In a small tract, No. 187, written by William S. Plummer, and published by the American Tract Society, the law of the Sabbath and its importance is set forth, showing that it was made at creation and could be repealed by no less than the same high authority that gave it. He asks, "Is any evidence of such repeal found in Scripture? If so, where is the book, the chapter, and the verse, containing it?" After arguing the law at some length, and showing that the seventh day is the true Sabbath, as we shall shortly show from his own words, he very coolly slides over to the first day of the week, and tries to maintain that as the Sabbath, without giving us even one text, Thus saith the Lord. Now in his own words I ask for the "book, chapter, and verse," where the Lord requires us to keep holy as the Sabbath day the first day of the week. He says:—
"I ask for a few minutes of the reader's time, while I reason with him concerning one of the laws of the world in which he lives. That law is found in Exodus, chapter 20, and reads thus: 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work: but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.'"
"Here is a law claiming to regulate a seventh portion of human life. If a man lives twenty-one years, this law claims the entire control of three of them; if he lives fifty years, it disposes of more than seven of them. It is therefore important. But it also devotes this portion of time to religious purposes; and these are the highest ends of life. All other time is secular. This is holy. That may be occupied with things which perish in the using. This must be given to things which take hold on eternity. Many questions may be raised concerning this law; but one question is at the foundation of all the rest: Is this law still in force? If it is not binding now, it will never be; and if it is binding now, it will bind while the world stands. The inquiry is of great practical interest. Public manners are vastly effected by the esteem in which the Sabbath is held. It is, therefore, right to look well to the foundation."
"DOES THE LAW OF THE SABBATH BIND US?"
"It is evident that laws may cease to be of force; that is, they may cease to be laws. When this occurs, it must be in one of the following ways: The condition of a people may be changed as to render obedience to the law impracticable. In human government such cases often arise, and the law, unless administered by tyrants, becomes a dead letter. No good government will inflict the penalty on the transgressor to whom obedience is impossible, even though the law remains on the statute book. But the law of the Sabbath can as well be kept now as at any former period of the world. Indeed, when given from Mount Sinai, it was given to a people on a long journey, to whom were wanting many conveniences which we enjoy for its careful observance. If this law was in its nature ever practicable, it is so now."
"Some laws expire by limitation. Such are many of the laws of every country. Such were many of the laws given by Moses. They were in force until Christ, who was their end, came; and then they bound no longer. Thus the whole ceremonial law ceased to bind after the death of Christ, to which it was limited. But no limit was fixed to the observance of the fourth commandment, either when first given, or afterward."
"A competent authority may repeal a law, and thus its obliging power may cease. Every free government affords numerous instances of the repeal of laws once useful, but no longer so. In a regular government, the repeal must be passed by the power which enacted the law. The great lawgiver of the world is God. He ordained the law of the Sabbath, and he has never repealed it. Is any evidence of such repeal found in Scripture? If so, where is the book, the chapter, the verse containing it? All admit that the law was in force until Christ. Christ did not repeal it, for he says so, Matt. 5:17, nor did the apostles anywhere declare that it was repealed. If this law, therefore, has ceased to bind, it must be in some way utterly unknown to us. It is still practicable; it has not expired by limitation; it has not been repealed."
"THE LAW IS PART OF A CODE WHICH IS IN FORCE."
"It may also be said that this law is in the middle of a code, all the rest of which is acknowledged to be binding; and why not this? Were the other precepts of this code spoken by God from Sinai, amidst the blackness, and darkness, and tempest, and terrors? So was this. Were the others deposited in the ark of the testimony, in the holy of holies, under the wings of the cherubim? So was this. No ceremonial or repealable law given to the Jews, had these marks of honor put upon it. Did Christ say, I came not to destroy, but to fulfill, the law? He said it as much of this as of any other precept. Did Christ's most devoted followers keep the other commandments? So did they keep this. Luke 23:56."
"THIS LAW ENACTED WITH GREAT CARE."
