"A TRACT for the times. The Sanctuary. By Eld. R. V. Lyon, Minister of the Gospel, Oshawa, Canada West."
Such is the title of a tract which we recently saw advertised, and purchased for perusal. Whenever we meet with anything bearing the title of the sanctuary, our attention is at once arrested; for we regard it as one of the most important, beautiful and harmonious subjects that can, at the present time, engage the mind of man.
The tract of which we speak is designed to enlighten certain classes who are ignorant on this important question. It therefore comes forth challenging public examination; and as it is perused by those for whose benefit it is designed, consistency requires that, if they are enlightened by it, they should acknowledge that fact; and if not, that they should give their reasons why.
After quoting Dan. viii, 14, "And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed," the tract opens with the following very unfortunate assertion: "First-day Adventists have taken and still take the position, that the earth as a whole, is the sanctuary spoken of in the text. The Seventh-day Adventists take the position that it is heaven. Each are wrong in their positions! And the object of these pages is to assist honest inquirers, to arrive at the TRUTH on this all-important theme—the sanctuary."
We have given the above, with its exclamation point, italics and small caps, just as we find it. In reply we speak, of course, only in behalf of Seventh-day Adventists. We are among those, it appears, who are wrong in their position; and this tract has come forth to set us right. The modest declaration that "the object of these pages is to assist honest inquirers to arrive at the truth," with its implied suspicion of our honesty in this matter, can only mean in plain language that their object is to expose our dishonesty, and reveal, if not dispel, our ignorance, on this question.
The author commences by stating that the position of Seventh-day Adventists is, that Heaven is the sanctuary. He has no right to make such an assertion for two reasons: 1. If he knows so little of our views, or has so heedlessly examined our arguments as to suppose that we believe that Heaven is the sanctuary, he has no right to stand forth as an exponent of our belief in this matter; and 2. If he knows what our position is, he has no right to misrepresent it by the utterance of that which is utterly and positively untrue. We do not thank any man for conjuring up positions which we do not believe, and then proclaiming them to the world as a part of our errors. That which he gives as the position of the Seventh-day Adventists, is not, and never has been, their position; nor have they ever written anything from which such an inference could be drawn.
But a tract which is designed to set right those who are wrong, should be exhaustive of the subject in hand; it should thoroughly canvass the testimony, and all the testimony bearing on the question, point out the wrongs and establish the truth. How far this tract does this we shall see. A very few words will suffice to set forth its method of reasoning and the sum of its testimony.
We are treated first to the different meanings of the word sanctuary. On p. 4 we read: "First, What are we to understand by the word sanctuary? Upon an investigation of the Living Oracles, we shall find that the word sanctuary has various meanings. First, the temple at Jerusalem is called a sanctuary." We reply that it is called more than this: it is called the sanctuary; and of the one hundred and forty-two times of the occurrence of the word sanctuary in the Old Testament it refers in almost every instance to this building and the tabernacle of Moses, of which the temple was but a continuation, on a larger and a more magnificent scale.
We quote from the tract again: "Second, The holy place, or place appointed for the public worship of the Lord is called a sanctuary. Ps. lxxiii, 17, 'Until I went into the sanctuary of God.'" This undoubtedly refers to the temple, and hence is not a different application of the word from the one given above.
We read again: "Third, Judah is called God's sanctuary. Ps. cxiv, 2. 'Judah was his sanctuary.'" The same psalm says, "The mountains skipped like rams, and the little hills like lambs." Verse 4. This shows the highly figurative nature of that psalm. In another psalm we read, "But chose the tribe of Judah, the mount Zion which he loved." Ps. lxxviii, 68. Shall we understand from this that Judah was mount Zion? The same rule which would make Judah the sanctuary in Ps. cxiv, 2, would make it mount Zion here. It is not difficult to see that these are figurative expressions; and the reason why such figures are applied to Judah, may be learned from those texts which inform us that mount Zion was the city of David, a part of Jerusalem, which was located in Judah, as one of its cities. See 2 Sam. v, 6, 7; Ezra i, 3; Ps. lxix, 35.
Mr. L. continues: "Fourth, Christ is called a sanctuary. Isa. viii, 13, 14. 'Sanctify the Lord of Hosts himself . . . and he shall be for a sanctuary.'" This text does not call Christ the sanctuary or a sanctuary. It only says he should be for a sanctuary.
