Earlier text: GOD'S WORD THE PARENT'S GUIDETHOUGHTS ON DANIEL.
By Uriah Smith
CHAPTER VIII.—THE RAM, HE-GOAT, AND LITTLE HORN. VERSE 9. And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land. 10. And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them. 11. Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down. 12. And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practiced and prospered. A third power is here introduced into the prophecy. In the explanation which the angel gave of these symbols to Daniel, this one is not described in language so definite as that of Medo-Persia and Grecia. Hence a flood of wild conjecture is at once let loose. Had not the angel positively, and in language which cannot be misunderstood, stated that Medo-Persia and Grecia were denoted by the ram and the he-goat, it is impossible to tell what application men would have given us of those symbols. Probably they would have applied them to anything and everything but the right objects. Leave men a moment to their own judgment in the interpretation of prophecy, and we immediately have the most sublime exhibitions of human folly. There are two leading applications of the symbol now under consideration, which are all that need be noticed in these brief thoughts. The first is that the little horn here introduced, denotes Antiochus Epiphanes; the second is that it denotes the Roman power. It is an easy matter to test the claims of these two positions. Does it mean Antiochus? If so, this king must fulfill the specifications of the prophecy. If he does not fulfill them, the application cannot be made to him. The little horn came out of one of the four horns of the goat. It was then a separate power, existing independently of, and distinct from, any of the horns of the goat. Was Antiochus such a power? 1. Who was Antiochus? From the time that Seleucus made himself king over the Syrian portion of Alexander's empire, thus constituting the Syrian horn of the goat, until that country was conquered by the Romans, twenty-six kings ruled in succession over that territory. The eighth of these, in order, was Antiochus Epiphanes. Antiochus, then, was simply one of the twenty-six kings who constituted the Syrian horn of the goat. He was, for the time being, that horn. Hence, he could not be at the same time a separate and independent power, another and remarkable horn, as the little horn was. 2. If it were proper to apply the little horn to any one of these twenty-six Syrian kings, it should certainly be applied to the most powerful and illustrious of them all; but Antiochus Epiphanes did not by any means sustain this character. Although he took the name Epiphanes, that is, the illustrious, he was illustrious only in name; for nothing, says Prideaux, on the authority of Polybius, Livy, and Diodorus Siculus, could be more alien to his true character. For, on account of his vile and extravagant folly, some thinking him a fool and others a madman, they changed the name of Epiphanes, the Illustrious, into Epimanes, The Madman. 3. Antiochus the Great, the father of Epiphanes, being terribly defeated in a war with the Romans, was enabled to procure peace only by the payment of a prodigious sum of money, and a surrender of a portion of his territory; and, as a pledge that he would faithfully adhere to the terms of the treaty, he was obliged to give hostages, among whom was this very Epiphanes, his son, who was carried to Rome. The Romans ever after maintained this ascendency. 4. The little horn waxed exceeding great; but this Antiochus did not enlarge his dominion except by some temporary conquests in Egypt, which he immediately relinquished when the Romans took the part of Ptolemy, and commanded him to desist from his designs in that quarter. The rage of his disappointed ambition, he vented upon the unoffending Jews. 5. The little horn, in comparison with the powers that preceded it, was exceeding great. Persia is simply called great, though it reigned over a hundred and twenty-seven provinces. Esth. 1:1. Grecia, being more extensive still, is called very great. Now the little horn, which waxed exceeding great, must surpass them both. How absurd, then, to apply this to Antiochus, who was obliged to abandon Egypt at the dictation of the Romans, to whom he paid enormous sums of money as tribute. The Religious Encyclopedia gives us this item of his history: "Finding his resources exhausted, he resolved to go into Persia to levy tribute, and collect large sums which he had agreed to pay to the Romans." It cannot take long for any one to decide the question which was the greater power, the one which evacuated Egypt, or the one which commanded that evacuation; the one that exacted tribute, or the one which was compelled to pay it. 6. The little horn was to stand up against the Prince of princes. The Prince of princes here means, beyond controversy, Jesus Christ. Dan. 9:25; Acts 3:15; Rev. 1:5. But Antiochus died one hundred and sixty-four years before our Lord was born. The prophecy cannot, therefore, apply to him; for he does not fulfill the specifications in one single particular. The question may then be asked how any one has ever come to apply it to him. We answer, Romanists take that view, to avoid the application of the prophecy to themselves; and many Protestants follow them, in order to oppose the doctrine that Christ is now soon to come. It has