Earlier text: INSPIRATIONTHE SABBATH OF THE LORD.
By M. C. W.
THE CHRISTIAN DISPENSATION.
How does the Sabbath of Jehovah stand in the Christian dispensation? It is marked with divine honors in the Patriarchal and Levitical dispensations, especially marked at their beginning and close. Is the Sabbath equally binding in the Christian dispensation? Are its sanctity and perpetuity and unchangeableness as strongly marked? Or, is here the period when the rest-day of God, holy and sanctified, loses its sacredness, and is changed or repealed? We shall find as we examine the record that testimony is neither wanting nor inconclusive. We showed in our last how Jesus lifted the Sabbath from the place it had fallen; how he removed from it the superstitions and traditions of the Jews, and placed it where the law of the Sabbath placed it,—a boon of blessing to mankind. It was lawful—"conformable to law"—to do well on the Sabbath-day. And this truth he enforced with the implied fact that he was its Creator, hence its Lord, and therefore knew the object for which the Sabbath was given,—for man and not against him. Matt. 12:1-12. Again: Our Saviour came as the Mediator of the new covenant (Heb. 9:15), a covenant, it is true, as old as the first promise (Gen. 3:15), confirmed by an oath to Abraham (Gen. 22:15-18), but now to be manifested and sealed to the nations through the death of Christ. Matt. 26:26-29. The covenant was then complete; no man can disannul or add thereto. Gal. 3:15. Not one single moral duty originates this side of that event that did not exist before. And anything presented as duty by any man or men, which dates subsequent to the death of Christ, is will-worship, which makes void the commandments of God. Before Christ sealed this covenant by yielding his life, he presented, amplified, and emphasized its principles. And it concerns us here to know as to how he treated the Sabbath precept, and the law of ten words of which the Sabbath commandment was a part. Did he abrogate it or amend it? He could certainly know what men would say in later times in regard to the change of the Sabbath, and could foresee the divisions in the Christian world concerning it; did he anticipate all this? He did, most emphatically. His language cannot be misunderstood or misinterpreted without wrestling the Scriptures. In the very first year of his ministry, in his longest recorded sermon, we find these words:—152 "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Matt. 5:17, 18. Rotherham translates the passage: "Ye may not think that I came to put down the law or the prophets: I came not to put down, but to fulfill. For, verily! I say to you, Till whensoever the heaven and the earth may pass away, one least letter or one point in no wise may pass away from the law till whensoever all may be done." The Revised Version: "Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets; I came not to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all things be accomplished." The Emphatic Diaglott: "Think not that I have come to subvert the law, or the prophets: I have come, not to subvert, but to establish. For, indeed, I say to you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one iota or one tip of a letter shall by no means pass from the law, till all be accomplished." Campbell and Macknight's translation is, "I am come not to subvert, but to ratify." All these translations give just the same sense; and nothing could be proved more clearly than are the following points:— 1. Christ did not come to destroy, subvert, dissolve, demolish, put down, nullify, or abrogate the law of God. We are forbidden even to think that such was his purpose. 2. He came to fulfill the law. Fulfill, says Worcester, is "to perform what has been prophesied, promised, desired, commanded, or intended." The only way, then, in which Christ could fulfill the law, was to obey the law, to perform what is commanded therein. An instance of this use of the word as applied to law is found in Gal. 6:2: "Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ." To fulfill the law of Christ is to do the law of Christ. To fulfill God's law is to obey that law. And this Christ did. He says: "I have kept my Father's commandments" (John 15:10); "I came down from Heaven not to do mine own will, but the will of Him that sent me" (John 6:38). And this obedience was foretold through the psalmist by the Spirit of Christ (Ps. 40:8): "I [the Son] delight to do thy will, O my God; yea, thy law is within my heart." Christ came to obey, keep, establish, ratify the law of God. 3. The unchangeableness of the decalogue does not have reference to underlying principles alone, but to the very smallest details. Not a jot—the smallest Hebrew letter, yodh—nor a tittle—a little point which served to distinguish one letter from another—could pass away. That is, not one single change in the letters or words of that law should take place which would in any wise alter its meaning or force. "It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail." Luke 16:17. 4. "Till all be fulfilled," or "accomplished," has reference to the prophets. Not one jot or tittle should pass from the law till all that the prophets foretold was fulfilled, or accomplished. How long a time is this?—To eternity. The Spirit of Christ foretold through the prophets the sufferings of Christ and the glory which should follow. 