"On the face of this law are found some things which prove that God, who gave it, regarded it as of great importance. In the wording of it, a more full explanation of its true intent is given than in any other commandment. It is enacted both positively and negatively: Positively, 'Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy'; negatively, 'In it thou shalt not do any manner of work.' No other precept of the decalogue is given in both of these forms, although every fair rule of interpreting them requires that when they enjoin a duty we should regard them as forbidding the contrary sin, and when they forbid a sin we should regard them as enjoining the contrary duty. Yet in this command, but in no other, both forms are used."
"This command is also introduced as no other is. The very first word of it is a solemn memento—'Remember.' This word is not found elsewhere in the decalogue. Moreover, this command not only addresses men in the singular, 'Thou shalt,' etc., but it goes further, and tells who is thereby intended, namely, not only the head of the family, but also the son, the daughter, the man-servant, and the maid-servant, the cattle, and the stranger. No such particularity is found in any other precept of either table of the law."
"In this command God also reasons with us on the equity of his demands. He says he gives us six days out of seven, as if he had said, 'I am no hard master; I do not act unreasonably. I give you ample time to do your necessary work. I give you six days; therefore if you have any conscience, give me the seventh.' For, says he, 'It is mine—it is the Sabbath of the Lord your God.' Surely you will not deny to your God a right so equitable, a demand so fair."
"It is also stated by God in the command itself that he set us the example on the completion of the creation. And shall we not follow such an example? If we ought to be holy because God is holy, if we ought to forgive our enemies because God forgives his enemies, we ought also to keep the Sabbath day because God kept it. Teaching by example is the highest kind of instruction."
"THE SABBATH GIVEN IN EDEN."
"Nor did the Sabbath originate with Moses, or with any sinner. It was an ordinance in Eden, when, for his sins, man was driven out of paradise. God permitted him to carry with him two institutions, established for his good before his fall. Which of these institutions is the greatest mercy to our world, or which is the dearest to the heart of a good man, I will not undertake to say; one of them is marriage, the other, the Sabbath day. If he is the enemy of virtue who would abolish the former, he cannot be the friend of God or man who would set aside the latter. By restoring marriage as far as possible, to its original purity in Eden, that is, by confining it to the pairs and rendering it indissoluble, the Christian religion has incalculably advanced civilization, peace, and all the domestic virtues. By restoring the Sabbath as nearly as possible to its purity in Eden, that is, by the holy observance of all of it, man makes his nearest approach to primitive innocence and future glory. There is no example of any community, large or small, ancient or modern, continuing virtuous or happy for a considerable time if they slighted either marriage or the Sabbath day."
"But God has also in this command done what he has not done in any other part of the moral law—he has pronounced a blessing on the institution. 'The Lord blessed the Sabbath day' and thus made it 'Day of all the days the best.'"
J. G. WOOD.
NATURALNESS OF THE SUPERNATURAL.
THE common ground taken by skeptics in reference to the Christian religion is, that Christianity is unreasonable because it teaches the supernatural. And the doubts that come unforbidden to Christians spring chiefly from the supernatural features of Christianity. Of course there must be something mysterious about the supernatural, but yet this mysteriousness may not at all diminish its reasonableness. On the contrary, the supernatural in Christianity may be, and is, one of the most philosophical and reasonable things in the world. For illustration, let us suppose that all the creatures which God has made had been gifted with reason and intelligence, and, if you please, with a language common to all. An oyster lies in the depth of the ocean, so grown to a rock that it cannot possibly liberate itself. All around it are its companions, rock-bound like itself. From their birth they have never moved from their place, and we will suppose that they have never seen such action. It is, therefore, natural to them to live without power of locomotion. Suppose now that it were to be told those oysters that there were elsewhere other animals much larger than themselves that lived wholly out of water, and were able to move about from place to place for great distances.149
The oyster replies, “I cannot believe this. It is natural for us to live here in the water, and firmly fastened to the rock, and it would be supernatural for an animal to live out of the water, and to move about here and there, and it is unreasonable, because supernatural.” But then we know that whilst it would be supernatural to an oyster to do so, it is perfectly natural to an ox.
