Earlier text: Clergymen vs. NarcoticsTHE COMMISSIONS OF NEHEMIAH AND EZRA.
THE facts between which we are to decide here, are briefly these: In 457 B. C., a decree was granted to Ezra by the Persian emperor, Artaxerxes Longimanus, to go up to Jerusalem with as many of his people as were minded to go with him. The commission granted him an unlimited amount of treasure, to beautify the house of God, procure offerings for its service, and to do whatever else might seem good unto them. It empowered him to ordain laws, set magistrates and judges, and execute punishment even unto death; in other words, to restore the Jewish state, civil and ecclesiastical, according to the law of God and the ancient customs of that people. Inspiration has seen fit to preserve this decree; and a full and accurate copy of it is given in the seventh chapter of the book of Ezra. Thirteen years after this, in the 20th year of the same king, B. C. 444, Nehemiah sought and obtained permission to go up to Jerusalem. Neh. ii. Permission was granted him, but we have no evidence that it was anything more than verbal. It pertained to him individually, nothing being said about others' going up with him. The king asked him how long a journey he wished to make, and when he would return. He received letters to the governors beyond the river, to help him on his way to Judah, and an order on the keeper of the king's forest for timber for beams, &c. When he arrived at Jerusalem, he found rulers, priests, and nobles, and people already engaged in the work of building Jerusalem. Neh. ii, 16. These were, of course, acting under the decree given to Ezra thirteen years before. And finally, Nehemiah, having arrived at Jerusalem, finished the work he came to accomplish in fifty-two days. Neh. vi, 15. Now which of these commissions, Ezra's or Nehemiah's, constitutes the decree for the restoration of Jerusalem, from which the seventy weeks are to be dated? It hardly seems that there can be any question on this point. 1. The grant to Nehemiah cannot be called a decree. It was necessary that a Persian decree should be put in writing, and signed by the king. Dan. vi, 8. Such was the document given to Ezra; but Nehemiah had nothing of the kind: his commission being only verbal. If it be said that the letters given him constituted the decree, then the decree was issued not to Nehemiah, but to the governors beyond the river; besides, these would constitute a series of decrees, and not one decree, as the prophecy contemplates. 2. The occasion of Nehemiah's petition to the king for permission to go up to Jerusalem was the report which certain ones, returning, had brought from thence, that those in the province were in great affliction and reproach, that the wall of Jerusalem was also broken down, and the gates thereof burned with fire. Neh. i. Whose work were these walls and gates that were broken down and burned with fire? Evidently the work of Ezra and his associates; for it cannot for a moment be supposed that the utter destruction of the city by Nebuchadnezzar 144 years previous to that time, would have been reported to Nehemiah as a matter of news, or that he would have considered it, as he evidently did, a fresh misfortune calling for a fresh expression of his grief. A decree, therefore, authorizing the building of these, had gone forth previous to the grant to Nehemiah. 3. If any should contend that Nehemiah's commission must be the decree, because the object of his request was that he might build the city, it is sufficient to reply as shown above, that gates and walls had been built previous to his going up; besides the work of building which he went to perform was accomplished in fifty-two days; whereas the prophecy allows for the building of the city, seven weeks, or forty-nine years. 4. There was nothing granted to Nehemiah, which was not embraced in the decree to Ezra; while the latter had all the forms and conditions of a decree, and was vastly more ample in its provisions. 5. It is evident from the prayer of Ezra, as recorded in chap. ix, 9, of his book, that he considered himself fully empowered to proceed with the building of the city and the wall; and it is evident that he understood, further, that the conditional prophecies concerning his people were then fulfilled, from the closing words of that prayer in which he says, "Should we again break thy commandments and join in affinity with the people of these abominations, wouldst thou not be angry with us till thou hadst consumed us, so that there should be no remnant nor escaping?" 