THE investigations of others, especially of Dr. Carson and Prof. Conant, were no less exhaustive than that of Prof. Stuart, and all give the same results. And while we consider the vast number of instances given where it refers unmistakably to immersion, there is no instance found where the Greek word baptizo means anything but immerse. Now, where the lexicons are agreed, and the usage is uniform and unvarying, we think the question is settled beyond all chance of reasonable dispute; baptism is immersion, and that only.
Of the figurative use of the word baptizo, Prof. Stuart says:—
"Inasmuch, now, as the more usual idea of baptizo is that of overwhelming, immerging, it was very natural to employ it in designating severe calamities and sufferings."
It is a great mistake, yet made by many, to suppose that, because words are used in figures of speech, therefore they have a figurative meaning. There is no such thing as the figurative meaning of words. They must have a definite and fixed meaning in order to an understanding of the figures which they represent to us. The use of a word in a figure of speech works no change in its signification.
Having given such decided testimony from Prof. Stuart in favor of immersion, we should not do him justice did we not notice the reasons he gave for deviating in his religious views and practice from the meaning of the word. The paragraphs following contain the gist of his reasonings on the subject:—
"For myself, then, I cheerfully admit that baptizo in the New Testament, when applied to the rite of baptism, does in all probability involve the idea that this rite was usually performed by immersion, but not always. I say usually, and not always; for to say more than this, the tenor of some of the narratives, particularly Acts 10:47, 48; 16:32, 33; and 2:41, seem to me to forbid. I cannot read these examples without the distinct conviction that immersion was not used on these occasions, but washing or affusion."
We must again commend the frankness of his admission, but are constrained to express our conviction that he viewed the texts specified rather in the light of his theology than of any necessary construction, to find in them an argument for affusion. On Acts 2, he states what appears to him probable, but which every one knows is not necessary, and adds:—
"I concede that there are some points here which are left undetermined, and which may serve to aid those who differ from me in replying to these remarks."
On Acts 10, he thinks Peter's words imply this:—
"Can any one forbid that water should be brought in, and these persons be baptized?"
And yet he is constrained to say:—
"I admit that another meaning is not necessarily excluded which would accord with the practice of immersion."
On Acts 16:33, he speaks more at length, and is more unfortunate in his statement:—
"Here it is said that the jailer, after the earthquake and other occurrences, and when brought under deep convictions of sin, took Paul and Silas at midnight and washed them from their stripes, i. e., washed off the blood which flowed from the wounds made by their stripes; and straightway (parachrema, forthwith) he was baptized, and ALL HIS. Where was this done? At the jail, or in the jail, where he met Paul and Silas; at any rate, within the precincts of the prison; for after the whole transaction was completed, he brought Paul and Silas to his house and gave them refreshments."
Yet here, also, he admits that there might have been a bath in the jail wherein they were immersed; and so admits that his construction of the text is not necessary. The order of the events is not fully and correctly stated by him. It is as follows:—
They spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. Verse 32.
He washed their stripes, and he and all his were baptized. Verse 33.
He brought them into his house, and set meat before them. Verse 34.
Thus the record does not give countenance to the idea that all this took place in the jail; for he brought them out, and they preached to all that were in his house, before his baptism. And after his baptism he brought them into his house and gave them food. The baptism took place neither in the prison nor in his house.
But we appeal to every candid, God-fearing reader, against all such reasonings. While it is admitted that the meaning of the word is immerse, and it is admitted that the text may be explained in harmony with that meaning, genuine reverence for the word of God should lead every inquirer to search for that exposition which is in harmony with the evident meaning of the word used, and not to inquire if an exposition may not also be found, not in harmony with the meaning of the word used. The latter course is subversive of divine revelation, and is calculated to engender strife and cause division. For, it must be confessed, the nearer we keep to the literal meaning of the text, the greater is the probability of uniformity in our faith and practice. And when we diverge from the true meaning of the words of the revelation, and admit supposed meanings, confusion is the unavoidable result, for each one is equally authorized to bring in his own supposition. But "God is not the author of confusion, but of peace." We ought, then, to pursue that course which will shut out confusion, and bring peace and union to the household of faith.
