Review and Herald, Vol. 37, No. 2.
Our Faith and Hope; Or, Reasons Why We Believe as We DoPage 1
Earlier text: Our Faith and Hope; Or, Reasons Why We Believe as We DoMoral Results of the Franco-Prussian War.
THERE has been no stage, perhaps, of the struggle, not even its most bloody epochs, which supplies more pathetic proof of the horrors of war than the present moment, when even the conqueror is oppressed with the prospect of the suffering his own heavy hand may have to inflict, and when the more violent passions on both sides are beginning to be checked by a desire to see a conclusion to calamities so great and varied. For France herself, no human pen can adequately describe the mingled agonies and humiliation of her position. Her manufactures and commerce have actually come to an end. The exquisite productions of her genius have all given place to the necessities of war, and the production of weapons of destruction. Not a bale of silk is said to remain at Lyons, the whole stock having been sold at a loss. The great middle class, the shopkeepers, both in Paris and in the other great towns of the empire, are, for the present, absolutely ruined. Her most beautiful towns are torn and shattered with shot and shell. Her fields for the most part remain uncultivated, while her peasants either maintain a hopeless guerrilla warfare against an irresistible foe, or toil to make the roads along which the columns of their fatal enemy are to maintain their conquering march, or construct the batteries which are to reduce their fascinating capital into ruins. Many of her villages have been burned to the ground. Far and wide a desultory warfare fills the land with blood, and makes the atmosphere heavy with the roar of distant cannonades. The aggregate amount of misery, suffering, and death, endured at the present moment in France, is beyond all human computation, and its intensity is only limited by the limit mercifully existing in our human capacity to suffer. There is a point at which conscious agony ceases by the very excess of agony, and feeling is blunted for the moment by its very intensity, only to awaken afterward to the more sustained and prolonged anguish. Nor is the suffering all on one side. There can be no doubt that Germany is bleeding at every pore, more silently it may be, more imperceptibly, but none the less fatally. Only one little step better than defeat in war, is victory in war; and in such war as modern science wages, this is especially true. The whole economic life of Germany must be at a stand-still, for the enormous forces which have been with such wonderful organization poured into France, must have drained the land of all its best and most vigorous life. This is the worse, because the army of Germany is not composed of a distinct class as in France, but is taken from the plow and the factory, the counting-house and the shop. Of these great and gallant hosts, there is a gradual but constant waste. Everywhere through France where the German armies move, there is a loss of life more or less. The sword and disease are doing their fatal work alike. Without tents, without camp equipage, without adequate stores, without effective hospital provision, every step of the German army marks more or less every day a drain of strength. The circle of the Paris fortification extends for six and thirty miles, and the circumference of the ground occupied by the investing army, or rather the investing armies, must be very much greater. All around, at every post, every work, every picket, there is loss of life; and even a victorious engagement, now that the Paris Gardes Mobile have learned to fight, only serves to swell the fatal aggregate. In the future, a prospect still worse meets the view. Mr. Russell remarked the other day that when the bombardment opens, the Paris forts would probably make it hot work in the Prussian batteries. Thus, whether in the case of bombardment, or in the case of assault, there is a frightful loss of life to be faced, only less dreadful in the sufferings borne by the besiegers than in the suffering inflicted on the besieged. There is even worse than this behind. The loss of life, and the crushing of domestic hope and happiness consequent upon it, are not, after all, the worst calamities of war. These may after a while be forgotten, under the healing influence of time and the consolations of religion. Nor is it war’s worst disaster that it throws back national prosperity for long years and years, and tends to dry up the springs of national industry and wealth. The worst effects of war are its moral effects, and the evil habit of exasperated passion, and the mutual hatred which it leaves behind it. It barbarizes men and manners. It throws the progress of Christian civilization indefinitely back, casts its own blood-red shadow on the future,—and bequeaths a legacy of strife and revenge, wrath, and sullen exasperation.