Again, "Fifth, Heaven is called the sanctuary. Ps. cii, 19. 'For he hath looked down from the height of his sanctuary; from Heaven did the Lord behold the earth.'" Heaven is not here called, nor proved to be, the sanctuary. To illustrate we might say, From the capitol, from Washington, come forth the laws of this nation. This would not prove that the capitol was Washington, but only that it was in Washington. So Psalm cii, 19, does not prove that the sanctuary is Heaven, but only that it is in Heaven: so that in looking from his sanctuary, the Lord would, of course, look from Heaven.
Again we read: "Sixth, mount Zion, or the land of Palestine is called the sanctuary; and this is the sanctuary spoken of in the text." We deny that the land of Palestine is ever called the sanctuary! But even if it is, how does he arrive at so sudden and abrupt a conclusion that it is the very one spoken of in the text? We have his assertion for it—nothing more. To prove Palestine the sanctuary, he quotes the following texts which will be noticed hereafter: Ex. xv, 17; Ps. lxxviii, 54; cxxxii, 13, 14; Isa. lxiii, 18. To prove it the one spoken of in the text, he offers—nothing.
His second chapter then opens as follows: "In my first chapter, I have shown the reader, by presenting to him immutable testimony, that the sanctuary spoken of in my text is Palestine." He thus rests his whole argument on the four texts last quoted; for these are the only ones claimed to refer to the land of Palestine. These are the texts which are to show that all others are wrong and he is right. Truly this is reducing the subject to a very small compass. Accordingly chapter ii, which commences on page 6 of his tract is composed of quotations from the prophecies threatening desolation to the land of Israel. Whether these have anything to do with the sanctuary or not, all depends upon the texts quoted to prove Palestine the sanctuary. If they do not prove it, these of course are altogether irrelevant.
Chapter three embraces pp. 9–23, and concludes the book. This chapter is composed of long and rambling quotations from prophecies supposed to refer to the Age to Come, in which the only point worthy of notice is, that the land is to be defiled by the dead bodies slain in the great battle, and it is to be cleansed by burying them! Eze. xxxix, 11–16. Such, according to this book, is the cleansing of the sanctuary! Whether the writer has any just conception of this great work, and the relation it sustains to the plan of salvation, the readers of the Review can judge. There is therefore nothing in chapter iii, that demands notice, as whatever relevancy its testimony has, is dependent on the texts before quoted to prove Canaan the sanctuary; for, if they do not prove it, none of these prophecies are relevant to the subject in hand. The whole question, therefore, so far as this book is concerned, is reduced to the four texts above mentioned. These we will now examine.
1. Ex. xv, 17. "Thou shalt bring them in and plant them in the mountain of thine inheritance; in the place, O Lord, which thou hast made for thee to dwell in; in the sanctuary, O Lord, which thy hands have established." It will be noticed that this is a part of the song of Moses uttered immediately after the passage of the red sea. It is a prediction of what God would do for Israel. It was to be accomplished in the promised land, hence we may look for its fulfillment; and when we see how it was fulfilled, we shall have, beyond question, the intent of the prediction. We trace the history of Israel till they were brought in and planted in the land of Palestine, and the mountain of his inheritance, as predicted. But what do we then learn of the sanctuary? We learn that a sanctuary was built therein by that people, as the center of their worship and the dwelling place of God. And could we have asked Moses, or any Jew, from his day down to A. D. 70, to point out to us the sanctuary, the answer would ever have been, Behold the tabernacle, or the temple. David bears direct testimony on this point; but as his language is quoted as text number two to prove the position under review, we will examine it as such.
