Review and Herald, Vol. 19, No. 18. (4/1/1862)

Review and Herald

Apr 1, 1862

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Apr 1, 1862

HISTORY OF THE SABBATH.

By John Nevins Andrews

(Continued.)

EXAMINATION OF A FAMOUS FALSEHOOD.

THE next important witness in behalf of first-day sacredness is thus presented by Dr. Edwards:

"Hence Irenæus, bishop of Lyons, a disciple of Polycarp, who had been the companion of the apostles, A. D. 167, says that the Lord's day was the Christian Sabbath. His words are, 'On the Lord's day every one of us Christians keeps the Sabbath, meditating on the law, and rejoicing in the works of God.'"—Sabbath Manual, p. 114.

This testimony is highly valued by first-day writers, and is often and prominently set forth in their publications. Sir Wm. Domville, whose elaborate treatise on the Sabbath has been several times quoted, states the following important fact relative to this quotation:

"I have carefully searched through all the extant works of Irenæus, and can with certainty state that no such passage, or any one at all resembling it, is there to be found. The edition I consulted was that by Massuet (Paris, 1710); but to assure myself still further, I have since looked to the editions by Erasmus (Paris, 1536), and Grabe (Oxford, 1702), and in neither do I find the passage in question."—Examination of the Six Texts, pp. 131, 132.

It is a remarkable fact that those who quote this as the language of Irenæus, if they give any reference, cite their readers to Dwight's Theology, instead of referring them to the place in the works of Irenæus where it is to be found. It was Dr. Dwight who first enriched the theological world with this invaluable quotation. On this point Domville remarks:

"Where then did Dwight obtain this testimony, which has so many times been given as that of Irenæus? It is recorded in a biographical memoir, prefixed to his Theology, that by some disease in his eyes he was deprived of his capacity for reading and study from the early age of twenty-three. The knowledge which he gained from books after the period above mentioned was almost exclusively at second hand by the aid of others."—Id., p. 128.

Domville states another fact which gives us unquestionably the origin of this quotation:

"But although not to be found in Irenæus, there are in the writings ascribed to another father, namely, in the interpolated epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians, and in one of its interpolated passages, expressions so clearly resembling those of Dr. Dwight's quotation, as to leave no doubt of the source from which he quoted."—Id., p. 130.

Such, then, is the end of this famous testimony of Irenæus, who had it from Polycarp, who had it from the apostles! It was furnished the world by a man whose eyesight was impaired; who in consequence of this infirmity took at second hand an interpolated passage from an epistle falsely ascribed to Ignatius, and published it to the world as the genuine testimony of Irenæus. Loss of eye-sight, as we may charitably believe, led Dr. Dwight into the serious error which he has committed; but by the publication of this spurious testimony, which seemed to come in a direct line from the apostles, he has rendered multitudes as incapable of reading aright the fourth commandment, as he, by loss of natural eyesight, was of reading Irenæus for himself. This case admirably illustrates tradition as a religious guide; it is the blind leading the blind until both fall into the ditch.

It is a remarkable fact that the first instance upon record in which the bishop of Rome attempted to rule the Christian church was by an edict in behalf of sunday. It had been the custom of all the churches to celebrate the passover, but with this difference: that while the eastern churches observed it upon the fourteenth day of the first month, the western churches kept it upon the Sunday following that day. Victor, bishop of Rome, in the year 196, took upon him to impose the Roman custom upon all the churches; that is, to compel them to observe the passover upon Sunday. "This bold attempt," says Bower, "we may call the first essay of papal usurpation." [History of the Popes, Vol. i, p. 18.] And Dowling terms it the "earliest instance of Roman assumption." [History of Romanism, heading of page 32.] The churches of Asia Minor informed Victor that they could not comply with his lordly mandate. Then says Bower:

"Upon the receipt of this letter, Victor, giving the reins to an ungovernable passion, published bitter invectives against all the churches of Asia, declared them cut off from his communion, sent letters of excommunication to their respective bishops; and, at the same time, in order to have them cut off from the communion of the whole church, wrote to the other bishops, exhorting them to follow his example, and forbear communicating with their refractory brethren of Asia."—Hist. Popes, Vol. i, p. 18.

