Review and Herald, Vol. 36, No. 3. (7/5/1870)

Review and Herald

Jul 5, 1870

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jul 5, 1870

Review of Wellcome and Goud.

By John H. Waggoner

BY ELD. J. H. WAGGONER.

(Continued.)

THOUGH there are many covenants of agreement or promise noticed in the Scriptures, we find only one “covenant commanded,” and this even “to a thousand generations.” 1 Chron. 16:15. This period is surely not expired. And that this commanded covenant is the ten commandments, is proved by the fact that it was “confirmed to Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant.” Verse 17.

I do not see how it is possible for any one to read the book of Messrs. Wellcome and Goud without observing their contradiction, not only of the Scriptures, but of themselves, on the subject of the covenants, and I am forced to believe that many have recommended their book, not because they can reconcile its statements, nor because they can indorse all its assertions, but because they are anxious to have the conclusions at which it aims, sustained.

COVENANT OF PRIESTHOOD.

On this subject they say:

“But the above-named class of objectors claim that because the law of the Aaronic priesthood was given at Sinai, therefore it is the first covenant, and of which Paul treats in Heb. 8:6, 8. We deny that any covenant was made with the Aaronic priesthood at Sinai. The above claim proceeds upon the principle that because a covenant is a law, therefore all laws are covenants. . . . In support of the above singular claim, a text is often quoted from Num. 25:12, 13.” Page 44.

And again on the same subject.

“Here we will digress from our point for a time, to meet an objection often raised against this position by the class of teachers above referred to: viz., that there were two covenants made on Mount Sinai; one of ten commandments, and another concerning the Levitical priesthood; that they are entirely separate; and that while the latter is disannulled, the former is yet in full force on believers. The strenuous efforts of seventh-day teachers to make this statement appear true have so confused the minds of many honest persons that they fail to see, or, if they see, do not appreciate, the true relation of the priesthood to the covenant. The above claim, if admitted, would prove fatal both to the law and priesthood, and to the hope of the people, so far as they (the people) are concerned. But Paul, in his epistle to the Hebrews and Galatians, places this subject in such a light that those teachers are fully aware that if the aforesaid idea fails, their seventh-day theory falls to the ground. Hence they claim that the covenant of ten commandments says nothing about priesthood, ordinances, or sacrifices.” Page 46.

There are some very singular statements in the above quotations, and when I read these pages I could but think they contained evidence of great blindness or great deception on the part of the writers.

1. They deny “that because a covenant is a law therefore all laws are covenants.” All laws are, indeed, covenants, but all covenants are not laws. A covenant may be a promise, merely, as that to Noah. But Greenfield says a covenant is “a body of laws or precepts;” though this is not its first or ordinary meaning. The assumption put forth in this book is the reverse of the truth, or the true distinction is inverted, and their conclusions are erroneous.

2. We do not, as a “class of objectors,” hold that “the covenant of the priesthood” was the first covenant; nor is Num. 25:12, 13 often quoted by us to sustain such a claim. This assertion of Messrs. Wellcome and Goud is without foundation. In a tract on “The Two Laws and Two Covenants,” by Moses Hull, this text is quoted and referred to in such a manner as to give the reader to understand that he held such a view; but beside this I know of no author among Seventh-day Adventists who ever put forth such a claim. On the contrary, I always objected to that, as well as to other positions taken by Mr. Hull, and I know of others among us who likewise objected to the same, in whose judgment I have more confidence than I have in my own. And my objections were frankly stated to Mr. Hull at the time his tract was published. If any have been so easily misled as to follow him in that position, it is a matter of regret. That its publication by any one gives our opponents an opportunity to make capital against us, must be admitted. But that we as a “class” ever placed any reliance on that position, is not true. They who are acquainted with our writings, know that I speak correctly on this subject.

3. It is not true that we as a people attach any importance to that idea, or that we “are fully aware” or believe, that if that position fails our theory falls to the ground. If they understand our “theory” as they pretend, they will know that “that position” has no particular relation to it.

4. I cannot imagine why it is that to admit that claim “would prove fatal both to the law and the priesthood, and to the hope of the people, so far as they (the people) are concerned.” If the first covenant was the “covenant of the priesthood,” it would still be true that that covenant could pass away without abolishing the law. And the assertion that it would “prove fatal to the hope of the people, so far as they (the people) are concerned,” seems to prove conclusively that Messrs. Wellcome and Goud wanted to say something on the subject without having any clear idea of what it should be!

