Publishing Committee · Battle Creek, Mich. · Sep 10, 1857
THE SEVENTH MONTH MOVEMENT.
By Editor
(Concluded.)
As we were disappointed in our expectations, based upon the argument of the chronological fulfillment of the types, it is necessary that we should examine
THE DEFECTS OF THE CHRONOLOGICAL ARGUMENT.
The argument was that as some of the types had been fulfilled chronologically, the remaining types must also be chronologically fulfilled. This argument would be logical as far as the analogy goes if all the types which have thus far been fulfilled, had been fulfilled chronologically. For, if some which have been fulfilled have not been chronologically fulfilled, it follows that those which are yet to be fulfilled, may be so, and not chronologically. A law, to be universal, must be shown to be without exceptions. A single exception invalidates its universal application. And if a law is demonstrated to be not of universal application, it ceases to be a rule to be relied upon in the settlement of doubtful questions. This is the case with the argument under consideration. Some of the types which have been fulfilled, were not fulfilled chronologically. Consequently, those which remain to be fulfilled, may not be chronologically fulfilled. This will be seen more clearly by examining
THE TRUE CHRONOLOGICAL ARGUMENT WHICH IS CONTAINED IN THE TYPES.
We find that there were various observances under the Mosaic law, which were shadows of good things to come, and we suppose that they must be all antitypically fulfilled under the Christian dispensation; but the point of interest is, how far they are, or are not, to be chronologically fulfilled. We find at Christ's first advent, a portion of the types were fulfilled as to time. Another portion of them were fulfilled, but not as to time. The killing of the paschal lamb on the 14th of Abib, was chronologically fulfilled by the crucifixion of our Saviour the same day; and so was the offering of the first-fruits on the morrow after the Sabbath of the paschal week, by his resurrection, the first-fruits of those that slept. As God has thus observed times in the fulfillment of those types, no man can deny but those which are unfulfilled may be fulfilled in their time. But there were other types which were not thus fulfilled; and therefore it is not necessary that they should be fulfilled chronologically. The goat for the sin-offering, which was slain on the tenth day of the seventh month, was fulfilled in the death of Christ the fourteenth day of the first month; and the scape-goat, on which was laid the sins of the people, and led away into the wilderness the same day, was fulfilled in Christ about the first of the eleventh month, when the Spirit led him away into the wilderness, immediately after his baptism; and when John next beheld him he exclaimed, "Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world." The high priest also entered the holy of holies on the tenth day of the seventh month; but our High Priest entered the holiest of all in the third month, when he ascended into heaven itself, and sat himself at the Father's right hand, to make atonement for the sins of the world. We also find that some of the types, which can only be fulfilled at his second advent, had their observances at one season of the year; while others, which shadow forth the same event, were observed at other seasons of the year. The feast of the wheat harvest, a type of the resurrection of the righteous, was in the third month; the coming of the high priest out of the holiest of all to bless the waiting congregation, was in the seventh month; the coming of the children of Israel out of Egypt, the passing over them by the destroying angel, and the slaying of the Egyptians, were all in the first month; the blowing of the jubilee trumpet, and the deliverance of captives, were also in the seventh month. As, therefore, the types which shadow forth the second advent were observed on different days, they cannot all be fulfilled chronologically; and, if it is not necessary that all should be thus fulfilled, it may not be that any must; or, we cannot tell which day should be thus distinguished. And as some of the types of Christ's first Advent were fulfilled on days which were honored by the observance of other types, and others—the leading the scape-goat into the wilderness, and the entering of the high priest into the holy of holies—were fulfilled on days which had been honored by no observances; if we reason by analogy, and judge of the future by the past, they leave us entirely in the dark as to the day which will be honored by the advent of the Lord. And, therefore, we need to watch continually, in obedience to our Saviour's commands, to live with our loins girt about and our lights burning, to live in daily and constant expectation of his glorious appearing. And while we are thus daily looking, if we should continue here, as it may please God to have us, for the trial of our faith, until the anniversary of those days which were chosen of God, and set apart for the observance of the rites of the Mosaic law, we may look to them with peculiar interest; and to those feasts which have never been honored by an antitypical fulfillment, we may look with still greater assurance; and yet it cannot be shown but that any day may witness the coming of the Lord.