—London Record. At the State convention of Spiritualists, held in Marshall, Mich., Dec. 11, 1870, Mr Fox made the following statements in regard to the influence and condition of Spiritualism in this State: It had been said that Spiritualism was dying out, but he could prove that there had never been that deep interest manifest in the subject, as at the present time. Five years ago there were but five organized societies in the State; to-day there are over 150. He had traveled through every part of the State, and made close estimates as to their number, which he claims to be over 30,000 avowed and open believers, not including the hundreds that are in the churches. He had conversed with many ministers who acknowledge the feasibility of communion with the departed spirits of men, and who were ready to work in this field as soon as an opportunity and organization afforded. We regard it as one of the most alarming signs of the times, that a decay and blight has fallen upon professional and business honor, to an extent that the most flagrant violation creates scarcely a ripple upon the stream. Every week we hear of some bank cashier absconding with the funds; some trusted merchant turning out a swindler; some public official, a defaulter; some lawyer of high standing, a robber; and hundreds of like events occur in the course of a year, in every department of life, yet without anything more than a temporary sensation.—Churchman. Perils of the Deep: Catalogue of Marine Disasters
“PERILS OF THE DEEP.”—Says one of the leading New York papers for Oct. 26, under this head, “Seldom has it been the duty of any journal to record at one time such a catalogue of marine disasters, as our columns display this morning. The sinking of the Cambria and the Continental, the foundering of the Hecuba, the burning of the whaler, Robert Edwards, and the probable loss of the Marifora, make up an appalling story.” THE HOTTEST SUMMER FOR A CENTURY.—
According to the weather records of Yale College, the past has been the hottest summer for ninety-two years. This is as far back as the Yale record enlightens us. And no centenarian who was running around barefooted during the summers of the eight previous years, remembers anything hotter; we may, therefore, safely call this the hottest summer for a century.—Hartford Courant. The Constitutional Amendment Question.
The next National Convention in favor of the proposed amendment of the Constitution of the United States, is to be held in Philadelphia, Pa., Jan. 18 and 19, 1871. A notice of this appointment in the Christian Statesman, of Dec. 15, 1870, speaks of the Pittsburg Convention of last March, as a “grateful and surprising success;” and a “larger and more influential assemblage” is hoped for on this occasion. The committee in the call for the Convention, state that the President, the Congress, and the Courts, are coming more and more into evident agreement with what is written in the Constitution; that its molding power is more and more felt; and hence that it is the more necessary that it should not be “found wanting in any principle, or any matter of fact.” They then hold it up as a deficiency in the Constitution, the fact that, among other things, it contains no law against Sabbath-breaking. They say:— “But, at the same time, it is a serious matter if that Constitution should be found wanting in any principle, or any matter of fact. The deficiency will in due time work mischief. Error in the Constitution will work as powerfully as truth, and what is left out of it may one day be formally declared un-American. And one such serious matter there is; one unnecessary and most unfortunate omission. God and Christianity are not once alluded to; although the Constitution is itself the product of a Christian civilization, and although it purports to represent the mind of a Christian people, who, in all their State Constitutions had made explicit reference to both God and religion. Hence it is that all the legislation of this country in favor of a Christian morality, are enacted and enforced outside of the Constitution. They rest only upon the basis of what is called Common Law. We have, strictly, no Oath, no law against Blasphemy, Sabbath-breaking, or Polygamy, that has any better foundation.”
In the same paper is the report of a convention held at Newburgh, N. Y., on the 7th inst., in which one of the speakers, Judge J. W. Taylor, is reported to have said: “There is not a State in the United States which does not recognize God as the supreme Ruler of the universe. All of them prohibit labor on the Sabbath-day, and by that means recognize its sacredness and sanctity. That is the practice of the people of the nation.”
