Earlier text: The Patience of the SaintsPOSITION OF THE ADVENT HERALD ON THE SANCTUARY QUESTION.
By John Nevins Andrews
A correspondent of the Herald writes as follows: [See Herald of April 16th.] BRO. BLISS:—You are presenting constantly in various numbers of the Herald overwhelming and indubitable proof derived from history, Ptolemy’s Canon, various eclipses, etc., that the seventh year of Artaxerxes’ reign dated in the year B. C. 457–8, holding each and every other date to be utterly unfounded. This may be correct. Again, you still maintain as did the entire body of Adventists previous to 1843–4, that the seventh of Artaxerxes is the only true date for "the going forth of the commandment" mentioned in Dan. ix. 25, and for the commencement of the seventy prophetic weeks. And you will not for a moment allow of any other. Furthermore, you have hinted but once—I believe—and then in a monosyllable to J. M. Orrock, that the seventy weeks and 2300 years have different dates. Now, generally speaking, prima facie, each and all of your chronological deductions and arguments go to prove that the 2300 years ended in 1844. And there is a numerous class of persons scattered throughout the country who are characterized by keeping a "seventh day Sabbath," and who contend that the 2300 years run out in that year, and the heavenly Sanctuary then began to "be cleansed," who go to your writings and the Herald for all their proof. In their Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, their discourses, and in all their publications, assuming the connection between the seventy weeks and 2300 years—you are endlessly and copiously quoted to prove their position. And we up here in the country who have perpetually to combat the error, you have and do completely disarm, while our opponents every week go down to Boston to headquarters—where you furnish them with heavy weapons to fight us. What do you mean? Are the 2300 years ended? or do they reach till the Lord comes? A full answer and explanation would very much oblige hundreds of careful and interested readers of the excellent Herald. We have not space to present the answer of the Editor, which occupies about two columns of that paper. We therefore refer to some of its leading features.—He first states that the 2300 years have not ended, and that they will extend to the coming of the Lord. He then attempts to prove that the land of Palestine is the Lord’s Sanctuary; and that the cleansing of the Sanctuary is the event described in 2 Pet. iii, viz: the melting of the elements, and the burning of the earth, with the works which are therein. This he puts forth as an absolute demonstration that the 2300 years extend to the coming of the Lord. He next asserts that Daniel could have had no idea of the heavenly Sanctuary; and that the idea of cleansing the heavenly Sanctuary originated with the Devil. As the commencement of the 70 weeks with the going forth of that decree, B. C. 457, is established by "overwhelming and indubitable proof," and as the intermediate dates, and final termination of that period of 490 days are established by such an array of evidence, that, to use the language of the Herald in this very article, an alteration of these dates "would hopelessly change all chronology, and effectually destroy its authority," the only alternative is to deny the connection of the 70 weeks and 2300 days. But to satisfy the most incredulous that the 70 weeks are not the first 490 days of the 2300, the Herald affirms that "the termination of the days cannot be in the past;" [because in that case the earth would have been burned before this;] and as all can understand that 1810 prophetic days, [the number left after the 490 are cut off] could only extend from A. D. 34, where the 490 days terminated, to 1844, it will not do to admit that the two periods begin together; for the days in that case have ended, and yet, the earth is not burned! Such is the general outline of the position of the Herald. To prove that the land of Palestine is the Sanctuary, the Editor omits almost every instance in which the word Sanctuary occurs in our English version of the Holy Scriptures, and presents an argument from the original Hebrew. This seems like a virtual admission that there is no tenable ground in the English Bible for the view that Palestine is the Sanctuary. Relative to the argument drawn from the Hebrew, we of course say nothing. We have only to remark that if the question, What constitutes the Sanctuary? can be answered from the English version of the Bible, it can be settled beyond all controversy that the tabernacle of God (typical and antitypical) is the only thing that God recognizes as his Sanctuary. On the cleansing of the Sanctuary, the Herald first argues that the cleansing of the Sanctuary is its justification, and then, somewhat singularly, contends that this act of justifying the Sanctuary is performed by burning it up, with all the rest of the material globe! after which, new heavens and new earth are created. But admitting that the land of Canaan is the Sanctuary, and that the burning of the earth is the cleansing of the Sanctuary, there is not even then, a single testimony in the Holy Scriptures that the conflagration of our globe will occur at the second Advent. On the contrary, this event is evidently located among the closing scenes of the day of God. See Rev. xx; xxi. And as a matter of consequence the 2300 years cannot reach to that event. But the idea of justifying a thing by consuming it in the fire, is very singular, and extraordinary indeed. Certain it is, that whether the Bible recognizes any such justification of a thing or not, the idea of cleansing or justifying the Sanctuary by fire, is never once hinted; the only method there recognized is by blood. Lev. xvi. The assertion of Bro Bliss that Daniel could have no idea of the heavenly Sanctuary has been, we think, sufficiently met in former articles in the Review, in which we have shown that Gabriel in his explanation of the vision of the eighth chapter, did in chapter ix, bring to Daniel’s view the anointing of the true tabernacle, as the closing event of the 70 weeks. We have cited various testimonies on this point; but perhaps that of Bro Bliss himself, as given in the Midnight Cry, April 13, 1843, may be as much to the point.