Review and Herald, Vol. XXXI, No. 14
A FEW THOUGHTS ON REV. XXI, 7.Page 1
Earlier text: A FEW THOUGHTS ON REV. XXI, 7.CONVERSATIONS ON IMPORTANT SUBJECTS. NO. 5.
By Dudley Marvin Canright
Min. Well brethren and sisters, we have had quite a long intermission; but now will resume our investigation. Some one I think proposed to talk about the health reform. Bro. A. Yes. I would like to ask some questions on that subject, if it will be in order. Min. Oh yes! that is a very healthy subject to talk about, and withal very interesting to me. But before we begin, let us have this room in as healthful a condition as possible. The room is so full that we shall exhaust the oxygen in the air unless we can have a fresh supply. Please lower those windows a little. Windows should always be made to be let down from the top. Now Bro. A. we will hear you. Bro. A. If it is wrong for us to eat meat, why did God not only allow the Jews to eat it, but sent it to them on purpose, as he did when he sent the quails? Min. Paul once said that all things were lawful to him, but all things were not expedient. So we understand that the time has come when it is not expedient to eat flesh, even though it were lawful. All flesh is greatly diseased, and will be more and more till the end. Hence we prefer not to eat it. Bro. A. That seems quite plausible; but health reformers tell us that flesh should not be used for food any way: that we partake of the nature of the food we eat, and hence that it tends to lower our moral faculties and make us more animal than spiritual. If this were so, would God have permitted his ancient people to eat flesh? Min. Well, facts show that it is really so with regard to the effects of flesh when eaten. But in speaking of the Israelites eating flesh, you have used just the right word: "Why did God permit them to do it." Yes, it was only a permission, and that obtained against the declared will of God, as I will show you in a moment. What Christ said to the Pharisees about divorcing their wives is just as true concerning the eating of flesh. Bro. A. I do not remember what he did say. Min. The Pharisees asked him if it were lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause. Jesus argued that it was not lawful, because God did not so arrange it at the beginning. Then the Pharisees thought that they had caught him in a contradiction with Moses, the same as Bro. A. thinks we are contradicting Moses on the meat question! Bro. A. I confess that it does look to me as though you and Moses did not agree about eating flesh; for Moses told them to eat flesh, and you say not. Min. So thought the Pharisees about the question of divorcement. Let us hear what they say, and Jesus' answer, and perhaps it will help your mind. Matt. xix, 7, 8. "They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them," [now Bro. A. listen carefully.] "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, suffered you to put away your wives; but from the beginning it was not so." It was because of the hardness of their hearts that Moses, or God through Moses, suffered them to do it. So with respect to eating flesh. Bro. A. But how do you know? It does not say so. Min. I think that it does say all this. Let us see. Was it so from the beginning? Did man eat flesh before the fall? Bro. A. No he did not, I grant. God gave man every herb bearing seed, and the fruit of the trees, Gen. i, 29, but no permission to eat flesh. Min. Very well, then as Jesus said, it was not so from the beginning, was it? Bro. A. It would seem so. Min. Now let us see about God's permission to the Jews to eat flesh. Turn to Num. xi, 4, 10, 13, 18-20, 31-33. "And the mixed multitude that was among them fell a lusting: and the children of Israel also wept again, and said, Who shall give us flesh to eat? We remember the flesh which we did eat in Egypt freely; the cucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks and the onions, and the garlicks; but now our soul is dried away: there is nothing at all beside this manna before our eyes. And the manna was as coriander seed, and the color thereof as the color of bdellium." * Then Moses heard the people weep throughout their families, every man in the door of his tent: and the anger of the Lord was kindled greatly. Moses also was displeased. Then Moses said to God, "Whence should I have flesh to give unto all this people? for they weep unto me, saying, Give us flesh, that we may eat." Then God told Moses to say unto the people, "Sanctify yourselves against to-morrow, and ye shall eat flesh: for ye have wept in the ears of the Lord, saying, Who shall give us flesh to eat? for it was well with us in Egypt: therefore the Lord will give you flesh, and ye shall eat. Ye shall not eat one day, nor two days, nor five days, neither ten days, nor twenty days; but even a whole month, until it come out at your nostrils, and it be loathsome unto you." Then the Lord sent the quails, a great quantity of them, and the people gathered them and began to eat. "And while the flesh was yet between their teeth, ere it was chewed, the wrath of the Lord kindled against the people, and the