2. Ps. lxxviii, 54. "And he brought them to the border of his sanctuary, even to this mountain which his right hand had purchased." This text belongs with Ex. xv, 17; for it is the record of the fulfillment of what Moses utters as a prediction. Hence it is an inspired commentary upon that song. But so far from proving the mountain to be the sanctuary, as has been hastily inferred from the song of Moses, it tells us plainly that the mountain was only the border of the sanctuary. Our author does not seem inclined to use further testimony from this same psalm of David. But there is, a few verses further on, direct testimony as to what the sanctuary then was. Why was not this quoted? To introduce it would indeed have been fatal to his purpose of proving Palestine the sanctuary; and shall we conclude that this is the reason it was omitted? He has certainly left the way all open to so grave a suspicion as this. But let us look at the testimony. After stating that the Lord had brought his people into that good land, and cast out the heathen before them, the psalmist proceeds, verse 69, "And he built his sanctuary like high palaces." Ah, then the sanctuary was a building erected in that land, and not the land itself. If there are any who still cannot see the difference between the sanctuary and the land, listen while good king Jehoshaphat, a ruler on the throne of David, rebukes such lack of discernment: "Art not thou our God, who didst drive out the inhabitants of this land before thy people Israel, and gavest it to the seed of Abraham thy friend, forever? And they dwelt therein, and have built thee a sanctuary therein for thy name saying, If when evil cometh upon us, as the sword, judgment or pestilence, or famine, we stand before this house, and in thy presence (for thy name is in this house), and cry unto thee in our affliction, then thou wilt hear and help." 2 Chron. xx, 7–9. The house which is here referred to, was the temple which they had built in that land; and this is plainly called the sanctuary, in distinction from the land in which it was built.
3. The third text quoted is Ps. cxxxii, 13, 14: "For the Lord hath chosen Zion, he hath desired it for his habitation. This is my rest forever; here will I dwell; for I have desired it." How this proves that the whole land of Palestine is the sanctuary, we should be truly gratified to learn. It speaks of Zion, not Palestine; and the reason for calling Zion his habitation, can only be because Jerusalem of which Zion, the city of David, was a part, contained the sanctuary, in which God dwelt." Ex. xxv, 8.
4. Isa. lxiii, 18. "The people of thy holiness have possessed it but a little while; our adversaries have trodden down thy sanctuary." This cannot be offered as positive testimony that the land is the sanctuary, since the treading down is equally applicable to cities or dwellings, as to the land. And it is a fact that when the people were dispossessed of the land, the sanctuary which they had built in that land was laid5in ruins. In referring to the same event in the next chapter, verse 11, the prophet says, "Our holy and our beautiful house, where our fathers praised thee, is burned up with fire;" thus showing that the sanctuary was their beautiful house, and not the land.
And this is the sum total of the "immutable testimony that Palestine is the sanctuary," which this book claims to give. We have said that a book coming forth with the claims of this one, should be exhaustive of the subject. How far it is so, the reader can now judge. No word is said in reference to what Paul calls the sanctuary of the first covenant, Heb. ix, 1, 2, and the wonderful service connected therewith, and which occupied so prominent a place in the former dispensation. No word is spoken of Paul's invincible commentary on that system, in his epistle to the Hebrews, in which he shows that the sanctuary and priesthood of this dispensation is in Heaven, as that of the former was upon earth. And of the one hundred and forty-six times of the occurrence of the word sanctuary in the Bible, only four texts, and one of these not even mentioning the sanctuary, are quoted to show what the sanctuary is! Is this important subject to be settled with treatment like this?
We are reminded by this effort that there are few subjects which our opponents seem more loth to meet, and certainly none on which they manifest greater weakness, than the subject of the sanctuary. Brethren, we have here a citadel of strength. Here all the great columns of present truth center; and our system of truth forever remains unshaken while this citadel stands.
Let nothing then cause your interest in this subject to wane away. Let nothing obscure its light and glory. But remember that the light has come, not so much to enable us to maintain a theory, as to reveal the momentous work now consummating before the ark of God in Heaven, to show us the position of our Great High Priest, inspire us with earnestness to confess all our sins ere his intercession shall cease, and enable us to be among the number whose sins shall be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord, and he shall come forth to pronounce the everlasting covenant of peace upon his people. And while we are strong and joyful in this blessed truth, let us also be faithful in all the duties which it brings to view.
The Death Incurred by Sin.
By R. F. Cottrell
Of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, God said to the living soul that he had created, "In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." No occasion would exist for asking what death was intended by this, had not learned theology asserted that it meant a three-fold death; "Death spiritual, death temporal, and death eternal." The first of these deaths is defined to be a state of sin, the second, a separation of soul and body, and the third, eternal misery. Thus where one death only was threatened, three were intended.
