Earlier text: OBJECTIONS TO THE SABBATH ANSWEREDSabbath Observance After the Apostles
OBSERVANCE OF THE SABBATH FROM THE TIME OF THE APOSTLES TO CONSTANTINE.
After the Acts of the Apostles, Christianity soon became widely spread in the Roman empire, which, at that time, extended over most of the civilized world. But as it receded from the time of the Apostles, and the number of its professors increased, the church became gradually less spiritual, and more disposed to deck the simple religion of Jesus with mystery and superstitious formalities; and the bishops or pastors became ambitious of their authority over the churches. These churches, even in Gentile cities, appear to have been composed, at first, principally of converted Jews, who not only observed the weekly Sabbath, but also the feast of the Passover, adapted particularly to Christian worship; respecting which, there was much contention. In the mean time, converts were greatly multiplied from among the Gentiles, and were united with those from the77 Jews, who, not without some reason, considered themselves entitled to some distinction as the original founders of the gospel church, and as being better informed in the writings of Moses and the prophets, having been in the custom of reading them every Sabbath in the synagogues. About three years after the martyrdom of Peter and Paul, according to the common account, Judea was invaded by the Roman armies, and Jerusalem was besieged and destroyed, as our Lord had predicted. By this awful calamity it is supposed that most of the churches in Judea were scattered; for they fled their country at the approach of their enemies, as they were taught by Jesus Christ to do. (Matt. xxiv, 16.) This war resulted not only in the breaking up of the nation, and the destruction of a great portion of the people, but also a general odium was brought upon the Jews wherever they were found; so that even the Christians of Judea suffered what our Saviour taught them to expect, Matt. xxiv, 9—"And ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake." These circumstances, added to the enmity which formerly existed between the Gentiles and the Jews, produced a prejudice which had its influence in the church, in bringing into disrepute, and in fixing a stigma upon, whatever was looked upon as Judaism. "The doctrines of our Saviour and the church flourishing from day to day, continued to receive constant accessions," says Eusebius, "but the calamities of the Jews also continued to grow with one accumulation of evil upon another." The insurrectionary disposition of the conquered Jews in the reign of Trajan, in the early part of the second century, and the calamities that followed them, seemed to confirm the opinion, that the Jews were given over by the Almighty to entire destruction. But the calamities of the Jews increased in the reign of Adrian, who succeeded Trajan, in whose reign the revolt of the Jews again proceeded to many and great excesses, "and Rufus, the lieutenant governor of Judea, using their madness as a pretext, destroyed myriads of men, women and children, in crowds; and by the laws of war, he reduced their country to a state of absolute subjection, and the degraded race to the condition of slaves." The transformation of the church in Jerusalem is thus described by Eusebius: "The city of the Jews being thus reduced to a state of abandonment for them, and totally stripped of its ancient inhabitants, and also inhabited by strangers; the Roman city which subsequently arose changing its name, was called Ælia, in honor of the emperor Ælias Adrian; and when the church was collected there of the Gentiles, the first bishop after those of the circumcision was Marcus." [Ecel. Hist. B. 4, ch. 6.]—Thus was extinguished the Hebrew church in Jerusalem, having had a succession of fifteen pastors; "all which," says Eusebius, "they say, were Hebrews from the first. At that time the whole church under them," he adds, "consisted of faithful Hebrews, who continued from the time of the Apostles to the siege that then took place." [B. 4, ch. 5.] This church, which heretofore held the first rank in regard to its influence, being now a new church, composed entirely of Gentiles, and stripped of its apostolic character and influence, could no longer successfully oppose the growing ambition and influence of the bishops of the church in the metropolis of the empire. Up to this time, and for some time after, there does not appear to have been any change in the sentiments or practice of the church, in any place, relative to the Sabbath; but from what is related by subsequent writers, which will be noticed in its place, it is certain that it was observed by the churches universally. This fact is so generally acknowledged by those acquainted with the history of the matter, that we need refer to only a few passages in proof:— The learned Grotius says, in his Explication of the Decalogue, "Therefore the Christians also, who believed Christ would restore all things to their primitive practice, as Tertullian teacheth in Monogamia, kept holy the Sabbath, and had their assemblies on that day, on which the law was read to them, as appears in Acts xv, 21, which custom remained till the time of the council of Laodicea, about A. D. 365, who then thought meet that the gospels also should be read on that day." Edward Brerewood, Professor in Gresham College, London, in a treatise on the Sabbath, 1636, says: "It is commonly believed that the Jewish Sabbath was changed into the Lord's Day by Christian emperors, and they know little that do not know, the ancient Sabbath did remain and was observed by the eastern churches three hundred years after our Saviour's passion." At what time the first day of the week came into notice as a festival in the church, it is not easy to determine. The first intimation we have of this, in any ancient writer of acknowledged integrity, is from Justin Martyr, about A. D. 140. [Apology for the Christians.] He is cited as saying, "that the Christians in the city and in the country assembled on the day called Sunday; and after certain religious devotions, all returned home to their labors;" and assigns as reasons