The idea seems to have taken strong hold of some minds that when the work of atonement commences in the most holy place of the sanctuary above, mercy can no longer be offered to sinners, but probation must close. And this is offered as an objection to our view that the cleansing of the sanctuary commenced in 1844; for, say they, had that been the case, there could have been no conversions since that time; but as sinners have been converted since that point, they conclude that the cleansing of the sanctuary did not then commence.
But who has said that probation must close when our Lord commences to minister in the most holy place? No inspired writer has said such a thing, and it is not in the type. It is answered, that all offerings for sin were to be presented at the door of the tabernacle; this is true; but an assumption must be superadded to that fact to make it available as an objection; and that assumption is this: that our prayers, supplications and confessions of sin, are our offerings; that consequently we can present them nowhere else than at the door of the tabernacle, and that only while the high priest ministers in the first apartment; for after he has changed his position to the second apartment, no such offerings can longer be accepted, no more mercy be offered, nor probation continued.
Such betray an utter misapprehension of the whole question, for they make our prayers and confessions the antitype of those ancient offerings. What! can any one for a moment suppose that when a person offered up his victim at the earthly tabernacle, it signified that people under the gospel dispensation would pray and confess their sins! This we are indeed to do; but the ancient offerings had no connection with this; for they all pointed forward to Christ; and when our friends will take the right antitype, they may lay as much stress as they please upon the locality where it is to be offered; for Christ also “suffered without the gate.” Heb. 13:12.
But if Lev. 17, which is supposed to prove that forgiveness of sin can be found only in the first apartment, be examined as far as verse 7, it will be seen that the great object of the special charge to bring their offerings to the door of the tabernacle, was to prevent the people from sacrificing in the fields to devils. This therefore in no way contradicts the testimony of Lev. 16, that the high priest with the blood of sin offering did make atonement in the holiest because of the transgression of the people in all their sins.
Reference was made last week to those offerings which are supposed to be preliminary to the work of atonement or the cleansing of the sanctuary. As already stated the position is taken by some that we are now in this preliminary work, and the matter of continued probation is got along with on the supposition that these preliminary offerings might have reference to individual cases, and have reference to particular sins.
We inquire for the foundation upon which this supposition rests. It is said that the work in the holiest was not the offering of blood for particular individuals but for all the people. Then we answer that these preliminary offerings to which reference has already been made, were of precisely the same nature. They were not offered by individuals, but like the daily morning and evening sacrifices were offered in behalf of the whole people. So there is just as much mercy implied in the sin offering in the holiest, as in the other offerings presented on that day. We do not deny, but on the other hand fully maintain, that these offerings did imply mercy and the forgiveness of sin for the people. But if so, there was forgiveness of sin to be found while the high priest was presenting his offering in the most holy place.
If it be said that the work in the holiest was to cleanse the sanctuary, we reply that it cannot be said that it was only to cleanse the sanctuary, which would make quite a different statement of it. It is true it was to cleanse the sanctuary, but this is not the whole truth on this point. It was also for the people, availing for sins committed up to the moment of its offering. The high priest made atonement for the sins of the people on that day just as much as he did for his own sins. Read carefully Lev. 16 and Heb. 9:7.
Now we affirm that what was done in the type for the people as a body, is done in the antitype for the people as individuals; and the blood of sin offering ministered in the most holy place, avails for their sins, even as it did in the outer apartment till it comes to an application in their individual cases. The twofold work of the high priest in the earthly sanctuary seems fitly to typify this twofold work of our High Priest above. For the sins of the whole church for six thousand years may be disposed of as individual cases, and all the while that this great work is being accomplished, the blood of Jesus may avail for us in the presence of God.
There seems therefore to be no difficulty involved in the idea that the offering of the high priest in the holiest, can avail for sins committed while he is there before God. Some additional considerations go to sustain this idea. In the type, so far as we know, during the whole work of the year, the transgression preceded the offering. The sin was committed before the victim was brought. And no offering was brought to the priest for sins that would be committed in the future. This was at least as much so in the holy place as in the most holy.
But how was it with our Lord? He shed his blood before entering the tabernacle in Heaven at all. And that blood once shed avails for sins committed after his death, just as effectually as for those which, as in the type, were committed before his offering was made. And, as we have seen, this blood is ministered by our Lord in both apartments of the Heavenly sanctuary. Now if its offering in the most holy place cannot avail for any sins, only those committed before it began to be offered there, by parity of reasoning it would follow that it could not avail in the holy place or first apartment, for any sins only those which had been committed before it began to be offered there. And then we should have no forgiveness anywhere in all this spiritual, life-giving dispensation. But this would be proving too much; and any position which involves such an issue, or any line of argument which leads to such a result, must be abandoned.
