[FROM JOHN WESLEY'S MISCELLANEOUS WORKS.]
# A DIALOGUE
## BETWEEN AN ANTINOMIAN AND HIS FRIEND.
ANTINOMIAN.—Well met, my friend. I am glad to see you. But I am sorry to hear you have changed your religion.
FRIEND.—Changed my religion! I do not know what you mean.
Ant.—Why, you once believed that we are saved by faith.
F.—Undoubtedly; and so I do still.
Ant.—Do you believe, then, that the "whole work of man's salvation was accomplished by Jesus Christ on the cross?"
F.—I believe, that, by that one offering, he made a full satisfaction for the sins of the whole world.
Ant.—But do you believe that "Christ's blood and our sins went away together"?
F.—To say the truth I do not understand it.
Ant.—No! Why, did not Christ, "when he was upon the cross, take away, put an end to, blot out, and utterly destroy all our sins forever?"
F.—He did then pay the price, for the sake of which, all who truly believe in him are now saved from their sins; and, if they endure to the end, shall be saved everlastingly. Is this what you mean?
Ant.—I mean, "He did then heal, take away, put an end to, and utterly destroy, all our sins."
F.—Did he then heal the wound before it was made, and put an end to our sins before they had a beginning? This is so glaring, palpable an absurdity, that I cannot conceive how you can swallow it.
Ant.—I thought you would come to your "carnal reasoning." What has faith to do with reasoning?
F.—Do you ever read the Bible? Does not God himself say to sinners, "Come now and let us reason together"? Isaiah 1:18. Does not our Lord reason continually with the Scribes and Pharisees; St. Peter with the Jews; (Acts 2:14.) and St. Paul, both with the Jews and Gentiles? Nay, is not a great part of his Epistles, both to the Romans and to the Galatians, and the far greatest part of that to the Hebrews, one entire chain of reasoning?
Ant.—You may do what you please. But I do not reason; I believe. (The words printed as quotations are transcribed from late authors. I am not willing to name them.)
F.—Now, I believe and reason too; for I find no inconsistency between them. And I would just as soon, put out my eyes to secure my faith, as lay aside my reason.
Ant.—But do not men abuse their reason continually? Therefore it is best to have nothing to do with it.
F.—So, now you are doing the very thing you condemn! You are reasoning against reasoning. And no wonder; for it is impossible, without reasoning, either to prove or disprove anything.
Ant.—But can you deny the fact? Do not men abuse their reason continually?
F.—They do. The fact I deny not. But I deny the inference drawn from it. For if we must lay aside whatever men abuse continually, we must lay aside the Bible; nay, and meat and drink too.
Ant.—Well, but come to the point. In what do you trust for justification and salvation?
F.—In the alone merits of Christ, which are mine, if I truly believe that he loved me, and gave himself for me.
Ant.—If! So you make salvation conditional!
F.—And do not you? Else you make God a liar; for his express words are, "He that believeth shall be saved; he that believeth not shall be damned."
What is this but to say, If thou believest, (there is the condition) thou shalt be saved?
Ant.—But I do not like that word, condition.
F.—Then find a better, and we will lay it aside.
Ant.—However, I insist upon it, "nothing else beside faith is required" in order to justification and salvation.
F.—What do you mean by nothing else is required?
Ant.—I mean, there is but one duty, which is that of believing. One must do nothing, but quietly attend the voice of the Lord. The gates of Heaven are shut upon workers, and open to believers. If we do nothing for Heaven, "we do as much as God requires."
F.—Do you really mean, we are to do nothing, in order to present or final salvation but "only to believe"?
Ant.—Do not I tell you so? "To believe certainly, that Christ suffered death for us, is enough; we want no more. We are justified by our submitting in our judgments to the truth of God's grace in Christ Jesus. It is not necessary that a man do any works, that he may be justified and saved. God doth not require thee to do anything, that thou mayest be saved or justified. The law sets thee to work; but the gospel binds thee to do nothing at all. Nay, the works are not only not required, but forbidden. God forbids us to work for justification. And when the Apostle Paul presseth men to believe, it is as much as if he had bid them not to work."