5. We still affirm that the “ten commandments say nothing about priesthood, ordinances, or sacrifices.” And we have the Scriptures to sustain us in the affirmation. In Ex. 19:5, the condition of obeying the voice of God has undoubted reference to obeying that which God spake with his voice, viz.: the ten commandments. See Deut. 4:12, 13. Also in Jer. 11:1–4, the Lord refers to the words of the covenant which he commanded to their fathers, saying, “Obey my voice, and do them;” that is, the words which his voice proclaimed, and in Jer. 7:22, he says: “For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt-offerings or sacrifices; but this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice.” Therefore obeying God’s voice, or doing what God’s voice uttered—the ten commandments—was not necessarily connected with the system of offerings or sacrifices. And our authors themselves have acknowledged the same thing, by saying if that law had not been broken, there would have been no sin; and if no sin, of course, no priesthood nor sacrifices. The transgression of that law created the necessity for sacrifices, therefore that law must have existed before the sacrifices. And if it once existed without that system of sacrifices, why might it not again? They have offered no reason why it might not. But if they still wish to contest the point, we invite them to settle it by pointing to the place in the ten commandments where they do speak of priesthood or sacrifices.

PENALTY OF THE GOSPEL.

On this they remark:

“An agreement or covenant was made between the Father and Son from the foundation of the world, that Christ should come in the flesh (see 2 John 7), fulfill the law (Matt. 5:18), suffer, the just for the unjust (1 Pet. 3:18), and thereby redeem Adam, and

in him, the race from death, and the earth from the curse, and place him on a second probation under a law (of faith in Christ), (Gal. 3:13; 1 Cor. 9:21), which when broken could only give life on repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ, and whose penalty is the second death. Rev. 21:8.” Page 106.

Messrs. Wellcome and Goud have a most singular system of theology, if crude ideas thrown together without form or connection can be called a system.

1. What can be the difference between “faith in Christ,” and “the law of faith in Christ?” Just what distinction the authors design to make is more than I can imagine. The law of faith, when broken, can only give life through faith! Lucid, is it not?

2. The opposers of the law of God have never failed to revile it, because it cursed the transgressor; for which we honor it, because it shows that the law is opposed to wrong. But on their own ground, what must they think of the gospel! The law, they say, inflicted only temporal death, while the penalty of the gospel is eternal death. Well, the law would not curse the obedient; will the gospel save the disobedient? There is room for some thought here on the part of the opposers of the law.

3. We have never learned from the Scriptures that sin is the transgression of the gospel! An inspired writer in the New Testament says “sin is the transgression of the law;” another says, “by the law is the knowledge of sin.” These two texts contain the same idea and express the same fact; and that “the law” therein refers to the ten commandments, and not to the gospel, is proved in that it is a law which will not justify, but only condemns; and our authors have so applied it in another place, by referring Paul’s expressions in Rom. 3 to the ten commandments. And again they said the same thing when they referred to that law and said, The law gives the knowledge of man’s sinful, lost condition, and all the race are proved sinners by it. Why not be consistent with the Scriptures, and even with their own previous declaration? Because, as has been said, error cannot follow a straight line. Why not recognize the evident relation between the law and the gospel? the one condemning sin, the other saving from sin by taking away the carnal mind, and bringing back the rebel to subjection to the law. The gospel does not contain the penalty of death; it is good news; it will avert the penalty of the law if we faithfully embrace it. But if we reject the gospel (or pardon), the law is allowed to take its course and to enforce its penalty; for “the wages of sin is death,” and “sin is the transgression of the law.” They who are yet transgressing, if they do not wish to receive the wages, had better cease from the service, and repent toward God by ceasing to transgress his law, and have faith toward the Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of past transgression.

OFFERINGS AND THE SANCTUARY.

On the relation of type and antitype they make the following remarks:

“To this view all the law types of the atonement agree: the body—the flesh—serves as food for the physical system, or to burn upon the altar; it was never carried into the holy of holies; they pointed only to the resurrection of the physical body, the resuscitation of the race, and the lost inheritance. But not so with the blood, as we shall show in its proper place.” Page 113.

