Review and Herald, Vol. 27, No. 22. (5/1/1866)

Review and Herald

May 1, 1866

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · May 1, 1866

NATURE AND DESTINY OF MAN.

DISCUSSION BETWEEN ELD. N. V. HULL, SEVENTH-DAY BAPTIST, AND ELD. R. F. COTTRELL, SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST.

(Continued from Review No. 18, Vol. xxvii.)

Elder Hull's Tenth Article.

ELD. R. F. COTTRELL:

Dear Brother,—When I wrote my last article on the nature of man, I did not expect to return to that theme again. Nor even now do I propose to offer an added argument, but only to reply briefly to your criticism upon my form of argument. You charge me with an inconsistency in requiring First-day observers to defend their practice by the Bible, and then, in the defense of my doctrine in the matter of our discussion, I introduce other and foreign testimony. Are you not in error upon this matter? I hold that, could First-day keepers show from any source, that the observance of Sunday was favored by Christ and his apostles, as a Christian institution, I should be obliged to conduct myself accordingly. To do otherwise, would be unreasonable and a wickedness. The only question is, Was this really the position of Christ and his apostles? The competency of a witness introduced to prove a question is of course a vital point. If, then, I have introduced an incompetent witness on any point, that is in so far fatal to my cause. This I have

not intended to do. Let us see. I said, "That the Sadducees denied the existence of human spirits after the death of the body, is as much a matter of historic notoriety, as the existence of the sect itself; and, as a necessary thought, they denied also the resurrection." Now, taking that sentence down to the word "itself," is is not true, every word of it? I mean, is it not a historic truth? As to my deduction, that the denial of the resurrection was a "necessary thought," taken in connection with the above, you will think of that as you please, but certainly they thought so, and I think they were more logical than you!

Again, is it not a historic fact, that the Pharisees believed in the existence of human spirits after the death of the body, and that the resurrection restored the body? Now, I do not affirm that their beliefs were true because they held them. The truth of them must be ascertained from some other source, and that source is the Scriptures. In so far, then, as I have referred to historic testimony, am I not on Protestant ground? But I wish to call your attention still further to a point I have already mentioned, which is, that the Pharisees believed in the resurrection of the body. The idea that the spirit died with the body and was raised with it, surely they never entertained. Am I right thus far? The controversy that raged in the time of Christ and his apostles, turned upon the resurrection of the body. This proved, all was proved; this lost, all was lost. Your doctrine, that the spirit dies with the body, is fatal to the future existence of man. The survival of the spirit, though the body dies and returns to dust, is a glorious prophecy of immortality!

Yours in hope of eternal life. N. V. HULL.

Eld. Cottrell's Tenth Reply.

ELD. N. V. HULL:

Dear Brother,—Though disappointed that you did not proceed to the other part of our subject, yet if our readers are as forgetful of my true position as you seem to be, I am glad you have written as you have. I repeat, then, and I hope it will be remembered to the close of this discussion, that I do not hold "the idea that the spirit dies with the body, and is raised with it." Those Pharisees that derived their faith from divine revelation, I am confident, held no such idea; for the idea is not to be found in the Bible. But spirit and soul are sometimes used to signify, as you have well defined, the "vital essence," or principle of life. This leaves man at death, and is restored at the resurrection—it "returns to God who gave it"—the spirit of the vilest sinner, as well as that of the most pious saint—and will not be again received by man till God wills. It is not a living creature, and it does not die. But "man dieth and wasteth away; yea, man giveth up the ghost, ('the breath of the spirit of life,') and where is he?" Human wisdom has tried in vain to solve this problem. Nothing but the resurrection powers of God can bring back the man, who, as far as human knowledge can reach, is wasted away and irrecoverably lost.

It is true, that "the controversy that raged in the time of Christ and his apostles, turned upon the resurrection"—you say, "of the body;" they said, "of the dead." They had not your theory to sustain; hence they were free to say, David is both dead and

buried. Acts ii, 29. It was not necessary for them to say, David's body. They knew of no David where his body was not.

