Review and Herald, Vol. 36, No. 12. (9/6/1870)

Review and Herald

Sep 6, 1870

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Sep 6, 1870

Review of Wellcome and Goud.

By J. H. Waggoner

BY ELD. J. H. WAGGONER.

(Concluded.)

THE TWO ATONEMENTS.

THEIR argument on the atonement they commence thus:

“The subject of atonement is revealed to us, in the Scriptures, in two parts, or branches; the first being accomplished by the death of Christ under the first, or old, covenant, or law of works (to redeem man from the curse of that law, Christ being made a curse for man) and is unconditional and universal in its application to, and its effects upon, all our race. The second is accomplished by the blood of Christ in the new covenant, or law of faith, and is conditional (1 John 1: 7, 9), being limited in its application to adults, and in its final blessings, to believers.”

This view has the merit of novelty, if that be a merit, but no other. The argument to sustain it is exceedingly weak, the texts quoted in its favor failing to justify their use of them. They start out with the definition of atonement and atone, as given by Webster, which is strongly at variance with their position. Atone “signifies to unite, or agree,” say they; and “Atonement—agreement, concord, reconciliation after enmity or controversy.” In the chapter preceding, on the necessity of atonement, they quote Rom. 5: 10, with a comment as follows: “When we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death (not the blood) of his Son.”

Now if this reconciliation by the death of Christ, be on the part of the sinner toward God, as the text asserts, (enemies reconciled to God), and consists in placing him in “agreement, concord,” with God, by the removal of the enmity, as the definition teaches, and if it is “unconditional and universal in its application to, and its effects upon, all our race,” as they assert; then it necessarily follows that all the race are reconciled to God; that the enmity of all the race is removed, and all the race will be saved. This text alone, Rom. 5: 10, is sufficient to disprove their theory, unless we are prepared to pervert it to prove Universalism. It looks to no such contrast as is presented by them, that is, of death and blood. See the whole verse: “For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.” This assuredly refers to the removal of enmity, or to a reconciliation, of which salvation is the consequent. And that our personal sins do stand thus related to the death of Christ is shown by the apostle’s remarks on baptism, in the same letter. Now baptism has no relation to original sin, or to the general condition of the race, otherwise infant baptism would be valid and necessary. Baptism is for the remission of sin, and is the duty of penitent believers, the followers of Christ, and of them exclusively. But the apostle says, “Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death?”—not into his blood. If such a distinction exists as they claim; if the death of Christ was only for the resurrection of the race, without regard to condition or character, and the blood of Christ is for remission of personal sins, why is it that baptism, which is for the remission of personal sins, is into his death, and not into his blood?

The texts they quote in introducing the first part of the subject, the death of Christ, are remarkably inappropriate to their purpose. 1 Cor. 5: 7. “Christ our passover is sacrificed for us.” The connection shows that Paul was there treating of the purification of believers, and not of a work which is accomplished without regard to character, as is the case in the resurrection of the race. Heb. 9: 26. “But now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.” This text they properly refer to the death of Christ, for the idea of sacrifice necessarily includes that of death. But if there is such a distinction and division of the subject as they claim, they have been unfortunate in the selection of a scripture to show it; for the ninth chapter of Hebrews is treating of the remission of sin, and the sanctification of believers. See verses 14, 22. And the text itself is a positive proof against their theory. It says that the sacrifice, or death, of Christ was “to put away sin.” But in the plan for the resurrection of the race, according to their division of the subject, putting away sin has no place; for if it be true that the wicked dead will be raised, the majority of those resurrected never have their sins put away at all. It is true that a part of those resurrected have their sins put away, but they say the death of Christ is not for that object; the text says it is. Which shall we believe? And this text is parallel with many others. “Christ died for our sins.” 1 Cor. 15: 3. “By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ.” Heb. 10: 10. “Offered one sacrifice for sins.” Verse 12. “For by one offering he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified.” Verse 14. “For Christ also hath once suffered for sins.” 1 Peter 3: 18. And that which in these texts is ascribed to the death of Christ, in other texts is ascribed to the blood of Christ. The distinction claimed by Messrs. Wellcome and Goud is merely fanciful.

