VERSE 39. Thus shall he do in the most strong holds with a strange god, whom he shall acknowledge and increase with glory; and he shall cause them to rule over many, and shall divide the land for gain.
The system of paganism which had been introduced into France, as exemplified in the worship of the idol set up in the person of the Goddess of Reason, and regulated by a heathen ritual which had been enacted by the National Assembly for the use of the French people, continued in force till the appointment of Napoleon to the provisional consulate of France in 1799. The adherents of this strange religion occupied the fortified places, the strongholds of the nation, as expressed in this verse.
But that which serves to identify the application of this prophecy to France, perhaps as clearly as any other particular, is the statement made in the last clause of the verse, namely, that they should “divide the land for gain.” Previous to the revolution, the landed property of France was owned by a few landlords in immense estates. These estates were required by the law to remain undivided so that no heirs or creditors could partition them. But revolution knows no law; and in the anarchy that now reigned, as noted also in the eleventh of Revelation, the titles of the nobility were abolished, and their lands disposed of in small parcels for the benefit of the public exchequer. The government was in need of funds, and these large landed estates were confiscated and sold at auction, in parcels to suit purchasers. The historian thus records this unique transaction:—
“The confiscation of two-thirds of the landed property of the kingdom, which arose from the decrees of the Convention against the emigrants, clergy, and persons convicted at the Revolutionary Tribunals, . . . placed funds worth above £700,000,000 sterling at the disposal of the government.”—Alison, vol. i, p. 151.
When did ever an event transpire, and in what country, fulfilling a prophecy more completely than this? As the nation began to come to itself, a more rational religion was demanded, and the heathen ritual was abolished. The historian thus describes that event:—
“A third and bolder measure was the discarding of the heathen ritual, and re-opening the churches for Christian worship; and of this the credit was wholly Napoleon’s, who had to contend with the philosophic prejudices of almost all his colleagues. He, in his conversations with them, made no attempts to represent himself a believer in Christianity, but stood only on the necessity of providing the people with the regular means of worship, wherever it is meant to have a state of tranquility. The priests who chose to take the oath of fidelity to the government were re-admitted to their functions; and this wise measure was followed by the adherence of not less than 20,000 of these ministers of religion, who had hitherto languished in the prisons of France.”—Lockhart’s Life of Napoleon, vol. i, p. 154.
Thus terminated the reign of terror and the infidel revolution. Out of its ruins rose Bonaparte, to guide the tumult to his own elevation, place himself at the head of the French government, and strike terror to the hearts of nations.
VERSE 40. And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him; and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over.
After a long interval, the king of the south and the king of the north again appear on the stage of action. We have met with nothing to indicate that we are to look to any different localities for these powers from those which, shortly after the death of Alexander, constituted respectively the southern and northern divisions of his empire. The king of the south was at that time Egypt, and the king of the north was Syria, including Thrace and Asia Minor. Egypt is still, by common agreement, the king of the south, while the territory which at first constituted the king of the north, has been for the past four hundred years wholly included within the dominions of the Sultan of Turkey. To Egypt and Turkey, then, in connection with the power last under consideration, we must look for a fulfillment of the verse before us.
This application of the prophecy calls for a conflict to spring up between Egypt and France, and Turkey and France, in 1798; which year we have seen to be the commencement of the time of the end; and if history testifies that such a triangular war did break out in that year, it will be conclusive proof of the correctness of the application.
We inquire, therefore, Is it a fact that at the time of the end, Egypt did “push,” or make a comparatively feeble resistance, while Turkey did come like a resistless “whirlwind,” against “him,” that is the government of France? We have already produced some evidence that the time of the end commenced in 1798; and no reader of history need be informed that in that very year a state of open hostility between France and Egypt was inaugurated.
To what extent this conflict owed its origin to the dreams of glory deliriously cherished in the ambitious brain of Napoleon Bonaparte, the historian will form his own opinion; but the French, or Bonaparte, at least, contrived to make Egypt the aggressor. Thus, when in the invasion of that country he had secured his first foothold in Alexandria, he declared that “he had not come to ravage the country or to wrest it from the Grand Seignior, but merely to deliver it from the domination of the Mamelukes, and to revenge the outrages which they had committed against France.” Thiers’ French Revolution, vol. iv, p. 268. Again the historian says: “Besides, he [Bonaparte] had strong reasons to urge against them [the Mamelukes]; for they had never ceased to ill-treat the French.”—Ib. p. 273.