But of the resurrection you continue very truly: "This proved, all was proved; this lost, all was lost." Yes they taught that "if the dead rise not, . . . then they that have fallen asleep in Christ are perished." 1 Cor. xv, 16–18. Spiritualism in vain asserts the contrary. Christ and his apostles made "the Scriptures" and "the power of God," instead of "the survival of the spirit," the "glorious prophecy of immortality." Matt. xxii, 29; Mark xii, 24. You seem to doubt this prophecy and this power, since you deem that actual death would be "fatal to the future existence of man." The Sadducees, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the "power of God," fell into the same error. But the Pharisees had more faith. It was not "a thing incredible" with them, "that God should raise the dead." I can say with Paul, "I am a Pharisee," so far as this question is concerned; and my hope is identical with his—the hope of the resurrection of the dead. Acts xxiii, 6. Is it not simply a want of confidence in the promise and power of God, that makes you incline to the side of the Sadducees, and "think they were more logical" than I?

Historic testimony is as good on one subject as on another. I have impeached your best witness, by showing that he falsely represented the Pharisees as believing in the transmigration of souls, instead of a resurrection of the dead; and that he himself, though claiming to be a Pharisee, did not believe in a bodily resurrection at all, and makes no allusion to it in his account of the Pharisees. It may be a matter of "historic notoriety," that the Sadducees "denied the existence of human spirits after the death of the body;" and also that the apostles observed the first day of the week as the Christian Sabbath; but when we come to the only reliable source of truth, the inspired testimony, we find neither of these subjects therein discussed. Inspiration equally ignores them both. There was no issue between the Pharisees and Sadducees on the nature of death, or on the existence of human spirits in a disembodied and conscious state. There seems to be a perfect agreement between them as to man's state in death; the only disagreement, so far as man is the subject of dispute, was on the resurrection of the dead. And when Christ refuted the non-resurrection doctrine of the Sadducees, he did not base his argument on the conscious existence of the human spirit after the death of the body, but upon "the power of God"—a power that "raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them." John v, 21.

He did not undertake to prove that the dead will be raised, and bring out the conclusion, that they are now alive, and consequently need no resurrection; but from sound premises he comes to a logical conclusion. Thus: 1. God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. 2. But Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are dead; yet he says he is their God. 3. Therefore they shall live again. They live in the purpose of God; because they "shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day." John xi, 24.

In hope of the promise. R. F. COTTRELL.

Nearing Home.

ONE thought to cheer our hearts within, While waging conflict fierce with sin, Orestes like, with peace shall come, And whisper soft, where'er we roam, "We're nearing home."

Nearing the land of promised rest; Nearing the Saviour, as his guest; Nearing the happy, joyful day, When tears shall all be wiped away; "We're nearing home."

Nearing the time to leave the cross, The transient world with all its dross, The time to lay the armor down, To change it for the starry crown; "We're nearing home."

Nearing our Father's home above, The place of his approving love; Nearing adieu to care and strife; Nearing the crown of eternal life; "We're nearing home."

Let fiercest storms around us beat, Or billows mad dash at our feet, Still, as the promise-bow we trace, We'll trust in God, and through his grace, Be "nearing home."

Fear Before God

WHAT we are afraid to do before men, we should be afraid to think before God.

The Afflictions of the People of God.