And again they say:

“In all the above passages of Scripture, the Saviour is presented in his official character as high priest, in Heaven itself (the antitype of the holiest of all on earth), officiating with his own blood; for it is said, ‘If he were on earth he should not be a priest;’ and here we repeat that priests never carried the body of the victim sacrificed into the holy of holies; it was left in the outer court to be used as food, or burned on the altar, while the blood was offered by the high priest in the holiest of all, to obtain forgiveness. Page 136.

The assertion that the bodies, or flesh, of the offerings, were not carried into the holy of holies, or most holy place, is true, and would not require a notice were it not that the inference is designed to be conveyed that they were taken into the holy. But what is true of the most holy is also true of the holy in this respect. The body or flesh was never taken into the sanctuary at all, neither into the holy or most holy; while the blood was sprinkled in both, with this difference, that into the most holy it was only taken on the tenth day of the seventh month—the day of atonement. I notice this because an effort is made by that “class of teachers” to distinguish between “the sanctuary,” and the “holy of holies.” But they admit that the blood was taken by the high priest into the most holy place for sin; and Paul says in Heb. 13:11, that the “blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin.” Where, then, do they obtain the distinction between the sanctuary and the most holy place?

Again, they assert that “Heaven itself” is the antitype of the “holiest of all” on earth. By this they would be understood that the antitype of the sanctuary, or holy, is not in Heaven. Notice a few facts on this subject:

1. As above shown, the blood was taken into the sanctuary, both into the holy and most holy; but the bodies were taken into neither.

2. Paul says our high priest, Jesus, is a minister of the sanctuary in Heaven, of which that made by Moses was a pattern. Heb. 9:23. The earthly sanctuary, and not the most holy place alone, was a shadow or example of the heavenly. Heb. 8:1–5.

3. Paul says the HOLY PLACES made with hands are the figures of the true where Christ is gone. This is clear and positive proof that both the holy and the most holy places are figures of the true sanctuary where Christ is gone. Heb. 9:23, 24.

4. The book of Revelation contains statements concerning the position of our high priest in Heaven, which confirm our view. When John was caught up in the Spirit into Heaven, there to receive a view or vision of the opening of the seals and sounding of the trumpets, he described the throne of God and its surroundings, saying, There were seven lamps of fire burning before it. In the pattern or figure of this, the seven lamps of fire (improperly translated candlesticks), were in the holy—not in the most holy. And in the holy, before the door, on the south side of which were set the lamp-stands, the Lord promised to meet the priests of Israel and his glory should be there manifested. See Ex. 29:42, 43. But when the trumpets were all sounded, and under the seventh, John saw the temple of God opened in Heaven where was the ark of his testament. Rev. 11:14–19. This was the most holy place, and only opened on the day of atonement.

5. Though much stress is laid by our opponents on Paul’s words in Heb. 6:19, 20, we find this in perfect harmony with the view we here advocate. This text says that Jesus has entered “within the vail.” On this they assert that the vail divided between the holy and the most holy, and that therefore Jesus entered the most holy, when he ascended to Heaven, and not, as we teach, under the sounding of the seventh trumpet. Their conclusion would be just were there but one vail. But Paul says, Heb. 9:3. “And after THE SECOND VAIL the tabernacle which is called the holiest of all.” Now there cannot be a second without a first; and there cannot be a first and second unless there are two. So their conclusion is groundless, and must so appear unless they can prove that Paul refers to “the second vail” in Heb. 6:19, which they cannot.

THE NEW JERUSALEM.

Bathed in unfallen sunlight, Itself a sunborn gem, Fair gleams the glorious city, The New Jerusalem! City fairest, Splendor rarest, Let me gaze on thee!

Calm in her queenly glory, She sits all joy and light, Pure in her bridal beauty, Her raiment festal white! Home of gladness, Free from sadness, Let me dwell in thee!

Shading her golden pavement, The tree of life is seen, Its fruit-rich branches waving, Celestial evergreen, Tree of wonder, Let me wonder, Thee forever rest!

Fresh from the throne of Godhead, Bright in its crystal gleam, Bursts out the living fountain, Swells on the living stream, Blessed river, Let me ever Feast my eyes on thee!

Stream of true life and gladness, Spring of all health and peace; No harps by thee hang silent, Nor happy voices cease, Tranquil river, Let me ever Sit and sing by thee!

River of God, I greet thee, Not now afar, but near; My soul to thy still waters Hastes in its thirstings here. Holy river, Let me ever, Drink of only thee.