The historian informs us that "not one followed his example or advice; not one paid any sort of regard to his letters, or showed the least inclination to second him in such a rash and uncharitable attempt." He further says:

"Victor being thus baffled in his attempt, his successors took care not to revive the controversy; so that the Asiatics peaceably followed their ancient practice till the council of Nice, which out of complacency to Constantine the great, ordered the solemnity of Easter to be kept everywhere on the same day, after the custom of Rome."—Id., pp. 18, 19.

The victory was not obtained for Sunday in this struggle, as Heylyn testifies:

"Till the great council of Nice [A. D. 325], backed by the authority of as great an emperor [Constantine] settled it better than before; none but some scattered schismatics, now and then appearing, that durst oppose the resolution of that great synod."—Hist. of the Sab., part ii, chap. ii, secs. 4, 5.

Constantine, by whose powerful influence the council of Nice was induced to decide this question in favor of the Roman bishop, that is, to fix the passover upon Sunday, urged the following strong reason for the measure:

"Let us then have nothing in common with that most hostile rabble of the Jews."—Boyle's Historical View of the Council of Nice, p. 62.

This festival was not weekly, but annual; but the removal of it from the fourteenth of the first month, to the first Sunday following that day, was the first thing attempted in honor of Sunday as a Christian festival; and as Heylyn quaintly expresses it, "The Lord's day found it no small matter to obtain the victory." In a brief period after the council of Nice, by the laws of Theodosius, capital punishment was inflicted upon those who should celebrate the feast of the passover upon any other day than Sunday. The Britons of Wales were long able to maintain their ground against this favorite project of the Roman church, and as late as the sixth century "obstinately resisted the imperious mandates of the Roman pontiffs."

Four years after the commencement of the struggle just narrated, bring us to the testimony of Tertullian, the oldest of the Latin fathers, who wrote about A. D. 200. He excuses the Christians of his time for their Sunday observance, affirming that they were not worshipers of the sun, however strongly their observance of Sunday might indicate it. His language clearly shows that there were in his time Sabbath-keepers in the Christian church, of whom, however, he speaks most contemptuously. He says:

"Others with a greater show of reason, take us for worshipers of the sun. These send us to the religion of Persia, though we are far from adoring a painted sun, like them who carry about his image everywhere upon their bucklers. This suspicion took its rise from hence, because it was observed that Christians prayed with their faces toward the east. But some of you likewise out of an affectation of adoring some of the celestial bodies, wag your lips toward the rising sun; but if we, like them, celebrate Sunday as a festival and

day of rejoicing, it is for a reason vastly distant from that of worshiping the sun; for we solemnize the day after Saturday in contradistinction to those who call this day their Sabbath, and devote it to ease and eating, deviating from the old Jewish customs, which they are now very ignorant of."—Wm. Reeves' Translation of the Apologia of Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and others, Vol. i, pp. 238, 239.

Milman, author of the History of Christianity, in his notes on Gibbon, speaks thus of Tertullian:

"It would be wiser for Christianity, retreating upon its genuine records in the New Testament, to disclude this fierce African, than identify itself with his furious invective, by unsatisfactory apologies for their unchristian fanaticism."—Dec. and Fall of the Roman Empire, chap. xv, remarks appended to note 72.

The testimony of Tertullian is valuable as an acknowledgment that the Sunday festival was identical with the day on which the ancient Persians worshiped the sun; and also as showing the reason on which he grounded that observance. It was not the command of God, nor the act of Christ in changing the Sabbath, nor the example of the apostles, nor because it was in any respect a Christian institution; but, to use his own statement of reasons, "We solemnize the day after Saturday in contradistinction to those who call this their Sabbath." Opposition to those Christians who kept the Sabbath—for he distinguishes them from the Jews—is the grand reason assigned by Tertullian for observing the ancient festival-day of the heathen.