—Speaking of the day of Pentecost, he says: "Then also the Most Holy had been anointed—the last event of the 70 weeks; for then Christ had entered into the Holiest of all, and sprinkled it with his own blood." Then according to the testimony of the Editor of the Herald, the heavenly Sanctuary was presented to Daniel’s mind. The statement of the Herald that the cleansing of the heavenly Sanctuary is a doctrine which originated with the Devil, directly charges Paul with writing, not by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, but under the direct influence of the Devil. For the Apostle establishes this doctrine in the most satisfactory manner. He testifies thus: "It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us." Heb. ix, 23, 24. But that the Advent Herald should deny the connection of the 70 weeks and 2300 days is that which causes us the greatest surprise. If this is to be considered as its future position, we think its conductors should no longer claim to be the advocates of the peculiar views of Wm. Miller. Whoever wrests from Mr. Miller the view that the 70 weeks are the first 490 days of the 2300, robs him of the great argument by which he aroused the world on time, and without which he would have been able to effect but little.—As the Herald chooses to deny the connection of these two periods, rather than to admit that we may have been mistaken respecting the Sanctuary, we would respectfully present the following questions for its consideration:205 Was not Gabriel commanded to explain to Daniel that vision in which the period of 2300 days was given? Did not Gabriel on that occasion explain every part of the vision to Daniel, with the exception of the Sanctuary and 2300 days? Does not Daniel say, however, at the close of the chapter, that he was "astonished at the vision but none understood it?" If none understood it, had Gabriel fulfilled the divine mandate, "Make this man to understand the vision?" Did not that charge still rest upon him, accomplished only in part? Was not Daniel in Chap. ix earnestly seeking God, with reference to the Sanctuary? Does not the man Gabriel whom he had seen in the vision of Chap. viii, in answer to this prayer, say to Daniel, "I am now come forth to give thee skill and understanding?" Does he not then charge him to understand the matter, and to consider the vision? Is not this a clear and unanswerable testimony, that Gabriel has now come to complete the charge given him in chapter viii, which was, "Make this man to understand the vision?" Does he not begin his explanation with the subject of time? Is not the phrase "Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city," literally rendered, "Seventy weeks are cut off upon thy people" &c? Have you not proved this point at length from the testimony of such men as Dr Gill, Hengstenberg, Gesenius, and many other scholars of high standing, and also from the Septuagint and Vulgate? What are the 70 weeks "cut off" from? From nothing? or from indefinite space? As the great period of 2300 days had been given in the vision of chapter viii, is it not certain, when Gabriel comes to finish the explanation of that vision, and testifies that 70 weeks are cut off, that they are cut off from the only period which had been given, viz: the 2300 days? Is there then the least ground for a reasonable doubt that the 70 weeks are the first 490 days of the 2300? And as the commencement of the 70 weeks in B. C., 457—the termination of 69 of them in A. D. 27, of 69 and a half in the Spring of A. D. 31, and of the whole period in the Autumn of A. D. 34—is established beyond all controversy, can there be the least question that 1810 days (the number left after cutting off 490) would extend to the Autumn of 1844 and no farther? And is it not true that Gabriel does explain the fact to Daniel, that only 490 of the 2300 days belong to the earthly Sanctuary? And does not Gabriel name the anointing of the heavenly Sanctuary as the last event of the 70 weeks? Does not the ninth chapter of Hebrews plainly and distinctly testify that about that time, the earthly Sanctuary was superseded by the heavenly, even as the Levitical priesthood gave place to that of the order of Melchisedec? If the ninth of Daniel is an appendix and explanation of the eighth, can the conclusion be avoided, that Gabriel did explain the transfer from the earthly Sanctuary to the heavenly, and that the 2300 days expired in 1844? If the ninth of Daniel is not an explanation of the eighth, how can the wise at the time of the end, understand the 2300 days, when no starting point for the period has ever been given? Finally, can any criticism set aside the fact that the Sanctuary of the first covenant was the tabernacle which Moses erected as the pattern of the true, [Heb. ix, 1–5.] and that the Sanctuary of the new covenant is the true tabernacle which the Lord pitched and not man? Heb. viii, 1–5. THE CLEANSING OF THE SANCTUARY.