But their argument must further be noticed. Thus they write:

“All sacrifices requiring the slaying of the victim show that the law under which they are offered has been broken, and that its penalty is death; and as the law of works could not give life (Gal. 3: 21), it knew no mercy. Heb. 2: 2; and 10: 28. Therefore it did not require, of necessity, the shedding of blood, but the death of the victim, which might have been accomplished without the shedding of blood. But the atonement of Christ contemplated not only the redemption of our race from death, but also the forgiveness of the sins of the people against the new covenant, which would be an act of mercy through his intercession as high priest by his own blood. ‘For without the shedding of blood there is no remission.’ Heb. 9: 22.” Pages 107, 108.

In all this singularly inconsistent book perhaps there is not another paragraph so filled with inconsistencies as the above.

1. Their quotations to prove that the first covenant knew no mercy, and is therefore contrasted with the new, are irrelevant, for both Heb. 2: 2, 3; and 10: 28, 29, show that the incorrigible under the new testament are in danger of sorer punishment. Not that the law is changed in its nature or obligation, but to their guilt in the transgression of law, they add that of insult to the offer of grace. To neglect such a means of salvation manifests a love of sin such as could not be shown under any other circumstances. In proportion as the Lord magnifies the law, Isa. 42: 21; and as it is established by faith in the gospel, Rom. 3: 31; so is their guilt aggravated who choose yet to live in its transgression.

2. It is an error to suppose that sin under the old covenant was not taken away because the law did not allow of forgiveness. The truth is, sin was not then taken away because the priests of that covenant had no blood sufficient to take it away. Heb. 10: 4; and others. But that law was consistent with mercy, as is proved by the second commandment; and that sin against it may be removed by efficient means, is proved by Heb. 9: 15; the death of Christ was “for the redemption of the transgressions under the first testament;” and this not merely for temporal blessings, as Messrs. Wellcome and Goud affirm that the first covenant looked no further than these, but for an “eternal inheritance.”

3. They strangely err in their statement of the comparative objects of the offerings of the two covenants. They affirm that because the law “knew no mercy,” and “could not give life,” “therefore it did not require the shedding of blood, but the death of the victim, which

might have been accomplished without the shedding of blood.” But Paul, in his argument concerning the Aaronic priesthood and the offerings of the Levitical law, while contrasting them with that of Christ, says: “And almost all things are by the law purged with blood.” Heb. 9: 22. In Lev. 17: 11, the Lord said to Israel, “I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.” The atonement was the great central point of that whole system, without which all their offerings would have been meaningless. But this was effected only by blood, and the life of the victim was taken that the blood might be presented upon the altar. See Lev. 16; Heb. 13: 11; &c. It is not possible for any one who has an intelligent view of the Levitical economy to make or believe such a statement as they have here made.

4. Their reasoning is illogical and inconclusive. For the reason they offer why blood was not required in the old covenant is, that blood is for remission of sin; and as no remission was there granted, no blood was required. Consistency would require them to further reason thus: The offering of the life or body of the victim was to restore to life; but as the law could not give life, therefore no offering of life was required. But the whole truth on the point is this: that as the priests in the Levitical law “serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things,” Heb. 8: 5, typifying the offering and priesthood of Christ, so Christ, a sacrifice on the cross, and a priest in the heavenly sanctuary to plead his own blood, was represented in the death of the sin-offering and the blood thereof sprinkled on and before the mercy-seat by Aaron and his sons. Heb. 13: 11, 12; 8: 1–5; 9: 23, 24; 10: 1. In respect to the offering of both the body and blood, and to the objects for which they were offered, there is no contrast in the Scriptures between the sacrifices of the two covenants. The contrast is in regard to the efficacy or power to accomplish the object proposed. The object given in the Scriptures, which must be the true one, for the offering of blood, is to make atonement. See Lev. 16, and many other places. But the blood of Christ is for the same object; with this difference, one is but a type of the other; one atones in figure, the other in fact. The only marvel is, that any who read the Bible, and have even a faint idea of the gospel, and its types, should take a position which renders it necessary to give proof of this kind.

