Earlier text: General ArticlesThoughts on Daniel.
By U. Smith
CHAPTER IX.—THE SEVENTY WEEKS.
IT now becomes an important point to determine in what year the crucifixion took place. The following evidence is sufficient to be decisive on this question:— The Saviour attended but four passovers according to the record of John, mentioned in the following passages of his gospel. John 2:13; 5:1; 6:4; 13:1. At the last-mentioned passover he was crucified. From facts already established, let us then see where this would locate the crucifixion. As he began his ministry in the autumn of A. D. 27, his first passover would be in the following spring, A. D. 28. His second would be A. D. 29; his third A. D 30; and his fourth and last A. D. 31. This gives us three years and a half for his public ministry, and corresponds exactly to the prophecy that he should be cut off in the midst, or middle, of the seventieth week. As that week of years commenced in the autumn of A. D. 27, its middle would be three and one half years later, in the spring of 31, where the crucifixion occurred. Dr. Hales quotes Eusebius, A. D. 300, as saying: "It is recorded in history that the whole time of our Saviour's teaching and working miracles was three years and a half, which is the half of a week [of years]. This, John the evangelist will represent to those who critically attend to his gospel." Of the unnatural darkness which occurred at the crucifixion, Hales, vol. i, pp. 69, 70 thus speaks: "Hence it appears that the darkness which 'overspread the whole land of Judea' at the time of our Lord's crucifixion was preternatural, 'from the sixth until the ninth hour,' or from noon till three in the afternoon, in its duration, and also in its time, about full moon, when the moon could not possibly eclipse the sun. The time it happened, and the fact itself, are recorded in a curious and valuable passage of a respectable Roman Consul, Aurelius Cassiodorius, Senator, about A. D. 514: 'In the consulate of Tiberius Cæsar Aug. V. and Ælius Sejanus (U. C. 784, A. D. 31), our Lord Jesus Christsuffered, on the 8th of the calends of April (25th of March): when there happened such an eclipse of the sun as was never before nor since.' "In this year, and in this day, agree also the Council of Cæsarea, A. D. 196 or 198, the Alexandrian Chronicle, Maximus Monachus, Nicephorus Constantinus, Cedrenus; and in this year, but on different days, concur Eusebius and Epiphanius, followed by Kepler, Bucher, Patinus, and Petavius, some reckoning it the 10th of the calends of April, others the 13th." Here, then, are thirteen credible authorities, locating the crucifixion of Christ in the spring of A. D. 31. We may therefore set this down as a fixed fact, as the most cautious, or the most skeptical could require nothing more. This being in the middle of the last week, we have simply to reckon backward three and a half years to find where the sixty-nine weeks ended, and forward from that point, three and a half years, to find the termination of the whole period. Thus going back from the crucifixion A. D. 31, spring, three and a half years, we find ourselves in the autumn of A. D. 27, where, as we have seen, the sixty-nine weeks ended, and Christ commenced his public ministry. And going from the crucifixion forward three and a half years, we are brought to the autumn of A. D. 34, as the grand terminating point of the whole period of the seventy weeks. This date is marked by the martyrdom of Stephen, the formal rejection of the gospel of Christ by the Jewish Sanhedrim in the persecution of his disciples, and the turning of the apostles to the Gentiles. Acts 9:1-18. And these are just the events which we should expect to take place when that period which was cut off for the Jews, and allotted to them as a peculiar people, should fully expire. A word respecting the date of the seventh of Artaxerxes, and the array of evidence on this point is complete. Was the seventh of Artaxerxes B. C. 457? For all those who can appreciate the force of facts, the following testimony will be sufficient here:— "The Bible gives the data for a complete system of chronology, extending from the creation to the birth of Cyrus—a clearly ascertained date. From this period downward we have the undisputed canon of Ptolemy, and the undoubted era of Nabonassar, extending below our vulgar era. At the point where inspired chronology leaves us, this canon of undoubted accuracy commences. And thus the whole arch is spanned. It is by the canon of Ptolemy that the great prophetical period of seventy weeks is fixed. This canon places the seventh year of Artaxerxes in the year B. C. 457; and