6. Reckoning from the commission to Nehemiah, B. C. 444, the dates throughout are entirely disarranged; for from that point the troublous times which were to extend to the building of the street and wall, did not last seven weeks, or forty-nine years. Reckoning from that date, the sixty-nine weeks, or 483 years, which were to extend to the Messiah the Prince, bring us to A. D. 39-40; but Jesus was baptized of John in Jordan and the voice of his Father heard from heaven declaring him his Son, in A. D. 27, thirteen years before. According to this calculation, the midst of the last, or seventieth, week, which is marked by the crucifixion, is placed in A. D. 44, but the crucifixion took place in A. D. 31, thirteen years previous. And lastly, the 70 weeks, or 490 years, dated from the twentieth of Artaxerxes, extend to A. D. 47, with absolutely nothing to mark their termination. Hence if that be the year, and the grant to Nehemiah the event, from which to reckon, the prophecy has proved a failure. As it is, it only proves that theory a failure, which dates the seventy weeks from Nehemiah's commission in the twentieth of Artaxerxes. 7. Will these dates harmonize if we reckon from the decree to Ezra? Let us see. In this case 457 B. C. is our starting-point. Forty-nine years were allotted to the building of the city and the wall. On this point, Prideaux, Connec. Vol. i, p. 322, says: "In the fifteenth year of Darius Nothus, ended the first seven weeks of the seventy weeks of Daniel's prophecy. For then the restoration of the church and State of the Jews in Jerusalem and Judea was fully finished, in that last act of reformation which is recorded in the thirteenth chapter of Nehemiah, from the twenty-third verse to the end of the chapter, just forty-nine years after it had been commenced by Ezra, in the seventh year of Artaxerxes Longimanus." So far all is harmony. Let us apply the measuring-rod of the prophecy still further. Sixty-nine weeks, or 483 years, were to extend to the Messiah the Prince. Dating from B. C. 457, they end in A. D. 27. And what took place then? Luke thus informs us: "Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass that Jesus also, being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened, and the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased." Luke iii, 21, 22, margin A. D. 27. After this, Jesus came "into Galilee preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, and saying, The time is fulfilled." The time here mentioned must have been some specific, definite, and predicted period; but no prophetic period can be found then terminating, except the sixty-nine weeks of the prophecy of Daniel, which were to extend to Messiah the Prince. The Messiah had now come, and with his own lips announced the termination of that period which was to be marked by his manifestation. Here again is indisputable harmony. But further: Messiah was to confirm the covenant with many for one week. This would be the last week of the seventy, or the last seven years of the 490. In the midst of the week, the prophecy informs us, he should cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease. These Jewish ordinances, pointing to the death of Christ, could only cease at the cross; and there they did virtually end, though not literally till A. D. 70. After three-score and two weeks, according to the record, the Messiah was to be cut off. It is the same as if it had read, And after three-score and two weeks, in the midst of the seventieth week, shall Messiah be cut off and cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease. Now, as the word, midst, here means middle, according to abundance of authority which we might produce, if necessary, the crucifixion is definitely located in the middle of the seventieth week. It now becomes an important point to determine in what year the crucifixion took place. This question is decided by the following testimony: "The Saviour attended but four passovers, at the last of which he was crucified. Jno. ii, 13; v, 1; vi, 4; xiii, 1. This could not bring the crucifixion later than A. D. 31, as recorded by Aurelius Cassiodorus, a respectable Roman senator, about A. D. 514; 'In the consulate of Tiberius Cæsar Aug. v, and Ælius Sæjanus [U. C. 784, A. D. 31], our Lord Jesus Christ suffered on the eighth of the calends of April.' In this year and in this day, says Dr. Hales, agree also the council of Cæsarea, A. D. 196 or 198, the Alexandrian Chronicle, Maximus Monachus, Nicephorus Constantius, Cedrenus; and in this year but on different days, concur Eusebius and Epiphanius, followed by Keeler, Bucher, Patinus and Petavus." "It is recorded in history that the whole time of our Saviour's teaching was three years and a half, which is the half of a week of years." Here, then, are thirteen creditable 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 69 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 69 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 ix, 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 prophetic 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 easily69 invalidated."—Adventist Herald. From the facts above set forth, we see that reckoning the 70 weeks from the decree given to Ezra in the 7th 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 messengers of light, cluster around to set to their seal to the prophecy and make it sure. 