p. 188 | Review and Herald, Vol. 23, No. 24. (5/10/1864)

Review and Herald

May 10, 1864

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · May 10, 1864

BOTH SIDES OF THE SABBATH QUESTION.

By Uriah Smith

Review of T. M. Preble.

(Continued.)

Preble.—"THE LORD JESUS CHRIST FULFILLED THE LAW. Strictly speaking, we should say that the Lord Jesus has 'fulfilled,' or will 'fulfill,' the Old Testament law; rather than to say he abrogated it. We will first notice the passage found in Matt. v, 17, 18:—

'Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.'

Let us take particular notice of our Saviour's language in this passage:—'I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.' If, then, he fulfills any portion of the law, of course he does not destroy it. He says in Luke:—'The law and the prophets were until John,' etc., and then adds:—'It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.' Now he does not mean that he will not fulfill any of the law or the prophets 'till heaven and earth pass;' and thus 'all be fulfilled' at one time, after the heavens and earth have passed away, for he says, 'I am come to fulfill.' Hence, whatever he fulfilled of the law and the prophets, he did 'not destroy;' neither did it 'fail.' And if he fulfilled a part at his first advent, and then completes the fulfillment at his second advent, none of it fails, and none of it is destroyed.

REPLY.—Of the meaning of the word fulfill as applied to a moral law, we have already spoken at sufficient length. In his remarks upon the law in Romans, Eld. P. used this language; "That law is 'dead,' or, in other words it is 'fulfilled.'" We do not wonder that he should hesitate to leave the matter in just that shape; but all his explaining will not be able to cover up the fact that he believes that the law is abrogated, destroyed, abolished, because fulfilled. And then, on his own ground, as already shown, the law of Christ is abrogated, and we are left without any law either old or new, according to Gal. vi, 2; and he cannot deny it. More on Matt. v, hereafter.

Preble.—"Now to the word and to the testimony. WHAT DID THE LORD JESUS FULFILL AT HIS FIRST ADVENT? Why, says one, he fulfilled all the ceremonial law of Moses. Not so fast—hold a moment. Was the 'Passover' fulfilled at the first advent? Certainly it was, says the objector. Certainly it was not, says the Scriptures; for we read:—

"'And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him. And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer: For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be FULFILLED in the kingdom of God.' Luke xxii, 14-16.

"Thus we see that Christ did not fulfill the 'passover,' but it is to 'be fulfilled in the kingdom of God'—at 'the marriage supper of the Lamb,' (Rev. xix, 9,) when, as Christ says,—'Ye may eat and drink at my table in MY KINGDOM.' (Luke xxii, 30.) Glory to God and the Lamb. Amen."

REPLY. We have already shown how the typical dispensation as a whole has ceased, and the antitypical taken its place, and that no type can reach over into this dispensation. To speak more particularly of the passover, we read in 1 Cor. v, 7, "Christ our passover is sacrificed for us." There is no mistaking this language of the apostle. It is a plain declaration that Christ is our passover; that is, that the passover has been fulfilled in Christ; the paschal sacrifice has met its antitype in the death of the Redeemer. Now does this language of the apostle contradict the words of Christ, Luke xxii, 16, as quoted by Eld. P.? If Eld. P.'s interpretation of them is correct, they do; but we do not believe there is any contradiction; and for this reason: because there is no evidence at all that Christ is speaking of the passover as a type, and designing to instruct us in its fulfillment. Paul does design thus to instruct us by his words in Corinthians; hence his language is definite. No such design being involved in the language of Christ, it is indefinite; and here Eld. P. falls into error in taking the indefinite to explain the definite. Whatever Christ's language does mean, it is evident that he refers only to a particular instance. He says 'This passover, not the passover;' meaning that particular occasion, and not the passover as an institution. We think his language means simply what is expressed in verse 18, the next verse but one; namely, that he would not again eat and drink with his disciples as he was then doing till it should be accomplished or fulfilled, or take place in the kingdom of God; that was the last occasion of that kind he was ever to enjoy with them till the kingdom of God should come.

