SABBATON: AN EXPOSITION OF MATT. 28:1, AND PARALLEL PASSAGES.
By Dudley Marvin Canright
Argument on Sabbaton.
"A DROWNING man will catch at straws." This saying is wonderfully illustrated in the various and contradictory arguments which are resorted to in support of the Sunday Sabbath. Among the weakest of these is that founded upon the Greek of Matt. 28:1, where we find the phrase, eis mian sabbaton, rendered first day of the week. It is claimed that this really means, and should be translated, "first day of the Sabbaths," as sabbaton means Sabbath. Putting this with the phrase before it, it reads, "In the end of the Sabbaths, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the Sabbaths." From this, a grand argument is made, thus:—
In the end of the Sabbaths means the end of the old series of Sabbaths, that is, the seventh-day Sabbaths, which ended with the day that Christ lay in the tomb; and then the first day of the Sabbaths means the first day of the new series of Sabbaths, which began the day of Christ's resurrection, the first-day Sabbath, thus showing that the old series of Sabbaths ended there, and the new series commenced at the resurrection of Christ. But is there any real truth in this assumption? There is not, as may be seen by good authority on the meaning of these terms.
First, on the meaning of the term, "In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn," &c. This is King James' translation, which is manifestly the best translation that might be made of the original. Mark, in referring to the same thing, says, "And when the Sabbath was past." Matthew must harmonize with Mark. The following notes and translations by eminent authors will give the reader a correct idea of its meaning:—
"Matt. 28:1. In the end of the Sabbath. The word end here means the same as, after the Sabbath, i. e., after the Sabbath was fully completed, or finished, and may be expressed in this manner: In the night following the Sabbath (for the Sabbath closed at sunset), as it began to dawn."—Barnes' Notes on Matt. 28:1.
"Matt. 28:1. Opse de Sabb. This must, with Krebs, Wahl., Tittm., Kuim., and Fritz, be explained, 'after the Sabbath,' i. e., as Mark more clearly expresses it, dia genomenon ton sabbaton, which must determine the sense here. Of this signification, the commentators adduce examples from Philost., Plut., Ælian, Xenophon."—Bloomfield's Notes.
"Matt. 28:1. In the end of the Sabbath.Opse de Sabbaton. After the end of the week: this is the translation given by several eminent critics; and in this way the word opse is used by the most eminent Greek writers."—Clarke on Matt. 28:1.
"Matt. 28:1. And late in the Sabbath, as it was dawning into the first day of the week, came Mary," &c.—Bible Union.
"Matt. 28:1. Now after the Sabbath, as it was dawning to the first day of the week," &c.—Diaglott.
"Matt. 28:1. And after the Sabbath, when it began to dawn on the first day of the week," &c.—Sawyer.
These authorities are sufficient to show the meaning of that expression. It does not signify the end of a series of Sabbaths, or any thing like it, but simply after the Sabbath. But what is the meaning of the phrase, eis mian sabbaton, first day of the Sabbaths? Does it not mean the beginning of a new series of Sabbaths? Well, if it does, then we have another new series of Sabbaths, beginning about twenty-eight years after the resurrection of Christ, as recorded in Acts 20:7, where King James' translation says, "And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together." Here the Greek is the same as Matt. 28:1, mia ton sabbaton, the first day of the Sabbaths. If this phrase, in Matt. 28:1, means the first day of a new series of Sabbaths, then, of course, this also means the first day of a new series of Sabbaths. We should like to know what new series of Sabbaths commenced way down over twenty-eight years after the resurrection of Christ. So also we have the phrase in 1 Cor. 16:2, thus having several new series of Sabbaths. The simple truth in the case is this: Among the Hebrews, the Sabbath was the principal day of the week, and hence the whole week was frequently called from its name, a Sabbath; and the other days of the week were reckoned from it. Thus, the first day of the week was called the first day of the Sabbath, and so on. That this is so, is pointedly proved by the following eminent authors:—
SABBATON—ITS MEANING.
"A period of seven days, a week, sing. and pl. Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:9."—Greenfield's Greek N. T. on Sabbaton.