By Editor
We are pleased to notice an article in the Advent Herald for April 3, headed, "The Atonement," written with evident reference to our views of the closing work in the heavenly Sanctuary. As we entertain no other feeling toward the conductors of the Advent Herald than that of respect, we are much gratified that they are now calling the attention of their readers to this subject. The article begins with a reference to a former argument in the Herald, (noticed in this number of the Review,) that the mountain on which Jerusalem is built, is the Sanctuary to be cleansed at the end of the days. It next refers to our view, that the heavenly Sanctuary is the one to be cleansed, in fulfillment of Dan. viii, 14. In contending against this view, it candidly admits that the ninth chapter of Hebrews teaches the purification or cleansing of the heavenly Sanctuary, but declares that this event was to be accomplished at the commencement of Christ's ministration, and not at its conclusion. In the language of the Herald, "When were those heavenly things purified by the blood of Christ? is the question at issue." The admission of this plain fact, that the heavenly Sanctuary, was, according to Paul, at a certain period, to be cleansed, we could have hardly expected. It seems to contrast somewhat singularly with the remark in the Herald for April 16, that "to talk about the cleansing of some heavenly Sanctuary which was never defiled," "is so absurd that the idea could only have originated in a device of Satan to confuse and mislead honest souls." As our brethren of the Herald have in two weeks so far advanced, that, from declaring the doctrine of the cleansing of the heavenly Sanctuary a "device of Satan," they now admit the fact in distinct terms, and only contend that that event is located by the Bible at the commencement of Christ's ministration and not at its close, we are interested to continue the investigation with them a little longer. Were it possible to show that the word Sanctuary applied to ten thousand different objects, there would, even then, be no chance for dispute relative to that object which God designates as his Sanctuary, and to which the prophecy of Daniel belongs. Paul has stated in explicit language what the Sanctuary of the first covenant was. Hence, we may obtain an exact idea of what was the Sanctuary, from the days of Moses to the first Advent. Does he state that it was mount Zion, the land of Canaan, the earth, or the church? Neither of these is named by Paul as the Sanctuary of that covenant; on the contrary all are omitted, and another definite object is presented, viz: the tabernacle which Moses erected as a pattern of the true in heaven. Read his statement in Heb. ix, 1-5. The Sanctuary of the new covenant is stated with equal distinctness, viz: the true tabernacle which the Lord pitched and not man. Heb. viii, 1, 2. There are but "two covenants" and the Sanctuary connected with each is so plainly and distinctly named in the New Testament that no effort of criticism can substitute something else in their place. Daniel's vision of the 2300 days begins in the period of the first covenant and extends across a large part of the gospel dispensation, or period of the second covenant, to the immediate vicinity of the second Advent. As a matter of consequence the vision of Daniel covers about 490 prophetic days of the period of the typical Sanctuary, and the remainder belongs to the antitypical Sanctuary, which at the end of that period took the place of the type. The Herald freely admits the ministration of the Levitical priesthood in both the holy places of the earthly tabernacle, and, also, that the greater, and more perfect tabernacle in heaven has taken the place of that pattern. But it contends (if we do not mistake its meaning) that the holies of all is the only part of the earthly tabernacle that was a pattern of the true tabernacle in heaven; and that the ministration in that apartment was the only part of the ministration in the earthly tabernacle that prefigured the ministration of Christ in heaven; and that, unlike the earthly high priest, who cleansed the Sanctuary at the close of his ministration, because the sins of the people had been borne there, our High Priest cleanses the heavenly Sanctuary at the very commencement of his ministry, and preparatory to his act of making intercession for us. As the antitype commenced when the type ceased, so Christ must then have begun his ministration in the holies of all in heaven; the act with which he commences that ministration being the cleansing of the Sanctuary. Hence, "there has been no heavenly Sanctuary to purify" since our Lord's first act as High Priest. From these views of the Herald we dissent, for the following reasons: 1. Because the entire building, viz: the two holy places, (and not merely the holies of all,) is expressly stated to be the pattern of the true tabernacle. (1.) Moses, at the command of God, made a tabernacle consisting of two holy places, after the pattern showed to him in the Mount. Ex. xxv, 8, 9; xxvi, 33. (2.) David received the pattern of the temple "by the Spirit;" and Solomon erected the temple consisting of two holy places, after that pattern. 