And finally the testimony of the New Testament is conclusive on the point that the blood of Jesus avails for us in both the holy places of the Heavenly tabernacle: Heb. 10:19: “Having, therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus.” The word here rendered, holiest, is plural in the original, signifying holy places; and so Macknight renders it: “Well, then, brethren, having boldness in the entrance of the holy places by the blood of Jesus.”
These words are a complete refutation of the doctrine that probation closes with our Lord’s entrance within the second vail. We enter into the most holy as well as into the holy by his blood; and we do it with boldness, because of the promise of the forgiveness of our sins. Thank God that we can still thus enter by the blood of Jesus.
We therefore conclude that probation does not end when the work in the most holy place commences, but that it ends with each individual, as the work shall reach his or her individual case. The natural order would seem to be that this work which we have shown to be the investigative Judgment, would begin with the earliest generations of men, that is with those who are now in their graves (but their record lives on high), and so come down through all successive generations till it reaches the living, the decision of whose cases would be the very closing act of this last work. And we may perhaps consider our experience since the cleansing of the sanctuary commenced, a demonstration of this point.
But at length the cases of all the generations of the dead will have been examined, and it will come to the living; and then as each individual case is taken up and passed upon, his probation will end and his destiny be fixed. This is the scene our Lord brings to view when just before his coming he says that this fearful fiat shall go forth: “He that is unjust, let him be unjust still; and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still; and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still; and he that is holy, let him be holy still.”
And how near are we to this solemn moment? We know not. For thirty-two years already has this closing sanctuary work been in progress. It cannot much longer continue. Its whole duration is to be spanned by one generation. This much we know, as taught by the type, that if we would have Christ’s blood avail for us to atone for our sins when our cases shall come up in that grand review, the record must show that we have sincerely repented of all our sins and sought pardon for them through our Advocate on high.
In the type the people were required on the day of atonement to afflict their souls. Are we thus faithfully crucifying ourselves to this world, that we may live in the world to come? How solemn is this time! Let us endeavor to feel the force of the following impressive lines of the poet, and give them in our memory the place they so well deserve:—
“There is a time we know not when,
A point we know not where,
That marks the destiny of men,
To glory or despair.
“There is a line by us unseen,
That crosses every path,
The hidden boundary between
God’s patience and his wrath.
“To pass that limit is to die,
To die as if by stealth;
It does not quench the beaming eye,
Or fade the glow of health.
“The conscience may be still at ease,
The spirit light and gay,
That which is pleasing, still may please,
And care be thrust away.
“But on that forehead God has set
Indelibly a mark
Unseen by man; for man, as yet,
Is blind, and in the dark.
“And yet the doomed man’s path below
Like Eden may have bloomed;
He did not, does not, will not, know,
Or feel that he is doomed.
“Oh! where is this mysterious bourne
By which our path is crossed,
Beyond which God himself hath sworn
That he who goes—is lost?
“How far may we go on in sin?
How long will God forbear?
Where does hope end—and where begin
The confines of despair?
“An answer from the skies is sent,
Ye that from God depart,
While it is called to-day, repent,
And harden not your heart.”
U. S.
FALSE VIEWS OF PAUL'S WORDS.
By J. H. Waggoner
Of all the unscriptural views now prevailing, none resorts to weaker refuges and to more untenable positions than that which opposes the perpetuity of the law of God. Every position taken by the no-law teachers on Paul's letter to the Romans, may be fairly turned against them. Every text which they claim as teaching the abolition or non-obligation of the law, is found, when fairly considered, to prove the very reverse.
Perhaps no objection is put forth with less thought and reason than that which is based on Paul's words to the elders of the church of Ephesus, Acts 20:20–27. They claim this: that Paul said he kept back nothing that was profitable to them, and shunned not to declare the whole counsel of God; but that he said nothing to them about keeping the law, and therefore it is not profitable. A conclusion more at variance with the facts cannot easily be drawn from any premise.