Preble.—"STRIKING POINTS OF ANALOGY BETWEEN THE PASSOVER AND THE SEVENTH-DAY SABBATH. The following are some of the points which impress the mind of the close observer:—1. Both had their origin in the Old Testament times. The passover: 'And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the Lord throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance forever. Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread; even the first day ye shall put away leaven out of your houses: for whosoever eateth leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that soul shall be cut off from Israel. And in the first day there shall be an holy convocation, and in the seventh day there shall be an holy convocation to you: no manner of work shall be done in them, save that which every man must eat, that only may be done of you. And ye shall observe the feast of unleavened bread; for in this self-same day have I brought your armies out of the land of Egypt: therefore shall ye observe this day in your generations forever.'—Ex. xii, 14-17. The Sabbath: 'Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my Sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the Lord that doth sanctify you. Ye shall keep the Sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the Sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord. Whosoever doeth any work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations for a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between me and the children of Israel forever: for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.'

From these portions of Scripture we learn that, 2. Both were 'holy' institutions. 3. Both forbid all manner of 'work.' 4. Both were for a 'memorial' or 'sign.' 5. Both were to be observed by a particular class of people—'the children of Israel.' 6. Both were limited, not only to a particular class of persons; but also, as in respect to the time for their observance 'throughout your generations,' or 'forever.' 7. In both cases, the penalty for a violation was—'that soul shall be cut off from Israel'—or 'he shall surely be put to death.' We also learn from the New Testament Scriptures that, 8. Both were to cease in their observance, after the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ, throughout the gospel dispensation. (Luke xxii, 16; Heb. iv, 8.) 9. Both had a substitute appointed, viz.: 'the passover'—'THE LORD'S SUPPER' (1 Cor. xi, 20) and 'the Sabbath'—'THE LORD'S DAY.' (Rev. i, 10.) And 10. Both were to have their complete fulfillment in 'the kingdom of God,' or in 'the new earth.' Luke xxii, 16, 30; Rev. xix, 9; Heb. iv, 6-11; Rev. xx, 4, 6."

REPLY.—We are more and more surprised at Eld. P.'s mode of presenting this subject. He has once admitted, as the reader will well remember, the plain distinction between the moral and ceremonial laws; but now we find him laboring long and patiently to break down that distinction and confound the two together. If this was his design at first, how shall we account for his former admission that the ten commandments constituted the moral law, and were distinct from the ceremonial. It is not usual for a commander, in time of war, to throw up breastworks for the use of the enemy, or to lay a train of powder on his own fortifications.

Points of analogy between the passover and the seventh-day Sabbath! Well what if there are? Suppose there are five hundred? What of that? He has proved nothing on these three essential particulars, namely that they were the same in their origin, nature and design. Both had their origin says he in "old-Testament times." Old-Testament times cover a space of over four thousand years. Is that as definite as his theory will permit him to be? If so, we much prefer a different one.

Let us notice a few points apparently overlooked by Eld. P., in which the "analogy" between the passover and seventh-day Sabbath, does not hold good.

1. The Sabbath was instituted at creation; the passover not till the exode from Egypt twenty-five hundred years thereafter.

2. The Sabbath was instituted before the fall of man; the passover not till after that fall.

3. The Sabbath was moral in its nature; the passover ceremonial.

4. The Sabbath was uttered by the voice of God, and engraved with his finger in the very bosom of his moral law; the passover was written in the book by Moses, and was a part of the hand-writing of ordinances.

5. The Sabbath was a memorial of creation; the passover was a memorial of the deliverance of Israel from Egypt.

6. The Sabbath was to be observed by all without distinction of nationality; the passover was to be observed by the Jews alone. This is proved from the fact that no one could partake of the passover without joining himself by the outward rite of circumcision to the Jewish church. Ex. xii, 48. 'And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one born in the land; for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.' But how was it with the stranger in reference to the Sabbath? Ans. The stranger was to observe that as well as the Jew. 'In it' says the fourth commandment, 'thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates.' No fact could more clearly show the distinction between the two institutions. The passover was a purely Jewish ordinance, and was to be observed by the members of the Jewish church alone; but the Sabbath being a universal moral law was binding on the foreigner and stranger equally with the Jew. Let the opponent explain this away if he can.

