HARVEST GATHERING AND SIFTINGS

ZION'S WATCH TOWER VOL. XI. ALLEGHENY, PA., MAY, 1890. NO. 6.

R1214

...However, we were then merely getting the general outlines of God's plan, and unlearning many long-cherished errors, the time for a clear discernment of the minutiae having not yet fully come. And here we should and do gratefully mention assistance rendered by Brothers George Stetson and George Storrs, both now deceased, the latter the editor of The Bible Examiner. The study of the Word of God with these dear brethren led, step by step, into greener pastures and brighter hopes for the world, though it was not until 1872, when I gained a clear view of our Lord's work as our ransom price, that I found the strength and foundation of all hope of restitution to lie in that doctrine. Up to that time, when I read the testimony that all in their graves shall come forth, etc., I yet doubted the full provision-whether it should be understood to include idiots or infants who had died without reaching any degree of understanding, beings to whom the present life and its experiences would seem to be of little or no advantage. But when, in 1873, I came to examine the subject of restitution from the standpoint of the ransom price given by our Lord Jesus for Adam, and consequently for all lost in Adam, it settled the matter of restitution completely, and gave fullest assurance that ALL must come forth from Adamic death and be brought to a clear knowledge of the truth and to fullest opportunity of everlasting life in Christ.

Thus passed the years 1869-1872, and the years following, to 1876, were years of continued growth in grace and knowledge on the part of the handful of Bible students with whom I met regularly in Allegheny. We progressed from our first crude and indefinite ideas of restitution to clearer understanding of the details, God's due time for clearer light not having come until 1874...

C.T.R.

DID JESUS AND THE THIEF DIE THE SAME DAY?

BIBLE EXAMINER--NEW YORK, DECEMBER 1, 1855

Dear Br. Storrs:-- Your remark, "The fact is, the thief did not die the same day that Jesus did: for the Jewish day ended at evening or sundown. Jesus died about 3 o'clock, P.M., but when the evening was come, the thieves were still alive," &c.

How do you prove that they were alive when the evening was come and the Sabbath commenced? We read indeed that "when the even was come, Joseph went to Pilate and begged the body of Jesus;" Mt 27:57. But where is the proof that the thief was then alive? Our blessed Lord indeed died first, but as he died about three o'clock, P.M., the thief might still die on the same day, before the even was come. That he did so, rather appears to have been the fact from John's words, Joh 19:31. "The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation (Friday) that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the Sabbath day, (for that Sabbath day was a high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. Then came the soldiers and break the legs of the first and of the other which was crucified with him. But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they break not his legs."

As the object of the Jews was to prevent the bodies remaining on the cross on the Sabbath day, is it not reasonable to suppose that they were removed before the Sabbath commenced?

If the body of the Savior had been removed by Joseph previous to the soldiers breaking the legs of the thieves, this indeed would be proof that they died after "the even was come," because Joseph had no permission to remove it until that time. But this was not the fact. It is evident, from Joh 19:33, that Jesus was still on the cross, though dead, when they broke the legs of the thieves.

The bodies might all be removed from the crosses before "even was come," and Joseph subsequently obtain permission to take our Lord away for burial.

If I have overlooked any evidence of the truth of your affirmation, please inform me.

Yours for the truth--In Christian love, HENRY GREW

-------

RESPONSE BY THE EDITOR

Dear Br. Grew:--You ask relative to the "thieves" crucified with Christ--"How do you prove that they were alive when the evening was come and the Sabbath commenced?"

It was objected to our view, that thief did not die the same day Jesus did, last April, (see Ex. April 1, p. 104,) and we admitted we might be mistaken. We made this admission rather than enter into a controversy about it, which must necessarily involve the day of the crucifixion, which we think not best to enter on. We will only say, we have long been of the opinion that the crucifixion took place on Thursday. But was are not disposed to spend time in the discussion of that point. Jesus' own testimony is that the Son of man would be "three days and three nights" in the tomb; but that is not so if he was crucified on Friday, in any way that we have been able to see; for he certainly rose on the "first day of the week." We have not said the thief was alive "when the Sabbath commenced; though Br. GREW infers it from supposing the crucifixion took place on "Friday." Let us call attention to a comparison between the evangelists.

Joh 19:31. "The Jews because it was the preparation * * besought that their legs might be broken," &c. Mr 15:42. "And now when the even was come, because it was the preparation, that is the day before the Sabbath, Joseph * * * went to Pilate," &c.

These two texts show that it was the "preparation" day, or day before the Sabbath, that the thieves' legs were broken; and that it was the preparation day that Joseph came for Jesus; and was when "even had come;" showing the transactions both done in one and the same day. Now, as Jesus died before the "even was come," and the thief was alive when the "even was come," as it was the "preparation," that is "the day before the Sabbath," that their legs were broken, and which is declared to be the time of Joseph's taking Jesus, we can come to no other conclusion than that the thief was alive when "the even was come;" and hence did not die the same day with Jesus.

There was the "preparation of the Passover," (Joh 19:14,) which was the day of the crucifixion; but there was also "the preparation" for the "Sabbath," which was "the day before the Sabbath," Mr 15:42. It was when "even had come" that this day of preparation for the Sabbath commenced. It was at that time Joseph came for the "body of Jesus." Joseph "took him"--Jesus--"down" from the cross: see Mr 15:46: hence none of the bodies had been "removed from the cross before the even was come."

Again, It is not to be supposed that the chief priests and Pharisees would transgress on the Sabbath day so much as to go to Pilate, and get permission to set a watch and seal the sepulcher and do all that work on the Sabbath. But they did do all these things on the day that "followed the day of preparation;" see Mt 27:62-66; hence, we conclude, "the preparation of the Passover" is the day here spoken of, and was the day of the crucifixion; and that "when the even was come" commenced the preparation day for the Sabbath, and that it was on this day, which followed the Passover "preparation," the chief priests and Pharisees came to Pilate, &c. According to the common notion, Jesus was not put in the tomb till the Sabbath had actually begun; yet Luke says "That day was the preparation day and the Sabbath drew on." Lu 23:54. Then it is added, "The women * * * beheld the sepulcher and how the body was laid: and they returned, and prepared spices and ointments, and rested the Sabbath day according to the commandments." Lu 23:55-56. Did they prepare these spices and ointments on the Sabbath day, and at the same time rest according to the commandment? We think not. Yet the common theory makes Jesus to be buried on the Sabbath day, the women briskly at work, and the chief priests and Pharisees at Pilate's court, setting a watch, and sealing the stone of the sepulcher; and all this on the Sabbath day!

Exposition of Nebuchadnezzar's Dream.

DANIEL II. -BY GEO. STORRS.

THERE are those who, when they come to hear anything on the appearing of Christ and the end of the world, expect to hear us predict and prophesy on those matters. With predicting and prophesying, in the sense of foretelling future events, I have nothing to do. I take the prophecies that God has given us, and tell you how I understand them, and why I understand them as I do. When this is done, you will judge for yourselves, as each of you must give account for himself, whether the interpretation given, accords with the general tenor of the Scriptures. I force not my exposition upon any man. Hear, then judge.