1. Paul preached some three years or more in Ephesus, and we have no record of anything which he preached during that time except what is said in verse 21, namely, that he taught repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. But this is plainly an enforcement of the law, for we must repent toward him whose law we have transgressed; and Paul did not teach repentance toward Jesus Christ, because he is the Mediator. By the law is the knowledge of sin, Rom. 3:20, and we must have faith toward Christ, by whom we receive remission of sin. Therefore, from all that we are able to learn of Paul's teaching at Ephesus, we find that he did enforce the commandments of God in distinction from the faith of Jesus. Rev. 14:12. And this “publicly and from house to house,” showing that these two principles, the law of God and the gospel of Christ, were the burden of all his work. Besides this, no one of the objectors can possibly tell what Paul did, or did not, preach during his three years' labor at Ephesus.
2. Or, if they apply his words to what he wrote to the Ephesians as well as to what he preached to them, the objection is equally faulty, for he wrote many profitable things in his other letters which he did not write to the Ephesians.
3. Or, if they, without any warrant, refer his words to all of his letters, the objection is contrary to the facts; for he did most emphatically teach the perpetuity of, and our obligation to, the law. He said the law proves us sinners; the object of the gospel is to have the righteousness of the law fulfilled in us; the law is spiritual; the carnal mind is not subject to it (as carnality and spirituality cannot agree); God is dishonored by those who break the law; and the law is not made void.
4. And, if his words be applied to what he wrote to the Ephesians and to what he wrote in all his other letters, the objection is faulty in this respect, that James, Peter, Jude, and John, wrote many profitable things which are not contained in the writings of Paul. To maintain this objection the objector is obliged to take the position that the writings of James, Peter, John, and Jude are not profitable! and he must reject the book of Revelation, which will shut him out of the holy city and from the tree of life. Rev. 22:19. Surely no intelligent Bible reader can honestly and conscientiously take a position involving such awful consequences.
And so, looking whichever way we will, the objection is weak and inconclusive, and can be used only by those who are not particular as to the means employed to further their own object.
We think, as Dr. Doddridge said, that he did not shun or decline to tell any thing which was of profit to them. But that we have in his writings all things which are profitable to us we know is not true, as others wrote many things of equal profit which he did not write. What he preached at Ephesus, as to particulars, we do not know; but we do know that there and elsewhere, and in his writings, he maintained the integrity of the law in the most direct and unequivocal manner. J. H. WAGGONER.
Walla Walla, W. T., Oct. 2, 1876.
ENCOURAGING
By C. W. S.
A short time since, a letter was received at this Office from a man in Minnesota, making inquiry concerning the faith of S. D. Adventists, and desiring that a preacher might be sent to his place. It seems that his attention was first arrested by reading a copy of one of our periodicals that chanced to fall into his hands.
Bro. Ings sent his letter to the president of that State Conference, and as a present aid sent the man a few tracts. Oct. 13, Bro. Ings received another letter from him, in which he states that those tracts have been read by a great many people, and by some, as glad news.
He says, “I have had some brisk arguments in regard to them, and I get almost my whole argument from that handful of tracts that you sent me. May the Lord bless you, dear brother, in the good work you did in sending them; and if it were possible for me to pay you, I would do so, and order a large amount besides to distribute in this part of the country; but I live in the grasshopper district, and have a hard time to get a living this year. There are a great many in this part that are greatly interested in the truth of this last message, and I would delight in giving them a bounteous supply of just such indisputable facts as are contained in those tracts.”
We hear from a lady, a poor woman, living in Oswego Co., N. Y. Through the missionary labors of some one, she was persuaded to read the Voice of Truth. She says, “I became an attentive reader, though at first exceedingly adverse to its doctrinal teachings; yet, as I continued its perusal till the close of its publication, and subsequently that of the Review till the close of the year, I became more and more convinced of the truth of its doctrines; and now I must say that I have received more comfort from its teachings than I ever did from any other source except the Bible.”
A man living in Aldin, Minn., sends $25; and he says, “Do with it as you think best. I wanted it to aid in sending some one here to preach the truth.”
Thus we see the seed sown by the missionary workers springing up and bearing fruit. Scores of such cases might be related.
Thus we see the people want to hear the pure truth of the Bible. May the missionary workers take courage; and may the Lord raise up more laborers for the field. C. W. S.
SOUTHERN FRANCE.