The import or design of baptism is the main point, however, on which Prof. Stuart relied for his argument in favor of sprinkling; and as expressed the view of a large class, which ought to be noticed, we give at some length his remarks on this point:—
"Is it essential, in order that baptism should symbolize purification or purity, that it should be performed by immersion? Plainly not; for in ancient times it was the water which was sprinkled upon the offending Jew, that was the grand emblem of purification. So Paul considers it, when he gives us, as it were, a summary of the whole ritual of purification, by specifying the most significant of all its usages, viz., that of the ashes of a heifer mixed with water (Num. 19:17), with which the unclean are sprinkled. Heb. 9:13. So too, he decides, when he speaks of drawing near to God, in the 'full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience.' Heb. 10:22.
"It is then a perfectly clear case that the sprinkling of water or of blood was altogether the most significant mode of purification or atonement, or of consecration to God, under the ancient dispensation."
From this he infers that sprinkling is preferable to immersion in the rite of Christian baptism! But the whole argument is exceedingly defective, and the inference inadmissible. How do we learn that the water of purification was to be sprinkled on the unclean? By the use of a word in the law which always means sprinkle—never immerse. And how do we learn how the ordinance of baptism is to be administered? By the use of a word in the law which always means immerse—never sprinkle.
If the terms of the law are to be set aside, and speculations or suppositions substituted for them, then we may as well lay aside the Bible at once. In every text and instance which he cites, the word sprinkle is used, and the apostle shows that it is a symbol of the application of the blood of Christ, having no reference whatever to the ordinance of Christian baptism.
We insist, and none can deny, that if the priest had immersed the unclean person in the water of purification, he would not have obeyed the law of that ordinance, for the commandment was to sprinkle. And we likewise insist that to sprinkle a person with water for Christian baptism, is not to fulfill the law of the ordinance, for the commandment says immerse. Prof. Stuart admitted that a word was used by our Saviour which signifies immerse. Did Prof. Stuart, and do all of like faith and practice, know the mind of our divine Lord better than he knew it himself? Do they understand the import and significance of his own ordinance better than he understood it? Or, if sprinkling is preferable, why did Jesus and his apostles never use a word signifying to sprinkle when they spoke of the ordinance? They understood such words, for they used them in reference to other things. Or, if they wished to leave it indefinite, and to let the rite cover every method of application of water to the person, as many now teach, why did they not use the various words which signify sprinkle, pour, and immerse? This would be absolutely necessary if it was designed to give the rite so wide a range, for no one of these words expressed all these modes. Hence, to use invariably, one word, confines it definitely to one action.
These inquiries and statements may be better appreciated when it is considered that the word baptizo, in its various forms, is used one hundred and twenty times in the New Testament. It is used at least seventy-eight times in direct reference to the ordinance; and if we add to that fifteen times in which it is applied to John as the Baptizer, which title he received solely because he administered the rite, we have ninety-three times in which it refers to the ordinance. If sprinkling were the better method, it is amazingly strange that the speakers and writers of the New Testament never once used a word which signified to sprinkle, though referring to the ordinance so great a number of times. It would certainly detract much from our respect for the record as a divine revelation if it could be shown that, in referring to the ordinance nearly one hundred times, it always says immerse, and yet means sprinkle.
RITUALISM AND MISSIONS.