I cannot agree with some who tell us that the prophecies cannot be understood. I consider such language the language of infidelity. What is it but saying-"Revelation is no revelation?" Revelation is something made known; and, of course, to be understood. To say that any part of it cannot be understood, is, just so far, to be infidels. There are some men who denounce infidelity with an unsparing hand, who, at the same time, tell us, we cannot understand the prophecies! What is this but infidelity?

A man may say, with truth, that he does not understand the prophecies; but, to say, "they cannot be understood," is a very different matter; and he that does it, whatever his standing, or reputation, is infidel in his principles. Not that he rejects the whole of Revelation; but he t of the Bible is a revelation.

I most solemnly believe that God designed every part of the Bible should be understood; but, not without searching the Scriptures, comparing one part with another, and earnest prayer to him for that same Spirit, to guide us into truth, which at first inspired holy men to write the sacred pages. Hence, to come to a knowledge of the truth, we must first seek a childlike spirit, and pray much for divine aid. The blessed Jesus said-"I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. Even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight." First, an humble spirit is necessary. Then, for our encouragement, the Saviour has said, "If you, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him."

Let us then humbly yet confidently seek the aid of the Holy Spirit to give us understanding; and in that light search the Scriptures to know what was the mind of the Spirit that inspired them, and we shall not search in vain.

Let us now examine the second chapter of Daniel. I shall, for the sake of brevity, begin at the 31st verse.

Da 2:31-36. -"Thou, O king, sawest, and behold, a great image. This great image, whose brightness was excellent, stood before thee, and the form thereof was terrible. This image's head was of fine gold-his breast and arms of silver-his belly and his thighs of brass-his legs of iron, his feet part of iron and part of clay. Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out, without hands, which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron, and clay, and brake them in pieces: then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshing-floors, and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them: and the stone that smote the image, became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth. This is the dream; and we will tell the interpretation thereof before the king."

I wish to call the attention of my readers to an inquiry. Where did the stone strike the image? "upon his feet." Let that be remembered, for I shall have occasion to speak of that fact again.

Da 2:37,38 -"Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory. And wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field, and the fowls of the heaven, hath he given into thine hand, and hath made thee ruler over them all," [i.e., has given thee universal dominion on earth.] -"Thou art [i.e., thy kingdom is] this head of gold."

Babylon was the first kingdom of universal empire. It was founded by Nimrod, the great grandson of Noah. See Ge 10:8-10. It lasted near seventeen hundred years, though under different names; sometimes called Babylon, sometimes Assyria, and sometimes Chaldea. It extended from Nimrod to Belshazzar, who was its last king.

Da 2:39, first part. "And after thee shall rise another kingdom, inferior to thee." What kingdom succeeded Babylon? See Chap.v:28, "Thy kingdom [Babylon] is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians."

The Medo-Persian kingdom, then, was the second universal kingdom, and was represented by the "breast and arms of silver."

Da 2:39, last part. "And another third kingdom of brass shall arise, which shall bear rule over all the earth." What kingdom was this? See Da 8:5-7, 21. Here we learn that Grecia conquered the Medo-Persian kingdom and became a kingdom of universal empire. This took place under Alexander. Here, then, we have the third kingdom, which was represented by the brass of the image.

Da 2:40. And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron: forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things; and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise."

What kingdom is this? It is generally admitted to be the Roman kingdom. It is a universal kingdom, that is to break in pieces all that went before it. Rome alone answers the description. That did have universal empire. See Luke ii:1. "And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Cesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed." Who was Cesar Augustus? A Roman Emperor. -Here, then, we have the fourth kingdom, represented by the "legs of iron."

Da 2:41. "And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potter's clay and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided." What kingdom shall be divided? "The fourth kingdom." Was it divided? It was. The Western empire of Rome, between the years A. D. 356 and 483, was divided into ten divisions, or kingdoms, viz.: 1. The Huns in Hungary, A. D. 356. 2. The Ostrogoths, in Mysia, 377. 3. The Visigoths, in Pannonia, 378. 4. The Franks, in France, 407. 5. The Vandals, in Africa, 407. 6. The Sueves and Alans, in Gascoigne and Spain, 407. 7. The Burgundians, in Burgundy, 407. 8. The Heruli and Rugii, in Italy, 476. 9. The Saxons and Angles, in Britain, 476. 10. The Lombards, in Germany, 483.* -Thus the "kingdom was divided" as designated by the ten toes." "But," after its division, "there shall be in it the strength of iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with the miry clay."

The Roman, or "iron" power, through the influence and authority of Papacy, or Papal Rome, stretched itself among the "clay" so as to be "mixed with" it, and thereby kept up "the strength of iron."

Da 2:42,43. "And as the toes of the feet were part of iron and part of clay; so the kingdom" [Roman kingdom] "shall be partly strong and partly broken. And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they" [Romanism] "shall mingle themselves [i.e., Rome Papal] with the seed of men; but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay."

How exactly has all this been fulfilled. Romanism, or the Romish Church, while it has mingled with all nations, has not mixed with them, but has kept up its authority over its subjects, under whatever government they may have been located; so that the authority of Rome has been felt by all the nations where her subjects have been "mingled with the seed of men." The fourth, or Roman kingdom is thus perpetuated, though "divided." That power will continue, not civilly but by its ecclesiastical authority, till "broken without hands."

Da 2:44. "And in the days of these kings [What kings, or kingdoms? Clearly, the kings of the divided fourth kingdom: for that is now the subject of discourse] shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom [the fifth universal kingdom] that shall never be destroyed: [and, therefore, must be in the immortal state, or "new earth:"] and the kingdom [when set up] shall not be left to other people, [i.e., the subjects shall not pass from one set of rulers to another, as the four previous kingdoms have done,] but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms. See Re 11:15. "And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ; and he shall reign forever and ever." "And [18th verse] the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy ['break in pieces'] them that destroy ['break in pieces.' See Da 7:23] the earth, and it [the fifth kingdom] shall stand forever.

The question now arises, What are we to understand by this last kingdom? And when is it "set up?" Some tell us it must be the "kingdom of grace," because the stone that smote the image was a "little stone" at first. But where, I ask, do they learn that the stone was a little one? Not in the Bible surely. It is not there. They must find it, then among the inventions of men. "But," say they, "it grows, mark that." Well, my dear sir, will you be good enough to show me where the stone is said to grow? You do not find it in the Bible; it must be in your imagination, if anywhere. The "stone smote the image, and" it "became like the chaff of the summer threshing-floors, and the wind carried" it "away, that no place was found for" either of the fourth kingdoms: then, and not till then, "the stone became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth."

