Larger font
Smaller font
Copy
Print
Contents
  • Results
  • Related
  • Featured
No results found for: "".
    Larger font
    Smaller font
    Copy
    Print
    Contents

    December 5, 1843

    Vol. VI.—No. 16. Boston, Whole No. 136

    Joshua V. Himes

    SIGNS OF THE TIMES
    AND EXPOSITOR OF PROPHECY.

    Terms.—$1,00 per Vol. (24 Nos.) in advance Office No. 14 Devonshire Street, Boston.

    J. V. Himes, J. Litch, and S. Bliss, Editors.
    Dow & Jackson, Printers, Boston.

    FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES on which the SECOND ADVENT CAUSE IS BASED

    JVHe

    I. The word of God teaches that this earth is to be regenerated, in the restitution of all things, restored to its Eden state as it came from the hand of its Maker before the fall, and is to be the eternal abode of the righteous in their resurrection state.HST December 5, 1843, page 129.1

    II. The only Millenium found in the word of God is the eternal state of the righteous in the New Earth wherein dwelleth righteousness.HST December 5, 1843, page 129.2

    III. The only restoration of Israel yet future, is the restoration of the saints to the New Earth, when the Lord my God shall come, and all his saints with him.HST December 5, 1843, page 129.3

    IV. The signs which were to precede the coming of our Savior, have all been given; and the prophecies have all been fulfilled but those which relate to the coming of Christ, the end of this world, and the restitution of all things AndHST December 5, 1843, page 129.4

    V. There are none of the prophetic periods as we understand them, that extend beyond the [Jewish] year 1843.HST December 5, 1843, page 129.5

    The above we shall ever maintain as the immutable truths of the word of God, and therefore till our Lord came we shall ever look for his return as the next event in historical prophecy.HST December 5, 1843, page 129.6

    Cry in Europe.—No. III

    JVHe

    The Coming of the Lord and His Presence on Earth

    by james a. begg.

    In every age affliction has been the lot of the people of God. Always situated in a world of wickedness, and subjected to the malice of Satan, the history of the Church, hitherto, presents us with a record of deep depression and of persecution, over which true philanthropy is called to mourn. But the dark cloud by which Heaven’s own institution has been enveloped, will yet pass away, and a day shall yet dawn bright with the irradiations of celestial glory.HST December 5, 1843, page 129.7

    The prospect of this period of triumph, has in all ages been the ground of consolation to the children of God. It was early held forth in promise, and the faith of every succeeding generation was directed forward to its approach. The prophets of old contemplated with rapture the glories of which they sung, and anticipated with delight the events they were commissioned to announce. The honor and exaltation of their Lord and Savior was dear to their hearts; and while in mournful strains they complained of a world’s present unbelief, and foretold his future rejection, they were ever cheered with the assurance that his reproach should at length be wiped away, and the promised reward of his sufferings be abundantly made manifest. The certain assurance of His future triumph, and their own participation of its glory, sustained them under the darkness and misery of present affliction, and lent a zeal and an energy to their exertions which overpowered all inferior considerations.HST December 5, 1843, page 129.8

    And when at length the Son of God assumed our nature, and appeared in our world, and ‘bare our sins in his own body on the tree,’ he taught his followers to wait for his return as the period of promised redemption. Till then he gives them no encouragement to expect happiness without alloy, or peace without interruption, as predicted by the prophets. The admonitions of his apostles continued in similar strains; and the consolations of the New Testament suggest that it is only designed as a more complete directory till the Millennium arrive. It has not the characteristics of a book designed for guidance during a long term of general holiness and peace, but is rather fitted for the comfort of the Church through an age of suffering. All its references to Millennial glory are connected with the Savior’s Return. To suppose his coming to be at the close of that happy era, is therefore, to believe that though specially designed for the Christian Church till the end of time, the New Testament is little adapted to a whole 1000 years of her existence, whether computed prophetically or otherwise. The great purpose this part of revelation is designed to serve, being for more full and explicit direction during the dark and dreary age in which the church was to be situated among enemies, always exposed to their power, ever ready to be overcome by the world’s allurements or subjected to oppression, all its precepts are of a nature suited to such circumstances. Had it been otherwise would there have been no account of the age of victory, no anticipation of its glory, when the church shall have accomplished her warfare? But the apostles carry forward the views of believers to the Millennium, urge their motives to duty, enforce their exhortations to holiness, and derive their consolations, from the rewards to be bestowed at their Lord’s Return, and they go little farther. The Old Testament prophets have few directions for the Church in its present state, but they look far beyond it. They not only make frequent annunciation of the Redeemer’s Glorious Coming, but also give ample and delightful representations of the bright and peaceful scene which follows.HST December 5, 1843, page 129.9

    In perusing the Old Testament prophecies concerning the Millennium, it is indeed remarkable with what frequency the Messiah is introduced as David or the Beloved, 6In an admirable Letter to the Rev. Dr. Hamilton, of Strathblane, by Henry Drummond, Esq., in ‘Defence of the Students of Prophecy,’ the proper meaning of the name ‘David,’ used in our Translation of many prophcies concernig the Savior, is well explained. Signifying, as it does, ‘The Beloved,’ (a title applied to Christ in the New Testament, Ephesians 1:6,) for the sake of perspicuity it would be proper always to make the substitution. the Root and Branch of Jesse, The Lord, The Lord our Righteousness, The Redeemer, The Lord of Hosts, The Prince, The King, and The King of Israel; of his being with and amongst his people—and of his reigning over and in the midst of them in Zion and in Jerusalem. And not only is his presence promised, but it is spoken of as being the highest glory and best enjoyment of that bliss which are the peculiar characteristics of the era to which these prophecies refer. Indeed, from the circumstances with which they are connected, many of the predictions appear altogether incomprehensible, if the personal presence of the Redeemer is denied. Nor can any sufficient reason be assigned for substituting the presence of the Spirit as an equivalent for the promised presence of Emmanuel—‘The King of Israel.’ The copious effusion of the influences of the Spirit, and the general holiness of men is the subject of another gracious promise for ‘that day,’ and ought not to be confounded with, nor merged into, that which now forms the subject of more immediate investigation. To do so is not merely offering violence to the language of Scripture, but doing this without the shadow of necessity. The prophecies present a view of the Messiah’s character and work, full, clear, and consistent; stated with so much plainness, and so oft repeated, as to leave room for wonder that his personal presence ever could have been so explained away. The language, as left by the Holy Ghost, seems to stand in need of no amendment—no accommodation; nay, is quite irreconcilable with the accommodations usually made. A short review of some of these promises, given in few words, and arranged in order, will fully substantiate this statement,—a careful examination of their general contexts will prove the whole to be unfulfilled predictions. ‘When the Lord shall build up Zion, he shall appear in his glory.’ Psalm 102:16. ‘Behold the Lord rideth upon a swift cloud, and shall come into Egypt.’ 19:1. ‘The Lord shall go forth as a mighty man; he shall stir up jealousy as a man of war.’ 42:13. ‘The Lord of Hosts shall come down to fight for Mount Zion, and for the hill thereof .... and passing over Jerusalem he will defend it.’ 31:4, 5. “For, behold, the Lord will come with fire, and with his chariots like a whirlwind, to render his anger with fury, and his rebuke with flames of fire.’ 66:15. He is also seen, by the holy prophet, coming ‘from Edom. with dyed garments from Bozrah, glorious in his apparel, travelling in the greatness of his strength,’ ‘treading down the people in his fury and staining his raiments with their blood.’ 7This passage has sometimes been applied to the first advent of Christ, and the sufferings He himself endured. But this is an application which it does not admit: He treads his enemies in his anger—he tramples them in his fury,—and his garments are sprinkled with their blood. Indeed, we know from the History of the. Savior’s Life that at no period of his ministry was he at all in Edom or Idumea, of which Bozrah is the capital. 63:1, 6. ‘Yet,’ says the Lord, have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.’ Psalm 2:6. ‘And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob.’ Isaiah 59:20. ‘Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion, for, lo! I come and will dwell in the midst of thee, saith the Lord.’ Zechariah 2:10. ‘The Lord shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee.’ Isaiah 60:2. ‘The Lord shall be thine everlasting light, and the days of thy mourning shall be ended.’ 60:20. ‘And, behold, the Glory of the God of Israel came from the way of the east; and His voice was like a noise of many waters, and the earth shined with his glory.’ Ezekiel 43:2. ‘His feet shall stand in that day upon the Mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east.’ Zechariah 14:4. In the days when ‘Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely,’ as King shall the Lord our Righteousness ‘reign and prosper, executing judgment and justice in the earth.’ Jeremiah 23:5. ‘Behold a King shall reign in righteousness, and princes shall rule in judgment! for ‘the Lord my God shall come, and all the saints with thee.’ Isaiah 32:1; Zechariah 14:5. He shall then be ‘Governor,’ not merely over, but ‘among the nations.’ Psalm 22:28. ‘The Lord shall be King over all the earth. In that day shall there be one Lord and his name one.’ Zechariah 14:9. ‘Then the moon shall be confounded and the sun ashamed, when the Lord of Hosts shall reign in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem, and before his ancients gloriously.’ Isaiah 24:23. ‘At that time they shall call Jerusalem, the throne of the Lord, and all the nations shall be gathered unto it, to the Name of the Lord to Jerusalem.’ Jeremiah 3:17. ‘Yea, many people and strong nations shall come to seek the Lord of hosts in Jerusalem, and to pray before the Lord.’ Zechariah 8:22.”HST December 5, 1843, page 129.10

    An argument founded on the phrase, “The midst of the week,” to show that the 2,300 days do not expire till 1847. By Silas Hawley, Jr.HST December 5, 1843, page 130.1

    Is it not so?