F.—Let Paul be permitted to answer for himself. In the twenty-sixth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, he relates how our Lord sent him "to open the eyes of the Gentiles,—that they might receive remission of sins." Verses 17, 18. "Whereupon," saith he, "I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision; but showed to the Gentiles, that they should repent, and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance." Observe: He "obeyed the heavenly vision," "by teaching the Gentiles, before they were justified, before they had received forgiveness of sins," to "repent and do works meet for repentance." So far was he from "bidding them not to work," while he was "pressing them to believe."
Ant.—You are got to your "carnal reasoning" again.
F.—Carnal reasoning, I perceive is a cant term, which you use when you know not what else to say. But I have not done with this instance yet. Did St. Paul, in deed, preach to those Heathens according to the instruction given him from heaven, or did he not?
Ant.—Without doubt, he did; otherwise he would have been "disobedient unto the heavenly vision."
F.—How then say you that a minister of Christ ought to preach nothing but "Believe, believe?" and, that to tell men of doing anything, is "preaching the law?" Do you not herein condemn, not only the great Apostle, but also Him that sent and commanded him "thus to preach"?
Ant.—Why, surely, you would not have us to be "under the law"?
F.—I fear you know not what that expression means. St. Paul uses it thrice in his Epistle to the Romans, five times in that to the Galatians, and in one passage of his former Epistle to the Corinthians; where he declares in what sense he was himself "under the law," and in what sense he was not. "Unto them that are under the law," (that still adhere to the whole Jewish dispensation,) "I became as under the law," (I conformed to their ceremonies,) "that I might gain them that are under the law: But unto them that are without law," (unto the Gentiles, or Heathens,) "as without the law; being," meantime, "not without law to God, but under the law to Christ." 1 Cor. 9:20, 21. It is plain, therefore, the Apostle was "under the law" of Christ, though he was not under the law of ceremonies.
Ant.—But does not St. Paul say to the believers at Rome, "Ye are not under the law, but under grace"?
F.—He does; and his meaning is, "Ye are not under the Jewish, but the gracious Christian, dispensation." As also in the next verse, where he says, "we are not under the law, but under grace."
Ant.—But what does he mean, when he says to the Galatians, "Before faith came, we were kept under the law"?
F.—Doubtless he means we were kept under the Jewish dispensation, till we believed in Christ. 3:19. And so we read in the next chapter. "When the fullness of time was come, God sent forth his Son, made under the law," (the Jewish dispensation,) "to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons;" verses 4, 5; might serve God, without fear, in righteousness and holiness, with a free, loving, childlike spirit.
Ant.—You cannot persuade me to this; I know better. The law of works (the moral law, as you call it) is nothing to me. "From any demand of the law, no man is obliged to go one step, to give away one farthing, to eat, or omit one morsel. For what did our Lord do with the law? He abolished it."
F.—However, ought not we, after we believe in him, to obey all the commandments of Christ?
Ant.—Obey! law! works! commandments! O, what "legalness is in your spirit!" So, I suppose, your comforts vanish away when you are not assured you obey all Christ's commandments!" On the contrary, "a spiritual man beholdeth justifying grace in believing, without his obedience to commands for external worship and good works."
F.—But how does this agree with numberless texts of Scripture? In particular, with those words of our Lord, "Think not that I am come to destroy" (or abolish) "the law: I am not come to destroy but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law. Whosoever, therefore, shall break one of these least commandments, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven." Matt. 5:17, etc.
Ant.—I tell you plainly, I will not reason.
F.—That is as much as to say, "I will not be convinced; I love darkness rather than light."
Ant.—No; it is you that are in darkness. I was so till a few weeks since. But now my eyes are opened. I see my liberty now. Now I am free. I was in bondage long enough.
F.—What are you free from.