been an easy matter to show that the little horn does not denote Antiochus. It will be just as easy to show that it does denote Rome. 1. The field of vision here is substantially the same as that covered by Nebuchadnezzar's image, of chapter 2, and Daniel's vision, of chapter 7. And in both those prophetic delineations we found that the power which succeeded Grecia as the fourth great power, was Rome. The only natural inference would be that the little horn, the power which in this vision succeeds Grecia as an exceeding great power, is also Rome. 2. It comes forth from one of the horns of the goat. How, it may be asked, can this be true of Rome? It is unnecessary to remind the reader that earthly governments are not introduced into prophecy till they become in some way connected with the people of God. Rome became connected with the Jews, the people of God at that time, by the famous Jewish League B. C. 161. 1 Maccabees 8; Josephus' Antiq., b. 12, chapter 10, sec. 6; Prideaux, vol. ii, p. 166. But seven years before this, that is, in B. C. 168, Rome had conquered Macedon, and made it a part of itself. It is therefore introduced into prophecy just as, from the conquered Macedonian horn of the goat, it is preparing to go forth to new conquests in other directions. It therefore appeared to the prophet, or may be properly spoken of in this prophecy, as coming forth from one of the horns of the goat. 3. It waxed great toward the south. Egypt was made a province of the Roman empire, B. C. 30, and continued such for some centuries. 4. Toward the east. Rome conquered Syria, B. C. 65, and made it a province. 5. Toward the pleasant land. Judea is so called in many scriptures. The Romans finally made this a province, B. C. 63, and eventually destroyed the city and the temple, and scattered the Jews over the face of the whole earth. 6. It waxed great even to the host of heaven. The host of heaven when used in a symbolic sense in reference to events transpiring upon the earth, must denote persons of illustrious character, or exalted position. The great red dragon, Rev. 12:4, is said to have cast down a third part of the stars of heaven to the ground. The dragon was there interpreted to symbolize pagan Rome. The host was there interpreted to symbolize Jewish rulers. We think it is the same work and the same work that is here brought to view; which again makes it necessary to apply it to Rome. 7. He magnified himself even to the Prince of the host. In the interpretation, verse 25, this is called standing up against the Prince of princes. How clear an allusion to the crucifixion of our Lord, under the jurisdiction of the Romans! 8. By him the daily sacrifice was taken away. We understand that the little horn symbolized Rome in its entire history, including the two phases of pagan and papal. These two phases are elsewhere spoken of as the "daily" (sacrifice is a supplied word) and the "transgression of desolation;" the daily (desolation) signifying the pagan form, and the transgression of desolation, the papal. In the actions ascribed to this power, sometimes one form is spoken of, sometimes the other. "By him," (the papal form) "the daily," (the pagan form) "was taken away." Pagan Rome gave place to papal Rome. And the place of his sanctuary, or worship, the city of Rome, was cast down. The seat of government was removed to Constantinople. The same transaction is brought to view in Revelation 13:2, where it says that the dragon, pagan Rome, gave to the beast, papal Rome, his seat, the city of Rome, and power and great authority, the whole influence of the empire. 9. A host was given him against the daily. The barbarians that subverted the Roman Empire, in the changes, attritions, and transformations of those times, became converts to the Catholic faith, and the instruments of the dethronement of their former religion. Though conquering Rome politically, they were themselves vanquished by the religion of Rome, and became the perpetuators of the same empire in another phase. And this was brought about by reason of transgression, that is, by the working of the mystery of iniquity. The papacy is the most God-dishonoring system of iniquity ever devised, because in his name it commits its abominations, and practices its orgies of hell in the garb, and under the pretense, of pure and undefiled religion. 10. It cast the truth to the ground and practiced and prospered. This describes in few words, the work and career of the papacy. The truth is by it hideously caricatured; it is loaded with traditions; it is turned into mummery and superstition; it is cast down and obscured. And this antichristian power has practiced—practiced its deceptions upon the people, practiced its schemes of cunning to carry out its own ends, and aggrandize its own power. And it has prospered. It has made war with the saints and prevailed against them. It has run its allotted career, and soon is to be broken without hand, to be given to the burning flame, and perish in the consuming glories of the second appearing of our Lord. Rome meets all the specifications of the prophecy. No other power does meet them. Hence Rome, and no other, is the power in question. And the descriptions given in the word of God, of the character of this monstrous system are fully met, and the prophecies of its baleful history have been most strikingly and accurately fulfilled. TWO KINDS OF PRAYER.