Still, the objector insists upon it, that "it must be the kingdom of grace, set up by our Lord Jesus Christ 1800 years ago, in the days of the Cesars." You speak of the "kingdom of grace;" but, I ask, then, if God had no "kingdom of grace" in the world till "the days of the Cesars?" If he had not, then Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Joshua, Samuel, David, Job, and all the prophets must have gone to perdition, for surely no man can be saved without grace; and that grace must reign to bring salvation. Thus if Jesus Christ set up "the kingdom of grace" only 1800 years ago, all that lived the 4000 years previous have "perished."

But let us look at this subject a little further. Where did the stone strike the image when it smote it? Not on the "head" -Babylon; nor on the "breast and arms" -Media and Persia; nor on the "belly and thighs" -Grecia; nor yet on the "legs" -Rome Pagan, as it should have done, if the kingdom was "set up in the days of the Cesars." -Where, then, did it smite the image? Verse 34 tells us, it "smote the image upon the FEET." Now it could not smite the feet before they were in being; and they were not in being till several hundred years after Christ's crucifixion, i.e., till the fourth, or Roman kingdom was divided; which we have seen, did not take place till between the years A. D. 356 and 483. Since that time, the "Man of Sin" has reigned on earth, instead of the Lord of Glory, and has trodden "under foot the holy City." But the kingdom of God is to be set up. That it was not set up at certain periods spoken of in the New Testament, will appear from the examination of a few passages. It was not set up when our Lord taught his followers to pray, "Thy kingdom come:" it must have been future then. Again. The mother of Zebedee's children understood it to be future when she desired our Lord to grant that her two sons might sit, "the one on the right hand, and the other on the left, in thy kingdom." It was still future when our Lord ate the last passover. See Luke xxii:18: "I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come." So, it had not then come. Let us see if it had come when Christ hung on the cross. See Luke xxiii:42. "Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom." Thus, to his death, it seems, his kingdom had not been set up. -But did he not set it up before his ascension to heaven? See Ac 1:6. "Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?" Not done yet. Now See 1Cor.xv:50. "Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God." This settles the question that the kingdom of God is not set up till the saints put on immortality, or not till they enter the immortal state, which Paul tells us, [verse 52,] is "at the last trump," and the apostle tells us, [2Timothy iv:1,] that "the Lord Jesus Christ shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and kingdom." And again he tells us, [Ac 14:22,] that "we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God;" and this address was made to those who were already Christians, and shows that the kingdom of God was still future, in the apostle's estimation.

It is said, "Our Lord taught the Jews that the kingdom of God was within them." This is inferred from Lu 17:20,21. "And when he was demanded of the Pharisees when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation." [marginal reading 'outward show.']" Neither shall they say lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you." Did our Saviour mean to say that the kingdom of God was within the Pharisees? He says of them, [Mt 23:13,]" Ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in." Surely our Lord could not mean, in Luke xvii, to say, the kingdom of God was, at that time, within the Pharisees. "True," says the objector, "but the margin has it, among you." But, I ask, did our Lord intend to teach that it was then among them? If so, why did he speak a parable in Mt 19:11th verse and onward, to disabuse the minds of the people, "because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear?" He clearly teaches in that parable, that they were not to expect the kingdom of God till he should "return" from heaven, at which time he would reward his faithful servants, but would say, at the same time, "Those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither and slay them before me." See, in connection with this, Re 11:15,18. What then does our Lord mean in Lu 17th? I understand him to say, that when the kingdom of God does come, it will not be with outward show, or signs; but, the first the wicked will know, it is upon them; and thus the twenty-fourth verse seems to explain it. "For as the lightning &c., so also shall the Son of man be in his day." That kingdom will come sudden and unexpected to all the wicked.

The parables of the "mustard seed" and "leaven," are brought forward as an argument in defense of the doctrine that the kingdom of heaven was set up in the days our Saviour was on earth. I admit that those parables refer to a work of grace wrought in this world; but they cannot be so interpreted as to contradict the overwhelming testimony of our Lord, the prophet Daniel, Paul, and St. John, as already presented. -The language of these parables must, to harmonize with the other scriptures, be understood as spoken in a borrowed sense; that is, as the grace of God in men, works that preparation which is necessary to constitute us, finally, subjects of the kingdom of heaven, so it is called the "kingdom of heaven," in relation to the result. In the same way I understand the text, Ro 14:17.

"But," says the objector, "Christ and the apostles preached the kingdom of heaven at hand; surely, therefore, it must have been set up about that time." I reply, -A thing at hand is the next to come. Let me ask, what kingdom was at hand when Babylon was in power? Answer. The Medo-Persian. Why? Because it was next to come. What kingdom was at hand when the Medo-Persian was in power? Answer. The Grecian. Why? Because it was next to succeed it. What kingdom was at hand when Grecia was in power? Rome. Why? Because next to come, as a kingdom of universal empire. -What kingdom is at hand when Rome is in power? God's everlasting kingdom. Why? Because that is the next kingdom of universal empire. Thus we see how it could be said, in truth, the kingdom of heaven is at hand in the very commencement of the Roman kingdom.

Jas 2:5, tells us that the kingdom is a matter of promise to them that love God; of course, if "promised," it was future. Our Saviour saith, [Luke xii:32,]" Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom;" not yet given. It is something, still to come. To represent it as already set up, is to take away one of the strongest motives the Bible furnishes to endure trials, and to suffer patiently while in an enemy's country. What a soul-cheering thought, the kingdom of God is to come. Christ's subjects will be gathered out of all their tribulations-his territory, the earth, will be cleansed and the wicked rooted out of it; and Christ himself personally reign over his people for ever; not in a dying state, but in a state of immortality, peace, and glory in the new earth. Such a thought gives new life to the soul, now struggling in this "tabernacle," groaning, "being burdened." The kingdom will come: yea, it is now at the door. "Ye feeble saints, fresh courage take." "Behold, your God will come with vengeance, [to your enemies,] even God with a recompense; he will come and save you." Isa 35:4.

But when will the kingdom of God be set up? See Mt 25:31-34. "When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world." Then, and not till then, will the kingdom of God be set up on earth; "for flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God," as we have already seen.

Some men will not enter the kingdom of God. See 1Co 6:9,16. "Know you not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." See also Rev.xxi:27. "And there shall in no wise enter into it [the new Jerusalem] anything that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie."

Who will be subjects of this kingdom? See Re 20:6. "Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection; on such, the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and Christ, and shall reign with him." &c. Here it is seen that holiness is the indispensable qualification for an inheritance in the kingdom of God. See 2Pe 3:14: "Wherefore, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye be found of him in peace, without spot and blameless." "We know that when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. And every man that hath this hope in him, purifieth himself, even as he is pure."

Are we thus purifying ourselves? Are we striving to be Christ-like? Have we the same love to God? The same love to men? The same hatred to sin? The same deadness to the applause of men? In short, do we set Christ before our eyes, as our pattern and example? And are we from beholding, changed into the same image from glory to glory, as by the Spirit of God? "He that saith, he abideth in him, ought himself also to walk even as he walked." See 1Joh 2:6; Mt 25:34-36. Here we learn who will enter into the kingdom of God.