    JVHe

    Brother Bliss,—Much, by yourself and others, has been written respecting the terminating of the prophetic periods. All that has appeared, on that subject, I have read with much interest and care.HST December 5, 1843, page 130.2

    I have noticed that the writers on the subject differ with each other, and not only so, but that they have been led to change their own positions. But these differences and changes are confined within the limits of the present year, and relate only to particular points in the year when it is believed the periods will run out. That these differences have arisen from the continuation of time longer than some anticipated, should not be disguised. Disappointed as to particular points of time, others have by necessity been assumed as the period of the consummation. And yet, it should be kept in mind, that the year, the general period believed to be the time of the end, is not yet near expired. So there is no good ground for the exultation of the wicked, on the one hand, or for the despondency of the believers in this period, on the other. But while this subject is before the mind, and while there is more or less doubt as to the point of time at which to expect the end, I have thought it my duty to present another view, reaching beyond the limits fixed, which all candid persons must think worthy of attention and examination. The view I offer, and the reasonings by which it is sustained, are the results of several months’ reflection and study. 8Though I have heard of others advocating this view, I have not been able to learn by what methods they sustain it. I know the hazard I run in offering the view to the public. I understand that I shall expose myself both to the friends and enemies of the advent at hand By the latter it will be regarded as tantamount to a renunciation of my former views; by the former, it will be looked upon as a fundamental element of the system. But I regard it as neither. As to time, it has been, and is now admitted, that the connection between the 2300 days of the eighth, and the seventy weeks of the ninth of Daniel, is the fundamental point. To that I adhere with the most entire confidence. As I now view the subject, the connection is as plain as that between the two chapters. And I much marvel, that all do not see it. It will be seen, then, that my view rest upon the same principles of interpretation and methods of computation as the other. The only difference consists in the termination of the period cut off from the long number of 2300 years. The end of that period must determine the beginning and end of the remaining portion of the time. With our opponents, the great point of dispute has been, the existence or non-existence of that connection. Those who have admitted it, we have reckoned with us; those denying it, have been regarded as our opponents. There has hardly been an instance of one admitting the connection, who has not been willing to class himself with us. So we may safely say, both as a matter of fact and of experience, the connection has been the fundamental principle in the calculation of time. And we are fairly entitled to all that can be made of the connection. On that the calculation mainly rests; on that it must fall, if it fall at all. If there has been a mistake as to the termination of the seventy weeks, and, as the result, a corresponding mistake as to the end of the whole period of which they are a part, it cannot effect the system at all. The system, as to time, is based on the connection; till that is disproved, it is firm and unshaken. And it seems, that Mr. Miller might be forgiven the mistake he has made, if indeed, it is one, as he has followed the first expositors as to the termination of the 70 weeks. But if he has erred with them, it disproves nothing that is essential to his calculation.HST December 5, 1843, page 130.3

    The main light I have received, as to time, has been reflected from that connection; and yet other prophetic periods, as well as the signs of the present day, have contributed to increase its brilliancy and intensity. But that has been my chief dependence—the main basis on which has rested my faith. To that I was converted; to that I strongly adhere. But as to the time of the completion of the seventy weeks, I have always had some doubt; and, consequently a doubt of equal strength as to the termination of the period of which they are the first part. And yet the weight of evidence seemed to be in favor of the common view, that that period ended at the crucifixion, and on that I rested. And yet I did not rest there with such confidence as to lead me to assert, with any degree of positiveness, that the whole period would expire the present year. The preponderance of evidence was in favor of that opinion, and I so stated in my discourses. And yet, for another reason, I maintained that in all probability, the present year would run out. But after the most patient and diligent examination, with all the helps in my reach, I am very well satisfied, that our Lord was crucified in the middle of the seventieth week of Daniel, leaving three years and a half of the 490 unfulfilled at his death. This will, of course, make a corresponding difference in the termination of the whole period.HST December 5, 1843, page 130.4

    But I am convinced, that the event, so solemn, and so evidently near, will so transpire, as not to gratify the pride of mortals. All, in some respects, will be disappointed. Pride of opinion will be humbled. I would then be cautious and slow in saying that the event will occur in accordance with my view. I would only state what appears to be the most probable period for the end to come. But it may be sooner; even before this article shall be finished. I would watch, believing as I do, that we are living in the last portion of prophetic time.HST December 5, 1843, page 130.5

    An attempt to show that Christ’s death occurred in the middle of the last week of Daniel

    JVHe

    The proof I shall offer will be both colateral and direct. I will begin with theHST December 5, 1843, page 130.6

    Colateral Evidence

    JVHe

    The prophecy of the seventy weeks, evidently fixes the limit to the probationary time of the nation of the Jews. “Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people.” This could not mean that so much time should be the measure of their national existence; for, in that case, the seventy weeks extended to the fall of Jerusalem. Not could it mean that this period was assigned merely for the purposes of the Messiah’s mediation. For those purposes partly, and, from their importance principally, that that period was determined, or cut off, there can be no doubt, but not wholly. In that view, it would not appear why the period was said to be determined upon Daniel’s people. The time was decided upon, or assigned for them, as well as for the deeply interesting events connected with the mission of the Messiah. And this could mean nothing less than the measure of their national probation. But the events which the same prophecy describes as those that should distinguish and close up that period, confirm and establish this view. “To finish the transgression, and make an end of sins.” In the light of the clause we have been considering, but one construction of these seem natural or admissible—the completion or filling up of their national sins, and thus to seal their doom. This is the construction commonly put upon these clauses, by our writers and lecturers. And it is unquestionably the true one. This being so, the completion of the seventy weeks would seal their fate as a nation. Now the point is, whether this was done at the death of Christ. This could not be so, because God confined the ministry of the apostles exclusively to that people, for at least three or four years after that time. This fact is wholly irreconcilable with such an idea. Though they had a universal commission, they were expressly required to begin at Jerusalem. See Luke 24:47. Can it be believed, that they were to begin their ministry in the metropolis of a reprobated nation, and that they would be confined in their labors to that people for several years after their probation had ceased, and their doom was made certain? It cannot be. But, the view I entertain accounts for the fact—the seventy weeks, cut off for them, had not expired. This view offers an explanation; the other leaves the matter wholly inexplicable. But it should be answered, that the apostles did not understand, and consequently did not obey their commission, during that period, it may be remarked, that this would be leaving a path, because of a difficulty, and taking another having a much greater one. Did God suffer them to throw away their labors for several years, at the very beginning of their ministry? or did he permit them to practice an error for this length of time, when it was promised that the spirit, which they had, should lead them into all truth? I cannot entertain such views of Him under whose auspices the first Christian ministry commenced its operations. And, besides, we shall see, when we come to consider another part of this prophecy, that this course was a fulfillment of a divine prediction. So this I urge as a strong colateral proof that Christ was cut off in the middle of the seventieth week. I invite particular attention to this point.HST December 5, 1843, page 130.7

    And it may be stated here, that the opinion that the seventy weeks ended at the death of Christ, by most embracing our general views, has been given up. They have been driven to this, by the delay of events longer than was consistent with that view. Conseqently other and more future points of time have been sought as the termination of those weeks. Some writers have seized upon the day of the Ascension, others the day of Pentecost, others a day farther future, as the end of that period. But time has swept on, and proved, by its resistless march, all such opinions false and unfounded. And now all must be problematical and uncertain Let us, then, resort again to the sure word of prophecy, to whose unerring light we shall do well to take heed.HST December 5, 1843, page 130.8

    Direct Proof

    JVHe

    This is found in the simple letter of the prophecy. “And in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease.” Two points need establishing, and all will be plain and incontrovertible. The first is the meaning of the cessation of the sacrifice and oblation. The 2nd is the meaning of the word midst. As to the first, I remark, that there has been but one view of this, and that is, the supercession of the Jewish sacrificial service, by the offering up of the great antitypical sacrifice. When Christ died the Jewish service, being only typical of that event and its effects, ceased; not, however, as a matter of fact, but as to its binding obligation and significance. The Jews continued to offer their scarifices according to law, but they had no validity, or efficacy, or significance. This is the only sense in which that service has ceased. And it could not have ceased in this sense, at any other point, or by any other event., than the death of Christ. This is made so plain by the lucid and cogent reasoning of Paul, in his letter to the Hebrews, as to preclude all doubt respecting it. (See 7, 8, 9 and 10 chapters.) The point of his argumentation is, that the death of Christ rendered obsolete and inefficacious the sacrificial service. Then the cessation of the sacrifice and oblation, is the same in fact, as the death of the Messiah. And of course, at whatever point the one occurred, at that occurred the other. This is so plain as to admit of no controversy.HST December 5, 1843, page 130.9