In reference to the Sabbath's being a sign to the children of Israel throughout their generations, we have already spoken. He who says that it was 'limited' to that people, is not only wise above, but contrary to, what is written. We have shown how the Sabbath and the other nine commandments, aside from their existence on the tables of stone as the exclusive moral law of God, were also for the time incorporated into the civil code of the Jewish nation. This will account for all Eld. P.'s "points of analogy" between the passover and Sabbath so far as they exist. His eighth, ninth, and tenth points, however, we deny to him so far as the Sabbath is concerned. 1. There is no evidence that the Sabbath was to cease after the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. 2. There was no substitute ever appointed for the Sabbath; neither was there for the passover. Both are unqualified assumptions. 3. Neither was the Sabbath a type, as we have previously and abundantly shown, to be fulfilled as such in the new earth. And these propositions being mere assertions, we will dismiss them for the present with a simple denial.

Preble.—"'THE LORD'S DAY,' THE TRUE CHRISTIAN SABBATH. About sixty-two years after the resurrection of Christ—or after the christian Sabbath began—the 'beloved' John, who was our 'brother and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ,' while he 'was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ,' said—'I was in the Spirit on THE LORD'S DAY,' etc. Here shines the clear blazing light of the christian Sabbath, according to the gospel of THE LIVING JESUS: notwithstanding so many are trying, with a 'veil upon their hearts,' to throw a dark cloud over the whole thing, by saying, that the 'Lord's day' here spoken of 'is the Sabbath of the fourth commandment,' as found in Ex. xx, 8-11. But how many, through ignorance, 'pervert the gospel of Christ.'"

REPLY.—We are here treated to another assumption, and an effort is then made to prevent any further examination of the subject in the mind of the reader, by the insinuation that to believe otherwise would be a manifestation of "ignorance" and a perversion of the gospel of Christ. This mode of argument may do for some; but it will not answer with the candid, and those who are sincerely inquiring to know the truth. At this point we cannot forbear introducing the following extract from Tappan's late standard work on logic, p. 385: "It is therefore always an important inquiry, whether the principles with which we begin are sufficiently established to be made the premises of an argument. A judicious and honest reasoner will be cautious in this respect; but it is of the nature of sophistry boldly to assume, and to supply by a show of confidence, the want of a true and adequate basis. 'Sometimes men are shamed into admitting an unfounded assertion, by being confidently told that it is so evident that it would argue great weakness to doubt it.'"