Now comes the inquiry, "Watchman, what of the night?" In what period of prophecy are we now? What are our "soundings," in relation to the setting up of this kingdom? Are we in the kingdom of Babylon, under the "head of gold?" No. That has passed long ago. Are we in the Medo-Persian empire? No. Long since that kingdom was numbered with things passed. Are we in Grecia? Certainly not. -That, too, was numbered and finished more than two thousand years since. Are we in Rome in its undivided state, or in the "legs of iron?" No. Long since that empire fell. Where are we, then? Down among the feet and toes. How long since those divisions came up, which constitute the feet and toes? Nearly fourteen hundred years? Almost fourteen hundred years we have traveled down in the divided state of the Roman empire. Where does the stone strike the image? Is it on the head? No. Is it on the breast and arms? No. Is it on the belly and thighs? No. Is it on the legs? No. Where then? On the feet. Where are we now? In the feet. What takes place when the stone smites the image? It is all broken to pieces, and becomes like the chaff of the summer threshing-floors, and the wind carries it away that no place shall be found for it. Then will this world be cleansed and the everlasting kingdom of God set up which shall never be destroyed. How far off, reader, do you think that event can be? What is to come next as the subject of prophecy? The stone. Are you ready? The Lord help thee to be awake. -Suffer not thyself to be lulled to sleep by the cry of, "my Lord delayeth his coming."

EXPOSITION OF Da 7th CHAPTER;

OR VISION OF THE FOUR BEASTS

BY GEO. STORRS.

[Concluded.]

We are now prepared for the inquiry-who, or what is the little horn here spoken of? We will inquire,

1st. What is the character of this horn? 1. It makes war with the saints. 2. It speaks great words against the Most High.

Let us see if we can find a description of the same character elsewhere in the Bible. See Re 13:6,7; "And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven. And it was given unto him to make war with the saints and to overcome them;" Daniel says, "he prevailed against them." Now see 2Th 2:3,4: "That man of sin be revealed, who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, &c. Can there be any doubt of the identity of the character? Daniel's "little horn," Paul's "man of sin," and John's "blasphemous beast," are clearly identified.

2d. Let us inquire, has a power of this description arisen? It must be admitted that there has; and that power is Papacy. The titles the Popes have assumed, of "Most Holy Lord" and their pretensions to pardon sin, even before its commission, if we had nothing else, sufficiently establishes the blasphemous character of that power. Pope Innocent III, writes-"He [Christ] hath set one man over the world, him whom he hath appointed his vicar on earth; and as to Christ is bent every knee in heaven, in earth, and under the earth; so shall obedience and service be paid to his vicar by all, that there may be one fold and one shepherd. -Again, Pope Gregory VII, says, "The Roman Pontiff alone is by right universal. In him alone is the right of making laws. Let all kings kiss the feet of the Pope. His name alone shall be heard in the churches. It is the only name in the world. It is his right to depose kings. His word is not to be repealed by any one. It is to be repealed by himself alone. He is to be judged by none. The church of Rome has never erred; and the Scriptures testify it never shall err." Surely here is a power diverse from all others, and proud and blasphemous enough to answer the character of the little horn.

3d. Let us now inquire, When this little horn arose? Or, which is the same thing, When did Papacy arise? There has been a difference of opinion on that question. But it appears to me the question is not one so difficult to settle now as in former years. First, then-it did not arise before the ten horns. Hence it did not arise before A. D. 483, when the tenth horn came up. It did not arise until three of the first horns fell, or were plucked up. It did not come up after that, because it came up among the ten horns, and three of those horns fell before it. It must then have come up or been established at the identical point where the third horn fell. If that point can be settled, it seems to me there can be no reasonable doubt as to the time Papacy arose. In the year of our Lord 493, the Heruli in Rome and Italy were conquered by the Ostrogoths. In 534, the Vandals, who were under Arian influence, were conquered by the Greeks, for the purpose of establishing the supremacy of the Catholics. The Ostrogoths, who held possession of Rome, were under an Arian monarch, who was an enemy to the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome; hence, before the decree of Justinian, (a Greek emperor at Constantinople,) could be carried into effect, by which he had constituted the Bishop of Rome head of all the churches the Ostrogoths must be plucked up. This conquest was effected by Justinian's army in the month of March, 538; at which time, the Ostrogoths, who had retired without the city, and besieged it in their turn, raised the siege and retired, leaving the Greeks in possession of the city; thus the third horn was plucked before Papacy, and for the express purpose too of establishing that power. [See Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.]

How exactly do the facts answer to the prophecy. I will here introduce the letter of Justinian to the Bishop of Rome, of A. D. 533:

"Justinian, pious, fortunate, renowned, triumphant, emperor, consul, &c., to John the most holy Archbishop of our city of Rome, and patriarch:

"Rendering honor to the apostolic sec, and to your holiness, (as always was and is our desire,) and, as it becomes us, honoring your blessedness as a father, we have laid without delay before the notice of your holiness all things pertaining to the state of the church. Since it has always been our earnest study to preserve the unity of your holy sec, and the state of the holy churches of God, which has hitherto obtained, and will remain, without any interfering opposition; therefore we hasten to subject, and to unite to your holiness, all the priests of the whole East. As to the matters which are presently agitated, although clear and undoubted, and, according to the doctrine of your apostolic sec, held assuredly resolved and decided by all priests, we have yet deemed it necessary to lay them before your holiness. Nor do we suffer anything which belongs to the state of the church, however manifest and undoubted, that is agitated, to pass without the knowledge of your holiness, who are the head of all the holy churches. For in all things (as had been said or resolved) we are prompt to increase the honor and authority of your sec."

"The authenticity of the title," says Mr. Croley, "receives unanswerable proof from the edicts of the 'Novellae' of the Justinian code. The preamble of the 9th, states, 'that as the elder Rome was the founder of the laws; so was it not to be questioned, that in her was the supremacy of the pontificate.' The 131st, on the Ecclesiastical Titles and privileges, chapter ii., states: 'We therefore decree that the most holy Pope of the elder Rome is the first of all the priesthood, and that the most blessed archbishop of Constantinople, the new Rome, shall hold the second rank, after the holy apostolic chair of the elder Rome.'"- Croley, pp. 114,115.

Some suppose that Phocas, A. D. 606, by applying the title "universal Bishop" to the Pope, first gave him his supremacy; but this cannot be, for it does not agree with the prophecy that three of the first horns were to be plucked up before it, as it came up, and this happened more than half a century before. -Again, Mr. Croley, a writer of the Church of England, says-"The highest authorities among the civilians and annalists of Rome spurn the idea that Phocas was the founder of the supremacy of Rome; they ascend to Justinian, as the only legitimate source, and rightly date the title from the memorable year 533."