By Theodore L. Cuyler
ON a certain day in the olden times, two men went up into the temple at Jerusalem to pray. But there was this difference: one of them delivered a fluent speech to the Almighty, and the other offered a petition. The one had the ready-tongued flippancy born of self-conceit; the other broke down into a single sob, "God be merciful to me, the sinner!" It was not a vague idea floating in his mind, but a very definite stroke at the guilty man who stood in his shoes, for in the Greek the literal meaning is, "me, the sinner." When our Lord drew this striking photograph of self-satisfaction, and self-abasement, he knew that the portraiture would answer for all time. Those two men are living yet in many a copy; not in name, but in nature. The Pharisee's prayer, or rather his address to the Lord, was the genuine reflection of his own heart. It bespoke his complete self-satisfaction. Let others censure him, or criticise him, or scoff at him, if they chose, it could not prick through the rhinoceros hide of his self-righteousness. He told over the inventory of his own merits glibly, as an auctioneer cries his wares. On the negative side he was no extortioner, and no cheat, and no adulterer; and then with a contemptuous fling at the poor, odious, social outcast who stood within hail of him, he sneers out, "Lord, I thank thee I am not like that publican!" Having trumpeted his negative virtues, he adds another stroke of self-laudation, "I fast twice in each week" (i. e., on every Monday and Thursday), and "I give tithes of all that I possess." Having thus made out his bill, he presents it to the all-searching God, and goes home perfectly satisfied. Are there any such people nowadays? Not in name and external garb of Phariseeism; but in the core of them, in their inmost hearts, there are quite too many. They are seen and heard in our prayer-meetings. The secret disease that tainted the Pharisee's fluent address to God, taints their hearts and poisons their prayers. It is the disease of self-exaggeration. They compare themselves with the reckless, the profane, the drunkard; and by comparison they seem almost angelic. Having heard the scandals afloat concerning certain delinquent professors around them, they secretly whisper to themselves, "Well, nobody has caught me cheating like brother A—; nobody sees me521 the worse for drinking like poor Col. B—; I am always in my pew on Sunday, and if anybody thinks I am not about right, let him show a better record." And this complacent spirit rolls through all the fluent phrases of devotion which he pours out in his prayer, and he sits down satisfied that while other people neglect the meeting, he is there and has taken part and done his duty. Into the plague of his own heart, he has not got even a glimpse. Even the penitential expressions he wove into his prayer were so hollow, that if his pastor were to take him at his word, he would be indignant. So wrapped about is he in the soft cloak of orthodox creed, and decent moralities, and external compliances, that he does not spy a fault. There are just such professors of religion in our churches; they are the keenest-eyed to see other people's faults, and the sharpest-tongued to condemn them. But all spiritual growth is impossible; like the young artist who sees no blemishes in his first pictures, they are doomed to self-blindness, and as they rise in their own estimation, they sink in the estimation of every one around them. How God must abhor such prayers! What waste of precious time in their repetition! And when this spirit gets into a church—a spirit of entire satisfaction with their pastor, with their music, with their income, with their social position, with their orthodoxy, and with themselves—how God does punish such a church by leaving them to be just what they are! Fancying that they have need of nothing—no, not even a searching revival—they dream not how blind and naked they are in the eye of Him who despiseth the proud, and gives His grace only to the humble. Precious is the grace of humility! That publican was a man after Christ's own heart. Other people despised him, but not one-tenth part as much as he loathed himself. He has no spiritual attainments to write in capitals on his bulletin board. Thoroughly sick at heart of his own guiltiness, he dares not to look God in the face. Looking inward at his own heart sinfulness, and the plague of ingratitude, and impurity, and unbelief that nestles there, he keeps beating on his breast—as if he would smite that wicked heart—and he cries out, "God have mercy on me, the sinner!" No fluent experience there, you will observe, such as are sometimes rehearsed in certain meetings for displaying spiritual attainments. If Paul himself were to slip into such meetings, his single remark might be, "Not that I have already attained or am already perfect, but I press toward the high calling in Christ Jesus." That self-abhorring man who made the honest prayer on the temple-steps, stands there to-day for our copying. There is a rich blessing in store for him. He will go home under the smile of God, forgiven and accepted. The load of guilt will be lifted off by the Pardoner. He will get a full baptism of the Spirit. Brethren, would it not be a blessed thing if we could hear more such prayers as his in our meetings—yes, and in our pulpits, too? Is not this just what we want in the present condition of our world-eaten churches? Self-satisfaction is blinding us, and dwarfing us, and dooming us to death and barrenness. What we need is to lie down low before God, and confess to him just what we are. Not for one day only, but continue to lie there till God lifts us up. Self-exaltation will ruin us. But they that humble themselves, and ask for nothing but mercy, and pardon, and help, shall be exalted—as soon as God sees it is safe to do it.—Rev. T. L. Cuyler. The Sabbath School. ## LESSON FOR PACIFIC COAST.—DEC. 3. John 7:32-53; 8:1-11. ## LESSON COMMENTS.