    The only remaining enquiry, to be disposed of, is the meaning of the word ‘midst.’ If the cessation of the Jewish service was effected by the death of Christ, and this was in the midst of the week, the meaning of this word will determine the period of the event. That the event took place within, or at the end of the seventieth or last week, all admit. This is plain from the fact, that 69 of the 70 weeks were to reach to the Messiah, or the time he was proclaimed as such. So the other events are confined, from necessity, to the last week. The question then is, did the event take place at some point within, or at the end of this week? The word midst must determine this, in the light of other portions of the same prophecy. And I will first remark, that it does seem that no one who lays claim to candor and sense, will maintain that midst means the extreme end of the week. This is too absurd to be done. And yet this is the inevitable result of the reasoning by which that view is supported. If Christ preached seven years, as is maintained, he must have died at the extreme end of the week. But is this in the midst of the week? I think not, unless language has changed its meaning. But a Brother attempts to avoid this difficulty, by presenting a view that is entirely new. After giving his readers some instances of the use of the word midst, in the Bible, he thus concludes: “All these expressions show, that the phrase ‘in the midst of,’ denotes no more than, some where within the thing spoken of. It may signify throughout the entire period, or place, spoken of. Thus, in the text under consideration, I understand it to signify, that the Messiah was to cause the sacrifice and oblation of the Mosaic law to cease during the entire period of his ministry.” The reason he gives is, that he never sent a soul to offer those offerings, under the law, as a condition of any benefit he might have bestowed upon them. See “Bible Examiner,” pp 53, 54. This cannot be admitted for several reasons. This would make the word midst entirely useless, and not only so, but liable to mislead the reader. The prophecy says, “And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease.” With the author’s view it should read, “And he shall confirm his covenant with many for one week: and cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease.” This would be making the confirmation of the covenant, and the causing of the Jewish service to cease, two branches of labor, carried along together, and occupying the same time for their completion. But let any one look at the prophecy as it reads, and he will see that for the cessation of the Jewish service a specific and definite point of time, within the week, during which the covenant shall be confirmed, is intended to be given. The whole week would be occupied in confirming the covenant; but the midst of the week would abolish the sacrificial service. It must be plain, therefore, that the word midst in the prophecy, is a designation of a particular time, within the week, for that abolition to be effected. 2. I cannot admit the above view, for it makes the ministry of Christ, and not the death of Christ, abolish the Jewish service. The language of the Brother is, “I understand it to signify that the Messiah was to cause the sacrifice and oblation of the Mosaic law to cease during the entire period of his ministry.” This cannot be so, because fact and the scripture are against it. It is a fact, in opposition to the statement of the Brother, that the Saviour, so far from treating as obsolete and of no force, the sacrifice of the law, acknowledged their validity and obligations by his observance of them, to the last. The very evening before his crucifixion, and almost the last act he did, he, with his disciples, partook of the passover, which was prepared according to his own direction. See Matthew 26:17-19. Mark 14:12-15. Luke 22:7-16. All know that the Passover was a feast of the law, and not only so, but a feast that involved sacrifices. See Exodus 12:3-13. Did the keeping of this feast just before the crucifixion, look like “causing the sacrifice and oblation of the Mosaic law to cease during the entire period of his ministry.” Was not this observance after the close of his ministry, since he was immediately after taken by a band that went out for the purpose, and conveyed to the High Priest? So he admitted the binding obligation of the ceremonial service, down to the period of his death. And in no instance, I must say, did he attempt to absolve his disciples from their obligation to obey the prescriptions and forms of the law during his ministry. His doctrine was, when the weightier matters of the law were unprotected, and the smaller scrupulously observed, “These aught ye to have done, and not left the other undone.” And hence it is plain, that the statement of our Brother is opposed to fact. And it is equally opposed to scripture. One thing all will allow, which is, that the old covenant was the basis of the Jewish service, and gave it all its force and obligation; and as a consequence, that the abolition of that service was effected by superseding that covenant. This the letter to the Hebrews and other apostolic epistles make so plain, as to command the assent of all. When, then, was that covenant superseded? Paul shall answer. “And for this cause he is Mediator of the New Testament, that by means of death for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. For where a testament is, there must also of necesity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.” Hebrews 9:15-17. “Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances.” Ephesians 2:13. “Blotting out the hand-writing of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross:” Colossians 2:14.HST December 5, 1843, page 131.1

    These passages teach—1. That the New Testament had no force until the death of Christ; and as a certain consequence, that the Old one continued in force until that time. 2. That the old covenant was actually abolished by that death. Hence the ceremonial service did not cease, or lose any of its force until Christ expired. To maintain it did, is to be guilty of the absurdity of declaring, that the prescriptions of a code cease to be binding while the code is in full force. I think the brother will not do this. Then he must concede, or withstand the Apostle, that the ministry of Christ did not actually lessen the obligation of the sacrifical service; and that, therefore, “during the entire period of his ministry,” he did nothing to cause it to cease. 3. The view taken by that brother, is opposed to the well known law of types. A type must have force until its antitype is come. This, heretofore, all have admitted. When, if so, did the Jewish sacrifices cease, as to force and appropriateness? Manifestly when the “offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all,” was made. If so, the sacrifices of the law retained all their force to that period, and did not cease during the entire period of the Savior’s ministry. But the common way of disposing of the difficulty, is to resort to a new rendering of the Original word, translated midst—viz. last half. This rendering has been adopted by almost all the writers and speakers on this subject. But I have the strongest objections to it. I object to it, because it leaves the death of Christ, as to time, indefinite and unrevealed. The nearest we can arrive at, is three years and a half. The last half of the week must be this length of time, as the whole week is seven years. Now in what part of the last half he died—whether at the first or last part, or midst—is, as to the prophecy uncertain. And there is no other specific designation of time, in any other portion of the prophecy, fixing the exact period of that event. It is said, in verse 26, “And after three score and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off.” But this, as all can see, is insufficient to fix the exact point of time when he should be cut off. And the 24th verse, as it draws a circle of time around certain unarranged and unclassified events, is suitable to relieve this point. Seventy weeks were detached from the long period for the accomplishment of those events: but it is not stated, until the explanations of the verses following, at what point, within those limits, each event should take place. So it is most evident, that the clause in dispute is the only part of this phrophecy that is intended to approach to exactness as to the time of Messiah’s death: and if this does not, if it is left uncertain as to three or four years, we should be the last persons to fix on the year for the end. 2. I object to this rendering, because it is one that is clearly resorted to, to avoid a difficulty without reference to the meaning of the term. And it should be added, that the difficulty sought to be avoided, is the result of a refusal to give to all parts of this prophecy their plain and obvious meaning. It is assumed, to begin with, that Christ was cut off at the end of the week, and it is so plain as to admit of no dispute that the cessation of the sacrifice and oblation was effected by his death, and since this is said to be done in the midst of the week, it becomes necessary to prove that the two constructions harmonize. But instead of this, the difficulty should have led them to suspect that the view was not correct. To permit the prophecy to retain its obvious meaning, leaves no room for the difficulty. 3. This view is not to be received, because it destroys the analogy of this part of the prophecy. These verses aim at classifying the events of the 24th verse, and assigning a definite period for the accomplishment of each. From the going forth of the commandment to the completion of the walls, seven weeks, forty-nine years; from that point to the appearance of Messiah, sixty-two weeks, or four hundred and thirty-four years; from that point to the finishing of the confirmation of the Covenant, one week, or seven years; from the beginning of the last week to the cessation of the sacrifice and oblation by the death of Christ, half week, or three years and a half, making that event occur in the midst or middle of the week. As precision and exactness are aimed at, as to the other events, analogy requires that it should have been in respect to this. And that it was, I cannot doubt. And if a definite time was fixed for this event, it is, as before stated, expressed by this word midst. And this word cannot express an exact period without retaining its common and previous meaning, which is, the middle or centre. This is the definition of the word given by the dictionaries, and it is the true idea of the Hebrew, according to our most critical scholars. Webster and Walker define midst thus, “middle.” Hengstenberg, the most learned and critical author that has ever written on the seventy weeks, says the literal rendering of the Hebrew is,—“And the half of the week will abolish sacrifice and meat offering.” He adds,—“That the confirmation of the Covenant extends throughout the whole week, in the midst of which the sacrificial service ceases, shows that this must be, for believers, not a distressing, but a joyful result; that it stands in connection with the destruction of the temple, predicted immediately after, proves that, in respect to the unbelieving part of the people, it is to be considered a judgment. If now we inquire for the cause of this cessation of the sacrificial service, we find it to be the death of the Messiah. That the expression, “after the 62 weeks” (reckoned from the going forth of the word, after 69,) verse 26, must not be understood, as though the Messiah should be cut off at the very commencement of the 70th week, is evident from the fact, that otherwise his appearance (Comp. v. 25, from the going forth of the word .... until the Messiah, are 69 weeks,) and his death would coincide; and that we must not go beyond the middle of the 70th week, in which the abolition of the sacrifical service is placed, is plain from the words, “after 69 weeks.” See Christology of the O. Testament, Vol. II pp. 357—8.HST December 5, 1843, page 131.2

    This, then, is the result—
    Completion of the walls, 7 weeks 49 yrs.
    From that period to the appearance of Messiah, 62 weeks 434 “
    Abolition of sacrificial service by his death, half week 31 “
    Making to the death of Christ 4861 yrs.
    Remaining of the 70 weeks after the Crucifixion, 31 yrs.
    Thus 490
    4861

    This view makes the word midst mean something; the other makes it worse than useless—without meaning. The clause in the prophecy could be omitted and nothing be lacking to the other view. It has no place in it. And, since with that view the clause is useless, I must think it wrong.HST December 5, 1843, page 131.3

    In conformity with the above view, the 69 weeks ended in the middle or last part of A. D. 29, and the first half of the last week extended to A. D. 33, when Messiah was cut. off, but not for himself. And the last half of the week reached to A. D. 37, when the confirmation of the Covenant ceased, the probation of the Jews ended, and the privileges of the Gospel began to be made accessible to the Gentiles by the conversion of Cornelius But as there is an objection to 37 as the year of the conversion of Cornelius, founded on the marginal Chronology of that event in Acts, I will here give the argument sustained by the position in the comprehensive language of another. “Though it may not be in our power to fix with precision the time of the conversion of Cornelius from the narrative of the Acts, yet it is easy to show that the date given to it in the margin of our Bibles, which is wholly arbitrary and unsupported, must be too late; and that the year 37 agrees much better with the facts that are known. The stoning of Stephen took place in 34, or early in 35, and the conversion of Paul in the course of 35, to allow time for his two visits to Jerusalem mentioned in Galatians, with an interval of three years, and fourteen years between them: all occurring before the Council, in Acts 15.: the dissensions leading to which are referred to in Galatians 2:11; and which Council could not be later than 52. Paul’s first visit to Jerusalem, was therefore in 38, and Peter was at Jerusalem, Galatians 1:18; and the persecution raised about Stephen had ceased. Acts 9:31; 11:19. But at this visit to Jerusalem, Paul received his commisson to go to the Gentiles, Acts 22:21; and began to dispute with the Grecians, Acts 9:29; at the time when the disciples at Antioch did the same; Acts 11:20: all which proves that the door had then been opened to the Gentiles by the conversion of Cornelius, as otherwise these proceedings could not have been sanctioned by the Church in sending forth Barnabas, Acts 11:22, and their even sending Paul to Cesarea, the abode of Cornelius, Acts 9:30, indicates the same thing; and Barnabas sought his help as the chosen vessel to the Gentiles, Acts 11:25, 9:30.HST December 5, 1843, page 132.1