"A cessation from labor, rest, the Sabbath, a day of rest: by synecd., a week. Mark 16:7; Luke 18:12; Matt. 28:1," &c.—Pickering's Comp. Lex. of the Greek Language.
"2. Meton., a sabbath, put for the interval from Sabbath to Sabbath; hence a se'nnight, week."—Robinson.
"Shabbath. 2. perh. week, as in the Syriac and Greek. Matt. 28:1; Lev. 23:15; comp. Deut. 16:9."—Gesenius' Hebrew Lexicon.
"Sabbaton. 2. a week, N. T."—Liddell and Scott.
"From the circumstance that the Sabbath was the principal day of the week, the whole period of seven days was likewise called, Shabat, in Syriac, Shabta, in the N. T., Sabbaton, Sabbata. The Jews, accordingly, in designating the successive days of the week, were accustomed to say, the first day of the Sabbath, that is, of the week; the second day of the Sabbath, that is, Sunday, Monday, &c. Mark 16:2, 9; Luke 24:9."—Ency. of Relig. Knowl., Art. Week.
"Sabbath is also taken for the whole week. Luke 18:12. I fast twice in the week: in the Greek it is, I fast twice in the Sabbath."—Cruden.
This fast was on the second and fifth days of the week, says Bloomfield in his Greek N. T.
"The seventh day, which we term Saturday, was styled among them [the Jews] the Sabbath, that is, the day of rest. And because this was the most important day of all the week, the whole week came to be called from its name, a Sabbath; whence the other days were called also the first day of the Sabbath, the second day of the Sabbath, and so on in their order."—Nevins' Biblical Antiquities, p. 174.
"The Jews called Sunday one of the Sabbath, that is, the first day of the week. Monday was two of the Sabbath."—Union Bible Dict., Art. Weeks.
"Sabbathum is also taken for the whole week."—Calmet., Art. Sabbath.
Other remarks might be made, and facts stated, showing the absurdity of the argument founded on this phrase; but these certainly are all-sufficient for any candid mind.
IN these times it is almost dangerous to explode a heresy; for there are not a few who are ready even to seize the fragments, and caper about with them in the highest glee, as if they had discovered a new truth, or been blessed with a flood of new light. There are many now claiming that the first day of the week is called the Sabbath in Matt. 28:1, who doubtless learned for the first time that sabbatone occurs in that passage, from reading a refutation of that foolish claim.
Let us then again examine the manner in which the first day attempts to find an asylum in Matt. 28:1. The passage, in the original, reads thus: "Opse de sabbatone, te epiphosekouse eis mian sabbatone, eelthe Maria, eelthe Magdalene," &c. A translation is given to these words as follows: "In the end of the Sabbaths, as it began to dawn toward one (or the first) of the Sabbaths, came Mary Magdalene," &c. And on this the following claim is raised: In the end of the Sabbaths, that is, the old series, or seventh-day Sabbaths, as it began to dawn toward the first of a new series of Sabbaths, namely, Sabbaths to be held thereafter upon the first day of the week. What is necessary to sustain this claim? It is necessary, first, that the word Sabbatone should have a plural signification, and refer to a series of Sabbaths, and, secondly, that the word first should agree with sabbaton understood; for in that case the idea would be, "as it began to dawn toward the first Sabbath of a new series." If now it shall appear that the word sabbaton has a signification the same as if it was in the singular number, and that the word first cannot agree with sabbaton understood, then the translation given above is incorrect, and the claim based thereon, unfounded.
If now the reader will turn with us to the lexicon and grammar, we will try to ascertain clearly the meaning of the words and the sense of the passage.
Opse is defined by Robinson to mean, as a general signification, late, after a long time. "With a genitive, the same as at the end of, at the close of, after." Robinson then quotes these words from the Greek of Matt. 28:1, "opse de sabbatone," and translates them, "at the end of the Sabbath, i. e., after the Sabbath being now ended."
De is simply a continuative particle, signifying but, and, also, and the like.