1 Peter 1:10, 11. Isa. 53 reveals Christ's sufferings; Isa. 63:1-4; 65:17; 66:22, 23; Jer. 31:35-37; Isa. 51:6, 7; Dan. 2:44; and 7:27, reveal the glory and the eternity of that glory. Through ceaseless succession of Sabbaths, perennial months, and never-ending years, as long as sun and moon shall last, or the great white throne of God endures, the law of Jehovah remains unchanged and unchangeable. Eternity will be an abiding evidence both to the verity of the prophetic word, and the immutability of God's law. Jesus could have expressed in no stronger way the unchangeableness of the moral law. 5. Jesus then declares that whosoever broke or should teach to break one of the least of God's commands, was unworthy of his kingdom; or, as Campbell renders, "of no esteem." That the decalogue is the law under consideration is shown in verses 21-32. Our Lord's regard for the Sabbath is shown in his observance of that day at the public assemblies of the people at the place of worship. Luke 4:16, 31. But this specific testimony is no more needed than is a testimony to show that he honored father and mother, or kept the third commandment. He kept God's law (John 15:10); therefore he kept all the law. If Christ transgressed a single command of God's law, he was a sinner (James 2:8-12); for sin is the transgression of the law. 1 John 3:4; Rom. 7:7. But Jesus did not transgress a single precept; he "did no sin." 1 Peter 2:22. Christ is our example in righteousness; and that example is evidence of the perpetuity of the Sabbath law. The apostle says that He left "us an example, that ye should follow His steps; who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth." 1 Peter 2:21, 22. "He that saith he abideth in Him ought himself also so to walk, even as He walked." 1 John 2:6. Is he who would transgress the third, or fifth, or seventh commandment a follower of Christ? Is not the fourth of the same law? Did not the same God give them, at the same time, in the same manner? Did not our Saviour regard the fourth equally with the others? Christ magnified and honored the law, and therefore magnified and honored the Sabbath. This was predicted by the prophet: "The Lord is well pleased for his righteousness' sake; he will magnify the law and make it honorable." Isa. 42:21. He magnified it by his teaching. He showed that it referred not to overt act alone, but to inward motive and cherished thought. Matt. 5:21-32. He honored the law by his dying in the sinner's stead, to release the sinner from the claims of the law. If the law could have been set aside, Christ need not have suffered; but by his death he showed that the law of God is so holy, so immutable, that nothing but the death of the Son of God, the Being without sin, who became sin for us, could release us from its claims. He died, not to confirm man in transgression, but to redeem him from sin. Matt. 1:21; Titus 2:13. And he who continues in sin while professing Christ, holds the Redeemer before the world as "the minister of sin." "God forbid," say you? Then walk in faithful obedience to all of God's precepts. How a Christian can look upon the suffering One of Calvary without seeing additional light and holiness in the law of God, how he can despise that law in whole or in part, which Christ honored, we cannot understand. Do we admire Christ's character? It was only the personification of God's law, or God's righteousness worked out. The law is the perfect rule. Jesus is the perfect Example worked out through faithful adherence to the perfect rule. The holy women, after the sealing of the covenant by the death of Christ, kept "the Sabbath-day according to the commandment." Luke 23:56. Simply note: 1. This Sabbath was the seventh day of the week; for the next day after was "the first day of the week." Luke 24:1. 2. It was the same Sabbath commanded in Ex. 20:8-11; for it was "according to the commandment." 3. It was the Sabbath of the Lord, the creation Sabbath, the seventh-day Sabbath; for that was the Sabbath of the commandment. Compare Ex. 20:8-11 and Gen. 2:2, 3. The next day was one of bustle and activity,—not kept in any way as a Sabbath. Upon it the disciples traveled (Luke 24:13-35); they believed not that Christ had risen (Mark 16:10); they passed the day in doubt and fear and anxiety, till its long hours wore away. Then, while gathered in their common abode (Acts 1:13), with closed doors for fear of the Jews (John 20:19), Jesus the Risen appears; but are they prepared to receive him? Have they gathered to celebrate his resurrection? Are they keeping the first new Sabbath? Far from it. They are partaking of their evening meal when Jesus appears; and instead of hailing him, they were terrified and affrighted (Luke 24:36, 37), and merited well the upbraiding from Jesus, because of their unbelief. Mark 16:13, 14. The first day of a cycle could not be the Sabbath. The labor comes first necessarily. The second day could, but the cycle of days then would be only two the second being the Sabbath. The rest-day of the week, or cycle of seven, can only be the seventh. There is no ground for inference even in the Gospels that the first day of the week became the Sabbath. It is simply impossible. The day is not even mentioned till after the covenant is sealed, too late to be connected with that covenant; and no sacredness of any kind attaches to its character or mention. But for the law of God, of which the seventh-day Sabbath is a part, we have the positive denial of our Saviour as regards any change; his positive affirmation that no change will ever take place; his precept to keep the commandments (Matt. 19:17); his example to all believers in all time; and all this testimony intensified, magnified, and emphasized by his death upon the cross. Certainly no stronger testimony could be given. A captious critic could ask no more; a believing child would be content with much less. They will not ask, "Have any of the rulers believed?" or, What do the doctors say? but, What did my Lord command? How did he walk? We find the Sabbath firmly established at the beginning of the Christian dispensation; we will consider it further in our next. M. C. W. SYLVESTER, CONSTANTINE, AND THE LORD'S DAY.