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 70 weeks have been located. The query may here arise in some mind, how the days can be extended to the autumn of 1844, if they commence in 457 B. C., as it requires only 1843 years more, to make the whole number of 2300. Attention to one fact will clear this point of all difficulty; and that is, that it takes 457 full years before Christ, and 1843 full years after, to make 2300; so that if the period commenced with the very first day of 457, it would not terminate till the very last day of 1843. Now it will be evident to all that whatever part of the year 457 had passed away before the 2300 days commenced, just so much of the year 1844 must pass away before they would end. We therefore inquire, at what point in the year 457, are we to commence to reckon? From the fact that the first 49 years were allotted to the building of the street and wall, we learn that the period is to be dated, not from the starting of Ezra for Babylon, but from the actual commencement of the work at Jerusalem; which it is not probable could be earlier than the seventh month (autumn) of 457, as he did not arrive at Jerusalem till the fifth month of that year. Ezra vii, 9. The whole period would therefore extend to the seventh month, autumn, Jewish time, of 1844. The question respecting the time has now been examined. The first answer returned to the question of our disappointment in 1844, namely, that we were mistaken in the time, has been reviewed. We have seen that those have fallen into egregious error who have endeavored to disconnect the 70 weeks from the 2300 days, or to remove their date from B. C. 457. The 70 weeks are an inseparable part of the 2300 days. To endeavor to disconnect them is to outrage every principle of interpretation, and to brand a portion of the word of God as aimless and absurd. Railers at God, and despisers of his word, may take such a position as this, but Christians, never! We have found the decree for the restoration of Jerusalem, and the date at which it went forth; and no system of sophistry exists on earth by which it can be made to appear that the 2300 days did not commence at that point and end in 1844. Thus the original dates come forth vindicated from every encounter; their armor of defense is not marred or broken, but only polished to a brighter luster, by every conflict; and they still stand, as they heretofore have stood, sole and absolute masters of this field of controversy. Our opponents on this view of the prophetic periods, have been wont in years past to meet us like this: "The 2300 days have not ended because the time has passed. Why the time passed in 1844, without the consummation of our hopes, we acknowledge to be a mystery, but the passing of the time is proof that the 2300 days have not ended." Time, however, is no respecter of persons nor of theories; and with the formidable scythe which he is represented as carrying, he sometimes demolishes in the most summary manner the grotesque and gossamer theories of men, however dear they may be to their authors and defenders. It is so here. Heedless of the wild contortions of those who would fain compel him to stop and fulfill their darling predictions, he has kept on the swift but even tenor of his way until—what! every limit is passed to which the 2300 days can be extended; and thus he has demonstrated that those days have passed. Let not this point be overlooked. Setting aside for a moment the arguments by which they are shown to have ended in 1844, and letting them date from any point where there is the least shadow of ground for thus placing them, or from which any one has ever dreamed of dating them, and the utmost limit to which they would extend has gone by. They cannot possibly be dated at any point which would bring their termination so late as the present time. We therefore say again, Those days have ended! Adventists! Have you been wont to say, we know that the days have not ended, because the time has passed? It is now our turn to speak. Time has at length arrayed himself on our side of the controversy, and we reply, We know that the days have ended, because time has passed—passed beyond the utmost limits that can be assigned for those days. All then that we ask is that you accede to facts, and admit that those days, as revelation, and history, and time, have demonstrated, are in the past. But perhaps you are thinking of the conclusion that immediately follows from this admission; for if the days are in the past, and the prophecy holds good, the sanctuary, whatever it is, is being cleansed. But if that is so, the earth cannot be the sanctuary; for no physical change has come over the earth, except, perhaps, increasing signs of infirmity and old age; and no moral change, except a deeper plunge into wickedness and sin, on the part of its fast degenerating sons and daughters. If time has demonstrated that the days are in the past, it has also demonstrated that the earth is not the sanctuary—the very point claimed by those who offer this fact as the explanation of our disappointment in 1844. The inquiry then, What is the sanctuary? is now fairly in hand. The New York Tent.