Sabbatone. There are two words translated Sabbath in the New Testament. The first is sabbaton, which is a noun of the second declension, and is always used in the singular number. The second is sabbata, a noun of the third declension, and always used in the plural number. But these two words have identically the same signification, and are used interchangeably. Robinson says that where the plural form occurs, it is generally used for the singular. The word here in Matt. 28:1, is in the genitive case, which, according to Robinson, determines the meaning of opse before it; he, as already noticed, having said that opse* with a genitive signifies at the end of, or after. The genitive is thus used, Sophocles § 196, to denote the time when, or place where.
Te epiphosekouse: It beginning to dawn. Here we have the article te and the participle of the verb epiphoseko, which means, according to Robinson, "to grow light upon, to dawn upon." Liddell and Scott give it the single signification "to grow toward daylight." The word occurs elsewhere in the New Testament, only in Luke 23:54, where it says that the Sabbath drew on; and this use of the word in this instance, Bloomfield explains to be a Jewish idiom to denote the commencement of their day, borrowed from the classic use of the word by the heathen, who commenced their day in the morning. The word cannot have the tropical signification in Matt. 28:1, that it has in Luke 23:54, and signify that the first day, according to Jewish reckoning, was drawing on; for the word opse signifies that the Sabbath was already past. It must therefore here have its proper and literal signification, and mean, "as it began to grow toward daylight." The word is here in the dative form for the genitive absolute, Soph. § 226, Note 3, the article te, agreeing with heemera, day, understood.
Eis is simply a preposition, meaning to or into.
Mian is a numeral adjective, the first of the cardinal numbers, literally signifying one. It is here used, according to a Hebraism, as an ordinal, signifying the first.—Robinson. The form mian is found in the singular number, feminine gender, accusative case, from the nominative, heis, mia, hen. Being an adjective, it must agree with some substantive, either expressed or understood. Is there any word expressed with which it can agree? The next word is sabbatone which is in the genitive plural, and cannot therefore be the word with which the accusative singular, mian, agrees. What word, then, shall be supplied? This brings us to the principal claim based upon this text in behalf of the first day of the week. Is the sense of the passage that this is the first of a new series of Sabbaths now introduced? the first Sabbath of a new series? If so, the word first (mian) must agree with Sabbath (singular) understood. This form is found in the singular number and accusative case, the agreement thus far being all right; but when we look at the gender, we find that sabbaton is neuter, and mian, as already stated, is feminine. We cannot, therefore, supply the word sabbatone, unless we can perform the ungrammatical miracle of making a feminine adjective agree with a neuter noun.
But, strange to say, some are so determined to have sabbatone understood, as to claim that mian is neuter! and that the gender of the adjective is determined, not by its form, but by the gender of the noun with which it agrees; as much as to say that the adjective has but one form, and is masculine, feminine, or neuter, according to the gender of its noun. This will certainly surprise those who have any acquaintance with the Greek. It is only for the benefit of those who have never studied it, that we need to say that adjectives are declined, or take a change of form to express the number and case, exactly the same as nouns; and that they have a change of form also to denote the gender; and the gender of the noun determines absolutely what form of the adjective shall be used to agree with it.
Take, for instance, the word under consideration. The accusative singular, masculine, of the numeral heis, is hena, accusative feminine, mian, accusative neuter, hen. Used with a noun in the accusative singular, if masculine, hena would be the form of the adjective to be used; if feminine, mian; if neuter, hen. If therefore sabbaton is the word understood with which the numeral should agree; the form hen should have been used, not mian; and the fact that mian, the feminine form, is used, shows that the noun understood, with which it agrees, must be a feminine noun. In this respect the law of the globe is absolute and inexorable.
With what, then, does mian agree? Scholars and critics who understand thoroughly the idioms of the Greek, tell us that in such sentences the word day, heemera, is understood. See Greenfield's Greek Testament, Matt. 28:1, margin, also Robinson's Lexicon. Heemera is a feminine noun, and hence mian can agree with it in every respect; and there is no grammatical inaccuracy involved; putting in the supplied word, we have eis mian heemeran sabbatone, literally, the first day of the Sabbath.
(To be Continued.)