This language indicates in what respect it is thought that the Constitution of the United States is particularly deficient. It is behind the constitutions of the several States. Why? Because they all prohibit labor on the (Sunday) Sabbath. Once more: The Philadelphia Press, of Dec. 5, stated that some of the Congressmen, including Vice President Colfax, arrived in Washington, by Sunday trains, Dec. 4, on which the Statesman comments as follows (we give italics as we find them):— 1. Not one of those men who thus violated the Sabbath is fit to hold any official position in a Christian nation.“He who violates the Sabbath may not steal, because the judgment of society so strongly condemns theft, or because he believes that honesty is the best policy; but tempt him with the prospect of concealment, or the prospect of advantage, and there can be no reason why he who robs God will not rob his neighbor also. For this reason, the Sabbath law lies at the foundation of morality. Its observance is an acknowledgment of the sovereign rights of God over us.”
Rather severe on the Vice President. But the Statesman continues in reference to the responsibility of the nation in this matter:— “2. The sin of these Congressmen is a national sin, because the nation has not said to them in the Constitution, the supreme rule for our public servants, ‘We charge you to serve us in accordance with the higher law of God.’ These Sabbath-breaking railroads, moreover, are corporations created by the State, and amenable to it. The State is responsible to God for the conduct of these creatures which it calls into being. It is bound therefore to restrain them from this, as from other crimes, and any violation of the Sabbath, by any corporation, should work immediate forfeiture of its charter. And the Constitution of the United States, with which all State legislation is required to be in harmony, should be of such a character as to prevent any State from tolerating such infractions of fundamental moral law.
“3. Give us in the National Constitution the simple acknowledgment of the law of God as the supreme law of nations, and all the results indicated in this note will ultimately be secured. Let no one say that the movement does not contemplate sufficiently practical ends.”
From all this we see the important place the Sabbath question is to hold in this movement—the important place it even now holds in the minds of those who are urging it forward. Let the amendment called for be granted, “and all the results indicated in this note,” says the writer, “will ultimately be secured;” that is, individuals and corporations will be restrained from violating the Sunday observance. The acknowledgment of God in the Constitution may do very well as a banner under which to sail; but the practical bearing of the movement relates to the Sabbath. Prophecy clearly indicates that such enactments will be passed as are here called for. When such time comes, will the people regard the divine law instead of the human? Will they obey God rather than men? This is the issue we are to meet; and it is not a great way before us. LUTHER LEE, in his Theology, p. 375, presents the following criticism on Col. 2:16. The text reads thus: “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days.” On which Mr. Lee says:—“To what sabbath does the apostle refer? It cannot be the Christian Sabbath, for he was speaking of what was enjoined by the law, and that never was. Moreover, the Christian Sabbath was called the Lord’s day, and not the Sabbath. It must be, then, that the apostle refers to the seventh-day Sabbath, and he gives them clearly to understand that they are not morally bound to observe it. Nor can it be maintained, with any degree of plausibility, that the apostle speaks of other days as feast days called sabbaths. He uses the Greek word Sabbaton, which is everywhere used to denote the seventh-day Sabbath, without giving any notice that he means anything else; and while, by a holy day and the new moon, he includes all other feasts and rests which might be called sabbaths, he leaves nothing but the seventh-day Sabbath to be meant by the sabbath days.” Against every declaration in the foregoing extract, with a single exception, we enter an emphatic denial. When he says that the (so-called) Christian Sabbath was never enjoined by the law, he states a very apparent truth. He might have gone farther. It was never enjoined in the gospel. No injunction can be found in either the Old or the New Testament, for the observance of the first day of the week. We therefore transgress no divine requirement, when we devote it to secular employment; and “where no law is,” says the apostle, “there is no transgression.” No law of any kind existed for its