Again, suppose that an ox, which had never seen anything of the kind, were told that there were goodly sized animals able to rise from the ground by their own efforts, ascending to great hight in the air, where they moved about at their pleasure, as an ox may move upon the ground. The ox would reply that this would be supernatural, and therefore unreasonable. He would say, “When I leap into the air I immediately fall back again to the ground, through the laws of attraction, and to suppose that an animal having weight could arise and remain suspended in the air would be to believe in the supernatural.” But though supernatural to an ox to do so, it is perfectly natural to a bird to thus fly through the air. In other words, an ox can do naturally what would be supernatural to an oyster, and a bird can do naturally what would be supernatural to an ox.
Let us go a step higher. Man is created a grade above the ox. Suppose it were told an ox that a man can talk with his fellow-men three thousand miles away. The ox replies, “This would be supernatural. I have heard the voice of men, and their voices are no louder than mine, and I make myself heard only a comparatively short distance.” He sees a man sit down to a telegraph table, who makes a motion with his fingers, and the ox hears a slight sound, and says, “I can hardly hear that sound three rods away, and surely one three thousand miles away can hear nothing of this.” But then that man is talking intelligibly to his friend three thousand miles away, and he is doing this naturally, though it would be supernatural to an ox to do so. Thus step by step we have seen that what is perfectly natural to an animal of one grade is supernatural to an animal of a grade below.
Let us go one step further. If God be only as much superior to us as an ox to an oyster, then those things which belong to his superiority must, in the nature of the case, be supernatural to us; and it is just as reasonable in us to believe in these things of God which are supernatural to us as it is for us to believe that an ox may be supernatural to an oyster, or ourselves to an ox. Indeed, we would have the best of reason for distrusting the superiority of God, if his works were not supernatural as compared to ours. Take the case of Thomas. He doubted the physical presence of Christ in that room, because, the doors being closed, he thought a physical body could not enter. And this would have been true of a physical body controlled by a human soul. But then it might be as natural for a superior soul, as that of Christ, to have taken its physical body through those closed doors, as it would be for Moses to take his physical body through an open door. What would be supernatural to a spirit of the grade of Thomas might be perfectly natural to a spirit a grade higher. Thus the supernatural of Christianity becomes perfectly natural. We have been led to this train of thoughts by a sentence in the Philosophy of Salvation, “Is there anything unnatural in the supernaturalness of Christianity?”—Exchange.
"COULD'ST THOU NOT WATCH WITH ME ONE HOUR?"
The night is dark; behold the shade was deeper
In the old garden of Gethsemane,
When that calm voice awoke the weary sleeper—
Could'st thou not watch one hour alone with me?
O thou, so weary of thy self-denials,
And so impatient of thy daily cross,
Is it so hard to bear thy little trials,
To count all earthly things a gainful loss?
What if thou always suffer tribulation,
And if thy Christian warfare never cease?
The gaining of the quiet habitation
Shall gather thee to everlasting peace.
But here we all must suffer, walking lonely
The path that Jesus once himself hath gone;
Watch thou in patience through the dark hour only;
This one dark hour before the eternal dawn.
The captive's oar may pause upon the galley,
The soldier sleep beneath the plumed crest,
And Peace shall fold her wing o'er hill and valley,
But thou, O Christian, must not take thy rest.
Thou must walk on, however man upbraid thee,
With Him who trod the wine-press all alone;
Thou wilt not find one human hand to aid thee—
One human soul to comprehend thine own.
Heed not the images forever thronging,
From out the foregone life thou liv'st no more;
Faint-hearted mariner! still art thou longing
For the dim line of the receding shore?
Wilt thou find rest of soul in thy returning
To that old path thou hast so vainly trod?
Hast thou forgotten all thy weary yearning
To walk among the children of thy God?