1 Chron. xxviii, 10-19; 2 Chron. iii. (3.) Paul testifies that these holy places were the figures [plural] of the true and patterns of things in the heavens. Heb. ix, 23, 24. (4.) The word rendered Sanctuary, [Heb. viii, 2.] and Holies of all, [Chap. ix, 8; x, 19.] is plural signifying holies, or holy places; thus furnishing incontrovertible testimony that the heavenly Sanctuary does not consist merely, or the holies of all. 2. We dissent from the position of the Herald that the ministration in the holies of all was the only part of the work of the earthly priests that typified the work of our Lord in the heavenly tabernacle. (1.) We know of no evidence to sustain such a view. (2.) It is expressly stated that the ministration of the priests under the typical dispensation was "the shadow of good things to come;" "the example and shadow of heavenly things;" and that Christ ministers in the greater and more perfect tabernacle, a High Priest of those good things to come. Heb. viii, 5; ix, 11; x, 1. (3.) The holies of all, containing the ark of God's testament is not opened until the sounding of the seventh angel. Rev. xi, 19. We think these facts do completely disprove the view that there is but one apartment to the tabernacle in heaven, and that our Lord is a minister simply of one holy place. If we are correct in believing that the ministration in the earthly tabernacle was "the example and shadow" of Christ's more excellent ministry, then it is a certainty that Christ does not exactly reverse the order of that ministration! In other words, as the work of the earthly high priest was concluded by the act of cleansing the Sanctuary, and placing the sins, thus removed from it, upon the head of the scape-goat, we may not expect our High Priest to begin his work in the heavenly tabernacle by that act. If so, the work in the earthly tabernacle, instead of being the example and shadow of Christ's work, is exactly the reverse of it. Nor is there the least intimation in Paul's commentary on the types, that the cleansing of the Sanctuary is to be before the Lord Jesus ministers to that building for our sins. On the contrary, Paul shows that the heavenly Tabernacle was to be cleansed for the same reason that the earthly Sanctuary had been, viz: because the sins of the people had been borne there. Heb. ix, 23, 24. This fact incontrovertibly proves that the cleansing of the heavenly Sanctuary, like that of the earthly, occurs at the conclusion of the ministration therein. The Herald quotes and comments on Heb. ix, 11, 12, 24, 28; x, 12-14; vii, 25, as proof that Christ commences his ministration in the true Tabernacle by purifying it with his own blood. We see no evidence whatever in these texts. It is true that Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and that by virtue of the blood which he then shed, he entered into the heavenly Tabernacle; but this does not furnish the first particle of testimony that he then cleansed the Sanctuary, or that indeed there could with any propriety be such an act. The treading under foot of the heavenly Sanctuary is no more difficult, than the treading under foot of its minister, our Lord Jesus Christ. Heb. viii, 2; x, 29. The concluding paragraph of the Herald confesses in distinct terms the fact of the cleansing of the heavenly Sanctuary, though it represents that event as transpiring at the commencement of Christ's ministration instead of its conclusion. It speaks as follows: "We feel that an apology is due for broaching the subject, for it seems almost incredible that any could be found who could assume a position as contrary to Paul, that the heavenly Sanctuary was not purified at the death of Christ. But we suppose that mental idiosyncrasies will never cease." John Nevins Andrews We are not able to find anything in the national world to mark the division of time into weeks: and find that their organization depends upon the order of God in the work of creation: and that the Sabbath which marks that division, has its own commemorative act. That order had already been established by the great "I Am," and could not be changed without destroying the force of its organization. Are we not forced to take one of two positions? That the custom of reckoning time by weeks was not then in use; or that it did not derive any force from anything added to it at this time. The fact of the custom of reckoning time by weeks by the patriarchs does not however rest upon mere supposition, Gen. xxix, 27, is positive testimony on that point. Laban says to Jacob when he complained to him of his giving him in marriage Leah instead of Rachel, fulfill her week; or in other words, rejoice with her during the week of the feast. It appears that it was a custom of those days, to make a feast of a week, even as it was in the days of Sampson, after the giving of the law in precept. Must we not conclude that the order of weeks was not instituted after the Israelites came out of Egypt? There are, also, other facts mentioned, which go strongly to show the custom of reckoning time by weeks in Noah's day, viz: The frequent reference to the term seven days. See Gen. viii, 11, 12. From these testimonies, is it not apparent that the order of the Great Creator of man and the world in that work has ever been known to his church and instruction derived from, and respect had unto it? and that God in requiring the Israelites in the words of our text to gather twice as much bread on the sixth day as they gathered on other days was the confirming a knowledge already possessed, (although