Kitto states the important fact that Tertullian is the earliest writer who uses the term Lord's day as a designation for the first day of the week. Thus he says:

"The earliest authentic instance in which the name of the Lord's day is applied, . . . is not till A. D. 200, when Tertullian speaks of it as 'die Dominico resurrectionis' [De Orat., sec. 23]; again, 'Dominicum Diem' [De Idol., 14]; and Dionysius of Corinth (probably somewhat later) as 'ἡμέραν κυριακήν' [Lord's day]."—Cycl. Bib. Lit., art., Lord's day.

Kitto speaks further of Tertullian and Dionysius as presenting the first traces of resting from labor on Sunday. Thus he says:

"But in these last cited writers we trace the commencement of a more formal observance. Thus the whole passage in Tertullian is: 'Solo die Dominico resurrectionis non ob isto tantum [genuflexione] sed enim anxietatis habitu et officio cavere debemus, differentes etiam negotio ne quem diabolo locum demus;' i. e. on the day of the Lord's resurrection alone we ought to abstain not only from kneeling, but from all devotion to care and anxiety, putting off even business, lest we should give place to the Devil."—Id., ib.

It is this language of Tertullian that Neander cites in the margin, to sustain his modest statement already quoted in connection with the language of Mosheim, that 'perhaps at the end of the second century a false application of this kind [that is, of the Sabbath law to Sunday] had begun to take place; for men appear by that time to have considered laboring on Sunday as a sin.'

Yet Dr. Heylyn somewhat modifies the shade of sacredness that Tertullian gives the festival of the sun. He says:

"Tertullian tells us that they did devote the Sunday partly unto mirth and recreation, not to devotion altogether; when in a hundred years after Tertullian's time there was no law or constitution to restrain men from labor on this day in the Christian church."—Hist. of the Sab., part 2, chap. 8, sec. 13.

The origin of first-day observance has been the subject of inquiry in this chapter. We have found that Sunday from remote antiquity was a heathen festival in honor of the sun, and that in the first centuries of the Christian era this ancient festival was in general veneration in the heathen world. We have learned that patriotism and expediency, and a tender regard for the conversion of the Gentile world, caused the leaders of the church to adopt as their religious festival the day observed by the heathen, and to retain the same name which the heathen had given it. We have seen that the earliest instance upon record of the actual observance of Sunday in the Christian church, is found in the church of Rome about A. D. 140. The first great effort in its behalf, A. D. 196, is by a singular co-incidence the first act of Papal usurpation. The first instance of a sacred title being applied to this festival, and the earliest trace of abstinence from labor on that day, are found in the writings of Tertullian at the close of the second century, and even he assigns as the grand reason for observing that day a wish to be distinguished from those who kept the ancient Sabbath. The origin of the festival of Sunday is now before the reader; the steps by which it has ascended to supreme power will be pointed out in their proper order and place.

One fact of deep interest will conclude this chapter. The first great effort made to put down the Sabbath was the act of the church of Rome in turning it into a fast while Sunday was made a joyful festival. While the Eastern churches retained the Sabbath, a portion of the Western churches, with the church of Rome at their head, turned it into a fast. As a part of the Western churches refused to comply with this ordinance, a long struggle ensued, the result of which is thus stated by Heylyn:

"In this difference it stood a long time together, till in the end the Roman church obtained the cause, and Saturday became a fast almost through all parts of the Western world. I say the Western world, and of that alone: the Eastern churches being so far from altering their ancient custom that in the sixth council of Constantinople, A. D. 691, they did admonish those of Rome to forbear fasting on that day on pain of censure."—Hist. of the Sab., part 2, chap. 2, sec. 3.

Wm. James, in a sermon before the University of Oxford, thus states the time when this fast originated:

"The Western church began to fast on Saturday at the beginning of the third century."—Serm. on the Sac. and Sab., p. 166.