The first, there was no necessity of threatening; for if man sinned, of consequence he lost his innocence and became a sinner. The second, threatens death to a part of the man, and promises life to a part. In other words, the threatening was a promise that man should be freed from his gross materiality—a clog of clay—and exist a disencumbered spirit. And the third death threatened is a guaranty of eternal life, though that life is to be one of torment and misery. Oh that the beauties of this self-styled orthodoxy might be seen in their true light! There is no intimation of all this in the Scriptures. One death only was threatened; and far be it from the Judge of all the earth to threaten one, and execute three.
But this absurdity grows out of the necessity of devising some means of harmonizing the scriptures with an assumed theory. It is assumed that the soul is immortal—not subject to death in a literal sense—hence another assumption, that, as death is the wages of sin, and the soul cannot die literally, death must mean eternal misery. Again, as it is said, "In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die," another death must be invented; the spiritual death already noticed; and as it is difficult to leave out entirely the literal death of the man, that also must have a place, though qualified as being a separation of soul and body; and it is very freely admitted that the inferior, useless cumbrous part of man does actually die, and knows nothing when dead, but to the soul, the only part that ever did know anything, "There is no death: what seems such is transition."
Now, if we will permit him to do so, the Lord will tell us just what he meant by the threatening of death, and clear away the objection respecting the day in which it was to be fulfilled. In pronouncing sentence upon man, after he had sinned, the Lawgiver and Judge has clearly defined just what he meant, and of he meant, by the threatened penalty of death. If he speaks of an eternal miserable existence, and of a spiritual death, in the sentence he passes upon man, then these were intended in the threatening. But if he says nothing of these, he meant no such thing. He knew what he meant in the threatening, and has defined it in the sentence. Then let us hear the great expositor of his own law define the penalty.
"And unto Adam he said, because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it; cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth unto thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it thou wast taken; for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." Gen. iii. 17-19.
There is nothing said or intimated, in all this sentence, of spiritual death or eternal misery; hence, these were not meant in the threatening—they are no part of the death penalty. But sorrow and toil are mentioned resulting in literal death; not eternal misery; but the return of man to the dust out of which he was formed. There is no other idea conveyed in this, than that man should return to the same condition he was in before his creation, and "be as though he had not been." This would have been the final and everlasting condition of man, had not a Saviour, who is the resurrection and the life—a second Adam, a life-giving spirit, been provided. Death is a sleep, the Bible true, but not an eternal sleep: hence, the Bible and Atheism differ very widely.
We may talk for or against literal interpretation, but this is certain, that in pronouncing sentence upon man, after he had sinned, Jehovah himself has interpreted the death threatened to be a literal death, neither more nor less—a returning of the dust, which had become a living soul, back to the dust again. The only question respecting it is, whether we will take his interpretation or not.
Immediately after man had sinned, a curse fell upon the earth and he was doomed to a toiling, sweating, dying life, until he was dead. This is the interpretation of the threatening, "In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die;" or, as the Hebrew literally reads, "dying thou shalt die." It is better to accept of this interpretation like an honest man, than skeptically to quibble around it, because that Adam was not dead on the day of his transgression. The penalty has been faithfully executed from the day of Adam's transgression to the present: and though we are not dead, we feel and know that we are dying men and shall soon be dead unless the Life-giver descends from heaven with a reprieve.
Is this infidelity? or is it faith in the word of the Lord? Infidelity used to mean disbelief of the Scriptures; but now those are called infidels who believe what the Bible most clearly and positively teaches.
R. F. COTTRELL.
Report from Bro. Byington.
By John Byington
BRO. WHITE: I left Memphis Nov. 6, and spent the following Sabbath with Bro. Lawrence at Oakland. This church resolved last December to have a house 32 x 46 ready to meet in for worship in three months. This resolution was kept by them, and now they have a convenient place of worship, which is necessary for the prosperity of every church. I felt that our meetings with this church were profitable to us all. Our meeting closed Monday evening, when I think all resolved to be more spiritual, and more diligent in the work of God.
Nov. 14, 15, and 16, I spent with the church in Lapeer. I felt freedom in presenting truth to them, but our social meetings were cloudy and dark. But with patience and labor wrongs that had for some time existed were confessed and removed, and the church unitedly again resolved to arise and move forward.
While here one night, as I lay down to rest, I could not sleep. I looked for the cause of difficulties and trials in our churches. My impression then was almost as great as though a voice had spoken to me, that the cause in almost every case is evil speaking. We want all wrongs righted; we intend to deal faithfully with each other; but brethren err and speak of faults in each other's absence. Little things are magnified; many things supposed, that are not true; and jealousy and hatred takes the place of love. Dear brethren in every church, will you, will you put away evil speaking?