The more pomp the less power. The more parade and fuss the less real service for Christ and humanity. In speaking of the Ritualistic churches of London, Mr. Spurgeon said:—
“It is miserably amusing to mark the way in which our so-called national Church tries to win men to God. It has recently been stated that in seven of the leading Ritualistic churches in London, the subscriptions to Foreign Missions only reached the sum of £7 13s. 2d. for a whole year. It is fair to add that one of them contributed £5 12s. 10d. to a special fund for Honolulu, but even with this extra effort the total is not raised to £14, and the average is not £2 a piece. These seven finely apostolic churches contributed between them £13 7s. for Foreign Missions, and yet the incumbent of one of them, before the Ritual Commission, stated in his evidence that the cost of his choir alone was ‘about £1,000 a year.’ O model church, with what wisdom hast thou acted! Behold, thou givest £2 for the salvation of the heathen, and £1,000 for a box of whistles and a set of singing men and singing women to make music withal. Verily, this is a plain index of the whole business. Theirs is a religion of sensuous gratification, and not of soul winning. To charm ears with music, eyes with dainty colors, and noses with incense—this is their religion. Men pay money for these delights, even as they would to the opera, or any other amusement in which their tastes find pleasure; but, for the winning of souls abroad, a few halfpence may suffice to show the lack of zeal. Dear friends, we know that souls are not won by music. If the world were indeed to be conquered by chants, to be converted by sanctuses, regenerated by organs, and saved by little boys in surplices, then it would be time for us to cease our ministry and give place to choir boys, opera singers, organists and organ blowers. Then might we set up a vast array of gilded pipes, lift up the crucifix, wave the censer, and cry, ‘These be thy gods, O Israel.’”
THE LORD IS GOOD.
By Roswell Fenner Cottrell
How great is his goodness toward us who are so undeserving! Even in these last days, these days of degeneracy and degradation of our race, he is willing to enlighten, lead, and save us. And should we feel it a hardship to do and to suffer in his cause? Should we not rather esteem it a privilege to follow the self-sacrificing example of Him "who gave himself for us"? Oh! what have we cost? The Son of God gave HIMSELF for us. No reserve; life, soul, and being were freely given. He poured out his soul unto death, receiving in his own person the penalty which was justly our due.
What shall we render to God for his matchless kindness shown to us? Shall we esteem it a hard thing to follow Jesus, to bear the cross, to follow his example of self-sacrificing labor for others? Are we not debtors to him and to those for whom he died, to do all in our power to save them?
We cannot reach the sublime hight of our Saviour’s love and sacrifice; but we can look up to it, and press in that direction. And is not this a privilege? Oh! for a spirit to willingly enter into fellowship with his labor and sufferings for the good of others! R. F. COTTRELL.
FAIRS, FESTIVALS, FAILURES.
By Editor
THE following "open letter" is from the Evangelical Messenger, Cleveland, Ohio. It is suggestive, and the "Dominie" of every fashionable, fair-holding church, will do well to lay it to heart:—
"Dear Dominie:—I am surprised that you should have yielded your old-fashioned principles so far as to give your consent to a fair and festival in your church; and I am not at all surprised that you should ask my opinion about it. I think your request betrays the uneasy feelings of a man who has gone contrary to his better judgment. I am sure you will not get any comfort or spiritual benefit out of the affair, however much money you may gain by it; and I know you do not expect it, either. You have made a mistake—perhaps you have committed a crime.
"What is the matter with your church? Whence comes the necessity or occasion to hold a fair and festival for its 'benefit?' Are you becoming extravagant in expenditures, or proud, or covetous of finer fixtures? Have you been making debts—putting a saddle on your backs for the debt-devil to ride you to death? Or, have your people ceased to do their duty in supporting the Lord's cause? Have they lost the spirit of liberality which belongs to those whom the Lord has enriched with infinite treasures?
"If any of the above reasons for a fair exist in your church, then I would suggest that a day of humiliation, fasting, and prayer be appointed in its place. You need more religion in your church, instead of more money. A church can exist and do blessed, heroic service for Christ, without money, if need be; but it can afford to go hob-nobbing with the world, and crawl like a beggar at the feet of the mocking Mammon, for the sake of getting a few unsanctified dollars. Dominie! you ought to be ashamed! You ought to have manhood enough, if you have not enough religious principle and holy pride, to keep you from stooping to the modes and maxims of worldliness. The very worldlings to whom you surrender will despise you in their hearts for your weakness.