By W. B. Pringle

God's people are an afflicted race. For the comfort and instruction of the reader, I will present some of the teachings of the Sacred Record, to show how often God's chosen people are afflicted. It was God's promise to Abraham that his seed should inherit the land of Canaan, but he told him to know of a surety that before that time they should be strangers in a land that was not theirs, and should be afflicted four hundred years. The most humble and patient servant of God once said, "Man is born unto trouble as the sparks fly upward." Job v, 7. The same writer also says, "Man is of few days and full of trouble." Chap. xiv, 1. It often appears that the most pious, devoted, servants of God, sometimes suffer most. The writer of the Psalms seemed to think this was the case. In Ps. lxxiii, 5, he declares that the ungodly are not in trouble as other men, neither are they plagued like other men; but of God's people he said, that "waters of a full cup" are wrung out to them. Again David testifies, "Before I was afflicted I went astray." Also "It is good for me that I have been afflicted, that I might learn thy statutes;" and again, "I know, O Lord, that thy judgments are right, and that thou in faithfulness hast afflicted me."

David was at times greatly afflicted, insomuch that he exclaimed, "Unless thy law had been my delight, I should have perished in my afflictions." Surely no one can read the foregoing testimony without concluding that David's affliction accomplished for him what otherwise could not have been done. If we trace the history of the people of God through their various generations, we find all through an afflicted people that have come up through great tribulation, and washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

The Apostle Paul says, "Whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son that he receiveth." and again that we are "not to be moved by these afflictions" for yourselves know that we are appointed thereunto. He set the example himself as he entered his ministry with the words of the Saviour revolving in his mind, "I will show him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake." Acts ix, 16. His own language is, "And now behold I go bound in spirit unto Jerusalem, not knowing the things that shall befall me there, save that the Holy Ghost witnesseth in every city, saying, that bonds and afflictions abide me; but none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God." Acts xx, 22, 24. This great apostle to the Gentiles "went forth weeping and bearing precious seed," fully believing that in him must be "filled up that which is behind of the affliction of Christ;" he ceased not to "warn men day and night with tears." How rich will be his reward when Jesus comes! for those who "sow in tears shall reap in joy." Ps. cxxvi, 56. There is another consolation for God's suffering children, and that is that he "will be with them, and deliver them," Dan. xii, 1. Yes, their "tears are all bottled up," not a sigh or groan escapes their lips, or pang reaches their heart, but that is known and heard in Heaven. "The salvation of the righteous is of the Lord; he is their strength in the time of trouble." "Many are the afflictions of the righteous, but the Lord delivereth him out of them all." Ps. xxxiv, 19. The day of the deliverer hasteth greatly, and you, dear afflicted ones, "lift up your head and rejoice, for your redemption draweth nigh." But there is still another promise; that is, "affliction shall not rise up the second time," yes, the Lord has promised to make an "utter end," when he shall pass through. He says, "though I have afflicted thee, I will afflict thee no more." Let us in our present afflictions have a bold heart, and say with the poet:

"Afflictions may press me, they cannot destroy; One glimpse of His love turns them all into joy,— And the bitterest tears, if He smiles but on them, Like dew in the sunshine grow diamond and gem."

David only uttered his own experience when he said, "I know that the Lord will maintain the cause of the afflicted, and the right of the poor." Surely the righteous shall give thanks unto thy name; the upright shall dwell in thy presence." Ps. cxl, 12, 13.

When Paul besought the Lord thrice that his infirmity might depart from him, the answer he got was, "My grace is sufficient for thee, my strength is made perfect in weakness." Paul's response was, "Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me; therefore I take pleasure in my infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses, for Christ's sake; for when I am weak then am I strong." 2 Cor. xii, 8, 10.

When I consider these things, I can but beg the privilege of "suffering affliction with the people of God." I have had enough of the pleasure of sin; let me cheerfully bear the reproaches of Christ, knowing that "they that suffer with him shall also reign with him," and that "our sufferings are not worthy to be compared with the glory that shall be revealed in us."

W. B. PRINGLE.

Fairport, N. Y.

Change in the Sabbath Anticipated.