The Habitual Swearer
Could the habitual swearer only see the list of his oaths, as taken down by the recording angel, he would never suspect that it was the work of a man; but he would suppose it was the outpouring of some satanic spirit who had devoted all the energies of his mind to the task of reviling his Maker. And though brave, the pen would drop from his nerveless grasp, if he were required to write his signature to the list and acknowledge it as his deed.
The Work in Norway.
By James White
THE REVIEW of March 6 contains interesting and startling news of the work in Norway. What a statement is this from Elder Matteson in his report from Christiana! "Wednesday evening we secured a large hall in the theatre, in order to get a reply before many. About eighteen hundred crowded in, and many went away for want of room."
Eighteen hundred persons in one assembly, listening to a defense of the great truths for our time, trampled under the feet of priests, and misrepresented and slandered in the public prints! These make hard work for those who, like Paul, are "set for the defense of the gospel;" but they have a part to act in this great closing work. They advertise for us by calling the attention of the people to our doctrines and work. Without them the world would hardly know we were in it. The battle goes well.
The statement of Bro. Matteson, that he had purchased real estate in Christiana to the amount of fifteen thousand dollars, really startled us at first. But as we read his explanation of the reasons for doing so, setting forth both the necessities of the case and the easy terms upon which the purchase is made, the movement appeared more consistent.
We honor the judgment of our dear Bro. Matteson in deciding to labor where he can accomplish most, and appeal to our people to assist and encourage him and all others who thus labor. The terms of payment on the fifteen thousand dollars are as follows:—
1. The time. This was doubtless set by the party who sold the property—thirty-three years. Eld. Matteson is not a timist. If he were, we have no idea he would place the period of the close of the message thirty-three years distant.
2. The rate of interest. Five per cent. per annum is exceedingly low. Rents for a place of worship, which they now save, added to what rent they now receive for the remaining portion of their house, would far exceed the interest on the entire fifteen thousand dollars.
3. The annual payments. For the first five years they would have to pay $266 annually. At the expiration of the five years the yearly payment would be $532.
The system upon which these brethren and sisters are working to raise means is certainly a good one. Thirteen and one-third cents per week seems like a small sum indeed, but in a year it would amount to $6.93 1/3. A church of one hundred members would raise $693.33. A body of one thousand brethren and sisters would raise annually $6,933.33. The strength of united action is here seen. At first, the payment of this debt will move slowly and heavily upon the few brethren in Christiana and the Scandinavian brethren in Europe. But as their numbers increase, and the sum of their interest is diminished by annual payments on the debt, the burden will grow lighter.
We set the time for the payment of this entire debt, including the cost of a complete publishing house, at five years. But in order to accomplish this, our brethren in Northern Europe must have help from America. First, the Scandinavian brethren in this country will esteem it their pleasure as well as their duty, to act a very liberal part for this mission, and, second, the American brethren, who take a deep interest in all our missions, will give of their means to assist this one also. Both are responding to our call for immediate help for Bro. Matteson. The receipts for Danish Mission in Review of March 6 alone come up to the amount of $488.
We will now suppose that it will require $15,000 more to establish the press in Norway, and help support missionaries until the cause there shall be self-sustaining, making in all $30,000 to be raised in five years, or $6,000 annually. By the grace of God we will do it. And we suggest that the American brethren pay one-half this sum. As the cause is young and comparatively weak in Europe, the American brethren will have to raise the larger sum for a few years. Then as the cause in Europe gathers strength, the Scandinavian brethren will be able to come up with their half. This we represent as follows:—
YEARS.
AMERICAN.
EUROPEAN.
1879,
$5,000 00
$1,000 00
1880,
4,000 00
2,000 00
1881,
3,000 00
3,000 00
1882,
2,000 00
4,000 00
1883,
1,000 00
5,000 00
Total,
$15,000 00
$15,000 00
Thus the $30,000 will be raised in five years. And of this sum Mrs. W. and the writer propose to pay $1,000 in payments as follows:— 1879, $300; 1880, $200; 1881, $200; 1882, $150; 1883, $150.
We wish this article to be regarded as suggestive rather than decisive. This, and many other matters of grave importance, will come before the General Conference the 27th of March.