Thus it is seen that this struggle began with the third century, that is, immediately after the year 200. It is probable therefore that Tertullian's reference to Sabbath-keepers as eating on that day, was occasioned by the fact that the adversaries of the Sabbath had turned it into a fast. Neander thus states the motive of the Roman church:

"In the Western churches, particularly the Roman, where opposition to Judaism was the prevailing tendency, this very opposition produced the custom of celebrating the Saturday in particular as a fast-day."—Neander, p. 186.

By Judaism, Neander meant the observance of the seventh day as the Sabbath. Dr. Charles Hase, of Germany, states the object of the Roman church in very explicit language:

"The Roman church regarded Saturday as a fast-day in direct opposition to those who regarded it as a Sabbath. Sunday remained a joyful festival in which all fasting and worldly business was avoided as much as possible, but the original commandment of the decalogue respecting the Sabbath was not then applied to that day."—Ancient Church History, part 1, div. 2, A. D. 100-312, sec. 69.

Lord King attests this fact in the following words:

"Some of the Western churches, that they might not seem to judaize, fasted on Saturday, as Victorinus writes: We used to fast on the seventh day. And it is our custom then to fast, that we may not seem, with the Jews, to observe the Sabbath."—Inquiry into the Constitution of the Primitive Church, chap. vii, sec. 11.

Thus the Sabbath of the Lord was turned into a fast in order to render it despicable before men. Such was the first great effort of the Roman church toward the suppression of the ancient Sabbath of the Bible.

(To be Continued.)

OUR ONE LIFE.

By Bonar

'Tis not for man to trifle. Life is brief, And sin is here; Our age is but the falling of a leaf— A dropping tear. We have no time to sport away the hours; All must be earnest in a world like ours.

Not many lives, but only one have we— One, only one. How sacred should that one life ever be— That narrow span. Day after day filled up with blessed toil, Hour after hour still bringing in new spoil.

Our being is no shadow of thin air, No vacant dream, No fable of the things that never were But only seem. 'Tis full of meaning as of mystery, Though strange and solemn may that meaning be.

Our sorrows are no phantoms of the night, No idle tale, No cloud that floats along a sky of light On summer gale. They are the true realities of earth, Friends and companions even from our birth.

Oh! life below; how brief and poor and sad One heavy sigh. Oh! life above, how long, how fair and glad! An endless joy. O, to be done with daily dying here! O, to begin the living in yon sphere!

Oh! day of time, how dark; Oh! sky and earth, How dull your hue! Oh! day of Christ, how bright; Oh! sky and earth, Made fair and new.

Come, better Eden, with thy fresher green; Come, brighter Salem, gladden all the scene! [Bonar.

IN WHAT SENSE DID THE LORD HARDEN PHARAOH'S HEART?

By Ob. Evan.

It cannot be denied that some minds find serious difficulties in this subject. This fact is a sufficient reason for an effort to relieve the subject of its difficulties, and to set it in the light of reason and of Scripture.

It is supposed by some that the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart by an exertion of divine power, that was, first, direct; second, irresistible; and, third, of set purpose to produce this result.

Over against this view, we maintain that God's agency in the hardening of Pharaoh's heart was, first, indirect and permissive; second, negative (not positive)—and consisted in leaving him to himself, withholding efforts of mercy to save him; third, that it was not irresistible, but was in perfect harmony with Pharaoh's free moral agency; fourth, that God's agency and policy in the case were judicial—done as a just judgment on Pharaoh for his sin, and under circumstances which fully justified Jehovah in revealing his power, his justice, and his righteous retribution on a persistent sinner.

The reader will now very properly inquire, On what grounds do you give the Scriptures the construction you propose? For the Scriptures declare repeatedly that the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart. He first said to Moses, Ex. iv, 21; vii, 3, that he would do it; and after it was done, said more than once (for example, Ex. x, 1; xi, 10) that he had done it. Do you not, therefore, evade the plain sense of Scripture when you interpret God's agency as only indirect, permissive, negative, and not purposing the end of his hardening for its own sake?

In reply we have several things to say in support of the construction we give:

1. The known character of God requires it.

It is absolutely known that God is good—from which we must infer that he cannot delight in having his creatures sin, and much less (if this were possible) in making them sin, compulsorily.