the accuracy of this canon is demonstrated by the concurrent agreement of more than twenty eclipses. This date we cannot change from B. C. 457, without first demonstrating the inaccuracy of Ptolemy's canon. To do this it would be necessary to show that the large number of eclipses by which its accuracy has been repeatedly demonstrated have not been correctly computed; and such a result would unsettle every chronological date, and leave the settlement of epochs and the adjustment of eras entirely at the mercy of every dreamer, so that chronology would be of no more value than mere guess-work. As the seventy weeks must terminate in A. D. 34, unless the seventh of Artaxerxes is wrongly fixed, and as that cannot be changed without some evidence to that effect, we inquire, What evidence marked that termination? The time when the apostles turned to the Gentiles harmonizes with that date better than any other which has been named. And the crucifixion in A. D. 31, in the midst of the last week, is sustained by a mass of testimony which cannot be easily invalidated."—Advent Herald. From the facts above set forth, we see that, reckoning the seventy weeks from the decree given to Ezra in the seventh of Artaxerxes, B. C. 457, there is the most perfect harmony throughout. The important and definite events of the manifestation of the Messiah at his baptism, the commencement of his public ministry, the crucifixion and the turning away from the Jews to the Gentiles, with the proclamation of the new covenant, all come in, in their exact place, and like a bright galaxy of blazing orbs of light, cluster round to set their seal to the prophecy and make it sure. It is thus evident that the decree to Ezra in the seventh of Artaxerxes, B. C. 457, is the point from which to date the seventy weeks. That was the going forth of the decree in the sense of the prophecy. The two previous decrees were preparatory and preliminary to this; and indeed they are regarded by Ezra as parts of it, the three being taken as one great whole. For in Ezra 6:14, we read: "And they builded and finished it, according to the commandment of the God of Israel, and according to the commandment of Cyrus, and Darius, and Artaxerxes, king of Persia." It will be noticed that the decrees of these three kings are spoken of as one: "The commandment," margin decree, singular number, "of Cyrus and Darius and Artaxerxes;" showing that they are all reckoned as a unit, the different decrees being but the successive steps by which the work was accomplished. And this decree could not be said to have "gone forth," as intended by the prophecy, till the last permission which the prophecy required was embodied in the decree and clothed with the authority of the empire. This point was reached in the grant given to Ezra, but not before. Here the decree assumed the proportions, and covered the ground, demanded by the prophecy, and from this point its "going forth" must be dated. With the seventy weeks we are now done; but there remains a longer period and other important events to be considered. The seventy weeks are but the first 490 years of the 2300. Take 490 from 2300, and there remain 1810. The 490, as we have seen, ended in the autumn of A. D. 34. If to this date we now add the remaining 1810 years, we shall have the termination of the whole period. Thus, to A. D. 34, autumn, add 1810, and we have A. D., autumn, eighteen hundred and forty-four. Thus speedily and surely do we find the termination of the 2300 days, when once the seventy weeks have been located. One other point should here be noticed. We have seen that the seventy weeks are the first 490 days of the 2300; that these days are prophetic, signifying literal years, according to the Bible rule, a day for a year, Num. 14:34; Eze. 4:6, as is proved by the fulfillment of the seventy weeks, and as all eminent expositors agree; that they commenced in 457 B. C., and ended in A. D. 1844, provided the number is right, and twenty-three hundred is the correct reading. With this point established there would seem to be no room for further controversy. On this point Dr. Hales remarks:— "There is no number in the Bible whose genuineness is better ascertained than that of the 2300 days. It is found in all the printed Hebrew editions, in all the MSS. of Kennicott and De Rossi's collations, and in all the ancient versions, except the Vatican copy of the Septuagint, which reads 2400, followed by Symmachus; and some copies noticed by Jerome, 2200, both evidently literal errors in excess and defect, which compensate each other and confirm the mean, 2300."—Chronology, vol. ii, p. 512. The Folly of Excuses.