5. They reiterate their stale assertion that the blood of Christ is for “the forgiveness of the sins of the people against the new covenant.” They also say that the transgression of the new covenant is unbelief. Pages 139, 275. But they also say, “God extends forgiveness under the new covenant on conditions of repentance and faith.” Page 132. But if faith is a condition of forgiveness of sin, it is easy to see that sin must lie back of the requirement of faith. But if the introduction of faith made void the pre-existing law, as Messrs. Wellcome and Goud affirm, (but which Paul denies, Rom. 3: 31), all sin back of the system of faith would thereby cease to exist. Then faith, if given as a duty, would become an original or elementary principle of the government; and as such they represent it. But as such it could not possibly be a condition of forgiveness. Here we confidently take issue with their whole theory. This is a question of the principles of government the decision of which we would willingly leave with the jurists of the land. It is astonishing how these writers deal in assertions without regard to principles. They seem to have a settled determination not to see the necessary connection between the law and the gospel—“the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.” Rev. 14: 12.

6. The prominent error of their theory, and on which, indeed, their theory of atonement is based, is here repeated; viz., that there is a scriptural difference in design between the death of Christ and the offering of the blood of Christ. It has been shown that what is ascribed to one, in the New Testament, is ascribed to the other. I now notice it in another form, to show that they are, not only identical in design, but, identical in point of fact. On this the Scriptures are very explicit. Let us see how the case stands.

“The wages of sin is death.” That is, by sin life is forfeited; of course justice, or the demand of the law, is not satisfied without the taking of life. This, say Messrs. W. and G., could be “accomplished without the shedding of blood.” But what say the Scriptures: “The blood is the life.” Deut. 12: 23. This being so, how can one be taken to meet the demand of the law, and the other not taken? It is true that without shedding of blood is no remission; Heb. 9: 22. But this statement of the apostle is founded upon that made through Moses in Lev. 17: 11. “It is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.” But this points to another fact. Why is an atonement needed? Because sin has been committed and life is forfeited. And why is the blood given to make atonement? Because the life (that which is forfeited) is in the blood. Nothing but the blood can make atonement, for nothing else represents the equivalent of the forfeiture. And Christ by laying down his life, or shedding his blood, which is the same thing, to meet the demands of the violated law, purchased the right of control over the lives of all those who have sinned. See Rom. 14: 9. “For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.”

When God said to Noah, “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed,” Gen. 9: 6, he certainly did not design to teach that the surgeon who draws a few ounces of blood from the arm of a swooning man should have so much drawn from his own arm in return. The intent of this declaration is shown in verses 4, 5. “But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat. And surely your blood of your lives will I require.” It was to teach and enforce a proper regard for life that all the instructions of the Scriptures concerning the blood were given. And this is so prominently set forth in the Scriptures, especially on the use of the blood for atonement, Lev. 16 and 17, that it seems strange that any should attempt to draw a distinction so directly in conflict with the declarations of the Bible. And the wonder is increased when we consider that they who attempt to draw this distinction profess to have the truth also on the subject of life and death, as the statements which they contradict lie at the very foundation of Biblical psychology. Had men never lost sight of the fact that “the life is in the blood,” they would not have sought by false philosophy and vain speculation to find the life is an imaginary entity that man never possessed. And were this truth that “the blood is the life,” always acknowledged and kept in view, the Bible plan of atonement by blood for the redemption of them who had forfeited their lives would appear reasonable to all. But having lost sight of this fact, and having substituted fables for truth, the divine requirement of blood for atonement appears then quite arbitrary and almost meaningless.

Messrs. Wellcome and Goud seem to do all in their power to perpetuate this error. Thus they say:

“If Jesus had died without shedding one drop of his blood, the law would have been satisfied.” Page 111.

How do they know that this statement is true? They do not quote any scripture to prove it. There are only two methods by which the truth on this point may be known, to wit, by scripture declarations to that effect, or, by examples in the types in the Levitical law. But (1). The word of the Lord is this: “Your blood of your lives will I require.” Gen 9: 5. And, “For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof.” This is the divine requirement in regard to satisfaction, and it is only presumption to assert that the law would have been satisfied contrary to this requirement. (2). In the types, satisfaction by substitution was made by shedding of blood. And so all Scripture evidence is against them.

In connection with the assertion above quoted, they say:

“If no other object had been in view but redemption from the grave, no blood need have been shed, for the shedding of blood implies remission of sin.”