In endeavoring to bring out the "true chronological argument which is contained in the types," we think the Shield has made a wide misapplication of some of the types themselves. For instance, the scape-goat is not a type of Christ, but, as has been clearly demonstrated since 1844, of that being upon whom Christ will lay the sins of his people when he bears them from the heavenly Sanctuary at the close of his ministration; namely, Satan. And he who can think that Christ's being led away into the wilderness, before the work in the Sanctuary commenced, was the antitype of the scape-goat's being sent away, which could not take place till after the work in the Sanctuary was finished, must indeed be weak in the faith of "chronological argument."
Again: The entrance of the high priest into the most holy place was not typical of Christ's ascension into heaven itself; for he then entered, and commenced his ministry in, the first apartment of the heavenly Sanctuary, as was foreshadowed by the work of the priests in the earthly sanctuary.
Our disappointment was not the result of the view taken of the chronological fulfillment of the types, but of mistaking the event which the prophecies declared should be fulfilled at that time. "Could we then have understood the subject of the heavenly Sanctuary, our disappointment would have been avoided." The cleansing of the Sanctuary by our great High Priest, and his descending in the clouds of heaven with flaming fire, are events between which there is a marked distinction. The other types mentioned in the article may yet be fulfilled according to the principle adopted in this note. [Ed. REVIEW.146
THE TERMINATION OF THE PROPHETIC PERIODS.
In the previous part of this article it was shown, that to complete the prophetic periods, it would be necessary to extend them as far into A. D. 1844 as they respectively commenced after the beginning of the respective years B. C. from which they were dated; and as we have no clue to the time in those respective years when the several events transpired from which the prophetic periods have been reckoned, it would be necessary for A. D. 1844 to expire, to disprove our dates for their commencement, or the accuracy of the chronologies, by which we have been guided. That year has now expired. We have consequently now reached a point of time to which none of the prophetic periods can be extended, if time has been correctly marked, and our dates for their commencement were correct. We must therefore acknowledge that we were either premature in those dates, or that human chronology is not perfectly accurate. In arriving at our chronological conclusions, we have followed those chronologies which have been considered as the most authentic. There is however a disagreement among the several chronologers respecting the dates of the several events from which we have reckoned the prophetic periods; but which is all harmonized within the circle of a few years. Those chronologers which we have followed have placed the date of the respective events at the earliest point within this circle. But as other chronologers have assigned to them a later point of time, we are justly entitled to all the time which is in dispute among them, before our position can in any way be materially affected, or its chronological bearings tested.
The seven times, or 2520 years of the Jewish subversion, we have always dated from the captivity of Manasseh. This captivity is placed in B. C. 677, or the year 4037 of the Julian Period, in the 22d year of Manasseh's reign, by Dr. Prideaux, Archbishop Usher, Jackson, Playfair, Blair and others; Guthrie, Horne, and Calmet date it B. C. 676, Dr. Hales, B. C. 675, (as the Jews in Seder Olam Rabba, and the Talmudists, date it. See Ganz p. 45.) and Dr. Jarvis, B. C. 674.
We reckon the 2460 years of the Great Jubilee from the captivity of Jehoiakim in the fourth year of his reign. This is dated B. C. 607, by Ptolemy, Petavius, Usher, &c.; but Playfair, Whiston, Prideaux and others date it from B. C. 606; while Berceux, Blair, Jackson and Dr. Hales date it in B. C. 605.
The 2300 days we begin at the commencement of the 70 weeks, at the going forth of the decree to restore and build Jerusalem, in the seventh year of the reign of Artaxerxes Longimanus. B. C. 457 is assigned as the date of this decree, by Blair, Prideaux, Ferguson, Horne, Watson, Ptolemy, and the great majority of commentators. Other chronologers reckon the 70 weeks from the twentieth year of Artaxerxes. Usher, Petavius and others thus reckon, and date from the year 4260 of the Julian Period, or B. C. 454. Hengstenberg dates it and reckons from B. C. 455.