The beginning of the year 1798 found France indulging in immense projects against the English. The Directory desired Bonaparte to undertake at once a descent upon England; but he saw that no direct operations of that kind could be judiciously undertaken before the fall; and he was unwilling to hazard his growing reputation, by spending the summer in idleness. “But,” says the historian, “he saw a far-off land, where a glory was to be won which would gain a new charm in the eyes of his countrymen, by the romance and mystery which hung upon the scene. Egypt, the land of the Pharaohs and the Ptolemies, would be a noble field for new triumphs.”—White’s History of France, p. 469. But while still broader visions of glory opened before the eyes of Bonaparte, in those eastern historic lands, covering not Egypt only, but Syria, Persia, Hindostan, even to the Ganges itself, he had no difficulty in persuading the Directory that Egypt was the vulnerable point through which to strike at England, by intercepting her eastern trade. Hence, on the pretext above mentioned, the Egyptian campaign was undertaken.
The downfall of the papacy, which marked the termination of the 1260 years, and, according to verse 35, showed the commencement of the time of the end, transpired on the 10th of February, 1798, when Rome fell into the hands of Berthier, the general of the French. On the 5th of March following, Bonaparte received the decree of the Directory relative to the expedition against Egypt. May 3, he left Paris, and set sail from Toulon the 19th, with a large naval armament, consisting of 500 sail, carrying 40,000 soldiers and 10,000 sailors. July 5, Alexandria was taken, and immediately fortified. On the 23d, the decisive battle of the pyramids was fought, in which the Mamelukes contested the field with valor and desperation, but were no match for the disciplined legions of the French. Murad Bey lost all his cannon, 400 camels, and 3,000 men. The loss of the French was comparatively slight. On the 24th, Bonaparte entered Cairo, the capital of Egypt, and only waited the subsidence of the floods of the Nile, to pursue Murad Bey to Upper Egypt, whither he had retired with his shattered cavalry, and so make a conquest of the whole country. Thus the king of the south was able to make but a feeble resistance.
At this juncture, however, the situation of Napoleon began to grow precarious. The French fleet, which was his only channel of communication with France, was destroyed by the English under Nelson at Aboukir; and on September 2, of this same year, 1798, the Sultan of Turkey, under feelings of jealousy against France, artfully fostered by the English ambassadors at Constantinople, and exasperated that Egypt, so long a semi-dependency of the Ottoman Empire, should be transformed into a French province, declared war against France. Thus the king of the north [Turkey] came against him [France] in the same year that the king of the south [Egypt] “pushed,” and both “at the time of the end;” which is another conclusive proof that the year 1798 is the year which begins that period.
Was the coming of the king of the north, or Turkey, like the whirlwind in comparison with the pushing of Egypt? Napoleon had crushed the armies of Egypt; he essayed to do the same thing with the armies of the Sultan, who were menacing an attack from the side of Asia. Feb. 27, 1799, with 18,000 men, he commenced his march from Cairo to Syria. He first took the fort of El-Arish, in the desert, then Jaffa (the Joppa of the Bible), conquered the inhabitants of Naphlous at Zeta, and was again victorious at Jafet. Meanwhile a strong body of Turks had intrenched themselves at St. Jean d’Acre, while swarms of Mussulmans gathered in the mountains of Samaria, ready to swoop down upon the French when they should besiege Acre. Sir Sidney Smith at the same time appeared before St. Jean d’Acre with two English ships, reinforced the Turkish garrison of that place, and captured the apparatus for the siege, which Napoleon had sent round by sea from Alexandria. A Turkish fleet soon appeared in the offing, which, with the Russian and English vessels then co-operating with them, constituted the “many ships” of the king of the north.