This is not so. The shedding of blood implies satisfaction to the law, and renders the remission of sin possible. And how do they know that any plan would have been possible for the redemption of the race from the grave, that did not insure remission of sin? Is there any hint of such a plan in the Bible? No! Such a plan would neither honor God nor benefit man. It would not honor God, because no principle of his government would be vindicated by such a transaction. It would not benefit man, because it would not admit of any probation. But the great reason for the resurrection of all men lies in the fact that they are on probation; and it is the extreme of folly to assert what would or what would not have been necessary to raise the dead without probation or the possibility of the remission of sin, as such a plan would have been the result of caprice and not of reason, and so unworthy of the divine government.

I am aware that this view of atonement is presented in this book for the purpose of proving the doctrine of the resurrection of the wicked. But I consider it an utter failure. Were that doctrine dependent upon their argument, I should be forced to abandon it, because they have removed from it every Scripture reason on which it is based, and, instead, based it on considerations not known to the Scriptures nor sustained by reason. I consider it unfortunate for the cause of truth that, while the resurrection of the wicked is being denied by many, an argument so labored should be presented in its favor, so entirely destitute of foundation in truth, while there are so many plain Scripture arguments in its favor, none of which they notice. In the eyes of opposers it is equivalent to an admission of the weakness of their cause, and is, therefore, an injury instead of benefit to the cause of truth which they professedly advocate.

Other passages in the book under this head I had marked for notice, but as I designed this for the closing article of the series, and have already gone beyond my desired limit, I leave them. It is no pleasure to me to follow up such vagaries. And as I consider the wondrous amount of contradictions of the Bible, and of itself, that this book contains, I am led to inquire, How is it possible for men who have read the Bible so much to throw together so many follies and inconsistencies? How can men of apparent intelligence and judgment recommend such a book as a consistent exposition of Bible truth? I can only find an answer in the fact that prepossession and prejudice have a power to bind the minds of men and “make the worse appear the better reason.” The evidence of prejudice over the minds of the writers appears in very much of the book. It is much to be regretted that men will suffer their powers to be so perverted where eternal interests are at stake. There is no safety in this age of delusions but in a teachable spirit, and a childlike reliance on the Spirit of God to guide into the truth. May the Lord help us so to live that we do not grieve it away, but ever be guided into, and sanctified through, the truth.

TO A BELIEVER.

By M. E. Piper

Hope thou in God, Rest in his love, Yield him your all, His fullness prove.

Come with your care, With sin oppressed; Look unto him, He’ll give you rest.

Open your heart, Plead each desire; Ask that his love, Your life inspire.

Ask that now light May bless your way, Turning the darkness All into day.

Ask and believe, Despairing one; Never for bread Will he give a stone.

Cast self away, Look high above; No help can equal His boundless love.

M. E. PIPER.

Brevities.

By JOS. CLARKE.

Evil speakers seldom realize the terrible nature of their work, until their batteries are turned upon themselves.

The more respect we have for God's will, the more regard he has for ours.

He who would claim the protection of God, must be subject to his law.

The more pains we take to keep the law of God, and to hallow his Sabbath, the more pains will he take to keep us.

The least recklessness of life, in thought, word, or deed, indicates a corresponding corruption of heart.

Impatience under restraint, and galling under reproof, all indicate but too surely that restraint and reproof are indispensably necessary.

Nicely adjusted scales, weighing with equal precision tons or grains, are the admiration of all lovers of justice. Much more do we admire the mind trained to correct modes of reasoning, and admitting only just conclusions, yet ever prepared to weigh without bias or partiality.

As light appears most beautiful when placed in contrast

with darkness, so does good seem most lovely when opposed to evil.

We all may know when a discord is produced in music, though we may not always be able to describe in technical terms what the discord is. So in human action, we see and feel the effect of evil, although it is sometimes so small that we hardly know how to describe it clearly.

JOS. CLARKE.

How Mr. Stringent Became Liberal.

Mr. Stringent was sixty years old—very old I should have called him when I was a child. He was “brought up” in a thrifty, commercial sort of a way. His father was a small, snug farmer; but as his wants were few, he was called “well to do in the world,” which, I suppose, means, “well to do for this world.” His children received a fair education, and were always among the best scholars. No better cows and no better sheep were owned in those parts, than those owned by old Mr. Stringent. His maxim was “to keep what you have got, and get what you can.” This maxim was inculcated most faithfully into the minds of his children. In process of time, old Stringent died, and fortunately such men carry nothing with them. The children grew up and were scattered abroad, and I have nothing to say about them, except that they were all keen to gain this world. I am to speak of his youngest son, Simon, who took “the old place,” that is, the farm, agreeing to pay off his brothers and sisters their share as fast as he could earn it.

