So says Bro. Himes of the Voice of the West, in reference to our remarks in Review No. 11, relative to "Holy time; or the Sabbath." The reader will remember the circumstances that called out those remarks; namely, two parties of missionaries were alleged to have gone to the Society Islands, and Sandwich Islands, in opposite directions, and consequently were one day apart in their reckoning of time, and the Sabbath of one came one day before that of the other; and those who believe in a specific day of holy time were called upon to tell which day, in this case, was the Sabbath. To this we replied that Sunday-keepers have no reason to urge this against observers of the seventh day, inasmuch as it rests against their own theory just as much as it does against ours; and Sunday-keepers were the ones who got into the difficulty; and when they would tell how the first day could be kept under such circumstances, we would tell how the seventh could be observed also. But Eld. H. thinks this does not meet the case, for reasons which we shall presently see.
He dwells quite emphatically upon the words "specific day of holy time," "same specific time," &c. Perhaps we do not understand each other here. If he thinks we believe that the same absolute hours should be kept, the world over, he attributes to us views which we never held. We do not understand the Bible to enjoin that the Sabbath-keeper on this side of the globe should commence the Sabbath at the same moment that it commences in Palestine. None of our publications have ever set forth such a claim. But the sun governs the day the world over; and the day is to commence here, as in the eastern hemisphere, when the sun, so to speak, brings it to us, not before.
He says, "The seventh day, which the Jews kept in Palestine, 'the sabbath of the Lord their God,' begun at sunset on Friday evening and closed at sunset on Saturday evening. There is no dispute about this."
We set this down as one good fact admitted. The reader will please keep it in mind. It has a bearing on many questions which may arise hereafter.
He refers to the penalty of death attached to violation of the Sabbath, in Ex. xxxi, 15, and asks if this is binding. We will answer this question, though we fail to see its connection with the point under discussion. That penalty is not now binding. See History of the Sabbath; also Review of Preble.
In relation to the same scripture he further says, "Here the seventh day was specifically enjoined; but it was the seventh day in Palestine." Very well, doesn't the seventh day come anywhere else on this globe except in Palestine?
Again he says, "And all could keep it because there was little or no variation in the setting of the sun, which marked the commencement of 'holy time.' If the Jews had occupied a territory in which the sun set with the variations of the two hemispheres, then, they could not have kept the same specific time, because of the variation of time; and near the Poles the variation would be not only hours but months, as the sun is not seen for many months in some parts of the year."
If the "setting of the sun marked the commencement of holy time" in Palestine, why not here? The commandment enjoins the seventh day; not the hours which are identical with the seventh day in Palestine, but the seventh day as it comes to us wherever we are on the globe. The remark about "specific time" is indefinite. Shall we understand Eld. H. to say that the fourth commandment could not and cannot be kept in two hemispheres, but only in a particular locality? A commandment given to Adam, the head and father of the human race, and embodied in the midst of a law that is moral and of universal application, would naturally be supposed to be itself of universal application, and binding upon all the race. If Eld. H. affirms
that it is only a limited commandment, and the Sabbath, a local institution, he must prove it. For the reasons given, to say nothing of others, we say that it cannot be such; and to say that it cannot be kept by all is simply an impeachment of the wisdom of the great Law-giver, by accusing him of giving a law which it is impossible for his subjects to keep.
But can the Sabbath be kept in different localities East and West? The Bible represents that it can. The Sabbath was kept in Jerusalem certainly. It was also kept in Corinth, Acts xviii, at least a year and six months, by the apostle Paul and his company. Where was Corinth? Nearly fifteen degrees to the westward of Jerusalem, involving a difference of time of nearly one hour. Now if the Sabbath could be kept in Corinth, and Paul has not intimated that there was any difficulty in keeping it there, where the difference in time was one hour, could it not be kept in localities still further west, where the difference in time would be two hours, four hours, six hours, or twelve hours? Just exactly as well; and no man can deny it.
So much for the difference of time east and west. But how is it "near the poles" where "the sun is not seen for many months in some parts of the year?" Answer. The revolution of the earth, and the consequent succession of days can be traced there just as accurately as here; and wherever succession of days can be traced, the Sabbath can be kept. There is no difficulty whatever. The truth is, there is no degree of either longitude or latitude where succession of days can not be traced and the Sabbath kept without the least difficulty. The objection on this point is purely imaginary. To suit this objection, God should have arranged his people single file on some particular line of longitude, taking care that they did not extend too far north or south, and then told them to stick to that line; as there they could obey his requirements, but anywhere else on this earth, they could not!