By N. Fuller
BRO. WHITE: We closed our meetings at Wellsville July 6. We suffered much inconvenience during this meeting. The weather was very unfavorable—cold and wet much of the time, and nearly to the close. Bro. Andrews was taken sick at the commencement, and did not recover until nearly the close of the meeting. We sent for Bro. R. F. Cottrell, and he came at a late period in the meeting. Bro. Taylor did not come. Notwithstanding all these things, the Lord was with us by his Holy Spirit, and gave power and efficiency to the preached word. We took an expression to see how many would keep all ten of God's commandments just as they come from the hand of God. Twelve who were not Sabbath-keepers arose. May God help them to carry that promise into effect, that when Jesus comes "they may have right to the tree of life, and enter in through the gates into the city." Also some of the S. D. Baptists have got their eyes open, we trust never again to be closed by blind leaders. May the Lord still work for others in that place, that we may soon see them rejoicing in present truth. A Methodist minister preached a funeral discourse in the tent, in which (as he told me afterward) he gave the other side of the question in regard to entering upon our reward at death. Some of his friends afterward complained that he was not fairly represented when we reviewed some of his remarks. But we thought the friends of Jesus had great reason to complain that their blessed Master was grossly misrepresented on that funeral occasion, in statements like the following: speaking of the rich man, Luke xvi, 16, "Jesus said his soul was in hell," and several other statements as curious as the above. A Baptist preacher (Eld. Brown) came to the tent, and gave a swift testimony of the time in which we live. He said that the signs of the Lord's coming were in the past, and we were now in the angry state of the nations—that time was very near its close—that a temporal millennium would never take place in this state of things. O, that such men could see the whole truth, and proclaim it without fear of what men might say of them. We found many friends in that place; and our prayers shall be that God may open their hearts to receive his love and truth. A mark has been made there that neither time nor error can blot out. And yet many were as set against us that they would not come out to hear. It was so in the days of the Saviour. A proud, prejudiced church rejected him. Many of them would not hear, and he said unto them, "This is your condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men choose darkness rather than light because their deeds are evil." They can choose darkness if they will. We pitched the tent in this place July 10. Those who look, every one for his gain from his own quarter, say to their flocks, "Stay at home." What the result of this meeting will be, the Lord only knows. May God save the honest. Life and Death are Opposites.
By B. F. Snook
1. We will speak of life. The term "means in a general sense, that state of animals, and plants, or of an organized being, in which its natural functions and motions are performed; or in which its organs are capable of performing their functions. A tree is not destitute of life in winter, when the functions of its organs are suspended; nor man during a swoon or syncope; nor strictly birds, quadrupeds, or serpents, during their torpitude in winter. They are not strictly dead till the functions of their organs are incapable of being revived." Web. Life means the same in a literal sense, whether applied to animals or vegetables. 2. Death is negative to life, and invariably denotes an opposite state. Trees live, and die; but when they are dead they do not live. Animals of all classes live, and while living are not dead. They all die, and while they are dead they do not live. No being can be both dead and alive at the same time. That the terms life and death are used figuratively, we know; but that an idea is conveyed in their figurative use contradictory to their literal meaning, is contrary to common sense, and contradictory to the laws of all language. 3. The creeds teach that death is a separation of parts—a separation of soul, body, and spirit. If this is true, it must be as general as the term defined, and hence must apply to all vegetable and animal life. Hence when horses, cattle, dogs, insects, &c., die, it is only a separation of their souls, bodies, and spirits; for death is applicable to all these, and many more. But this proves that all these things are just as immortal70 as man, and proves too much for them; and as that which proves too much proves nothing, this theory cannot be true. 4. The Bible is very clear on this subject, and teaches that death is the opposite of life, and a returning again to the dust of the ground. God gave the prophet Isaiah a testimony to bear to king Hezekiah. "Thus saith the Lord [not the creeds], Set thine house in order; for thou shalt die, and not live." Isa. xxxviii, 1. This being true, to die is to cease to live, and so Hezekiah understood it. He believed it, and in the bitterness of his soul prayed to God to spare his life; and it was lengthened fifteen years. Verses 2-5. He did not believe that death would be a passport to heaven to him. He did not believe that it was the gate to endless joys. He said, "I shall not see the Lord, even the Lord, in the land of the living. I shall behold men no more with the inhabitants of the world." Verse 11. "I have cut off like a weaver my life; he will cut me off with pining sickness: from day even to night will thou make an end of me." Verse 12. "But thou hast in love to my soul delivered it from [heaven? no,] the pit of corruption (the grave)." Verse 17. The word occurs in the following, where it is of universal application: "And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: all in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land died." Gen. vii, 21, 22. The entire animal creation is here spoken of as having in common with man the breath of life, and in common with man they died. So the term death must mean the same when applied to man, that it does when applied to beasts. We will now give the strongest testimony in the Bible on the true meaning of the word, death, found in Isa. xliii, 17. "Which bringeth forth the chariot and horse, the army and the power; they shall lie down together, they shall not rise: they are extinct, they are quenched as tow." In this testimony death is represented as a perfect extinction of life. Nothing can be stronger. 