By John Harvey Waggoner
It is not because of any real connection between these names and this title that they are here placed together, but because of certain associations that have been ascribed to them, to examine which is the purpose of this paper. In a recently-written article on the change of the Sabbath, I made this remark: "Sylvester was bishop of Rome during most of the reign of Constantine. He decreed that Sunday should be called the Lord's day." In this I rested upon the testimony of the "Magdeburg Centuries," as will be found quoted in the "History of the Sabbath," by Elder J. N. Andrews, page 351. Not long after the publication of the article above-mentioned, I received a letter from Dr. A. H. Lewis, of New Jersey, inquiring if I could verify this statement, or whether it was a myth, so many of which have come down to us, historical myths, from the early centuries. As soon as possible I commenced the investigation of this subject, taking in, also, the statement of Nicephorus, that Constantine directed that it should be so-called. See "History of the Sabbath," page 352 (third edition, 1887). I would here call attention to two facts: (1) The quotations and references made by Elder Andrews, in his "History of the Sabbath," are absolutely correct. The closest criticism has never been able to impeach it in a single particular. They only have found fault with it, whose knowledge did not entitle them to the position of critics. (2) The "Magdeburg Centuries" is the work of an association of learned and impartial men, thoroughly conversant with ecclesiastical history. And so, if there is any question of the correctness of the assertion concerning Sylvester, it does not fall upon the author of the "History of the Sabbath," nor yet upon the authors of the "Magdeburg Centuries," but upon the earlier historians from whom those authors drew their information. And again, if it should be proved that the information was not correct, that fact will not at all militate against the position of the author of the "History of the Sabbath." To the contrary, it will rebound against those who originated the statement in order to give the authority of the name of a highly-honored bishop, absolutely the first Pope, in favor of the title of Lord's day being given to the first day of the week, familiarly known as the day of the sun. It would but prove that there was no authority of any nature in the first half of the fourth century, for giving the Sunday the title of the Lord's day. Of the real history of Sylvester but little is known. This, at first thought, seems very strange, considering that he lived at a most interesting period in the history of the Catholic Church, namely, at the time when its foundation was laid; that he was bishop most of the time that Constantine was emperor; and that in the time of his bishopric the primacy of the See of Rome was established, which finally led to the complete exaltation of the "Sovereign Pontiff." There can be no doubt that the following remarks by De Cormenin, in his "History of the Popes," are strictly correct:— "The actions of this pontiff remain in oblivion; and the legends transmitted by the monks, since the fifth century, are less adapted to put us in possession of the truth than to convince us that the history of a man so celebrated has been corrupted nearly up to its very source. We would not adopt the fictions of authors, who represent Sylvester as the catechist of Constantine, and pretend that this prince was cured of leprosy, and baptized by the pontiff. They add, that the emperor, in gratitude, made him a donation of the city of Rome, and ordered all the bishops of the world to be submissive to the pontifical See. They affirm that the Council of Nice assembled by the orders of Sylvester; and that he first granted the right of asylum to churches. "Romuala, and some undiscerning compilers, give us all these ridiculous fables as facts, of which celebrated historians have proved the falsity."