And now Simon, in his youth, was married and settled at “Craig’s Valley,” as the farm was called. He had to support himself and his young family, and yearly to pay a good round sum toward his debt. Early and late he toiled. Carefully and anxiously he saved everything possible. His expenses were the lowest possible; everything went to “the debt.” And if there was anything Simon dreaded more than another, it was a call for charity, or, as he termed it, “the everlasting contribution box.”

The announcement that “a collection would be made next Sabbath,” would invariably make him unwell and unable to attend chapel. Indeed, so delicate was his constitution, that once in a while when he had been caught, he would invariably have the nose-bleed, and be compelled to go out before the box reached him. But years passed on, and his habits grew strong, and his debts grew feeble, until at the end of fifteen years, he had paid off every debt, and owned a large farm, free from every incumbrance.

But now a new chapter in his life was to be experienced. There was an outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon the people. Very many sang the new song. Several of the children of Simon were among the new-born children of light. Simon was the last to become interested. He was the last to feel his sins, and he struggled and resisted, a long, long time, before he yielded to the conditions and demands of Christ. Then he was very slow to take up the crosses as they lay in his path. He was afraid to commit himself. He was slow to erect the altar of prayer in his house. He was slow to confess Christ before the world. But he battled all of these difficulties, and overcame them, because he really had Christian principles in his soul. But now he met a difficulty which seemed insurmountable, unexpected, and very trying. He found that now his brethren and his Bible took it for granted that he would be liberal. How could he, who had never given away a shilling in a year, be expected to give tens and even hundreds? How hard to understand the Christian fact, that “none of us liveth to himself.” He tried to convince himself that a man’s first duty is to provide for his own family; and conscience told him he had been doing nothing else all his life. He tried to convince himself that “charity begins at home,” and conscience told him he wanted it to stop there also. When he read his Bible, it seemed as if he was always stumbling upon such passages as these: “Freely ye have received, freely give.” One day he sat a long time motionless, trying to convince himself that he had not received much. “Why, what little I have, I earned myself, by hard labor. Pray, what have I received?” And then conscience would begin her whispers: “Why, Simon Stringent, you received a good constitution—you were never sick a day in your life.” “That is true.” “And you received a shrewd mind—you know how to manage and make money; and you have received a great deal of sunshine, and a great many rains on your farm, and a great increase of your flocks and cattle, and you have received a large, healthy family, no deaths in it, and you have received a long life already, and hope for more; and you have received the Sabbath and its blessings; and you have, as you hope, received the pardon of your sins, and hope of life eternal through God’s dear Son. Received! Why, you have received everything; it has been nothing but receive, and now you must give.”

O Simon! how hard you breathe! how the perspiration stands on your brow! Had he been dreaming? or had the Spirit of God been teaching him?

The very next day, Simon, or as he was called now, Mr. Stringent, had a loud and tender appeal from the missionary field, and now a collection was to be made, not in the chapel, where every man could dodge, or conceal his parsimony, but by an open subscription in black and white. The collector was to come around at once. Then it was that the dialogue, which is said to have taken place between Mr. Stringent and the devil, occurred.

“How much must I give?” said Mr. Stringent. “As little as you can, and be respectable,” said the devil.

“I am very far from being rich,” said Mr. Stringent.

“You are the richest man in the church,” said conscience.

“Suppose I give five pounds.”

“Fully enough,” said the tempter.

“Freely ye have received, freely give,” said conscience.

“Remember your great family, their schooling, and clothing, and the furniture and new carriage which you need,” said the tempter.

“I shall put down ten pounds,” said Stringent.

“You are beside yourself! Why, they will expect you to do in like proportion for everything hereafter. There is no end to these calls,” said the tempter.

“I shall put down twenty pounds,” said Stringent.

“Yes, but do consider,” said the tempter; “you know your taxes are awful this year; and you know your oats are very light, and they sell by weight, and not by the bushel, as they once did; and the drought has injured your grass, and your fruit will be next to nothing.”