"The Lord's day" says Eld. P. is "the true Christian Sabbath." Where does he find the term "Christian Sabbath?" Did he get it from the "living Jesus" or his apostles? No. It is an expression that has been born of apostasy and rebellion against God's true law. The Bible says nothing about a Jewish Sabbath or Christian Sabbath as such. It knows but one weekly Sabbath, and that is the "Sabbath of the Lord," from Genesis to Revelation. With this exception, we agree with the proposition that "the Lord's day" is the day that Christians should observe for the Sabbath. But what day is the Lord's day? Is it necessary for us to re-iterate the evidence on this point? For those who have any acquaintance with the Sabbath controversy it is not; but for the benefit of such as have not, we will briefly state it. At the close of the first week of time God sanctified or set apart the Sabbath to a holy use. He then gave to man the six working days of the week, and reserved the Sabbath for his day. In the fourth commandment it is styled the Sabbath of the Lord thy God. He calls it by the prophet, "My holy day." We come down to the New Testament and find the Lord Jesus Christ, who in all the purposes and plans of creation and redemption, is one with the Father, by whom also the worlds were made, declaring that he is the Lord of the Sabbath; and finally John, who heard the declaration of our Lord's, declares that he was in the Spirit on the Lord's day. Now what day is the Lord's day? Is not the conclusion legitimate and necessary that that day is the Lord's day of which he has declared himself the Lord? But Eld. P. says that the first day of the week is the Lord's day; and what testimony does he offer? Not a syllable; from the fact that there is not a syllable that he can offer. Neither the Father nor the Son have ever claimed the first day of the week in any sense; that day has never been distinguished from the other working days; no blessing has ever been placed upon that day; it has never been set apart for man; there is no divine precept enjoining upon any one to keep it; nor have we any example either from Christ or his apostles for its observance. Yet, according to Eld. P., in the absence of all these and every other conceivable proof, to claim that by Lord's day is meant the first day of the week, is the "blazing light of the Christian Sabbath!" but to say that by Lord's day is meant that day which has ever been enjoined upon us as divine, and of which Christ expressly declared that he was the Lord;—this, forsooth, is to have a "vail" upon our hearts, to throw a "dark cloud over the whole thing," to betray "ignorance," and "pervert the gospel of Christ." If Christ had even once affirmed that he was Lord of the first day of the week, think a moment what use would have been made of that. We need say no more, to cause such assertions to recoil with terrible severity upon the head of their author.

Preble.—"The word here rendered 'Lord's' is in the Greek kuriakos, and it is found elsewhere in the New Testament but once, and this is in 1 Cor. xi, 20, where it refers to the 'Lord's (kuriakos) Supper.' The question now arises, 'Whose 'supper' is here referred to? Is it the Lord JEHOVAH'S supper? or is it the Lord JESUS CHRIST'S supper? All must confess that it is the Lord Jesus Christ's supper. Then is the 'LORD'S (kuriakos) DAY,' Rev. i, 10, the Lord JESUS CHRIST'S day. Thus we have the plain word of God to establish this long-disputed truth. Praise God. Amen. Here, then, we have the proof that 'the passover' had, as its substitute, the 'Lord's (kuriakos) supper;' and as a substitute for 'the Sabbath,' the 'Lord's (kuriakos) day,' as I have above stated: the passover to have its complete fulfillment in 'the kingdom of God;' Luke xxii, 16; and just so of the Sabbath. Heb. iv, 3; Rev. xx, 4."

REPLY.—We are sorry to spoil Eld. P.'s joy at his imaginary discovery; but we fail to see any long-disputed truth established by his testimony. In the first place, we were not aware that it was disputed that Lord's day in Rev. i, 10, means the Lord Jesus Christ's day. We have never disputed it. We should consider it very foolish to do so, since the Lord Jesus Christ has expressly declared that there is a certain day of which he is Lord. We only deny that that day is the Lord's day, which he has never even taken into his lips, and only claim that the day meant by Lord's day is the day of which he claims to be Lord; and that is not the first day of the week, but the Sabbath. But, says the objector, that day is Jehovah's day, not Christ's day. Then we repeat, by Jesus Christ God made the worlds. In the work of creation, and redemption the Father and the Son are one; and the Sabbath is as much the Sabbath of the Lord Jesus Christ, as it is the Sabbath of the Lord Jehovah. We know that the Sabbath is the day for which the Father challenges a special regard on his; for he has plainly told us so; and we know that the Sabbath is the day of the Lord Jesus Christ; for he has as plainly stated that fact. Here is indeed a long-disputed truth established by the plain word of God. Here is where the "Praise God" and "Amen" belong, and not where Eld. P. has placed them.