Again we quote: "But it is said that 'this is a question for Sunday-keepers to settle, not Sabbath-keepers.' This would be true if 'Sunday-keepers' took the ground that the first day of the week was 'time holy' in the same sense that 'Sabbath-keepers' enjoin upon us the seventh day."
Well, we supposed they did. We may have something yet to learn respecting the position of Sunday-keepers. We have seen so many of their positions, we supposed we had them all; but if there are yet others, we will spare no pains to become familiar with them. We "take the ground" that the seventh day is "holy time" in just this sense: Because God has given a commandment for its observance, placed his blessing upon it, and sanctified and set it apart for men, requiring us to sacredly devote the seventh day of every week, in regular succession, to the honor and worship of himself. We supposed that Sunday-keepers considered the first day holy in a similar "sense," but if they do not; if they do not consider the day holy in the sense of ever having ever been blessed of God, or of having any of the sacredness of the original Sabbath transferred to it, or of being set apart for man, or of having any command for its observance; then we would like to know upon what ground the institution rests and why they keep it. But if any of these things do belong to Sunday, then upon our friend's own admission, our statement that this, namely the discrepancy in case of the missionaries above noticed, is a question for Sunday-keepers to settle, is "true." Says Eld. H., "We keep the first day as the Lord's day, and Christian Sabbath, and so speak of it. We do not belong to the no-Sabbath party. Neither do we Judaize and keep the seventh day." We are glad to hear that he does not belong to the no-Sabbath party. Then the publication of Prof. Whiting's article in the Voice of the West, was all a mistake, as not setting forth the views of that sheet. Still we would like to know on what ground his Sabbath rests, as he discards all those on which the fourth commandment bases the seventh day. We would like his authority also for calling the first day the Christian Sabbath, and for his calling it Judaizing, to keep the seventh day. Why does he not say also, neither do we Judaize and refrain from worshiping images, swearing, lying, or stealing? That he does not do these things because they are forbidden by the ten commandments, we are well persuaded. But why
does he not stigmatize this as Judaizing, just as much as he does the keeping of the seventh day which is enjoined by the same code of commandments?
But Eld. H. seems to be extremely anxious to let his readers know that we believe Sr. White's visions. After quoting the terrible denunciation of the third angel of Rev. xiv, against those who worship the beast, he purports to give our views of it as follows:
"This is the terrible fate of all 'Sunday-keepers.' Bro. Smith, not only believes the Bible, but also the visions of sister White, that are understood to teach this doctrine. And as her visions, with him, stand on the same ground and bear the same authority with the inspired writings of Moses, Daniel, and John, he is bound to believe that we, and all 'Sunday-keepers,' are exposed to the above terrible fate awaiting those who do not see, believe, or keep what they profess to believe to be the 'third angel's message, relating to 'holy time,' or 'the Jewish Sabbath.'"
In relation to our application of the third angel's message, the worship of the beast and his mark, we are almost uniformly misrepresented. We do not make the sweeping application as above asserted, that "this is the terrible fate of all Sunday-keepers." We do not accuse all Sunday-keepers, in the sense of that prophecy, of worshiping the beast, or of having his mark. What we do say is this, that when the light comes, those who wilfully shut their eyes to the truth, and deliberately adopt an institution of the beast in place of one which God has given us, having been fully informed that it is such, thereby transfer their allegiance and worship from God to the beast, and then become subjects of the fearful threatening of that message.
But for what purpose are the visions brought in here? The third angel's message is in the Bible, not in the visions, and our ideas of that message are formed from the Bible, not the visions. But he says, "As her visions with him stand on the same ground with the writings of Moses, &c., he is bound to believe that we and all Sunday-keepers are exposed to the above terrible fate." Should we not be bound to believe it just as much according to our views of the message, if our ideas of the visions were not such as they are? Of course, if we believe the Bible. For what purpose then were they so unnecessarily brought in? Shall we say, For effect? Because the visions are understood to be with a certain class a most potent means of raising a prejudice, which is blinder than the grave?
Hear him further: "We think therefore they ought in view of our supposed liability to the terrible punishment 'the smoke of which is to ascend up forever and ever,' to tell us with some degree of exactness, when the 'holy time,' for which they contend, begins and ends."