By Rev. Geo. P. Hayes
NEXT to the weakness of making excuses is the weakness of accepting them. To be of any use, an excuse should remedy the evil which calls for explanation. Reflection will show that a case can hardly be conceived of where any excuse will effect that end. No matter what excuse Grouchy might have been able to give to Napoleon for failing to come to his aid at Waterloo, the excuse could not reverse the historic defeat. The fact was, he was not there at the crucial moment and the result was the same as if he was absent without excuse. Nature's government is the perfection of government; and she excuses nothing. The common law maxim, that "ignorance of the law doth not excuse," is enforced by nature as it is enforced nowhere else. We relieve no disaster by apologies. We take poison with the best intentions, and die just as if we intended to commit suicide. Malaria is all around us and it affects us just as if we had gone there on purpose, although we may actually be on an errand of mercy. Though thrust by another's unintentional awkwardness against the heated stove, it burns us as if we had planned it in malice. The contrast between this natural government and most human government is very marked. At home children are taught by their acceptance to present excuses often forged and false; and they grow up believing that to refuse to accept them is a cruel hardship. At school the same course of false training is kept up, and they come to think that a good excuse is as good as a good deed. By and by they go out from home and school; and as a rule society refuses to accept excuses from all who offer them, and yet insists on their being accepted by all to whom they are offered. The parable of the unmerciful servant is thoroughly human. This morning I read a bitter criticism on the governmental management of a reformatory institution by a business man who has the reputation of never keeping a clerk who has to offer excuses for faults and failures. Yet here is a school which cannot expel its pupils which in his judgment could get along without any punishment in its control of the incorrigible inmates. We can only be taught the absolute necessity of diligent foresight by the refusal to accept or offer excuses. Nature controls all of us. When we go into a room to a stove we first touch it lightly to find out whether it is warm or not before we lean our hand on it. When we go to a new country we inquire what fruits are wholesome before we eat them. So shipwrecked sailors watch what berries the birds pick to find out what are healthful and harmless. When we travel in new lands we inquire into their laws to save ourselves from the penalties of the courts. By this method the responsibility of knowledge is put upon the subject. In most homes the responsibility of knowledge is laid upon those who are to govern. So parents hold teachers responsible for being sure that the rules of the school are known by their children before they are held guilty for their violation. The result of this vicious method of home training is that these same children have to learn in the bitter school of hard experience that excuses do not count. Half the grumblers and complainers who fill the world with the story of their unappreciated talents can only justify their own estimate of their abilities on the ground that an excuse is as good as a success. Alas for them, however, society looks at their failures and refuses to entrust them with any great office, and they are unwilling to discharge anything but great obligations. It is sometimes said for another purpose, "nothing succeeds like success." But the truth is nothing succeeds but success. Failure is failure, and that is all anyone can say. It may well, therefore, be questioned whether it would not be well for us all at once to resolve that in no case shall we offer an excuse. It would do all mankind good in their own thoughts of themselves to call their failures failures. This would at once change the use to which the reasons of failure would be put. Now they are employed as excuses to ourselves and others. Then they would be so many lessons toward wiser methods for the future. This at least seems sure, that we have no warrant from nature or revelation that excuses are acceptable to the Ruler of the universe. No excuse seems to be sufficient for the rejection of his Son. The Judgment will not only reject poor excuses, but it will reject all excuses. Then the saved will be saved and the lost will be lost. Who ever heard101of an excuse that the Bible gave good reason to believe would be sufficient to save the offerer, and so a substitute for Christ? In the next world, as in this, things will be dealt with in their true character. If now we needlessly build for shelter on some unstable foundation, we are left without time to rebuild when the floods are upon us; so then the wood, hay, stubble, will consume away before our eyes and we be without remedy. It is this fact of their future utter uselessness that makes it so evil in us to teach our children to offer and rely on excuses. For this life and the next this vicious element in our unconscious education is only and always evil. The harm we do to them and, indeed, to all we so treat as to encourage reliance on excuses by accepting them from others or offering them to others, can only be repaired by their learning better habits by sad humiliations and bitter failures. To decline all excuses and call a failure a failure is nature's way, and the quickest way to develop the utmost practical caution and foresight.—Rev. Geo. P. Hayes, in Christian Union. A bright little girl upon being asked of what sort of spirit that of the Pharisee was, replied, that "it was doing a good thing, and then feeling big over it." Multum in Parvo. Notes on Lesson for March 9.