observance till A. D. 321, when a heathen emperor issued an edict in its behalf as a heathen holiday. A few years later, this heathen festival, and the heathen law which enforced it, were artfully manipulated by the Man of Sin, into a Catholic Christian institution. And this is all the first day of the week ever has been, and all it ever will be; the sad delusion of almost the whole Protestant world on this subject, to the contrary notwithstanding. But to return. The arguments which Mr. Lee presents to show that Paul refers to the seventh-day Sabbath, in Col. 2:16, and that, consequently, that Sabbath is not binding on Christians, are these: first, the apostle uses the word Sabbaton, which everywhere denotes the seventh-day Sabbath; and, secondly, the other terms used in the text cover all other kinds of sabbaths, so that this word must refer here to the seventh-day Sabbath. Of these two statements, one is unmitigated sophistry; the other is an unmitigated falsehood. He evidently designed to convey to the mind of the reader the idea that the term Sabbaton, always and in every place, means the seventh-day Sabbath; and we can see the object of this; for unless it does always have this meaning, his argument on the use of the term here, is null and void. But it will be noticed that he does not directly assert this; nor do we think he would be willing to so far risk his reputation as a scholar as to make such a declaration. He says the term Sabbaton “is everywhere used to denote the seventh-day Sabbath;” which is true, so far as the fact is concerned, that whenever the seventh-day Sabbath is spoken of, the term Sabbaton, or its synonym, Sabbata, is used. But it is quite another thing to say that the word Sabbaton never means anything else, as he evidently designed to have the reader understand. It may be used to denote the seventh-day Sabbath in every instance where that Sabbath is brought to view; and yet it may have a much wider signification, and be applied, in other places, to other objects. What are the facts in the case? The ceremonial sabbaths of the Jews are not spoken of as such in the New Testament, unless it be in the text under consideration; but as this is the point in dispute, it cannot be brought in as proof in this controversy. And the Old Testament, where these sabbaths are mentioned, was written in Hebrew; so that from the original of that, we cannot learn the use of the Greek in this respect. Fortunately, however, we have a translation of the original Hebrew of the Old Testament into Greek, made by seventy learned Jews, persons well versed in both languages, and capable of giving to every Hebrew word its exact equivalent in the Greek. What term have they used to designate the ceremonial sabbaths of the Jews brought to view in the ceremonial law? The question to be decided, is, Does the term Sabbaton ever refer to the ceremonial sabbaths of the Jews? If it does, then the apostle may have used it in that sense in Col. 2:16; and the argument of Mr. Lee so far falls to the ground. We therefore refer the reader to Lev. 16:31; 23:32; and 25:2, 4, 6, as found in the Septuagint, where he will see that the term Sabbaton is used in reference to the day of atonement, one of the yearly sabbaths of the Jews, and is even applied to the seventh year in which the land should rest. This is conclusive on this point. But there is in the New Testament evidence enough that the term Sabbaton does not always mean the seventh-day Sabbath. Every lexicon tells us that it sometimes means the whole week, the interval from Sabbath to Sabbath; and Luke 18:12, furnishes an instance where it must have this signification. So much for his argument on Sabbaton. Let us now look a moment at his other statement, that the remaining terms in Col. 2:16, namely, the “holy day” and “new moon,” include all other feasts and rests which might be called sabbaths, so that the term Sabbaton is necessarily restricted to the seventh-day Sabbath. The term translated “holy day,” is heorte, which is defined by Greenfield, “a solemn feast, public festival, holy day; specially spoken of the passover.” Robinson adds, “specially a) The passover, and the festival of unleavened bread connected with it, the paschal festival. b) The feast of tabernacles.” The passover festival occupied seven days, and the feast of tabernacles eight. The first and last days of these feasts were special days. In them the people were to have a holy convocation and perform no servile work. They were sabbaths. The other days of the feast were simply holidays, and were designated by this term, heorte; while the solemnity and cessation from labor that pertained to the first and last days called for another title, and they were termed sabbaths. So