But he continues, "Here, then, we have the proof that the passover had as its substitute the Lord's supper." Where is the proof? We have not found it. There is certainly in 1 Cor. xi, not the least allusion to the passover. And as to the Lord's day's being "a substitute for the Sabbath," it is itself the Sabbath. But why talk of a substitute for the Sabbath? The Bible calls for no such thing. One Sabbath has been given to man as a part of a law which has been declared to be perfect, and of universal and perpetual obligation. Why look for another? As well might we look for a substitute for Thou shalt not kill, or Thou shalt not steal. And as to the first day of the week having taken the place of the Sabbath, there is not only no testimony to any such effect, but the first day does not possess one single feature which it must possess in order to be a Sabbath. 1. No divine being ever rested upon it, of which we have any record. 2. No blessing was ever placed upon it. 3. It was never sanctified or set apart for man's use. 4. There is no command found anywhere in the Bible for its observance. The first law that was ever given in support of Sunday, was the decree of Constantine, A. D. 321, which was issued in behalf of that day as a heathen festival. See History of the Sabbath. 5. No Bible writer has ever set us the example of resting on that day. 6. Every mention of the first day of the week in the New Testament, is an allusion to it as a day for secular business, and not for religious rest or worship. 7. There is no intimation that that day, or any other, was ever to take the place of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment. Under these circumstances, those who are endeavoring to bolster up such an institution, are simply daubing their wall with untempered mortar, and constructing a refuge of lies which the great hail will ere long sweep away. Isa. xxviii, 17.

Preble.—"If, then, as the apostle says, 'Christ is the end of the law;' and he having fulfilled a great part already, and the last to 'be fulfilled in the kingdom of God;' we see that the 'law' is not all fulfilled at one time; and that not until the heavens and the earth pass away! and hence, some fail entirely in the use they make of Matt. v, 17-19, in support of the perpetuity of the Sabbath. And to those who apply the 19th verse to such as observe the 'first day of the week' for the Sabbath, I would say, take heed and beware, or you, yourselves, may 'be called the least in the kingdom of heaven.'

"What 'commandments' are 'these' which the Saviour speaks of in the 19th verse? Surely they must be 'these' which he is presenting to his hearers in this discourse. And are they the commandments 'of old time?' or are they the 'commandments' of which he himself is the Author? The following, from this same discourse of our Saviour, will prove whether 'these least commandments' are those of which the disciples had 'heard that it was said by them of OLD TIME;—or by the old dead 'schoolmaster;'—or whether they were 'these' commandments put forth by the LIVING JESUS, in this emphatic language:—'BUT I SAY UNTO YOU,' etc."

REPLY.—Eld. P. has repeatedly affirmed that the law, the whole law, is deceased, dead, passed away, because it has been fulfilled. But now he seems to have discovered that only a "great part already" is fulfilled, the rest to be accomplished in the future. Hence he has a little of it not fulfilled till the heavens and earth pass; and by adopting this new phase of interpretation he endeavors to save his theory from

being completely overturned by Matt. v, 19. But he does not accomplish his purpose; for Christ does not say that till heaven and earth pass, all the law should not have passed, or only a great part should have been fulfilled; but till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law. Not the smallest fragment should pass from the law, or change take place in the law, till heaven and earth pass. But the great Teacher does not stop here. He adds, "till all things," as the Greek reads, "shall be fulfilled." All what things? The subject of discourse is the law and the prophets. The all things, therefore, must include all that the prophets have spoken; and we hear them saying in relation to the Sabbath, that, after the present heavens and earth have passed, it shall be observed from week to week, by all the redeemed hosts while the new heavens and the new earth remain! Isa. lvi, 23.

"What commandments are these" asks Eld. P., "which the Saviour speaks of in the 19th verse?" And he then endeavors to fix the mind of the reader upon the words which Christ was about to utter as the ones meant by these commandments. Now it would be most natural to suppose that Christ would give his commandments first and annex his remarks and penalties afterward, instead of referring to them by such expressions as "these commandments," as though the people were familiar with them, when they were not yet given! But then, why should so small a matter as reversing the order of nature and common sense stand in the way of a theory!

To speak seriously, it will be evident to all who have not a predetermined view to maintain, that "these commandments" of which Christ speaks, are the commandments of the law to which he had just referred; and that was a law that had existed previous to his time, for he came not to destroy it. And we learn from verse 20, that it was the law of ten commandments; for it was the law which was the standard of righteousness, or right doing, or the rule of our life and actions; and that could be none other than the moral law of ten commandments.