“The temple police sent to arrest Jesus had remained near, to watch their opportunity. But the power and majesty of his discourse, which had spell-bound so many others, had overawed and impressed even them, so that they dared not touch him, and went back to their masters empty-handed. To the angry demand for an explanation, they could only answer, ‘Never man spake as this man speaks.’ The Pharisees in the council—the special guardians of the public orthodoxy—professed themselves shocked at such disloyalty on the part of men intrusted with the commission of the high ecclesiastical court. ‘How can you be so led away? Do you not see that only some of the ignorant rabble believe in him? Have any men of position—any members of the council, or any Rabbis—done so? They are qualified to judge on such matters; but as for the rabble, who have accepted such a transgressor as the Messiah, it shows that they do not know the law, and are therefore accursed of God.’ “One faint voice only was heard in the council in hesitating defense of Jesus. It was that of Nicodemus—his visitor by night on his first appearance. ‘I know, sirs, you are zealous for the law, and rightly condemn those who are ignorant of it. But does the law sanction our thus condemning a man before it has heard him, and found exactly what he has done?’ ‘Are you, also, like Jesus, out of Galilee,’ they asked, ‘that you believe in him; only ignorant Galilæans do so? Search the Scriptures, and you will see that no Galilæan was ever inspired as a prophet by God: the race is despised of the Highest, and is it likely it should give Jerusalem the Messiah?’ “In their blind rage they forgot that, at least, Jonah, and Hosea, and Nahum, were Galilæans, and they ignored the fact that if the followers of Jesus were mostly from the illiterate north, he had also not a few even from the sons of bigoted Jerusalem.”—Geikie. “While Jesus was engaged in teaching, the Scribes and Pharisees brought to him a woman whom they accused of the sin of adultery, and said to him, Master ‘now Moses in the law commanded us that such should be stoned; but what sayest thou? This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.’ “The Scribes and Pharisees had agreed to bring this case before Jesus, thinking that whatever decision he made in regard to it, they would therein find occasion to accuse and condemn him. If he should acquit the woman, they would accuse him of despising the law of Moses, and condemn him on that account; and if he should declare that she was guilty of death, they would accuse him to the Romans as one who was stirring up sedition and assuming authority which alone belonged to them. But Jesus well knew for what purpose this case had been brought to him; he read the secrets of their hearts, and knew the character and life history of every man in his presence. He seemed indifferent to the question of the Pharisees, and while they were talking and pressing about him, he stooped and wrote carelessly with his finger in the sand. “Although doing this without apparent design, Jesus was tracing on the ground, in legible characters, the particular sins of which the woman’s accusers were guilty, beginning with the eldest and ending with the youngest. At length the Pharisees became impatient at the indifference of Jesus, and his delay in deciding the question before him, and drew nearer, urging the matter. But as their eyes fell upon the words written in the sand, fear and surprise took possession of them. The people, looking on, saw their countenances suddenly change, and pressed forward to discover what they were regarding with such an expression of astonishment and shame. Many of those who thus gathered round also read the record of the hidden sin inscribed against these accusers of another. “Then Jesus ‘lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.’ The accusers saw that Jesus not only knew the secrets of their past sins, but was acquainted with their purpose in bringing this case before him, and had in his matchless wisdom defeated their deeply laid scheme. They now became fearful lest Jesus would expose their guilt to all present, and they therefore ‘being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last; and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.’ “‘There was not one of her accusers but was more guilty than the conscience-stricken woman who stood trembling with shame before him. After the Pharisees had hastily left the presence of Christ, in their guilty consternation, he arose and looked upon the woman, saying, ‘Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee. Go, and sin no more.’ “Jesus did not palliate sin nor lessen the sense of crime; but he came not to condemn; he came to lead the sinner to eternal life. The world looked upon this erring woman as one to be slighted and scorned; but the pure and holy Jesus stooped to address her with words of comfort, encouraging her to reform her life. Instead of to condemn the guilty, his work was to reach into the very depths of human woe and degradation, lift up the debased and sinful, and bid the trembling penitent to sin no more. When the woman stood before Jesus, cowering under the accusation of the Pharisees, and a sense of the enormity of her crime, she knew that her life was trembling in the balance, and that a word from Jesus would add fuel to the indignation of the crowd, so that they would immediately stone her to death. “Her eyes droop before the calm and searching glance of Christ. Stricken with shame, she is unable to look upon that holy countenance. As she thus stands waiting for sentence to be passed upon her, the words fall upon her astonished ears that not only deliver her from her accusers, but send them away convicted of greater crimes than hers. After they are gone she hears the mournfully solemn words: ‘Neither do I condemn thee. Go and sin no more.’ Her heart melts with penitential grief; and with gratitude to her Deliverer, she bows at the feet of Jesus, sobbing out in broken accents the emotions of her heart, and confessing her sins with bitter tears.—Mrs. E. G. White in “Great Controversy.” The first eleven verses of the seventh chapter of John are thought by many to be spurious, because they are not found in quite a number of ancient manuscripts. Dr. Clarke, in his comments on the eleventh verse gives a probable reason why they were omitted. “‘Neither do I condemn thee.’ Bishop Pearce says, ‘It would have been strange if Jesus, when he was not a magistrate, and had not the witnesses before him to examine them; and when she had not been tried and condemned by the law and legal judges, should have taken upon him to condemn her. This being the case, it appears why Jesus avoided giving an answer to the question of the Scribes and Pharisees; and also how little reason there is to conclude from hence, that Christ seems in this case not enough to have discouraged adultery, though he called it a sin. And yet this opinion took place so early among the Christians, that the reading of this story was industriously avoided in the lessons recited out of the Gospels, in the public service of the churches; as if Jesus’ saying, I do not condemn thee, had given too much countenance to women guilty of that crime. In consequence of this, as it was never read in the churches, and is now not to be found in any of the Evangelistaria, and as it was probably marked in the MSS. as a portion not to be read there, this whole story, from verse 1 to verse 11, inclusive, came in length of time to be left out in some MSS., though in the greater part it is still remaining.’” Prayer Meeting Arrangement
It is as impossible to enjoy social freedom and warmth in a prayer-meeting where the people are widely scattered, as it would be to enjoy a social call if your friend occupied one and yourself the other corner of a large double parlor and conversed either loudly or inaudibly. No one would be disposed to repeat such a call. Nobody will go twice to such a prayer-meeting, if conscience will allow him to stay away. Good people unconsciously ruin their prayer-meetings, and then complain of their own work or of their leader. Blessed is the church that has a prayer-room with semi-circular sittings facing each other and the leader, where all are compelled to be equally distant.—Advocate. In character, in manners, in style, in all things, the supreme excellence is simplicity.—Longfellow. “REJOICE evermore; pray without ceasing.” Doing It at Home
By Presbyterian
A ZEALOUS Christian met a staid old-fashioned brother on the street Monday morning, and hailed him thus: "Good morning brother B—, you should have been at our church last evening; we had a splendid sermon on the duty of parents." "Sorry," replied brother B—, "but I was at home doing it." This reply is a sermon in itself, and it hits the point most exposed in average Christian conduct. Nothing would influence our homes so directly, nothing would inspire the pulpit so much, as a great deal of brother B—'s practice of "doing it" at home. "Everlasting punishment . . . life eternal—the qualifying words are the same in the original. The punishment of the wicked and the life of the righteous are alike everlasting. If the word used by the sacred writer signifies a limited period in the one case, it signifies the same in the other; so that when it is proved that eternal punishment is not endless, it is also proved that there is a limit to the felicity of the righteous. All the finely-spun theories in the world cannot get rid of this result. But in no conceivable way could the unending torment of the incorrigibly wicked be expressed with greater clearness or emphasis than in this sharply drawn antithesis." The above paragraph is from a lesson comment on Matt. 25:46. The principal defect is this: it makes punishment to be synonymous with torment. A school-boy ought to know better than to commit such an error as this. Fine, imprisonment, torture, death, are all comprised in the word punishment. But the word does not designate either, and cannot be synonymous with either. There is no such thing as the "sharply drawn antithesis" which the writer would fain make out. There is no absolute antithesis between punishment and life. We grant that there is one implied in the text, because the punishment is death, which is the antithesis to life. "The wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life." Instead of the "unending torment" of the wicked being clearly expressed in the text, it is not even hinted, or referred to by implication. "Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction." 2 Thess. 1:9. Death, destruction, will be the punishment of the wicked, and it will be everlasting. This is positively the truth of the Scriptures, because it is plainly stated in many texts which contain neither figures nor symbols. We wish that all who handle the sacred Scriptures would candidly reason, and never wildly assert. SACREDNESS OF THE WORK OF GOD.