perhaps but slightly heeded,) and the strengthening and proving their faith in him? Moses appears, in part, to have been called of God for the purpose of bringing his church into a systematic form of worship, giving it a paramount ("till the seed should come") organization, and making it an embodied typical system. By careful observation of customs prior to the Exode, it will be seen that he was not so much the originator (or the instrument through which they were received) of these obligations and relations as he was the instrument by which those already existing were brought into a systematic order; receiving the renewed sanction of God's approbation and special will. Leaving this part of the subject for the present; and as we have traced our text backwards to the Sabbath of creation, we will now start with the Sabbath and see if we find our text.—Let us consider Gen. ii, 2, 3. It is recorded there, God blessed and sanctified the seventh day, (which has been before noticed.) From this, we learn that God did bless and set apart unto himself, or sanctify the first seventh day of time; so that it never has belonged to man as his time. But has ever been blessed and sanctified of God. I would like to refer here, to a prophecy in Mal. iii, 9. "For ye are cursed with a curse: for ye have robbed me, even this whole nation." Are there any of the tithes of which God has been so completely robbed as of his Sabbath? The number seven is often used as signifying perfection or complete, designating the whole. This signification of the number seven appears to be attached to it from the fact that in the first six days, the work of God in creation was completed, and on the seventh day the Sabbath instituted a memorial of the same.—Now leave out the Sabbath, and what idea can we get of perfection or complete from the number seven. As we are here able to ascertain when and how the Sabbath was made, (for Jesus says that it was made. See Mark ii, 27,) our next point will be to ascertain whether the church had not the knowledge of the Sabbath institution, and were, therefore, amenable to its claims. Gen. iii, 15, we read of the promise of the seed which gave birth to a hope, and before which Adam dared not see God. And in verse 17, we read that the earth was cursed. I shall claim the position that the acts recorded in Gen. ii, 2, 3; iii, 15, 17 (and the same might be said of other truths recorded in the scriptures of truth) were known to the church at the time that the events were recorded to have taken place. Chap. iv, 26. We read that men began to call on the name of the Lord. No one probably will doubt that that call was inspired through the hope contained in the promise recorded in Chap. iii, 15, and that it fairly proves that that promise became the property of the church at the time that it was recorded. Although Adam was only a representative of the church at that time. How often do we hear this promise referred to as the basis of the believers hope or faith prior to Abraham's day, and not a doubt raised that it was to that end that it was given. And who will hesitate to say that it was not the origin of that faith in which those died (who lived prior to Abraham.) Not having received the end of their faith but seeing it afar off, who are referred to in Heb. xi, 13. Gen. v, 29. Over 1000 years after the curse recorded in Chap. iii, 17, we read of Lamech speaking of the ground which the Lord had cursed. Does not this fairly prove that chap. 3, 17 was known to the church at that time? It does, and shows us that it was one of the great truths upon which the religious system of those days was based. Gen. vi, 3. "And the Lord said, my Spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh; yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.—Here we find the simple fact recorded that God said that the days of man should be an hundred and twenty years. And yet with what assurance do we find commentators and expositors of the Bible seizing hold of it, and bringing it forward as proving that the world had a warning of a hundred and twenty years to prepare for the flood (certainly not considering it as a mere record of something about which the world should be indifferent) And who hesitates, that has any faith in the Bible to concede that this is a legitimate application of the text. Now does not the admission of the conclusion that those texts contain truths that had an obligatory claim or force upon the world from the date of their record, prove that Chap. ii, 2, 3, had a like obligatory claim: as is also witness by the fourth precept of the law as given at Sinai by God, such a conclusion is irresistible. And he that would destroy one would be not for an equal purpose be found caviling at the others. How natural this view of Gen. ii, 2, 3, makes the reading of Ex. xvi, 4; "that I may prove them whether they will walk in my law or no." Let us consider Abraham the father of the faithful. Gen. xii, 1, 3. We find the making of the promise to him is the very thing that brings him to view as favored of God. And yet we find that the promise was made to him because he kept God's laws. See chap. xxvi, 5. Therefore we see that he must have fulfilled obligations which existed prior to this time, and which God calls his laws. But the Apostle Paul says that he received the promise through faith. We therefore conclude that