    The conversion of Cornelius, therefore, must have taken place before 38. We should recollect that the transactions in the Acts are not given in the regular sequence of time, but one narrative is followed out to its close, and then another taken up, though it should require going back in the order of time: as is evidently the case, chap. 11:19, which returns to 8:1. 9Pym. Appendix, pp. 118, 119.HST December 5, 1843, page 132.2

    If, then, as the foregoing reasonings and facts compel us to conclude, the 70 weeks terminate in A. D. 37, at the conversion of Cornelius, to reckon from that point 1810 years, the remainder of the 2300 will bring us as their end to 1847 of the vulgar reckoning. That we must regard as the most probable period for a completion of this most important prophetic number. I say probable period; for a chronological computation, embracing so long a period, and encountering more or less discrepances and difficulties at every step, cannot be pronounced to be certainly accurate. A too confident and dogmatical way of treating such questions is not to be encouraged, or approved. And yet in this case, it may be safely stated, that it is hardly possible that the result given should be far from the truth. It is believed to be the most accurate that the question admits of with the present light respecting it.HST December 5, 1843, page 132.3

    Objections Considered

    JVHe

    1. An objection to the view presented is founded upon the clause in the prophecy, “And he shall confirm the Covenant with many for one week.” It is inquired how he could do this for one week, and be cut off in the middle of the week. This will admit of several answers. And first, it is not necessary that we should understand, that he, by his personal agency, would confirm the Covenant the whole week. He might do it partly himself, and partly by others. What one does by another, he does himself. Second, Mr. Ferguson and Mr. Miller both maintain that Christ did not, in his own person, confirm the Covenant but half of the week. If Christ did it by another agency half of the week, the objection loses its force; and the other question is left open as to that agency by which it was done. Third, it is better in accordance with the fitness of things, with facts and the Scripture, to maintain, that the Apostles confirmed the Covenant the other half of the week; which, if true, will not only be a sufficient answer to the objection, but will constitute the highest proof of the main point sought to be established by this article—that Christ’s death took place in the middle of the week. John did not preach the New Covenant, but merely prepared the way for it to be preached and confirmed. He did not agitate the question of Covenants, nor teach that the New was to take the place of the Old. This was a work left to Christ and the Apostles. It was a work wholly confined to the Jews; the Gentiles having no difficulties about covenants. The great difficulty with the Jew was, to give up the Old with its service, and adopt the New with its faith. I say, therefore, that this was a work wholly confined to the Jews. And this fact furnishes an additional reason why the apostles were confined in their labors to that people, for several years after the Crucifixion. And so they were fulfilling two parts of the prophecy—filling up the remainder of the seventy weeks, and completing the other half week allotted to the confirmation of the Covenant with many. But the Bible settles the question as to those by whom the Covenant was confirmed, in a most decisive manner. “How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which AT THE FIRST began to be spoken BY THE LORD, and was CONFIRMED unto us by THEM THAT HEARD HIM; God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?” Hebrews 2:3, 4. Here, in the plainest terms, we have Christ beginning and the Apostles completing, the establishment or confirmation of the Gospel or Covenant. No testimony could be more to the point, or more decisive. And, as before remarked, it accomplishes the double purpose of annihilating the objection, and demonstrating the correctness of the view presented above. And we shall soon see that it will answer another end, with equal force and pertinence. Fourth, in the Hebrew the word he is not found, but, according to the well known usage of that language, the week is the subject of the clause. Hengstenberg thus renders it: “And one week will confirm the Covenant with many.” And he adds, “Both opinions are erroneous that the Messiah and the heathen prince is the subject of this clause, since the mention of neither preceded it. The week is the subject. And to show that this is in conformity with the usage of the Hebrew, he quotes Job 3:3-10.—30:17. Psalm 65:4. Malachi 4:1. In all these passages, the subject is similar to the one in the clause under examination. In Malachi, it is said, “The day that cometh shall burn them up.” If the day shall burn them up, the week might confirm the Covenant. See Christology of the Old Testament, Vol. II, p. 354.HST December 5, 1843, page 132.4

    But waiving this criticism, the foregoing considerations must be sufficient, with the candid, to render nugatory the objection so commonly urged against the view here advocated.HST December 5, 1843, page 132.5

    To be Continued.

    SIGNS OF THE TIMES

    No Authorcode

    “The Lord is at Hand.”

    BOSTON, DECEMBER 5, 1848.

    THE MIDST OF THE WEEK

    JVHe

    Our brother asks if this is not so? We think not. We have given the argument of our brother a careful perusal, but can find no reason to change our previous views on this point. We have published it because we are willing to give both sides of the question, but our brother is alone responsible for his views.HST December 5, 1843, page 132.6

    The difficulty which some have found in the phrase above referred to, is a point which we had occasion to consider before we embraced the time; and we can see no more force in the argument for 1847 now, than we could when we weighed the evidence of the time, advocated by Mr. Wolf, which is the same as in the preceding view,—and were obliged to give the preference to that of Mr. Miller. To those who have never given this phrase any particular thought, the above view may seem at first somewhat plausible; we will therefore give, in short, the reasons which obliged us to come to a different result from that to which our brother has arrived. In the first place, his criticisms on the word midst are not to us satisfactory; and in the 2nd place it can make no difference with the end of the 70 weeks, whether our Saviour was crucified in the middle of the last week, or not till the end of it: that would effect the year of the crucifixion, and not the end of the 70 weeks.HST December 5, 1843, page 132.7

    1st. The word “midst.” We can never settle any question by a criticism on a word which is a mere translation: when the meaning of a word is disputed, it is necessary to examine the correctness of the translation first, and then the word substistuted. To base any thing on the word midst, it is necessary to show that it means nothing more or less than centre. Our brother quotes Webster, as defining it “middle”. By this simple quotation we should suppose it was its only meaning; but on turning to Webster, we find that he defines it, “contracted from middest, the superlative of mid;” he quotes Dryden as using it for “the middle,” and then says, “the phrase ‘in the midst,’”—the phrase which is now under consideration “OFTEN signifies involved in, surrounded, or overwhelmed by.” He says it is “poetically used for amidst,” and by Milton for “in the middle.” If therefore it often signifies included in, surrounded, or overwhelmed by, it must be shown by the original not to mean that in this case, or any criticism on it fails. Amid or amidst is defined by Webster to be “middle, among, mingled with, surrounded, encompassed, or enveloped with.” If the word always denoted middle, it would not prove enough to fix it in the centre of the week. The first definition which Webster gives “middle,” is, “equally distant from the extremes;” but he also describes it to be “intermediate, intervening,” “the time that passes, or events that happen between the beginning and the end.” It will therefore be seen that with the great latitude which Webster gives to this phrase, it cannot be made a pivot upon which to turn a chronological question, independent of the original. We will therefore see if the Hebrew necessarily obliges us to understand it as meaning the centre of the week.HST December 5, 1843, page 132.8

    The following are some of the different readings of the original:—HST December 5, 1843, page 132.9

    Dr. Prideaux says that the word in the original Hebrew is Chatzi which signifieth the half part and not the midst.—Prideaux Confrontation, 247.HST December 5, 1843, page 132.10

    Ferguson adopts the same reading, and ends the week at the crucifixion.—Astronomy, p. 386.HST December 5, 1843, page 132.11

    The Rev. Job Orton, S. T. P. says, “in the midst thereof,” should be rendered in the half part thereof.—Ex. O. Test, vol. 6, p. 214.HST December 5, 1843, page 132.12

    In a “Sixfold commentary” on Daniel, printed A. D. 1610, it is translated “and in the middles or halfe of the week, he shall cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease,” some read thus, “the half of the week shall cause to cease” p. 264. Again it reads, “In the half of the week he shall cause the sacrifice to cease.”—p. 355.HST December 5, 1843, page 132.13

    R. Shelano says, “in the midst of the week i. e. in the fourth year of those seven.”—Ib. p. 355.HST December 5, 1843, page 132.14

    Houbigant gives “in the middle of the week.” Clark’s Com. vol. 4, p. 606.HST December 5, 1843, page 133.1

    Hengstenberg reads, “and the half of the week will abolish sacrifice and meat offering.”—Christology, vol. 2, p. 357.HST December 5, 1843, page 133.2

    Dr. Hales translates it, “and half of the week shall abrogate the daily sacrifice and oblation.” New Anal. Chro. vol. 2, B. 1, p. 563.HST December 5, 1843, page 133.3

    Bishop Lloyd, reads it, “in the latter half of the one remaining week.”—Ken. Astro. Chro. p. 18.HST December 5, 1843, page 133.4

    Kennedy says, “and in the half of the week.”—Ib. p. 669.HST December 5, 1843, page 133.5

    A Hebrew scholar of high reputation, remarks as follows:—HST December 5, 1843, page 133.6

    “The word [Hebrew] chatzi is a noun derived from the verb [Hebrew] châtzâh. This verb in its general sense signifies “to divide,“(i. e. into any number of parts.) It has a special signification of dividing into two parts, or “to halve.”HST December 5, 1843, page 133.7

    In the first of these significations, the verb occurs in Judges 9:43. “And he took the people and divided them ([Hebrew] wayyechetzem) into three companies. Job 41:6, (in Heb. 40:25,)—“Shall they part him ([Hebrew] yechetzuhu) among the merchants.” Daniel 11:4,—“and shall be divided, ([Hebrew] wethëch âtz) toward the four winds of heaven.”HST December 5, 1843, page 133.8

    In the special signification, see Exodus 21:35, Ezekiel 37:22, 2 Kings 2:8, Numbers 31:42, Exodus 21:35.HST December 5, 1843, page 133.9