Kitto says, respecting the feast of tabernacles, “It began on the fifteenth day of the seventh month, and continued eight days, the first and last being sabbaths.” The new moon, noumenia, was another kind of festival, and did not include any which could properly be called a sabbath; that is, no day was a sabbath, or day of rest, on account of its being the festival of the new moon. Thus we see that the terms “holy day” and “new moon” are not sufficient, as Mr. Lee asserts, to cover all the subjects which the apostle wished to introduce; namely, the ordinary feast days of the Jews, the new moons, and the sabbaths connected with their feasts; and these latter he designates by the term Sabbaton, just as they were designated in the Greek version of the Old Testament then in use. But there are other considerations which should have been sufficient to save Mr. Lee from so false a criticism upon this text: 1. The sabbaths here mentioned are those associated with meats, drinks, new moons, and festivals. But the seventh-day Sabbath never was so associated. 2. The sabbaths here spoken of, were like the new moons and feasts, with which they were connected, shadows of things to come. But the seventh-day Sabbath never was a shadow; it was instituted before the fall, when, from the very nature of the case, a type could not have existed. This language of the apostle, therefore, in the most emphatic manner, excludes the weekly Sabbath from the days of which he speaks. 3. All that is mentioned in verse 16, is included in the handwriting of ordinances, of verse 14, which was against us, and which was blotted out and nailed to the cross. But the seventh-day Sabbath never was a part of those ordinances, as such. It owed its existence to enactments entirely distinct, not being written by the hand of Moses, but being proclaimed by the voice of God from the summit of Sinai, and engraved with his finger upon the tables of stone. And to speak of blotting out such a document, would be to say that a person could, with pen and ink, erase the chiseled inscription of the marble monument. If Mr. Lee is correct, Paul did not write by inspiration of God; for that never thus bungles in the use of language. 4. The word Sabbaton is in the plural, and should be so rendered. Some have said that as the word days, in our version, is a supplied word, it could be omitted; and then it would read, “Let no man judge you . . . in respect of . . . the Sabbath.” But if the word, days, is omitted, the word Sabbaton, being plural, must be translated sabbaths. But God speaks of his Sabbath in another manner. It is the Sabbath, the Sabbath of the Lord, my holy day, &c. He does, however, use the plural in speaking of the sabbaths of the Jewish church, calling them by the prophet Hosea (2:11) “her sabbaths,” and predicting that they should cease, as Paul here declares that they had ceased. Mr. Lee’s criticism thus fails in every particular; for, 1. The terms holy day (or feast day) and new moon do not cover the ceremonial sabbaths of the Jews. 2. The term Sabbaton is applied to those sabbaths, and is needed in this text to denote them. 3. The sabbaths of this text are associated with ceremonies. 4. They are shadows or types. 5. They are blotted out. 6. The word is plural. All which considerations prove that the text has no reference whatever to the Sabbath of the moral law; and hence contains no evidence that we are not morally bound to observe it. Thoughts on the Book of Daniel.
VERSES 10–12. And, behold, a hand touched me, which set me upon my knees and upon the palms of my hands. And he said unto me, O Daniel, a man greatly beloved, understand the words that I speak unto thee, and stand upright; for unto thee am I now sent. And when he had spoken this word unto me, I stood trembling. Then said he unto me, Fear not, Daniel; for from the first day that thou didst set thine heart to understand, and to chasten thyself before thy God, thy words were heard, and I am come for thy words. Daniel, having fallen into a swoon at the majestic appearance of Gabriel (for so the expression “deep sleep” of verse 9 is generally understood), the angel approaches and lays his hand upon him to give him assurance and confidence to stand in his presence. He tells Daniel that he is a man greatly beloved. Wonderful declaration! a member of the human family, one of the same race with us, loved, not merely in the general sense in which God loved the whole world when he gave his Son to die for them, but loved as an individual, and that greatly! Well might the prophet receive confidence from such a declaration as that, to stand even in the presence of Gabriel. He tells him, moreover, that he is come for the purpose of an interview with him, and he wishes him