By Henry F. Phelps

A FREE-WILL BAPTIST paper, the Morning Star, has an article with the above caption, which I take the liberty to copy, adding occasionally a few remarks. The editor first says that the editor of the Chicago Tribune justified himself for publishing a Sunday paper, on the ground that the fourth commandment applies to Saturday only, and that there is, therefore, "no law of God" relative to the observance of Sunday as a day of worship, any more than Tuesday or Wednesday. A very sensible conclusion, indeed.

Then as a reply, he copies from the Western Christian Advocate as follows: "It is not said in the command which of the six days shall be kept, whether the former, or latter ones of the week; nor on which day we must rest, but simply, 'six days shall thou labor and do all thy work, but the seventh is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God.'"

Surely this is simple enough for any one to understand; and if a man will but look at it without the aid of "doctrines of men," "preconceived opinions," or prejudice, he cannot fail to see that it plainly says, the "seventh-day," and no other.

Again, "The essence of the commandment is not in proportion to time—six-sevenths being allotted to labor, one-seventh to rest, there is no allusion to a specific Sabbath-day; and we who keep Sunday, obey the commandment as literally as those who keep Saturday."

Here comes the seventh-part-of-time theory. What folly to thus charge God with giving a commandment which expressly says, "the seventh-day," and then to say, it does not mean so, but any day will answer as well; only mind that "any day" must come on Sunday.

Again, "The great Lawgiver, indeed seems to have anticipated the change of the Sabbath, and to have so worded his law, that it should need no emendation for all time."

Amen! It needs no emendation; it is as Paul says, "holy, just, and good." We believe he did anticipate the change, or attempted change, for he speaks of that power "who was to think to change times and laws." Dan. vii, 25. But there is no intimation any where to be found that God ever designed to change his law; but on the contrary he says, "I will not alter the thing that has gone out of my lips." Ps. lxxxix, 34. David says, "all thy commandments are righteousness," Ps. cxix, 112; and the Lord by Isaiah says, "My righteousness shall not be abolished." Isa. li, 6. Isaiah further says, "Because they (the people) have transgressed the law, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant, therefore hath the curse devoured the earth."

And the Advocate says, "Or at least knowing the physical impossibility of keeping precisely the same twenty-four hours, in all parts of the earth, had made provision accordingly."

God has not told us to keep the "same twenty-four hours," but, "the seventh-day;" and referring back to creation week as the rule, since which time has been correctly kept, we have no excuse, and there is no use of our urging such a flimsy excuse as the one just mentioned.

He further says, "There is some reason to believe that the original Sabbath was lost during the bondage in Egypt. Centuries of oppression under godless taskmasters, had produced the greatest irregularity in the observance of this day of rest. Manasseh Ben Israel expressly says, in his opinion, 'the Israelites were compelled to labor on the Sabbath.' While Grotii, Dean Milner, Edwards, and many others, find proof that the reckoning was then lost."

The writer seems to have forgotten just here, that if time, as he says, had been lost, that just after the children of Israel were brought out of Egypt, God in bringing the Sabbath to their remembrance, gave them to understand precisely upon which day it came, by a manifest miracle in giving the manna on six days in succession, but withholding it on the seventh. Ex. xvi.

Let us hear him again, "Certain it is that when the law was rehearsed in Horeb, as the children of Israel were entering upon the promised land, the rest from creation was not assigned as the reason for the fourth commandment, but the redemption from Egyptian bondage, the commandment instead of concluding as Ex. xx, runs thus, 'remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, . . . therefore the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the Sabbath-day.'"

In answer to this we would first say, this rehearsal was not in Horeb, but "eleven days' journey from Horeb." Please compare Deut. i, 1, 3; ii, 1, 2; iv, 46. The writer seems to forget that this was not the giving of a new law, but simply a rehearsal of the covenant made at Horeb. Deut. v, 2; also notice the language in verse 12. But why the phrase, "remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt." It is simply this, they were to remember this fact, least they should become anxious about their worldly affairs, and cause their servants to labor on the Sabbath-day, and they suffer the judgments of God for so doing.