“Yes,” said conscience, “but your corn is magnificent, and so are your potatoes; and if hay is light, the price is heavy, and your workmen never earned as much as they do this year; and the shipment of timber, which was growing long before you were born, has brought an enormous price.”

“I shall put down fifty pounds.”

“Oh! Mr. Stringent! Mr. Stringent! you are nearly crazy, to throw away money so! Why, sir, with that sum you could buy two young cows, or ten first-rate—”

“Get out, get out, you tempter of my soul! I shall put down one hundred pounds this time, and if you don’t let me alone, I declare I shall double it!”

And Mr. Stringent did put it down; and he felt so much better, and grew so strong under it, that it was well understood between him and the devil, ever after, that if he was tempted, he would double his charities. And so well did he abide by it, that he became one of the most liberal men in the country; and when he went around to collect for charities, as he often did—the most liberal man always being the best collector—and when his brethren would make excuses, he would shake his head, and say, “I only wish you could have such dialogues with the devil as I have had.”—The Church.

The Pope in Extremis.

Now that Napoleon is fallen, what is to become of the pope? Will his infallibility save him when the temporal arm that sustained him is removed? All the French troops that guarded him from his own people are removed, and he sends a piteous cry to Eugenie for just one ship to protect him. But there is no help for him, except by throwing himself upon the mercy of Victor Emmanuel, his mortal enemy, who has sequestered the rich revenues of the church, and whom the pope has excommunicated with all the solemnities of book, bell, and candle. Of this perverse heretic he will soon find, if he has not found already, that he, Heaven's vicegerent and prince of all earthly potentates, is as really a subject, as the archbishop of England is the subject of Victoria.

We hold it for certain that nothing will be allowed to stand in the way of realizing the long-cherished dream of Italian unity, to which the military occupation of the French has been for many years the only barrier. The national instincts and traditions all cluster around Rome as the proper capital of the kingdom, and when Victor Emmanuel takes up his residence there, what place will there be there for the pope? It is not likely the king will persecute the poor old pope for having excommunicated him, for he doubtless looks upon the whole proceeding as a well-gotten-up farce; but how can the pope consent to such humiliation as to hold his residence and walk back and forth under the shadow of his enemy? . . . .

The papal power, though it may still exist for a time, must be only nominal. It exists by sufferance; the proclamation of infallibility has made it the jest of nations; while the kings and kingdoms that once sustained the Papal Babylon are making her desolate and naked; eating her flesh and burning her with fire. Sincerely do we hope that the time for “apostles and prophets” to “rejoice over her” is nigh at hand!—American Baptist.

Rich for a Moment.

The British ship Britannia was wrecked off the coast of Brazil, and had on board a large consignment of Spanish dollars. In the hope of saving some of them, a number of barrels were brought on deck; but the vessel went to pieces so fast that the only hope for life was in taking at once to the boats. The last boat was about to push off, when a young midshipman went back to see if any one was still on board. To his surprise, there sat a man on deck with a hatchet in his hand, with which he had broken open several of the casks, the contents of which he was now heaping up before him.

“What are you doing there?” shouted the youth, “Don’t you know the ship is fast going to pieces?”

“The ship may,” said the man; “I have lived a poor wretch all my life, and I am determined to die rich.”

His remonstrances were answered only by another flourish of the hatchet, and he was left to his fate.

We should count such a person a madman, but he has too many imitators. Men seem determined to die rich at all hazards. Least of all risks do they count the chance of losing the soul in the struggle, at any moment at all. And yet the only riches we can hug to our bosoms with joy, in our dying hour, are the riches of grace through Jesus Christ, which we must make ours before the dark hour comes.

WHAT ONE OUGHT TO KNOW.

—Ruskin says, An educated man ought to know three things; first, where he is—that is to say, what kind of a world has he gotten into; how large it is, what kind of creatures live in it, and how; what it is made of, and what may be made of it. Secondly, where he is going—that is to say, what chances or reports there are of any world beside this; what seems to be the nature of the other world. Thirdly, what he had best do under the circumstances; what are the present state and wants of mankind; what are the readiest means in his power of attaining happiness and diffusing it. The man who knows these things, and has his will so subdued that he is ready to do what he knows he ought, is an educated man; and the man that knows them not, is uneducated, although he could talk all the tongues of Babel.