5. We will now show that all that constitutes man, dies—ceases to live. Argument 1, is founded upon the death of Adam. And here we meet again with the mist and fog of the creeds. The question arises, What kind of a death did Adam die? They say a temporal, spiritual, and eternal death. They argue that such was the penalty of the law he violated, and that on account of his sin all men are condemned to the same death. To which we reply, 1. That the death threatened Adam cannot be eternal; for there is to be a resurrection from it. 1 Cor. xv, 21. 2. It cannot be spiritual death; for that is a consequence which follows, and not a punishment for, sin. Punishment for actual sins is in the future. 2 Pet. ii, 9. 3. We are therefore shut up to the conclusion that the death threatened was natural, or temporal death. But what say the Scriptures? "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Gen. ii, 17. This is the law and penalty briefly stated, and plain enough for all to understand, save those whose minds have been distorted by the errors of the creeds. But God has made it still plainer. He tells the man just what death he meant. "For dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." Chap. iii, 19. This clearly proves that the penalty of the law is natural death. This our opponents admit, so far as the body is concerned, but say that temporal death only refers to the body. We will now examine this assumption, and show that if Adam had an immortal soul, it was made of the dust and returned to it again. What is the immortal soul? They all say that it is the intelligent man—the man proper. Well, of what is the man proper made? "The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground." Gen. ii, 7. What became of this man? "And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it." Chap. ii, 15. What did he command the man proper? for he never gave the mere body a command. "Of every tree of the garden thou [the man proper, the immortal soul] mayest freely eat." Chap. ii, 16. Immortal souls can eat, then. "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil thou shalt not eat of it." Now to whom is he speaking here? No dodging here. Well, he is speaking to the same man proper. "For in the day thou [the same man proper—the immortal soul] eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Verse 17. Hence all must admit that the immortal soul dies. But further—"In the sweat of thy face [this immortal soul had a face] shalt thou eat bread [it eats bread, too,] till thou return unto the ground [not to heaven or hell]; for out of it was thou [the man proper, the immortal soul] taken; for dust thou [the immortal soul] art, and unto dust shalt thou return." Chap. iii, 19. This puts an end to all controversy on the death of Adam, and shows clear as a sunbeam that he died as a unit. Arg. 2, is founded upon Eccl. iii, 19. "For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other: yea, they have all one breath, so that a man hath no pre-eminence above a beast; all go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again." This testimony being true, if men die and go to heaven or hell, beasts do the same, for all go to one place. But all die alike—all are of the dust, and go to dust again. This gives no quarters to immortal-soulism. To this testimony also belongs Ps. lxxxix, 48. "Like sheep they are laid in the grave (hades, Sept.), death shall feed on them, and the upright shall have dominion over them in the morning, and their beauty shall consume in the grave from their dwelling. But God will redeem my soul from the power of [heaven or hell?] the grave, for he shall receive me." Verses 14, 15. Arg. 3, is based upon Ps. civ, 29. "Thou hidest thy face, they are troubled; thou takest away their [immortal soul] No; breath, they die and return to their dust." "His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth." Ps. cxlvi, 4. These scriptures accord with the above, and constitute a fortress behind which the saint may safely intrench himself in defiance of all opposing errors. Arg. 4. Our final argument on this part of the subject is based upon Gen. vii, 23. "And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground; both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of heaven, and they were destroyed from the earth, and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark." This testimony proves conclusively that all the animate creation was destroyed, save Noah and those who were with him in the ark. Upon the evidence of this scripture we will frame a syllogistical argument, to which we invite the particular attention of those who do not believe the teaching of the Bible on this subject. 1. Major premise. The immortal soul is a living substance. Orthodoxy. 2. Minor premise. Every living substance on the face of the earth of man and beast was destroyed, or died in the flood. Gen. vii, 23. 3. Conclusion. Therefore every immortal soul on the face of all the earth was destroyed, or died in the flood. From this argument there is no escape. Immortal-soulism here goes under the waters of the flood in spite of all the efforts of its advocates to save it. We now submit to the reader whether man can be dead and alive at the same time; whether the word death means one thing when applied to man, and something very different when applied to everything else; whether a part of man escapes death, or dies as a whole and returns to the dust of the ground, out of which he was taken. "One and One Make Two."