Faithful and steadfast in their consecration,
Living by that high faith to thee so dim,
Declaring before God thy dedication,
So far from thee because so near to Him?
Can'st thou forget thy Christian superscription—
"Behold we count them happy who endure?"
What treasure would thou, in the land Egyptian,
Repass the stormy water to secure?
Poor wandering soul! I know that thou art seeking
Some easier way, as all have sought before,
To silence the reproachful inward speaking—
Some landward path unto an island shore.
The cross is heavy in thy human measure,
The way too narrow for thine inward pride;
Thou canst not lay thine intellectual treasure
At the low footstool of the Crucified.
Oh, that thy faithless soul, one hour only,
Would comprehend the Christian's perfect life—
Despised with Jesus, sorrowful and lonely,
Yet calmly looking upward in its strife.
For poverty and self-renunciation,
The Father yielded back a thousand-fold;
In the calm stillness of regeneration
Cometh a joy we never knew of old.
In meek obedience to the heavenly Teacher,
Thy weary soul can find its only peace;
Seeking no aid from any human creature—
Looking to God alone for its release.
And He will come in his own time and power
To set his earnest-hearted children free;
Watch only through this dark and painful hour
And the bright morning yet will break for thee.
THE FIRST RAFFLE.
By Egbert L. Bangs
BY EGBERT L. BANGS.
THERE are some phases of modern life, whose beginning may be found in Holy Writ. Murder is now, if not a fine art, at least an every-day occurrence. Go back to the first one, and you find that the victim was engaged in a solemn act of worship when his life went out. Wait, as the years go by, and the first drunken scene is enacted. Righteous Noah makes himself so ridiculous that a garment must be thrown over him to cover his shame. Would that a mantle of charity could as easily be thrown over the modern drunkard as the concealing garment was thrown over him!
Leap now the chasm of the centuries, and stand before the Saviour of the world in his hour of agony, and then wait a little, and you shall see coarse men casting lots for his vesture. That was the first raffle on record. The element of chance entered into it, and he who was lucky had the garment. There is something indescribably revolting in the scene just referred to. It is heartless to the last degree. I have often thought of this piece of gambling, when I have seen the church, engaged in a raffle to make money for the preaching of the gospel; and I have wondered if He could say of a church when so doing, "Many have done virtuously, but thou excellest them all." Probably few who engage in such enterprises ever connect their grab-bags, their cakes with rings hidden in them, and their bed-quilts, arm-chairs, and other goods too numerous to mention, for which drawing-tickets are sold—probably few notice the connection between the scene they enliven with their sunny presence, and the one in which lots were cast for the garments just stripped from the Redeemer of the world. Perhaps that raffle was agreed upon while the clothes were still upon him. The same principle was involved in both transactions, for one was gambling as much as the other. Which of the two is the worse?
The men who gambled for the Saviour's vesture did it for a purely selfish purpose, and we have a right to suppose that they had no clear conception of his divine character and mission. His followers to-day have the light of almost nineteen Christian centuries to guide them, and they ought to know better than to gamble in the name of religion for the support of preaching and the adornment of a Christian church. Imagine a church raffle where the proceeds were to be used for the purchase of a communion set; and, if that is a perfectly right way to raise money, no one ought to see anything incongruous in such an association of ideas.
A Christian woman once excused herself for being overdressed, on the ground that, as she could thus make a better appearance, she could do more good in the world. She said she did it all for Christ's sake. When the active spirits in church financial work say they sell cigars and lottery tickets for Christ's sake, some one ought to say to them, "For His sake, don't." Christ did say of those who took his life, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." Looking down from the temple above upon some of the church fairs for the benefit of his temples below, could he say as he saw his butterfly followers flitting about to sell tickets for the coming raffle, "they know not what they do?" The same spirit that sent him through the temple at Jerusalem, with a whip of small cords in his hand, must cry out against all such irregular and dishonest customs, no matter if they are covered with the gold-laced mantle of the highest respectability and social standing.—S. S. Times.
The Sabbath School.