"You want to know whether there may not be circumstances that would justify the modern measures employed to raise money in churches? I cannot imagine a case like that. Suppose a case: A church is in debt, or must make some improvements, or must meet some urgent financial demand, and has no money. The alternative is to hold a fair and festival, or break up a Christian society and lose a church. I say, Dominie, let the church go! When the walls of a church have once become so weak that you must coax the world to help you hold them up, it is time to let them tumble down! When oysters, and ice cream, and grab bags, and tricks, and stratagems must be substituted for the old-fashioned Christian grace of benevolence, in order to get money to 'support the Gospel' (!), it is time to go and seek for the old landmarks of Christianity. The Gospel does not need any such support. It is not so, contemptibly weak as that. As sure as you live, Dominie, the Gospel is 'the power of God unto salvation!' Talk of 'supporting' the Gospel, or a minister of Jesus Christ, with the proceeds of fairs and festivals!
"Have you ever known a church fair to advance the spiritual interests of a society, or to promote piety in any of its participants? Have you ever known any real, substantial, permanent gain to result to the church therefrom? Are not all the facts against the institution? Do you expect to fare any better than others? Do you hope to be made an exception to a rule which has never allowed one?
"I like the spirit of the United Presbyterian Church of Scotland, as manifested in a recent case. It is one of their principles not to accept money for sacred uses from unclean hands. They decline to take for God, and his agent or minister, money that, as far as they can see, has not been honestly made. A Scotch writer says that when the late great Glasgow Bank failure took place there, some of the directors were members of the United Presbyterian congregations of the city, and one or more of them were large givers—almost the support of their particular churches. When, by the judgment of the civil courts, they were declared to have been guilty of systematic fraud for some years back, their liberal donations were all returned to them, although it more than crippled the congregations who did it. This fact was told, not by any of themselves, but by a learned clergyman of the Established Church of Scotland, who bore honorable testimony to their devotion to principle, and their own profession. All honor to those sturdy Scots. On the same principle the proceeds of 'sanctified' lotteries and feasts, from the tables of the 'money changers' in the Lord's house, would be sent back to the hands from whence it came, as unfit for holy service.
"If now we leave out of account the spiritual interest of the church, and consider the ordinary fair and festival from a financial standpoint, we find nothing in its favor. The money value of the sum total of labor, care, vexation, and expense usually required to prepare and carry on a church fair is generally greater than the proceeds realized. Besides this, the fair is an obstruction in the ordinary, God-approved channels of benevolence, and interrupts the flow of means into the Lord's treasury. Here too, the church suffers loss. With the same amount of labor and care and determination employed in managing a fair, as much or more money could be secured in proper ways.
"Can church members afford to spend time and thought and labor on fairs, while all their energies are needed in religious work? Can they afford to let the spiritual interests of the church suffer for want of the thought and effort which they devote to the fair? And what of the harmony and union and good fellowship which the fair is claimed to promote? Where are the facts? Where are the outsiders who have been drawn into the church and converted, in consequence of the attractions of a fair? I have not found them, to this day. Have you, Dominie?
"There is a more excellent way of providing means for the cause of Christ. Why not use the best way? Fraternally.
The perpetuity of every jot and tittle of God's law, is supported by the use of two tills. 1. Till heaven and earth pass. This is quite strong, and carries the mind to a period of time which is still in the future. On this, I think there can be no disagreement. 2. Till all be fulfilled. Here is the disputed ground. We are told that this reaches only to the crucifixion.—That Christ fulfilled all the law, and nailed it to his cross. But I should think it most natural to reserve the stronger expression for the final one. Let us read the text to suit the views of our opponents. According to their interpretation, the Lord wished to assure his hearers that no part of the law would pass, till the crucifixion, which was nearly three years and a half in the future. Then it would stand like this. After cautioning the people not to think he had come to destroy the law or the prophets, he would say, 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 three years and a half.