Ah! this is another question altogether. This discussion arose on the supposed difficulty of keeping a particular day, because time is gained or lost in going round the world. This, and the question as to when the day begins here in the United States, are two questions altogether. And we can tell him with great exactness when the day begins and ends here. It begins at sunset on Friday, and ends at sunset on Saturday. This he has admitted was the beginning and end of the Sabbath in Palestine, marked by the sun. The sun marks the same limits to the day for us here, exactly.
Again: "We, as 'Sunday-keepers,' want to be saved from the awful doom that is said to await us. It is their duty, and their business to set this matter right."
We have tried to do this. We think our duty and business has long been accomplished in this respect.
Again he says, "To say, 'This is a question for Sunday-keepers to settle, not sabbath-keepers,' and that he 'never heard of any who kept the seventh day getting into any difficulty,' does not meet the case."
We did not say that this is a question for Sunday-keepers to settle. It was not this question at all in reference to which we used that language; but the question of the gain or loss of a day in going round the world. To change the issue so completely as it is here, and then apply our language to the new issue introduced is indeed "not satisfactory." Neither did we say that we had "never heard of any who kept the seventh day getting into any difficulty," but "into any such difficulty;" namely the difficulty of having their reckoning disarranged by going round the world, and finding themselves one day apart in their Sabbath.
But the case is just this: Sunday-keepers, it appears, have found themselves in this difficulty; and they keep109just as definite and specific a day as we do. With them it is the first day of the week, that particular day and no other. With us, it is the seventh day of the week, not a particle more particular and definite than their first day. Now we will repeat the idea advanced in our former article: If they can keep the first day, can we not keep the seventh? And when they find themselves in difficulty in keeping their day, how can they turn around and with an air of triumph propose it to us as a difficulty lying wholly against the seventh day, when it lies equally against their own theory of the first day? We do propose this, in all sincerity and candor, and fairness, as meeting the case, that is, among Sunday-keepers, with whom the difficulty occurred. But mark, we do not 'decline to answer,' the question as to how this difference in time can be got along with, as Eld. H. declares that we do by our former reply. We only wish to transfer the burden of proof to where it belongs. But we will do more than this: If Sunday-keepers really think there is a difficulty in the case, and will give up that they cannot remove it, then we will try; for we think there is no difficulty whatever in the matter.
We are next told how we came to adopt sunset time for the Sabbath, thus: 'Now the case is just this; the Jew, was required to keep the seventh day in Palestine. This was to begin at sunset. And Bro. Smith will remember the meeting of the seventh day ministers, some time since [we think in Battle Creek,] in which, the subject was discussed, as to when 'holy time,' or the Sabbath commenced. There was division of opinion. Some taking the ground, that it began at 6 o'clock P. M. and others that it commenced at sunset. In the midst of the controversy, Sister White had one of her visions, in which it was revealed to her, that 'holy time' should begin at sunset. So this is now the law of the great body of the Seventh-day keepers.'
There never has been any question among us whether we should keep the seventh day of Palestine or the seventh day here. It is the seventh day here. We would repeat, that this question of the time to commence the Sabbath, has nothing to do with the question of gaining or losing a day in going round the world. But then, if this question had not been raised, the visions could not have come in; for they say nothing about the question of the gain or loss of time as above mentioned. But Bro. H. evidently needs to be posted on the affairs of S. D. Adventists. The meeting of the seventh-day ministers referred to, we do not remember. The subject came up at the Conference held in the autumn of 1855, at the time the office was removed to Battle Creek. A few ministers, and only a few, were, in the natural order of events, present at that Conference. But the discussion was had, and the question decided with all but a few, and the article which appeared in Review Vol. vii, No. 10, as an exposition of the sentiments of Sabbath-keeping Adventists on this point was written, before anything was shown to sister White concerning it. Thus the statement that 'in the midst of the controversy sister White had one of her visions'(!) and so sunset time has come to be the law for the great body of seventh-day keepers, turns out to be not exactly so. Eld. H. will thus see that he has 'unwittingly placed' this matter 'in a false light before his readers.' We 'cannot think' that he 'will let it remain as it is.' And lest any should say that Sr. White, having changed her sentiments had a vision accordingly, we will state that what was shown her in vision concerning the commencement of the Sabbath, was contrary to her own sentiment at the time the vision was given. That some were decided by the vision, who otherwise might not have been we do not deny. And herein is seen one of the objects and blessings of this gift. Harmony now reigns where there might have been discord and division. From that day to this, the question has reposed among us, as calm and clear as the sunlight. And if those engaged in some other causes, could feel that they had in their midst, some Heaven-ordained means to bring them to the 'unity of the faith,' Eph. iv, 11-13, we apprehend that on many occasions they would find it an inestimable blessing.