Repentance.

By John Matteson

"Repent, and be baptized." How can a sinner repent, become a member of the household of the new covenant, and be a proper candidate for baptism?

"This is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people. . . . For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more." Heb. 8.

The first step is to acknowledge the authority of the law of God; for "sin is the transgression of the law;" and "by the law is the knowledge of sin." Rom. 3: 20. And this is the law that says, "Thou shalt not covet." Rom. 7: 7. Now if the ten commandments are not the law whereby the world was convinced of sin A. D. 60, Rom. 3: 19, 20, please tell us, what definite law was then existing and binding by which "all the world became guilty before God." And if the ten commandments were not the law of which the Saviour spoke at the beginning of his ministry, and from which not one jot or one tittle should pass till heaven and earth pass, and till all the prophecies be fulfilled, tell us what law is it? It is a law that existed before Christ came, and one which will exist as long as earth and heaven exist, and one which is binding on the whole world. Is it the law of sacrifices? No one thinks so. Is it the political law of the Jews? Certainly not. It is the law that says, "Thou shalt not covet."

Some say the penalty has passed away; therefore, the law can no longer be in force. Wonderful argument from a Bible reader. Is not death still the wages of sin? Is there a plainer doctrine in all the Bible than that God will inflict death upon all the transgressors of his law? How can men with the Bible in hand, believing that the day of retribution is nigh, shut their eyes against the solemn fact, that God will soon inflict the penalty of death, or "everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord," upon every transgressor of his holy law, who has not repented of his sins?

"The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul; the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart. . . . More to be desired are they than gold, yea than much fine gold; sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb." Ps. 19. When you love the commandments of God more than fine gold, and it is sweeter to your soul to regulate your life by them, than honey and the honeycomb, then may you know that you are a disciple of Jesus.

If you truly acknowledge that you have violated the holy and righteous law of God, and sinned against your merciful and kind Creator, then you can commence to sorrow to repentance. Godly sorrow is not repentance. Yet it is necessary to repentance. And there is no true repentance without godly sorrow. "For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of." 2 Cor. 7: 10. Such sorrow and repentance lead you to the Saviour.

Our sorrow cannot blot out, or pay for, our past sins. Yet this sorrow has great promises; for it is a beginning to awaken out of sinful slumber, and leads us to see our lost and wretched condition. It is a precious eyesalve, whereby we begin to understand that we are "wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked?" Rev. 3. Luther said, He that never doubted, never believed. He that has not seen himself as a poor lost sinner, cannot have saving faith.

But whither shall we flee, when the law threatens, conscience condemns, and sins rise like mountains over our heads?

"Blessed are they that mourn; for they shall be comforted. 'The Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.' Luke 19: 10. The law can wound, and kill. Jesus can heal, and give new life. He will receive every soul who humbly and earnestly seeks him. 'Him that cometh to me, I will in no wise cast out.' John 6: 37. The dear Saviour is still as kind and merciful as he was in the days of his flesh. He will not send you away empty. He hears every prayer, ever so simple, that comes from a true heart. His requirements are not unreasonable. Only yield to his will in all things; let Jesus work upon you by his truth and Holy Spirit; trust in his blood; follow his counsels; then he pardons all your sins.

Are you willing that God may write his law in your heart? Are you willing to conform to his teachings, and obey his commandments? Are you willing to trust in the Saviour who died for sinners? Then, says the Lord, "I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins . . . will I remember

no more."

Blessed voice! Will God remember my sins no more? and that because Jesus shed his blood, suffered and died in bitter agony? Wonderful, infinite love!

Here I see a deep pit at the foot of the cross. My heavy burden sinks into the pit. I see my Saviour's open side. Wretched and unworthy, sinful and polluted, I am washed clean in the fountain of salvation. Bitter tears roll down my cheeks. I am most unworthy; but through tears I see my Saviour smile. He bids me come unto him. Then love is kindled in my soul. My friend is mine, and I am his. He takes me to his bosom in the arms of mercy. I have a foretaste of the blessed inheritance. Praise the Lord! Bless his holy name! Sing praises, ye angels in Heaven, and rejoice; for a poor sinner "was lost, and is found."

JOHN MATTESON.

I Die Daily.

