DEAR BROTHER :—In presenting your objections to dating the seventy weeks of Dan. ix, from the 7th of Artaxerxes, B. C. 457, you say :
"As the margin of my polyglot Bible says (by what authority I know not) that the 'Seventy weeks' begin from the 20th of Artaxerxes, [Dan. ix, 24; Neh. ii, 1,] 446 years before Christ, I confess that I am not able to see from Bro. Miller and all other late writers on the subject, why this date is not correct."
It will not be claimed, of course, that the marginal readings are anything but the work of man. As testimony of equal weight therefore I will introduce an extract from a "Table of Remarkable Events," according to the "best Authors, ancient and modern." Speaking of the 7th of Artaxerxes, it says: "Ezra arrives at Jerusalem with enlarged powers from the Persian monarch, accompanied by a great multitude of his countrymen, bringing with them vessels of gold and silver, and other rich presents from the king and his princes. From this year, being the seventh of Artaxerxes Longimanus, Daniel's seventy prophetical weeks, or 490 years are reckoned." As far, therefore, as the "margin" of the "polyglot Bible" is concerned, we have as good authority for the 7th of Artaxerxes as that presents for the 20th.
But this is a question which is not dependent for settlement on such authority. Says the sacred record, "From the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem;" to that same record, then, we will look for that commandment, and the time of its promulgation.
You say that the seventh chapter of Ezra shows that he "was appointed by a 'decree' to 'go up to Jerusalem' [not to 'build Jerusalem'] but as a 'priest' and 'scribe' of that law of God; to minister the offerings and service of God in the new temple, &c."
If you intend to convey by the expression "Not to build Jerusalem," that Ezra had no power to build Jerusalem, we deny the assertion. We claim that the decree to Ezra gave him unlimited power, and this claim is supported by the record itself. Mark well the 18th verse: "And whatsoever shall seem good to thee, and to thy brethren, to do with the rest of the silver and the gold, that do after the will of your God." Now supposing that it had "seemed good" to Ezra and his brethren, and also that it had been the "will of his God," (?) that the street and the wall should be built, was he not clothed with the power to do it?!
You say that he was appointed "to minister the offerings and service of God in the new temple," &c. If you mean by that, that his work was limited to that service, we question again your conclusion. It is true that he was to restore the worship of the temple, but he was to do more. Read verses 25 and 26: [Ez. vii:] "And thou, Ezra, after the wisdom of thy God, that is in thine hand, set magistrates and judges, which may judge all the people that are beyond the river, all such as know the laws of thy God; and teach ye them that know them not. And whosoever will not do the law of thy God, and the law of the king, let judgment be executed speedily upon him, whether it be unto death, or to banishment, or to confiscation of goods, or to imprisonment." Was this setting magistrates and judges, to judge the people, and executing the penalties of broken laws, particularly connected with the offerings and services of the temple? Verily not: it had to do with the civil and political affairs of the country; not with the ecclesiastical: it had to do with those things which would relate to them a distinct people and an independent nation.
Ezra doubtless understood his mission and the power that was conferred upon him. We will let him bear his own testimony. Chap. ix, 9. This passage probably refers to that series of providences by which they were gradually liberated from the Babylonish captivity and their desolations as a people repaired. He says: "For we were bondmen; (more particularly during the 70 years' captivity;) yet our God hath not forsaken us in our bondage, but hath extended mercy unto us in the sight of the kings of Persia, (commencing with the proclamation of Cyrus for the return of the Jews at the end of the 70 years' captivity, B. C. 536, Ez. i, 1-3,) to give us a reviving, to set up the house of our God, and to repair the desolations thereof, (this was accomplished in the 6th year of Darius, king of Persia, B. C. 516, Ez. vi, 14, 15.) and to give us a wall in Judah and in Jerusalem." This wall was not yet built; and Ezra never would have uttered those words, if the decree had not already gone forth authorizing its construction; or if he had not considered himself vested with full power to build the street and the wall. This evidence is conclusive that the decree to Ezra authorized him not only to restore but to rebuild, or to build again [Dan. ix, 25, margin] Jerusalem. But hear him further. Verse 14. "Should we again break thy commandments, and join in affinity with the people of these abominations, wouldst not thou be angry with us till thou hadst consumed us, so that there should be no remnant nor escaping?" Ezra, then, understood that they had then escaped from those calamities brought on them by their gross violations of the commandments of God, and that their only safety then lay in not again transgressing, so as again to bring his frown upon them. Now would Ezra have thus spoken, if the decree for the restoration and building of Jerusalem was yet to go forth in the 20th of Artaxerxes, 13 years in the future? Would he have thus spoken, I say, under those circumstances? Never! He understood himself better!
