The Harbinger of March 5th has some inquiries relating to the Sanctuary by J. B. Frisbie, and answers by O. R. L. Crosier. "My views," says C., "have been somewhat changed on the subject of the 'sanctuary' since 1845, when I wrote the article on the law of Moses, from which Sabbatarian Adventists quote so often." We have quoted from C's article, for no other reason than this, it contained precious truth, which we wished to spread before the flock of Christ. And God has blest it to the good of many. One man backsliding from the truth, does not affect that truth, any more than to renounce the religion of Christ, destroys Christianity.
But C. says: "The above named persons appear to me insincere in quoting from that article, (1) because they know that it was written for the express purpose of explaining and proving the doctrine of the 'shut door,' which they now, I understand, disclaim."
On the above we will first remark, that as C. has informed the readers of the Harbinger that we disclaim the doctrine of the shut door, that paper should no longer reproachfully call us "shut-door Sabbatarians." But we say that C's article on the law of Moses, no more goes to prove a shut door than it does an open door. It is in harmony with the Bible doctrine which we hold, that at the termination of the 2300 days, in 1844, there was a change in the work of our High Priest—a door was then opened into the Most Holy, while another was shut.
C. continues: "I think we have no means of knowing the precise time when the antitype of the ancient 10th day of the 7th month service did or will begin: but we have evidence that it will not close the 'door of mercy' against all the previously impenitent."
As to the "door of mercy" of which C. speaks, we read of no such door, only in the writings of uninspired men. But the truth that C. wished to state here, for truth it is, is this, that there would be those who might come to God through the mediation of Jesus Christ, and find pardon of their sins, after the work of the antitype of the tenth day of the seventh month services should commence. This, to us who believe that this is the period of the antitypical tenth day service, is an important truth. While the great work of saving men closed with the 2300 days, a few are now coming to Christ, who find salvation. The "precise time" for the antitype of the ancient tenth day services to cleanse the sanctuary is given: "Unto 2300 days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed." Amen.
The following paragraph from C. states important facts, and such facts as his brethren generally reject. Notice them with care.
"I think the terms 'the most holy place' and 'heaven itself' as they occur in Heb. ix, are not convertible. The contrast, you will see by verse 24, is between 'the holy places made with hands' and 'heaven itself.' In my opinion, we fail to see much of the instruction contained in the type, if we confound the services of the 'holy place' with those of 'the most holy place.' They had distinct apartments in the sanctuary, services were performed at different times, and under different circumstances. These differences are recognized in the New Testament exposition."
Speaking of the services of the most holy place, or the antitype of the service of the ancient tenth day of the seventh month, C. says: "According to the best light I can obtain from the Scriptures, I conclude that that service will occupy the next age." He speaks of the distinction between the services of the holy place and the most holy place, and states that the service of the most holy will occupy "the next age." If it occupies the next age, there can be no room in that age for another distinct service. Therefore we are led to conclude that his position is, that Christ performs the services of the holy place in the heavenly Sanctuary, in this age, and the services of the most holy place in the next age, in a Sanctuary yet to be built with hands!! Will such a position satisfy the readers of the Harbinger? If this is not his position, we do not understand him, and shall be glad to be corrected. If they are his views, we acknowledge that they have undergone a sad change since 1845.
Speaking of the Sabbath, C. says: "How often have I heard Sabbatarians say, 'We can't keep it: we do the best we can: yet we can't keep it according to the Bible.' The reason is, it was never designed for Christians to keep," &c.
We venture to say that no Sabbath-keeper ever made this statement, unless on the point of giving it up, as C. and some others did a few years since. We never heard such a remark from the mouth of any Sabbath-keeper. But why cannot the Christian rest on the Sabbath day according to the commandment, as well as the Jew? Do tell us why. He can. Will any dare say that God gave the Jew a Sabbath that he could not keep? Such make the Great Law-giver a tyrant. The Jew could keep the Sabbath, and so may the Christian. Amen.