    The noun chatzi, (or chetzi in the absolute form,) occurs in Joshua 10:13, “midst of heaven,” 1 Kings 16:21,—“half”—(or “one partunquestionably,) 1 Kings 3:25, Numbers 32:33, Joshua 8:33, 1 Chronicles 19:4.HST December 5, 1843, page 133.10

    The noun has a feminine form chatzôth with the the same signification as the masculine. Psalm 119:62,—“At midnight,“(middle of night,) chatzôth laylah.HST December 5, 1843, page 133.11

    The word “midst” is the usual translation of the Hebrew [Hebrew] Thâwek in the construct form [Hebrew] “Thok.” See Exodus 14:6, 23:25, Deuteronomy 18:15, Ezekiel 9:4, 15:4, the midst of it, “wethoko,” (“and its middle,” literally,) Genesis 1:5, 29, Exodus 14:27.HST December 5, 1843, page 133.12

    In the passage of Daniel under consideration, the preposition is not expressed because the conjunction Vau [Hebrew] is prefixed to chatzi—thus [Hebrew] watchazi literally,” and a part of the week.” I believe the preposition [Hebrew] Beth is understood, which often signifies “at,” “near,” “by,” or “on,” as in 1 Samuel 29:1, [Hebrew] “at a fountain, (bâayin) Ezekiel 10:16, [Hebrew] by the river,” binhar. Hence the phrase [Hebrew] watchatzi hashshebua, translated, “in the midst of the week,” should be read, “at a part of the week,” that is at the termination of its last part. If this is not so, then we make the three portions of 70 weeks, i. e. 7, 62, and 1, independent measures of duration, contrary to the previous import of the context, and the prophecy necessarily fails.”HST December 5, 1843, page 133.13

    It will therefore be seen that the original is no more definite, but admits of the same latitude as the translation; and the crucifixion might have been in the middle of the week, near the middle, at the end, or only somewhere near the end, so far as a criticism on this phrase can fix it.HST December 5, 1843, page 133.14

    2nd. If our Savior was crucified near the centre of the week, it could not affect the end of the seventy weeks, or 2300 days, unless it is shown that all chronologers are in an error with regard to the nativity of Christ, and the commencement of his ministry. The death of Herod, before which time our Savior had been born, is one of the great landmarks in chronology, there being no point more firmly fixed than this. This is fixed by an eclipse a few nights before Herod’s death which is demonstrated to be in the A. J. P. (Aera of the Julian Period) 4710. The vulgar era was not invented till A. D. 532, nor sanctioned by any public act, till A. D. 1431. This era dates from A. J. P. 4714. As soon as the science of astronomy was sufficiently advanced, it was seen, and has never since been denied, that Christ must have been from three to four years old in A. J. P. 4714, from which the vulgar era dates. He must, therefore, have been about thirty years of age in A. J. P. 4740, which is our A. D. 26—7. and corresponds with the 15th and 16th of Tiberius.HST December 5, 1843, page 133.15

    The last week must have then commenced in A. D. 26—7, when our Savior was about thirty years of age and began his ministry. Here then we have the only fixed point in the chronology of the seventy weeks.HST December 5, 1843, page 133.16

    Hengstenberg in his Christology, Vol. 2, p. 392, in speaking of the seventy weeks, says,HST December 5, 1843, page 133.17

    “The extreme terminus ad quem of the prophecy, the period at which the forgiveness of sins, the imparting of the everlasting righteousness, etc. should be completed, falls in the end of the seventy weeks. It is, however, erroneous to lay this as the foundation of the chronological reckoning, because it is designated by no single, accurately limited fact. Such an one, on the contrary, we find, however, in the close of the 69th week; and we adopt this terminus ad quem, the public appearing of Christ, his anointing with the gifts of the Spirit, more readily as the ground of our calculation, since, which is very remarkable, in the history of the fulfillment, it appears also designated with the same chronological exactness, as here in the prophecy; more accurately, indeed, than any other point, as the birth, or the resurrecction, or the ascension of Christ.”HST December 5, 1843, page 133.18

    To extend the 2300 days beyond this Jewish year, it will be necessary to prove that our Savior was not born till A. J. P. 4714, and did not begin to preach till A. J. P. 4744—A. D. 30—31. It may be supposed this is done, by making the crucifixion in the centre of the week; but this cannot affect it, for there has always been much more uncertainty with regard to the time of the crucifixion, than with either of those previous dates. We had supposed, in common with others, before we had examined that point, that Ferguson settled the date of the crucifixion in A. D. 33, by an astronomical calculation, and have so expressed it; but while we find his calculation is correct, it cannot affect the date of the crucifixion. His calculation, is, that the first full moon after the vernal equinox, came on Friday in A. D. 33, and did not thus fall for about 20 years before, or after. This calculation is correct; but it remains to be proved that our Savior was crucified on the first full moon after the vernal equinox This will be seen by examining the structure ofHST December 5, 1843, page 133.19

    The Jewish Year

    JVHe

    According to the law of Moses, the Jews were required to keep their passover in the first month, when they should reap their barley corn, Leviticus 23:5, 10-21; “In the fourteenth day of the first month at even is the Lord’s passover. Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye be come into the land which I give unto you, and shall reap the harvest thereof, then ye shall bring a sheaf of the first fruits of your harvest unto the priest: And he shall wave the sheaf before the Lord, to be accepted for you: on the morrow after the Sabbath the priest shall wave it. And ye shall offer that day when ye wave the sheaf, a he-lamb without blemish of the first year for a burnt-offering unto the Lord. And the meat-offering thereof shall be two tenth-deals of fine flour mingled with oil, an offering made by fire unto the Lord for a sweet savour: and the drink-offering thereof shall be of wine, the fourth part of a hin. And ye shall eat neither bread, nor parched corn, nor green ears, until the self-same day that ye have brought an offering unto your God: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations in all your dwellings. And ye shall count unto you from the morrow after the Sabbath, from the day that ye brought the sheaf of the wave-offering; seven Sabbaths shall be complete: even unto the morrow after the seventh Sabbath shall ye number fifty days; and ye shall offer a new meat-offering unto the Lord. Ye shall bring out of your habitations two wave-loaves of two tenth-deals: they shall be of fine flour, they shall be baken with leaven, they are the first-fruits unto the Lord. And ye shall offer with the bread seven lambs without blemish of the first year, and one young bullock, and two rams: they shall be for a burnt-offering unto the Lord, with their meat-offering, and their drink-offerings, even an offering made by fire of sweet savour unto the Lord. Then ye shall sacrifice one kid of the goats for a sin offering, and two lambs of the first year for a sacrifice of peace-offering. And the priest shall wave them with the bread of the first fruits for a wave-offering before the Lord, with the two lambs: they shall be holy to the Lord for the priest. And ye shall proclaim on the self-same day, that it may be a holy convocation unto you: ye shall do no servile work therein. It shall be a statute for ever in all your dwellings throughout your generations.”HST December 5, 1843, page 133.20

    According to this requirement, the Jews began their year with the new moon nearest the barley harvest, which made that feast a moveable feast, and the year sometimes began earlier, and sometimes later, varying as the barley ripened earlier or later, and the new moon came near to the time of the harvest.HST December 5, 1843, page 133.21

    The commencement of their years being always governed by the time the barley harvest should be reaped, made them always virtually of the same length as our own; for there must have been as many years as there were barley harvests, and no more.HST December 5, 1843, page 133.22

    Horne says of the Jewish year,HST December 5, 1843, page 133.23

    “The Jewish months were originally calculated from the first appearance of the moon, on which the Feast of the New Moon, or beginning of months (as the Hebrews termed it) was celebrated. Exodus 12:2; Numbers 10:10; 28:11.” “The Jewish months being regulated by the phases or appearances of the moon, their years were consequently lunar years, consisting of twelve lunations, or 354 days and eight hours; but as the Jewish festivals were held not only on certain fixed days of the month, but also at certain seasons of the year, consequently great confusion would, in process of time, arise by this method of calculating: the spring month sometimes falling in the middle of winter, it became necessary to accommodate the lunar to solar years, in order that their months, and consequently their festivals, might always fall at the same season. For this purpose, the Jews added a whole month to the year, as often as it was necessary; which occured commonly once in three years, and sometimes once in two years. This intercalary month was added at the end of the ecclesiastical year after the month Adar, and was therefore called Ve-Adar. or the second Adar.” Horne, Vol. III. pp. 166, 167, 297.HST December 5, 1843, page 133.24

    Faber says,HST December 5, 1843, page 134.1

    “From the very time of the original institution of the Passover, the observance of it was fixed to the fourteenth day of the first month Nisan, otherwise denominated Abib, or the month of green ears, at which time in Judea the harvest was beginning: and, in a similar manner, the feast of tabernacles was fixed to the middle of the seventh month Tisri, and to the time of the ending of the vintage. Now, these feasts were thus observed.—The Passover they celebrated on the fourteenth day of Nisan or Abib, by killing the paschal lamb: the fifteenth was the first of the days of unleavened bread, and was ordained to be kept as a Sabbath: and on the morrow after this Sabbath, as being the beginning of the barley harvest, they were directed to bring a sheaf of the first-fruits for a wave offering before the Lord. The feast of tabernacles they celebrated on the fifteenth day of Tisri: and this festival was also called the feast of ingathering, because it was celebrated after they had gathered in their corn and their wine. If then the ancient Jewish year consisted of no more than 360 days, and if it were neither annually lengthened by the addition of five supernumary days, nor occasionally regulated by monthly intercalations, it is evident, that all the months, and among them the months Abib and Tisri, must have rapidly revolved through the several seasons of the year. Hence it is equally evident, since the Passover and the feast of tabernacles were fixed, the one to the fourteenth day of Abib, and the other to the fifteenth day of Tisri, that they trust similarly have revolved through the seasons. Such being the case, how would it be possible to observe the ordinances of the law, when the months Abib and Tisri had passed into opposite seasons of the solar year? How could the Jews, in the climate of Judea, offer the first fruits of their harvest after the Passover, when the month Abib, in which it was celebrated, had passed into autumn or winter? And how could they observe the feast of tabernacles, as a feast of the ingathering of their corn and their wine, in the month of Tisri, when that month had passed into spring or summer? It is plain, that, unless Abib and Tisri always kept their places in the solar year, unless Abib were always a vernal month, and Tisri an autumnal month, the Passover and the feast of tabernacles could not have been duly observed. And hence it is equally plain, that the ancient Jews could not have reckoned by years of 360 days, without some expedient to make those years fall in with solar years.” Faber, Vol. I. pp. 12—14.HST December 5, 1843, page 134.2