to bring his mind into a proper state to understand his words. Being thus addressed, the holy and beloved prophet, assured, but yet trembling, stood before the heavenly angel. “Fear not, Daniel,” continues Gabriel. He had no occasion to fear before one, even though a divine being, who had been sent to him because he was greatly beloved, and in answer to his earnest prayer. Nor ought the people of God, of any age, to entertain a servile fear of any of those agents who are sent forth to minister to their salvation. There is, however, a disposition manifested among far too many to allow their minds to conceive of Jesus and his angels as only stern ministers of justice, inflictors of vengeance and retribution, rather than as beings who are earnestly working for our salvation on account of the pity and love with which they regard us. The presence of an angel, should he appear bodily before them, would strike them with terror; and the thought that Christ is soon to appear, and they are to be taken into his presence, distresses and alarms them. We recommend to such juster views of the relation which the Christian sustains to Christ, his head, and a little more of that perfect love which casts out all fear. On verse 12, Bagster has the following pointed note: “Daniel, as Bp. Newton observes, was now very far advanced in years; for the third year of Cyrus was the 73d of his captivity; and being a youth when carried captive, he cannot be supposed to have been less than ninety. Old as he was ‘he set his heart to understand’ the former revelations which had been made to him, and particularly the vision of the ram and he-goat, as may be collected from the sequel; and for this purpose he prayed and fasted three weeks. His fasting and prayers had the desired effect; for an13 angel was sent to unfold to him those mysteries; and whoever would excel in divine knowledge, must imitate Daniel, and habituate himself to study, temperance, and devotion.” VERSE 13. But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days; but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia. How often the prayers of God’s people are heard, while as yet there is no apparent answer. It was even so in this case with Daniel. The angel tells him that from the first day he set his heart to understand, his words were heard. Yet Daniel continued to afflict his soul with fasting, and to wrestle with God for three full weeks, all unaware that any respect was yet paid to his petition. But why was the delay? The king of Persia withstood the angel. The answer to Daniel’s prayer involved some action on the part of that king. This action he must be influenced to perform. It doubtless pertained to the work which he was to do in behalf of the temple at Jerusalem and the Jews, his decree for the building of that temple being the first of the series which finally constituted that great commandment to restore and build Jerusalem, from which the prophecy dates. And the angel is dispatched to influence him to go forward in accordance with the divine will. Ah! how little do we realize what is going on in the unseen world in relation to human affairs. Here, as it were, the curtain is for a moment lifted, and we get a glimpse of the movements within. Daniel prays. The Creator of the universe hears. The command is issued to Gabriel to go to his relief. But the king of Persia must act before Daniel’s prayer is answered; and the angel hastens to the Persian king. Satan, no doubt, musters his forces to oppose. They meet in the royal palace of Persia. All the motives of selfish interest and worldly policy which Satan can play upon, he doubtless uses to the best advantage; while Gabriel brings to bear his influence in the other direction. The king struggles between conflicting emotions. He hesitates; he delays. Day after day passes away; yet Daniel prays on; the king still refuses to yield to the influence of the angel; three weeks expire; and lo! a mightier than Gabriel takes his place in the palace of the king, and Gabriel appears to Daniel to acquaint him with the progress of events. From the first, said he, your prayer was heard; but these three weeks, during which you have been praying and fasting, the king of Persia resisted my influence, and prevented my coming. Such was the effect of prayer. And God has erected no barriers between himself and his people since Daniel’s time. It is still their privilege to offer up prayer as fervent and effectual as his, and, like Jacob, to have power with God and to prevail. Who was Michael who here came to Gabriel’s assistance? The term signifies, “He who is like God;” and the Scriptures clearly show that Christ is the one who bears this name. Jude (verse 9) tells us that Michael is the archangel. Archangel signifies head or chief angel; and Gabriel, in our text, calls him, one, or as the margin reads, the first, of the chief princes. There can be but one archangel; and hence it is manifestly improper to use the word in the plural. The Scriptures never so use it. Paul, in 1 Thess. 