(To be continued.)

My Sheep.

"My sheep hear my voice and I know them, and they follow me."—John x, 27.

O let me hear thy voice, And I will weep no more; My weary soul would fain rejoice, If all these doubts were o'er.

Once I could see thy smile,— 'Twas beautiful and fair: I'd ask no greater joy the while Than to behold thee there.

Where sins and doubts and fears No more beset the way; And sorrow's sigh, and countless tears, Dim not the lustrous day.

Am I thy sheep, my God? So cold, so far from thee! Oh! let thy smile illumine the road, Then I thy steps can see.

Thousands of doubts arise To drive me from thy throne; By faith I mount the starry skies And long to be thine own.

A Chinese Crucifixion.

By James Jones

THE following account of a recent crucifixion in China, interesting because of its resemblance to those mentioned in Scripture, is by Mr. James Jones, of Amoy, who witnessed the execution on the 28th of October.

The victim was a well-known thief. On his trial before his judge, he refused to criminate himself, although repeatedly scourged until his back was raw. If a female witness fails in giving satisfactory evidence in a court of justice, she is beaten with a leather strap across the mouth. His wife, desirous of sparing her husband, refused to give evidence, but after two or three applications of the strap, her courage gave way. She confessed his guilt, at the same time admitting that two hundred dollars of the money so derived was hidden in the sea near the beach. Officers were sent to search, and finding the dollars in the place indicated, the prisoner was sentenced to decapitation, deemed by the Chinese the most severe of punishments, because they imagine that if a man leaves this world minus any of his members, he appears in the same condition in the next. The culprit, therefore, prayed to be crucified instead of being beheaded.

The cross was of the Latin form, the foot being inserted in a stout plank, and the criminal, standing on a board, had nails driven through his feet, his hands stretched and nailed to the crossbeam. His legs fastened to the cross with an iron chain, and his arms bound with cords, and on the cord round his waist was inserted a piece of wood, on which was written his name and offense; a similar piece on his right arm contained his sentence, namely, to remain on the cross day and night until he died; another on his left arm had the name of the judge, with his titles and offices. The criminal was nailed to the cross inside the Yamun, in the presence of the magistrate, and then carried by four coolies to one of the principal thoroughfares leading from the city, where he was left during the day, but removed at night inside the prison for fear of his friends attempting to rescue him, and again carried forth at daylight in charge of two soldiers.

He was crucified at noon on Wednesday, and Mr. Jones conversed with him at five in the evening. He complained of pain in the chest and thirst. On Thursday he slept for some hours, when the cross was laid down within the jail compound. No one was allowed to supply him with food or drink, and during the day there was quite a fair in front of the cross, people attracted from a distance, and the sweetmeat venders driving a large trade. On Saturday he was still alive, when the Taoutai was appealed to by a foreigner to put an end to the wretch's sufferings, and he immediately gave orders that vinegar should be administered, which he expected would produce immediate death; but the result was otherwise, and at sunset, when the cross was taken within the jail, two soldiers, with stout bamboos, broke both his legs, and then strangled him.

Coming of the Son of Man.

“And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in Heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming with power and great glory.”

What a shame, that learned men should spend their pains and talents in attempts to tie down this language to the distraction of Jerusalem by the Roman armies!