Again, you remark: "Artaxerxes commanded that the 'city be not builded until another commandment' should be given from him. Ez. iv, 21-23. Now I cannot find this 'another commandment' to build the city, given anywhere to Ezra, or that he did the least thing about building the city or the 'wall in troublous times.' But Nehemiah did have this 'another commandment' to build the city and the wall, otherwise he did build contrary to this first commandment of the king. Compare Ez. iv, 21-23, with Neh. ii, 4-9."
If you mean by this that the same Artaxerxes who commanded that the "city be not builded" gave Nehemiah the other commandment to build it, we will only reply that that Artaxerxes only reigned seven months, B. C. 521, 57 years before Artaxerxes Longimanus commenced his reign, by whom the decree was given to Ezra. But what was prohibited by the command mentioned above? It was the work on the house of God. Ez. iii, 11, 12; iv, 1, 3. It was this work which did cease by that command. Ez. iv, 24. If then that work depended on another command from him, that other command must have been given before the building of the house could go on. But we learn that the house was builded and finished in the 6th of Darius, five years later, "according to the commandment of Cyrus, and Darius, and Artaxerxes king of Persia." Ez. vi, 14, 15. This Artaxerxes must be the one referred to in chap. iv; therefore that other "commandment" must have gone forth previous to that time, which was B. C. 516, 72 years before Nehemiah gained the king's permission to go up to Jerusalem. Thus you see that your argument on this point avails you nothing.
That Nehemiah did build the wall, &c., as recorded, Neh. iii, we are ready to admit; but that the commandment to build Jerusalem was given to him, we do not admit. If no decree to that effect had been previously given, would it not have been necessary for Nehemiah to have obtained express authority from the king to authorize him to build? Certainly it would. Yet he got no such authority and he requested none; neither was it necessary that he should; as that authority had already been given 13 years before. The burden of Nehemiah's request was simply permission to go up to Jerusalem; for he well understood, in view of Ezra's decree, that if that permission was granted, it would follow as a matter of course that he would have liberty to engage in the work. News had reached him from his brethren in Judah, that the remnant were "in great affliction and reproach;" that the "wall" was "broken down" and "the gates" burned with fire." Neh. i, 2, 3. The object of his request was therefore permission to go up, so as to assist his brethren, and build the wall that was broken down. So the king asked him how long his journey should be, and when he would return; and it pleased the king to send him; and he set him a time; [Neh. ii, 6;] that is, he promised the king when he would return; and according to that agreement he did return 12 years later, and by earnestly requesting the king a second time, again obtained permission to go up to Jerusalem. Neh. xiii, 6. Margin.
Thus Nehemiah, in the 20th of Artaxerxes, went up to Jerusalem, having, by request, obtained the kings verbal consent to go, and having obtained, by request also, letters to the governors beyond the river, and one to the keeper of the king's forest for timber. Yet you contend that this was the famous decree which was to restore and build Jerusalem! a decree which was the object of a special prophecy, and which was to mark the commencement of one of the most important prophetic periods anywhere given in the Sacred Record! Surely those who can make such simple permission fill the place of that decree, must possess the power of magnifying mole-hills into mountains. If your view be correct, the mere appointment of Ezra to minister the services in the temple, required the authority, not only of the king, but also of his seven counselors, [Ez. vii, 14; see also Esth. i, 13, 14,] and was honored with a special decree given in all the pomp and dignity of the Persian court; but the decree to build Jerusalem, which all will admit is a much more important event, is passed by with no such marks of distinction, and is dependent on the verbal consent of the king! There is no consistency in such a view. Thus much for the respective commissions of Ezra and Nehemiah. We see that there was a decree given to Ezra, clothing him with unlimited power; but there was no decree given to Nehemiah, and he possessed his authority only in virtue of the decree given to Ezra. You say further:109
"As you make out sixty-nine weeks to the Messiah, and sixty-nine and a half to the cross, I would ask, according to this calculation, why the angel did not, in giving the exact time, say to Daniel, 'After three score and two weeks' (and a half) 'shall Messiah be cut off?'"