It is certainly known that God is just—from which we must infer that he cannot press, urge, over-persuade one of his creatures to sin, and then punish him for yielding to his own influence.

But quite apart from our reasonings on this subject, yet most fully sustaining these reasonings, the Scriptures explicitly teach us that God never tempts men to sin. "Neither tempteth he any man," is the inspired affirmation. James i, 13. Hence he did not tempt Pharaoh to sin.

Again, by implication the Scriptures deny that God can ever desire to have men sin, so that he could take measures for the purpose of leading them into sin. He solemnly avers, "As I live, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked," which certainly must imply that he has no pleasure in their sin, for their sin is the thing to be morally hated, even more than their death.

The Bible gives us also most emphatic utterances of God's strong desire that men would not ever sin: "O do not that abominable thing which I hate!" We must assume that this is said in sincerity, and hence precludes the possibility of his desiring men to sin, and of his using means and influences to lead them into sin.

Yet further, the Bible teaches us that God works both in men and upon men, toward their holiness. Indeed, this is one of the greatest truths of divine revelation. The Bible is richly filled with statements respecting this fact, the means employed, the results, the criteria by which we may identify them, the condition on which we may enjoy this divine power, and the glory due to God for it. Now if it were true that God always works in sinners and upon sinners in the same way, or in any analogous way, toward their sinning—working in them to will wrong and to do wrong; then, by analogy, we ought to find this truth taught also in scripture, in the same or in similar methods, and, for aught that appears, with equal explicitness and fullness.

But no such teachings are found in the Scriptures; and hence we must infer that there is no analogous working of God in and upon sinners to make them sin.

Besides, apart from Scripture, it is intrinsically absurd and impossible that the same God should love both holiness and sin, and should therefore use similarly direct positive influences to produce one as the other. "Doth the same fountain send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter"—"salt water and fresh?"

We pass to another and quite different argument, and say,

2. The detailed history of the transaction evinces our position.

Very kindly and wisely God has given us a full analysis of the steps by which Pharaoh's heart was hardened. We can trace all their influences and their operations.

1st. He ignored Jehovah and his claims. He said, "Who is the Lord that I should obey his voice and let Israel go? I know not the Lord, neither will I let Israel go." This is the common way of sinners when they give themselves up to stubborn resistance against God. But (to our present point) let it be noted, this state of heart is not from God. He does not impel men to ignore himself and thrust away his claims. This ignoring of God, and this repelling of his claims by denying or half denying his existence, is from the Devil, not from God; or it comes up from the foul depths of the sinner's own heart.

2d. Pharaoh was encouraged by the apparent temporary success of the magicians. This is twice indicated—to wit, in the account of rods turned to serpents, Ex. vii, 11-13, and in the miracle of water becoming blood. Verse 22. But this work of the magicians was by instigation and help of the Devil, and not God.

3d. Pharaoh prodigiously desired the unpaid labor of this great nation of operatives. His heart was set on these mountain masses of brick they were making—these cities they were building. He sought this in the spirit of real oppression.

But this spirit cannot be from God; never! whether in Egypt or in "Secessia"—it never can be from the Lord. He hates oppression with the utmost intensity of his soul.

4th. Human nature stands out again most palpably in the fact that while the plague oftentimes softened Pharaoh's heart, its removal in mercy hardened it. Under the plague of frogs, Pharaoh had said, "I will let the people go;" but when he saw there was respite, he hardened his heart. Ex. viii, 8, 15. Under the hail he begged for mercy and promised to let the people go; but "when he saw that the rain and hail and thunders were ceased, he sinned yet more, and hardened his heart, he and his servants." Ex. ix, 27, 28, 34.

Who does not know that this is the way of all stubborn sinners? One is sick, nigh to death; he begs for mercy and promises to forsake his sins forever, if God will only spare his life. God spares him, and he hardens his heart and sins yet the more.

The softening is due to divine mercy and to God's own Spirit; the hardening is not God's work, but the sinner's own.