On the 18th of March the siege commenced. Napoleon was twice called away to save some French divisions from falling into the hand of the Mussulman hordes that filled the country. Twice also a breach was made in the wall of the city; but the assailants were met with such fury by the garrison, that they were obliged, despite their best efforts, to give over the struggle. After a continuance of sixty days, Napoleon raised the siege, sounded, for the first time in his career, the note of retreat, and on the 21st of May, 1799, commenced to retrace his steps to Egypt.
“And he shall overflow and pass over.” We have found events which furnish a very striking fulfillment of the pushing of the king of the south, and the whirlwind onset of the king of the north, against the French power. Thus far there is quite a general agreement in the application of the prophecy. We now reach a point where the views of expositors begin to diverge. To whom do the words, “he shall overflow and pass over,” refer? to France or the king of the north? The application of the remainder of this chapter depends upon the answer to this question. From this point, two lines of interpretation are maintained. Some apply the words to France, and endeavor to find a fulfillment in the career of Napoleon. Others apply them to the king of the north, and accordingly point for a fulfillment to events in the history of Turkey. We speak of these two positions only, as the attempt which some make to bring in the papacy here is so evidently wide of the mark that its consideration need not detain us. If neither of these positions is free from difficulty, as we presume no one will claim that it is, absolutely, it only remains that we take that one which has the weight of evidence in its favor.
Respecting the application of the prophecy to Napoleon, or to France under his leadership, so far as we are acquainted with his history, we do not find events which we can urge with any degree of assurance, as the fulfillment of the remaining portion of this chapter; and hence do not see how it can be thus applied. It must, then, be fulfilled by Turkey, unless it can be shown (1) that the expression, “king of the north,” does not apply to Turkey, or (2) that there is some other power besides either France or the king of the north, which fulfilled this part of the prediction. But if Turkey, now occupying the territory which constituted the northern division of Alexander’s empire, is not the king of the north of this prophecy, then we are left without any principle to guide us in the interpretation. And we presume all will be agreed that there is no room for the introduction of any other power here. The French king and the king of the north, are the only ones to whom the prediction can apply. The fulfillment must lie between them.
Some considerations certainly favor the idea that there is, in the latter part of verse 40, a transfer of the burden of the prophecy from the French power to the king of the north. The king of the north is introduced just before as coming forth like a whirlwind, with chariots, horsemen, and many ships. The collision between this power and the French we have already noticed. The king of the north with the aid of his allies, gained the day in this contest; and the French, foiled in their efforts, were driven back into Egypt. Now it would seem to be the more natural application to refer the “overflowing and passing over” to that power which emerged in triumph from that struggle; and that power was Turkey. We will only add that one who is familiar with the Hebrew assures us that the construction of this verse is such as to make it necessary to refer the overflowing and passing over to the king of the north, these words expressing the result of that movement which is just before likened to the fury of the whirlwind.
The Sabbath-School.
By Ellen G. White
Christ Riding into Jerusalem.
JESUS selected for his use a colt upon which man had never sat. The disciples in glad enthusiasm spread their garments upon the colt, and placed their Master upon him. No sooner was he seated than a loud shout of triumph rent the air, and the multitude hailed him as Messiah, their King. Jesus now accepted the homage which he had never before permitted, and his disciples received this as a proof that their glad hopes were to be realized by seeing him acknowledged at Jerusalem as the King of Israel. They were unable to present him with costly gifts, but they spread their outer garments as a carpet in his path, and they also strewed the leafy branches of the olive and palm in the way. They could lead the triumphal procession with no royal standards, but they cut down the spreading palm boughs, nature's emblem of victory, and waved them aloft, while their loud acclamations and hosannas rent the air.
As they proceeded, the multitude was continually increased by those who had heard of the coming of Jesus and hastened to join the procession. Spectators were constantly mingling with the throng and asking, Who is this? What does all this commotion signify? They had all heard of Jesus and were expecting him to go to Jerusalem, but they knew that he had heretofore refused to receive kingly honors, and they were greatly astonished to learn that this was he. They wondered what could have wrought this change in him who had declared that his kingdom was not of this world.