I reply, He did. The angel first states, "Unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks and three-score and two weeks." Dan. ix, 25. In verse 26, he informs Daniel that after that period the Messiah should be cut off, but does not there tell him how long after: in the next verse however he gives him the exact time; namely, in the midst of the week: consequently three and a half years after. The plain import of these three verses, then, stands thus: At the expiration of sixty-nine weeks the Messiah the Prince should be revealed; and at the end of sixty-nine weeks and a half, the Messiah should be cut off. Nothing can be plainer than this.
You say, “Seven weeks and threescore and two weeks’ are measured off by the angel ‘unto the Messiah the Prince; and for the building of the street, &c.; and then this same threescore and two weeks is measured off again by the angel, to the cross; showing that sixty-nine weeks would reach, 1st, to his public manifestation, as the Messiah and Prince, (‘Prince of the kings of the earth,’) and, 2d, to his cross where he gave himself for us. (Worthy is the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world.) ‘They feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God.’ Thus at the end of sixty-nine weeks he is manifested as the Messiah and Prince, (a King’s Son,) and crucified at the same time.”
I am not a little surprised at such a theory as this. The supposition that the sixty-nine weeks extend to the cross is a slight mistake of three years and a half; for the idea that the Messiah was not manifested till his crucifixion is contrary to his own testimony. In proof of your view of this point you quote the words of the centurion and others, who said, "Truly this was the Son of God;" but which is the most important, the testimony of these men who "greatly feared" amid the awful manifestations of the crucifixion-day, or the testimony of that voice which was heard from heaven at the time of Christ's baptism, saying, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." Matt. iii, 17. Jesus told the woman at Jacob's well, plainly, that he was the Messiah. Jno. iv, 25, 26. You say that the covenant was to be confirmed by the apostles; but I would ask if Christ was not confirming the covenant, when, immediately after his baptism, three and a half years previous to his crucifixion, he came into Galilee preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God and saying, The time is fulfilled? And if the sixty-nine weeks were not then fulfilled, I would ask what he meant by saying, The time is fulfilled?
Placing the crucifixion at the beginning of the week, you say as a fulfillment of the prediction that the sacrifice and oblation should cease in the midst of the week, that he caused them to cease by taking the kingdom of God away from the Jews and giving it to the Gentiles, A. D. 41. What were the sacrifice and oblation? They were the sacrifices and offerings connected with the Jewish worship. They were types of the great sacrifice, which was to be offered up; consequently they did cease, and could only cease at the cross; for their antitype had then come. This fact alone is enough to place the crucifixion in the midst of the week and not at the beginning.
A word with you now on chronology. The 20th of Artaxerxes according to the canon of Ptolemy, the accuracy of which is demonstrated by the concurrent agreement of more than twenty eclipses, was B. C. 444. From this point sixty-nine weeks would extend to A. D. 39-40; where you place the crucifixion; but Dr. Hales has demonstrated that the crucifixion took place in the Spring of A. D. 31; and with this agree the council of Cæsarea, A. D. 196, or 198, the Alexandrian Chronicle, Maximus Monachus, Nicephorus Constantinus, Cedrenus, Eusebius, Epiphanius, Kebler, Bucher, Patimus, and Petavius. Now how is it that you run at least eight years beyond all authorized dates? Allowing that the crucifixion is in the midst of the week where the Angel placed it, [Dan. ix, 27,] and this calculation would not admit of its coming earlier than A. D. 43, which is still farther from the true date. The seventy weeks cannot thus terminate earlier than A. D. 46-7, and the 2300 days would extend to A. D. 1856-7, and not, as you say, end this year. But reckon from the true date when the decree went forth, and admit that the Messiah was revealed at the commencement of his ministry, for which there is abundant testimony, and there is a beautiful harmony between the events themselves, and the prophetic records by which they were marked.