Ant.—From sin, and hell, and the devil, and the law.
F.—You put the law of God in goodly company. But how came you to be free from the law?
Ant.—Christ made me free from it.
F.—What! from his own law? Pray, where is that written?
Ant.—Here, Galatians 3:13: "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us."
F.—What is this to the purpose? This tells me that "Christ hath redeemed us" (all that believe) "from the curse," or punishment, justly due to our past transgressions of God's law. But it speaks not a word of redeeming from the law, any more than from love or heaven. But what do you mean by bondage?
Ant.—Why, the being bound to the law.
F.—You have no tittle of Scripture for this. Bondage to fear and bondage to sin are mentioned there; and bondage to the ceremonial law of Moses. But according to your sense of the word, all the angels in heaven are in bondage.
(To be Continued.)
"A New Discovery."
DR. HOPEWELL, in his lecture on "The Bible and Science," relates this amusing but most instructive anecdote. In various parts of the county of Durham, and indeed at many points all round the coasts of England, there are submarine forests; trees which once grew on the dry land on the borders of the sea, now sunk beneath its surface, covered at high water, but exposed in part or altogether at low water. Some twenty years ago the great dock on the Tyne was made, and many trees and horns of ancient animals were found embedded in the silt of Jarrow Slake. One of these was standing upright, but was without its head. Its top had evidently been cut off; there could not be any mistake about the fact.
Sir William Armstrong, the late Robert Stephenson, and Mr. Harrison, the North-eastern Company's engineer, were greatly interested. It was concluded that some woodman of very ancient times had cut the tree, and that it was a most striking evidence of the extreme antiquity of the human race. In haste Prof. Owen, the renowned paleontologist of the British Museum, was sent from London. One Sunday morning was spent by all these gentlemen wading in the slush and mud, inspecting this wondrous relic. Their conclusion was unanimous. The next morning a friend of mine, to whom Prof. Owen had sent his card with the expression of a wish to see some horns from the same site, was present also. He asked Prof. Owen to what conclusion they had come. The professor replied that they were all unanimous, and that the evidence was most satisfactory. My friend said, "You have not been inspecting an old cut, at any rate, for I had some pieces cut off that tree a few days ago, and have them now at home." The assembled company declared it was impossible. My friend assured them of the fact, and said, "Have you seen the man who first uncovered this tree?" They said they had not, and Prof. Owen was at once struck with the importance of having that man's evidence. The man was sent for. My friend told him what the man would tell him, for my friend knew all about it, and, beside that, would never have been so deceived, for reasons I could give, even if he had not known the true history; but I will let Prof. Owen tell the rest in his own words. He told the story himself at Leeds some years afterward, and this is what he said. After giving his account of the portion of the story I have already related, and saying that he had been told that the navy who first uncovered the tree had himself cut the head of it off to lay down a sleeper for the tramway, he says:--
"This man was sent for, and on his arrival he declared that the tree pointed out was the one he had cut." Prof. Owen goes on to say--and we should mark this--"It was endeavored to be explained that that was impossible, as the place had not been excavated before," (it had got covered up again since the excavation); "but looking," said Prof. Owen, "with supreme contempt upon the assembly of geologists and engineers, the man persisted in the identification of his own work, and exclaimed, 'The top of the tree must be somewhere;' upon which," says Prof. Owen, "I offered half a crown to the first navvy who would produce it. Away ran half a dozen of them, and in a few minutes they returned with the top. Never," says Prof. Owen, "had I so narrow an escape from introducing 'a new discovery' into science, and never had I a more fortunate escape."--Sel.
The Broken Link.
A MAN who prided himself on his morality, and expected to be saved by it, was constantly saying: "I am doing pretty well, on the whole. I sometimes get mad, and swear, but I am strictly honest. I work on Sabbath when I am particularly busy; but I give a good deal to the poor, and I never was drunk in my life." This man hired a canny Scotchman to build a fence around his pasture lot. He gave him very particular directions. In the evening, when the Scotchman came in from work, the man said: "Well, Jack, is the fence built, and is it tight and strong?"