"AND he went through the cities and villages, teaching, and journeying toward Jerusalem." Jesus was at this time in Perea, beyond the Jordan, where he went after he escaped from those who were determined to stone him. See John 10 : 39-42. He seems to have taken a large circuit, teaching by the way, and did not, probably, visit Jerusalem again until after the resurrection of Lazarus, not until the time of his crucifixion. As he was teaching, one said to him, "Lord, are there few that be saved?" The man probably inferred from the teaching of Christ that but few would be saved, and may have been prompted merely by idle curiosity. It may be that he had a sinister design; that he wished Jesus to make some statement that would prejudice the people against him on account of the unpopularity of his work. At any rate, our Lord did not answer the question, but showed what would be necessary in order that any should be saved. Thus he showed, as it has been expressed by one, that "it does not concern us to know how many shall be saved, but how we may be saved." "Strive to enter in at the strait gate; for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able." There is a strong antithesis here. "Strive to enter in." The original is agonizesthe — agonize; put forth every effort; exert all your powers, both physical and mental; contend, as with a personal foe. Campbell gives it thus: "Force yourselves in at the strait gate." It is no light task. In this may be found an answer to the question that was asked. Those will be saved who have the courage and perseverance to contend for the prize. The Christian life is always represented in the Scriptures as a battle or a race. See Eph. 6 : 10-18; 2 Cor. 10 : 3, 4; 1 Cor. 9 : 24, 25; 2 Tim. 4 : 7, etc. "For many shall seek, and shall not be able." There are many who desire eternal life, perhaps all do, but they love their ease. They cannot suffer present discomfort, in the hope of future good. The gate is strait—narrow. May we not learn from this the necessity for humility? If the gate is so narrow, we shall have to become very small— to rid ourselves of everything that would hinder our progress. "When once the master of the house hath risen up, and hath shut to the door, and ye begin to stand without and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, open unto us; and he shall answer and say unto you, I know you not whence ye are; then shall ye begin to say, We have eaten and drunk in thy presence, and thou hast taught in our streets. But he shall say, I tell you, I know you not, whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity." There will be a time when probation will close. "My Spirit shall not always strive with man," says the Lord. Awful thought, that many who desire eternal life, will take their ease until it is too late—that when they do begin to ask in earnest, God will not listen to them. This time is graphically described in Amos 8 : 11, 12, and Prov. 1 : 24-31. Let us be warned in time. "We have eaten and drunk in thy presence, and thou hast taught in our streets." Familiarity with the work of God does not ensure us an entrance into his kingdom. It is not enough even that we are permitted to be connected with God's cause. We must have a connection with him. "If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them and cast them into the fire, and they are burned. If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you." John 15 : 6, 7. See Matt. 7 : 21-23. "There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth" — grinding of teeth—indicative of intense pain and anguish. The time when this will be fulfilled —"when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out"—is described in Rev. 20 : 9. The Pharisees, envious of Jesus, and fearful of his influence, sought to drive him away, by telling him that Herod Antipas, who governed Galilee and Perea, wished to kill him. His reply was: "Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold I cast out devils, and I do cures to-day, and to-morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected. Nevertheless I must walk to-day, and to-morrow, and the day following; for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem." It is thought by many that Christ here referred to his death. It is hard to harmonize this idea with the statement that he was to be perfected the third day, since it was then some months before his crucifixion, and he himself said, "I must walk [teach] to-day, and to-morrow, and the day following." It is probable that his meaning was this: "I have more work to do here yet, in casting out devils and healing the sick. This will require three days more, and then my work here will be finished and I can pass on. I do not, however, fear Herod, for my sentence of death and execution must take place in Jerusalem." Christ at the Pharisee's House.