Lord smote the people with a very great plague." Here we see under what circumstances the Lord suffered the people to eat flesh. They would not put up with the plain, wholesome food which God had provided for them, and upon which he wished them to live. They lusted, they murmured, they rebelled: God then gave them flesh to eat, and with it his wrath. Now Bro. A. what have you to say to this? Bro. A. Well I declare, I guess that you have the question. I had not noticed this circumstance before. But are you sure that it was because they asked for flesh to eat, that God was angry with them? Min. It says so very plainly. David, in Psalm lxxviii, in rehearsing this matter, says thus: "And they tempted God in their hearts by asking for meat for their lust." Verse 18. And again Verse 26-31. "He caused an east wind to blow in the heaven: and by his power he brought in the south wind. He rained also flesh upon them as the dust, and feathered fowls like as the sands of the sea: and he let it fall in the midst of their camp, round about their habitations. So they did eat and were filled: for he gave them their own desire; they were not estranged from their lust. But while their meat was yet in their mouths, the wrath of God came upon them, and slew the fattest of them, and smote down the chosen men of Israel." I see no chance for dispute here. Bro. B. No; that is so. It is very clear that it was not the will of God that they should eat flesh. He only gave it to them at last because they would have it. This has a good deal of weight in my mind with regard to God's allowing the Jews to eat flesh. Bro. D. Does not Paul say that these things were examples to those who should live in the last days? Min. Yes. I am glad you mentioned it. 1 Cor. x, 5-11. "But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness. Now these things are examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things as they also lusted." What did they lust after particularly? Min. Paul says we should not do as they did. Verse 11. "Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come." That must mean Adventists. Bro. A. I guess that we meat eaters will not get much aid and comfort from the Bible at this rate! Bro. D. Especially for eating swine's flesh! Min. I guess not either. After the Israelites would have flesh to eat at any rate, still there were certain kinds which God would by no means allow them to eat. Among the worst of these was swine. Deut. xiv, 8. "And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it is unclean unto213 you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcass." Who shall contradict God and say that swine is good to eat when he has so plainly said it is not? Bro. A. Did he not have some particular reason for not allowing them to eat it at that time? Bro. D. Yes; a very good reason; because it was not fit to eat! Min. If swine had been good for them to eat, God would not have forbidden them to eat it. If it was not good then, it certainly is not now. At any rate God has plainly declared his mind with regard to it. Bro. A. Does not Paul say that in the last days some will forbid to marry and command to abstain from meats which God has created to be received? Does he not say that every creature of God is good and not to be refused, if it is received with thanksgiving? Bro. D. Yes, "meats which God hath created to be received, &c." If God had created swine to be received, why did he forbid the Israelites to use it? You see, Bro. A., that it cannot cover all kinds of flesh. But he further limits it by saying, "For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer." 1 Tim. iv, 1-5. Has the word of God ever sanctified a hog? No, it has pronounced him an abomination. Bro. A. It does look so I confess. A hog is a filthy thing, I know. Min. With regard to the last days, I find a prophecy relating to that time, which speaks of the eating of swine's flesh in no very commendable terms. Isa. lxvi, contains many allusions to the last days, as in verses 5, 8, and particularly verses 15-18. "For behold the Lord will come with fire," &c. Then it says that those who are found at that time "eating swine's flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the Lord." If this be so, I prefer not to eat it. Bro. A. So should I, if that be so. I have noticed this passage before. But do you think that it is a sin to eat meat? Do you think that we cannot be saved if we use it? Min. We do not think that the eating of meat is a sin like swearing, or stealing, or lying, &c. We think that there is a more excellent way; but we attach the most importance to this question in view of what is coming on the world—the seven last plagues. We think that God is preparing a people to stand in the time of trouble, and that there are many reasons why we should not use meat, especially swine's flesh; but the most important reason is the one I have already stated. Bro. A. Then I should like to know what connection it has with our preparation for the time of trouble. Min. Very well. We will have a short intermission, and then take up that subject in particular. BATTLE CREEK BIBLE CLASS.