Again, "It is altogether likely, therefore, that from this point a new reckoning proceeded, and the later Jews kept the commandment as literally as the earlier ones; the Sabbath in this light seems to mark the greatest event of each dispensation. Creation in the first, escape from Egypt in the next, and the resurrection of our Lord in the last."

This is not Bible, God gave the Sabbath as a memorial of one event, namely, the creation. God says, "It is a sign between me and the children of Israel forever, for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations." Ex. xxxi. Paul gives us to understand that the true Israel are the people of God, therefore as long as God has a people, so long will the Sabbath continue as a "sign" and a "memorial" "that ye may know that I am the Lord that doth sanctify you."

Once more, "We even find the Christian Sabbath foreshadowed in the Old Testament Scriptures, in such passages for instance, as the following, from the 118th Psalm. 'The stone which the builders rejected, has become the head of the corner, this is the Lord's doing and it is marvelous in our eyes; this is the day which the Lord hath made, we will be glad and rejoice in it. If the 'stone' was Christ, if being 'refused' was his crucifixion, if the remainder refers to his resurrection, then there is a distinct allusion to the Sabbath of the coming dispensation.'"

This stone doubtless refers to Christ, but there is no consistency in saying that the day refers to a day of rest. It here refers to the whole gospel day. Our Lord had fulfilled his mission, was taken, and by wicked hands was crucified and slain; his body confined in the prison-house of Satan, the grave; and if he should continue in the grave, then the plan of salvation would have been thwarted, all the sufferings of the Son of God in vain. But oh! let us "be glad and rejoice" in this gospel-day; for Jesus has arisen, a mighty conqueror, he has burst the bars of the tomb, becoming "the first fruits" of those who slept.

HENRY F. PHELPS.

A Cure for Passion

For a fit of passion walk out in the open air you may speak your mind to the winds, without hurting any one, or proclaiming yourself to be a simpleton.

Serpent Worship.

By E. Goodrich

Notwithstanding the great amount of apparent and real dissimilarity that exists between the religion of the Scriptures and the different forms of false and superstitious worship found throughout the world, it is an interesting fact that in many of their leading features there is a marked similarity. Not that they teach the same things, but the impression that one receives from comparing them together is that at some remote time all must have had a common origin. And admitting that all originated from the same point, and are but so many varied, and to a great extent contradictory representations of the same thing, the differences that now exist are easily explained by the wasting, wearing, and obliterating influences of time and circumstances, by the imperfect means of perpetuating knowledge, and by man's natural proneness to rely upon reason, and objects of sight and sense, instead of revelation and faith. Indeed when we remember how uncertain a thing tradition is, and that a story even under favorable circumstances may not be known by its own author after it has passed through several representatives, it cannot be a matter of wonder that several thousand years should work so many changes.

These different kinds of religion, as we now see them, may be represented by a picture in different positions, and more or less defaced or mutilated. Sometimes the picture is seen in a proper position, but some parts are wanting; at other times it is inverted, or at best we can only obtain a distant side view; while at other times the picture is quite perfect, but its parts are made to change places, giving to it a ludicrous appearance, so that a person not understanding the anatomy of the different parts seen in their proper places, would never think of the object designed to be represented.

The truth of the foregoing will more readily and plainly appear by a reference to Ecclesiastical History, by which we learn that among the numerous class of Gnostics that existed both before and after the advent of our Lord, there was an Egyptian sect called Ophites or Serpentinians, from the adoration which they paid to serpents. At first sight it appears impossible that any mind could be so trained and degraded, as in any manner to venerate this most loathsome of living creatures; but if we trace this superstitious notion to its proper origin, we shall see that the picture has at least the redeeming feature of consistency. And as there is neither time nor space to copy all that the historian has said concerning Gnostic philosophy, perhaps a single section, followed by a brief comment, may suffice for the present.