—Page 57, edition 1846, Campbell, Philadelphia, from the French. It is beyond all question that interested parties were guilty of the most shameful frauds, to give the authority of the name of Sylvester to traditions and practices which they wished to fasten upon the church. Just as soon as the full authority of emperors, councils, and bishops was acknowledged over the church, just so soon the authority of the Scriptures began to wane. And when the priests and monks were honored as the expounders of the will of Heaven; when their word was accepted by the Christians as sufficient authority, they introduced countless "pious frauds," to impose upon the credulous people, to strengthen and confirm their own authority. This was all made to turn to the honor of the Roman pontiff; and to convince the people that such was the opinion, the decision of a celebrated Pope was enough to insure its general and unqualified acceptance. On this account it has been a most difficult task for the critic and the historian to give reliable information to the world, it being so difficult to separate the genuine from the counterfeit. And in very many cases the genuine has been so corrupted by designing men, that it remains a matter of great uncertainty what was actually said and done. This is shown in the reputed letters of "the Fathers," which have been multiplied beyond measure, and their genuine letters have been so tampered with that they are often of little service in giving the actual opinions of their authors. What they really wrote must always remain, to a great extent, uncertain. In this respect the memory of Sylvester has been peculiarly unfortunate. There is an abundance of tradition respecting him; so much that the truth has been almost entirely neglected, or purposely hid. Certain it is that his life was an uneventful one, and his writings not numerous, or else the tradition makers have done him great injustice, to serve their fraudulent purposes. And it should be borne in mind that these deceptions were not harmless. Nor does an exposure of their falsity in the least lessen the wrong they have done to the world and to the cause of Christianity. What matters it that they are exposed as vile frauds and forgeries? their authors and perpetuators have no further need of them. They served their purposes, and they can now be spared; but their influence is as enduring as if they were inspired and eternal truth. The words of the bishop were as the word of God to the people, to whom the real word of God was becoming unknown. The deception, the tradition, was given to establish a desired custom; and the custom in time became the warrant for its own observance as a Christian duty. In this manner professed Protestants, even to this day, suffer themselves to be imposed upon. Leaving the Scriptures of truth, they inquire what was the custom of the church in the early centuries; but they do not carefully inquire how those customs became established. If they would do this, they would find in a large proportion of cases, that the customs they so willingly follow became customs by means of the vilest frauds. In regard to what is ascribed to Sylvester ordering153 that the day of the sun should be called the Lord's day, it will be seen by the quotation from the "Magdeburg Centuries" that these authors give Metaphrastes as their authority for the statement. And as no other authority is referred to, and the statement is found nowhere else, it rests entirely on the reliability of this writer. Four times in their brief history of Sylvester, they quote, or refer to, Metaphrastes. I say, their brief history, for the whole biography of Sylvester is given in less than one actual page. The edition of Lucius, Basel, 1624, that which Elder Andrews examined in the Library of Andover Theological Seminary, is in large pages, double columns, each column being counted for a page; so that pages 739 and 740 are on the same side of the same leaf. About two-thirds of this complete page is devoted to Sylvester. We must now turn our attention to Metaphrastes, and inquire how he stands as a historian; whether his writings are so worthy of credit that we may safely and surely depend on his assertions in such a matter as the one under consideration. In regard to this it does not appear to be difficult to arrive at a conclusion, for the testimony concerning him is all on one side—all to the same intent. McClintock and Strong's Cyclopedia says:— "Very little is known of his individual history. The name Metaphrastes was given him on account of the manner in which he commented and paraphrased (μεταφρασις) the materials for his biographical work. The greatest variety of opinion prevails as to the time when he lived. Blondell, Vossius, Ceillier, Baronius, Simler, Valaterra, Allatius, Cave, Oudin, Fabricius, all give different dates, varying from the ninth to the fourteenth centuries. It even appears uncertain whether there may not have existed two men of that name at different times. . . . The work is not original. Metaphrastes only arranged and paraphrased, in very good style for the times, various biographies which existed previously in the libraries of churches and convents. He omitted many details which he considered useless or unproved, and substituted others which he considered more important or authentic. He has been accused of having, by these modifications, destroyed the simplicity of the ancient biographies. His own work has undergone many alterations and additions, as well as curtailment, so that, according to Fabricius, out of 539 biographies generally ascribed to him, 122 are undoubtedly genuine." This certainly does not afford any assurance that we may rest with confidence upon the statements of those writings which pass under the name of Metaphrastes. But let us inquire further. Herzog, "Real Encyclopedia," says:— "This Byzantine author has established for himself a name in the literature of the middle ages, by collecting and working over older and more recent histories of martyrs and saints. But just as