"I canna say that it is all tight and strong," Jack replied; "but it's a good average fence, anyhow. If some parts of it are a little weak, other parts are extra strong. I don't know but I may have left a gap here and there a yard wide or so; but then I made up for it by doubling the number of rails on each side of the gap. I dare say the cattle will find it a good fence on the whole, and will like it, though I canna just say that it is perfect in every part."
"What!" cried the man, not seeing the point; "do you tell me that you have built a fence around my lot with weak places in it, and gaps in it? Why you might just as well have built no fence at all. If there is one opening, or place where an opening can be made, the cattle will be sure to find it, and will all go through. Don't you know that a fence must be perfect or it is worthless?"
"I used to think so," said the dry Scotchman; "but I hear you talk so much about averaging matters with the Lord, it seemed to me we might try it with the cattle. If an average fence wont do for them, I am afraid that an average character won't do in the day of judgment. When I was on shipboard and a storm was driving us on the rocks, the captain cried, 'Let go the anchor!' But the mate shouted back, 'There is a broken link in the cable.' Did the captain say, when he heard that, 'No matter, it's only one link. The rest of the chain is good. Ninety-nine of the hundred links are strong. Its average is high. It only lacks one per cent. of being perfect. Surely the anchor ought to respect so excellent a chain, and not break away from it?' No, indeed! he shouted, 'Get another chain!' He knew that a chain with one broken link was no chain at all; that he might as well throw the anchor overboard without any cable, as with a defective one. So with the anchor of our souls. If there is the least flaw in the cable, it is not safe to trust it. We had better throw it away, and try to get a new one that we know is perfect?"
Villages.
TALMAGE, on habits and fashions, says:—
“And as to villages, I think that in some respects they are worse than cities, because they copy the vices of the cities in the meanest shape; and as to gossip, its heaven is a country village! Everybody knows everybody's business better than he knows it himself. The grocery store or the blacksmith shop by day and night is the grand depot for masculine tittle-tattle; and there are always in the village a half dozen women who have their sun-bonnets hanging near so that at the first item of news derogatory they can fly out and cackle it all over the town. Countrymen must not be too hard in their criticisms of the citizen, nor must the plough run too sharply against the yardstick.”
Meditation.
LET us leave somewhat to meditation and to silence. Enter into thine own self; separate thyself from all tumult. Look into thine inner-self; see if thou have there some sweet retiring place of conscience, where there may be no noise, no disputation, no strife, nor debatings; where there will not be a thought of dissension, and obstinate contention. Be meek to hear the word, that so thou mayest understand. Perhaps thou mayest soon have to say, Thou wilt make me hear of joy and gladness, and my bones shall rejoice; the bones, that is, which are humbled, not those that are lifted up.
Sunday Not the True Seventh day.
By John Nevins Andrews
(Continued.)
"They have seen vanity and lying divination, saying, The Lord saith: and the Lord hath not sent them: and they have made others to hope that they would confirm the word." Eze. 13:6.
BOTH agree precisely in the alleged change of the Sabbath at the time of the exodus of Israel. That is, they assert that it was then changed from Sunday, the day of God's rest, to Saturday, the day of their departure from Egypt. According to Mr. Fuller, the first six days of Gen. 1 were not counted in the reckoning of the first week. So that Adam and his posterity constructed the week by joining the last day of one of the Creator's weeks to the first six days of another of his weeks, thus making a week which began with God's seventh day, and ended with his sixth. And this same week continued in use after God gave Israel a new Sabbath. For from that time they observed the day with which their week closed, instead of the day on which it began. We do not say they observed the seventh day of their week instead of the first day of it, lest these terms should mislead the reader; for their week, according to Mr. Fuller, began with the real seventh day, and ended with the true sixth day. Such is the kind of week which we now have, if indeed Sunday is the true seventh day from creation.
