have turned in opposition on more thorough examination. And at the Monday afternoon meeting, March 24, of the Congregational club, it was discussed by the ministers in a very animated manner. Of fifteen speakers every one was decided in opposition. Of this the Bulletin says :—"If the unanimous opposition of these clergymen to the new Constitution is to be taken as an exponent of the views of the congregations over which they preside, it clearly indicates how thoroughly the educated and intelligent classes are becoming dissatisfied with the cumbersome document which the late Convention submitted to their consideration." Whether they do in fact reflect the views of their congregations it may not be possible to tell, but the idea seems to prevail that the document is losing favor in many quarters. The Seven Seals.
By Uriah Smith
REV. 6 : 5, 6. "And when he had opened the third seal, I heard the third beast say, Come and see. And I beheld, and lo a black horse; and he that sat on him had a pair of balances in his hand. And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts say, A measure of wheat for a penny, and three measures of barley for a penny; and see thou hurt not the oil and the wine." How rapidly the work of corruption progresses! What a contrast between this symbol and the first one! A black horse; the very opposite of the first. A period of great darkness and moral corruption in the church must be denoted by this symbol. By the events of the second seal, the way was fully opened for that state of things to be brought about which is here presented. The time that intervened between the reign of Constantine and the establishment of the papacy in A. D. 538, may be justly noted as the time when the darkest errors and grossest superstitions sprung up in the church. Of a period immediately succeeding the days of Constantine, Mosheim says :— "Those vain fictions which an attachment to the Platonic philosophy, and to popular opinions, had engaged the greatest part of the Christian doctors to adopt, before the time of Constantine, were now confirmed, enlarged, and embellished in various ways. Hence arose that extravagant veneration for departed saints, and those absurd notions of a certain fire destined to purify separate souls, that now prevailed, and of which the public marks were everywhere to be seen. Hence also the celibacy of priests,109the worship of images and relics, which, in process of time, almost utterly destroyed the Christian religion, or at least eclipsed its luster, and corrupted its very essence in the most deplorable manner. An enormous train of superstitions was gradually substituted for true religion and genuine piety. This odious revolution proceeded from a variety of causes. A ridiculous precipitation in receiving new opinions, a preposterous desire of imitating the pagan rites, and of blending them with the Christian worship, and that idle propensity which the generality of mankind have toward a gaudy and ostentatious religion, all contributed to establish the reign of superstition upon the ruins of Christianity. Accordingly, frequent pilgrimages were undertaken to Palestine, and to the tombs of the martyrs, as if there alone the sacred principles of virtue, and the certain hope of salvation, were to be acquired. The reins being once let loose to superstition which knows no bounds, absurd notions and idle ceremonies multiplied almost every day. Quantities of dust and earth brought from Palestine, and other places remarkable for their supposed sanctity, were handed about as the most powerful remedies against the violence of wicked spirits, and were sold and bought everywhere at enormous prices. The public processions and supplications by which the pagans endeavored to appease their gods, were now adopted into the Christian worship, and celebrated in many places with great pomp and magnificence. The virtues which had formerly been ascribed to the heathen temples, to their lustrations, to the statues of their gods and heroes, were now attributed to Christian churches, to water consecrated by certain forms of prayer, and to the images of holy men. And the same privileges that the former enjoyed under the darkness of paganism, were conferred upon the latter under the light of the gospel, or, rather, under that cloud of superstition which was obscuring its glory. It is true that, as yet images were not very common; nor were there any statues at all. But it is at the same time as undoubtedly certain, as it is extravagant and monstrous, that the worship of the martyrs was modeled, by degrees, according to the religious services that were paid to the gods before the coming of Christ. "From these facts, which are but small specimens of the state of Christianity at this time, the discerning reader will easily perceive what detriment the church received from the peace and prosperity procured by Constantine, and from the imprudent methods employed to allure the different nations to embrace the gospel. The brevity we have proposed to observe in this history prevents our entering into an ample detail of the dismal effects that arose from the progress and the baneful influence of superstition, which had now become universal." Again he says, "A whole volume would be requisite to contain an enumeration of the various frauds which artful knaves practiced, with success, to delude the ignorant, when true religion was almost entirely superseded by horrid superstition."