his collection itself is composed of the most unlikely elements, and contains that which is most spurious and fabulous, so there is attached to him and to his age a considerable darkness; he belongs to those of whom one does not like to be reminded, because they are surrounded by nothing but confusion and uncertainty." A work entitled, "Critical Study of Ecclesiastical History," by John Goulter Dowling, M. A., Wadham College, Oxford (London, Rivington, 1838), speaks thus of our author:— "In the early part of the tenth century, Simeon Metaphrastes was employed by the emperor to rewrite, in a popular and attractive manner, the lives of the saints and martyrs. He executed his commission by compiling from the ancient narratives a number of labored and ostentatious panegyrics, contemptible for their false taste, and noxious for the fabulous circumstances and superstitious opinions which he has interwoven with the original materials. His ill-employed labor inflicted on church history a deep and lasting injury; for the compositions, which were written in accordance with the feelings and notions of the day, soon superseded the less obtrusive works, which possessed a really historic value. The greater part of the lives of the Eastern saints, which have come down to us, have, unfortunately, passed through the hands of Simeon or his imitators, and it is now too often the chief business of the ecclesiastical critic to distinguish between the evidence of the ancient biographers and the fables of the metaphrast."—Pp. 84, 85. It does not seem to be necessary to multiply evidences on this point. These authorities, themselves reliable, speak so decisively on the subject, that I think all will agree that we do well to require some more and better evidence than that of Metaphrastes before we accept as truth any reputed historical statement. It will be readily conceded that there is nothing incongruous in the idea of Sylvester ordering that Sunday should be called the Lord's day, so that it could be accepted if there were any reliable evidence to that effect. But we may safely say there is not. It does not become us to admit that it did take place, merely because it would not be an incredible circumstance if proof thereof existed. We can only safely admit as a fact of history that of which some reliable proof can be offered. There is another circumstance which tells against the statement. If Sylvester had, by his assumed apostolic authority, ordered that Sunday should thenceforth be called the Lord's day, that order would have been honored by succeeding bishops, and especially by the bishops or popes of Rome, who were ever on the alert to do honor to that See. But such was not the case. Leo I., surnamed the Great, was as assuming as need be, and he made most strenuous efforts to exalt the honor and authority of the See of Rome over all the churches; this was less than a century before Justinian subjected all the churches to Rome. If his predecessor in that chair, in the time of Constantine, had decreed that Sunday should be called the Lord's day, it would certainly seem incredible that Leo I., in his celebrated letter, in which reference is so often made, as being the most beautiful expression of the reasons for keeping that day, should call it the day of the sun, and not the Lord's day. In that letter he twice referred to the first day, and twice to the seventh day. The latter he called once Saturday, and once the Sabbath. The former he once called the first day of the week, and once Sunday; but not at all the Lord's day. Rejecting the testimony of Metaphrastes as apocryphal, as that upon which we can place no reliance, and considering that the succeeding bishops failed to recognize such an order in their actions and letters, I cannot consider the assertion that Sylvester ordered that Sunday be called the Lord's day, entitled to any credit whatever. J. H. W. THOSE WHO read the article in last week's SIGNS entitled, "The Little Horn of Daniel 8," will remember that while the angel made known to the prophet the meaning of the various symbols employed in that chapter, he did not explain the date of the 2,300 days, or years, of verse 14, at the end of which time it was declared the sanctuary should be cleansed. The prophet was shown the terrible persecutions which the people of God were to suffer, and the cruel death of the Son of God, and he could endure no more, but fainted and was sick certain days; and the angel left him for a season, and then returned to supply that which was lacking in the explanation of the vision, namely, the date of the 2,300 days. It appears from the chronology given in the margin of our Bibles, that the vision of Daniel 8 was in 553 B. C., and that the vision of the ninth chapter was in 538 B. C., fifteen years later, but this is a mistake. The fact is that these visions were less than two years apart, indeed, it seems probable that they were both given in the same year, namely, in 538 B. C. The mistake in Archbishop Usher's chronology arises from the supposition which prevailed until quite recently, that Belshazzar, the last king of Babylon, and Nabonadius were both one and the same person. Daniel's vision in the eighth chapter of his prophecy was in the third year of Belshazzar, and his vision of the ninth chapter was in the first year of Darius. It is a well-established fact that the last king of Babylon reigned eighteen