By Adolphus Smith
This class in discussing questions relative to the faith and practice of God's people, is no doubt doing a good work; but that their decisions are final, and that from such decisions there is no appeal, is not admissible. Nor does it claim infallibility. And yet, occupying the position it does, its decisions have great weight with believers in present truth in all parts of the field. How important then that its deliberations should be conducted with the utmost discretion and solemnity, lest, in deciding upon questions that do not immediately affect the interest of its members, it should discourage weak brethren, or lay a stumbling block in the way of honest inquirers after truth. In the matter of raising hops, its decision is adverse to such practice; yet there are brethren who own hop yards upon the produce of which they depend, principally, for the support of their families. They have been at considerable expense in getting up their yards, erecting buildings, &c. Now what shall they do? If they continue in the business, and the decision against hop-raising be not revoked, they will be likely to be regarded by some as not being in harmony with the truth, and as classed with those who raise tobacco for the market, or barley and rye for the distillery; or worse than all, the church will be reproached for endorsing practically what it theoretically condemns. The same rule on a smaller scale might apply to those who manufacture “hair jewelry;” as also to those of various other occupations, in which “present truth” finds individuals engaged, and from which it seeks to cleanse them by grace. It is easier to point out a wrong than it is to remedy it. No man who is unwilling to sacrifice his hop yard, or his hogs, or any business which should prove to be not consonant with the spirit of the third angel's message, is worthy of the kingdom of Heaven. But the heart of such an one may be less set upon his particular vocation, than is that of his brother upon the broad acres or fine buildings which he owns. Now if he first sacrifice his vocation for Christ's sake, he may receive an hundred fold more, even in this life, and at the appearing of the Son of man, a crown surpassing in glory that given to his more fortunate but less-sanctified brother. But is it necessary to sacrifice a hop-yard, or any business in which capital has been invested, without any remuneration? It may be. But I think it would be proper to sell such a yard if possible, even at a sacrifice of part of its value; but if such a sale can not be effected, let the owner grow out of the business as soon as possible, and let not the church reproach him; but if they would hasten his sacrifice, let them bear a share of the burden or expense, “and so fulfill the law of Christ.” SWINE raising is no doubt more objectionable than hop raising, and yet present truth may find a man in possession of a number of hogs, of the value of which if his family were deprived, they would suffer. Now it would manifestly be right for him to dispose of his hogs at a price; but if he purchase, or raise others afterward, I could but consider it as doing wrong. If he make other uses of them than to feed the human stomach, and that at a pecuniary loss, he would no doubt be blessed in his deed; and if his brethren insist upon such a sacrifice, let them bear a share of the burden. In all cases we must put away evil from our ranks, if we would have the blessing of God upon the church. The Bible Class should never discuss unimportant questions with the intention of having them printed in the Review. On questions of great importance, one week of prayerful thought and study would not be too much before giving a final decision. If its discussions are marked with solemnity, and its decisions rendered with deliberation, in all parts of the field will be felt the influence of the Battle Creek Bible Class for good. NOTE. We think we can say in behalf of the Bible Class, that the foregoing remarks very accurately express the feelings of all its members. We do not wish to be conscience for any one; and the decisions of the class are given simply as their views upon the various subjects brought before it, with the hope that it may be a gratification to the brethren to learn what our views are, and that in some instances, at least, light may be imparted, and the minds of the brethren be helped. We endeavor to consider the various questions with all the caution, solemnity and deliberation, above recommended; and in order that there may be ample time for this, the questions are given to the class a week before they are called up for discussion and decision. ED. “For I was alive without the law once; but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.” Rom. vii, 9. Evidently Paul does not refer here to any period that he did