The 17th and 18th I spent with the brethren in Hadley. We had three meetings, and baptized eight, most of them the fruit of the tent-meeting. Dear Bro. and sister Higley came to this meeting. Their labors for the sick and the church will be rewarded in the great day.
We arrived here at Bro. Lockwood's home for pilgrims last evening, well nigh worn down, but feel rested to-day.
JOHN BYINGTON.
Hartland, Mich., Nov. 20, 1863.
Visit to Memphis.
By R. J. Lawrence
Bro. White: By the advice of Bro. Byington I went to Memphis, Tuesday, Nov. 10. Found the friends there ready to raise their house of worship, which they did on Wednesday and Thursday. The Brn. Jones were there to help the first day, but we had to finish raising without them. It is said to be the best frame within twenty miles of Memphis. It is 36 x 55, 22 feet high. I helped them on the house what I could. Had eight meetings, visited fourteen families, baptized six, and returned home to-day.
I found a good state of things in Memphis, as it regards their steadfastness in the truth. We had good freedom in preaching the word, and it appeared to be well received. The enemy is working hard against them and the truth. The brethren think they will get the house inclosed so that they can hold their Sabbath meetings in it one week from next Sabbath. I expect6to return to Memphis in about one week. They need some one there now most of the time. Pray for the friends in Memphis. They have a hard battle to fight.
R. J. Lawrence.
Oakland, Mich.
Labors In Michigan.
By Joseph Bates
BRO. WHITE: I tarried with the churches in Montcalm, Co., Mich., from Nov. 12 to 18. The brethren are hurrying along with their new meeting-house at Fair Plains, to finish it by the time you and sister White get around to them, for you to dedicate it to the Lord, and hold a series of meetings therein.
The churches at East Plains and Orleans met with the church at Fair Plains Sabbath and first-day, 14th and 15th inst. A deep interest was manifested in the meetings, and many hearts made glad in attending to the ordinances of the Lord's house. On first-day seven were buried with Christ by baptism. Six of them in the bloom of life. Three of them, two sons of Bro. King, of Orleans, and a daughter of Bro. Maynard, of Fair Plains, say the last time they heard you preach they resolved to serve the Lord. How comforting and cheering to see the blooming youth volunteering to serve and obey the King of kings. One sister who had very recently commenced keeping the Sabbath of the Lord, came from the north part of the county, nearly thirty miles, to hear for the first time. When the meeting closed she became a subscriber for the Review.
We held one meeting with the church and friends in East Plains. Returning, we spent the last Sabbath with the church in Caledonia. Many that were present seemed to enjoy the meetings and resolved to press forward and live more devoted to God and his cause. The Lord grant them grace and strength to do so is our prayer. Bro. W. Minisy with his team kindly helped us on our way home.
JOSEPH BATES.
Monterey, Nov. 25, 1863.
The Atonement—Part II.
By James White
(Continued.)
A few remarks may be necessary on the subject of
RECONCILIATION.
There is no intimation in the Scriptures that reconciliation is mutual between God and man; though many writers affirm this, and large denominations endorse it. God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself; but who reconciles him to us? No one; for no such work is done or required. It is supposed that God must also be reconciled, because he is offended; he is angry with the sinner. This, of course, is because of his justice, which can never be reconciled to sin. When the sinner is reconciled to God he is no longer regarded as a sinner; justice being satisfied by the substitute, is turned away from him, and therefore no further reconciliation can be necessary. The difference of position between God and man in this respect is so marked that it need not be mistaken. "The carnal mind is enmity against God." "God so loved the world," &c. "God commended his love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us." "We love God because he first loved us." Christ is not only a voluntary Saviour, but he is the gift of the Father's love. He did not die to cause the Father to love man; but he died because the Father did love us; and to make it possible to manifest his mercy to the transgressor consistent with his infinite justice. I cannot understand how it would be necessary, or even possible, to reconcile one to us, who already loves us so deeply, and is willing to do so much for us. Reconcile, says Webster, is "to call back into union and friendship the affections which have been alienated." "Reconciled, brought into friendship from a state of disagreement and enmity." All the enmity is on the part of man; of course, all the reconciliation must be effected for him. The following statement from Dr. Barnes I can only read with astonishment:
"Reconciliation is in fact produced between God and man by the atonement. God becomes the friend of the pardoned sinner." Atonement, p. 268.