We have already drawn out these remarks to far greater length than we at first designed, but must make one more quotation from Eld. H.'s article before closing. He says:
'It is well known that we have kept aloof from the controversy, and have never indulged in bitter or unkind remarks about those who differ from us on this question. And in coming West, to locate near the center of the great field of missionary labor, we did not intend to interfere with the interests, or the rights of others, engaged in the proclamation of the coming kingdom. We shall speak the truth as we understand it. And if there is any light given us by our fellow-laborers in other fields, we will not reject it.'
To the sentiment here expressed we heartily respond. Neither do we intend to interfere with any man's rights but simply to promulgate the truth as far as in our power, and defend it as occasion may require. What we have said thus far in relation to the Voice of the West, has been called out by what has first appeared in that paper. Our design is simply a friendly interchange of sentiment; and we trust that it may result in good.
The Atonement.
By J. H. Waggoner
BY ELD. J. H. WAGGONER.
(Continued.)
JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH; ITS RELATION TO THE ATONEMENT.
A QUESTION naturally arises here in regard to the present justification of the believer. If the blotting out of sin, it may be said, is the work of the judgment in the cleansing of the sanctuary, which is certainly the last work of the Priest, then the sins of the saints stand on record till that time; how, or in what sense, then, are they justified? I answer, by faith; this faith necessarily looks to a future fact. I have before shown that justification and salvation are not identical. But here it will be necessary to examine the relation that the duties of the gospel sustain to the work of the atonement. "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins," is the commandment of inspiration. From this it has been inferred that sin is remitted in the act of baptism, for which I can see no warrant; certainly no such thing is there expressed. That the terms signify in order to the remission of sin, I need not stop to argue; and it is too much to claim that in laboring in order to gain a certain object, that object must be obtained in the very act of laboring. God told his people that they should have life—eternal life—if they kept his commandments, which, to the faithful, will be fulfilled "when Christ who is our life shall appear," and not till then. I understand that the declaration above quoted from the apostle Peter in Acts ii, 38, points to the same fact as that in chap. iii, 19. The remission of sin, is the work of the judgment; and the believer must stand justified by faith, looking to the Priest for the accomplishment of his hope. But that the sin is not really blotted out, or atonement made at baptism, or at any other period of probation is proved by the word of the Lord to Ezekiel, xviii, 26: "When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die." Again in chap. xxxiii, 13: "All his righteousness shall not be remembered." That is, he shall be treated as though he had never been righteous. Now the righteousness of the righteous is by faith; therefore if he turn and commit iniquity he shall be treated as if he never had faith; his justification is annulled—he falls from grace.
For a demonstration of the truthfulness of this view, we look to the cases of the faithful who lived before the time of Christ. Were it admitted that the atonement was made at the death of Christ, it would still remain a fact in the cases of the patriarchs and prophets that their sins were not atoned for, not actually blotted out till the blood was shed by which they are blotted out. But they were justified by faith, and died in that justified state, looking forward to the work of Christ when the object of their faith should be realized; when his blood should take away the sins of which they had already repented; or in other words, when the atonement should be made.
The position of an individual justified by faith may be illustrated thus: A. owes B. a sum which he is not able to pay, and C. engages to take the responsibility of the debt on certain conditions; and in order to make it sure, C. deposits with B. sufficient to cover the amount. Now it is stipulated that if A. fulfills the conditions, B. shall cancel the debt from the deposit made by C. And as long as A. is faithfully fulfilling the conditions, so long is B. satisfied in regard to the debt; and of course he will not trouble A. for it, knowing it is secure. Thus A. is accounted just, in the sight of B., though not really just in himself because he fails to pay a just debt. He is considered as just, or justified through obedience to the conditions of C., who is his surety. But if A. refuses or neglects to fulfill the conditions, the deposit of C. no longer avails for him; he falls from the favor of B. which he had enjoyed through this arrangement, and the debt stands against him as fully as though C. had never engaged to pay it on any condition.