4:16, states that when the Lord appears the second time to raise the dead, the voice of the archangel is heard. Whose voice is heard when the dead are raised? The voice of the Son of God. John 5:28. Putting these scriptures together, they prove, 1. That the dead are called from their graves by the voice of the Son of God. 2. That the voice that is then heard is the voice of the archangel. The archangel, therefore, is the Son of God. 3. The archangel is called Michael. Therefore, Michael is the Son of God. In the last verse of Daniel 10, he is called “your prince,” and in the first of chapter 12, “the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people;” expressions which can appropriately be applied to Christ, but not to any other. VERSE 14. Now I am come to make thee understand what shall befall thy people in the latter days; for yet the vision is for many days. The expression, “the vision is yet for many days,” reaching far into the future, and embracing what should befall the people of God even in the latter days, shows conclusively that the days given in that vision, namely, the 2300, cannot mean literal days, but must be days of years. VERSE 15. And when he had spoken such words unto me, I set my face toward the ground, and I became dumb. 16. And, behold, one like the similitude of the sons of men touched my lips; then I opened my mouth, and spake, and said unto him that stood before me, O my lord, by the vision my sorrows are turned upon me, and I have retained no strength. 17. For how can the servant of this my lord talk with this my lord? for as for me, straightway there remained no strength in me, neither is there breath left in me. One of the most marked characteristics manifested by Daniel, was the tender solicitude he felt for his people. Having come now to clearly comprehend that the vision portended long ages of oppression and suffering for the church, he was so affected by the view, that his strength departed from him, his breath ceased, and the power of speech was gone. The vision, of verse 16, doubtless refers to the former vision of chapter 8. VERSE 18. Then there came again and touched me one like the appearance of a man, and he strengthened me, 19, and said, O man greatly beloved, fear not: peace be unto thee; be strong, yea, be strong. And when he had spoken unto me, I was strengthened, and said, Let my lord speak; for thou hast strengthened me. 20. Then said he, Knowest thou wherefore I come unto thee? and now will I return to fight with the prince of Persia; and when I am gone forth, lo, the prince of Grecia shall come. 21. But I will show thee that which is noted in the Scripture of truth; and there is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael your prince. The prophet is at length strengthened to hear, in full, the communication which the angel has to make. And Gabriel says, “Knowest thou wherefore I come unto thee?” That is, do you now know to what end I have come? Do you understand my purpose, so that you will no more fear? He then announced his intention to return, as soon as his communication was completed, to fight with the king of Persia. The word, with, is in the Septuagint, meta, and signifies, not against, but in common with, along side of; that is, the angel of God would stand on the side of the Persian kingdom so long as it was in the providence of God that that kingdom should continue. But when I am gone forth, continues Gabriel, lo, the prince of Grecia shall come. That is, when he withdraws his support from that kingdom, and the providence of God operates in behalf of another kingdom, the prince of Grecia shall come, and the Persian monarchy be overthrown. Gabriel then announced that none, God of course excepted, had an understanding with him in the matters he was about to communicate, except Michael, the prince. And after he had made them known to Daniel, then there were four beings in the universe with whom rested a knowledge of these important truths: Daniel, Gabriel, Christ, and God. Four links in this chain of witnesses: the first, the highest Being in the universe; the last, a member of the human family! Verily the whole race is ennobled by so noble a member. The fact here stated shows the propriety of the language of Rev. 1:1, where Jesus Christ is introduced, and Gabriel is spoken of as his angel. He was the angel who alone had knowledge with Christ, of these revelations which were to be made to his people. American Industry.