The "seven weeks, and the sixty and two weeks," or 69 weeks to the commencement of Christ's ministry, terminated, according to our chronology, A. D. 27, at Christ's baptism. In this we were sustained by Dr. Hales and others; but Prideaux, Ferguson, and others, who terminate the 69 weeks in A. D. 26, contend that they terminated with the baptism of John, and that our Saviour was not baptized till three years later; while Usher, Petavius, Hengstenberg, Lydyiat and others, extend the 69 weeks to A. D. 29 or 30.
The crucifixion of our Saviour is dated in the years 31, 32, 33 and 34, from the vulgar era, by different chronologists. Dr. Hales contends that it was A. D. 31; while Sir Isaac Newton argues that it was in A. D. 34. Scaliger, Usher, Pearson, Bacon and others argue that it was in A. D. 33. Ferguson, Prideaux, Bullinger, Blair and others, terminate the 70 weeks at the crucifixion; while Lydyiat, Usher, Petavius and others, extend them three and a half years beyond.
It will be seen by the above that there is a disagreement among chronologers respecting the dates of the events from which we have severally reckoned the prophetic periods. And yet that disagreement is all within a circle of a very few years. It will be also seen, that reckoning any of the prophetic periods from the latest dates which are assigned by any standard chronologers for the events from which we have reckoned them, they cannot be extended beyond A. D. 1847; while there are intermediate points between the present and that year, where they would terminate, if reckoned from other given dates. As this ground is "disputed territory," and as there are chronologers of note, which, if followed in their dates, would terminate the several periods at various points within this disputed circle, we are certainly entitled to all the time thus in dispute, before it can be proved that our chronology, or the several events from which we have reckoned, are incorrect. We have followed those chronologers which are admitted to be the most authentic, and have adopted those dates which are considered to be the best sustained. It is now proved that those which we have followed are not perfectly accurate; and while there is a variation from perfect accuracy, it cannot be shown whether that variation is one day, one year, more or less; nor can it be shown which of the several chronologers within the disputed circle, who in any way vary from the ones we have followed, are the most accurate. The dates of others may be as much too late as those we have followed have been too early. It will, therefore, be time enough to look to them when all the intervening time shall have expired. And the authority on which such are predicated is far more questionable than that on which we have relied. While therefore we are satisfied that the truth is among the chronologers referred to, we are unable to decide which of them presents the best evidence of its possession.
OUR POSITION
Is therefore the same as that presented in the last number of the Shield, in the article under that head. We regard this as a period of time in which we are emphatically to take heed to ourselves lest at any time our hearts be overcharged with surfeiting and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon us unawares. Our position is one of continual and confident expectation. With no time which must necessarily intervene between the present and the time of the Lord's return—having run out all the prophetic periods, according to the chronologers we have followed respecting the date of the events from which we have reckoned—being at the terminus of all historical prophecy; and occupying that point of time to which the primitive church and the reformers looked, and which is designated by the signs of the times; we may daily and hourly look for the coming of our King—not knowing the day or the hour, or when the definite time is, and yet knowing that it is at the very door, that it cannot be long delayed, and may burst upon us at any moment. Thus we will continue to wait and watch, praying for, and loving his appearing, doing all we can for the preparation of our fellowmen for that event, yet willing to tarry here God's time until Salem's golden spires shall burst upon our vision, and we shall enter upon eternal realities.
THE BIBLE.
This little book I'd rather own than all the gold and gems
That e'er in monarchs' coffers shone, than all their diadems;
Nay, were the seas one chrysolite, the earth one golden ball,
And diamonds all the stars of night, this book were worth them all.
No, no; the soul ne'er found relief in glittering hoards of wealth;
Gems dazzle not the eye of grief, gold cannot purchase health;
But here a blessed balm appears to heal the deepest woe,
And he that seeks this book in tears, his tears shall cease to flow.
Here he who died on Calvary's tree has made that promise bless'd,
Ye heavy laden, come to me and I will give you rest,
A bruised reed I will not break, a contrite heart despise,
My burden's light, and all who take my yoke shall win the skies.
Yes, yes; this little book is worth all else to mortals given,
For what are all the joys of earth compared with joys in heaven?
This is the guide our Father gave to lead to realms of day,
A star whose luster gilds the grave, the life, the light, the way.—Sel.
On the Propriety of Introducing Religion in General Conversation.