not obey the letter of the law, but to the time when he was living out his Pharisaical religion, and did not see the spiritual force of the law. Paul had been zealous in his former profession, and thought that he was doing God’s service in persecuting the disciples of this new religion. Therefore, having authority, he starts on a tour of persecution; but the Lord meets him in the way, and reveals to him the truth of the gospel. He sees his error, and a reformation commences. And the commandment which was ordained to [their, the disciples’] life, Paul found to be unto death to him. Verse 10. He had coveted power, and broken the tenth commandment. Verse 7. He feels that he is dead, and the curse of the law is resting on him. And who is to point him the saving way? He cannot go to his former brethren for light. Their light is darkness to him. He therefore turns to this new light, and cries, What shall I do, Lord? Acts xxii, 10. I did not understand that I was fighting against present truth. The Lord does not give him the desired information; but sends him to Straight street, among those whom he had come to persecute, for information. Ananias is given a vision of Paul’s situation, and what he is destined to suffer with them, and then charged with a message; and after giving it, he said, And now, why tarriest thou? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord. Acts xxii, 16. Paul had broken one of the commandments, and they slew him. Ananias then buried him with the Lord in baptism, in order to fully initiate him, or bring him to life in the new way, or truth. How different the conversions of the present time. Some start professing to be dead to the world, but never have been buried, while others live for years without a burial, and then do not follow the pattern given them by the Lord. And there is still another class who profess to have been slain, like Paul, by the law, but do not feel the need of a burial. Paul broke the tenth commandment, and it slew him. He felt the necessity of a burial, and was buried. They have broken the fourth commandment, and were buried while doing so. They now see their sin. Sin revives, and they profess to be slain. Why not be buried? Or is Paul’s sin greater than theirs? Paul had been lusting or coveting honor, and they had been robbing God of his sanctified time. Both are condemned by the same law. Both did it through ignorance. Both ought to follow the same example, and be buried. And there are others who have laid Christ off by open violation of many of the commandments, returned to the world, and have been renewed again. Would it not be scriptural for such to do their first works over again? Many such embrace the truth; and yet trust in their old experience, and worldly practices. Would it not be safer to begin the work from the foundation? We have a Heaven-sent message in the truths which we as a people believe; which is to cleanse us from all our sins, through obedience, and fit and prepare us to stand the trials of the last day; and that we can meet Jesus with peace when he comes. P. STRONG.
Orange, Ionia Co., Mich. TIME FOR RELIGIOUS EMPLOYMENTS.
By Jos. Clarke
I AM sure the necessity of taking time for devotion daily, is not duly appreciated by many who live in our time. Even S. D. Adventists, may not all of them look at this subject aright. Can a man raise a crop without taking time, and pains, and labor, to prepare the ground, to sow the seed, to till his crop, to keep the ground clean and mellow? Can the man who neglects to set apart daily a portion of his time, for private reading, meditation, and prayer—can such a man grow in grace? We say No. Is it presumptuous to ask God to grant a crop, without the use of proper means? So is it presumption to ask him to make us to grow in grace while we spend all our time in secular employments. The health-reform movement, gives us time and power. Every excuse is taken away. We must take time for private devotion; and if we would have eternal life, we must value it enough to take the proper time and means to obtain it. Isaac went out to meditate at eventide. No doubt he was early taught by Abraham, the importance of this exercise; and now, when if ever, his heart would be upon the world, we find him abstracting his mind from earthly things. He took time for this exercise. Probably, he now looked abroad upon the starry heavens, and contemplated the works of God, displayed above in the firmament of his power; and this display of God’s power led the noble mind of Isaac to the Creator; and in the sublimity of God’s works, he viewed his loving benefactor, God, as the Creator of all. At the present time, most are so intent upon the world, that they lose sight of God’s works, and of course forget the Creator.
JOS. CLARKE. HISTORICAL SKETCHES SHOWING THE FULFILLMENT OF PROPHECY.