5th. Pharaoh was apparently irritated and mad because the magicians failed and frankly acknowledged God's hand. After the lice-plague they said to Pharaoh, "This is the finger of God, and Pharaoh's heart was hardened." Ex. viii, 19.

This too is human nature.

6th. Pharaoh hardened his own heart by allowing himself to banter, parley, and debate the question with God. He had three seasons of this, narrated in Ex. viii, 25-28; x, 8-12; x, 24. The demand being, "Let my people go that they may serve me," he plead successively that they would sacrifice in the land (of Egypt); in the wilderness, only very far way; that the men only should go, leaving behind the women and the little ones; and that finally all might go, save their cattle. Just so sinners sometimes banter and try to drive a sharp bargain with Jehovah—every thought of which goes to harden the heart against God. Yet who could say, This is God's influence?

7th. In one case, Pharaoh seems to have hardened his heart because he saw a discrimination made between his people and Israel. After the plague on cattle, "Pharaoh sent, and behold, there was not one of the cattle of the Israelites dead. And his heart was hardened," etc. Sinners are often hardened when they see more mercy shown to others than to themselves. This is the fruit of their proud, jealous, rebellious, hearts.

8th. In the one case the hardening seems specially occasioned by the nervous irritability produced by acute suffering, to wit, the plague of boils. Here the effect needs no direct agency from God for its philosophical explanation.

9th. In many of these cases Pharaoh seems to have been under the influence of a dogged committal to his wicked course. He had said: should not a king stick to it? He had taken his ground; his pride and his stubborn will, as well as his love of such power, held him to his purpose. This too is human nature. It is not wrought by God's Spirit on men's hearts.

10th. More than once Pharaoh not only relents, but even confesses his great sin. See Ex. ix, 27, 28; x, 16, 17. "I have sinned this time; the Lord is righteous, and I and my people are wicked." "I have sinned against the Lord your God, and against you. Now therefore, forgive, I pray thee, my sin only this once," etc. This is a fact of prime importance to our main question, since it gives us the testimony of Pharaoh's own consciousness. Pharaoh knew that God had not put sin into him in any such way as would throw his moral responsibility off from himself and upon God. He was conscious of no compulsory hardening of his heart. In plain words, he knew that all his sin was his own act and doing—his own thinking, feeling, and willing, and that he had none to blame for it but himself. And what testimony can be more decisive to our point than this?

11th. With the utmost propriety, therefore, and with the clearest reason, the historian repeatedly avers that Pharaoh hardened his own heart. See Ex. vii, 23; viii, 15, 32. "Pharaoh turned and went into his house, neither did he set his heart to this also." "When he saw that there was respite, he hardened his heart." "And Pharaoh hardened his heart at this time also."

Now it needs no argument to show that if God hardened Pharaoh's heart by any direct, positive, resistless power, Pharaoh did not do it himself. In such agency of God he must work alone. Its very nature precludes human co-operation. You might as well say that man co-operates with God in the lightning and the earthquake, or in gravitation.

12th. The entire history of the hardening of Pharaoh's heart shows that God's agency in it was in no respect peculiar, as compared with the hardening of sinners' hearts in all ages. It did not differ from the million cases that fall under observation in these days. This history is so written that in nearly or quite every instance of hardening stated, we can see how the thing was done; we can trace the influence under which Pharaoh rallied his courage, strengthened his purpose, and once more set a bold and yet bolder front against God. All through, it was the Devil and his own human nature; nowhere is it any other power or agency. The well-known laws of wicked sinning cover the whole ground, and provide for all the influences necessary for the results. Hence it is altogether unphilosophical to introduce any other agency. With reverence we say it: There is no room here for any direct, positive agency from God's Spirit; no room for any other agency from God, save that of the external events, the providences, the surroundings, within which Pharaoh acts.