JAMES WHITE
Questions.
By Editor
IN what sense does the spirit of God dwell in man? Does 1 Cor. 15:53 refer to the body only, or to both soul and body?
1. It is impossible to describe the operations of the Spirit of God. We know that it is promised to the Saints, to dwell in them, &c. Also to reprove, or strive with sinners. But we should be careful on such a solemn subject, not to go beyond the words of inspiration into the field of conjecture.
2. The passage refers to the man. The man is now mortal, but in the resurrection he will be made immortal, if he is Christ's. Much confusion might be avoided if the primary meaning of soul were kept in view, namely, person, or being. In a large majority of the instances of its use in the Scriptures it has only this meaning. The second meaning, life, is used as a concrete term, as representing a person or being by its qualities, namely, a living being. All other meanings or uses of the term are but different shades or modifications of these. The destiny of the body and the soul cannot be separated. Together they represent a man—a living man. But as the primary meaning of ne-phesh is person, it is used of a dead person as well as a living person; thence arises a peculiar use of the term in the concrete; the life has left the body; as soul, or ne-phesh, is often used for life, it is easy to glide into the expression,—the soul has left the body. Some go further and make the life, the ne-phesh, or soul, a living entity, a personality, in distinction from the body. This cannot be true, for as person is predicated of the dead, or dead body, if the soul were an other person, then there would be two persons of one man at the same time, a dead person and a living person. This is absurd. But this absurd view has long been the popular view. Much light has been shed on this subject of late years by English and American authors, but it has not been exhausted.
Greenfield gives as a definition of miseo, from which the word hate comes, in this passage, "to regard with less affection, love less, esteem less, slight." No further explanation is needed.
PLEASE answer the following: 1. In what sense is the term day used in Gen. 2:17? 2. Those who advocate sprinkling claim that it would be impossible to immerse so many in one day. 3. Explain Matt. 9:16, 17.
1. The word day, as to-day, is sometimes used to give force and emphasis to a declaration. We think in this case it means that he would fall under the condemnation or sentence of death the very day in which he should eat of it. This is in harmony with Bible usage. Comp. Gen. 20:3. "But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night, and said to him, Behold, thou art but a dead man, for the woman which thou hast taken; for she is a man's wife." That is, he was in danger of death, because he was taking a man's wife. See also Ex. 12:33.
2. They are mistaken. Conjecture is not argument. There were about a hundred and twenty disciples together on the day of pentecost. There were eighty-two appointed to the ministry by the Lord. If all were engaged in baptizing there would be less than thirty-seven candidates to each administrator. If the twelve only, there would be 250 to each. They could easily have baptized them in a few hours.
3. The connection plainly shows that the Saviour meant that the Pharisees were unfitted by reason of their religious prejudices, to receive the doctrines of the gospel. As is often said, we would rather work on new material to make Christians than on old bigoted professors.
Examination of a Famous Falsehood.
By John Nevins Andrews
(Concluded.)
Domville’s second point is that Dominicum, when used as a noun, as in the present case, signifies either a church or the Lord’s supper, but never signifies Lord’s day. He establishes the fact by incontestible evidence. Gilfillan was acquainted with all this. He could not answer Domville, and yet he was not willing to abandon the falsehood which Domville had exposed. So he turns from the Acta Martyrum in which the compiler expressly defines the word to mean precisely what Domville asserts, and brings forward the great Romish annalist, Cardinal Baronius. Now, say our first-day friends, we are to have the truth from a high authority. Gilfillan has found in Baronius an express statement that the martyrs were tested by the question, “Have you kept the Lord’s day?” No matter then as to the Acta Martyrum from which Bishop Andrews first produced this story. That, indeed, has failed us, but we have in its stead the weighty testimony of the great Baronius. To be sure he fixes this test no earlier than the fourth century, which renders it of no avail as proof that Pliny’s stated day was Sunday; but it is worth much to have Baronius bear witness that certain martyrs in the fourth century were put to death because they observed the Sunday-Lord’s day.