Imperial Rome fell about A. D. 475, and was in the hands of the barbarians. Thus it continued till the conquest of Rome by Belisarius, Justinian's general, 536 to 538, when the Ostrogoths left it in possession of the Greek emperor, March, 538. Thus the way was open for the dragon to give the beast his power, and his seat, and great authority. Re 13:2. -This fact, from Revelation, also, settles the point that the Pope did not receive his power from Clovis, king of France. It was the dragon that gave him his seat, Rome, his power, as head of the churches. The Roman emperors had stood at the head of the churches with power to make important decisions for the church-it is now transferred to the Pope: and he has given him, also, great authority, under the Justinian code of laws, to judge and punish heretics.

4th. The next point we want to settle is, the length of time this power was to continue. Daniel says, "a time, times, and the dividing of time." The Revelator says, [Chap.xiii:5, "Power was given unto him to continue 42 months." He was to make war upon the saints-the church; and in Re 12:6, we are told, the woman, the church, fled into the wilderness 1260 days; and at the 14th verse, that it was for "a time, and times, and half a time." Here then we have the period of the continuance of this power given us in three forms of expression, which settles the point that the time, times, and dividing of time is 42 months, or 1260 prophetic days or years.

5th. Did the continuance of papal dominion, as a horn of the beast, cease at the end of that period? -1260 years from 538 would extend to 1798. Did anything transpire that year to justify the belief that the dominion of Papacy was taken away that year? It is a historical fact, that, on Feb. 10th, 1798, Berthier, a French general, entered the city of Rome and took it. On the 15th of the same month the Pope was taken prisoner and shut up in the Vatican. The Papal governments, which had continued from the time of Justinian, was abolished, and a republican form of government given to Rome. The Pope was carried captive to France, where he died in 1799. Thus, he that led others into captivity, went into captivity; and he who killed with the sword, those he was pleased to call heretics, was himself killed [subdued] with the sword; i.e., his dominion was taken away by war. See Re 13:10. Verse 26: "but the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, [he is cut off from being a horn on the beast, or deprived of his civil power, so that he can no longer wield the sword against dissenters] to consume and destroy it unto the end." See 2Thess.ii:8: Whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming to judge the world in the burning day, when the beast and false prophet will be cast alive into the lake of fire, burning with brimstone; then the little horn will be destroyed.

Some tell us the civil power of Papacy is not taken away. That the Pope was restored, or a new one chosen, is admitted, and that he may have some civil power in Italy is not denied. But that he has power to depose kings and put to death the saints now, is denied. When he was a horn on the beast, he deposed kings at pleasure, for centuries, and silenced heretics by the flame, the rack, prison, and the sword. Can he do it now? No. Nor has he been able to do it since 1798-since that time the church is out of the wilderness; and Papacy is compelled to tolerate Protestantism. Hear the Pope himself on that subject. Here is his letter, dated Sept., 1840, at Rome. Read it, and see if you think Papacy is now a horn on the beast, or is possessed of power to war against the saints unto death, as formerly.

"ENCYCLICAL LETTER OF OUR MOST HOLY LORD GREGORY XVI, by Divine Providence Pope, to all Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, and Bishops.

GREGORY XVI. POPE.

"Venerable Brethren, -Health and the apostolic Benediction.

"You will know, Venerable Brothers, how great are the calamities with which the Catholic Church is beset on all sides in this most sorrowful age, and how pitifully she is afflicted. You know by what a deluge of errors of every kind, and with what unbridled audacity of the erroneous, our Holy Religion is attacked, and how cunningly and by what frauds, heretics and infidels are endeavoring to pervert the hearts and minds of the faithful. In a word, you know there is almost no kind of effort or machination which is not employed, to overthrow, from its deepest foundations, if it were possible, the immovable edifice of the Holy City.

"Indeed, are we not, (Oh, how shameful!) compelled to see the most crafty enemies of the truth, ranging far and wide with impunity; not only attacking religion with ridicule, the church with contumely, and Catholics with insults and slander, but even entering into cities and towns, establishing schools of error and impiety, publishing in print the poison of their doctrines, skillfully concealed under the deceitful veil of the natural sciences and new discoveries, and even penetrating into the cottages of the poor, traveling through rural districts, and insinuating themselves into familiar acquaintance with the lowest of the people and with the farmers! Thus they leave no means unattempted, whether by corrupt Bibles in the language of the people, or pestiferous news papers and other little publications, or caviling conversation, or pretended charity, or, finally, by the gift of money, to allure ignorant people, and especially youth, into their nets, and induce them to desert the Catholic faith.

"We refer to facts, Venerable Brethren, which not only are known to you, but of which you are witnesses; even you, who, though you mourn, and, as your pastoral duty requires, are by no means silent, are yet compelled to tolerate in your diocese these aforesaid propagators of heresy and infidelity; these shameless preachers, who, while they walk in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves, cease not to lay in wait for the flock and tear it in pieces. Why should we say more? There is now scarcely a barbarous region in the universal world, to which the well known Central Boards of the heretics and unbelievers have not, regardless of expense, sent out their explorers and emissaries, who either insidiously, or openly and in concert, making war upon the Catholic religion, its pastors and its ministers, tear the faithful out of the bosom of the church, and intercept her approach to the infidels.

"Hence it is easy to conceive the state of anguish into which our soul is plunged day and night, as we, being charged with the superintendence of the whole fold of Jesus Christ, and the care of all the churches, must give account for his sheep to the Divine Prince of Pastors. And we have thought fit, Venerable Brethren, to recall to your minds by our present letter the causes of those troubles which are common to us and you, that you may more attentively consider how important it is to the church, that all holy priests should endeavor, with redoubled zeal, and with united labors, and with every kind of efforts, to repel the attacks of the raging foes of religion, to turn back their weapons, and to forewarn and fortify the subtle blandishments which they often use. This, as you know, we have been careful to do at every opportunity; nor shall we cease to do it; as we also are not ignorant that you have always done it hitherto, and confidently trust that you will do hereafter with still more earnest zeal.

"Given at Rome, at St. Mary the Greater, on the 18th of the Kalends of September, of the year 1840, the tenth of our pontificate.

GREGORY XVI. POPE."

You see what is to come next after the fall of the little horn.

Now let us see whereabouts we are in the prophetic chain. Have we passed the Lion-Babylon? Yes. Have we gone by the Bear with three ribs in his mouth? Yes. Has the sign of the Leopard with four wings of a fowl and four heads been passed? -It has. The dreadful and terrible beast, with ten horns, -has he been seen? Yes. Have we got past the little horn having eyes like the eyes of a man? -That is among the things numbered with the past. -How far beyond it are we? Forty five years, nearly. What comes next? The judgment, followed by the everlasting kingdom of God. How far off is that? -That question I shall answer, hereafter, definitely. But one thing is certain; it cannot be at a great distance. It is the next prophetic event. Awake, ye slumbering virgins? "Behold the Bridegroom cometh, go ye out to meet him." No time to sleep now. The seventh angel is preparing to sound. "Awake, ye dead!" will soon thunder through the skies. -Happy day to those that are waiting. Awful day to those who are saying-"My Lord delayeth his coming." Awake-Awake!!