By Editor
We design to present in the REVIEW, from time to time, such reliable facts as may come into our possession relative to the wonderful growth and development of our own nation. To this end, we ask our readers to forward to this Office any facts of this nature which may at any time come to their knowledge. It is not necessary that we comment on these facts. All who understand our application of the last symbol in the thirteenth of Revelation, will see at once their bearing. Bro. Canright forwards the following statistics showing the marvelous development of American Industry, clipped from the Union Hand-Book, of 1870:— At the annual fair of the New England Agricultural Society, held at Portland, Maine, last week, Dr. Loring delivered an address, in which we find some interesting facts and figures pertaining to the marvelous advance which the nation has made in wealth and population. We quote: “A colonial dependency less than a century ago, it has risen to the rank of an independent nation; has increased in population from 5,500,000 to 40,000,000; has fought successfully three foreign wars, and one civil war; has raised the value of real estate of the Union from $50,000,000 to nearly $10,000,000,000; is producing 115,000,000 lbs. of wool, 1,332,000,000 bushels of grain—being of corn, 768,320,000 bushels; of wheat, 218,870,000 bushels; of rye, 23,490,000 bushels; of oats, 275,098,000 bushels; of barley, 235,727,000 bushels; of buckwheat, 21,350,000 bushels; besides 67,783,000 bushels of potatoes, 232,724,000 pounds of tobacco, and 2,300,000 bales of cotton. The increase in the value of agricultural lands since 1860 has been, in the New-England States, from 17 to 20 per cent, and in the most prosperous Western States, from 170 to 175 per cent. The growth of manufactures has been not less remarkable and interesting. In 1860, California produced manufactured articles to the amount of $68,253,228; Connecticut, $83,000,000; Delaware, $10,000,000; Illinois, in 1865, $63,356,013; Indiana, in 1860, $43,250,000; Maine, $6,235,623; Massachusetts, in 1865, $249,260,700; Missouri, in 1860, $41,783,651; New Hampshire, $37,586,453; Wisconsin, in 1867, $27,840,467; and the aggregate of the Union was $1,150,000,000. Of the means of communication and transportation, it is sufficient to say that nearly $2,000,000,000 are invested in railroads, connecting the Atlantic with the Pacific, and in the populous States intersecting every county, and in some counties almost every town.” For long ages the Jews in Rome have been subjects of the most relentless and merciless oppression on the part of the papacy. They have been compelled to live in the Ghetto, the most filthy and unwholesome part of the city; they have not been allowed to possess real property, nor to attend school; and they have been subject to other cruel and indecent restrictions. Almost one of the first acts of the government of Victor Emanuel, on taking possession of the city of Rome, was to remove these odious restrictions and admit the Jews to equal civil rights. But this occupation of Rome is styled by the papacy, “a temporary triumph of the devil’s kingdom.” So if the poor Jews are to regard the authority of the vicegerent of Christ, they must attribute to the triumph of the devil’s kingdom, almost the first experience of Christian kindness and charity they have ever known. How far will this be likely to draw them toward the Christian religion? This persistent and malignant persecution of the Jews, is one of the foulest blots upon the filthy and blood-begrimed escutcheon of the papal power. Place it beside the infallibility movement, and see how they look together. Rejoice, prophets and apostles; rejoice, martyrs and saints; rejoice, all in whose hearts a spark of humanity yet lives, that the day is at hand, when this mother of harlots shall be rewarded as she has rewarded others; and the cup which she has filled, shall be filled to her double. The Death-Bed Testimony of Christians
THERE is one single fact which one may oppose to all the wit and argument of infidelity—namely, that no man on his death-bed ever repented being a Christian. How to Convert the World.
A CHURCH edifice was recently dedicated in Cincinnati by the First Congregational (Unitarian) society. “The opening prayer was made by the Rev. Dr. Lilienthal, a Jewish Rabbi, then the Rev. Mr. Vickers read some passages from the Koran, the Analects of Confucius, one of the Hindoo sacred books, and, lastly from the Old and New Testaments!” Thus in a professedly Christian church, Mohammedanism, Confucianism, and Hindooism, are placed on the same level with Christianity; and the Koran, the writings of Confucius, and the Shasters of the Hindoos, are ranged side by side with the word of God! We imagine it is in some such way as this, that the conversion of the world is to be accomplished; not by changing the hearts of men, and reforming the false religions of the race, but by bringing them all in as Christianity, and voting all men, regardless of character, saints of the first water. Then the work is accomplished—just as effectually as it ever will be.