Yours, in love of the truth.
Rochester, Apr. 21st, 1854. U. S.
“Owe no Man Anything.”
By Stephen Pierce
DEAR BRETHREN SCATTERED ABROAD:—Having noticed the pecuniary condition of the Review for some weeks, and even months past, I have felt called upon to address a few lines to you relative to such delinquency; not as a pleasure, but as a duty, which is very difficult to understand, and much more so to accomplish. By keeping a run of the receipts and having been apprised of its weekly expense, it has been easy to see whether there was a sum behind, and how much. Now it is either Bro. White’s duty to publish the Review, or it is not. If it is not, we ought not to patronize it any longer. If it is his duty, then of course it is the duty of those who profess to believe the doctrine it inculcates, to pay for it; not after a lapse of weeks or months, but in sufficient season to relieve the Editor from all unnecessary embarrassment. With respect to the propriety or even necessity of having such a medium for the dissemination of truth, no one can doubt for a moment. The propriety is self-evident from this fact, that it gives the saints, although separated by distance, continued opportunities for an interchange of thought, a varied source of mutual instruction; which has a tendency not only to increase our knowledge in the truth, but to correct a multitude of errors. The necessity will appear from its tendency to bring us all into the unity of the faith, which is an indispensable qualification for the last generation of saints, in order to meet the Lord in peace. The above being admitted, proves what the next admission will be, that it is our imperative duty, promptly to pay our respective proportions for publishing this means of instruction.
The business men of the world well understand the difficulties and even perplexities arising from a little tardiness on the part of creditors making seasonable payment. Many instances might be here adduced to show with clearness and force the truth of the above statement, but I forbear, lest the patience of the reader be wearied, and pass to notice some things recorded in the Bible, for our example and instruction.
It may be said that the heading of this piece is understood differently by different individuals. From the form of the original, some say it is an injunction, or command, others that it is a declaration, merely asserting that they do owe no man anything. But it matters not to us which. If it is an injunction, surely we ought to obey it. If it is a declaration, it gives us the commendable example of that primitive church which we ought to imitate.
We find in Gen. xxiii, that notwithstanding the children of Heth offered to Abraham (as it appears) gratuitously, his choice of their sepulchres in which to bury his deceased companion, Abraham in a manly and generous manner would pay them the worth of it in money.
2 Sam. xxiv. Araunah, freely and without price, (the same as the Review comes to us) offered David his threshing-floor and oxen for an offering that the plague might be stayed. “And the king said unto Araunah, Nay: but I will surely buy it of thee at a price: neither will I offer burnt offerings unto the Lord my God of that which doth cost me nothing. So David bought the threshing-floor and the oxen for fifty shekels of silver.”
Such examples from the father of the faithful, and the righteous monarch of Israel, the Holy Spirit of God has seen fit to leave on record, for our learning and instruction in righteousness.
My Dear Brethren, will we follow those examples? I would gladly hear a response from every voice, We will!
If not mistaken, I receive the idea from a few intimations given by the Editor, that there are many readers of the Review, and even professed believers in its doctrines, who pay nothing for it. To such, except the “worthy poor,” and those also who have not embraced the present truth, it might be reasonable to expect that the scripture which heads this piece is applicable. Yea, even that the demand will be made, (by Him who has a right to demand,) “Pay me that thou owest.” But some may say that this was the demand of a hard, unforgiving creditor on his fellow.
Very well; but was there not as rigorous a demand made by the king himself to whom the kingdom of heaven was likened? “And when he had begun to reckon, one was brought unto him, which owed him ten thousand talents. But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold and his wife and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made.” But you say he was forgiven. So are those who take the Review that have nothing to pay. Do we have an account of any debtor who had wherewith to pay that was forgiven his debt? “It is accepted according to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not,” if there be first a willing mind.
This article was not designed to discuss the subject of charitable donations, but paying that which justly belongs to us.
If it is difficult for us to pay a few dollars for this purpose, what must it be for the Editor to bear a hundred such burdens, who is no more able than one of us? If we, as yet, have not become able to bear our own burdens, when shall we be likely to become able to “bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.”