The 70 weeks a part of the 2300 days.

[THE evidence presented on this subject by Bro. Andrews is conclusive. We give the following extract from the exposition of Dan.viii, by Geo. Storrs, published in 1843. It shows the position then taken by the whole Advent body.]

"WE will now give you the 13th and 14th verses of the eighth chapter of Daniel, leaving out what our translators have supplied:- 'Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long the vision, the daily and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot? And he said unto me, Unto two thousand three hundred days: then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.'

The inquiry. 'How long the vision,' clearly related to the 'Ram' and 'Goat,' as well as 'little horn' -and, the 2300 days are given in answer to the question, -'How long the vision?'

It was the meaning of the vision Daniel sought-verse 15: 'It came to pass, when I had seen the vision, and sought for the meaning,' &c.

It was to make Daniel understand the vision, Gabriel was sent-verse 16: 'I heard a man's voice between the banks of Ulai, which called and said, Gabriel, make this man to understand the vision.'

It was to make Daniel understand the vision, Gabriel came-verse 17: 'So he came near where I stood, and said unto me, Understand, O son of man.'

The first thing Gabriel would have Daniel understand, was, that the vision was down to the end, -verse 17: 'At the time of the end shall be the vision.' He would have Daniel understand that the end intended was the last end of indignation, -verse 19: 'Behold, I will make thee know what shall be in the last end of the indignation;' and he would have Daniel know that, 'at the time appointed, the end shall be.'

The 2300 days is the only time appointed. That time cannot be applied to a particular agent or event, without violence to the whole subject.

Now let us inquire what Daniel did understand, and what not. The angel explained every thing to him respecting the ram, he-goat, and little horn. But Daniel tells us in the last verse, 'I was astonished at the vision, but none understood it.' What did not Daniel understand? There were, evidently, three things he did not understand: 1st What 'sanctuary' was intended in verse 13; 2d. He did not understand how to reckon the days; and 3d. Where to commence his reckoning. As Gabriel is not to be charged with disobedience to the command to make Daniel understand the vision, and as he has not fulfilled that command in this chapter, we must look elsewhere to see if he ever did what he was directed to do, and what he promised Daniel he would do.

Let us now look into the 9th chapter. Daniel there informs us that he found out 'by books, the number of years whereof the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem.' We might here inquire, Why did not Daniel 'find that out before?' It was written in the book, but he did not discover it till now. Our opponents seem to think it is a conclusive argument that we are wrong, because the time of the end of the world has not been found out before now. But is it any more marvelous than that Daniel did not learn that the captivity of the Jews in Babylon was to be seventy years, till those years were accomplished?

When Daniel discovered this fact, fifteen years had passed since the vision of the eighth chapter, and he had all that time been in uncertainty about the points that were not explained to him in that vision. He now seems to catch at the thought, that it must be the sanctuary at Jerusalem, to which the vision related, and he at once commences praying accordingly. He, at the 17th verse, prays especially about the sanctuary. 'Now, therefore, O our God, hear the prayer of thy servant, and his supplications, and cause thy face to shine upon thy sanctuary that is desolate, for the Lord's sake.' Daniel's mind is evidently on the vision, and he seems to suppose he has got the clue to the sanctuary that is to be cleansed; but Gabriel comes flying swiftly, to stop Daniel in the midst of his prayer. See verse 21: 'Yea, while I was speaking in prayer, even the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, touched me about the time of the evening oblation.'

Gabriel, why this haste? Why, I see Daniel is wrong-he don't understand the matter-he thinks the vision related to the sanctuary at Jerusalem, and I must stop him, for he is going astray.

'Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision,' says Daniel. What vision? Where had Daniel seen Gabriel in vision? Evidently nowhere but in the vision of the 2300 days. Well, says Gabriel, 'I am now come forth to give thee skill and understanding-therefore understand the matter, and consider the vision.'

How is it possible that anything can be plainer than that both Daniel and Gabriel have the vision in mind, that 'none understood,' at the close of the eighth chapter? Now, says Gabriel, 'understand the matter, as by your prayer I see you did not, and consider the vision-direct your attention to what I have now to say of it. 'Seventy weeks are determined [cut off, so the word signifies] upon thy people.' Cut off from what? Surely not from the indefinite space; but from some time previously given. What time had Daniel given him before? None, except the 2300 days. The natural inference, then, is that the 70 weeks were cut off from those days: there is nothing else to cut them off from. For what are they cut off? Several objects are specified; but one especially, viz., to seal up [or as the word signifies, see Da 6:17, make sure] the vision."'

THE RETURN OF THE JEWS

THE ADVENT REVIEW, AND SABBATH HERALD

"HERE IS THE PATIENCE OF THE SAINTS; HERE ARE THEY THAT KEEP THE COMMANDMENTS OF GOD AND THE FAITH OF JESUS."

R&H VOL. III. -ROCHESTER, N. Y., THURSDAY, MARCH 3, 1853. -NO. 21.

THE RETURN OF THE JEWS.

BY GEORGE STORRS.

IT is said, "The world cannot come to an end yet, for the Jews are to be brought in first:" it is added, "God must have some great design in having kept the Jews a distinct people for the last 1800 years;" and, it is asked, "What can that design be but their conversion to Christianity?"

In reply, I remark, God has not kept the Jews a distinct people. Here is the root of the error of our opponents, in regard to the Jews. I will not deny but that they are a distinct people; but, the question is, who has kept them so? Our opponents say God has; but I deny it. God has no more kept the Jews a distinct people than he has kept drunkards a distinct people; or than he has kept Mormons, or Mohammedans, or Papists, or liars, or any other class of wicked or deluded men, a distinct people. The fact is, God broke down the partition wall between Jews and Gentiles by the death of his Son; and never intended that any distinction should exist after "the seed should come to whom the promise was made." That seed is Christ. See Gal. Chap.iii. Christ, says Paul to the Ephesians, [Eph 2:14,]" is our peace, who hath made both one, [Jews and Gentiles] and hath broken down the middle wall of partition."

To talk about God's keeping the Jews a distinct people in the face of such positive declarations of the Bible to the contrary, it seems to me, shows a strong disposition to maintain a theory at all hazards. The truth is, God has abolished all distinction, under the gospel dispensation, between Jews, as the natural descendants of Abraham, and Gentiles. That very circumstance was what enraged the proud Jews, and they united in rebellion against God's purpose, and blasphemously said they would not be put on a level with the Gentiles; and they have labored for 1800 years to keep up a wall of distinction, which, in the purpose of God, was to exist no more after his Son broke it down by his death upon the cross.