By John Nevins Andrews
THE work which God has intrusted to his servants is of the most sacred character. It is so to preach his truth that men shall be savingly benefited by it. God designs by human instrumentality to make ready a people prepared for the Lord. Those who lead others to Christ, must first be acquainted with him themselves. We cannot teach others to keep the commandments of God, unless we ourselves truly keep them. We must teach others to die to self; and we cannot do this without setting them the example. We must teach the lessons of temperance, self-denial, and patience; and to do this, we must exemplify these heavenly principles in our own lives. Unless we are thoroughly converted to God, we shall mar his work whenever we touch it. If we do not rule our own spirits, we shall dishonor God. If our tongues are not bridled, we shall show that our religion is vain. If we have not the spirit of sacrifice, we show plainly that we do not participate in the Spirit of Christ, for his was a spirit of infinite sacrifice. The Son of God came down to our earth to die for man. When he comes the second time, it will be to gather to himself the people who are his true disciples. These523 are the persons who are like him in heart and life. It is the truth faithfully preached, and actually exemplified in the life of those who preach it, that is to thus sanctify men. The Son of God kept his Father's commandments. This it was which rendered his life the perfect model for our imitation. We wish to raise up a commandment-keeping people. To do this, we must show from the life of Christ what true commandment-keeping is, and, so far as feeble man can imitate the life of God's dear Son, we must exemplify that life in ourselves. We are looking for the advent of Christ, and we are teaching the people to look for him. And the apostle says that “every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.” 1 John 3:3. Our work is to lead our fellow-men to keep the commandments of God, and to look for his Son from Heaven. There can be no more sacred work than this. And we cannot fulfill the trust committed to us without setting ourselves apart for God, both in heart and life. So sacred a work demands that those who engage in it should, be indeed men of God. Unless we are such in reality, the truths we preach to others will rise up in the Judgment to condemn ourselves. J. N. A. A FRIEND in a distant State, who has just commenced to keep the Sabbath of the Lord, asks us to make some comments on a number of passages of Scripture to meet the wants of an inquirer for more light. We do this most cheerfully, as he represents a class of persons of those who are constantly embracing the truth and wish for help on particular texts. The texts cited are Matt. 19:16–21; 22:35–41; Rom. 13:8–11; 14:5, 6. To these we will add a few others in the course of our remarks. In studying any passage of Scripture we should consider the intention of the speaker or writer, as learned from the context, or from the text itself. With Matt. 19:16–21, verse 22 must be considered, as this gives the solution to the whole question. The man asked for information concerning his duty, expressing a desire to gain eternal life. He evidently considered himself sincere in his expression. The Saviour tested him upon his duty to his neighbor, by referring him to those commandments which hang upon the great precept, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” He said he had always kept these; and, no doubt, he thought he had. But the Saviour applied the principle upon which they are based, and the man entirely failed to stand the test. He had “great possessions,” while the needy were on every hand. If he had possessed the spirit of the law he could not have retained so great possessions—much more than he needed—and have seen his brethren suffer for the necessaries of life. See James 2:14–17. He turned away from the Saviour, to whom he came with such earnest inquiry—he turned away, “sorrowful.” He did not like the conditions. How could he be a follower of Jesus, who left even the glory of Heaven itself to do good to fallen man? “If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.” The simple truth is, that the man, as thousands in his position at the present day, was self-deceived, and the Saviour exposed the deception. But what bearing has this upon the Sabbath question? None at all. Why did not the Saviour tell him he must keep the Sabbath, if that was a duty to remain in force? And we ask, Why did he not refer to any of the commandments on the first table? Why did he not forbid the worship of idols, or blasphemy, if these precepts were to be continued in force? He did not refer to any of these; and if the fourth commandment is not binding, because not there mentioned, the first, second, and third, are not binding, for the same reason. It will not do to reason thus. The Saviour tested him where