By D. T. Bourdeau
I WENT to this part of France the 1st, 2d and 3d inst., in compliance with the earnest solicitations of a French brother, who moved here from Illinois last spring. The night I arrived, several of this brother's friends called on me, and I briefly explained the object of my mission, without venturing, however, to preach, as I was not yet fully informed in regard to the nature of French laws on religious privileges, under the republic. The next day I went to the préfecture of the department, in a city of 24,000 inhabitants, consulted the secretary and préfet, or president, of the préfecture, and copied the laws of France on religious meetings. I was grieved to find that the change in the form of government had not modified the laws of the empire relative to liberty of speech, and that we meet the same difficulties in France that we do in Alsace. The French government protects, supports, and gives full liberty of speech to, the Romish, Jewish, Lutheran, and National churches only. Preachers of other denominations who venture to hold public meetings, are liable to three or six months' imprisonment, and to pay a fine of from two to four hundred francs. Yet, under Louis Napoleon's law of 1868 on religious meetings, which is more favorable than those that were enacted previous to that date, a preacher who does not belong to any of the above-named denominations, can by sending a request to the préfet, accompanied by a written declaration or petition signed by seven responsible citizens of the commune, stating the day, hour, and place, of meeting, etc., etc., get a legal permission to preach his views. The préfet was a Catholic. He tried to intimidate me, advising me to preach in temples, and stated that if he gave me papers, he would first see what the leading preachers thought. This law is evidently designed to favor the Catholic Church; yet Protestants of the leading denominations have been known to apply it to Baptists and other reformers, and fine them. It is, however, proper to remark that the influence of republican principles represses measurably that spirit of persecution that would enforce the letter of these stringent laws.
I have visited much, and yesterday, Sunday, I was cordially invited to preach in a temple of l’Église Libre (the Free Church). The Lord gave freedom, and several were in tears. I was invited to give a course of lectures in this temple . I commence next Thursday night. In the evening I spoke with liberty to a congregation three miles from that place. At the close of the meeting, the people urged me to stay with them through the winter, and I am on my way to Bâle to bring my family with me. My field of labor will be nearly 400 miles south of Bâle, near Italy, and on the very ground where so many of the noble Waldenses were put to death. The Lord grant that many may be led to imitate their example in keeping the commandments of God. D. T. BOURDEAU.
In France, nearing Geneva, Oct. 9, 1876.
HOW MUCH?
By H. A. St. JOHN
How much of a donation shall I put into the Tract Society this quarter? The above inquiry, I trust, has already occurred to many in Ohio, since looking upon the appointments for quarterly meetings. I am thankful if you are concerned in this matter; for I know you should be. I cannot tell you how much; but perhaps I may help you to determine your duty, by making a few statements relative to the wants of our Society, and the objects in view.
First, We desire to put at least 5000 copies of the new Health Almanac into families in Ohio this winter. This will take from one to two hundred dollars. But we can do it, brethren, and I feel confident that God will bless the work.
Secondly, We desire to obtain many new subscribers for our periodicals; and as many interested and worthy readers can be found who cannot pay full price, these will cost us something.
Thirdly, Every district will need a new supply of tracts and pamphlets for the winter campaign. The reading season is again at hand, and we should make every effort to improve it to the glory of God and the good of our fellow-men.
Thus you may see clearly that donations should not be stinted. Let every member be represented in the next quarterly meeting by a report; and let each report represent a liberal donation. Do not be content with giving ten, twenty-five, or fifty cents, unless it be all you can consistently do; if so, give that with a cheerful heart.
But there should be many donations of from one to twenty-five dollars. Let us continue our deposits into the never-failing savings bank of Heaven. A continuance in well-doing will secure the eternal inheritance. We must not slack until our treasure is all laid up above.
In conclusion allow me to state that the membership of our Society, as given in last report, is 230. Of this number only 127 reported; and only 106 made donations, and these donations footed up $182.57. This is an average of more than one dollar to each member reporting. This is quite well indeed; we have no word of complaint to offer. We only desire a more full report from the membership, and more liberal donations from all, to meet the increasing wants of a glorious and rising cause.
Watch, pray, and labor, shall by our watchwords.
H. A. St. JOHN.
KANSAS AND MISSOURI.
By Dudley Marvin Canright
Oct. 18, I arrived at Winslow, Mo., and found Bro. J. G. Wood engaged in a debate with an Elder Rogers of the Disciple church. I came expecting to take part in the debate; but as Bro. W. did not think I could get there, he agreed to discuss it himself. This shut me out. So I assisted him what I could, while he did the work. His opponent was a man of about average ability and was quite pleasant and fair in the debate. By the help of God and the simplicity of the truth, Bro. Wood met his opponent on every point and gained a good victory for the truth.