That this is a true representation of the position of the penitent, is evident from the declarations that "he that endureth unto the end"—he that is "faithful unto death," shall be saved: while he that is justified by faith, may, by disobedience lose that justification, and his righteousness will not be remembered. The blood of Jesus is the bounteous supply—the rich deposit where all may find a covering for their sins; but whether their sins are actually atoned for and removed by that blood, depends upon their acceptance of it and their faithfulness to the conditions of acceptance.
Justification by faith and reconciliation are very closely allied, but the atonement is subsequent to both. If we are justified or reconciled and so continue to the end, we may hope that our sins will be blotted out when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; this work is effected in the most holy place, where the ark of the testament is; this place is opened in Heaven under the sounding of the seventh trumpet; and this trumpet ushers in the judgment of the dead, the coming of Christ without sin unto salvation to them that look for him; the giving reward to all his servants, and the destruction of them that corrupt the earth. These events pass beyond the bounds of human probation, and close up the dispensation of the gospel.
Having traced this subject thus far; having found what the atonement is; by whom and where it is made; and also for whom, we may turn back to "first principles" and again consider the law of God, and the position it occupies under the gospel. In the type, the testimony—the law—was put into the ark, in the most holy place: and it was over the law that the blood of the covenant was sprinkled by the high priest on the day of the atonement. The glory of God was above the cherubim; these were upon the mercy-seat, and this was upon the ark in which was the law.
As God looked down upon his law, the very basis of his government, his justice was aroused, for his law was violated. But mercy interposed; the high priest entered with the blood that brings remission, that had been offered to vindicate the majesty of the law. The blood was sprinkled "upon the mercy seat and before the mercy seat." Again the Lord looks down upon his law, but between him and the law is the mercy seat sprinkled with the blood of the victim; the law is honored; its penalty has been enforced; a substitute has been accepted; and the penitent sinner is pardoned. We notice that here was a real law, taking hold of the moral relations of God's creatures; that here was actual transgression, on the part of the creatures a disregard of moral obligations. But under the Aaronic priesthood there was no actual taking away of that sin; it remained to be taken away by the blood of Christ. Therefore Christ officiates in behalf of that same law, as Paul shows in Heb. ix, 15; and therefore the ark of his testament in Heaven contains that same law, where Jesus offers his own blood. Our High Priest has declared that he delighted to do the will of God, yea, the law was in his heart: he magnified the law and made it honorable; he upheld it in his life; he honored it in his death by suffering its penalty to indicate its justice; he pleads his blood in Heaven in behalf of those who have broken it. You who claim that God's law is abolished—look to his heavenly temple where Jesus our great High Priest is, and behold it there safely lodged in the ark. You who say that the law is changed—behold the original in Heaven, of which a copy only was given to Israel. Did not God speak it with his own voice? Did he not write it with his own finger? Did he not give it as a rule of holiness, of life? Was it not perfect? Did it not contain the whole duty of man? Yes; and by it God will bring every work into judgment. Here is that justice and judgment which are the habitation of his throne. Psa. lxxxix, 14. What evidence have you that the heavenly record of God's immutable will has been changed? You may mutilate the copy he has given you, you may strike out the name of the Holy One, and insert a term of reproach in the stead, but with him is neither variableness nor shadow of turning.
THE SCAPE-GOAT.
I have said, in remarking on Dr. Barnes' view of the death of Christ, that pardon is not absolute, but relative. By this I mean that God never will disregard the claims of his law and of justice; that in forgiving the sinner so that he may escape the penalty, it is by transferring the sin to another who bears it in his stead, and suffers for him. This is still further shown by the action of the priest on the day of atonement. His service did not end with cleansing the sanctuary, or in blotting out the sins of the people from the book of judgment. The sin still existed, though they were cleansed; and it was removed from the presence of God to another object.
Two goats were presented before the Lord, and lots were cast for them; one to be a sin offering, to be slain, the blood of which was sprinkled in the sanctuary; the other for a scape-goat, which was not slain, and concerning which the priest took no action till after the atonement was made. It has been supposed that this goat was also a type of Christ; a supposition for which I see no foundation in the Scriptures.