The above remarks are not designed for the Pioneers in the cause of present truth, nor others who have contributed liberally of their means. Before such, the writer of this article would hide his face in silence, putting his own shoulder to the burden which they have so long and manfully borne.
STEPHEN PIERCE.
Roxbury, Vt., April 16th, 1854.
THE SABBATH.
ITS PERPETUITY.
“The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath; therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath.” Mark ii, 27, 28.
WE have seen that God laid the foundation of Sabbath by resting on the seventh day, placed the institution upon this foundation at creation when he sanctified his Rest-day and hallowed it, and that the fourth commandment points back to creation for the reasons of the institution, inseparably connecting the Sabbath with Jehovah’s Rest on the seventh day of the first week.
Pass down through the period of the Prophets, and you will find the greatest blessings promised to those who should keep the Sabbath, and the greatest curses threatened for its desecration. Come to the period of the First Advent, and there you cannot find the least evidence that Christ removed the Sabbath from the foundation on which his Father had placed it. Instead of this, he styles himself “Lord of the Sabbath-day,” and declares that it “was made for man.” And when citing his disciples to the future, as far at least as the destruction of Jerusalem, he says:—“But pray ye that your flight be not in the Winter neither on the Sabbath-day.” Matt. xxiv, 20. Our Lord here recognizes the existence of the Sabbath, at least thirty-five years after his death and resurrection, as much so as the existence of the seasons of the year.
And lest some might get the idea that he had come to destroy his Father’s law, or to alter some portion of it, he says:—“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven; but whosoever shall do, and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” Matt. v. 17–19.
It is true that the Pharisees accused our Lord of Sabbath-breaking: they also charged him with having a devil; but these charges did not make it so in either case. We do not give as much credit to the testimony of those accusers and crucifiers of our Lord as some do. Jesus testifies:—“I have kept my Father’s commandments;” [John xv. 10;] and his words are true, the testimony of Pharisees to the contrary notwithstanding.
All the acts performed by our Saviour on the110Sabbath were in accordance with the Sabbath law. We do not say that they were in accordance with the notions of the Pharisees. On one occasion when our Lord was in the synagogue, also the man with the withered hand, “they asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath-days? that they might accuse him. And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the Sabbath-day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out? How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the Sabbath-day. Then said he to the man, Stretch forth thine hand; and he stretched it forth; and it was restored whole like as the other.” Matt. xii, 9–13. See also the case of healing the daughter of Abraham, who had been bound by satan eighteen years. [Luke xiii, 10–17.] and the man healed of the dropsy. Chap. xiv, 1–6.
Lawful, signifies agreeable to law. In these texts the word means, agreeable to the Sabbath law. When the Pharisees accused Christ of Sabbath-breaking, in healing the sick on that day, he referred them to acts of mercy which they would perform even to dumb beasts on that day, thus exposing their hypocrisy. He then declared such well-doing as merciful acts to man or beast on that day, lawful. Now who will take his stand with the Pharisees, and say that Christ’s acts of healing on the Sabbath were unlawful? Who will stand with Christ when he declares them lawful? Christians should be on the side with Christ.
But we will trace this point still further. Those who teach a change of the Sabbath, date that change from Christ’s resurrection. And those who teach that there is no Sabbath, date its abrogation from his crucifixion. No one argues any change whatever in regard to the Sabbath prior to the death of Christ. They have to admit that the Sabbath law stood in all its binding force throughout his entire ministry. In fact, the assertion that the Sabbath was abolished at the cross, contains, a virtual admission that it was in force up to the cross; for it would be folly to talk of abolishing a law not in force. Then to join the Pharisees and say that Christ transgressed this law when he healed the sick on the Sabbath, is virtually charging him with being a sinner; “for sin is the transgression of the law.” 1 John iii, 4. But as “in him was no sin,” he did not transgress the law. We have a better sacrifice for sin, than that of a transgressor. Praise his name.