It has often been shown, that to fulfill a law is to obey it, not to abolish it. But leaving this point, I remark that, the subject of discourse includes something besides the law, namely, the prophets. He says, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill." He came in fulfillment of the prophecies. But have all the prophecies been fulfilled? Nay verily. Heaven and earth must not only pass, but new heavens and earth must be created before all is fulfilled. The prophet Isaiah says, "For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the Lord, so shall your seed and your name remain. And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one Sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the Lord." This must be fulfilled before even the fourth commandment of the law can pass.
I conclude, then, that the second till is the stronger of the two. The first reaches to the passing of the present heavens and earth; the second, not only to the making of the new heavens and earth, but to the unlimited extent of their duration. R. F. COTTRELL.
WORKERS WITH CHRIST.
By Ellen G. White
Those who are engaged in the work of saving souls, are co-workers with Christ. His was a work of disinterested benevolence; of constant self-sacrifice. Those who have had so great a sacrifice made for them, that they might be made partakers of his heavenly grace, should in their turn sacrifice and deny self, to aid in the great work of bringing others to the knowledge of the truth. Self-interest should be laid aside. Selfish desires and self-comfort should not now stand in the way of God's work in saving souls. God's ministers are laboring in Christ's stead. They are his ambassadors. They are not to study their ease, comfort, pleasure, desires, or convenience. They must suffer for Christ, be crucified with him, and rejoice that they can in every sense of the word, know the fellowship of the sufferings of Christ.
It appears from this message, disjoined as I have quoted it, that our prayers may be hindered. Any wrong course of life, any neglect of duty, any open or secret sin, may not only hinder, answer to prayer, but even cause us to cease to pray.
It is an old and true saying, that praying will make us leave off sinning, and sinning will make us leave off praying. This being so, how careful we should be to both cease from sin and continue in prayer. Such a course persevered in, will solve the most difficult problems in life, and untie its hardest knots, and overcome its greatest difficulties, and will finally conduct us to glory.
Who has not felt that his prayer was hindered when he had even for a moment left the path of rectitude to wander in the paths of sin? and who has not felt that his prayer was hindered when duty was neglected, or when the world came in with its cares or its charms?
Of all sin, no one is more grievous to the Spirit of God than discord, whether it is social, domestic, ecclesiastical, or civil. It is a heinous sin, and is potent to banish good angels and all good from the scene. Let us, then, ever cherish the spirit of peace and love. Joseph Clarke.
FAITH.
"But how am I to believe?" it is sometimes asked, "and what is it to believe; because it seems to me as if I had never doubted the truth of the Gospel?" That is, you never professed to disbelieve it—you never avowed yourself an unbeliever. But multitudes, who never professed to disbelieve, are without faith. They do not believe God. How then do they differ in His sight, from avowed unbelievers? You ask how are you to believe. Pray, are there two ways of believing? You know what it is to believe the word of a fellow-creature who has promised you some benefit; you have faith in his assurance, and expect the favor. Only change the object, and put God in the place of this fellow-creature, and faith means the same thing. Faith is the gift of God. It is only through Divine power that we believe the Gospel; but we speak not here of the work of the Holy Spirit in the heart, but of the nature of faith. To have faith in what another has said, and to believe what another has said, are equivalent expressions. Faith means believing, and believing means faith.
I once thought that faith was something more than believing, and perplexed myself not a little to know, among the various definitions of faith, whether I believed aright. But I am now convinced, that saving faith is the belief of saving truth; and I am more careful to know if it is "the truth" I believe, than how I believe it; for there are not two ways of believing.—Leaflet.