Those Who Blow Others' Coals

THOSE who blow the coals of others' strife may chance to have the sparks fly in their faces.

Thoughts on the Book of Daniel

CHAPTER IX. (CONTINUED.)

VERSE 25. Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem, unto the Messiah the Prince, shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. 26. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself; and the people of the prince that shall come, shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. 27. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week; and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations, he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

The angel now gives to Daniel the event which is to mark the commencement of the seventy weeks. They were to date from the going forth of a commandment to restore and build Jerusalem. And not only is the event given which was to determine the time of the commencement of this period, but those also which were to transpire at its close. Thus a double test is provided by which to try the application of this prophecy. But more than this, the period of seventy weeks is divided into three grand divisions, and one of these is again divided, and the intermediate events are given which were to mark the termination of each one of these divisions. If, now, we can find a date which will harmonize with all these events, we have, beyond a doubt, the true application; for none but that which is correct could meet and fulfil so many conditions. Let the reader take in at one view the points of harmony to be made, that he may be the better prepared to guard against a false application. First, we are to find at the commencement of the period, a commandment going forth to restore and build Jerusalem. To this work seven weeks are allotted. As we reach the end of this, the first division, seven weeks from the commencement, we are to find, secondly, Jerusalem in its material aspect, restored, the work of building the street and the wall fully accomplished. From this point, sixty-two weeks are measured off; and as we reach the termination of this division, sixty-nine weeks from the beginning, we are to see, thirdly, the manifestation before the world of the Messiah, the Prince. One week more is given us, completing the seventy. And, fourthly, in the midst of this week, the Messiah is to be cut off and cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease; and, fifthly, when the last week expires of that period which was allotted to the Jews as the time during which they were to be the especial people of God, we naturally look for the going forth of the blessing and work of God to other people.

We now inquire for the date which will harmonize with all these particulars. The command was to include more than mere building. There was to be restoration; by which we must understand all the forms and regulations of civil, political, and judicial life. When did such a commandment go forth? At the time these words were spoken to Daniel, Jerusalem lay in complete and utter desolation, and had thus been lying for seventy years. The restoration, pointed to in the future, must be its restoration from this desolation. We then inquire, When and how was Jerusalem restored after the seventy-years' captivity?

Self-deception.

By Roswell F. Cottrell

It is an easy thing to deceive ourselves. Self-esteem and self-love lead to self-deception. It is easy to persuade ourselves that we are right, and that those who do not agree with us are wrong. A person may imagine that he has attained to a state of perfect humility, when in fact it is only the perfection of self-complacency and pride. And he may become so extremely selfish as to think himself perfectly free from selfishness.

These conditions are hard to cure. The persons thus afflicted imagine that they are so completely given up to the will of God, and have no will of their own, that the thought of renouncing their fancies would horrify them, as it would seem to them to be a renunciation of the work that God had wrought in their soul by the Holy Spirit. They think they have yielded up all to God; but what God has wrought in them they cannot yield—they cannot deny him! And so their perfect submissiveness to God, results in perfect stubbornness against all attempts to correct their errors. They are ready now for martyrdom. The genuine martyrs to the truth seem stubborn, of course, to their persecutors; but it was only their fidelity and submissiveness to God.

How shall the case be reached? Humility on stilts, proud of its perfection of beauty, self-renunciation clothed in supreme selfishness, and submissiveness steel-clad in stubbornness, are hard things to meet. It was commendable for the martyrs to stand stiffly for the truth. What then can be done in the cases of self-deception? I can see but one chance of hope; and that is, by some argument or motive to cause the subject to call in question his or her infallibility. If this can be done, we may report progress. The martyrs did right to stand for the truth at the expense of their lives; but are you absolutely certain that it is the truth that you are ready to die for? Is there not a bare possibility that what you esteem sacred truth may not be the mere fancies of a disordered imagination? Let us make a distinction between clearly revealed truth, and our own imaginations and feelings. Let us get a humility that is teachable, an unselfishness that prefers others’ judgment to our own, and a submissiveness that yields to the instructions of others whom God has blessed with an experience possibly quite equal to our own. When an individual stands against the whole church, as well as the whole world, there is the greatest reason to believe that he is laboring under self-deception. R. F. COTTRELL.

Continue reading: Sinai and Calvary