It is worthy of notice that that week which witnessed the alleged change of the Sabbath in Egypt did, according to the theory of Mr. F., have two Sabbaths in it! That is, it began with God's seventh day, which they were still under obligation to observe, and ended with his sixth that very day became their Sabbath. And ever after this point, the sixth day, or Saturday, was kept by Israel as the seventh day; and Sunday, the true seventh day of the week, was called the first day of the week. And so when the Jewish Sabbath, i. e., Saturday, ceased to be obligatory, and the original Sabbath, i. e., Sunday, alone remained in force, that day had thoroughly acquired the title of first day of the week, being called thus by all men from Adam to Christ.
But according to Dr. Akers, it seems that Adam reckoned the first week of time from the first day of creation; so that his weeks began and ended just as did those of the Creator. But when the exodus from Egypt took place, God gave Israel a new Sabbath by setting the institution back from Sunday, the day of rest, to Saturday, the day of their departure from Egypt. And as he thus gave them a new Sabbath, so did he also give them a new week to fit this new Sabbath. For Dr. A. asserts that God gave the Hebrews at this time just such a week as Mr. F. asserts he gave to Adam; viz., a week made up of the last or seventh day of one week, and the first six days of another week.
Mr. Fuller's theory has this advantage over that of Dr. Akers, that he sets out at the commencement of Adam's history with a kind of week to which he is able to adhere even to the end of time; while Dr. A. sets out with weeks the first of which allows the reckoning of all the days of the creation week, but he has to change at the exodus to such as Mr. F. started with; and having once changed the kind of weeks in order to bring in what he terms the Jewish Sabbath, he is obliged to adhere to this kind of week after his so-called Jewish Sabbath has, as he teaches, been nailed to the cross.
But, whereas Mr. Fuller has a week at the exodus with two Sabbaths in it, Dr. Akers makes the same week to consist of only six days! There is an ugly crook in each of these theories, and the reader can decide for himself which to choose, as they are equally true.
But Dr. Akers, having cut off the seventh day from the first week of this new order, that he may make the sixth day of that week into what he calls the Jewish Sabbath, next takes the seventh day, thus severed from the mutilated week, and joins it to the first six days of the following week. He is obliged to continue this work of mutilation ever afterward; for his succession of weeks is thenceforward maintained by joining the seventh day of the true week to the first six days of the next one; and he has also to change the numbering of the days; so that he makes the true seventh day into the first day of the Jewish week, and makes a seventh day out of the sixth day of that week. He does not indeed stop to explain how in that first Jewish week which had but six days they could keep any sort of a seventh day for their Sabbath. And yet he affirms that the Sabbath must be preceded by six days of labor.
Certainly that form which Mr. F. has given to this theory has one decided advantage over the form given it by Dr. A. For Mr. F. sets out to show that the day of God's rest is rightly called first day of the week even from Adam's time, and so he comes down to New-Testament times, and, as he thinks, identifies the day with the first day of the week, there mentioned some eight times. But Dr. A. maintains that God's rest-day was the seventh day of the week, as reckoned by Adam, yet makes it his grand object to identify this day as the New-Testament first-day of the week. So that what began in Paradise as the seventh day of the original week, appears in the New Testament as first day of the week!
Having stated the theories of Dr. Akers and Mr. Fuller, it will be proper now to state that of Dr. Jennings, with such arguments in its support as are not made use of by Dr. Akers. For Mr. Fuller's theory is really a modification of Dr. Akers'; while the latter is but a modification of that of Dr. Jennings.
The theory of Dr. Jennings recognizes the institution of the Sabbath at the close of creation; but like those already stated, it asserts that the Sabbath observed by the Hebrew people was not the same as the Sabbath of the Lord ordained in Paradise. But Dr. J. places the origin of the so-called Jewish Sabbath, not at the exodus from Egypt, as does Dr. A., but at the fall of the manna, one month subsequent to that event. Dr. J. thinks it very probable that the patriarchal Sabbath was the day after the Sabbath observed by the Hebrews. Such is the theory of Dr. J. He is very modest in its statement. Those arguments which Dr. A. has borrowed from Dr. J. will be answered in considering the theory of Dr. A. But that one peculiar to Dr. J.'s position will be considered in this place.