The Crushing Burden of Interest
No blister draws sharper than interest does. Of all industries none is comparable with that of interest. It works all day and night, in fair weather and foul. It has no sound in its footsteps, but travels fast. It gnaws at a man's substance with invisible teeth. It binds industry with its film, as a fly is bound in a spider's web. Debts roll a man over and over, binding hand and foot, letting him hang upon the fatal mesh until the long-legged interest devours him. There is but one thing on a farm like it, and that is the Canada thistle, which swarms new plants every time you break roots, whose blossoms are prolific, and every flower the father of a million seeds; every leaf is an awl, every branch a spear, and every flower like a platoon of bayonets, and a field of them like an armed host. The whole plant is a torment and vegetable curse. And yet a farmer had better make his bed of Canada thistles than attempt to be at ease on interest.
The Enduring Strength of Truth
TRUTH is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day, like a foot-ball, and it will be round and full at evening.
THE NIGHT IS FAR SPENT.
By John Nevins Andrews
"AND that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep; for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed. The night is far spent, the day is at hand; let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armor of light." Rom. 13:11, 12.
The day which is represented as at hand, is evidently the day of deliverance to the people of God. The night, which is far spent, represents the period of man's probation; the time during which the people of God sojourn in the earth in its state of subjection to the curse. It is the whole period from the expulsion of our first parents from Paradise, till the overcomers' return to Paradise, never to lose it again. It is a long night, but the morning shall at last chase away its gloom. It is the night of weeping. The morning shall bring everlasting joy. Ps. 30:5. This morning, when "the Just One" shall begin his rule, shall be a morning without clouds. 2 Sam. 23:3, 4. This night of sin and death is one perpetual watch for the church of Christ. The world uses this night for sleep and for drunkenness. 1 Thess. 5:4-8. It is the business of the church to watch and be sober. The church must watch through the whole night. But it is only as the night is actually giving place to the morning, that the tokens of coming day indicate to the watchers that their hopes are about to be realized. Till then, they have to watch without being able to tell very clearly the time of night, And so the people of God, weary with long watching, call out with anxious cry, "Watchman, what of the night? The watchman said, The morning cometh, and also the night; if ye will inquire, inquire ye; return, come." Isa. 21:11, 12.
The watchman assures the inquirers that the day shall finally dawn, and encourages them to ask again. And this is a virtual pledge that he will, in answer to his questions, report every token of coming day that he is able to discover. He makes one statement worthy of particular observation. The night comes as well as the morning. The present is the day of probation. If men will hear the voice of Christ, "while it is called to-day," they may be saved. But when this is past, then comes the night, to the wicked, in which none can work the works of God. John 9:4. But the present is our night, and when it is ended the "morning without clouds," the morning of joy breaks upon our delighted vision. So the one class finds a night of unutterable anguish, just where the other hails with infinite joy the long-hoped-for morning. The rest of the church and the distress of the foe come at the same time. 2 Thess. 1:6-10.
Paul tells us that "the night is far spent, the day is at hand." Thank God for that good word. Our salvation is nearer than when we believed. But stop, says the objector: Paul said this eighteen hundred years ago. If it was far spent eighteen hundred years ago, no one can tell that another like period may not elapse before the day shall actually come. Perhaps it would be a proper answer were I to reply that Paul often speaks to the church in a prophetic capacity, as, for instance, 1 Thess. 4:15, 17; 5:1-4; 1 Tim. 4:1; 2 Tim. 3; and that he is addressing the people of God from a prophetic stand-point, where the day of God is about to open. It is evident that he speaks in this capacity when he numbers himself with those who shall be alive at the coming of Jesus. The "WE" thus brought to view, being that part of the church that, standing as the representatives of all the people of God, shall finish out this long night of watching, and welcome the coming of "the perfect day." Prov. 4:18. But I shall say no such thing to an objector. Yet even he ought to see that his objection is sophistical, i. e., it consists wholly of false reasoning. For if this kind of reasoning proves anything, it proves that the nearer we get to an event the further it is from us. Any reasoning by which we may prove an absurdity is manifestly false reasoning. Thus to continue this style of reasoning: The apostle said that the day was at hand and the night far spent eighteen hundred years since; therefore, for aught we can tell, another like period may elapse. Let us suppose five hundred years more to elapse without the advent of Jesus. This same question being raised, the objector would say, Twenty-three hundred years have passed since Paul said the night was far spent; who can tell why another twenty-three hundred years may not intervene between us and the day of God? Who cannot see that this kind of reasoning is deceptive and false? We must be getting nearer the grand event, year by year; yet the lapse of time only makes the event more remote from us, according to that view.