Abraham fulfilled the obligation of the law through faith in God and not from the precept of the law as a forced obedience. See John. viii, 40. Hence we conclude that what God spake with his mouth, what he wrote on tables of stone did take cognizance of sin—of the moral obligations that were enforced upon Abraham—were the conditions (with its appendages connected with the typical service) of the entrance of the Israelites into the typical land—and of the entrance into the everlasting inheritance when fulfilled under the ministration of the Seed. Is the professed church of God now maintaining the government of God as thus brought to view from the creation of the world? We are forced to answer, no. Then as the Lord himself has perpetuated the obligation of this government, [see Matt. v, 19] and God witnessed. And as we have found that the moral obligation of the Sabbath existed from Gen. ii, 2, 3, we are forced to admit that he fulfilled it from heaven by an audible voice that we should hear him. As the apostles also perpetuated the same, by declaring that sin is the transgression of the law—that the doers of the law shall be justified—the law entered that the offence might abound. What then is their duty wherein the government is not so maintained? The answer is plain. To come up as repairers of the breach as restorers of paths to dwell in. A remark respecting the obligation of the Sabbath with the law which I saw recently in the Watchman, I will notice. The writer remarks of the fourth precept, "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy," that it says remember it to keep it holy. And by laying stress on the word keep, endeavors to convince the mind that there was no obligation to keep it holy previous to this. The falsity of the reasoning will be at once apparent if we apply the same to the first precept. "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." Laying the same stress on the word shalt, and the reasoning leads us to the position that the obligation to have no other gods, originated from the giving of the precept. Can the writer inform us to whom the world were amenable previous to this? It appears to me that the truly candid reader with the subject fairly before his mind, can hardly be found to be caviling at the obligation of the church, or worshipper of Him who made the heavens and the earth, to regard the Sabbath as a holy institution prior to its taking the form of a precept in the law. Or that he will need to look for other evidences than the scriptures afford, and which I have endeavored to bring out, to decide that the Israelites did know what day was the sixth day, and did understand the meaning of the command to gather twice as much bread on the sixth day as on other days.
O. DAVIS.
North Fairhaven, Mass., 1853. DEAR BRO. WHITE:—The clock has this morning struck three, and I have been thinking this hour of that time, "when the voice of the trumpet sounded long, and waxed louder and louder." Ex. xix, 19.—When some six hundred thousand witnesses stood before the mountain, to receive "the lively oracles to give unto us." Acts vii, 38. Whose voice then shook the earth: but now he hath promised, saying, "Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven." See Heb. xii, 26-29. I have been thinking, also, of my dear brethren and sisters, who are laboring in the cause of truth. Do I say, the cause of truth? Yea, the cause of truth.—David said, "Thy law is the truth—and all thy commandments are truth." And though men may say the law of God is done away—the truth is done away; and though they may try to make void the commandments of God, in order to teach for doctrine the commandments of men; and though they may "turn away their ears from the truth, and be turned to fables," even such fables as the "Sunday-Sabbath" fable, and the "no Sabbath" fable, yet the voice of God, is now calling attention to the "commandments of God," as well as to the "faith of Jesus;" and while this voice is being sounded long; and while we know that it is to wax louder and louder, until the words of the Most High shall be heard above all other words, and his law above all human laws and commandments of men, we, therefore, thank God, and take courage dear saints of the Most High. But who are the worshipers of the beast and his image? It cannot be those who "worship God in spirit and in truth." Compare John iv, 24; Phil. iii, 3. But, "howbeit, in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For, laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men." Mark vii, 7. Now this language of Christ may as well apply to the Sabbath commandment as any other. Those who teach "no Sabbath," or that "the first day of the week is the Sabbath," they both "lay aside the commandment of God," which says, "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God." And if they teach that the first day of the week is the Sabbath of the Lord, then they teach for doctrine a commandment of men, (because it is not commanded in the scriptures.) Therefore, they worship the Lord of the Sabbath day in vain! And if this teaching for doctrine the no Sabbath commandment, or the first day of the week Sabbath commandment is worshipping Christ in vain; then I would respectfully ask, where does this kind of worship go, if207Christ will not receive it, but to the beast, the changer of "times and laws?" Dan. vii, 25. B. CLARK.