While they are wondering and questioning, the eager crowd silence their queries with a shout of triumph that is repeated again and again, and is echoed from the surrounding hills and valleys. And now the joyful procession is joined by crowds from Jerusalem, that have heard of the grand demonstration, and hasten to meet the Saviour and conduct him to Jerusalem. From the great gathering of the Hebrews to attend the passover, thousands go forth to welcome Jesus to the city. They greet him with the waving of palm branches and a burst of sacred song. The priests at the temple sound the trumpet for evening service, but there are few to respond, and the rulers say to each other in alarm, "The world has gone after him."
It was the purpose of Jesus to draw attention to the crowning sacrifice that was to end his mission to a fallen world. They were assembling at Jerusalem to celebrate the passover, while he, the antitypical Lamb, by a voluntary act set himself apart as an oblation. Jesus understood that it was needful in all future ages that the church should make his death for the sins of the world a subject of deep thought and study. Every fact connected with it should be verified beyond a doubt. It was necessary, then, that the eyes of all people should be directed to him, that the demonstrations which preceded his great sacrifice should be such as to call the attention of all to the sacrifice itself. After such an exhibition as that attending his entry into Jerusalem, all eyes would follow his rapid progress to the final end.
The startling events connected with this triumphal ride were calculated to be the talk of every tongue, and bring Jesus before every mind. After his crucifixion, these events would be connected with his trial and death; prophecies would be searched and would reveal the fact that this was indeed the Messiah; and converts to the faith of Jesus would be multiplied in all lands. In this one triumphant scene of his earthly life, the Saviour might have appeared escorted by heavenly angels and heralded by the trumps of God; but he remained true to the life of humiliation he had accepted, bearing the burden of humanity, till his life was given for the life of the world.
This day, which seemed to the disciples the crowning day of their lives, would have been shadowed with gloomy clouds had they known that this scene of rejoicing was but a prelude to the suffering and death of their Master. Although he had repeatedly told them of his certain sacrifice, yet in the glad triumph of the present they forgot his sorrowful words, and looked forward to his prosperous reign on the throne of David. The shouts went up continually, "Hosanna to the Son of David! Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord! Hosanna in the highest!" It was as if all that vast multitude were seeking to excel one another in responding to the call from a prophetic past.
Many Pharisees witnessed the scene, and, burning with envy and malice, sought to turn the popular current. Fearful that this multitude, the strength of their numbers, would lift Jesus to the position of king, they, as a last resort, pressed through the crowd and accosted him with reproving and threatening words: "Master, rebuke thy disciples." They declared that such noisy and excited demonstrations were unlawful and would not be permitted by the authorities. But the reply of Jesus silenced their haughty commands: "I tell you that if these should hold their peace the stones would immediately cry out."
God himself had, in his special providence, arranged the order of events then transpiring, and if men had failed to carry out the divine plan, he would have given a voice to the inanimate stones and they would have hailed his Son with acclamations of praise. This scene had been revealed in prophetic vision to the holy seers of old, and man was powerless to turn aside the purposes of Jehovah. As the silenced Pharisees drew back, the words of Zechariah were taken up by hundreds of voices, "Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem. Behold, thy king cometh unto thee; he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt, the foal of an ass."
When the procession arrived at the summit of the hill and was about to descend into the city, Jesus halted, and all the multitude with him. Jerusalem in all its glory lay before them, bathed in the light of the declining sun. The temple attracted all eyes. In stately grandeur it towered above all else, seeming to point toward Heaven, as if directing the people upward to the only true and living God. This temple in its splendid majesty had been the pride and glory of the Jewish nation. The Romans also prided themselves in it as an unequaled monument of magnificence. Their king had united with the Jews in embellishing it, and together they had spared no pains nor expense to furnish it with the most costly and beautiful decorations both without and within.
Jesus gazes upon the enchanting scene before him, and the vast multitude hush their shouts, spell-bound by this sudden vision of beauty. All eyes turn instinctively upon the Saviour, expecting to see in his countenance the admiration which they themselves feel. But instead of this they behold a cloud of sorrow gathering upon his countenance. They are surprised and disappointed to see the eyes of the Saviour fill with tears, and his body rock to and fro like a tree before the tempest, while a wail of anguish bursts from his quivering lips as if from the depths of a broken heart. What a sight was this for angels to behold! Their loved Commander in an agony of tears! What a sight was this for that glad throng who had accompanied him with shouts of triumph and waving of palm-branches to that summit overlooking the glorious city where they fondly hoped he would reign! Their acclamations were now silenced, while many tears flowed in sympathy with the grief they could not comprehend.