What, then, did Paul really teach, and what is the true method of reasoning from his words? Common sense, an article so rare that the name seems inappropriate, would seem plainly to suggest the following as the reasonable and just view of this text: As the night evidently covers the whole period of our earth's continuance in its present state, in other words, as the night represents the time of probation and affliction to the people of God, for Paul to be justified in saying that the night is far spent, the greater part of the entire period must be in the past. This is certainly a reasonable, just, and necessary conclusion. Thus if two-thirds of the entire period had elapsed, then the night itself was far spent though Paul could not live to see the dawning of the day. How much time had elapsed when Paul wrote these startling words? Nearly forty-two hundred years! How much has elapsed since? About eighteen hundred! Then it follows that the dawning of the day is immediately upon us. More than two-thirds of the six thousand years of human probation were then past. The remainder is nearly full! Whether human probation covers just six thousand years or not, the most careful study of the Bible shows that it cannot vary much therefrom. Probably it is the very limit assigned. But waiving this, Paul's words do show that the day of God is certainly at hand. What was near, compared with the whole period of the night in the time of Paul, is by that very fact, proved to be now emphatically at hand. Then, surely, it is time for us to awake out of sleep. The dreadful day draws near. Probation is about to close. Our fellow men all around us are unprepared. Our own preparation is not complete. Some have hardly made a fair commencement. Probably a very large proportion of our number fail to make daily progress in the great work. Oh, terrible mistake is this! Shall our Lord come and find us thus? Shall the close of our brief, remaining probation bring us to the morning of eternal joy, or to the night of utter darkness and despair? J. N. A.
SYNOPSIS OF THE PRESENT TRUTH.
By Uriah Smith
NUMBER FOURTEEN.
THE 70 WEEKS AND 2300 DAYS (CONTINUED.)
We proceed to inquire,
I. Is the seventh of Artaxerxes, when Ezra received his decree concerning Jerusalem, (Ez. 7), rightly placed in the year B. C. 457? The following historical testimony fully answers this question:—
“Ptolemy mentions an eclipse of the moon in the seventh of Cambyses, which, according to modern astronomical calculation, took place in the night following the 16th of July, in the year of the Julian period 4191, at the beginning of the second year of the sixty-fourth Olympiad. As the vulgar era is dated from January 1st 4714 of the Julian period, it follows that this eclipse was B. C. 523. The date of this eclipse, decided by the unerring record of astronomy is undisputed. Consequently as Petavius observes, it is ‘the cardinal point and foundation, on which depend the arrangement of preceding and succeeding times, and the concord of sacred and profane history.’ (De Doct. Tempt. Lib. x, c. 14.)”
This was in the seventh of Cambyses. Cambyses reigned seven years and five months; or, if we include the seven months of the usurper Smerdis who followed him, according to the canon of Ptolemy, eight years. He therefore reigned one year after this eclipse. He was followed by Darius, who reigned thirty-six years; and he in turn by Xerxes who reigned twenty-one years; and this brings us to the first of Artaxerxes, B. C. 464. These are undisputed records of history, from an undisputed starting point, based on the calculations of astronomy. There can therefore be no dispute in regard to it. The first, then, of Artaxerxes being 464, his seventh would be B. C. 457. Here the canon of Ptolemy places it, which is a canon of undoubted authority, the “accuracy of which is demonstrated by the concurrent agreement of more than twenty eclipses.” And before it can be shown to be wrong, the calculation of these eclipses (and they have been repeatedly calculated) must be shown to be incorrect, which is an impossibility.