Some authors consider that, as the sin offering typified the crucified Saviour, so the scape-goat presented alive before the Lord typified the Lord as risen for the justification of his people. But this view is inadmissible from the order of the service. We notice that, 1. The goat was slain as a sin offering; this typified the death of Christ on Calvary. 2. The priest took the blood and went into the sanctuary for the people; this typified the risen Saviour going into "heaven itself, by his own blood, to appear in the presence of God for us." 3. After he had made an end of reconciling the holies, that is, after the atonement was fully made in the sanctuary, then the priest brought the live goat and laid both his hands upon the head of the goat, and confessed over him the sins of the children of Israel, putting them upon the head of the goat; this must certainly typify something in the future to be performed after the Sanctuary in Heaven is cleansed. But the sins placed on the scape-goat can be only of those who have "afflicted their souls," and are accepted of God, for those who are impenitent and continue to transgress the law of God bear their own sins—their sins are on their own heads. And when the sins of God's people have been transferred through the priest to the sanctuary of God, and from thence removed to the head of the scape-goat, the goat is then sent away to "a land not inhabited," and there "let go," or caused to remain. And by this it is clearly seen that the pardon of sin is relative; that the sin is removed from the penitent believer only by transfer, and the being to whom they are so removed is not pardoned, but sent away with the sins upon him.
There is something analogous to this in the New Testament, and it accords with the meaning of Lev. xvi, 8, as given by reputable authorities. "The Hebrew word for scape-goat as given in the margin of Lev. xvi, 8, is azazel. On this verse, Jenks in his Comprehensive Commentary remarks, 'Scape-goat. See different opinions in Bochart. Spencer, after the oldest opinion of the Hebrews and Christians, thinks azazel is the name of the Devil; and so Rosenmuller, whom see. The Syriac has Azzail, the angel (strong one) who revolted." The Devil is evidently here pointed out. Thus we have the definition of the Scripture term in two ancient languages, with the oldest opinion of the Christians in favor of the view that the scape-goat is a type of Satan.
"In the common acceptation of the word, the term scape-goat is applied to any miserable vagabond who has become obnoxious to the claims of justice; and while it is revolting to all our conceptions of the character and glory of Christ, to apply this term to him, it must strike every one as a very appropriate designation of the Devil, who is styled in the Scriptures, the accuser, adversary, angel of the bottomless pit, Beelzebub, Belial, dragon, enemy, evil spirit, father of lies, murderer, prince of devils, serpent, tempter, &c., &c."
In Rev. xx, there is something that bears a striking analogy to the action of the High Priest in regard to the scape-goat, and is, doubtless, a fulfillment of that type. This scripture, ushering in the first resurrection—the resurrection of the just, who are raised at the coming of Christ certainly refers to a period beyond human probation, and therefore after the sanctuary is cleansed. An angel is seen to come down from Heaven, and bind the dragon, which is the Devil, and cast him into the bottomless pit, where he is shut up a thousand years. By reference to the scripture use of this term abyss, (rendered bottomless pit), we find the very idea of Lev. xvi, 21, 22, carried out, for it is literally a desert waste, void, or land not inhabited. In every place where the term is used in such a manner as to determine a locality, it is connected with the earth, or a part of the earth. In Rev. ix, at the sounding of the fifth trumpet, the abyss was opened and locusts came out, &c. This describes the action of the Mahometan power. In chap. xi, the beast that ascends out of the abyss is said to make war against the two witnesses and to kill them. By careful expositors of prophecy this is referred to the French revolution. In chap. xvii, the seven-headed and ten-horned beast is said to ascend out of the abyss. Chap. xiii, 1–10, refers to the same beast in another phase of its existence, and these chapters clearly point out European powers. Thus far we find it confined to the earth. Paul in Rom. x, 7, uses this term in the same manner. "Who shall ascend into the deep? that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead." The abyss, here rendered deep, in other places rendered bottomless pit, refers to the grave, or at most to the state of death. In Gen. i, 2, "and darkness was upon the face of the deep," the abyss points out a void, waste, or uninhabitable, state of the earth; and in no case, where it is possible to trace its connection, has it any other location but the earth.
Two facts only need noticing to show the perfect fulfillment of the types in the scripture under consideration. (1.) Satan is called the prince of the power of the air. By his creation as an exalted angel he has the power of traversing the air as well as the earth. To deprive him of that power and confine him to the earth would fulfill Rev. xx. (2.) When Satan is bound, at the coming of Christ, the earth will be desolated and left without an inhabitant. As a very brief summary of the proof on this point, I offer the following facts and scriptures:
At the coming of Christ the saints will ascend to meet the Lord in the air, and be taken to those mansions which he has gone to prepare for them. 1 Thess. iv, 16, 17; John xiii, 33–36; xiv, 1–3.