That Christ never taught his followers that any change was to take place in regard to the Sabbath, is evident from the course pursued by the holy women who “followed after, and beheld the sepulchre,” and how the body of their Lord was laid. “They returned and prepared spices and ointments, and rested the Sabbath-day according to the commandment,” [Luke xxiii, 55, 56.] then “upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared,” to embalm their Lord. Chap. xxiv, 1.
The Son of God, then, left the Sabbath on the same foundation on which the eternal Father placed it. By healing the sick on that day, and by declaring what was “lawful” to be done on that day, he stripped from the institution the garb of tradition which the blind Jew had thrown around it, and left it standing on its own eternal basis—the fourth commandment.
The writers of the four Gospels, who wrote at different periods after the ascension of Christ, all speak of the Sabbath as then existing, and of the first day of the week as quite another thing. These faithful men, aided by the Holy Ghost to record the most important events that this fallen world ever witnessed, most certainly hand down to us the very views they held of those two days at the time they wrote the Gospels. Not one of those four writers give the least intimation that any change had taken place in regard to the Sabbath. If so important an event as the change, or the abrogation of the Sabbath, occurred at our Lord’s first advent, they would not have failed to record it.
The same distinction between the Sabbath and the first day of the week is also kept up in the book of Acts. The Sabbath is mentioned as still existing, and the first day of the week is spoken of as another day. “And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath. And the next Sabbath-day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.” Acts xiii, 42, 44.
Here are some things worthy of special notice. It was the Gentiles, not the Jews, that invited Paul to preach to them on the Sabbath. If Paul taught the people that the Sabbath was a Jewish institution, and that it had been abolished, it seems really unaccountable that the Gentiles, who were entirely disconnected with the Jewish religion, should request him to preach to them on the Sabbath. It is evident that the reason why they invited Paul to preach to them on the Sabbath, was because he regarded the seventh day as the Sabbath of the Lord, and the proper day for religious worship.
If that request of the Gentiles had been made to a modern preacher, he might have replied, You need not wait till another Jewish Sabbath. To-morrow is the Lord’s day. We will preach to you to-morrow. And if, as Doctors of Divinity teach, it was the design of Heaven that the observance of the first day of the week should rest upon “apostolic example” alone, what an excellent chance the Apostle had to set the example in the city of Antioch, when the people were so very anxious to hear, and were in a good state to receive right impressions. But instead of setting an example favoring the first day of the week, the Apostle entirely overlooked it, and the poor Gentiles had to wait till the Sabbath came round!
But was it the Apostle’s manner to preach on the Sabbath? “And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three Sabbath-days reasoned with them out of the Scriptures.” Acts xvii, 2. “And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks. Chap. xviii, 4.
It is sometimes said that the only reason why Paul preached on the Sabbath, was because the Jews were assembled in their synagogues on that day. But this is not true; for we find the Apostle and his companions preaching elsewhere besides in the synagogues, on the Sabbath. “And on the Sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made; and we sat down, and spake unto the women which resorted thither.” Acts xvi, 13.
If that meeting by the river side had been on the first day of the week, then the advocates of the first day might with some degree of propriety talk of apostolic example for observing that day. But there is no record in the New Testament of a public meeting of the Apostles in the day-time of the first day of the week.
While Paul was a prisoner at Rome, he called the chief of the Jews together and said unto them, “Men and brethren, though I have committed nothing against the people, or customs of our fathers, yet was I delivered prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans. Acts xxviii, 17.
If the Apostle had taught the people any change whatever in regard to the Sabbath, his testimony would have been denied by these Jews, and he would have been silenced at once. But instead of this, it is said of him in verses 30, 31, “And Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that came in unto him, preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him.”
The Apostles, then, regarded the Sabbath as resting on the very foundation where Jehovah had placed it at creation, and where his Son Jesus Christ had left it. Whatever weight may be given to their example in regard to the Sabbath as far as New-Testament writers have spoken, it is all on the side of the seventh day. But God has never left his people to be directed in any important duty with only the example of even inspired men. There is a plain precept for every duty which he requires at our hand. The Sabbath precept is indeed plain. The teachings of our Lord as to the Sabbath, by precept and example, were also plain. And the example of the holy Apostles was in accordance with the testimony of the Father and the Son. Amen.