I take it as an axiom,—a settled verity which demonstrates itself,—that two events which are specifically described as successive,—the one as coming after the other,—cannot be the same. But if this axiom had always been observed in the interpretation of this twenty-fourth chapter of Matthew, the students of the Scriptures might have saved themselves much inconsistency and confusion, and many a misapprehension of God’s word. If we ask most of our popular commentators what is meant by "the tribulation of those days," described in the twenty-ninth and preceding verses, the answer given is, that it means the calamities and sufferings of the Jews, induced by the siege and overthrow of their city and state. And if we ask them, again, what is meant by the mourning of the tribes of the earth "after the tribulation of those days," the answer is about the same,—the calamities and sufferings of the tribes of Israel in connection with the fall of their city and state! If we enquire of them what is meant by the coming of the Son of man as the lightning in the clouds of Heaven, with some twinges of uncertainty, they nearly all finally agree upon the reply that it means the flashing judgments which were brought upon the rebellious people of Israel by the coming of the Roman armies against Jerusalem! The coming of which the Saviour speaks was to be "out of the east" towards the west, and the coming of the Roman armies was out of the west and north towards the east and south; but the reply is, No matter for that; we are not to expect all the particular circumstances to hold! The coming of which the Saviour speaks is specifically said to be "after" the tribulation induced by the invasion of Palestine by the Romans, as well as "after" that great unparalleled tribulation of which the Jewish troubles were the commencement and first-fruits; but no matter for that, we are told; as though effect could go before its cause, and as if priority or succession were nothing in the interpretation of a book such as the word of God! I question, indeed, whether the annals of learning can furnish a parallel to the absurdities which characterize the great mass of our popular disquisitions upon this portion of the inspired record. No wonder that the doctrine of Christ’s personal return to our world has lost so much of its weight, certainty, and rightful importance in the minds and hearts of the Church, when its great foundation-text is thus sacrificed to a false and supercilious erudition!

One of the strangest things in the world is the manner in which some people read the Bible. It would almost seem as if they turned it upside-down, and read it backwards. "Eyes have they, but they see not." They praise it, and hold it in holy regard, and insist that every body ought to have it; yet they look into it only as some recondite volume, which is a good text-book for preachers, but which is quite beyond the reach of their understanding. They adore it more for the unknown mysteries which they attribute to it, than from their personal appreciation of what their own eyes have beheld upon its pages. Many seem to view it as a sublime riddle-book, full of mystic poetry, and unsearchable wisdom, rather than as a plain piece of information and advice given by a Father to his inexperienced, and exposed children. And many who sit down to write commentaries upon it seem to be continually haunted with the idea that there is something recondite in every word, or that the real mind of the Spirit is not to be found in the plain import of the letter, but in some abstruse or mystic analogy which it is their business to dig after. I hold that the Bible is a book for everybody, in which God speaks for the purpose of being understood by everybody; that its language is conformed to the ordinary uses of speech; and that it is to be interpreted in the same common-sense way in which we would interpret the will of a deceased parent, or ascertain the meaning of a letter of business. It was not written to tax our ingenuity, or to test men’s skill at learned exposition. Its design is to instruct, and in the most familiar way to express to men the mind and will of God. When Christ speaks of "the Son of man," he means the Son of man, and not the Roman armies. When he speaks of his "coming in the clouds of heaven" he means his coming in the clouds of heaven and not the sailing of war-ships on the Mediterranean, or the march of soldiers over the fields of earth. When he says "after" the Jewish tribulations are ended, he means "after" those tribulations, and not before they began, or while they were yet in their incipiency. And when he says that all the tribes of the earth "shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory," expositors might as well attempt to demonstrate to me that day is night, or that white is black, as to attempt to make me believe that he means the march of an army of boorish heathen soldiers. Christ knew what he wished to say, and how to say what he meant; and I feel bound to understand him to mean just what he says. And what he here predicts respecting his coming in the clouds at the close of the tribulation, no more refers to the coming of the Roman armies into Palestine than to the flight of Mahomet, or the next eclipse of the moon. He is describing the scenes of the judgment period, and nothing else.

The Forest-Guarded Highway

THE FOREST-GUARDED HIGHWAY.—A traveler relates that when passing through an Austrian town his attention was directed to a forest on a slope near the road, and he was told that death was the penalty of cutting down one of those trees. He was incredulous until he was further informed that they were the protection of the city, breaking the force of the descending avalanche, which, without this natural barrier, would sweep over the quiet home of thousands. When the Russian army was marching there, and began to cut away the defense for fuel, the inhabitants besought them to take their dwellings instead, which was done.