    In the commencement of the Jewish year no reference was originally had to astronomical accuracy. They reckoned from the first appearance of the moon. And we are informed that on the appearance of the moon near the ripening of the barley harvest, if from the appearance of the harvest it would be ripe by the 14th day, they made that the commencement of their year; but if it would not be ripe till after the 14th day, they added the whole of that moon to the old year, and commenced their year with the first day of the next moon. This was the custom of the Jews till after their dispersion by the Romans, when being scattered all over the world, it was difficult to observe the ripening of the barley harvest in Judea; and in some countries where the Jews were, it was observed earlier, and in some, later.HST December 5, 1843, page 134.3

    In order, therefore, to have the observance of the Passover uniform, the Rabbins established the time of its observance by astronomical calculations, and began their year with the new moon nearest the vernal equinox.HST December 5, 1843, page 134.4

    According to this astronomical arrangement, the months in the present Jewish year are arranged as follows,—HST December 5, 1843, page 134.5

    Names. Times of Commencement. Festivals.
    Abib or Nisan, April 1st. In the Rabinical year from Creation. 5603. Note.—This year began September 5th, 1842. Passover 14th April Unleavened bread, 15th April. First fruits of Barl’y Harvest waved, 16th April, Last day of feast of Unleavened bread, April 21st.
    lyar or Ziv., May 1st, Pentecost, or Feast of weeks, June 6th.
    Sivan, May 30th.
    Tammuz, June 29th.
    Ab, July 28th.
    Elul, August 27th.
    Tisri, or Ethanim, Sept. 25th. Rabbinical year from Creation, 5604. Feast of Trumpets. Sept. 25th. 23:24, 25. Numbers 29:1. Fast of Expiation, Leviticus 23:27, Oct 4th. Feast of Tabernacles Oct. 9, Leviticus 23:34, 35. Octave of Feast of Tabernacles. (Leviticus 23:36.) Oct. 16th.
    Marchesvan, or Bul, Oct. 25th.
    Kislev, Nov. 24th. Feast of Dedication, Dec. 18. Lasts 8 dys.
    Tebeth, Decr. 24th.
    Shebat, Jany. 22nd, 1844.
    Adar, Feb. 21st. Purim, March 5th. Esther 9:19.

    End of year 20th March, 1844, Wednesday.HST December 5, 1843, page 134.6

    “This table is founded on the Rabinnical calculation which makes the first day of Nisan commence with the new moon, nearest the day on which the sun enters Aries (or at the vernal equinox.) It ought, however, to be observed, that the Caraite Jews maintain that the Rabbins have changed the calendar, so that to present the first fruits of the barley harvest on the 16th of Nisan, as the law directs, would be impossible, if the time is reckoned according to the Rabinnical calculation, since barley is not in the ear, at Jerusalem, until a month later. The accounts of many travellers confirm the position of the Caraites. Mr. E. S. Colman, a converted Jew, who has been employed as a missionary to the Jews in Palestine, in an article published in the American Biblical Repository, for April, 1840, makes the following remarks on this subject: The season for the feast of unleavened bread is thus defined in Exodus 13:4. “This day come ye out, in the month Abib.” Also Exodus 23:15, “Thou shalt keep the feast of unleavened bread in the time appointed of the month Abib”—Lemoed chodesh hââbib, literally, “at the season of the month of green corn,” as is evident from the parallel word in Exodus 9:31, “and the flax and the barley was smitten, for the barley was (‘Abib’) in the ear.” But at present, the Jews in the Holy land have not the least regard to this season appointed and identified by Jehovah, but follow the rules prescribed in the oral law, viz. by adding a month to every second or third year, and thus making the lunar year correspond with the solar. And when the fifteenth day of Nisan, according to this computation, arrives, they begin to celebrate the above-mentioned feast, although the chedesh haabib may have passed, or not yet come. In general, the proper season after they have celebrated it, is a whole month, which is just reversing the command in the law.—Nothing like ears of green corn have I seen around Jerusalem at the celebration of this festival. The Caraite Jews observe it later than the Rabinnical, for they are guided by Abib, and they charge the latter with eating unleavened bread during that feast. I think, myself, that the charge is well founded. If this feast of unleavened bread is not celebrated in its season, every successive festival is dislocated from its appropriate period, since the month Abib is laid down in the law of God as the epoch from which every other is to follow.” In an “Economical Calendar” of Palestine, which has been prepared with the greatest, care, is the following remark under the month commencing with the new moon of April. “Wheat, zea or spelt and barley, ripen.” On the whole, it is probable that the Jewish year, in the time of the Old Testament writers, commenced with the new moon of April, instead of that of March.”HST December 5, 1843, page 134.7

    Jahn in his Archaology, says, p. 111, 112, that Moses obligated the priests to present at the altar on the second day of the passover, or the sixteenth day after the first new moon in April, a ripe sheaf. For if they saw on the last month of the year that the grain would not be ripe, as expected, they were compelled to make an intercalation, which commonly happened on the third year.HST December 5, 1843, page 134.8

    The Jewish Rabbins say, that March and Sept, instead of April and October, were the initial months of these two years. That they were so at a late period is admitted, but the change was probably owing to the example of the Romans, who began their year with the month of March. The Jews being pleased with their example in this respect, or overruled by their authority, adopted the same practice. That this is the most probable statement, is evident also from the fact, that the position of the Rabbins is opposed not only by Josephus, but by the usage of the Syriac and Arabic languages; from the fact also, that the prescribed observances of the three great festival days will not agree with the months of March and September, as has been shown by Michaelis: see Commentat. de Mensibus Hebraorum in Soc. Reg. Goett. 1763—1768, p 10. et. seq.HST December 5, 1843, page 134.9

    Of the Caraite and Rabinnical Jews, Dr. Hales says,HST December 5, 1843, page 134.10

    “The Rabbinites, held to oral tradition, and supposed that God dictated many things by word of mouth, to Moses on Mount Sinai, which were propagated by tradition of the elders, and long after, were put in writing, lest they should be forgot. Hence those maxims of their schools, ‘the words of the Scribes are lovelier than the words of the law, the words of the elders are weightier than the words of the prophets.’ They were reproved by our Savior for teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.”HST December 5, 1843, page 134.11

    “There was a sect of the Scribes called Karaites or Scriptarians, who rejected the cabilistic or allegorical interpretations of Scripture, and contended for the literal sense. And if the literal was inadmissible, they endeavored to discover the figurative meaning by careful comparison of Scripture with itself, in parallel places.”HST December 5, 1843, page 134.12

    New Anal. Chro. Vol. II. p. 788.HST December 5, 1843, page 134.13

    It will be seen, therefore, if the Caraite Jews are correct, (and the Mosaic law settles the question that the Passover cannot be observed till the barley harvest is ripe,) that an astronomical calculation of the day of the week on which the first full moon after the vernal equinox in A. D. 33, would fall, cannot prove the day of the week on which the true Passover would be observed that year, and consequently cannot prove the year of the crucifixion. We said it could not prove the day of the week on which the true Passover would be observed: if the first full moon after the vernal equinox in 33, came on Friday, the next full moon would be 29 1-2 days later. But as the Jews reckoned from the first appearance of the moon. which is seen sometimes 29 and sometimes not till 30 after the appearance of the previous moon, we should have no means of knowing whether the 14th day from its appearance would be on Saturday, 29 days from the 14th of the previous moon, or on Sunday, 30 days from the same period. If, therefore, the Caraite Jews are correct, while the calculations of Ferguson as to the day of the week on which would fall the first full moon after the vernal equinox, are perfectly correct, they give us no certain clue to the day of the week on which the true Passover came, and consequently cannot determine the year of the crucifixion.HST December 5, 1843, page 134.14

    Again, even if the Rabinical Jews were correct, with regard to the moon in which the Passover should be kept, and we could ascertain to a certainty, the day on which the astronomical full moon would fall, yet that might be one day earlier or one day later than the 14th from the day of its appearance. The changing of the moon early or late in the day, would make one day’s difference in the time of its appearance; and therefore the astronomical full of the moon would not, within one day, determine the Jewish 14th of the moon.HST December 5, 1843, page 134.15

    Dr. Hales, says, that “From the difference between the times of the true and computed paschal new moon, as calculated astronomically, and computed by such rules as were in use among the Jews formerly, and which may vary a day in their results, we may naturally account for a circumstance noticed in the gospels, namely, that our Lord and his disciples ate the Passover on Maundy Thursday, but the chief priests and their adherents on good Friday,” Vol. I. p. 174.HST December 5, 1843, page 135.1