The wicked will all be destroyed from the face of the earth at that time. 2 Thess. i, 6–8; Rev. xix, 11–21; compare, Heb. xii, 25, 26; Rev. xvi, 17; Joel, iii, 9–16, with Jer. xxv, 15–33. Note: Paul says the voice of the Lord will be heard but once from Heaven. John says this is just before Christ comes as a thief. Joel says it is in the day of the great battle, and the treading of the winepress of the wrath of God. See also Rev. xiv, 14–20. Jeremiah says all the nations shall drink of the wine cup of God's fury, and "all the wicked" be given to the sword. Now when the righteous are taken away from the earth, and all the wicked slain, the earth will be left empty, and without inhabitants. Therefore the following scriptures refer to that time. Jer. iv, 19–29; verse 23 says the earth was without form and void; in the same chaotic state in which it was when first created, before the Spirit of God, in formative power, moved upon the face of the deep—the abyss. Isa. xxiv, 1, 17–21; Zeph. i, 2, 14–18. Thus the facts of scripture clearly show that the binding of the Devil and his confinement in the abyss, "a land not inhabited," exactly answers to the type of the scape-goat.
"But if Satan is the antitypical scape-goat, it may be objected that he shares with Christ the honor of making the atonement. Not at all. The atonement is all made, the servants of God are pardoned and their sins all removed from them, and from the sanctuary, before the Devil is brought to take any part in the transaction. And what is the part he then performs? Simply of receiving upon himself the infinite weight of sins which he has instigated, and being sent away under their intolerable load."
"And here we would ask, What could be more fitting than that the author and instigator of all sin should receive the guilt of those transgressions which he has incited mortals to commit, but of which they have repented, back upon his own head? And what could be a more striking antitype of the ancient ceremony of sending away the scape-goat into the wilderness, than the act of the mighty angel in binding Satan and casting him into the bottomless pit at the commencement of the thousand years?"
"This is a point of transcendent interest to every believer. Then the sins of God's people will be borne away to be remembered no more forever. Then he who instigated them, will have received them back again. Then the serpent's head will have been bruised by the seed of the woman. Then the 'strong man armed,' (Satan,) will have been bound by a stronger than he, (Christ,) and the house of the strong man, (the grave,) spoiled of its goods, the saints. Matt. xii, 29; Heb. ii, 14. Then will the work of the enemy in sowing tares among the wheat, [Matt. xiii, 24–45,] be forever remedied, the tares will have been gathered into bundles to burn, and the wheat gathered into the garner. Then our great High Priest will have come forth from the sanctuary to pronounce the everlasting blessing upon his waiting people. Then shall we have come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels. Then will the redeemed, placing the foot of triumph upon the world, the flesh, and the Devil, raise their glad voices in the song of Moses and the Lamb. Oh, glorious day! May the Lord hasten it in his good time. Who would not, in view of this, take up the petition of the beloved John. 'Even so, come Lord Jesus!'"
(To be continued.)
Our High Calling.
By R. F. Cottrell
God is doing a great, a glorious work, a solemn and fearful work, the work of winding up human affairs and bringing probationary time to its close. He has called us, dear brethren in the Lord, to be co-workers with him in making known the solemn and searching truth of the last message of warning to our fellow men, a message of which their acceptance or rejection will decide their future and eternal destiny. We have been called to a high and holy calling. Do we realize it? Do we have that love for souls who are exposed to eternal ruin and whom God designs to save through our instrumentality, which we ought to have?
The calling of the Christian is a high and holy calling; and especially those who live when the harvest is ripening and have so little time to work, and upon whom devolves the high trust of proclaiming the last warning to mankind and bringing the remnant of the church out of the accumulated mass of tradition and error into the simplicity and purity of Bible truth, have a work and responsibility unsurpassed, certainly, by that of any that ever dwelt upon the earth.
May God help all engaged in this work to realize our high calling. Not to be puffed up and exalted, supposing that we are the peculiar favorites of Heaven, but in humility, justly appreciating the vast responsibility resting upon us. Let us “walk worthy of the vocation wherewith we are called, with all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love.”
R. F. COTTRELL.
Prudence in Going
Professors often run fast, but they do not go safely; therefore they often stumble and fall: “The prudent man looketh well to his going.”