MAY we be allowed to introduce here an opinion warmly maintained in the world, and which indeed strikes at the root of all rules for the management of religious debate recommended in the preceding chapter? It is, that the subject of religion ought on no occasion to be introduced in mixed company; that the diversity of sentiment upon it is so great, and so nearly connected with the tenderest feelings of our minds, as to be liable to lead to heat and contentions. Finally, that it is too grave and solemn a topic to be mixed in the miscellaneous circle of social discourse, much less in the festive effusions of convivial cheerfulness. Now, in answer to these allegations we must at least insist, that should religion, on other grounds, be found entitled to social discussion, the last observation, if true, would prove convivial cheerfulness incompatible with the spirit and practice of religion, rather than religion inadmissible into cheerful parties. And it is certainly a
retort difficult of evasion, that where to introduce religion herself is to endanger her honor, there she rather suffers in reputation by the presence of her friend. The man endeared by conviction to his religion will never bear to be long, much less to be stately separated from the object of his affections: and he whose zeal once determined him "to know nothing" among his associates, "but Jesus Christ, and him crucified," never could have dreamed of a latitude of interpretation which would admit a Christian into scenes where everything but Jesus Christ and him crucified, might be recognized with credit.
These principles appear so plain and incontrovertible, that the question seems rather to call for a different statement; viz., why religion should not be deemed admissible into every social meeting and friendly circle in which a Christian himself would choose to be found? That it is too weighty and important a subject for discussion, is an argument, which, standing alone, assumes the gross absurdity that either men never talk of that which most nearly interests them, or that when they do, they talk improperly. They will not, it is true, introduce a private concern, however important, in which no one is interested but themselves. But in the subject of religion, who is not interested? Or where will topics be found more universal in their application to all times, persons, places and circumstances, as well as more important, than those which relate to the eternal welfare of mankind?
Nor will it be avowed with greater color of reason, that topics so important suffer in point of gravity, or in the respect of mankind, by frequent discussion. We never observed men grow indifferent to their health, their affairs, their friends, their country, in proportion as these were made the subjects of their familiar discourse. On the contrary, oblivion has been noticed as the offspring of silence. The man who never mentions his friend is, we think, in general most likely to forget him. And far from denying the name of one, greater than any earthly friend "taken in vain," when mentioned discreetly in conversation, we generally find him most remembered and respected in secret, by those whose memories are occasionally refreshed by a reference to his word and authority in public. "Familiarity," indeed we have been told, "produces contempt;" a truism, on which we are convinced many persons, honestly, though blindly, rest their habitual, and even systematic reserve on religious subjects. But "familiarity" in our mind has reference rather to the manner, than to the act, of introducing religion. To us it is synonymous with a certain trite and trivial repetition of serious remarks, evidently "to no profit," which we sometimes hear from persons familiarized, rather by education than feeling, to the language of piety.
More particularly we refer it to a still more criminal habit, which, to their disgrace, some professors of religion share with the profane, of raising a laugh by the introduction of a religious observation, or even a scriptural quotation. "To court a grin where we should woo a soul," is surely an abuse of religion, as well in the parlor as the pulpit. Nor has the senate itself been always exempt from this impropriety. Dr. Johnson has long since pronounced a jest drawn from the Bible, the vulgarest because the easiest of all jests. And far from perverting religious topics to such a purpose himself, a feeling Christian would not often be found, where such would be the probable consequence of offering a pious sentiment in company.
That allusions involving religious questions are often productive of dispute and altercation, is a fact, which though greatly exaggerated, must yet in a degree be admitted. This circumstance may in some measure account for the singular reception which a religious remark is often observed to meet with in the world. It is curious to notice the surprise and alarm which, on such occasions, will frequently pervade the party present. The remark is received as a stranger-guest, of which no one knows the quality or intentions: and, like a species of intellectual foundling, it is cast upon the company without a friend to foster its infancy, or to own any acquaintance with the parent. A fear of consequences prevails. It is obvious that the feeling is, "We know not into147what it may grow; it is therefore safer to stifle it in the birth." This, if not the avowed, is the implied sentiment.