His argument that the Lord gave to Israel a new Sabbath, rests principally on the following statement:—
That the manna fell for six days; that the following day was the Sabbath, ever afterward observed by Israel; in other words, that it was Saturday; and that the day before the six-days' fall of the manna, which was simply one week before the first Jewish Sabbath, was spent by them in marching, so that it could not have been a Sabbath until set apart as such by God at the fall of the manna.
Now it is very remarkable that, while Dr. Jennings, writing one hundred years since, evidently furnished Dr. Akers the idea that Sunday, and not Saturday, is the true seventh day, Dr. Akers should first deny the alleged fact on which Dr. J. rested his whole argument; and should even deny the particular point which Dr. J. tried to prove, viz., that the Sabbath was changed at the fall of the manna, yet should take up the change of Sunday to Saturday, as asserted by Dr. J., and place it one month earlier, resting the reason of it upon a different basis.
Thus, Dr. J. asserts that the Sabbath was changed at the fall of the manna, and proves it by the statement that the children of Israel marched from Elim to Sin one week before the Sabbath rest of Ex. 16. But Dr. Akers denies this march of Israel on Saturday, and asserts that it was on Monday that they made this journey, and, as we have seen, places the change of the Sabbath itself one month earlier, at the exodus from Egypt.
One word more should be spoken relative to the march from Elim to Sin. Ex. 16:1. Drs. J. and A. contradict each other on this point, though each is using his best endeavors to prove Sunday the seventh day. Dr. J. endeavors to prove the journey upon Saturday, by reckoning back from the Sabbath celebrated in this chapter. But this kind of reckoning leaves the thing in uncertainty; as, first, it cannot be definitely proved that one or more days did not elapse after the arrival at Sin before the fall of the manna; and second, it is not a certainty that the manna fell six days before the Sabbath mentioned in this chapter; as the sixth day here brought to view was certainly the sixth day of the week, and therefore not necessarily the sixth day of the fall of the manna. It was not necessary that the first fall of the manna should be upon the first day of the week. And therefore, even if Dr. A. could positively prove (which he cannot) that the fifteenth day of the second month was Monday, he has even then determined nothing certain as to the beginning of the fall of the manna.
And, in like manner, Dr. J. has no clear, well-ascertained fact on which to base the inference that constitutes the substance of his theory.
It is remarkable that these two doctors each deny the ground of the other's position, though each one endeavors to prove Sunday the true seventh day. But, whereas Dr. J. attempts to establish this change at the fall of the manna, Dr. A. denies the very foundation on which it rests, and places this change one month earlier. But Dr. Jennings, who has evidently studied the book of Exodus very intently, to find some place for the change of the Sabbath, deliberately passes over the point selected by Dr. A., in Ex. 12, and sets it one month later. Thus he says: "As to the institution of the Jewish Sabbath, the first account we have of it is in Ex. 16."—Jewish Antiquities, p. 320. And the only reference that he makes to the exodus from Egypt is that it is possible that this Sabbath day was the day of the week on which Pharaoh was drowned in the Red Sea.—Id. p. 321.
(To be Continued.)
J. N. A.
The Seven Seals.
By Uriah Smith
(Continued.)
And the stars of heaven fell. The voice of history still is, Fulfilled! Being a much later event than the darkening of the sun, there are multitudes in whose memories it is as fresh as though it were but yesterday. We refer to the great meteoric shower of Nov. 13, 1833. On this point one extract will suffice.