years, and it was formerly supposed that Belshazzar was that king, hence the conclusion that fifteen years elapsed between the visions. But it is now known that when Babylon fell there were two kings reigning in that kingdom, though only one of them, Belshazzar, was in the city at the time of the siege. Nabonadius was king of Babylon and began to reign B. C. 555, and reigned as sole monarch fifteen years; he then associated with him in the kingdom his son Belshazzar; hence the third year of Belshazzar, instead of being 553 B. C., was 538 B. C. Smith's Bible Dictionary, art. "Belshazzar," says: "Belshazzar's position as joint ruler with his father harmonizes with Daniel's being the third ruler in the kingdom (Dan. 5: 16, 29), the highest position then tenable by a subject." But it is not necessary to spend time with further evidence upon this point, since the recent discoveries of Sir Henry Rawlinson have put the facts as here stated beyond question. If, however, any wish to examine the subject critically, they will find it treated at length in Rawlinson's "Historical Evidences." But to return to the prophet and the unexplained vision. Some months had elapsed, we know not how many, but they had been eventful ones. Babylon had fallen, and Darius reigned over the realm of the Chaldeans. However, the captive prophet was still prime minister, but though burdened with the cares of State, his mind dwelt upon the unexplained vision, and he sought by study, by prayer, and by fasting, to arrive at an understanding of the mysterious 2,300 days. He says: "I understood by books the number of years, whereof the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem." But though he knew that the seventy years of Babylonish captivity were about to expire, the prophet could get no light on the date of the 2,300 days—or years, as we know that they were—and which he naturally connected with the Jewish people. So in his perplexity he prayed and fasted before the Lord, and in answer to his prayer, Gabriel is again sent (verse 21) to instruct him. Said the angel: "I am come to shew thee; for thou art greatly beloved; therefore understand the matter, and consider the vision. Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city." The angel said, "Consider the vision." What vision? Evidently the one that was previously left only partially explained. And having directed the prophet's attention to the vision, the angel told him that only seventy weeks, or 490 years, of the 2,300 years, belonged to the Jews. He then proceeded to tell him that those seventy weeks were to be divided into three parts, namely, "seven weeks," "threescore and two weeks" (verse 25), and "one week." Verse 27. The first seven weeks were to be devoted to rebuilding the wall of Jerusalem; then threescore and two weeks more were to reach to Messiah the Prince, or to Christ, and after that, Messiah was to be cut off, that is, Christ was to be crucified. The threescore and two weeks were to follow the seven weeks, and as Christ was to be crucified after the threescore and two weeks, it follows that his crucifixion was to take place in the last or seventh week of that period. Indeed the next verse (27) says plainly that he was to confirm the covenant with many for one week, and that in the midst of the week he, Christ, was to cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, which he did by giving himself a sacrifice for sins. The angel not only told the prophet what was to occur during the seventy weeks, but he also told him the event from which they were to date, namely, "from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem." Verse 25. A note in the margin of our Bibles says that the seventy weeks date from the 20th of Artaxerxes, which was, according to the chronology in the margin of Ezra 4: 6, to which reference is made, B. C. 529. But this is manifestly an error, as 69½ weeks, or 486½ years, were to reach to the cutting off of the Messiah, which was the crucifixion of Christ; and by no possibility can it be made to appear that 486½ years could reach from B. C. 529 to A. D. 31. Furthermore, the makers of the note evidently did not understand the matter, as is shown by their reference to Ezra 4: 6, for the first Artaxerxes (there were three kings of that name) did not begin to reign until 465 B. C., 64 years after the date given in the margin of Ezra 4: 6, the text to which they refer to support their note.154 But we are not left in doubt about this important matter. The date of the going forth of the decree to restore and to build Jerusalem can be easily ascertained from the Scriptures. This commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem was not simply the decree of an earthly monarch, but it was, as we learn from Ezra 6: 14, "the commandment of the God of Israel," "and the commandment of Cyrus, and Darius, and Artaxerxes King of Persia," or, in other words, it was a threefold commandment given by three succeeding kings, who in giving it were simply fulfilling the will of God. It was God's purpose that Jerusalem should be restored, and this purpose was accomplished through these three kings; and when the last of them had contributed his share, when he had signed the decree and published it to those concerned in it, his decree, together with the two which had gone before, constituted "the commandment of the God of Israel" to restore and to build Jerusalem; and