But is not this delicacy, this mauvaise honte, so peculiar perhaps to our countrymen on religious subjects, the very cause which operates so unfavorably upon that effect which it labors to obviate? Is not the very unfrequency of moral or religious observations, a sufficient account to be given both of the perplexity and the irritation said to be consequent upon their introduction? And were not religion (we mean such religious topics as may legitimately arise in mixed society) banished so much as it is from conversation, might not its occasional occurrence become by degrees as natural, perhaps as interesting, certainly as instructive, and after all as safe, as "a close committee on the weather," or any other of the authorized topics which are about as productive of amusement as of instruction? People act as if religion were to be regarded at a distance, as if even a respectful ignorance were to be preferred to a more familiar approach. This reserve, however, does not give an air of respect, so much as of mystery, to religion. An able writer (Bishop Sherlock) has observed, "that was esteemed the most sacred part of pagan devotion which was the most impure, and the only thing that was commendable in it is, that it was kept a great mystery." He approves of nothing in this religion but the modesty of withdrawing itself from the eyes of the world. But Christianity requires not to be shrouded in any such mysterious recesses. She does not, like the Eastern monarchs, owe her dignity to her concealment. She is, on the contrary, most honored where most known, and most revered where most clearly visible.
It will be obvious that hints rather than arguments belong to our present undertaking. In this view we may perhaps be excused if we offer a few general observations upon the different occasions on which a well-regulated mind would be solicitous to introduce religion into social discourse. The person possessed of such a mind, would be mainly anxious, in a society of Christians, that something should appear indicative of their profession. He would accordingly feel a strong desire to effect it when he plainly perceived his company engaged in no other topic, either innocently entertaining, or rationally instructive. This desire, however, would by no means cloud his brow, give an air of impatience to his countenance, or render him inattentive to the general tone and temper of the circle. On the contrary, he would endeavor to feel additional interest in his neighbor’s suggestions, in proportion as he hoped in turn to attract notice to his own. He would show long forbearance to the utmost extent of conscientious toleration. In the prosecution of his favorite design, he would never attempt a forced or unreasonable allusion to serious subjects; a caution requiring the nicest judgment and discrimination, most particularly where he felt the sentiments or the zeal of his company to be not congenial with his own. His would be the spirit of the prudent mariner, who does not approach even his native shore without carefully watching the winds, and sounding the channel; knowing well that a temporary delay, even on an unfriendly element, is preferable to a hasty landing his company, on shore indeed, but upon the point of a rock.
Happily for our present purpose, the days we live in afford circumstances both of foreign and domestic occurrence, of every possible variety of color and connection, so as to leave scarcely any mind unfurnished with a store of progressive remarks by which the most instructive truths may be approached through the most obvious topics. And a prudent mind will study to make its approaches to such an ultimate object, progressive: it will know also where to stop, rather indeed out of regard to others than to itself. And in the manly avowal of its sentiments, avoiding as well what is canting in utterance as technical in language, it will make them at once appear not the ebullition of an ill-educated imagination, but the result of a long-exercised understanding.
Nothing will be more likely to attract attention or secure respect to your remarks than the good taste in which they are delivered. On common topics we reckon him the most elegant speaker whose pronunciation and accent are so free from all peculiarities that it cannot be determined to what place he owes his birth. A polished critic of Rome accuses one of the finest of her historians of provinciality. This is a fault obvious to less enlightened critics, since the Attic herb-woman could detect the provincial dialect of a great philosopher. Why must religion have her Patinity? Why must a Christian adopt the quaintness of a party or a scholar the idiom of the illiterate? Why should a valuable truth be combined with a vulgar or fanatical expression? If either would offend when separate, how inevitably must they disgust when the one is mistakenly intended to set off the other. Surely this is not encasing our "apples of gold in pictures of silver."
We must not close this part of our subject without alluding to another, and still more delicate introduction of religion, in the way of reproof. Here is, indeed a point in religious conduct to which we feel it a boldness to make any reference at all. Bold, indeed, is that casuist who would lay down general rules on a subject where the consciences of men seem to differ so widely from each other: and feeble too often will be his justest rules where the feelings of timidity or delicacy rush in with a force which sweeps down many a land-mark erected for its own guidance, even by conscience itself.