Alden, N. Y., April 20th, 1853. A Sabbath Keeper’s Testimony
By John M. Mills
DEAR BRO. WHITE:—I thank the Lord for his love to his children, and for what he is doing for his dear scattered remnant in these last days of affliction and opposition to the truth. It is about twenty years since I embraced the Sabbath, and joined the Seventh-day Baptist Church.—And in the Fall of 1839, I moved to Illinois, with my family, where we were entirely alone in keeping the fourth commandment. And as we still endeavor to keep the Sabbath, and hold up the force of the Sabbath commandment, and hearing professed ministers of the gospel holding up doctrines unscriptural, I became more determined to take the Bible as the man of my counsel, and trust in the Lord to guide me into the truth as it is in Jesus. And as I advanced in this determination, I became more desirous to know the right way and walk in it. I soon began to see more clearly that the churches were running off the Gospel ground, and became much troubled about it. In the Spring of 1847, we moved to Wisconsin, where we met with the Seventh-day Baptist brethren again, (where we now live.) I still felt it to be my duty to hold up the Bible truth on other subjects; and to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints. In so doing, I met with strange opposition, and was turned out of the church. In this, I felt to rejoice, that I was counted worthy to suffer shame for Christ's sake. I felt willing to have my name cast out as evil, if I could only do the will of my Heavenly Father. I trusted in God, and prayed earnestly to the Lord to guide me into all truth, and to pity his dear children, and cause them to stand in vindication of the truth. I will here say, that I had not heard of the Advent Brethren until a little over one year since, when a friend of mine gave me one of your papers, and an article on the subject of the Sanctuary; and soon after, gave me a pamphlet containing your position. And when I came to read it, I found to my surprise, it seemed to speak my views and feelings better than I could have done myself.—And I felt to praise the Lord for what he was doing for his dear people; and I feel to praise the Lord to day for his loving kindness. It rejoices my heart to read the letters from the dear brethren and sisters, in the Review, and my prayer is, that the Lord will keep them humble, and lead them on to victory. Yours in the hope of the soon coming kingdom,
JOHN M. MILLS. Utica, Dane Co., Wis., April 22d, 1853. Rejoicing in Present Truth
By Marcia S. Avery
DEAR BRO. WHITE:—I hardly know how to keep silent, when the Lord has so greatly prospered us in this Western Country. O, what great things he has done for us here of late. My soul is filled with love and gratitude to him, for his manifest goodness towards us. It is with sensations of pleasure that I read, through the Review, the heart-cheering and strengthening letters of so many dear children of our Father. The Lord is truly good; yes, he is faithful and true. With a thankful heart, I trust that I deeply appreciate the goodness and tender mercies of our Heavenly Father, in showing us the true light as it is in his Word. Almost our entire neighborhood are all rejoicing in the present truth; and O, what unity and peace, here, prevail. We are all united in Christ our head, and happy, and rejoicing in the Lord, and he is frequently adding to our numbers, praise his name. How refreshing are our meetings every Sabbath. We love to meet together, and our Saviour blesses us, I humbly trust, with his glorious presence. I do rejoice that I have been called to take a full view of the commandments, and to see that ten instead of nine, shine forth as clear now, as in the ancient days of Moses. How beautiful they all are. O, what a delight to observe them all. How great the blessing mankind received, when the All-wise Jehovah conferred on them, the blessed gift of his hallowed day.—I do delight in the peaceful, sacred hours of his Sabbath. How welcome, and how needful to the weary soul, is this holy Rest-day, that we can devote its hours to meditation and prayer. I feel to regret that so much of my life has been spent in trampling upon and desecrating his commands, the fourth in particular, but the sincere prayer of my heart is, that my future, daily walk may be in the paths of truth and righteousness, and that the many misdeeds of the past, may be forgotten and forgiven. By the aid of my Father, I am determined henceforth, to live nearer to him, willing and happy to endure the bitter contempt and scorn of this cold and deceitful world for his name's sake. Yours in the love of the commandments of God, and the hope of eternal life, at the soon coming of his Son,
MARCIA S. AVERY.
Locke, Mich., Apr. 4th, 1853.