his deception was probably the greatest; at least where it could be made evident to all. Other duties and other precepts of the law were not to be disregarded merely because they were not then mentioned. The same remarks, substantially, will apply to Rom. 13:8–11. Commencing our reading at verse 9 of chapter 12, we find the whole lesson relates to our duties to our fellow-men. But a consideration of these duties, however extended it may be, cannot destroy or render null our obligation to God. Again, Acts 15 has been subjected to the same process, by opposers of the Sabbath, to make it give negative testimony on that question. It has been asked: If the apostles and elders intended that the gentiles should keep the Sabbath, why did they not mention it in their letter? And we ask further: If it was intended that the gentiles should abstain from blasphemy, why did they not say so? They who raise the objection do not seem to have much if any idea of the scope of this scripture. The controversy was concerning “circumcision and the law of Moses.” From this there was a clear and emphatic release. And added to this release were a few cautions upon points wherein those gentiles were especially in danger. But the law of God—the sole and complete rule of moral obligation—was not in dispute, was not considered in the council, and was not included in the letter. Other passages will be considered next week. "The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul."—Bible. A CHEERFUL OUTLOOK.
By Editor
WE believe there is a bright future for the true Christian—for all true Christians. But they will not shout the cry of perfect and complete victory till “the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed;” in other words, until the Lord shall come. For this world, for its blind and reckless multitudes, we see no bright outlook. But a cotemporary has a notice of a book over which it exults in terms almost unmeasured because the author has, to the entire satisfaction of the editor, proved that the triumphs of Christianity are wondrously great in this age, that the world is fast growing better, and that the dismal views of the Adventists are altogether wrong and not in accordance with the facts. This from a San Francisco paper. From a San Francisco daily we clip the following item:— “According to the San Francisco Occident, the distinguished Horatius Bonar, D. D., who is visiting this country, has, like many others, a very poor opinion of the current religion. He says it is ‘an easy-minded religion without self-denial or sacrifice’—‘a second-rate religion, in which there is no largeness, no grandeur, no all-constraining love.’ ‘It is a hollow religion with a fair exterior, but with an aching heart; a religion marked, it may be by activity and excitement, but betraying all the while the consciousness of a wound hidden and unhealed within. It is a feeble religion, lacking the sinews and the bones of harder times, and it is an uncertain religion. All is thus bondage, heaviness, irksomeness. Hence the inefficient, uninfluential character of our religion. It does not tell on others, for it has not fully told on ourselves. It falls short of its mark, for the arm that draws the bow is paralyzed.’” We might easily fill a small volume of such testimonies from men whose orthodoxy is beyond question. But a slur at the “Adventists” seems to gratify the feelings of a large class, some of whom do not well consider the merits of the question in issue. We invite our critic to study the words of the Saviour in Matt. 7:12–23; 24:3–14; Luke 18:1–8; and 21:25–36. And if he finds it difficult to harmonize these scriptures with his views of the last days of this earth’s history he may be aided by considering the third chapter of second Timothy, and the third chapter of second Peter. And to guide him to profitable reflection while reading these scriptures, we suggest a reading further of 1 Thess. 4:13–18, and 5:1–4. And when all these have been well considered, then we ask him to point out any error the Adventists may have made in construing them. This is a serious matter. We would rather be found painting this world’s destiny in dark colors than to be found crying, “Peace and safety,” in the last days. Inasmuch as the coming of the Son of man will be as it was in the days of Noah, and many will be saying, “My Lord delayeth his coming,” and some even asking scoffingly, “Where is the promise of his coming?” we consider it the safest way to watch the signs of his coming, and to “sound an alarm,” as the Lord commands by his prophet. And if some did not give the “Peace and safety” cry, and deride those who preached that His coming is near, we should think we had verily misconstrued the Scriptures on this subject. But there are enough of this class to give us assurance. We pity them, and pray God to open their eyes to their danger before that day shall come upon them as a thief in the night.