Jesus had wept at the grave of Lazarus, but it was in a God-like grief in harmony with the occasion. But this sudden sorrow is like a note of wailing in a grand triumphal chorus. In the midst of a scene of rejoicing, where all were paying him homage, Israel's King was in tears; not the silent tears of gladness, but tears and groans of insuppressible agony. The multitude are struck with a sudden gloom, while they look upon this grief which is incomprehensible to them. The tears of Jesus were not in anticipation of physical suffering as he contemplated the crucifixion, though just before him was the garden of Gethsemane, where he knew that soon the horror of a great darkness would overshadow him. The sheep gate was also in sight, through which for centuries the beasts for sacrificial offerings had been conducted. This gate was soon to open for him, the great Antitype toward whose sacrifice for the sins of the world all these offerings had pointed. Near by was Calvary, the scene of his approaching agony.
Yet it is not because of those reminders of his cruel death that the Redeemer weeps and groans in anguish of spirit. His is no selfish sorrow. The thought of physical pain does not intimidate that noble, self-sacrificing soul. It is the sight of Jerusalem, that pierces the heart of Jesus with anguish—Jerusalem that had rejected the Son of God and scorned his love, who refused to be convinced by his mighty miracles and is about to take his life. He sees what she is in her guilt of rejecting her Redeemer, and what she might have been had she accepted Him who alone could heal her wound. He had come to save her; how can he give up the child of his care!
He raised his hand—that had so often blessed the sick and suffering—and waving it toward the doomed city, in broken utterances of grief, exclaimed: "If thou hadst known, even thou, in this thy day the things which belong to thy peace—" Here the Saviour paused and left unsaid what might have been the condition of Jerusalem had she accepted the only help that God could give her,—the gift of his beloved Son. If Jerusalem had known what it was her privilege to know, and had acted according to the light bestowed upon her by God, she might have stood forth in the pride of prosperity, the queen of kingdoms, free in the strength of her God-given power. There would have been no armed soldiers waiting at her gates, no Roman banners waving from her walls. The glorious destiny which might have blessed Jerusalem, had she accepted her Redeemer, rose before the Son of God. He saw that she might through him have been healed of her grievous malady, liberated from bondage, and established as the mighty metropolis of the earth. From her walls the dove of peace would have gone forth to all nations. She would have been the world's diadem of glory.
But the bright picture of what Jerusalem might have been had she accepted the Son of God, fades from the Saviour's sight as he realizes what she is under the oppressive Roman yoke, bearing the frown of God, doomed to his retributive justice. He takes up the broken thread of his lamentations: "But now they are hid from thine eyes.. For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side, and shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation."
Hang on Like a Beaver.
By Young Pilgrim
When our Tom was six years old, he went into the forest one afternoon to meet the hired man, who was coming home with a load of wood. The man placed Master Tommy on the top of the load, and drove homeward. Just before reaching the farm, the team went pretty briskly down a steep hill. When Tommy entered the house, his mother said, "Tommy, my dear, were you not frightened when the horses went trotting so swiftly down Crow Hill?" "Yes, mother, a little," replied Tom, honestly; "I asked the Lord to help me, and hung on like a beaver." Sensible Tom! Why sensible? Because he joined working to praying. Let his words teach this life-lesson: in all troubles, pray and hang on like a beaver; by which I mean, that, while you ask God to help you, you must help yourself with all your might.
—Young Pilgrim.
Two Ways
Two WAYS.—There are two ways of carrying your religion into your business. Talking religion to the people whom you meet in your business hours is one way; dealing fairly, meeting all obligations promptly, treating those in your employment with kindness and courtesy, is another way. Some Christians may do good by the first method; no Christian can do any good who neglects the second.—S. S. Times.
Keeping God’s Commandments
“A good understanding have all they that keep His commandments.”
The Sabbath Law.
LAW expresses obligation. It is not advice. Mere advice leaves it at our option whether to accept it or not. Law leaves no option, but peremptorily says, "Thou shalt."