    Dr. Prideaux says,—HST December 5, 1843, page 135.2

    “Anciently the form of the year which they made use of was wholly inartificial; for it was not settled by any astronomical rules or calculations, but was made up of lunar months set out by the phases or appearance of the moon. When they saw the new moon, then they began their months, which sometimes consisted of 29 days, and sometimes of 30, according as the new moon did sooner or later appear. The reason of this was, because the synodical course of the moon (that is, from new moon to new moon) being twenty-nine days and a half, the half day, which a month of 29 days fell short of, was made up by adding it to the next month, which made it consist of 30 days; so that their months consisted of 29 and 30 days alternatively. None of them had fewer than 29th days, and therefore they never looked for the new moon before the night following the 29th day; and, if they then saw it, the next day was the first day of the following month. Neither had any of their months more than 30 days, and therefore they never looked for the new moon after the night following the 30th day; but then, if they saw it not, they concluded, that the appearance was obstructed by clouds, and made the next day the first of the following month, without expecting any longer; and of twelve of these months their common year consisted. But twelve lunar months falling eleven days short of a solar year, every one of those common years began eleven days sooner than the former; which in 33 years time would carry back the beginning of the year through all the four seasons to the same point again, and yet a whole year for the solar reckoning (as is now done in Turkey, where this sort of year is in use;) for the remedying of which, their usage was sometimes in the third year and sometimes in the second, to cast in another month, and make their year then consist of thirteen months; whereby they constantly reduced their lunar year, as far as such an intercalation could effect it to that of the sun, and never suffered the one, for any more than a month at any time to vary from the other. And this they were forced to do for the sake of their festivals: for their feast of the Passover (the first day of which was always fixed to the middle of the month Nisan) being to be celebrated by their eating the paschal lamb, and the offering up of the wave sheaf, as the first fruits of their barley harvest; and their feast of Pentecost, which was kept the fiftieth day after the 16th of Nisan (which was the day in which the wave sheaf was offered,) being to be celebrated by the offering of the two wave loaves as the first fruits of their wheat; harvest; and their feast of tabernacles, which was always begun on the 15th of Tizri, being fixed to the time of their in-gathering of all the fruits of the earth; the Passover could not be observed till the lambs were grown fit to be eaten, and the barley fit to be reaped; nor the Pentecost, till the wheat was ripe; nor the feast of Tabernacles, till the ingatherings of the vineyard and oliveyard were over; and therefore, these festivals being fixed to these set seasons of the year, the making of the intercalation above mentioned was necessary, for the keeping them within a month sooner or later always to them.” Hist. Jews Vol. 1. p. 51.HST December 5, 1843, page 135.3

    Geminus, a Grecian astronomer, says, “that when the moon is in perigree and her motion quickest, she does not usually appear until the second day, nor in apogee when slowest until the fourth.” Dr. Hales, Vol. I. p. 174.HST December 5, 1843, page 135.4

    Again, Dr. Prideaux says—HST December 5, 1843, page 135.5

    “Since the Jewish calendar hath been fixed by Rabbi Hilled upon the certain foundations of astronomy, tables may indeed be made which may point out to what day in that calendar every day in the Julian year shall answer; but this cannot be done for the time before; because, while they went inartificially to work in this matter, by the phasis and appearance of the moon, both for the beginning of their months and years, and the making of their intercalations, they did not always do it exactly, but often varied from the astronomical truth therein. And this latter having been their way through all the times of which this history treats, we cannot, when we find the day of any Jewish month mentioned either in the Scriptures or in Josephus reduce it exactly to its time in the Julian year, or there fix it any nearer than within the compass of a month, sooner or later.” Prideaux Hist. Jews, Vol. 1. p. 53.HST December 5, 1843, page 135.6

    It will therefore be seen that the argument which rests upon the first full moon after the equinox, cannot fix the Jewish 14th of Abib of the crucifixion; so that while the nativity is fixed, if the crucifixion was in the centre of the week, it must have been before A. D. 33, and consequently the 2,300 days cannot be shown to extend beyond 1843. Ferguson informs us, that “both by the undoubted canon of Ptolemy and the famous era of Nabonassar, the beginning of the seventh year of the reign of Artaxerxes Longimanus, king of Persia. (who is called Ahasuerus in the Book of Esther,) is pinned down to the 4256th year of the Julian period.”—Astron. p. 387. Commencement of the 70 Weeks.HST December 5, 1843, page 135.7

    The great argument upon which most have rested to prove the crucifixion in 33, has been that the 70 weeks ended there; but if the 70 weeks must not necessarily end near the crucifixion, this argument is of no avail. The evidence that the 70 weeks end here, independent of the crucifixion, is this. They were to begin with the going forth of the decree to rebuild Jerusalem, from the seventh year of Artaxerxes Longimanus. Petavius commences the reign of Artaxerxes Longimanus in the fourth year of the 78th Olympiad. He says, “in the fourth year of the same [78] Olympiad, Xerxes was slain by Artabanus; and in the very year before that, Darius his son was murdered by Artaxerxes his brother, whom Artabanus accused before him of the fact, and he judged Artaxerxes and condemned him according to his demerit. So Artaxerxes the same year began his reign.”—Hist. World, p. 86. The seventh year of his reign accordingly would be the third year of the 80th Olympiad, B. C. 457, J. P. 4257.HST December 5, 1843, page 135.8

    Of the “Era of Nabonassar” Jackson says it “was used by the ancient astronomers, both amongst the Chaldeans and Greeks, as Claudius Ptolemy assures us in his astronomical works. It was universally esteemed to be the most accurate chronological computation of all others, most part of it being fixed by eclipses and celestial observations, which were much cultivated and improved from the time of that era.”—Chro. An. Vol. 1, p. 436. Playfair says, “It is of essential service in chronology; for by means of it all other epochs are connected and adjusted.—Fol. ed. p. 42.HST December 5, 1843, page 135.9

    Of Ptolemy’s canon which is built upon astronomical demonstrations, Dr. Prideaux says, “Being fixed by the eclipses, the truth of it may at any time be demonstrated by astronomical calculations; and no one hath ever calculated those eclipses but hath found them fall right in the times where placed; and therefore this being the surest guide which we have in the chronology, and it being also verified by its agreement every where with the Holy Scriptures, it is not for the authority of any other human writings whatsoever to be receded from.”—Hist. Jews, Vol. I. p. 242.HST December 5, 1843, page 135.10

    The above will show that the commencement and termination of the 70 weeks are independent of the date of the crucifixion.HST December 5, 1843, page 135.11

    The Ministry of Christ

    JVHe

    Of the length of Christ’s ministry, we have been inclined for some time to believe that it was but about three years and a half. When we say we have been so inclined to believe, we wish to be understood as giving only the opinion of the junior editor, to whom our brother has addressed his article. This opinion we intimated in the Signs of the Times of July 12th last. That he preached but three and a half years has been the prevailing opinion. And the great body of those who thus believed have, consequently, been obliged to place the crucifixion a few years earlier. The crucifixion was never placed in A. D. 33, till the 13th century; and not then till it was supposed it must have been at the end of the 70 weeks. Dr. Hales, who takes the ground that the crucifixion was in the middle of the week, in A. D. 31, gives the following argument to prove his position:—HST December 5, 1843, page 135.12

    “The apostolical father, Ignatius, a disciple of John the Evangelist, and bishop of Antioch, the second in succession from Peter, who suffered martrydom in the reign of Trajan, A. D. 107, in his epistle to the Trallians, gives the following curious and valuable testimony.—Coteleries, Patres Apostol. tom. 2: p. 68.HST December 5, 1843, page 135.13

    ‘God the Word having lived in the world three decads of years, was baptised by John truly, and not seemingly; and having preached the Gospel three years, and wrought signs and wonders, he the Judge, was judged by the false Jews and Pilate, was scourged, smitten on the cheek, spit upon, wore a crown of thorns and a purple robe, was condemned, was crucified, truly, not seemingly, nor in appearance, nor by deception; he died truly, and was buried, and was raised from the dead,’ etc.HST December 5, 1843, page 135.14

    And this is confirmed by the testimony of Eusebius, the learned bishop of Cesarea, who flourished about A. D. 300, in his Demonstration Evangalica, p. 400.HST December 5, 1843, page 135.15

    ‘It is recorded in history, that the whole time of our Savior’s teaching and working miracles was three years and a half which is the half of a week [of years.] This John the Evangelist, will represent to those who critically attend to his gospel. One week of years, then, may be reckoned the whole time of his continuance with his Apostles, both before his passion, and after his resurrection from the dead: for it is written, that until his passion, he showed himself to all, disciples and not disciples; during which time, by his doctrines and extraordinary cures, he showed the powers of his Godhead to all without distinction, both Greeks and Jews.’”HST December 5, 1843, page 135.16

    On these two quotations, Dr. Hales remarks: “They are indeed a host against all the discordant and absurd guesses, ancient or modern, about the longer or shorter duration of our Lord’s ministry, which, to compare together, bring with them their own refutation. I shall not therefore waste the reader’s patience, or tresspass on the limits of this apparatus, by retailing them, in order to be rejected afterwards. Ignatius and Eusebius both assign three years for the duration of our Lord’s public ministry; the latter mentions an additional half year, from his baptism to its commencement, during which time our Lord was employed in privately selecting and preparing his disciples. And a critical inspection of the Gospels, especially of John’s, (recommended by Eusebius,) will furnish internal evidence, the most solid and satisfactory, of the correctness of this period; by distinguishing the four passovers which included our Lord’s public ministry, and arranging them chronologically, according to the foregoing principles.”—Dr. Hales’ New Anal. Chro. vol. 1 p. p. 199—201.HST December 5, 1843, page 135.17

    Again Dr. Hales says, “the year of the crucifixion in A. D. 33, was assumed on no earlier authority than that of Rodger Bacon, in the 13th century. Rodger Bacon found by computation, that the Paschal full moon A. D. 33, fell on Friday; and this circumstance led him, and several others, Scaliger, Usher, Pearson, etc. to conclude, that this was the year of the crucifixion. But admitting the computation to be exact, as afterward verified by Scaliger, Newton, Mann, and Lamy. (See Bowers Conjectures on the New Testament, John 6:4, p 149,) this very circumstance proves that it was not the year of the crucifixion; for the true Pascal full moon was the day before, Thursday, when Christ celebrated the Passover with his disciples. Besides, Dodwell and Ferguson give different results in their calculations, the former reckoning Saturday, the latter Tuesday, to be the day of the Paschal full moon, A. D. 33. Little stress, therefore, is to be laid on such calculations.HST December 5, 1843, page 136.1