By R. F. Cottrell
A TEACHER might be tempted to get out of patience with a pupil that could not understand this, but would try to maintain that one and one make only one. Christ bore our sins, as predicted of him, and Peter informs us how, when and where:—"in his own body on the tree." 1 Pet. ii, 24. But in making the atonement in the sanctuary, Christ is the High Priest. In this office he finally bears the sins of the saved out of the sanctuary and lays them, not on his own head, but on the head of another. Now if that other person or being to whom the sins are transferred from him is himself, then one and one do not make two, but only one. If the high priest was himself to go into a land of separation, with the sins of the people upon him, the ceremony of transferring them to another would be without meaning; or, if it had a meaning, it would be false. Common sense can aid us in finding the truth, if we will permit it. This is what it was given for. If we will not use it, we have no reason to believe that our case can be helped in any way. The scape-goat had nothing to do in making the atonement. The high priest alone made the atonement but he made use of the scape-goat to bear away the sins after the work in the sanctuary was finished. Azazel was the Hebrew name of the scape-goat, and has been understood to be the name of the Devil. "The Syriac, also, has Azazel the angel (strong one) who revolted." Where is the testimony that Azazel signified the holy Son of God? The Last Days.
By Chas. H. Rogers
"In the last days perilous times shall come." The apostle to the Gentiles lifts the vail of the mystical future, and through the telescope of inspiration looks down through ages of time, when men would be lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God, and saw that there would be perilous times. The inquiry would naturally arise, How are we to know when we arrive at the last days? The apostle says it will be "when men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, truce-breakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those who are good, traitors, heady, high-minded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God, having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof;" and then he says, "from such turn away." Let us study carefully the specifications here brought to view, and see if such a state of things exists at the present time. Of whom is the apostle in this fearful catalogue of evils speaking? Is it of those who are of the synagogue of Satan? those who are reviling in sin and wickedness? who spurn everything godly or God-like? No, surely not? He particularizes a certain time and a certain class—the last days, and those who have the form of godliness and deny the power thereof. Thus it can be plainly seen that he has direct reference to those professing to be followers of Christ who are lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God. Now, honest and candid reader, need we look any further in our world's history for a strict fulfillment of this prophecy? I answer, No; for here it is plainly fulfilled before our eyes. A short time since, where I have been living, the Methodists, in order to finish and decorate their house of worship, got up a theatrical exhibition with a regular admittance fee, to which saint and sinner flocked with equal zeal. In order to pay up the resident minister, they arranged a grand donation party, which terminated in a dance. This is not an isolated instance. When we see those who are the professed followers of Him who was "a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief," indulging in all the frivolities of fashionable life—making the gay party and festive dance a frequent place of attendance, and encouraged in so doing by the leading clergymen, need we look further for the fulfillment of the declaration, "They shall be lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God?" They show plainly by their works that their love for worldly praise and grandeur is paramount to their love of God. O Lord, how long shall these things be, and thy name and worship be desecrated? Dear brethren and sisters, this is no exaggeration, but facts which can be fully and clearly substantiated. Wicked men and seducers are waxing fearfully worse and worse. We are just entering upon perilous times which will try men's souls. In view of these facts what manner of persons ought we to be in all holy conversation and godliness? "Awake, thou that sleepest; arise and Christ will give thee light!" Up, church of Christ, and put on thy beautiful garments; deck thyself in robes of Christ's righteousness, and let thine excellence be known. Show to the world that there is an elevating purity in the religion which you profess. Do any feel that they have endured and suffered for Christ's sake? If so, let them gird up the loins of the mind for fiercer and sterner conflicts, and prepare for the time of trouble such as never was, when God shall visit the nations in the fierceness of his wrath. We have a great work to perform in order to prepare ourselves for a residence in that beautiful, golden city, where sin cannot enter, nor anything that worketh iniquity. Let us set the standard of Christian perfection high, and labor up to it; through tears, groans, tribulation, and anguish if need be, let us come up to the high standing to which God calls us. Let us search our hearts, purge out the dross, and pray God to purify us by the refining process of the Holy Spirit, that we may be meet to be partakers with the saints in light. Your brother, desiring to be among the called, the chosen, and faithful.
CHAS. H. ROGERS.
Greenfield, Wis.