By James White
ONE of the leading Pharisees had invited Jesus to dine with him on the Sabbath, as the day specially devoted to social entertainments by the Rabbis,—with the sinister design of watching him and reporting to those in authority. A number of Rabbis and Pharisees had been invited to meet him, but they had not yet lain down to their meal, when a man, ill with dropsy, entered the open door of the house, with others who dropped in, with Oriental freedom, to look on, and stand about. In his case, no doubt, the motive of his coming was that he might attract the notice of Jesus. He was afraid, however, to speak, for fear of those present, and patiently waited to see if Jesus would, of his own accord, cure him. He had not long to wait. Looking at him, Jesus turned to the guest with the question he had asked before in similar circumstances—"Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath, or is it not?" In their consciences they could not say it was not, but few men have the courage of their opinions, when current sentiment runs the other way, so they were silent. But silence was a virtual affirmative, for, if it were wrong, it was their bounden duty, as the public guardians of religion, to say so. Passing over, therefore, to the swollen and wretched being, he put his hand on him, cured him at once, and sent him away. Then turning to the confused and baffled company, he completed their discomfiture by an appeal similar to that which he had made in the case of the woman healed shortly before. "Which of you, let me ask, if his son, or even only his ox, had fallen into a pit, would not immediately draw him out, on discovering it—even on the Sabbath?" No wonder that nothing further was said on the subject. The couches on which the guests reclined at meals were arranged so as to form three sides of a square, the fourth being left open to allow the servants to bring in the dishes. The right hand couch was reckoned the highest, and the others, the middle, and the lowest, respectively, and the places on each couch were distinguished in the same way, from the fact that the guest who reclined with his head, as it were, in the bosom of him behind, seemed to be the lower of the two. The highest place of the highest couch, was, thus, the "chief place;" and human nature, the same in all ages, inevitably made it be eagerly coveted, and as precedence was marked by distance from it, there was an almost equal anxiety to get as near it as possible. With the vanity and self-righteousness of a moribund caste, there was no little scheming among the Rabbis for the best place, and much anxiety on the part of the host not to give offense; for to place a Rabbi below any one not a Rabbi, or below a fellow-Rabbi of lower standing, or younger, was an unpardonable affront, and a discredit to religion itself. The intolerable pride that had made one of their order, in the days of Alexander Jannæus, seat himself between Alexander and his queen, on the ground that "wisdom" made its scholars sit among princes, remained unchanged. Such petty ambition, so unworthy in public teachers of morals and religion, and so entirely in contrast with his own instructions to his disciples, to seek no distinction but that of the deepest humility, did not fail to strike the great guest who had calmly taken the place assigned him. "you are wrong," said he, "in revealing your wishes, and obtruding your self-assertion in such a way. Let me counsel you how to act. If invited to a marriage feast, never take the chief place on the couches, lest some one of higher standing for learning or piety come, and your host ask you to go down to a lower place to make room for the more honored guest. Take rather the lowest place, when you enter, that your host, when he comes in, may invite you to take a higher, and thus, honor you before all. Pride is its own punishment, in this, as in far graver matters, for, whether before God or man, he who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."--Geikie. They watched him.—Or, were maliciously watching; parateeroumenoi—from para, intense, or denoting ill, and teereo, to observe, watch. Raphelius, on Mark 3:2, has proved from a variety of authorities, that this is a frequent meaning of the word:—to observe privately and insidiously what another does. The context plainly proves that this is the sense in which it is to be taken here. The conduct of this Pharisee was most execrable. Professing friendship and affection, he invited our blessed Lord to his table, merely that he might have a more favorable opportunity of watching his conduct, that he might accuse him, and take away his life. In eating and drinking, people feel generally less restraint than at other times, and are apt to converse more freely. The man who can take such an advantage over one of his own guests, must have a baseness of soul, and a fellness of malice, of which, we would have thought, for the honor of human nature, that devils alone were capable. Among the Turks, if a man only taste salt with another, he holds himself bound in the most solemn manner, never to do that person any injury. Probably the insidious Pharisee had brought this dropsical man to the place, not doubting that our Lord’s eye would affect his heart, and that he would instantly cure him; and then he could most plausibly accuse him for a breach of the Sabbath. If this were the case, and it is likely, how deep must have been the perfidy and malice of the Pharisee!—Clarke. The Source of Wisdom.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
“If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.” This promise surely applies to Sabbath-school teachers as much as to any body. And there is no distinction made as to the class who shall receive the wisdom. “If any of you lack wisdom.” No matter who it is. It does not specify how much wisdom we must lack before we can be supplied; the weakest and most ignorant may claim the promise. “Let him ask of God.” No one else is able to impart the wisdom that we need; he is the source of all wisdom. “And it shall be given him.” There is no doubt here; the promise is explicit. But two conditions are necessary: to lack wisdom, and be conscious of our need, and to ask. “But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering.” God is pleased to have us trust his promises implicitly. It is a sin to doubt. It shows a wicked unbelief. Teachers, one and all, do you feel unequal to the task before you? You who are almost alone, with few visible helps for teaching, do you feel discouraged? The promise is for you. “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask . . . and it shall be given him.” The weaker you feel, the more incompetent you feel yourself to be, the more encouragement you may have, for the Lord says: “My strength is made perfect in weakness.” Do you believe the word of God? Then follow its directions. Light Sown for the Righteous
"Light is sown for the righteous." Meeting of the Association. Johnson’s Resolutions and the Pacific Press. The Audience Dislikes Them and Passes a Substitute.”