Certainly, much allowance, perhaps respect, is due in cases of very doubtful decision, to those feelings which, after the utmost self-regulation of mind, are found to be irresistible. And certainly the habits and modes of address attached to refined society, are such as to place personal observations on a very different footing to that on which they stand by nature. A frown, even a cold and disapproving look, may be a reception which the profane expression or loose action of a neighbor of rank and opulence may have never before encountered from his flatterers or convivial companions. A vehement censure in his case might inflame his resentment without amending his fault. Whether the attempt be to correct a vice or rectify an error, one object should ever be steadily kept in view, to conciliate rather than to contend, to inform but not to insult, to evince that we assume not the character of a dictator, but the office of a Christian friend; that we have the best interests of the offender, and the honor of religion at heart, and that to reprove is so far from a gratification that it is a trial to ourselves; the effect of conscience, not the effect of choice.
The feelings therefore of the person to be admonished should be most scrupulously consulted. The admonition, if necessarily strong, explicit, and personal, should yet be friendly, temperate, and well bred. An offence, even though publicly committed, is generally best reproved in private, perhaps in writing. Age, superiority of station, previous acquaintance, above all, that sacred profession to which the honor of religion is happily made a personal concern, are circumstances which especially call for, and sanction the attempt recommended. And he must surely be unworthy his Christian vocation, who would not conscientiously use any influence or authority which he might chance to possess, in discountenancing or rectifying the delinquency he condemns.
We are indeed, as elsewhere, after the closest reflection and longest discussion, often forced into the general conclusion that "a good heart is the best casuist." And doubtless, where true Christian benevolence towards man meets in the same mind with an honest zeal for the glory of God, a way will be found, let us rather say will be opened, for the right exercise of this, as of every virtuous disposition.
Let us ever remember what we have so often insisted on, that self-denial is the ground-work, the indispensable requisite for every Christian virtue; that, without the habitual exercise of this principle we shall never be followers of him "who pleased not himself." And when we are called by conscience to the largest use of it in practice, we must arm ourselves with the highest considerations for the trial: we must consider him, who (through his faithful reproofs) "endured the contradiction of sinners against himself." And when even from Moses we hear the truly evangelical precept, "thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy brother, and not suffer sin upon him;" we must duly weigh how strongly its performance is enforced upon ourselves, by the conduct of one greater than Moses, who expressly "suffered for us, leaving us an example that we should follow his footsteps."—Practical Piety.
When will the Morning Come?
By Gen. Ewen
When will the morning come
Of that bright, happy day,
When God shall call me home,
No more on earth to stray?
When will the morning come
That knows no evening gloom?
When will the morning come
That gilds the Christian's tomb?
When will the morning come—
The gloomy night be past,
The wanderer called home
To rest in heaven at last?—Gen. Evan.
On Atheism
ON ATHEISM.—“I had rather,” says Sir Francis Bacon, “believe all the fables in the Legend, Talmud, and the Khoran, than that this universal frame is without a mind. God never wrought miracles to convince Atheists, because his ordinary works are sufficient to convince them. It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth men’s minds to Atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth them back to religion; for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest on them and go no farther; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate and linked together, it must needs fly to providence and deity.”
Don't be Discouraged
It is a fine remark of Fenelon, “Bear with yourself in correcting faults, as you would with others.” We cannot do all at once. But by constant pruning away of little faults, and cultivating humble virtues, we shall grow toward perfection. This simple rule—not to be discouraged by slow progress, but to persevere, overcoming evil habits one by one, such as sloth, negligence, or bad temper; and adding one excellence after another—“to faith, virtue; and to virtue, knowledge; and to knowledge, temperance; and to temperance, patience; and to patience, godliness; and to godliness, brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness, charity”—will conduct the slowest Christian at last to high religious attainments.
Human Lives as Teaching
Human lives are silent teaching—
Be they earnest, mild, and true—
Noblest deeds are noblest preaching
From the consecrated Few.
Newspaper Writing.