3. We pass to a third general argument in favor of our construction: The laws of language allow it.

1st. And first let it be noted that the Bible makes more account of God's agency than any other book in the world. None other teaches us as this does that God feeds the ravens, and clothes the lilies, and lets not a sparrow fall without his hand in it. It should be expected therefore, that in this Bible, very great and special prominence would be given to an agency put forth by God, though it were only the very indirect agency of his providence.

These hints, if faithfully carried out, would suffice to show that Bible usage—in other words, the laws of language as employed in the Bible—allow the construction we maintain.

2d. But again, it seems plain that in the cases where the Lord is said to have hardened Pharaoh's heart, the language looks rather to the certainty of the event, or to the incidental results God would educe from Pharaoh's sin by over-ruling and punishing it, than to the nature of the agency by which it was done. Phrases sometimes take their shape from their first use. The first use of this is prophetic. Ex. iv, 21, spoken to Moses while yet in Midian, and manifestly having reference to the certainty of the event, and not to the particular kind of agency employed in producing it.

3d. We give to the words all the meaning they naturally call for, when we explain them to refer to that permissive and providential agency whereby the Lord sent Moses to Pharaoh with his own commands; brought plagues on him and his people; let his wicked heart have its own way, withheld all divine restraining influence, and gave some, more or less, scope to Satan's temptations. This done, any sinner hardens his heart fast enough. There is never occasion for any other influence from God to make men sin.

4th. There is no detailed account of the operation of any direct influence from God. The detail of the history shows us very fully how Pharaoh's own mind worked; how under judgments he relented, yielded; but under respite, rallied his proud, rebellious spirit again.

Now if the history had expanded the account of God's agency, and if it had shown some direct power working irresistibly on Pharaoh's heart, then the exigencies of the case would compel us to put more and other significance than we have into the words, "The Lord hardened his heart." But no such exigency exists. Its absence confirms our interpretation.

5th. Yet once more. The several allusions to the objects which the Lord would accomplish by hardening Pharaoh's heart, such as to make his own great power known in all the earth; to read to all kings and to all sinners indeed, solemn moral lessons on the peril of hardening their hearts against God, do not call for any other agency from God than that permissive, negative one which our construction assigns. If the case were otherwise; if God had objects in view which required some direct power of his, then the exigencies of the case would perhaps demand that this be given to his language. Thus, for example, if the object had been to glorify his grace by converting Pharaoh to a holy man, then, leaving him to a merely external providence and an indirect influence, were not enough. For the occurrence of any amount of sin and hardness of heart, a very remote and merely permissive agency from God is sufficient.

Hence it appears manifest from various points of view, that the construction we give the words, "The Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart," is amply allowed by legitimate laws of interpretation. It meets all the known exigencies of the case.

4th. It only remains now to urge, fourthly, in support of our construction, that the principles and ends of God's moral government confirm it.

We allude to such principles as these—that this government is properly moral—over free intelligent agents; that it never interferes with human freedom; never abrogates personal responsibility; brings down no coercive power upon human hearts; and above all, never includes any agency from God which tempts men to sin—that is, which leads, draws men to sin by its natural, legitimate influence, and with intent on God's part that it should make men sin.

These principles forbid us to suppose any direct, positive influence from God to harden Pharaoh's heart. Consequently they confirm the view we have taken.

As to the ends of God's moral government, illustrated in this case of Pharaoh, God would teach all sinners that he does not hold himself responsible for placing them amid such surroundings that they cannot sin. He does not try to frame this world to such a result. Even when he sends judgments in discipline, he cannot forestall the possibility of their being abused to yet greater sin.

God would show sinners that it is a fearful thing to harden their hearts against him—that every step in it is guilt, and its certain end is fearful ruin; and that there is in truth no escaping from its moral responsibility by attempting to throw it over upon their Maker and Ruler.

Perhaps we may add that in this whole history we may see that the Lord seems not to be specially careful to shield his own ways against cavilers. Those who choose and who try to blame God, can do so. They are free to do this—even as Pharaoh was free to harden his heart under the respite granted from the plagues in answer to his imploring cry. Sometimes it may seem to us that scripture language leaves the ways of God unguardedly open to cavil. Let us rather say, Their tone is that of perfect honesty, and of a full and peaceful consciousness of integrity. The entire Bible history reveals a God whose absorbing concern it is to be, not merely to seem, right; and who throws upon all readers the responsibility of being candid and fair-minded as toward God. If they will not be fair and unsuspicious;—if they will not dispel from their souls all prejudice against God's ways and character, they must bear their own responsibilities.