This is equivalent to saying that God is not the friend, but the enemy, of the sinner, before he is pardoned. But how, then, is his pardon effected? According to that view, God as our enemy loved us; as our enemy gave his Son to die for us; as our enemy was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself; as our enemy pardons us for Christ's sake; and only becomes our friend after he has pardoned us! Surely there is neither Scripture nor reason in this; and yet, as I conceive, it is the necessary conclusion of that view which supposes that God is reconciled to man in the gospel.
Our Saviour's words in Matt. v, 23, 24, show that the offender, and not the offended, is the party to be reconciled. "If thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath aught against thee, . . . first be reconciled to thy brother." The same is shown again in 1 Cor. vii, 11. "Let not the wife depart from her husband; but and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband." In both these cases the wrong-doer is instructed to be reconciled. And this is doubtless the idea conveyed by the term in its general use in the Scriptures.
RECONCILIATION PRECEDES THE ATONEMENT.
Several words in the Hebrew are rendered atonement in the English; principally kippooreem, in the Septuagint katharismos and hilasmos. In Lev. xvi, the Hebrew has kah-phar, in the Septuagint exilasmos, defined expiation; to appease, or win over.
It is not to be understood by this that God is changed in temper or disposition; the sinner only is changed. It is also obviously erroneous to ascribe a difference of feeling to the Father and Son, in the work of human redemption.
When we consider that the sacrifice is the means whereby the atonement is made, we can readily understand how hilasmos is used in 1 John ii, 2, defined by Liddell and Scott, a means of appeasing. Jesus Christ is the propitiation—the means of appeasing divine justice, for all. It is by means of his intercession, his pleading his blood, that probation is given and mercy offered to the whole world.
As to the meaning of the term, we are not entirely confined to Lexicons where the work is so minutely described as is that of the atonement in Lev. xvi. Says David, "Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity." Ps. xxxii, 1, 2. This blessing does not come upon all, but it is placed within the reach of all by the death of Christ. And whose sins will be covered? Evidently theirs who have confessed and forsaken their sins, or who have been reconciled to God. This is exactly the order of the work described by Peter in Acts iii, 19. "Repent ye, therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord." This blotting out is by the blood which the High Priest brings into the sanctuary to cleanse it from sin. We cannot for a moment suppose that the sin of any will be blotted out or covered, who still maintains his opposition and enmity to God; but he who confesses and forsakes shall find mercy; that is, he who is reconciled shall have his sins forgiven and blotted out. It may be said in truth that reconciliation supposes an atonement to be made; for we are reconciled by the blood of the cross, which was shed for the express purpose of making atonement in the heavenly sanctuary. But when we learn, as we do from the Scriptures, that the atonement is a distinct, specific work of the High Priest, and the last work in his priesthood, both the distinction and order here claimed are obvious.
I say the atonement is the last work of our High Priest, accomplished just before his second coming. If this be made to appear from the Scriptures, it will be still more evident that reconciliation must precede it. In Dan. viii, 14, a question is asked concerning the time of the vision recorded in that chapter; the answer is, "Unto two thousand and three hundred days, then shall the sanctuary be cleansed." We have seen by Lev. xvi, that the cleansing of the sanctuary, and making the atonement, mean precisely the same thing; for the atonement was made by the High Priest sprinkling the blood upon the mercy-seat and altar, and cleansing them from the sins of the people. Hence this expression of Dan. viii, 14, is equivalent to saying, "Unto two thousand and three hundred days, then shall the atonement be made." Thus we see there was an appointed time for making the atonement. This is in conformity to the type, where the tenth day of the seventh month was set apart to that work. While this text stands as a part of that "scripture" which is "profitable for instruction," it is both interesting and profitable to inquire where these two thousand and three hundred days terminate; but to understand this we must trace the connection between chapters viii and ix of Daniel; for chapter ix is in part explanatory of chapter viii, the explanation of the time (2300 days) being given in the latter, not in the former. Note the following points: 1. Gabriel was commanded to make Daniel understand the vision. 2. He explained in chap. viii the symbols of the kingdoms represented therein. 3. He did not explain the time of verse 14. 4. Daniel said he did not understand the vision, which of course refers to that part not explained—the time. 5. In chap. ix Gabriel said he had come to give him understanding, and commanded him to "consider the vision." 