By Editor
SOME think they cannot make an effective article without ample space. They must have room to spread themselves. But small bullets often do great execution. A paragraph, pithily expressed, is often quoted from one end of the land to the other, and becomes a by-word for millions. In a few piquant sentences a keen writer may hit off a folly of the day, or rebuke a vice, or repel a sneer of infidelity, or put into a portable form an argument for religion. Such an article is not light and frivolous, because it is brief. In that small compass may be packed a tremendous thought and power of expression. It may be solid as a cannon ball, and cut down every thing before it. We beg, therefore, those who write for us, to condense what they have to say into the briefest space. They might save us infinite trouble by a little pains to pack their thoughts close together. If an article covers four pages, let them write it over and compress it into two. Ten to one it will be improved by the change. And it will save us the disagreeable task of criticism and mutilation. Ye who write for this busy age, speak quick; use short sentences; never stop the reader with a long or ambiguous word; let the stream of thought flow right on, and men will drink it in like water. Persons known or unknown to us, who have anything to say to the religious public that is worth hearing, and who can put their thoughts into a compact form, shall have our help to send them abroad.
[N. Y. Evangelist.]
DECEITFULNESS OF RICHES.
By James White
In Matt. xiii, we have the parable of the sower. The seed sown fell in four different places, or kinds of ground. Said Jesus, "Hear ye therefore the parable of the sower. When any one heareth the word of the kingdom," &c. The seed sown, then illustrates the word of the kingdom—not the story of the cross, nor of Christ's priesthood while on his Father's throne, but the word relating to the coming and kingdom of Christ.
FIRST CLASS.
"Hear ye therefore the parable of the sower. When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way-side."
Here is a perfect illustration given of the mass who come out to hear the word of God relating to the coming and kingdom of Christ, but not understanding it, nor feeling the importance of the subject, are at once turned away by the popular ministry.
SECOND CLASS.
"But he that received seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it; yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended."
We witness a class of persons who embrace unpopular Bible truth without counting the cost. They are ignorant of the many trials to be endured in the christian course. They at first see only the bright side, and do not learn that it is through much tribulation that we enter the kingdom of God. How unprepared for fiery trials are such. They endure but for a while. "When tribulation, or persecution ariseth because of the word, they are offended."
THIRD CLASS.
"He also that received seed among the thorns is he that heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful."
Reader, pause and reflect upon the unhappy condition of this class. They are among thorns! And what are these thorns? Ans. Riches, and the cares of this world, which riches bring upon those who have them. "The care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches choke the word." How painfully true this is of a great portion of those who have received the word of the kingdom! How many are pierced with thorns! Their minds are pressed with the cares of this world, and there is not room for the word to live in them, and bring forth fruit. Thorns are in their hearts. The word cannot bring forth fruit in them. It is choked by thorns. They reach out for more, but it is thorns.
Behold the dying miser! His life has been miserably spent in getting rich. Now he must leave his wealth, perhaps to profligate, unthankful sons. He dies upon a bed of thorns.
And how deceitful are riches. Most people regard them as necessary to happiness in this life; but what a deception. Who are the worthy, responsible worldly men? Ans. Poor men's sons! Children of the poor are also the pillars of the church. While popular vice and splendid misery are the portion of most of the rich. Those who toil early and late to accumulate wealth for their children are laboring to entail on them an evil. They weave for them a garment of thorns.
We now come to believers in the Third Message. When we see them depriving themselves of the means of grace, giving themselves but little time to read the word, for prayer, and to meet with those of like faith, yet eager to add to their wealth, we must regard them as not only being influenced by the deceptive power of riches, but made insane by it. There is no reason, no consistency, no sanity in such a course. And here is where quite a portion of the church are dying. "The cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches choke the word," and they are becoming unfruitful.
FOURTH CLASS.
"But he that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundred-fold, some sixty, some thirty."
The good ground has depth of soil. The plow-share of conviction has run deep, and broken up the "fallow ground" of the heart. The word of the kingdom takes deep root. Thorns and all bad weeds are kept out. And O the fruit! "Some an hundred-fold, some sixty, and some thirty."
Mark this. God calls all, but he chooses "the poor of this world, rich in faith." The word of the kingdom finds most of the "heirs of the kingdom" poor in this world. And thank God, it is the privilege for the rich in this world to become poor, and heirs of the kingdom of God.
But how? Let the Master answer. "Sell that ye have, and give alms, provide yourselves bags which wax not old, a treasure in the heavens." Luke xii, 36.
J. W.