But these exultant thoughts are vain. I must state a grave fact in plain language: Gilfillan has deliberately falsified the testimony of Baronius! That historian records at length the martyrdom of Saturninus and his company in northern Africa in A. D. 303. It is the very story which Domville has cited from the Acta Martyrum, and Baronius repeatedly indicates that he himself copied it from that work. He gives the various questions propounded by the proconsul, and the several answers which were returned by each of the martyrs. I copy from Baronius the most important of these. They were arrested while they were celebrating the Lord’s sacrament according to custom. The following is the charge on which they were arrested: They had celebrated the Collectam Dominicum against the command of the emperors. The proconsul asked the first whether he had celebrated the Collectam, and he replied that he was a Christian, and had done this. Another says, “I have not only been in the Collecta, but I have celebrated the Dominicum, with the brethren because I am a Christian.” Another says we have celebrated the Dominicum, because the Dominicum cannot be neglected.” Another said that the Collecta was made (or observed) at his house. The proconsul questioning again one of those already examined, received this answer: “The Dominicum cannot be disregarded, the law so commands.” When one was asked whether the Collecta was made (or observed) at his house, he answered, “In my house we have celebrated the Dominicum.” He added, “Without the Dominicum, we cannot be,” or live. To another, the proconsul said that he did not wish to know whether he was a Christian, but whether he participated in the Collecta. His reply was: “As if one could be a Christian without the Dominicum, or as if the Dominicum can be celebrated without the Christian.” And he said further to the proconsul: “We have observed the Collecta most sacredly; we have always, convened in the Dominicum for reading the Lord’s word.” Another said: “I have been in [literally, have made] the Collecta with my brethren, I have celebrated the Dominicum.” After him another proclaimed the Dominicum to be the hope and safety of the Christian, and when tortured as the others, he exclaimed, “I have celebrated the Dominicum with a devoted heart, and with my brethren I have made the Collecta because I am a Christian.” When the proconsul again asked one of these whether he had conducted the Dominicum, he replied that he had because Christ was his Saviour.101
I have thus given the substance of this famous examination, and have set before the reader the references therein made to the Dominicum. It is to be observed that Collecta is used as another name for Dominicum. Now, does Baronius use either of these words to signify Lord’s day? So it happens that he has defined these words with direct reference to this very case no less than seven times. Now let us read these seven definitions:—
When Baronius records the first question addressed to these martyrs, he there defines these words as follows: “By the words Collectam, Collectionem, and Dominicum, the author always understands the sacrifice of the Mass.” After recording the words of that martyr who said that the law commanded the observance of the Dominicum, Baronius, defines his statement thus: “Evidently the Christian law concerning the Dominicum, no doubt about celebrating the sacrifice.” Baronius, by the Romish words sacrifice and Mass refers to the celebration of the Lord’s supper by these martyrs. At the conclusion of the examination, he again defines the celebration of the Dominicum. He says: “It has been shown above in relating these things that the Christians were moved, even in the time of severe persecution, to celebrate the Dominicum. Evidently, as we have declared elsewhere in many places, it was a sacrifice without bloodshed, and of divine appointment.” He presently defines Dominicum again, saying, “Though it is a fact that the same expression was employed at times with reference to the temple of God, yet since all the churches upon the earth have united in this matter, and from other things related above, it has been sufficiently shown concerning the celebration of the Dominicum, that only the sacrifice of the Mass can be understood.” Observe this last statement. He says though the word has been employed to designate the temple of the Lord, yet in the things here related it can only signify the sacrifice of the Mass. These testimonies are exceedingly explicit. But Baronius has not yet finished. In the index to Tome 3, he explains these words again with direct reference to this very martyrdom. Thus under Collecta is this statement: “The Collecta, the Dominicum, the Mass, the same [A. D.] 303, xxxix.” Under Missa: “The Mass is the same as the Collecta, or Dominicum [A. D.], 303, xxxix.” Under Dominicum: “To celebrate the Dominicum is the same as to conduct the Mass [A. D.], 303, xxxix.; xlix.; li.”