By Stephen Nelson Haskell
IMPORTANCE OF EYE-TEACHING.
THE importance of illustrating before the eye that which we wish to communicate cannot be over-estimated. In a discussion, a few years since, upon the subject of the perpetuity of the law of God, a chart containing the ten commandments was hung up before the audience. The gentleman who was to contend for the abolition of the law objected; "for," said he, "the looking at the ten commandments will carry conviction with them."
This was true. All the information we receive comes to us through our five senses. And no one means is the medium of greater information than our eye-sight. The sense of hearing and touch is far more acute with a blind person than with one who is blessed with eye-sight. Yet the loss can never be wholly made up.
The prophets spoke by inspiration, yet much of what they said and wrote was taught them of the Lord by presenting before them either the object itself, or a symbol which would make it more impressive. The utility of eye-teaching is not only self-evident, but it is made forcible by the method the Holy Spirit has adopted to communicate to the human family. The thunderings of Sinai were terrible to hear; but the smoke and appearance of God as beheld by Moses, was awfully impressive.
Maps showing the geography of Bible lands, the rivers and places, and their relative distances from each other, can and are made very useful in the Sabbath-school. If the lesson relates to any land, city, river, or lake, to point it out and briefly refer to circumstances which occurred there, will add greatly to the interest in the school, and make impressions on the mind which will never be forgotten. It will also add much to the interest of reading the Scriptures.
No school should be without such maps. Every person should become more or less acquainted with the country mentioned in sacred history. Maps showing the land of Palestine, the travels of St. Paul, and the journeyings of the children of Israel, are full of interest to the Bible student, and should be in every Sabbath-school. Schools which have used them could not now be prevailed upon to do without them. We recommend them to all.
S. N. HASKELL.
MOTHER AND TEACHER.
By Mrs. Rev. J. H. Castle
BY MRS. REV. J. H. CASTLE.
It is said that two grey-hounds running together, will kill more hares than four others, running separately. There is power in combined effort which cannot be secured when the forces act apart. One may chase a thousand, but two may put ten thousand to flight. It is co-operation that secures the best successes.
The mother and the Sabbath-school teacher are engaged in one work,—the spiritual education of the child. Shall they act in concert, or separately? If separately, there may be good results. A bow drawn at a venture sometimes hits the mark, and this is well enough for an emergency. But child-training is not work in an emergency. It is the regular, heaven-ordained means to an end. The mother by nature, and the teacher by grace, are ordained, in the truest and most sacred sense, for this very duty; and there should be no chances or risks on either side.
But even Christian mothers differ, and so do Christian teachers. The child at home, too, often differs from the child at school. Co-operation is therefore demanded. The teacher must confer with the mother, or the bow, on Sabbath, will be drawn at a dangerous venture. True, the facts of the lesson are the same to all, the spiritual lessons also; but the applications must be adapted to each child. There are children, whose deportment is most exemplary under the maternal eye, but who, in the class, work all manner of mischief. The mother's view of these children differs materially from the teacher's. They look from opposite stand-points,—both of which are wrong. The child is not all good, as the mother thinks; nor all bad, as the teacher thinks. The teacher is purblind until he knows the home-life of the child, and so is the mother, until she knows the school-life. This is the rule, and exceptions should never be the guide for action. Between rock-ledges, from a handful of sand, clusters of blossoms often grow; but a gardener would be mad, who, because the wilding blossomed, thought it unnecessary to bestow careful labor on his garden.
When the teacher is young and inexperienced, and the mother is mature, august, possibly wise and rich; then the teacher who might face the lowly in their homes, perchance finds it difficult to cross the portals of the mansion and of the heart of this mother. What is to be done in such a case? Does duty belong to the teacher only? May the mother content herself by saying, "My child's teacher has never called?" Or should she, with a woman's nice intuition, appreciate the situation, and invite the teacher to her home and heart, as her co-worker and assistant? The mother, whether rich or poor, wise or unwise, has serious responsibilities in connection with Sabbath school work; and this is one of them.