By John Norton Loughborough

THESE words are used by Paul as evidence of the sincerity of his faith in the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead. The peril which he braved of being liable any day to be put to death for his faith, standing “in jeopardy every hour,” was evidence to all that he earnestly believed the doctrines he taught. A principle animated him that would lead him to lay aside ease and self-serving, and life itself, if need be, that he might obey and teach the unpopular truths of the gospel. He speaks of his true condition as “persecuted, but not forsaken; cast down, but not destroyed; always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body. For we which live are always delivered unto death for Jesus’ sake, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our mortal flesh.” 2 Cor. 4: 9–11.

What words are these! the life of Jesus to be made manifest in us. This indeed, is true Christianity, and nothing short of it is Christianity. To be a Christian is to be like Christ. Peter, who once was left to deny his Lord, when soundly converted drank deeply into this same self-denying, sacrificing spirit of the Master; “For this is thank-worthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully. For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God. For even hereunto were ye called; because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps.” 1 Pet. 2: 19–21.

The work presented in the above scriptures is not congenial to the unregenerate heart of the pleasure-seeker. The times in which we live are described by Paul, as times when men should be “lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God,” yet “having a form of godliness.” In view of these things our Saviour has told us: “Take heed to yourselves lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life.”

Although, as yet, we are not required, as were the apostles, to daily jeopardize our natural lives, yet we have a work to accomplish which requires of us a spirit of sacrifice and self-denial which would lead us, if occasion demanded, to lay down our lives in the Master’s cause. It is one thing to sing: “Must I be carried to the skies, On flowery beds of ease, Whilst others fought to win the prize And sailed through bloody seas?” But it is quite another thing to have our hearts imbued with the true spirit of suffering that animates the song.

A writer, in speaking of pleasure-loving professors of this time, says: “Christians are called upon to suffer with Christ, but they shrink from even reproach.” What an effort is made to ease conscience by blunting the edge of those scriptures that tell us to be “separate from the world;” to not be “conformed to this world;” to “come out” and be “separate;” to not put on “gold” or “costly array.” When a contrast is made of this time of formality and selfishness, with times even thirty and forty years back, when it was expected that Christianity would entirely renovate a man’s heart and mind, and thus effect a change in his dress, actions, and entire character, we are told that “the church has outgrown some of its fogy ideas of propriety held by such men as Wesley.” Oh! that the spirit of humility, simplicity, and sacrifice, that animated those reformers, might penetrate the hearts of those who now name the name of Christ.

The writer of this article, not long since, after a season of meditation and prayer to God for true humility and simplicity, and a preparation to act a part in the short and solemn work before us, retired to rest, and dreamed that there was but little time in which to get ready, and warn our fellow-men to get ready for what is coming. I had in my dream a great anxiety to know what was most essential in this time to make progress in the work. A young man came to me and offered to show me. He pointed me to a large-faced clock. It lacked twenty-five minutes of twelve by the clock. I said, We are well along in the eleventh hour. While looking at the clock I discovered across the face from left to right, in square-faced gold letters, the word “humility.” A halo of light seemed to beam from it. The young man bade me look more closely. I did so, and discovered immediately back of the word humility, another set of letters inclined to the left at an angle of about 60°, in gold, polished more highly even than the others, the word “simplicity.” The light from the word simplicity shone through the word humility. Quite a company were present, all actively employed, all imbued with the spirit that seemed to come to them from a sight of those words, all realizing that they had but little time to work, all imbued with love, all cheerful and happy. I caught the spirit of the scene. I felt that I wanted everybody happy. Oh! I never seemed so small in my own eyes as in that dream, and yet every time I looked at the letters, a sense of their force would animate me more and more. Oh! I thought, this is the joy of Heaven; each trying in simplicity and humility to do all he can to make others happy. I awoke, but the facts of the dream I still call vividly to mind, believing that with me, and all, humility and simplicity, with firm reliance upon God, in this eleventh hour, will accomplish the work.