The Jews, then, have kept themselves a distinct people, and have done it in opposition to the will of God unto this day, as really and as criminally as drunkards have kept themselves a distinct people; and it may just as well be claimed that God has kept the drunkards a distinct people, with the design to convert them, as to set up such a claim for the Jews. I repeat it, the Jews are a distinct people by their own fault, and as criminally as drunkards, or any other class of sinners.

I shall now call attention to a few texts of Scripture which show that the natural descendants of Abraham, under the gospel, have no peculiar privileges or promises. See Matt.iii:9: "And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham." Thus John the Baptist lays the axe unto the root of the trees of Jewish prejudice and pride, and gives them to understand that a dispensation is now opening, in which the being a literal descendant of Abraham would avail nothing. -This was a dreadful blow to Judaism, and it made the "dry tree" shake to its very roots. Now let us see if our Saviour did not cut it entirely down. See John viii:39: "They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, if ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham." Here is a plain, positive denial that the Jews, as such, were the children of Abraham; and a clear statement of what constitutes a real child of Abraham, viz., doing the works of Abraham. Our Lord tells the Jews, in verse 44, "Ye are of your father the devil." This gives us a clue to the inquiry, who has kept them a distinct people? It is their father, the devil. Let none attribute such a devilish work to God any more. They are a distinct people because they choose to obey the devil rather than God; and to suppose that their conversion is to be the result of their serving devils, is to suppose that God gives to men a reward for rebellion. Besides, whenever a Jew is converted, his distinctive character as a Jew ceases at once. This shows that their being a distinct people, is a work of the devil and not of God, as God abolishes that distinction when they obey him. Now let us look at Rev.ii:9: "I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are of the synagogue of Satan." Again, Chap.iii:9: "Them of the synagogue of Satan which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie." -Can any doubt who are meant by real Jews in these verses? Are they not real Christians? While the natural descendants of Abraham, as such, or Christians, who are so only in pretence, are of the synagogue of Satan. In connection with these texts, see Rom.ii:28,29: "For he is not a Jew which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God."

Here inspiration settles the question, that those whom we call Jews are not Jews; and God no more regards them as Jews, than he regards drunkards as sober men; or, than he regards wicked apostates as real Christians. We are here also given to understand distinctly, who are Jews under the gospel dispensation-they are real Christians.

That the literal descendants of Abraham, as such, are utterly rejected, except on the same conditions of other sinners, see Isa 65:11-15: "But ye are they that forsake the Lord, that forget my holy mountain, that prepare a table for that troop, and that furnish the drink-offering unto that number. Therefore will I number you to the sword, and ye shall all bow down to the slaughter; because when I called ye did not answer; when I spake, ye did not hear; but did evil before mine eyes, and did choose that wherein I delighted not. Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Behold, my servants shall eat, but ye shall be hungry: behold, my servants shall drink, but ye shall be thirsty: behold my servants shall rejoice, but ye shall be ashamed: behold, my servants shall sing for joy of heart, but ye shall cry for sorrow of heart, and shall howl for vexation of spirit. And ye shall leave your name for a curse unto my chosen, for the Lord God shall slay thee, and call his servants by another name."

What language could more forcibly express an utter rejection from the very name of being God's people than that here employed? Read over these verses again, and see how carefully and clearly God distinguishes between the Jews, as such, and his people. -That this rejection of them from being his people was to last till the end of this world, see the following verses, where we are carried down to the new heavens and the new earth; and then God tells his people, whom he shall call "by another name," "Be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy." What Jerusalem? See Rev.xxi:1,2: "And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband."

Here is a perfect parallel, and when compared together, gives us a clear idea of the language of God by Isaiah, in the verses under consideration. The Lord adds, in verse 19, "And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people; and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying." -This exactly corresponds with Re 21:4: "And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away."

Now see Ro 9:6-8: "Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel; neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children; but, in Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted for the seed." Compare this with Gal 4:28: "Now we, brethren, [We. Who? Believers-whether from among the Jews or Gentiles] as Isaac was, are the children of promise." Here the Apostle settles the question who are children of promise; and settles it to be those who have faith in Christ, without regard to their previous nationality. These are the persons to whom the promises are made, and not the natural descendants of Abraham.

What has become of old Jerusalem and her children? The Apostle tells you in the 25th verse of this chapter-"For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children." Is this old bond-woman and her children to inherit the promises of God with real Christians? See verses 30 and 31, of this chapter-"Nevertheless, what saith the Scripture? Cast out the bond-woman and her son; for the son of the bond-woman shall not be heir with the son of the free woman. So then, brethren, we are not children of the bond-woman, but of the free."

But where is the Jerusalem to which the promises are made? See verse 25: "But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all."

Thus we learn, that old Jerusalem, or the Jews, as such, are rejected from the promises of God; and that all the promises pass over to the servants of God, who are called by "another name," viz., to true Christians, who are the only true Jews and children of Jerusalem; so that there are no promises of restoration, or conversion, to the literal descendants of Abraham, more than to any other class of sinners.

"But," says the objector, "the Jews must be brought in with the fullness of the Gentiles;" and he adds-"that's Bible language." Thus spake a Doctor of Divinity of this city. Well, Doctor, where in the Bible do you find such language? Please tell us. Ans. Nowhere! It's not there! It's only in the Doctor's Creed! That's all! But is there nothing that sounds like it in the Bible? Perhaps there is; but when D. D.'s tell us that such words are Bible language, they should be careful that they quote correctly. The portion of Scripture, doubtless, referred to, is Rom.xi:25: "For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, (lest ye should be wise in your own conceits,) that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in."

Now if this verse proves the return or conversion of the Jews, it proves also that it will not take place "until the fullness of the Gentiles come in." Of course, there is to be no more of the Gentiles converted after the bringing in of the Jews commences; and as I understand the aforesaid Doctor thinks the return of the Jews is to commence this year, his doctrine is as fatal to the Gentiles as ours. Let all then who are not Jews, be aroused to seek salvation immediately. This year, remember, "our enemies themselves being judges," probation is to cease to the Gentiles.

As the strength of the whole argument, so far as the New Testament is concerned, lies in the eleventh chapter of Romans, I will give that chapter a full examination.

First. Who was the Apostle addressing in that chapter? The 13th verse will tell you: "For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office." What was his controversy with the Gentile converts? It is evidently about the nature of that rejection, of which the Jews were the subjects. It seems, the Gentiles had imbibed the notion that God had utterly rejected the Jews, so that they were placed beyond the reach of salvation. Paul undertakes to refute that idea. How does he do it? Let us begin the chapter. "I say then, hath God cast away his people? [That is-has he so rejected them that there is no salvation for them?] -God forbid." But how do you prove that, Paul? I will tell you, says the Apostle. First-"For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin," and I have obtained salvation. This is my first proof that God has not cast away the Jews so but that they may have salvation. But, Paul, you are a favored character-have you any other proof that God has not put the Jews beyond the reach of his mercy? Yes, says the Apostle, "God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the Scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying, Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life. But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal." The Apostle adds-"Even so then, at this present time, also, there is a remnant according to the election of grace;" this is my second argument that salvation to the Jews is possible, wicked as they are; I am saved, and a remnant besides are saved. Paul then proceeds to say-"And if by grace, then is it no more of works; otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace; otherwise work is no more work. What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded, (according as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, ears that they should not hear;) unto this day."