The wilding may grow with beauty. The boy who sleeps in a barrel, and who roams the streets by day, may become a zealous worker for Christ. A tinker of Elstow may kindle a light that shall shine through the ages. But the children of our families are not wildings nor waifs. They are planted in our homes for the most thoughtful cultivation, and this can be secured only by the union of all the forces for good. There are zealous conferences with the tailor and the dressmaker, that the outer garments may have a comely appearance; the mother and the cook confer to please the palate; but about spiritual food, and the garments which time and fashion may not change, there are altogether too little conference.—Baptist Teacher.
Christians and the Theater
Mr. Spurgeon says: “I see it publicly stated by men who call themselves Christians that it would be advisable for Christians to frequent the theater, that the character of the drama might be raised. The suggestion is about as sensible as if we were bidden to pour a bottle of lavender into a great sewer to improve its aroma.”
DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM.
By John Nevins Andrews
THE terrible visitation of God's wrath upon Jerusalem has been eagerly seized upon by many as the fulfillment of all the vengeance against sin which the Bible threatens. So when Malachi speaks of the day "that shall burn as an oven," or Peter of the melting of the elements with "fervent heat," or Paul of the revelation of the Son of God "in flaming fire," these awful declarations are said to have been fulfilled when Jerusalem was destroyed.
Undoubtedly when Noah preached the coming of the flood, the antediluvians had some great woe, which had come on mankind some centuries before, to cite to him as the real fulfillment of all God's threatenings against sin. They satisfied their own minds so that they regarded not his warnings. But in spite of all this comfortable explanation, the flood came and destroyed them all. The destruction of Jerusalem now swallows up all the unpleasant truths of Scripture. But, instead of that terrible event calming the fears of the guilty, it ought to alarm them. If God has marked iniquity in the Jews, and inflicted on them such terrible blows, will he not do the like by the Gentiles? J. N. A.
SYNOPSIS OF THE PRESENT TRUTH.
By Uriah Smith
NUMBER TWELVE.
THE SEVENTY WEEKS AND 2300 DAYS.
HAVING passed through the symbols of the second, seventh, and a portion of the eight chapters of Daniel, we turn again to this last chapter to notice another subject there introduced. It is recorded in verse 13 that Daniel heard one saint ask another the question, “How long the vision concerning the daily [sacrifice] and the transgression of desolation, to give both the Sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?” The angel then addressed himself to Daniel and said, “Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the Sanctuary be cleansed.” How far this declaration was designed to be an answer to the question which he had heard, we will not now endeavor to determine; but this much is revealed—enough for Daniel to know, enough for us—that unto twenty-three hundred days, or at the end of 2300 days, the Sanctuary should be cleansed. This period is not again mentioned in Dan. 8. All the other parts of the vision are there fully explained. It must have been therefore, this point concerning the time, that troubled the mind of the prophet, and in reference to this, solely, that he exclaims at the end of the chapter, “I was astonished at the vision, but none understood it.”
The date of this vision was the third year of Belshazzar, B. C. 553. Fifty-three years previous to this time, B. C. 606, Jerusalem had been taken by Nebuchadnezzar, and the seventy years’ captivity commenced; and thirty-five years before this, B. C. 588, the Chaldeans had utterly demolished the city, broken down its walls and burnt the house of God with fire. 2 Chron. 36:19. Daniel in the first year of Darius, B. C. 538, had learned from the prophecy of Jeremiah, chap. 25, that the seventy years of captivity were drawing near their close, as we read in the first verses of Dan. 9; and it is evident that he so far misunderstood the period of the 2300 days as to suppose that they ended with the end of the seventy years of Israel’s servitude; therefore turning his face toward the prostrate city and the ruined temple of his fathers, he prays God to cause his face to shine upon his sanctuary which is desolate. Verse 17.