By Dudley Marvin Canright
“And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee.” So said Daniel to the king of Babylon. As we have seen, this was fulfilled 538 B. C., when the Medes and Persians overthrew Babylon and “Darius the Median took the kingdom.” Perhaps no fact in ancient history is better established than this. “Belshazzar, his grandson, and the last Babylonian Monarch, was subdued by Cyrus, B. C. 538, and his kingdom was added to the Persian Empire.” Mitchell's Anct. Geography, p. 41. In Rollin's Anct. Hist., Vol. 2, p. 631, in his Chronological Table, we find the following: “B. C. 539, Labynit (Belshazzar) is killed at the taking of Babylon. The death of that prince puts an end to the Babylonian Empire, which is united with that of the Medes. After the death of Cyaxares (king of Media, uncle to Cyrus and Cambyses (king of Persia, and father of Cyrus), Cyrus, who succeeds both in their dominions, united the empire of the Medes with those of the Babylonians and Persians; and of the three, formed a fourth, under the name of the empire of the Persians, which subsisted 206 years.” In Vol. 1, p. 136, he says: “Here, properly speaking, begins the empire of the Persians and Medes united under one and the same authority. This empire, from Cyrus the first king and founder of it, to Darius Codomanus, who was vanquished by Alexander the Great, lasted for the space of 206 years.” This kingdom is represented in Dan. ii, by the breast and arms of silver; and in Dan. vii, by the bear having three ribs in its mouth; and in Dan. viii, by the ram having two horns. “The ram which thou sawest having two horns are the kings of Media and Persia.” Dan. viii, 20. Medo-Persia was the second great empire represented in prophecy. It covered the best part of Asia, extending from “India even unto Ethiopia, over an hundred seven and twenty provinces.” Est. i, 1. Cyrus' army numbered 120,000 horses, 2000 chariots armed with scythes, and 600,000 foot.—Rollin. Thus it will be seen that it was a great empire, only inferior to Babylon which had just passed away. Daniel was in captivity at Babylon during the reign of Cyrus. In the first year of his reign, Cyrus put forth the first decree for the Jews to return to Jerusalem. Ezra i, 1. He died B. C. 529. He was succeeded by his son Cambyses who conquered Egypt. This king reigned seven years, and was followed by Smerdis who stopped the Jews from building the temple. Ezra vi, 21. B. C. 521, Darius Hystaspis ascended the throne. He was an enterprising prince. He favored the Jews, confirmed Cyrus' decree, and allowed them to finish the rebuilding of Jerusalem. Rollin thinks that Esther lived during his reign. Kitto and others think that it was not till the reign of the next king, Xerxes. Darius conquered all India, and sent a large army against Greece, which, however, was defeated. From this time the history of Persia and Greece is intimately connected. Xerxes succeeded Darius B. C. 485. Good authorities suppose him to be the Ahasuerus of the Scriptures. He is celebrated for his vast army with which he invaded Grecia. Daniel, the prophet, 50 years before, had foretold what this king would do. In the year 534 B. C., while Cyrus was yet on the throne, an angel told Daniel thus: “Behold there shall stand up yet three kings in Persia; and the fourth shall be far richer than they all; and by his strength through his riches, he shall stir up all against the realm of Grecia.” Dan. xi, 2. Cambyses, Smerdis, and Darius Hystaspis were the three who followed Cyrus. The fourth was Xerxes. The prophet, 50 years before, had said that he would “stir up all against the realm of Grecia.” Will he do it? He did. After a successful invasion of Egypt, and after strengthening himself by an alliance with the Carthaginians, the most powerful nation of the West, and by other means, Xerxes prepared to invade Greece. The Carthaginians gathered from Spain, Gaul, Italy, &c., 300,000 men with whom to attack the Grecian colonies. Xerxes was a proud, self-conceited, ambitious tyrant. He showed his vanity by writing a letter to a mountain not to oppose his march, and by giving the sea 300 strokes with a whip for sinking his vessels! When all his army, and navy, and attendants, had arrived in Greece, they amounted to above five million, two hundred thousand persons!! It is thus described by Rollin's Anct. Hist., Vol. 1, p. 217: “Xerxes, directing his march across the Thracian Chersonesus, arrived at Dor, a city standing at the mouth of the Hebrus, in Thrace; where, having encamped his army, and given orders for his fleet to follow him along the shore, he reviewed them both. “He found the land army which he had brought out of Asia, consisted of 1,700,000 foot, and 80,000 horse, which, with 20,000 men that were absolutely necessary, and the