SUCH was the heading of a lengthy report in the Oakland Daily Times of Friday, Feb. 24. The resolutions referred to contained three preambles, the first calling attention to the fact that “Mr. White, the proprietor of the Pacific Press” had been arrested for violating the Sunday Law, by “some person, unknown to the society;” the second, concerning Mr. White and the Seventh-day Adventists, who “religiously regard and strictly keep the seventh day as the Sabbath;” the third, that “the design of the Sunday Law is not to disturb any who conscientiously observe Saturday as the holy Sabbath, unless they willfully disturb the peace and quiet of the Christian people on the Lord’s day.” Then follow two resolutions—the first expressing disapproval of the arrest of Mr. White; the second demanding “the arrest and punishment of all persons, especially liquor sellers, who not only keep no Sabbath or weekly rest, but who, only for the sake of money, contemptuously disregard the law,” etc. Neither party can well complain of these resolutions; they are kind and respectful in their tone and matter. Only we cannot accept the writer’s statement of “the design of the Sunday Law.” He has no authority to so expound the law. We can quote the utterances of religious papers and other religious teachers which plainly look to the enforcement of the law upon all classes, and some of these have explicitly said that the Seventh-day Adventists can have no reasonable cause of complaint if the law is enforced upon them. However good the intentions of the writer may be, he cannot possibly control the operation of the law, nor the action of these who are trying to enforce it. As for the disclaimer of having any responsibility for the arrest of the Superintendent of the “Pacific Press,” that is quite unnecessary. We have no personal feeling in the matter. The “League of Freedom” also disclaim it; they say they did not cause the arrest. We do not care who caused it. The action of the person was quite correct if the law is right in principle. We say it is not. It is oppressive and unjust; contrary to the spirit of our republican government, as it is certainly contrary to the plain terms of the law of God. After considerable discussion a substitute for these resolutions was adopted, to wit: “That the Society disclaims any connection with the arrest of Mr. White.” But the position taken by some responsible and prominent members of the Association demand special notice. We quote from the report:— Mr. L. thought that it looked as though the Seventh-day Adventists were fighting the Home Protection Society. They wanted Saturday. It had been asserted that Mr. White was working in the interest of the League of Freedom.” Probably it has been so asserted; and we have the very best of reasons for saying that Mr. L—— knew that the assertion was false. Why, then, should he throw out the assertion if not to fasten on the minds of his hearers a false impression in regard to us. As for his statement that “it looked as though the Seventh-day Adventists were fighting the Home Protection Society,” there is no ground for it. We have repeatedly published that as far as the fight is concerned, we stand neutral. We cannot, in justice to our convictions of duty to the law of God, aid in the enforcement of Sunday by civil law. And we are equally unable to affiliate with the elements which are “fighting” the law. We have carefully reviewed the ground, and counted the cost. We are well aware that we must suffer the ill-will of both the Home Protection Association and the League of Freedom. But we shall strive to have the approbation of the great Author of all law, the Judge of all the earth. Again we quote from the same person;— “Mr. L——: I am not opposed to the resolutions. It looked as though the Pacific Press was playing in the hands of the League of Freedom when they issued a pamphlet advocating the enforcement of the Sunday Law on Saturday. The League of Freedom approached the Pacific Press and stated that it would pay expenses in case of an arrest.” Mr. L. is a prominent member of that Association, and no doubt wishes to be considered an intelligent one; but in this sentence he has certainly subjected himself to well-deserved ridicule. 