"At the cry, 'Look out of the window,' I sprang from a deep sleep, and with wonder saw the east lighted up with the dawn and meteors. . . . I called to my wife to behold; and while robing she exclaimed, 'See how the stars fall!' I replied, 'That is the wonder;' and we felt in our hearts that it was a sign of the last days. For truly 'the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.' Rev. 6:13. This language of the prophet has always been received as metaphorical. Yesterday it was literally fulfilled. The ancients understood by aster in Greek and stella in Latin, the smaller lights of heaven. The refinement of modern astronomy has made distinction between stars of heaven and meteors of heaven. Therefore, the idea of the prophet, as it is expressed in the original Greek, was literally fulfilled in the phenomenon of yesterday, so as no man before yesterday had conceived to be possible that it should be fulfilled. The immense size and distance of the planets and fixed stars forbid the idea of their falling unto the earth. Larger bodies cannot fall in myriads unto a smaller body; but most of the planets and all the fixed stars are many times larger than our earth; but these fell toward the earth. And how did they fall? Neither myself nor one of the family heard any report; and were I to hunt through nature for a simile, I could not find one so apt to illustrate the appearance of the heavens, as that which St. John uses in the prophecy before quoted: 'The stars of heaven fell unto the earth.' They were not sheets, or flakes, or drops, of fire; but they were what the world understands by falling stars; and one speaking to his fellow, in the midst of the scene, would say, 'See how the stars fall!' And he who heard would not stop to correct the astronomy of the speaker, any more than133he would reply, 'The sun does not move,' to one who should tell him, 'The sun is rising.' The stars fell 'even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.' Here is the exactness of the prophet. The falling stars did not come as if from several trees, shaken, but from one. Those which appeared in the east, fell toward the east; those which appeared in the north, fell toward the north; those which appeared in the west, fell toward the west; and those which appeared in the south (for I went out of my residence into the Park), fell toward the south. And they fell not as ripe fruit falls; far from it; but they flew, they were cast, like the unripe, which at first refuses to leave the branch, and when, under a violent pressure, it does break its hold it flies swiftly, straight off, descending; and in the multitude falling, some cross the track of others, as they are thrown with more or less force, but each one falls on its own side of the tree."—Henry Dana Ward.
These signs in the sun, moon, and stars, are the same as those so strikingly predicted by our Lord and recorded by the evangelists, Matt. 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21. In these records not only the same signs are given, but the same time is pointed out for their fulfillment; namely, a period commencing just this side of the long and bloody persecution of the papal power. In Matt. 24:21, 22, the 1260 years of papal supremacy are brought to view; and "immediately after the tribulation of those days," the sun was to be darkened, &c. Mark is still more definite, and says, "In those days, after that tribulation." The days, commencing in A. D. 538, ended in 1798; but before they ended, the spirit of persecution had been restrained by the Reformation, and the tribulation of the church had ceased. And right in this period, exactly at the time specified in the prophecy, the fulfillment of these signs commenced in the darkening of the sun and moon.
The first instance of the falling of the stars, worthy of any notice, though others of local and minor importance may be mentioned before it, took place in 1799. To the great display of 1833, by far the most brilliant of any on record, we have already referred. Of the extent of this shower, Prof. Olmstead, of Yale College, a distinguished meteorologist, says, "The extent of the shower of 1833, was such as to cover no inconsiderable part of the earth's surface; from the middle of the Atlantic on the east, to the Pacific on the west; and from the northern coast of South America, to undefined regions among the British possessions on the north, the exhibition was visible; and everywhere presented nearly the same appearance." From this, it appears that this exhibition was confined exclusively to the western world. But in the year 1866, another remarkable occurrence of this kind took place, this time in the East, nearly as magnificent in some places as that of 1833, and visible so far as ascertained throughout the greater part of Europe. Thus the principal portions of the earth have now been warned by this sign.
Observation has shown that these meteoric displays occur at regular intervals of about thirty-three years. The skeptic will doubtless seize upon this as a pretext for throwing them out of the catalogue of signs. But if they are not more than ordinary occurrence, the question is to be answered why they have not occurred as regularly and prominently centuries in the past as in the last hundred years. This is a question science cannot answer; nor can it offer anything more than conjecture as to their cause.