2. We come therefore to the second inquiry. Was the commission granted to Ezra, sufficiently comprehensive to fulfill the prophecy to restore and to build Jerusalem? Let us inquire into the intent of that phrase. It must mean to restore the Jewish state, civil and ecclesiastical, and re-settle it according to the law of Moses. To restore anything is to bring it back to its original state. The condition then of the Jewish state and church previous to the captivity, may be taken as a standard for its restoration after that event. But at the time when Ezra received his commission, the Scriptures were in a manner lost, the people were in a profound ignorance of the law; the worship of God was neglected; and everything was in great disorder and confusion. This we learn from the reformation which Ezra set about on his arrival at Jerusalem.
Of Ezra’s commission we read in Ez. 7:11, “Now this is the copy of the letter that king Artaxerxes gave unto Ezra the priest, the scribe, even a scribe of the words of the commandments of the Lord and of his statutes to Israel.” “The letter then follows, written not in Hebrew, but in Chaldaic, or Eastern Aramaic, the language then used at Babylon. At the 27th verse the narrative proceeds in Hebrew. We are thus furnished with the original document, by virtue of which Ezra was authorized to ‘restore and to build Jerusalem.’”
The decree commences; “Artaxerxes, king of kings, unto Ezra the priest, a scribe of the law of the God of heaven, perfect peace and at such a time, I make a decree,” &c.; and after granting certain favors to the house of God at Jerusalem, it closes in the following words: “And thou, Ezra, after the wisdom of thy God, that is in thine hand, set magistrates which may judge all the people that are beyond the river, all such as know the laws of thy God, and teach ye them that know them not. And whosoever will not do the law of thy God, and the law of the king, let judgment be executed speedily upon him, whether it be unto death, or to banishment, or to confiscation of goods, or to imprisonment.”
What could be required more ample than this commission to establish the government, enforce the observance of the law of God, and punish those who transgressed? At any rate no other instance of a decree so comprehensive as this can be found since the captivity.
“Sir Isaac Newton justly observes that the dispersed Jews became a people and a city, when they returned into a body politic; and that was in the seventh year of Artaxerxes Longimanus, when Ezra by the king’s commission, erected magistrates all over the land, to govern the people according to the law of God and of the king: under Ezra they first became a polity or city by a government of their own.”
However much stress may be laid upon the expression to build the city, nothing can be urged from it as an objection against the decree in question; for that Ezra understood himself fully empowered to proceed with the building of the city, and the wall is evident from his prayer, as recorded in chap. 9:9; and that he understood further that the conditional prophecies concerning his people were then fulfilled in that restoration is evident from the closing words of that prayer, when he says, “Should we again break thy commandments and join in affinity with the people of these abominations, wouldst not thou be angry with us till thou hadst consumed us, so that there should be no remnant nor escaping.”
But further, seven weeks (49 years) are allotted to the building of the street and wall in troublous times. The reckoning of the time can of course only commence with the commencement of the work; and the work did not commence till the Autumn of that year in which Ezra went up; for it was not until the fifth month that he reached Jerusalem. Ez. 7:8. And in just forty-nine years from this time the work was completed in the last act of reformation by Nehemiah, recorded in the last chapter of his book.
Says Prideaux under the year B. C. 409, “In the fifteenth year of Darius Nothus ended the first seven weeks of the seventy weeks of Daniel’s prophecy. For then the restoration of the church and state of the Jews in Jerusalem and Judea was fully finished, in that last act of reformation, which is recorded in the thirteenth chapter of Nehemiah, from the twenty-third verse to the end of the chapter, just forty-nine years after it had been first begun by Ezra in the seventh year of Artaxerxes Longimanus.”
U. S.