1. In the tract to which he refers we repudiate entirely the idea of enforcing the Sabbath on any body. And 2. The “enforcement of the Sunday Law on Saturday” is worthy of the most brilliant punster that ever graced the “Emerald Isle.” If Mr. L. had read the tract he knew better than to make such statements; if he had not read it, and knew nothing about it, he was poorly qualified to offer an opinion. Either way he would have done better service to himself at least, by keeping silent. The nearest to the truth of any statement made by him is that “the League of Freedom approached the Pacific Press and stated that it would pay expenses in case of an arrest.” We cannot say that this is true; we do not know that the persons giving such information had any authority to speak for the League of Freedom. We do know that the League would not pay any expense incurred by us unless we joined the League, which the people of Oakland and elsewhere well know we could not do. We shall not consider it necessary to explain our relation to the parties further. We cannot give understanding to those who would rather that the facts were different from what they are. The following we copy from The Independent, of Oakland, a paper which is favorable to the Association. Noticing this meeting it said:— “Several members were of the opinion that the Seventh-day Adventists were in sympathy with the League of Freedom. These gentlemen had evidently not perused the pamphlet recently issued by the Adventists, in which they declare themselves in favor of suppressing the whisky traffic entirely.” And this position has been advocated by us for several years in this paper—the SIGNS OF THE TIMES—which is the organ of the Seventh-day Adventists on this Coast. Everybody knows, who knows us at all, that we are radical temperance people. And Mr. L. heard our avowal once in person that we would heartily unite with them to enforce a law for the suppression of the sale of liquors seven days in a week. He who endeavors now to place us in a false light on this question must expect to have it recoil upon himself. It is a small matter for the Association to disclaim complicity with the arrest of Mr. White unless they disclaim the statements of their own officers. The report contains the following:— “Mr. S.—If Mr. White is going to fight the law, he is our enemy and we must fight him from the word go. If he is going to play into the hands of the League of Freedom, I for one will prosecute him.” S. may stand for “Secretary” or for a proper name, or for both. We suppress the names as they would be of no interest to our thousands of readers. Were not Mr. S. a prominent member—made so, at least—we should not consider such statements worthy of notice. As it is we pass them without comment. Further on he said: “We hope the Seventh-day Adventists will close their place of business on Sunday and come in with us.” In view of the many strong reasons we have given why we cannot unite with them, we must say he is a very hopeful man. One of the most surprising statements made in the meeting is the following:— “Mr. W.—Mr. White has seen fit to plead not guilty and it would be inconsistent for the Society to step in and defend him. If he had pleaded guilty I would be in favor of the Society paying the fine.” Mr. W. is a worthy and intelligent member of the Association; no one will question this. How he could expect us to plead guilty is a marvel. We have neither asked nor expected either the Association or the League to pay a fine for us. We have no idea of paying a fine, either in person or by proxy, until we are convicted in court. We cannot think it possible that Mr. W. weighed well the import of his words. He must know what would be the effect on our future course if we should plead guilty. If he will for a moment put himself in our place, as acting on our convictions of the principles involved, he would see the utter impossibility of our doing any such thing. Again, his words prove that we are right in denying the correctness of Mr. Johnson’s exposition of “the design of the law.” If the law in its design does not reach us, why should we be asked to plead guilty, or to pay a fine? Do they expect us to pay a fine under the law contrary to the design of the law? If such is the operation of the law it should be repealed because of its iniquity. One thing is very evident: The members of this Association have not carefully reviewed the ground, or else they have no ground in common on which to stand. Truth is consistent. They would appear to better advantage if they would take a position in harmony with the truth of God. Our “Sunday Law Tract” seems to have caused them much uneasiness. We expected that it would, and are pleased that it has. In the sight of the world we have placed a responsibility on them to meet its Scriptural reasons. We close by quoting one excellent saying made in this meeting of the Association by one of its members:— “Mr. A. said that there was a higher law than the law of man—the law of God. He did not believe in violating the law of God by enforcing the law of the Legislature.”