Hearing Without Understanding
"I have told you already, and ye did not hear: wherefore would ye hear it again?" John ix, 27.
Salvation From Self.
Many have prayed to be saved from their enemies—some, to be saved from their friends: but he that is saved from himself, need suffer no fears from foes or friends. His salvation is certain and complete. It is the great deliverance which the Lord Jesus came to effect for us. Every sin against God, and crime against man, springs out of selfishness. It is the fountain of all bitterness. It is the great upas, shedding wickedness and wo over the world. The gospel lays an axe at its root. That instrument, designed and wrought in Heaven’s wisdom, strikes for the uncompromising extermination of this tree of evil, root and branch. The plan of human salvation, is a plan for the destruction of human selfishness. All the mighty enginery of redemption is levelled against this rebellious and destructive principle of the depraved soul. The exhibitions of Divine love, in creation, in providence, and in the mission and death of the Redeemer, are the grand influences plied against it. He that yields to these, is redeemed. He that resists, is self-destroyed—self-damned.
The first great commandment annihilates self. The second makes selfishness its own condemnatory judge, and its own executioner. The whole law of God and selfishness are antagonistic principles, never reconcilable. The precepts of Christ declare the impossibility of obedience to God and of Christian discipleship, in any one who does not wholly relinquish self. “Ye cannot serve God and mammon.” “Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me; for whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever will lose his life for my sake and the gospel’s, the same shall save it.” Vain the effort to be a Christian and yet retain a selfish interest. Self, will raise its claims and interpose its obstacles against the Christian course, so long as it is not absolutely denied—crushed—exterminated. While there is one point of self interest not broken off from, that point will hold its subject from following Christ fully. “Whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.” Some things may be done in obedience to christian faith, without the full renunciation of self. The wicked Herod “did many things” that John taught, but when the dancing-girl asked it, he beheaded that holy man. So with the unconsecrated professor: he does what he can without sacrificing self; and when his selfish interest requires, he betrays Christ—as Judas did.
The precept enlightens, and assures the understanding; the Cross subdues the heart. When the soul, conscious of its lost condition, looks upon the Son of God “lifted up” on the Cross, and discerns in him the Lamb of God whose sacrifice takes away its sin, and apprehends the Divine love that gives forth such an offering for its redemption—its selfishness perishes—self is crucified with Christ—and the yielding heart responds to this exhibition of God’s love.
“Nay, but I yield, I yield, I can hold out no more, I sink, by dying love compelled, and own the conqueror.”
Then the believer loves God with all the heart, and his neighbor as himself. Then is fulfilled the great design of Him “who died that they who live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but to Him who died and rose again.” Then may such an one say: “I am crucified with Christ; nevertheless I live—yet not I, but Christ liveth in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh, I live by faith of111the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.”—Selected.
Conference at Catlin, N. Y.
By W. S. Ingraham; A. S. Hutchins
Our meetings at this place, on the 15th, and 16th, inst., were attended by but few except the brethren and sisters. Such was the traveling, that we could expect none from a distance, only those of “like precious faith,” whom we were glad to meet.
Most of the little band of Sabbath-keepers in this vicinity, appear desirous of a deeper work of grace in the heart, and of becoming more like our blessed Saviour. But others it is to be feared are neglecting too much the preparation of heart requisite to stand in the day of wrath. It has been a source of sore grief to us that some in this vicinity, who have been established in the Sabbath truth for years, should deeply wound the feelings of their dear brethren, and impede the cause of God, by acting the part of “busy bodies, speaking things which they ought not” and neglecting to “bridle the tongue.”
Our fervent prayer is that they may remember the instruction of James i, 26. and hereafter when they speak, seek to find out “acceptable words.” More fervent prayer and less talk, will have a tendency to unite and strengthen the little band in Catlin and Dix. May the Lord give each of these dear brethren the “wisdom that is from above.”
W. S. INGRAHAM.
A. S. HUTCHINS.
Catlin, April, 19th, 1854.
Thoughts of God and Others
Have every day higher thoughts of God, lower thoughts of self, kinder thoughts of your brethren, and more hopeful thoughts of all around you.—[Fletcher.