    Eusebius dates the first half of the passion Week of Years as beginning with our Lord’s baptism and ending with his crucifixion. The same period precisely as recorded by Peter, as including the duration of our Lord’s personal ministry: ‘All the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of [or by] John, until the day that he was taken up from us,’ at his ascension which was only 43 days after the crucifixion, Acts 1:21, 22. And the remaining half of the Passion Week ended with the martrydom of Stephen, in the seventh, or last year of the week. For it is remarkable, that the year after, A. D. 35, began a new Era in the church, namely, the conversion of Saul, or Paul, the Apostle, by the personal appearance of Christ to him on the road to Damascus, when he received his mission to the Gentiles, after the Jewish Sanhedrim had formally rejected Christ by persecuting his disciples.”—Dr. Hales’ New Anal. Chro. vol. 1, pp. 205, 206.HST December 5, 1843, page 136.2

    The Darkning of the Sun at the Crucifixion

    JVHe

    Of the crucifixion, he says:HST December 5, 1843, page 136.3

    “This obscuration of the sun must have been preternatural, in its extent, duration, and opposition, of the moon, at full, to the sun. It was observed at Heliopolis in Egypt, by Dyonysius, the Areopagite, afterwards the illustrious convert of Paul at Athens, Acts 17:34, who, in a letter to the martyr Polycarp, describes, his own and his companion, the sophist Appollophane’s astonishment at the phenomenon, when they saw the darkness commence at the eastern limb of the sun, and proceed to the western, till the whole was eclipsed; and then regrade backwards, from the western to the eastern, till his light was fully restored: which they attributed to the miraculous passage of the moon across the sun’s disk. Appollophanes exclaimed, as if divining the cause: ‘These, O good Dionysius, are the vicisitudes of divine events! Dionysius answered, ‘Either the Deity suffers or He ympathises with the sufferer’! And that sufferer, according to tradition recorded by Michel Syncellus of Jerusalem, he declared to be the unknowable God, for whose sufferings all nature was darkened and convulsed.’”—Dr. Hales’ New Anal. Chro. vol. 2, p. 897.HST December 5, 1843, page 136.4

    “The time it happened, and the fact itself, are recorded in a curious and valuable passage of a respectable Roman Consul; Aurelius Cassiodorius Senator, about A. D. 514. ‘In the consullate of Tiberias Caesar Aug. V. Alius. Sejanus, (U. C. 784, A. D. 31.) Our Lord Jesus Christ suffered on the 8th of the Calends, of April: (25th March.) When there happened such an eclipse of the sun as was never before nor since.’ In this year and in this day, agree also the Council of Caesarea, A. D. 196 or 198; the Alexandrian Chronicle, Maximus, Monachus, Nicephorus, Constantinus, Cedrenus; and in this year, but on different days, concur Eusebius and Epiphanius, followed by Kepler, Bucher, Patinus and Petavius, some reckoning it the 10th of the Callends of April, others, the 13th. Amidst this variety of days, we may look on the 26th and 27th of March as the most probable.”—Ib. vol. 1. pp. 176 177.HST December 5, 1843, page 136.5

    “This most curious and valuable testimony to the fact and reasoning thereon by heathen philosophers, at the very time we owe to Suidas. This testimony is infinitely more important than that of Phlegon’s eclipse, which is usually adduced; but which happened the next year, A. D. 32, April 28, by Pingre’s tables, which state only one solar eclipse, this year of the passion, a lunation and half after the obsenration, May 10, at 2 in the morning, visible in Asia, and there central.”—Ib. vol. 2, p. 898.HST December 5, 1843, page 136.6

    Again, he says:—HST December 5, 1843, page 136.7

    “If the year of the crucifixion was A. D. 31, as is most likely, it follows from an eclipse of the moon in Pingre’s tables April 25th, at nine in the afternoon, that the Paschal full moon, that year fell on the 27th of March, which in the calculations of Newton, Ferguson, and Lamy, and the computation of Bacon is reckoned on Tuesday; but there is sometimes a variation of a day or two in their computations of the days of the week, so that it might have happened on Thursday. On the other hand, Scaliger, Dodwell, and Mann, reckon that Pascal full moon a day earlier, 26th March, and Petavius 23rd of March, vol. 2, p. 374. This shows the uncertainty of the precise day of full moon.”—Ib. vol. 1, p. 174.HST December 5, 1843, page 136.8

    SIGNS OF THE TIMES

    No Authorcode

    BOSTON, DEC. 5, 1843.

    The Tabernacle

    JVHe

    The following article was published by us in one of the city papers last week, in consequence of the agent of the Tabernacle, letting the house for a concert, etc. which proved to be very obnoxious to our views and feelings.HST December 5, 1843, page 136.9

    The religious papers of the city have made the most of it, to injure, and to destroy our influence at home and abroad.HST December 5, 1843, page 136.10

    Our friends everywhere, may depend that the brethren in this city have done, and are still doing all they can to sustain the cause. And that nothing inconsistent with the holiest principles of our faith are tolerated among them. The representations of lying prints have been such, that the truth even is so distorted, that they turn it into a lie. The time has now come when they seem to be disposed to make capital of any thing to destroy our influence.HST December 5, 1843, page 136.11

    The Tabernacle. It will be seen by some of the public prints and placards in the city, that the tabernacle has been occupied recently for a series of concerts, imitations, etc. The representation given of the nature and character of these performances, to the agent, and a part of the committee, were so understood, that they were not inconsistent with the design of letting the honse. But it seems that they wholly misapprehended the nature and design of the performances, besides some offensive things were added. When the advertisement came out we were shocked, and the committee unanimously resolved to remove it as soon as it could be done. This they did, remitting the rent, except the mere expenses of the house, not willing to receive money from such (to them) sinful proceedings. We regard the whole circle of amusements, from the Theatre down to the Olio, and even the Museum, as it is now conducted, only in the light of deceptive schools of vice and infamy, so that we could not consent to any exhibition of the kind in the Tabernacle, under any circumstances, nor for any equivalent.HST December 5, 1843, page 136.12

    It is due to the gentlemen who engaged the house, to say that we attach no blame to them. They explained things as they understood them. And further, while they occupied the house, every thing was conducted with decorum. But the design and nature of the whole performance being wrong, order and propriety cannot justify or sanctify it.HST December 5, 1843, page 136.13

    As Christian men, and citizens, we feel that we owe an apology to the friends and supporters of public morals, and especially to the friends of the advent cause, for having given any countenance, (even by misapprehension) to sinful diversions.HST December 5, 1843, page 136.14

    A word more. It is well known that there has been a great deal of gossip about the Tabernacle. We wish to say to the candid of all parties, that it was built chiefly by a few individuals for advent lectures. It was not expected they would occupy it all the time. The committe therefore advertised to let the house for moral and religious purposes when they did not want it for themselves. The rent to be appropriated to the support of the meeting. The rent and taxes are $1,080; other expenses for lectures, etc. are $1,000. A collection is taken at each service. This, with the rent thus far, has not met our current expenses. A few individuals have to subscribe largely to sustain the meeting.HST December 5, 1843, page 136.15

    Boston. Nov. 29, 1843 J. V. Himes.HST December 5, 1843, page 136.16

    The tabernacle, on Sunday last, was thronged. Elder Joseph Marsh, gave two excellent lectures. The Communion was administered to about five hundred. In the evening we gave a lecture on the triumphs of papacy, showing that it will prevail till the Advent of the King of Kings.HST December 5, 1843, page 136.17

    Meetings. at the Tabernacle Sunday next, at 10. A. M., quarter past 2, P. M. Evening half past 6 o’clock.HST December 5, 1843, page 136.18

    Prayer Meetings, at Advent Saloon, Boylston Market, 3, P. M., and 7 o’clock, all the week. No meetings at Chardon St. this week—next week they will be held as usual, on Thursday and Friday evenings.HST December 5, 1843, page 136.19

    Conferences. It is thought best to hold several General Conferences in the New England, if time continue, during the winter months. We shall commence the first of the series, in Portsmouth, N. H., the 15th of December. Several Lecturers will be present. We intend to be there. Brethren and sisters in that vicinity will try to attend and help sustain the meeting.HST December 5, 1843, page 136.20

    Since the above was written, we have received the following notice for a Conference in Groton. We hope it will be well attended, and prove a blessing to the saints.HST December 5, 1843, page 136.21

    Conference at Groton. There will be a Second Advent Conference in Groton, Mass., commencing Thursday, Dec. 7th, 1813. It is hoped that all who wish their hearts cheered—their hopes brightened, and their faith increased, will attend this meeting. Brother F. G. Brown, brother Hawley, and other watchmen are earnestly invited to attend.HST December 5, 1843, page 136.22

    Dea. Isaiah Cragin, Dea. Walter Dixon, Benjamin Hall, Aaton Mason, Luther Boutelle, Walter Keyes, Daniel Needham, Committee.HST December 5, 1843, page 136.23

    Notice. A Second Advent Meeting, will commence in Newhampton, at the North Freewill Baptist Meeting-house, on the 8th of December next, at half past 10, A. M., and continue three days or more, if time remains and the Lord will.HST December 5, 1843, page 136.24

    Advent Brethren are invited to attend.
    D. G. DRAKE.

    NOTICE

    JVHe

    A Second Advent Meeting will commence in this place on Saturday, 23rd of Dec. next, at 2 o’clock, P. M. if the Lord will, to be protracted as long as will be deemed prudent. Brother Jonathan Hamilton is now in the Province, and has agreed to attend; brethren Churchill and Hovey, of N. H. and brethren John Hamilton and Ames, of Me. are particularly requested to attend.HST December 5, 1843, page 136.25

    I would just say to you my brethren, here is a large field that has not as yet been explored, and many who are waiting with much anxiety to hear the servants of God who are engaged in the Second Advent cause.HST December 5, 1843, page 136.26

    I am your brother in Christ, waiting patiently his coming. Stephen Parsons.HST December 5, 1843, page 136.27

    Woodstock, Nov. 23, 1843.HST December 5, 1843, page 136.28

    Larger font
    Smaller font
    Copy
    Print
    Contents