Bro. W. has had a large interest here for about two months, and has made many friends to the truth. He had the sympathy of the great majority of the people during the debate. Eld. Rogers managed at the beginning of the debate to throw in appointments for meetings in the school-house for two weeks ahead, though Bro. Wood had paid for one-half the cost of the house. When I requested the privilege of speaking an evening or two, Eld. Rogers refused. The people were so offended at this that they insisted upon pitching our tent for us again. We consented, and soon it was up and well warmed. Then I preached every night to a tent full. As soon as the debate was over, some fifteen new ones took their stand to keep the Sabbath, and signed the covenant. This shows what effect the debate had upon the people. Bro. W. remains still to follow up the interest.
I have kept full notes of my discussion with Eld. Shick in Kansas, and shall give through the REVIEW a brief outline of my arguments and the scriptures used. I think our Kansas ministers have brought out some good points upon the two covenants. As I used them in the debate they wished me to write them out for the paper. The kingdom question is one upon which the Disciples boast the most, and yet it is the very one upon which they are the weakest, and the farthest from the truth. Here Eld. Shick made the greatest failure. I now feel sure that our position and arguments upon that question are invulnerable. They are briefly stated in Bro. White’s tract on the “Two Thrones,” though for a debate many more points must be used. I will state these fully when I come to them.
My wife writes me very encouraging reports from the work in Rome, N. Y. I now hope to return there in about three weeks. Am now with Bro. L. R. Long.
D. M. CANRIGHT.
HINTS TO WRITERS.
By C. W. S.
1. Put a heading, as short as possible, over your article. This saves the time and wits of the one that prepares it for the printer.
2. Write as plainly as possible. This saves the time and spares the eyes of the compositors.
3. Write only on one side of a sheet.
4. Find a grammar or some old spelling book, and study the rules for the use of capital letters.
5. Try to spell correctly. Articles very badly spelled bring us only two cents a pound.
6. Don't use & for and. We have to cross them all out and write a n d instead.
7. Put a period after every abbreviation; as Bro., Sr., T. and M. for Tract and Missionary, &c., and at the end of every declarative sentence. Use a comma now and then if you know where it is wanted, otherwise leave it out.
8. When you make a period with your pen, make a period, not a straight mark; when you make a comma, see that it looks like one.
9. When you think you have written enough on an article, stop; then boil it down at least one-third.
10. Sign your name and give your State and town. C. W. S.
TO CORRESPONDENTS.
R. R. Moon: For an explanation of 1 Cor. 5:5, see “Man’s Nature and Destiny,” p. 98.
JACOB, in Gen. 32:30 says, “I have seen God face to face.” Moses, Aaron, and seventy elders, saw the God of Israel. Ex. 24:10. But Paul says that no man has seen God. 1 Tim. 6:16; and so says John 1:18. Please explain. J. W. MINER.
Ans. The person with whom Jacob wrestled, is called, in verse 24, a man. Dr. Clarke says it was without doubt the Lord Jesus Christ; and Hosea says it was an angel. Hosea 12:4. It was not, therefore, God the Father.
We have no evidence that Moses, Aaron, and the elders, saw God’s face. When Paul and John state that “no man hath seen God,” we must understand that it is said of God’s face. This becomes evident on examination of Ex. 33:20. When God said to Moses, “Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me and live,” and then immediately proceeded to show Moses the back parts of his body, covering Moses with his hand as he passed by so that he should not see his face, we understand the me has reference to God’s face.
To illustrate: We say of an individual that we have seen him, even though his back were towards us, or his face be otherwise hid. In this sense, God has been seen. In a more exact sense, speaking of a man of whom we have had simply a back view, we would say, No, I have never seen him—why, I saw his back once after he had got clear by me, but I have never seen his face. I don’t know how he looks. In this sense, no man has ever seen God.
“What is meant by these words in Acts 13:48? ‘As many as were ordained to eternal life believed.’ E. G. BLACKMAN.”
Ans. The Greek word here rendered ordained, includes no idea of pre-ordination or pre-destination of any kind. “And even if it did,” says Dr. Clarke, “it would be rather hazardous to say that all those who believed at this time were such as actually persevered unto the end, and were saved unto eternal life.” The original word signifies to place, order, dispose; hence it is here considered to imply the disposition or readiness of mind of some of the congregation to receive the words of life which Paul and Barnabas spoke to them. The Jews, verse 45, were not thus disposed; but being filled with envy, spake against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming. The Gentiles were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord. C. W. S.