“And whiles I was speaking and praying,” says he, chap. 9, 20-23, “even the man Gabriel whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, touched me about the time of the evening oblation. And he informed me and talked with me, and said, O Daniel, I am now come forth to give thee skill and understanding. At the beginning of thy supplication, the commandment came forth, and I am come to show thee; for thou art greatly beloved; therefore understand the matter, and consider the vision. Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city,” &c.
That this is a continuation of the explanation of the vision of chap. 8, would seem sufficiently evident on the very face of it, without the aid of any special argument to prove it so. But as a vital point in the argument hinges upon this fact, and as this is denied by some for very apparent reasons, we will offer a few thoughts, which place it beyond the limits of contradiction, that the vision which Gabriel explains in Dan. 9, is the same that is recorded in chap. 8.
1. Gabriel had received a charge, chap. 8:16, to make Daniel understand the vision; but at the end of that chapter, Daniel says he was astonished at the vision, but none understood it. Gabriel therefore did not complete his mission in chap. 8: the charge still rested upon him, “Make this man to understand the vision.”
2. The being who came to Daniel at the time of his supplication, was the very same who had appeared to him in the vision at the beginning; namely, Gabriel. And that he had now come to undeceive him concerning his application of the time, is evident in that he says, “I am now come forth to give thee skill and understanding.” Why did he not give him a full understanding of the vision at first? Because, we answer, he revealed to him all that he was then able to bear; for Daniel “fainted and was sick certain days.”
3. Direct reference is made to the vision at the beginning; and if that is not the vision of chap. 8, it is impossible to find it. And again, if Gabriel does not explain in chap. 9, what he omitted in chap. 8, it is impossible for any man to show wherein Gabriel ever fulfilled his commission to make this man understand the vision; and we have nothing then to shield him from the charge of being a fallen angel. But a position which will lead to either of these results, is utterly unallowable.
4. When Gabriel commenced his further explanation he does not explain the symbol of the ram; for that he had already explained; he does not explain the goat; for he had likewise explained that; neither does he commence about the little horn; for he had made that plain also in chap. 8. What then does he explain? The very point there omitted; namely, time.
But how do the words of Gabriel, “Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people,” &c., explain the period of the 2300 days? The answer is, The word rendered, determined, signifies literally, cut off. Says Josiah Litch, in Midnight Cry, Vol. IV, No. 25, “‘Seventy weeks are determined,’ literally ‘cut off!’ The Hebraists all admit that the word determined, in our English version, does signify ‘cut off.’ Not one has disputed it.” Prof. Whiting, also, in Midnight Cry, Vol. IV, No. 17, says: “Thus Chaldaic and Rabbinical authority, and that of the earliest versions, the Septuagint and Vulgate, give the single signification of ‘cutting off’ to this verb. Should it be inquired why a tropical sense has been attributed to it, such as ‘determining,’ or ‘decreeing,’ it may be answered that the reference of the verse (in which it occurs) to Dan. 8:14, was unobserved. It was therefore supposed that there was no propriety in saying, ‘seventy weeks are cut off,’ when there was no other period of which they could have formed a portion. But as the period of the 2300 days is first given, and verses 12 and 23 compared with Dan. 8:16, show that the ninth chapter furnishes an explanation of the vision in which Gabriel appeared to Daniel, and of the ‘matter’—(the commencement of the 2300 days)—the literal (or rather to speak properly, the only) signification demanded by the subject matter is that of ‘cut off.’” The Englishman’s Hebrew concordance says, “Determined, literally, divided.”
From what period are the seventy weeks divided, or cut off? From the 2300 days; for there is no other period given from which they can be taken; and this is placed beyond a doubt by the connection of the two chapters, which has already been proved. The seventy weeks, then, are the first 490 days of the 2300; and this is the key to the whole mystery. This is vitally necessary to an understanding of that period. On no other ground can it be explained. Yet some who were once sound in the truth on this subject, have rashly denied this; but for how good reason, we shall by and by see. The commencement of the seventy weeks therefore marks the commencement of the 2300 days; for the former being cut off from the latter, they of course commence together. From what point shall we date them is our next inquiry. U. S.