One significant fact will be noticed in connection, with all the foregoing signs: They were each instinctively associated in the minds of the people, at the time of their occurrence, with the great day of which they were the forerunners. And on each occasion the cry was raised, "The Judgment has come," "The world's at an end."
And the heaven departed as a scroll. In this event our minds are turned to the future. From looking at the past and beholding the word of God fulfilled, we are now called to look at events before us, which are no less sure to come. Here is our position unmistakably defined. We stand between the 13th and 14th verses of this chapter. We wait for the heavens to depart as a scroll when it is rolled together. And these are times of unparalleled solemnity and importance; for how near we may be to the fulfillment of these things we know not.
This departing of the heaven as a scroll, is what the evangelists call in the same series of events, the shaking of the powers of the heavens. Other scriptures give us further particulars concerning this prediction. From Heb. 12:25-27, Joel 3:16, Jer. 25:30-33, Rev. 16:17, we learn that it is the voice of God, as he speaks in terrible majesty from his throne in Heaven, that causes this fearful commotion in earth and sky. Once the Lord spoke, with an audible voice, he declared to his creatures the precepts of his eternal law; and the earth shook. He is to speak again, and not only the earth will shake, but the heavens also. Then will the earth "reel to and fro like a drunkard;" it will be "dissolved," and "clean broken down;" mountains will move from their firm bases; islands will suddenly change their location in the midst of the sea; from the level plain will rise the precipitous mountain; and rocks will thrust up their ragged forms from the broken surface; and while the voice of God is reverberating through the earth, the direst confusion will reign over the face of nature.
Then will the world's dream of carnal security be effectually broken. Kings who, intoxicated with their own earthly authority, have never dreamed of a higher power than themselves, now realize that there is One who reigns King of kings; and the great men behold the vanity of all earthly pomp, for there is a greatness above that of earth; and the rich men throw their silver and gold to the moles and bats, for it cannot save them in that day; and the chief captains forget their little brief authority and the mighty men their might; and every bondman (for there will be slaves on the earth), and every freeman, all classes of the wicked, from the highest to the lowest, join in the general wail of consternation and despair. They who never prayed to Him whose arm could bring salvation, now raise an agonizing prayer to rocks and mountains to bury them forever from his presence. Fain would they now avoid reaping what a life of lust and sin had sowed. Fain would they now shun the fearful treasure of wrath they had been heaping up for themselves against this day. Fain would they bury themselves and their catalogue of crimes in everlasting darkness. And so they fly to the rocks, caves, caverns and fissures which the broken surface of the earth now presents before them. But it is too late. They cannot conceal their guilt nor escape the long-delayed vengeance.
"It will be in vain to call, Rocks and mountains on us fall, For his hand will find out all, In that day, in that day."
The day which they thought never would come, has at last taken them as in a snare; and the involuntary language of their anguished hearts, is, "The great day of his wrath is come, and who shall be able to stand?" Before it is called out by the fearful scenes of this time, we pray you, reader, give your most serious and candid attention to this subject.
"The Lord is coming! who shall stand? Who shall be found at his right hand? He that hath the white garments on That Christ our righteous King hath won."
U. S.
The State Quarterly.
By Editor
THIS meeting was small, for several reasons. Bro. Israel is now in Oregon, where he went some time since on important business. The time of meeting was very rainy, so there were few in from the Oakland church. It was expected that the Session of the General Conference would be held April 1, and that Eld. Haskell would arrive here by the time of the State Quarterly meeting. But when it was learned that the Conference was postponed, that Eld. Haskell could not be here, with neither President nor Vice President in the State, the interest passed over to the time of Bro. Haskell's coming, when we expect strong efforts will be made to revive the missionary work.
The meeting of the Sabbath-school Association went by default, as there was not an officer present. We hope something may soon be done to give life to this work. Conference, T. and M. Society, and Sabbath-school Association, all need to be efficiently officered in California. Until this is done the work will flag.