—Eccl. Hist. 4th Cent. Part ii., Chap. 3. This extract from Mosheim contains a description of the period covered by the black horse of the third seal that answers accurately to the prophecy. It is seen by this how paganism was incorporated with Christianity, and how, during this period, the false system which resulted in the establishment of the papacy, rapidly rounded out to its full outlines, and ripened into all its deplorable perfection of strength and stature. The balances. "The balances denoted that religion and civil power would be united in the person who would administer the executive power in the government, and that he would claim the judicial authority both in church and State. This was true among the Roman emperors from the days of Constantine until the reign of Justinian, when he gave the same judicial authority to the bishop of Rome."—Miller's Lectures, p. 181. The wheat and barley. "The measures of wheat and barley for a penny denote that the members of the church would be eagerly engaged after worldly goods, and the love of money would be the prevailing spirit of the times; for they would dispose of anything for money."—Id. The oil and wine. These "denote the graces of the Spirit, faith and love, and there was great danger of hurting these, under the influence of so much worldly spirit. And it is well attested by all historians, that the prosperity of the church in this age produced the corruptions which finally terminated in the falling away, and setting up the Antichristian abominations."—Id. It will be observed that the voice limiting the amount of wheat for a penny, and saying, "Hurt not the oil and the wine," is not spoken by any one on earth, but comes from the midst of the four living creatures; signifying that, though the under shepherds, the professed ministers of Christ on earth, had no care for the flock, yet the Lord was not unmindful of them in this period of darkness. A voice comes from Heaven. He takes care that the spirit of worldliness does not prevail to such a degree that Christianity should be entirely lost, or that the oil and the wine, the graces of genuine piety, should entirely perish from the earth. U. S. BEING suddenly called away to attend a funeral last week we did not see the proofs before the paper went to press. We regretted that our answer regarding the use of the word, day, in Gen. 2:17, was not as explicit as it should have been; it related more to its use than its sense, which was the point in the question. It might justly be inferred, however, that we think it is there used in its ordinary or primary sense, of a day marked by the revolution of the earth. The same word is used nearly one hundred and fifty times in Genesis, both singular and plural, and we doubt that it is used in any other sense than that noticed above, except in Chap. 1:5, where day is used to distinguish the light from the darkness, and in Chap. 2:4, which might be rendered time indefinitely, as the word hour is sometimes used, covering the week of creation. Prof. Green considers this verse poetic, which might have some bearing on its construction. The original is rendered time and age in our version of Genesis, where it might properly have been rendered day definitely. Besides the Bible usage which would admit of the threatening of Gen. 2:17 referring to Adam's falling under the condemnation of death that day, (on which see further in Man's Nature and Destiny,) there is admissible another view which would allow the threatening to be construed more strictly, namely, that God mercifully interposed and opened to man a new probation, thereby deferring the execution of the threat, as in the case of Hezekiah, Isa. 38, or of the city of Nineveh. Jonah 3: 4-10. THE following remarks by a gentleman who was "interviewed" by a reporter of the Chronicle, are more than suggestive—they are instructive in regard to the hard times of which so much complaint is made. Many a speech on political economy contains less truth. "After Congress had passed the Restriction Bill, and while the President's action was yet in doubt, I instructed my foreman in the event of a veto to discharge every one of the twelve Chinamen, but if I had known in time what was said at the sand lots the Sunday preceding I would have countermanded that order. Labor leagues most of all compel the presence and employment of Chinese. Those leagues will only put so much labor on the market and only at an arbitrary price. They will permit master-mechanics to have only so many apprentices. California wheat-growers have to compete with Chicago and the other markets of great wheat-producing districts. They can afford to pay $15 or even $20 a month and board for help, but they cannot pay $25 or $30, and the league will not permit white work for less. Even at $15 per month, and allowing $80 per year for clothing and incidental expenses, in ten years sufficient could be saved to buy a small farm, which is doing well for a common farm-laborer. The woolen manufactories cannot pay the price demanded for white labor exclusively and remain even solvent. If a contractor to build a levee or drain marsh land were to go on Clay street to-day, where it is almost impassable because of men now and for a long time unemployed, and say that he had steady work for two hundred men that would enable him to pay them $1.50 a day, but not the $2 they had fixed upon as the ultimatum, they would revile him. They force him into the Chinese labor market. These men have listened so long to the sand-lot enumeration of the hardships of which themselves are the principal cause, that their hands have forgotten to work, their stomachs are sour, their heads are chaotic, and they go to idleness, to tramping, to beer, to whiskey, and to the devil. If these leagues and these demagogues would let the willingly industrious work at such rates as the inviolable laws of supply and demand can pay, the hegira of the Chinaman into the bosom of his Eastern sympathizer would be hastened."