But I have digressed from the thoughts of my mind in the beginning of this article, “I die daily.” To daily be in a position, as was Paul, where even “The loss of all things we could bear, And glory in our gain,” must be preceded by an internal struggle,—death, a cleaving of the affections from earth, an entire resignation to the will of God in all things, a greater desire to have God’s will accomplished than our own will. A casting aside of sensual gratification, worldly pleasure and associations, that we may in our lives advance the cause of the Master. This death is the effectual eradication of sin from our members, as in the case of Paul in Romans 7, “Sin revived, and I died.” “I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. Oh, wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?” Rom. 7: 9, 23, 24. He more fully elucidates the matter by saying, “For they that are after the flesh, do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.” Rom. 8: 5, 6. The struggle is between self-gratification in various forms, and such a yielding of ourselves to God, as shall cause us to put away from us everything that would grieve the Spirit of God from us, or hinder its effectual working in our mind. As death literally is “a total and permanent cessation of all the vital functions,” so this death is a struggle in ourselves by God’s grace to cause a permanent cessation of the vital functions of “sin in our members.” The daily effort of these passions to rise, to get advantage of us, gives us a constant battle to keep the “body under.” It is a daily warfare. “I die daily.” It is true in this matter that “eternal vigilance is the price of safety.” Self must be subdued, and God alone reign in us. When we get where we complacently sit down, thinking the work is done, we are deceived. “Thy arduous task will not be done Till thou obtain the crown.”

The thoughts, the words, the affections, and all our works, must be wrought in God. As Paul expresses it, “I am crucified with Christ; nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.” Gal. 2: 20. See also Rom. 6: 10; 2 Cor. 4: 10; 6: 9; Gal. 5: 24; 6: 14; 2 Pet. 2: 20; 1 Cor. 9: 27; Rom. 12: 1. May the Lord help us each in the work of “casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ.” 2 Cor. 10: 5.

My desire is to persevere in this battle, and so effectually keep in the channel of humility and simplicity, that I may “die daily” to all else.

J. N. LOUGHBOROUGH.

Bible Religion.

By Francis Gould

RELIGION is a system of faith and worship. Every system of religion which has not for its basis the fundamental principles of God's righteous government, is not a Bible religion; it is not a pure religion; in it there is no salvation. The apostle James gives a true definition of Bible religion: “Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this: To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.” James 1: 27. This text embodies all the pure, noble, and elevating principles which constitute a perfect Christian, and embraces the two great arms of the law, namely, “love to God, and love to man.” When these principles are brought to bear upon the mind as they should, they penetrate every avenue of the soul, elevate the mind, sanctify the affections, control the will, subdue the carnal mind, and bring its possessor into a sweet union with God and Heaven. They act upon the hearts and consciences of men. First, get the heart right, and whatsoever proceeds therefrom will be right. Cleanse the fountain and the streams that flow out from it will be clean also. Girdle the trunk of a tree, and the leaves will soon fall off, and the tree die. Throw around the mind of man the broad girdle of truth, and he will die to sin, and his life will be hid with Christ in God; and in every department of life in which he is called to act, that light which constitutes the light of the world, will shine out to all around, so that he will become a living epistle, known and read of all men.

The Bible Christian will exhibit his religion in the family circle, in the field, in the shop, by the wayside, or in a more public manner. The blessed principles of the gospel become so interwoven into his very being that he becomes a new creature. “Therefore, if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature; old things are passed away; behold all things are become new.” 2 Cor. 5: 17. A tree is known by its fruit. We are to abide in Christ. “Every branch that beareth not fruit, he taketh away; and every branch that beareth fruit he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.” John 15: 2. Again, verses 8, 10: “Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit, so shall ye be my disciples.” “If ye keep my commandments ye shall abide in my love, even as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love.”

In enumerating the Christian graces, Peter says, “For if these things be in you and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.” “For if ye do these things ye shall never fall.” “For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.”

FRANCIS GOULD. Stowe, Vt.

True Faith

TRUE faith makes the sinner humble, active, and self-denying; false faith leaves men proud, indolent, and selfish.

Thoughts on the Book of Daniel.

CHAPTER VIII. (CONTINUED.)

VERSE 13. Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot? 14. And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed

The Time. These two verses close the vision proper of chapter 8; and they introduce the one remaining point which of all others would naturally be of the most absorbing interest to the prophet, and to all the church; namely, the time the desolating powers previously brought to view were to continue. How long shall they continue their course of oppression against God's people, and of blasphemy against High Heaven? Daniel, if time had been given, might perhaps have asked this question himself; but Heaven is ever ready to anticipate our wants, and sometimes to answer, even before we ask. Hence two celestial beings appear upon the scene, holding a conversation, in the hearing of the prophet, upon this question which it is so important that the church should understand. Daniel heard one saint speaking. What this saint spoke at this time we are not informed; but there must have been something either in the matter or the manner of this speaking, which made a deep impression upon the mind of Daniel, inasmuch as he uses it in the very next sentence as a designating title, calling the angel “that certain saint which spake.” He may have spoken something of the same nature as that which the seven thunders of the Apocalypse uttered, Rev. 10: 3, and which, when John was about to write, he was restrained, for some good reason, from so doing. But another saint asked this one that spake an important question: How long the vision? and both the question and the answer are placed upon record; which is prima facie evidence that this is a matter which it was designed that the church should understand. And this view is further confirmed by the fact that the angel did not ask this question for his own information, inasmuch as the answer was addressed to Daniel, as the one whom it chiefly concerned, and for whose information it was given. “And he said unto me,” said Daniel, recording the answer to the angel's question: “Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.”

The Daily Sacrifice. We have proof in verse 13 that sacrifice is the wrong word to be supplied in connection with the word daily. If the daily sacrifice of the Jewish service is here meant, or in other words, the taking away of that sacrifice, as some suppose, which sacrifice was at a certain point of time taken away, there would be no propriety in the question, How long the vision concerning it? This question evidently implies that those agents or events to which the vision relates, occupy a long series of years. Continuance of time is the central idea. And the whole time of the vision is filled by what is here called the daily, and transgression of desolation. Hence the daily cannot be the daily sacrifice of the Jews, the taking away of which, when the time came for it, occupied comparatively but an instant of time. It must denote something which occupies a series of years. The word here rendered, daily, occurs in the Old Testament, according to the Hebrew Concordance, one hundred and two times, and is, in the great majority of instances, rendered continual, and continually. The idea of sacrifice does not attach to the word at all. Nor is there any word in the text which signifies sacrifice. It is wholly a supplied word, the translators putting in that word which their understanding of the text seemed to demand. But we think they took an erroneous view, and that the sacrifices of the Jews are not referred to at all. We therefore suggest, as being more in accordance with both the construction and the context, that the word daily refers to a desolating power, like the transgression of desolation with which it is connected. Then we have the daily, or continual, desolation, and the transgression of desolation; the daily or continual desolation, signifying paganism, and the transgression of desolation, the papacy.

From a religious point of view, the world has presented only these two phases. Hence although three earthly governments are introduced in the prophecy, as oppressors of the church, they are here ranged under two heads: the daily, and the transgression of desolation. Medo-Persia was pagan; Grecia was Pagan; Rome in its first phase was pagan; these all composed the daily; then comes the papal form, which was to be the leading persecuting power to the end of time, a marvel of satanic craft and cunning, an incarnation of fiendish bloodthirstiness and cruelty. No wonder the cry has gone up from suffering martyrs, from age to age, How long, O Lord, how long? And no wonder the Lord, in order that hope might not wholly die out of the hearts of his down-trodden, waiting people, has lifted before them the veil of futurity, showing them the consecutive events of the world's history, till all these persecuting powers should meet an utter and everlasting destruction, and giving them glimpses beyond, of the unfading glories of their eternal inheritance.

The Lord's eye is upon his people. The furnace will he heated no hotter than necessary to consume the dross. It is through much tribulation we are to enter the kingdom; and the word tribulation is from tribulum, a thrashing sledge. Blow after blow must be laid upon us, till all the wheat is beaten free from the chaff, and we are made fit for the heavenly garner. But not a kernel of wheat shall be lost. Says the Lord to his people, Ye are the light of the world, the salt of the earth. In his eyes there is nothing else of consequence or importance on the earth. Hence the peculiar question here asked, How long the vision respecting the daily and transgression of desolation, concerning what? The glory of earthly kingdoms? the skill of renowned warriors? the fame of mighty conquerors? the greatness of human empire? No; but concerning the sanctuary and the host, the people and worship of the Most High. How long shall they be trodden under foot? Here is where all Heaven's interest and sympathy are enlisted. He who touches the people of God, touches not mere mortals, weak and helpless, but Omnipotence; he opens an account which must be settled at the bar of Heaven. And soon all these accounts will be adjusted, the iron heel of oppression will be lifted, and a people will be brought out of the furnace prepared to shine as the stars forever and ever. To be one who is an object of interest to heavenly beings, one whom the providence of God is engaged to preserve while here, and crown with immortality hereafter—what a privilege! Reader, are you one of the number?

Continue reading: The Way of Truth