"The Ophites or Serpentinians, a ridiculous sort of heretics, who had for their leader a man called Euphrates, deserve not the lowest place among the Egyptian Gnostics. This sect, which had its origin among the Jews, was of a more ancient date than the Christian religion. A part of its followers embraced the gospel, while the other retained their superstition, and from hence arose the division of the Ophites into Christian and Anti-Christian. The Christian Ophites entertained almost the same fantastic opinions that were held by the other Egyptian Gnostics, concerning the æons, the eternal matter, the creation of the world in opposition to the will of God, the rulers of the seven planets that presided over this world, the tryanny of demiurge, and also concerning Christ united to the man Jesus, in order to destroy the empire of this usurper. But besides these, they maintained the following particular tenet, from whence also they received the name of Ophites, viz., That the serpent, by which our first parents were deceived, was either Christ himself, or Sophia, concealed under the form of that animal; and in consequence of this opinion, they are said to have nourished a certain number of serpents, which they looked upon as sacred, and to which they offered a sort of worship, a subordinate kind of divine honors. It was no difficult matter for these who made a distinction between the Supreme Being, and the creator of the world, and who looked upon everything as divine, which was in opposition to demiurge, to fall into these extravagant notions."—Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History, Second edition, Cent. II, Part II, Chap. V, Sec. XIX.

As a brief explanation of the foregoing extract, it may be well to state, we learn by the same historian that according to the doctrines of Valentine, one of the Gnostic philosophers (an "Egyptian by birth"), there were "thirty æons," or celestial beings, who resided in the habitation of the Deity. "The one half of these were male, and the other female." To these we should add "four others," supreme æons of "neither sex, viz., Horns, Christ, the Holy Ghost, and Jesus." The younger of the æons, called Sophia (i. e. wisdom) . . . brought forth a daughter named Achamoth. Achamoth by the assistance of Jesus, produced the demiurge the lord and creator of all things. "The creator of this world, according to Valentine, arrived by degrees to that pitch of arrogance, that he either imagined himself to be God alone, or at least, was desirous that mankind should consider him as such." "To chastise this lawless arrogance of demiurge, and to illuminate the minds of rational beings with the knowledge of the true and Supreme Deity, Christ appeared upon earth, composed of an animal and spiritual substance, and clothed, moreover, with an aerial body." The reader will readily discover that the principal difference between the picture furnished us by Gnostic philosophy and the one seen in the Scriptures is, the Creator of this world, and the common enemy of man are made to change places. In the former it is our friend, a heavenly messenger in the guise of a serpent; while in the latter the serpent personifies an adversary. And touching the controversy that occurred in the garden of Eden, the main inquiry seems to be, Who was it that told the truth? Was it the person represented by the serpent, or was it the other one? And admitting that man is immortal and cannot die, would it not be more in keeping with this doctrine to adopt the Gnostic rather than the Bible view of the matter? But be this as it may, as no writer should transcend the bounds of modesty by seeing for and dictating to others, I am happy to leave the question for every one to decide according to his own convictions of truth and consistency.

E. Goodrich.

From the Church at Marion, Iowa.

By Thomas Hare; D. T. Shireman

Bro. White: At our last business meeting it was voted that we should write a letter to the Review that the brethren and sisters might know there were still a few left in Marion that love the truths of the third angel's message. We number about eighteen. We have our regular meetings on the Sabbath and Tuesday evenings, also a Bible-class on the Sabbath. We are encouraged as we come together from time to time, to press on with the remnant through the perils and dangers of the last days that we may finally stand with them on Mount Zion.

We would say that although Satan has tried hard during the last twelve months to destroy this church, and has caused many to give up their faith in the present truth, yet the Lord in his goodness has sent his faithful messenger to us in our time of trial, for which we would tender our grateful thanks, and also to the Gen. Conf. Committee. We hope they will still remember to send us help as far as in their power, and we will try and do our duty in supporting them. We would be glad to have Bro. and sister White come among us again. We hope they will be able to attend our State Conference this summer. We believe the Lord will be with Bro. White in his affliction.