camels, made in all 1,800,000 men. When he had passed the Hellespont, the nations that submitted to him made an addition to his army of 300,000 men, which made all his land forces together amount to 2,100,000 men. “His fleet, when it set out from Asia, consisted of 1207 vessels of war, all of three banks of oars. Each vessel carried 200 men, natives of the country, that fitted them out, besides thirty more that were either Persians or Medes, or of the Sacae; which made in all 277,610 men. The European nations augmented his fleet with 120 vessels, each of which carried 200 men; in all 24,000; these, added to the others, amount together to 301,610 men. Besides this fleet which consisted all of large vessels, the small galleys of thirty and fifty oars, the transport ships, the vessels that carried the provisions, and that were employed in other uses, amounted to 3000. If we reckon but eighty men in each of these vessels, one with another, that made in the whole 240,000 men. Thus when Xerxes arrived at Thermopylæ, his land and sea forces together made up the number of 2,641,610 men, without including servants, eunuchs, women, sutlers, and other people of that sort that usually follow an army, and whose number at this time was equal to that of the forces. So that the whole number that followed Xerxes in this expedition, amounted to 5,283,220 men.” Thus he had literally fulfilled the prophet's declaration that he should stir up all against Grecia. He had a high throne erected, from which he could view this mighty host, both on sea and land. At first it filled him with pleasure to survey the vast extent of his power; but remembering that of this innumerable host, one hundred years from that time, not one soul would be living, his joy departed, and he wept over the instability of all earthly things. What a lesson this ought to teach us on the vanity of all earthly glory. Now, for 2000 years that vast army has been sleeping among the silent nations of the dead! The king felt confident of victory. The Greeks, by doing their utmost, could raise only 11,200 men to meet this vast host. But these were hardy, disciplined soldiers, who fought for their country and their freedom. The millions who came against them were effeminate slaves to a king, and served him either through fear or for money. They met; the battle began; only 7000 engaged on one side, millions on the other! The brave Greeks were victorious every where, and thousands of the Persians were slain. Xerxes retreated from Greece with great loss. When he recrossed the water between Europe and Asia, he stole away in a small fishing boat! What an illustration of the vanity of human glory! This occurred B. C. 480. This great failure of the king of Persia entirely discouraged him, so that he abandoned himself to luxury and ease. Being despised by all, he was at length murdered by Artabanus, the captain of his guards, 472 B. C. Artaxerxes, his son, succeeded him. He was surnamed, Longimanus. He was remarkable for his goodness and generosity. He was successful in subduing his enemies, of whom he had many. The Egyptians revolted against him, but he subdued them. Under him the Persians had frequent combats with the Greeks. This was the king who gave Ezra and also Nehemiah commission to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the city. After a successful reign of nearly half a century, he died, and was succeeded by his son, Xerxes. After a reign of only forty-five days, he was murdered and succeeded in the throne by his brother, Sogdianus. He was a wicked wretch, and soon all the nation abhorred him. His brother turned against him, raised an army and defeated him. He then put him to death and took the throne himself. He is known as Darius Nothus. During a reign of 19 years, he sustained very well the honor of Persia. He was succeeded by Artaxerxes Mnemon. This king's reign was made unhappy by many revolts and rebellions of his subjects. At one time about half of his subjects turned against him; but they were brought to obedience again. After a reign of 43 years, he was succeeded by his son Ochus. He was an ambitious, cruel tyrant. At length, in the year 336 B. C., Darius Codomanus came to the throne of Persia. We have now reached the last king of Persia, and must next relate the fall of that empire. This I will do at some future time, if the Lord will. TRANSLATION OF THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES INTO GREEK.
By I. D. VAN HORN
[Bro. Smith; Thinking many of the readers of the Review would be pleased to read the historical account of the translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into the Greek language, as given by Rollin in his Ancient History, Vol. iii, Book xvi, Chap. 2, and Sec. 6, I herewith copy the same, and place it at your disposal.