It is not possible to mistake the meaning of Baronius. He says that Dominicum signifies the Mass! The celebration of the supper by these martyrs was doubtless very different from the pompous ceremony which the church of Rome now observes under the name of Mass. But it was the sacrament of the Lord’s supper, concerning which they were tested, and for observing which they were put to a cruel death. The word Dominicum signifies “the sacred mysteries,” as Ruinart defines it; and Baronius, in seven times affirming this definition, though acknowledging that it has sometimes been used to signify temple of God, plainly declares that in this record, it can have no other meaning than that service which the Romanists call the sacrifice of the Mass. Gilfillan had read all this, yet he dares to quote Baronius as saying that these martyrs were tested by the question, “Have you kept Lord’s day?” He could not but know that he was writing a direct falsehood; but he thought the honor of God, and the advancement of the cause of truth, demanded this act at his hands.
Before Gilfillan wrote his work, Domville had called attention to the fact that the sentence, “Dominicum servasti?” does not occur in the Acta Martyrum, a different verb being used every time. But this is the popular form of this question, and must not be given up. So Gilfillan declares that Baronius uses it in his record of the martyrdoms in A. D. 303. But we have cited the different forms of questions recorded by Baronius, and find them to be precisely the same with those of the Acta Martyrum. “Dominicum servasti?” does not occur in that historian, and Gilfillan, in stating that it does, is guilty of untruth. This, however, is comparatively unimportant. But for asserting that Baronius speaks of Lord’s day under the name of Dominicum, Gilfillan stands convicted of inexcusable falsehood in matters of serious importance. J. N. A.
Sadly Amusing.
By Editor
WE cannot say that the first of these words is generally considered the proper one to qualify the second, but we do not know of any other combination which exactly expresses our feelings on reading a comment, by a correspondent of an Adventist paper, on Isaiah 65: 20.
The comment amounts to this: "the child" is prophetic, and means the United States government; it was born when its independence was achieved, in 1783; it will be "an hundred years old," in 1883, and, of course, die at that time, when all the sinners will be accursed.
The editor properly warns against such conjectures; but we doubt the propriety of letting such conjecturers present their silly dreamings to the public through a paper devoted to Bible truth on the advent and kindred subjects. It is calculated to cause people to look with suspicion upon the investigation of the sacred prophecies.
The Pacific Coast.
By James White
MUCH labor and means have been expended on the Pacific coast. Oakland, Cal., is a beautiful city of 45,000 inhabitants. In the center of this city is our Pacific Publishing House. On that goodly building is a gilt sign, "The Pacific Press." In that building are eight presses moved by steam, first-class printing material, complete bindery and type-foundry. Oakland, and San Francisco will ever be regarded as the head-quarters of the cause on the Pacific slope.
The California Conference is without an acting president, for reasons we will not here explain. At the session of the General Conference last October, it was decided that Elder E. W. Farnsworth should take the California field. He will probably go there immediately after the General Conference meets, March 27. And there are reasons why Elder S. N. Haskell should spend at least six months in the Pacific coast States and Territories:—
1. That is a grand missionary field. There is a reading, thinking population where men move slowly and cautiously in religious matters. There very much must and will be accomplished with our periodicals and general publications; and as Bro. Haskell is eminently qualified for this important work, and has not labored in this vast field, it seems very proper and necessary that the cause there should have the benefit of his labors.
2. Eld. Haskell is a practical man, and knows how to lift at the great financial wheel, where and when the load moves heavily. The debts must be lifted from the Oakland house of worship, and from the Pacific Press during the year 1879, and our people on the Pacific coast need his counsel and labors.
3. Bro. H. is one of God's humble working men, and will be of inestimable value to the cause on the Pacific coast as a practical preacher and laborer. JAMES WHITE.
The Seven Seals.
By Uriah Smith
Rev. 6:1, 2. "And I saw when the Lamb opened one of the seals, and I heard, as it were the noise of thunder, one of the four beasts saying, Come and see. And I saw, and behold a white horse; and he that sat on him had a bow; and a crown was given unto him, and he went forth conquering and to conquer."