from that time the 2,300 years were to date. The first part of this threefold commandment, i. e., the part given through Cyrus, is recorded in the first chapter of Ezra, and was, as the reader will see from a careful reading of that chapter, simply a decree giving the Jews permission to rebuild the temple. The second part, i. e., that given through Darius, is recorded in Ezra 6, and is simply a confirmation of the decree of Cyrus. The third part, that given through Artaxerxes, is found in Ezra 7, and is a complete charter for the full restoration of Jerusalem, as may be seen by reading the decree, which was published in the seventh of Artaxerxes, B. C. 457. This, then, is the date from which the seventy weeks, and of course the 2,300 days also, must be reckoned. And so we shall show next week, counting from this date, that prophecy harmonizes perfectly with the history of its fulfillment, both in the rebuilding of Jerusalem, the crucifixion of Christ, and in the other several events referred to in it. (Lesson 12, March 23, 1889.) 1. AFTER the covenant between God and Israel had been ratified, what did the Lord say to Moses? "And the Lord said unto Moses, Come up to me into the mount, and be there; and I will give thee tables of stone, and a law, and commandments which I have written; that thou mayest teach them." Ex. 24:12. 2. What covered the mount, and what was its appearance? "And Moses went up into the mount, and a cloud covered the mount. And the glory of the Lord abode upon Mount Sinai, and the cloud covered it six days; and the seventh day he called unto Moses out of the midst of the cloud. And the sight of the glory of the Lord was like devouring fire on the top of the mount in the eyes of the children of Israel." Verses 15-17. 3. How long was Moses in the mount? "And Moses went into the midst of the cloud, and gat him up into the mount; and Moses was in the mount forty days and forty nights." Verse 18. 4. Did he eat or drink during that time? "When I was gone up into the mount to receive the tables of stone, even the tables of the covenant which the Lord made with you, then I abode in the mount forty days and forty nights; I neither did eat bread nor drink water." Deut. 9:9. 5. When the Lord had finished talking with Moses, what did he give him? "And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon Mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God." Ex. 31:18. 6. What was on these tables of stone? "And the Lord delivered unto me two tables of stone written with the finger of God; and on them was written according to all the words which the Lord spake with you in the mount, out of the midst of the fire, in the day of the assembly." Deut. 9:10. 7. Whose workmanship were the tables, and how were they filled? "And Moses turned, and went down from the mount, and the two tables of the testimony were in his hand; the tables were written on both their sides; on the one side and on the other were they written. And the tables were the work of God, and the writing was the writing of God, graven upon the tables." Ex. 32:15, 16. 8. What did the people say and do when they saw how long Moses was gone? "And when the people saw that Moses delayed to come down out of the mount, the people gathered themselves together unto Aaron, and said unto him, Up, make us gods, which shall go before us; for as for this Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is become of him. And Aaron said unto them, Break off the golden ear-rings, which are in the ears of your wives, of your sons, and of your daughters, and bring them unto me. And all the people brake off the golden ear-rings which were in their ears, and brought them unto Aaron." Verses 1-3. 9. What did Aaron do with the gold? "And he received them at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool, after he had made it a molten calf." Verse 4, first part. 10. What did they call this golden calf? "And they said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt." Verse 4, last part. 11. What does the psalmist say of this? "They made a calf in Horeb, and worshiped the molten image. Thus they changed their glory into the similitude of an ox that eateth grass." Ps. 106:19, 20. 12. Before they could do this, what did they forget? "They forgot God their Saviour, which had done great things in Egypt; wondrous works in the land of Ham, and terrible things by the Red Sea." Verses 21, 22. 13. How did they worship this image? "And they rose up early on the morrow, and offered burnt-offerings, and brought peace-offerings; and the people sat down to eat and to drink, and rose up to play." Ex. 32:6. 14. What must we conclude as to the nature of this "play"? See notes. 15. How did the people happen to make a calf to worship, instead of the image of a man? See notes. 16. What was the Egyptian calf-worship? See notes. 17. How extensive was sun-worship anciently? and what was the nature of it? See notes. 20. Did the Lord grant his request? "And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people." "And the Lord said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book. Therefore now go, lead the people unto the place of which I have spoken unto thee; behold, mine Angel shall go before thee; nevertheless, in the day when I visit, I will visit their sin upon them." Verses 14, 33, 34. 21. What immediate punishment did the people receive? Verses 19, 20, 26-28, 35.