Who were the election? Ans. Paul, and that part of the Jews who embraced the gospel; because they "were obedient to the faith," [see Ac 6:7,] the Lord elected, or chose them to the enjoyment of his favor, as his spiritual Israel. Those who did not obey [Chap.x:16,21,]" were blinded." The Apostle then goes on to say, [verses 9,10,] that David prophesied of this thing: "And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumbling block, and a recompense unto them; let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow their back always."

Why were their eyes darkened? Because they rejected the true light, the Lord Jesus Christ. But the Apostle adds, [verse 11,]" I say, then, Have they stumbled that they should fall," beyond the possibility of salvation? "God forbid;" or by no means, as the phrase signifies; "but through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy:" that is, the Jews were provoked to jealousy by the salvation of the gospel being preached to the Gentiles. See Acts xiii:45,46: "But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy, and spake against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming. Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles."

The middle wall was now broken down-the Jews fell from the peculiarity they had enjoyed, and through, or by the means of that fall, salvation came to the Gentiles on the same terms that it flowed to a Jew; viz., by faith in Jesus Christ. "Now," says the Apostle, [verse 12,]" if the fall of them be the riches of the world, [or be the means of enriching the world, by salvation flowing to all men with equal freedom,] and the diminishing of them [or, as the margin reads, loss of them, or their loss,] the riches of the Gentiles, [or, has been the means of riches to the Gentiles,] how much more their fullness?" As though the Apostle had said, "Salvation has richly flowed to you Gentiles through the loss to the Jews of their peculiarity, but if they could be induced, generally, to embrace the gospel, there would be a still greater blessing flow to the world." And surely the unbelief of the Jews has prevented thousands and millions, probably, from embracing Christianity; and what a work of enriching the world they might have accomplished had they espoused the cause of Christ, instead of employing all their influence against it!

The Apostle now proceeds to say, [verses 13 and 14,]" I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office; if by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them."

Surely this language does not look much as if the Apostle thought that the Jews were all to be converted. He even expresses a doubt as to the salvation of any of them; but says, he labors, if by any means he might save some of them. He must have been peculiarly unfortunate in his expressions, if he intended to teach that the Jews were certainly to be converted. But, says the Apostle, [verse 15,]" If the casting away of them [viz., the unbelieving Jews] be the reconciling of the world, [i.e., the cause of the gospel of reconciliation being preached to the world; or, perhaps, more strictly, the means of destroying the cause of enmity between Jews and Gentiles, bringing all on to the same ground in relation to God and one another, thus destroying the enmity which had existed, by his cross, see Eph.ii:15-18, -if this casting away of them resulted so gloriously for the world,] what shall the receiving of them be [if by any means I might save some of them] but life from the dead?" That is, if the Jews could by any means be brought to give up their unbelief, and embrace Christianity, it would give new life and power to the gospel itself. But Paul is very far from teaching that they should actually do so. All the Apostle's language shows a doubt about the Jews, many of them, ever embracing the religion of Jesus. But he says, [verse 16,]" If the first fruit be holy, the lump also" [may be holy.] Is not that the sense? The verb is, is not in the original. What is the Apostle's argument? Is it not this? Though I have my doubts whether many of the Jews will be saved, yet their salvation is possible; for if the first fruit [viz., the Apostle himself, and the remnant of whom he had spoken in verse 5,] be holy, [or have been made holy] the lump [or body of the Jews may be made holy] also; and if the root [Christ, see Isa.xi:10,] be holy, so are the branches." That is-if those who are now unbelieving, would believe on Christ, the root, they would become holy, as well as we who are the first fruits, and so they might be saved. The whole argument goes to prove the possibility of the salvation of the Jews; but, at the same time, shows that the Apostle had doubts whether many of them would be saved, though he hoped to save some of them.

He now proceeds to caution the Gentile converts against being puffed up because they had been brought into exalted privileges; and he does this with tremendous effect, in verses 17-22. He says, "And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree; boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee. Thou wilt say, then, The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in. Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not high-minded, but fear; for if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. Behold, therefore, the goodness and severity of God; on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness; otherwise thou also shalt be cut off."

The Apostle then goes on to say, [verse 23,]" They also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in; for God is able to graft them in again." If they abide not still in unbelief. Here the Apostle carefully sets his sentinel. It is a small word, it is true, but it is of tremendous import, showing that the Apostle never designed to be understood as teaching the certainty of the Jews' conversion; if he had intended to teach it, he would not have set the unbending word if to stand sentinel to keep all carnal Jews and Gentiles out of the church of God.

The Apostle now proceeds to argue this case still further, and says, [verse 24,]" For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree; how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?" -if they abide not still in unbelief. He then goes on to say, [verse 25,]" For I would not have you to be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own conceits, that blindness in part is happened to Israel, [or to a part of Israel, viz., those who believed not, and this blindness will continue] until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in;" that is till the end of the world; for, till then, we have no reason to suppose the fullness of the Gentiles will be come in. The Apostle saw that a part of the Jews would continue to reject Christ till the end of the world; but that was no evidence of the impossibility of their salvation, if they would give up their unbelief. Paul then adds, [verse 26,]" And so all Israel shall be saved, [if they abide not still in unbelief, for, the Apostle speaks constantly in reference to the trusty sentinel he has set to guard against intruders,] as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: for this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins."

Where is this written? See Isa 59:20,21: "And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the Lord. -As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the Lord; my spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth and for ever."

Here the Prophet helps us to understand the Apostle; and he teaches us that the promise is that the Redeemer shall come unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob; and that the covenant relates to an eternal inheritance, and not to a mere conversion of any class of wicked men.

The Apostle next proceeds to say, verse 28, that, "As concerning the gospel, they [the unbelieving Jews] are enemies for your sakes, [or on your account, i.e., they were enemies because the partition wall was broken down, and the Gentiles were admitted to the same favor of God as themselves, and on the same terms-see Acts xiii:42-46,] but, as touching the election, [that is, the believing Jews-see verse 7,] they are beloved for the fathers' sakes." -God has a special love to a believing Jew for the fathers' sake on the principle that he "keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him, to a thousand generations." See De 7:9. Thus, the Gentile converts were made to understand, that though God had rejected the unbelieving Jews from his favor, yet, when they believed, as they all might if they would, they were regarded with special favor for the fathers' sake; for, God had not forgotten the faith of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; and his "gifts and calling" to the fathers, he had never repen