Having taken the book, the Lamb proceeds at once to open the seals; and the attention of the apostle is called to the scenes that transpire under each seal. The number seven in the Scriptures is understood as denoting completion and perfection. The seven seals, therefore, embrace the whole of a certain class of events, reaching down to the close of probationary time. Hence to say, as some do, that the seals denote a series of events, reaching down perhaps to the time of Constantine, and the seven trumpets another series from that time further on, cannot be correct. The trumpets denote a series of events which transpire cotemporaneously with the events of the seals, but of an entirely different character. A trumpet is a symbol of war. Hence the trumpets denote great political commotions to take place among the nations in this age. The seals denote events of a religious character, and contain the history of the church from the opening of the Christian era to the coming of Christ.
Commentators have raised a question concerning the manner in which these scenes were represented before the apostle. Was it merely a written description of the events, which was read to him as each successive seal was opened? Or was it a pictorial illustration of the events which the book contained, and which was presented before him as the seals were broken? or was it a scenic representation which passed before him, the different actors coming forth and performing their parts? Barnes decides in favor of calling them pictorial illustrations. For he thinks a merely written description would not answer to the language of the apostle, setting forth what he saw, and a mere scenic representation could have no connection with the opening of the seals. But to this view of Barnes' there are at least two serious objections: 1. The book was said to contain only writing within, not pictorial illustrations; and 2. John saw the characters which made up the various scenes, not fixed and motionless upon canvass, but living and moving, and engaging actively in the parts assigned them. The view which seems most consistent to us, is, that the book contained a record of events which were to transpire; and when the seals were broken and the record was brought to light, the scenes were presented before John not by the description being read, but by a representation of what was described in the book, being made to pass before his mind in living characters, in the place where the reality was to transpire, namely, on the earth.
The first symbol, a white horse, and the rider who bears a bow and to whom a crown is given, and who goes forth conquering and to conquer, is a fit emblem of the triumphs of the gospel in the first centuries of this dispensation; the whiteness of the horse denoting the purity of faith in that age, and the crown which was given to the rider, and his going forth conquering, and to make still further conquests, the zeal and success with which the truth was promulgated by its earliest ministers. To this it is objected that the ministers of Christ and the progress of the gospel, could not be properly represented by such warlike symbols. But we ask, By what symbols could the work of Christianity better be represented when it went forth as an aggressive principal against the huge systems of error with which it had at first to contend? The rider upon this horse went forth. Where? His commission was unlimited. The gospel was to all the world.
Verses 3, 4. "And when he had opened the second seal, I heard the second beast say, Come and see. And there went out another horse that was red; and power was given to him that sat thereon to take peace from the earth, and that they should kill one another; and there was given unto him a great sword."
Perhaps the first noticeable feature in these symbols, is the contrast in the color of the horses. This is doubtless designed to be significant. If the whiteness of the first horse denoted the purity of the gospel in the period which that symbol covers, the redness of the second horse would denote that in this period that original purity began to be corrupted. The mystery of iniquity already worked in Paul's day; and the professed church of Christ, it would seem, was now so far corrupted by it as to require this change in the color of the symbol. Errors began to arise. Worldliness came in. The ecclesiastical power sought the alliance of the secular. Troubles and commotions were the result. The spirit of this period perhaps reached its climax as we come down to the days of Constantine, the so-called Christian Emperor, whose conversion to Christianity is dated A. D. 323.
Of this period Dr. Rice remarks: "It represents a secular period or union of church and State. Constantine aided the clergy and put them under obligations to him. He legislated for the church, called the Council of Nice, and was most prominent in that Council. Constantine, not the gospel, had the glory of tearing down the heathen temples. The State had the glory instead of the church. Constantine made decrees against some errors, and praised, and suffered to go on and introduce many other errors, and oppose some important truths. Controversies arose, and when a new emperor took the throne, there was a rush of the clergy to get him on the side of their peculiar tenets. Mosheim says of this period, 'There was continual war and trouble.'"
This state of this answers well to the declaration of the prophet that power was given to him that sat on the horse "to take peace from the earth, and that they should kill one another; and there was given unto him a great sword." The Christianity of that time had got into the throne, and bore the emblem of civil power.