WESTERN TOUR.

AFTER holding nine meetings and baptizing at Marquette, Wis., we left, March 13, to take the cars at Cambria about twenty miles. Past midnight we reached Mauston station, where Brn. Steward and Heacox were waiting to take us four miles. Our abundant labors, and loss of sleep, we now sensibly felt. These made us an easy prey to colds so prevalent this Spring, which we shared largely, followed by coughs. But we resolved to trust in God and do the best we could.

Sabbath the 15th, the place of meeting was full, and we had some liberty in speaking. But few were in from a distance in consequence of bad roads. The friends seemed willing, and some of them anxious, to be helped. First-day we spoke to a crowded house twice. Mrs. W. became so very hoarse, speaking in the forenoon, that she did not attend meeting in the afternoon. We were both very hoarse, and feared that we could not attend the next conference at Little Prairie. But the God we serve and in whom we trust helped us mightily, insomuch that we enjoyed freedom at the Little Prairie conference.

The friends at Mauston want to be helped, and they certainly need help. They have fallen far in the rear. Bro. Steward failed to bring them up to feel that interest in the cause that our brethren generally do. They were behind on Systematic Benevolence, and did not show by their works that interest in the various enterprises by which the cause has been advanced. Having none too much confidence in the Review, and the most active men in this cause, some of their number followed their own judgment independent of the faith of the body, and fanaticism was the result; and when those who saw their sad state offered to help them, this lack of confidence led them to refuse help.

But the cause has not suffered so much at Mauston, as at Marquette, and vicinity. There a large body of Sabbath-keepers had been raised up by the labors of Brn. Loughborough and Steward, just before the conference held there by Bro. Ingraham, Sanborn, and White, which gave Bro. Steward more influence there than other preachers could have who had never labored at that place. It was at this meeting that Bro. and Sr. Steward accomplished the work of death in going from house to house, gaining the sympathy of the young disciples and prejudicing them against those whom God had sent to save them from the fearful results of fanaticism. That dear people have been scattered, torn, and divided, and now the cause in the vicinity has the living reproach of two congregations of Sabbath-keepers.

The stain upon the cause in Northern Wisconsin is widely extended. As we passed from village to village, where we were known as Sabbath-keepers, a reproachful sneer was upon the countenances of many. While at Avon and Little Prairie we were treated with marked respect. And it will be found a much easier task to reproach the cause of truth, than to wipe out the reproach.

Bro. Steward's confession in this number is full. Sister Steward is humbled greatly with a keen sense of her past mistakes. She is highly educated, and possesses superior abilities for usefulness; and probably none outside of her own family so deeply sorrow for the sadness she now feels in view of the past as Mrs. W. and self, who shared her watchful care for our wants for nearly a week, when we were worn with labor, and pressed with severe colds. God will bless them for their care for his unworthy servants. But notwithstanding they now seem willing to do their whole duty to save the cause as much as possible, it may be our duty to refer to their errors, and the causes of their errors, as a warning to others.

The first great mistake in our opinion was in sending Bro. Loughborough with the tent to Northern Wisconsin, in the summer of 1860, to labor with Bro. Steward before he was fully proved, and when it was known that he held an indefinite position in relation to some vital points of our faith. The brethren hoped that he might be helped, so that he would fully unite with the body in faith and spirit. This was too great a risk, as time has shown. When he should give evidence that he cheerfully and joyfully threw his whole interest in with the body, then it would be soon enough to make the advance toward him that the brethren did make in 1860. The true friends of the cause in their anxiety to help those that need help, are sometimes in danger of injuring them and the cause. May God give wisdom.

Continue reading: DO ANGELS HAVE WINGS