, I. D. VAN HORN.] “PTOLEMY PHILADELPHUS CAUSES THE BOOKS OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES TO BE TRANSLATED INTO GREEK.” “The tumult of the wars, which diversity of interest had kindled among the successors of Alexander, throughout the whole extent of their territories, did not prevent Ptolemy Philadelphus from devoting his utmost attention to the noble library he had founded in Alexandria, and wherein he deposited the most valuable and curious books he was capable of collecting from all parts of the world. This prince being informed that the Jews were masters of a work which contained the laws of Moses, and the history of that people, was desirous of having it translated from the Hebrew language into the Greek, in order to enrich his library with that performance. To accomplish this design, it became necessary for him to address himself to the high priest of the Jewish nation; but the affair happened to be attended with some difficulty. A very considerable number of Jews had been actually reduced to a state of slavery in Egypt, by Ptolemy Soter, during the invasions of Judea in his time; and it was represented to the king that there would be no probability of obtaining from that people either a copy or a faithful translation of their law, while he suffered such a number of their countrymen to continue in their present servitude. Ptolemy, who always acted with the utmost generosity, and was extremely solicitous to enlarge his library, did not hesitate a moment, but issued a decree for restoring all the Jewish slaves in his dominions to their full liberty; with orders to his treasurer to pay to their masters twenty drachms each for their ransom. The sum expended on this occasion amounted to four hundred talents, so that one hundred and twenty thousand Jews recovered their freedom by this bounteous proceeding. The king then gave orders for discharging the children born in slavery with their mothers, and the sum employed for this purpose amounted to more than two hundred talents. These advantageous preliminaries gave Ptolemy hopes that he should easily obtain his request from the high-priest, whose name was Eleazar. He had sent ambassadors to that pontiff, with a very obliging letter on his part, accompanied with magnificent presents. The ambassadors were received at Jerusalem with all imaginable honors, and the king’s request was granted with the greatest joy. Upon which they returned to Alexandria with an authentic copy of the215 Mosaic law, written in letters of gold, and given them by the high-priest himself, with six elders of each tribe, that is to say, seventy-two in the whole; and they were authorized to translate that copy into the Greek language.” “The king was desirous of seeing these deputies, and proposed to each of them a different question, in order to make trial of their capacity. He was satisfied with their answers, in which appeared great wisdom, and loaded them with presents, and other marks of his friendship. The elders were then conducted to the isle of Pharos, and lodged in a house prepared for their reception, where they were plentifully supplied with all necessary accommodations. They applied themselves to their work without losing time, and in seventy-two days completed the volume which is commonly called the Septuagint Version. The whole was afterwards read and approved, in the presence of the king, who admired, in a peculiar manner, the wisdom of the laws of Moses, and dismissed the seventy-two deputies with extremely magnificent presents; part of which was for themselves, others for the high-priest, and the remainder for the temple. Expenses of this nature, though very considerable, never ruin a state, and do a prince great honor.” “The author, from whom these facts are extracted, is Aristæus, who represents himself as one of the officers of the guard of Ptolemy Philadelphus. He adds a number of other circumstances which I have omitted, because they seem more improbable than those I have inserted. It is pretended that the writers, whether Jews, as Aristobulus, Philo, and Josephus; or Christians, as Justin, Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria, Hilary, Austin, and some others, who have employed their pens on the subject of the Septuagint version, have founded all their relations solely on the veracity of Aristæus, when the work that bears his name is thought to be a spurious piece. Some of these authors have added circumstances which are generally disbelieved, because they have too much of the marvelous in them. Philo declares that though their translations were made in separate apartments, yet the least difference in the sense or style in which they were couched was so far from appearing, that, on the contrary, the expressions were everywhere the same, even to a single word, from whence he concludes that these persons were not mere translators, but men inspired by the Spirit of God, who conducted them on that occasion, and dictated the whole to them, even to the minutest word. Justin, and after him the other fathers already mentioned, suppose that each of the seventy-two interpreters performed his version in a separate cell, without the least correspondence with each other, and yet that all their translations were perfectly conformable to each other in every particular.” “I have frequently declared my resolution not to enter into any historical disquisitions of this nature, which would require much time and learning, and would, therefore, call off my attention too long from my principal object. The reader may consult the learned Prideaux, who has treated this subject at large. All that can be depended upon, and which no one has thought fit to contest, is, that a translation of the sacred books from the Hebrew into the Greek, was made in Egypt, in the time of the Ptolemies; that we have this translation still extant, and that it is the same which was used in the time of our blessed Saviour, as most of the passages cited by the sacred writers of the New Testament from the original Greek of the Old, are to be found verbatim in this version. It still subsists and continues to be used in the oriental churches; as it was also by those of the primitive ages, among whom it passed for a canonical translation.” “This version, therefore, which renders the Scriptures of the Old Testament intelligible to a vast number of people, became one of the most considerable fruits of the Grecian conquests; and was evidently comprehended in the design God had in view when he delivered up all the East to the Greeks, and supported them in those regions, notwithstanding their divisions and jealousies, their wars, and the frequent revolutions that happened among them. In this manner did God prepare the way for the preaching of the gospel which was then approaching, and facilitate the union of so many nations, of different languages and manners, into one society, and the same worship and doctrines, by the instrumentality of the finest, most copious, and correct language that ever was spoken in the world, and which became common to all the countries that were conquered by Alexander.”