We would be glad to have any of our messengers call upon us at any time when it is convenient.

In behalf of the church,

Thomas Hare.

D. T. Shireman.

Marion, Iowa, April 8, 1866.

Letters of Recommendation.

By J. Clarke

A is an exemplary man; wishes to remove; asks of the church a letter; the church grant it with full hearts; all know what A will do; the letter is hearty and full.

B wishes to remove; asks a letter; the case is different from that of A's; B is devoted in many things, but inconsistent in others; is passionate and fretful. What can the church do; will they endorse his character as they did A's? Had they better not do as a good business man would do in like circumstances? tell the whole, or give no letter at all?

C is a good man himself; but his children work and attend school on Sabbath. The fact is, C loves his family; is a lovely man, but stands in fear of his wife, so that his children obey her, rather than him, although they all are yet in childhood. He wishes to remove; wants a letter. Will the church deceive their sister church, and give C a letter like the one A has? I think not. Would a London merchant recommend an unfaithful clerk? I think the church should be as particular how they endorse an unfaithful member, as a merchant in endorsing an unfaithful clerk.

So of D, E, and F, who are careless and lukewarm. They must by the same rule, be truly represented by letter.

Should you receive a member by letter into full membership, and afterward find him very different from what the letter represented, you would hold that church which had imposed upon your good faith, as guilty as the individual whom they had palmed off upon you, and perhaps more so.

When churches take an honorable course in this line of things, members will know what to expect, and act accordingly.

It is good to see that a blow has been struck by the S. D. Adventists in favor of order. Let us as churches and members, endeavor to hold up the hands of our leaders in this thing. J. CLARKE.

Almost Home.

We'RE almost home, we're almost home, hark! hear the joyful cry; The weary pilgrim lifts his head, and hails redemption nigh: Oh glorious, soul-reviving sound, we soon shall see our King! More swiftly fly, ye tardy hours, that welcome moment bring.

We've long been wandering here below, cast out for Jesus' sake, And through the dark night we have watched and longed for morn to break; And now the cry, "Behold! he comes; your journey's end is near," Sounds sweet as ever sound of "home" fell on the traveler's ear.

O! wayworn pilgrim, dry thy tears; look up, rejoice, and sing; What though the world despise thy name? thy Father is a King; And soon upon his dazzling throne thou shalt with him sit down, And walk the streets of Paradise, and wear a glittering crown.

Art thou a mourner? dost thou weep that much- loved ones are borne To rest beneath the valley clods? Christian, no longer mourn; A few days more and you shall meet, no more to say "Farewell," But in the everlasting home in sweet re-union dwell.

O! home-bound sailor, courage take; what though the clouds be dark, And angry billows dash around, to sink our little bark; What though the tempest fiercer grows; with joyful hope we'll stand, For well we know we're near the coast; our ship's almost to land.

O! watcher, thou hast waited long; turn not away thine eyes, For, lo, the Day Star brightly beams, the Sun will soon arise; With joyful hearts we'll watch and look, and pray, "Lord Jesus come," And take thy waiting church away to her eternal home.

Progress of Romanism

PROGRESS OF ROMANISM.—It is not generally known that there are more than four millions of Roman Catholics in the United States. Since 1808 there has been an increase from eighty to two thousand five hundred churches; from sixty-eight to twenty-three hundred priests; from two to forty-five bishops; and from one to forty-eight dioceses.

Besides these, the Catholics have 102 orphan asylums, where they educate some 7000 orphans, and have over 100 benevolent and charitable societies, and 28 hospitals. They have also 97 library institutes for young men; 212 female academies, and 303 free schools for 27,940 males, and 327 schools for 29,671 females.

Questions.

By J. M. A.