If three points are made clear to our minds, there can be no further question concerning the advisability or necessity of obedience. 1. The authority; is it sufficient? 2. The reason; is it just and right? 3. The terms or methods of statement; are they plain and specific?
Now in regard to the fourth commandment every requisite is fully met:—
1. The authority is of Jehovah himself—the Creator of the heavens and the earth. He is the "one Lawgiver;" "Supreme Moral Governor;" "God over all." When he speaks "every mouth may be stopped." The authority is so complete—so entirely beyond questioning—that it would be sufficient to rest everything here, and stand in silent awe. But, as we said, every requirement is met in this law, as all may readily see.
2. The reason is sufficient, and remains to-day with all the force which it ever possessed. God made the world and all things therein in six days. This was, it is, and it will forever be true. He rested the seventh day. This is also an immutable and eternal truth. He blessed the seventh day and sanctified it; that is, set it apart from the other days, to be appropriated to sacred uses. This is true to-day; it can never cease to be true. All this is undeniable. In sanctifying it he reserved a special proprietorship in it as a sacred day, giving to man the other six days for his work. No one can deny his right to reserve one day to himself—to be used only as he shall direct. No one can dispute his "right of property" in the seventh day.
3. The law is given in plain terms; so plain that a child can understand them. Indeed, we have known children from five to eight years of age to be thoroughly converted from the observance of the heathen "day of the sun" to the keeping of "the Sabbath of the Lord thy God," by simply reading the fourth commandment. The difficulty in perceiving the truth of the Sabbath is not with the understanding but with the will. No law could possibly be given in plainer terms.
This being the case, where is the chance for option or choice on the part of the subject—the creature? He who interposes his own will, when the will of the Creator is plainly expressed, does it at his peril. Such a procedure is the highest treason, the most unwarranted usurpation of which a feeble, dependent creature can be guilty. And yet this is being done continually, and (let the Heavens be astonished!) it is done by those who profess to regard the authority of the Lawgiver; who profess to reverence, to love, to adore him! Notwithstanding the plainness, the reasonableness, the completeness of authority, of the fourth commandment, every term in it is set aside, and something substituted for it, even by those who claim to "fear God, and keep his commandments."
To show the nature of the claim in behalf of the first day, we give another extract from our "Review of Baird":—
A most important part of Sabbath investigation is that which treats of the Sabbath as "a sign." A correct understanding of this subject will effectually correct Mr. Baird's errors in regard to "the ends" of the Sabbath institution. He treats it merely in the light of a beneficial institution, subservient to man's choice, not being holy except by our own action; and no one day belonging to God more than another except as we choose to devote it to him. But this is as far from the truth presented in the word of God as midnight is from noon. The Bible leaves no option with man in regard to the observance of the Sabbath. It represents it as a memorial—a sign of the creative power of Jehovah; his own chosen day; a day blessed by the Lord; by him separated and set apart from the other days. The very nature of a memorial or commemoratory institution forbids that Mr. Baird's conclusions should be true.
To illustrate, we will suppose, as a parallel, that the fourth of July has been set apart by our government, by an express law, as the day to commemorate the independence of the United States; and the law gives as the reason for such appointment, the signing of the Declaration of Rights. Now a party rises up and claims that the design of the law will be carried out by observing the eighth of January instead; that we are required to keep one day of the year, and not any particular day; that both the letter and the spirit of the law will be kept by observing the eighth of January; that on that day a very memorable event occurred, worthy of being commemorated; that history has made much mention of the victory of Gen. Jackson, on that day; and that as we are to keep the day, it must be optional with us which day we keep. Now, query: Would that law be kept by keeping the eighth day of January instead of the fourth of July? The law specifies the particular day—the fourth of July. It gives the reason—the signing of the Declaration of Independence on that day. It is not optional with us—the law carries with it the authority of the government. On the other hand, the eighth of January is not mentioned in the law; the victory at New Orleans is not the reason given for appointing the day; history is not law, so a historical fact cannot supersede a legal enactment; though the day is to be observed by us, it is not a matter of option, but must be kept in obedience to the law; the claim and authority of the government are honored only by the observance of that day which is set apart by law. He would be considered wildly foolish, who would contest the case in favor of the eighth of January, under such circumstances.