Such, he well thought, are the sanctions of God's moral law. On the integrity and support of that law depends the safety of the universe. "The soul that sinneth, it shall die," is a merciful proclamation. "He that offends in one point is guilty of all," is equally just and benevolent. In this view, to every sinner out of Christ, God must be "a consuming fire." To transgress once, is to lay the axe at the root of the tree which represents the security and peace of every loyal soul in the wide dominions of the Almighty.

How inexorable is law! How wonderful and glorious the interposition of the Cross!

Faith and Humility

Faith and Humility.—We have no instance of great faith unaccompanied by great humility. The more we recognize the glorious excellence of Divine character, the more we must feel ourselves vile in contrast. The more self sinks, faith rises, for faith is the dependence of weakness upon strength, ignorance upon wisdom, unworthiness upon righteousness.

Courage

Courage.—Many men walk with trembling step upon firm ground; when one has a tranquil conscience and a good purpose, he ought to walk with firm step upon trembling ground.

The Law of God.

By H. S. Gurney

BRO. WHITE: "Great peace have they that love thy law, and nothing shall offend them." "The law of the Lord is perfect converting the soul." Yes, says an apostle, I delight in it.

A friend writes to me—a professed Adventist, but associates with those who endorse friend Preble's articles on the law—and says, "The keeping of the Sabbath destroys the life of religion in the soul." Poor man! What a show of ignorance and darkness! Who can tell why keeping the seventh-day Sabbath, should kill religion in the soul more than keeping the First-day. I can testify in truth, that I did not fully understand the foundation of religious principles until I kept the seventh-day Sabbath, which was about nineteen years ago. I think this is long enough to test the above quoted sentence.

Thank God I still live, and delight in the law of God after the inward man. I feel a power in these words, "Great peace have they that love thy law." I make haste to keep God's commandments. Blessed are they that do them; they shall have right to the tree of life, and enter in through the gates into the city.

The third angel's message has corrected our errors in the advent cause, and has placed our feet on a rock, and filled our mouth with praise. And we will praise the Lord.

We see Jesus in the heavenly sanctuary pleading to blot out, not the law of his Father, but our transgression of that law.

Some seem to think if they can leave all in the hands of God, and then do nothing, it will be well enough. But I do not choose to do things in that way. There is a work for us to do, and I want to understand that work and have it done faithfully.

H. S. GURNEY. Jackson, Mich.

Report from Bro. Byington.

By John Byington

BRO. WHITE: Since my last I have met with the churches as follows: Jan. 30 and 31, at Columbia, Ohio; Feb. 6, at Newton, Mich., with the sick; the 13th and 14th, at Charlotte. Here Moses Hull had been lecturing on Spiritualism, but the church had become but very little affected with his infidelity. The 20th I spent at Newton. After the Sabbath, had a business meeting in reference to their meeting-house. On the 21st, attended the funeral of sister Brown, in Assyria. Sabbath, 27th, at home. Sabbath, March

5, at Convis. The 12th and 13th, at Owasso, funeral of Bro. Wilkinson. The 19th, at Parkville. To reach this place we rode all day Friday against a very severe storm, which very much affected our health. The 26th, at Burlington. Sabbath, April 2, at Jackson. The 9th, at Battle Creek. The 15th, set out for Windsor quarterly meeting, but the mud and storm prevented our reaching there. Was glad that Bro. Van Horn was at this meeting, and had a good time. We spent Sabbath and first-day in Convis. The 23d and 24th, at Bunker Hill, in company with Bro. Van Horn. Here we organized a church of eighteen members, and also attended to systematic benevolence. The 30th, at Newton, but in consequence of the rain there was no meeting. As the storm abated, we reached Battle Creek in season to listen to Bro. White's discourse before baptism.

JOHN BYINGTON.

Continue reading: Report from Bro. Loughborough