6. No vision had been mentioned since chap. viii, which shows that Gabriel had reference to the same vision which he was commanded to make him understand in that chapter. 7. In chap. ix he commenced instructing Daniel on time, the only thing in "the vision" not hitherto explained. 8. He said, Seventy weeks are determined [Heb. literally, cut off] upon thy people. 9. The 70 weeks commence with the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem, B. C. 457. See Ezra vii. 10. The 70 weeks are evidently "cut off" from the 2300 days; the only period given in the vision. Therefore the time of the going forth of the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem must be the commencement of the 2300 days. And if the 70 weeks are not cut off from the 2300 days, that is, if the 70 weeks do not mark the commencement of those days, then no explanation of the days was given, and Gabriel never did what he was commanded to do. But such a supposition will not be urged. Therefore we must admit that in Dan. ix we have a clue to the 2300 days of Dan. viii, and to understand the 70 weeks of Dan. ix, is also to understand the 2300 days of Dan. viii, the two periods commencing together. As the Messiah was to be cut off, and cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease in the midst of the last week of the 70, which was in A. D. 31, and the time that the apostles turned to the Gentiles marks the close of that period, which was in A. D. 34, it is easy to see that the 2300 days would extend 1810 years beyond that time, or to A. D. 1844. And as the angel said the sanctuary should be cleansed at the end of that period, this must refer, not to the typical sanctuary which was destroyed by the Romans in A. D. 70, but to the antitypinal "sanctuary and true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man." Heb. viii, 1, 2.
Some are ready to object to this view, that the heavenly sanctuary where our High Priest officiates cannot need cleansing—that there is nothing impure in Heaven. The zeal of such to vindicate the honor of heavenly things is parallel with that of Peter, who rebuked the Lord for speaking of his ignominious death; he thought a victor's crown only was becoming his Master. But God has a plan appointed, and the death of his Son was in that plan; and the mistaken zeal of his servants must not be suffered to interfere with it. In that plan is also the atonement which God's now exalted Son as Priest makes in the sanctuary in Heaven; and it has been sufficiently shown that the atonement is made by cleansing the sanctuary. That this expression of the angel refers to the heavenly, and not to the earthly, sanctuary, may be proved by several considerations.
1. The sanctuary was not cleansed from any impurity of its own, nor from any defilement from use, as ordinary habitations are cleansed, but from sin. Therefore it was cleansed by blood. By referring further to Lev. xvi, it will be seen, and will be noticed hereafter, that the design was to take away the sins from the presence of God, and remove them from the throne of judgment. But Paul declares in Heb. x, 4, that "it is not possible for the blood of bulls and of goats to take away sin;" but that was all the blood the priests had to offer in the worldly sanctuary; therefore, as that blood would not remove sin, it follows that the earthly sanctuary was never cleansed at all, and never could have been had it remained and the priests still officiated therein till the end of the 2300 days. Nevertheless the necessity existed; for the people were actual sinners, and needed to have their sins remitted or blotted out.
2. The sanctuary, as before noticed, was defiled by the sins of the people, though the people never came in contact with it. The high priest stood as their representative; he bore their judgment. Ex. xxviii, 30. And as he alone went into the most holy place, it follows that it was defiled by his bearing their sins. Now it is plainly stated that Christ bears our sins—they were laid upon him—he is our representative before his Father. And it seems evident that one of the following positions is true: That Christ has taken the sins of his people, or, his people have their sins yet upon them. I think it will be admitted that the former is true; that as the representative and substitute of his saints he takes their sins. But if he takes them, where does he take them? Certainly where he is. Now it is by virtue of his priesthood that he bears the judgment of the people; but his priesthood is in the heavenly sanctuary. There, according to the type, is where our sins are taken.
3. That the heavenly sanctuary is cleansed, is proved by direct declarations of the New Testament. Paul, in writing to the Hebrews respecting the types and their fulfillment in the priesthood of the Son of God, says, "It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these7[i. e., with the blood of calves and goats]; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these." Heb. ix, 23. Accordingly he says that Christ entered into the holy place, into Heaven itself, "by his own blood." Verse 12. This is the better sacrifice or blood by which the heavenly things are purified or cleansed.