But such is the relative position of the parties in this Sabbath controversy. The law says the seventh day. Mr. Baird acknowledges the validity of the law, but says the first day will answer instead of the seventh. The law gives as the reason, that God rested on the seventh day. Mr. Baird says the better reason is that Christ arose on first day. The law says the seventh day is the Lord's day, the day of his choice, the day which he reserved to himself, and hallowed to sacred use. Mr. Baird says no one day belongs to the Lord, except as we give it to him, or is hallowed except as we make it so, and the first day will answer all the ends of the law. The fact that it is a law, that it is by authority, binds us to observe the day pointed out in the law. But Mr. Baird says a day not indicated by authority, not enforced by any law, will answer far better than the day mentioned in the law! Was ever folly and presumption more apparent?
A Warning.
By Editor
NONE of us are much inclined to profit by the experience and mistakes of others. We generally wait until we become involved in the same difficulty before paying heed to a warning. We heard it once objected that a majority of those who were earnest "health reformers," or hygienists, were in a "broken-down condition." But the objector was not aware of the fact that they were not hygienists—that they refused to conform to the laws of health—until their "broken-down condition" forced the necessity upon them. He did not consider that this broken-down condition might have been averted by a timely obedience to the laws of their being.
We have been pained to read of another "clerical scandal"—another minister who has disgraced himself and brought reproach upon the gospel in the work of which he was engaged. And probably a small proportion of those who read the brief account in the daily papers will ever learn, or care to learn, of the causes which led to the unfortunate occurrence.
A Baptist minister of St. Louis, well known and of good repute, was seen in a railroad car in a state of intoxication, where he grossly insulted the females in the car. This is the report. Now for the further facts.
The members of his church come forward and state that he was an efficient and very zealous minister, and that in his zeal he greatly overworked himself; that they protested against his laboring so much and so hard, but, like many others who find so much to do, he could not "find time" to take the rest which his exhausted system and fevered brain demanded. In this condition he traveled, but his brain seemed to have passed the resting point. Those who have sadly overworked their brains will know exactly what we mean by this expression. His landlord advised him to take some whisky, asserting that it would soothe and quiet him. He took it and the result is before the world.
Most of our readers will be astonished that whisky should be recommended, or accepted as an anodyne in such a case. Only think! whisky to soothe and quiet a fevered body and a burning brain. But before you let your wonder rise too high, consider, (1) That it was a landlord who recommended the whisky. Nothing wonderful in that. (2) That the man who accepted it was nearly wrought up to a state of desperation. He was ready to grasp anything which was offered as a means of relief, perhaps without the power to calmly consider the probable consequences. Many bright minds have broken entirely under such circumstances. Some of the most promising men have committed suicide under the severe mental strain of over study and work. (3) That physicians are daily pursuing the same course so wisely pursued by this landlord. They are feeding whisky to fevered patients; adding fuel to the flame which is consuming the life forces. Here you may stop and wonder.
We have no idea that brain workers will profit by this warning. Some labor under great difficulties; they cannot "see through their work," nor decide how to neglect it or to abandon it in season. In many cases their friends urge that they "cannot be spared" from their work. But when the jaded brain fails to perform its functions, or when they fall into an untimely grave, they are spared; they must be spared.
As a people we are great trespassers in this respect. Our ministers and active mind-workers are so few that there is great danger of putting too heavy a load upon the willing laborer; a great inducement to the zealous servant of Christ to strive to accomplish more than he can do well, or safely undertake. Exactly what is duty to do under these circumstances is hard to tell. Few can be aware of the condition of the brain of the hard student or worker. Friends and even physicians are not prepared to give advice suitable to the case. An "inscrutable and all-wise providence" has to bear the blame of many very unwise actions of parents, teachers, ministers, and writers.
While many will only blame the subject of this article, some will be able to appreciate his sad condition, and to pity him. A few may pray God to avert such a calamity which, they are partially aware, hangs over them. But will any heed the warning, and preserve their lives in the midst of a multitude of cares and duties? Of this there is room to doubt.