Will you please give an explanation through the Review, why father Miller set, first the time of the Lord's coming in 1843, and then in 1844? also

What about the correctness of the commencement of the 2300 days in the autumn of B. c. 457? Some say that the decree went forth in the spring, and for proof quote Ezra vii, 8.

State also which of our months corresponds to the first month according to Bible reckoning.

J. J. SHEPLEY.

REPLY.

Previous to 1843, the reasoning of Miller and others, was briefly as follows: The seventy weeks of Dan. ix, had their commencement at the going forth of the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem; Dan. ix, 25. This commandment or decree went forth in the 7th of Artaxerxes, B. c. 457; Ezra vii. The Seventy weeks were a part of the 2300 years, being the first 490 years of that period. The period of 2300 years, therefore, commenced B. c. 457. Taking 457 from 2300, there remained 1843; hence, from such careless, though apparently correct reckoning, it was supposed that the 2300 years would terminate in 1843, and that the Lord would then come.

After the ending of the year 1843, a more critical examination of the subject disclosed the simple, yet important fact, that the full period of 2300 years, required 457 full years before Christ, and 1843 full years after, so that if said period commenced the very first day of 457, it would not end till the very last day of 1843; hence the same length of time that passed in 457 before the 2300 years commenced, must run into 1844 before they would end.

The question then arose, What time in 457 did the 70 weeks begin? Having the exact key to this prophetic period, and light in regard to the prophecy being greatly increased, they were enabled to solve this question beyond a doubt.

By a careful re-examination of the prophecy, it was readily discovered, that, as the middle of the last, or seventieth week (seven years) terminated in the first month, (April), or spring of A. D. 31 at the crucifixion, the remaining three and a half years, or last of the seventieth week, would consequently end in the seventh month (October), or autumn of A. D. 34. Then of course if the 70 weeks ended in the autumn of A. D. 34, they must have commenced in the autumn of B. c. 457, at which time also the period of 2300 years must have commenced. Then, commencing this period in the autumn of B. c. 457, it would not terminate till the autumn of 1844.

Thus we have the reasons why father Miller and others first set the time of the Lord's coming in 1843, and afterward in 1844.

But we are referred to Ezra vii, 8, 9, for proof that the decree to restore and build Jerusalem, went forth in the spring of 457. How then can it be true that the 2300 years commenced in autumn? It is no doubt true that the decree was made and given to Ezra in the spring of the year, but strictly speaking, it could not be said that the "going forth of the commandment" took place till the same became a public matter, or in other words, till Ezra arrived at Jerusalem and produced and published the king's decree and commenced putting the same into execution. This, evidently, did not take place till autumn, for it was in the spring, on the first day of the first month (Abib, answering to our April), that Ezra started for Jerusalem, and he did not arrive there till the fifth month. Ezra vii, 9. Then it is probable that the time intervening, previous to the important feast of the seventh month, was occupied in waiting, fasting, and making suitable preparations therefor; so that the decree was not put into execution till immediately thereafter. And that this is the true starting point of the great period of 2300 years, needs no other proof than what is plainly deducible from the definite termination of the 70 weeks in the seventh month of A. D. 34. But in addition to the proof already made, the fact is again established by the words of the prophecy itself, that this period commenced at the commencement of the work of restoration, and not at the time the decree was made to Ezra. Dan. ix, 25. The exact time here allotted for the building of the street, and the wall "even in troublous times," covers the first division of the prophetic period, or first seven weeks of the seventy; and the fulfillment of this part of the prophecy, like each of the other parts, is remarkably sustained by historic facts.

Much more might be said in answer to the foregoing questions, but for a full explanation of the same, the reader is referred to SANCTUARY AND TWENTY-THREE HUNDRED DAYS; COMMANDMENT TO RESTORE AND BUILD JERUSALEM; THE PROPHECY OF DANIEL, &c., books published, and for sale at this Office.

J. M. A.

Continue reading: Little Time of Peace