for this, that God made the world on the first day; and because Christ first showed himself to his disciples on that day, after his resurrection. These were the best, and probably all the reasons that could then be offered for the practice. He also speaks of Sunday only as a festival, on which they performed labor, when not engaged in devotions; and not as a substitute for the Sabbath. And further, we can learn nothing from this as to the extent of this practice; for though he says this was done by those "in the city and in the country," he may have intended only the city of Rome and its suburbs. For, although Justin was a native of Palestine, in Syria, he is stated by Eusebius to have made his residence in Rome. Nor can we determine from this, that he intended anything more, than that they did thus on the Sunday in which the church of Rome, a short time after this, is known to have closed the paschal feast, which was observed annually. We are aware, that it is contended that mention is made of keeping the first day, previous to Justin. The first of these it is believed, is from an apocryphal writing, styled the Epistle of Barnabas. It is an important objection to the whole of this epistle, that there is no evidence of its genuineness. Eusebius, who lived near the time when it was written, mentions it as a spurious writing, entitled to no credit. [B. 3, ch. 25.] Dr. Milnor says it is an injury to St. Barnabas, to ascribe this epistle to him. [Ab. Ch. Hist. p. 54.] And Mosheim says it is the work of some superstitious Jew of mean abilities. [V. 1, B. 1, p. 2, ch. 2.] And we think it has but little to recommend it besides its antiquity. His theory for observing the first day, rests upon the tradition, that the seventh day was typical of the seventh millennium of the age of the world, which would be purely as holy age; and that the Sabbath was not to be kept until that time arrived; and he says, "We keep the eighth day with gladness, in which Jesus arose from the dead." The citations from Ignatius, [Ep. ad.] are as little to the purpose. In the passage of which most use has been made, he neither said that himself or any one else kept the Lord's day, as is often asserted. His own words are, that "the prophets who lived before Christ came to a newness of hope, not by keeping Sabbaths, but by living according to a lordly or most excellent life." In this passage, Ignatius was speaking of altogether a different thing from Sabbath-keeping. There is another quotation from him, however, in which he brings out more clearly his view of the relation existing between the Sabbath and Lord's day. It is as follows: "Let us not keep the Sabbath in a Jewish manner, in sloth and idleness. But let us keep it after a spiritual manner, not in bodily ease, but in the study of the law, and in the contemplation of the works of God." "And after we have kept the Sabbath, let every one that loveth Christ keep the Lord's day festival." From this it seems that he would have the Sabbath kept first, as such, and in a manner satisfactory to the strictest Sabbatarian, after which the Lord's day, not as a Sabbath, but as a festival. Indeed, with this distinction between the Sabbath and a festival before us, it is easy to explain all those passages from early historians which refer to the first day. We shall find them to be either immediately connected with instructions about such seasons as Good Friday and Holy Thursday, or in the writings of those who have recommended the observance of these festival days. It is also said that Pliny, Governor of Bithynia, in A. D. 102, in a letter to Trajan, states that the Christians met on the first day of the week for worship; but by no fair interpretation of the words can he be so understood. He says, in writing about those of his own province, "that they were accustomed to assemble on a stated day." This might be referred to the first day, if there were credible testimony that this day was alone regarded by Christians at that time; but as there is no evidence of this, and as the Sabbath is known to be the stated day of religious78 assembling a long time after this, it seems altogether more proper to refer it to the Sabbath than to the first day. We will mention but one more of these misinterpreted citations, and this is from Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, who lived a little after Justin. His letter to Soter, bishop of Rome, is cited as saying, “This day we celebrate the holy dominical day, in which we have read your epistle.” As given by Eusebius, it is thus: “To-day we have passed the Lord’s holy day,” &c. The only ground upon which this phrase can be referred to the first day, is, that this day was at that time known by the same title that God has given to the Sabbath, (see Isaiah lviii, 13,) of which there is no evidence. Therefore it is not just to cite this passage as evidence of the observation of the first day at that time. It is, indeed, a well known fact, that this day has come into very extensive use among the great body of Christians, as the only day of weekly celebration. The origin of this practice does not appear, however, to be as ancient as many suppose, by some centuries; nor was its adoption secured at once, but by slow and gradual advances it obtained general notice in Christian countries. This is frankly admitted by Morer, an English Episcopalian, in his Dialogues on the Lord’s Day, 236. He says, “In St. Jerome’s time, (that is, in the fifth century,) Christianity had got into the throne as well as into the empire. Yet for all this, the entire sanctification of the Lord’s day proceeded slowly; and that it was the work of time to bring it to perfection, appears from the several steps the church made in her constitution, and from the decrees of emperors and other princes, wherein the prohibitions from servile and civil business advanced by degrees from one esteem to another, till the day got a considerable figure in the world.” The same author says on the same page: “If the Christians in St. Jerome’s time, after divine service on the Lord’s day, followed their daily employments, it should be remembered, that this was not done till the worship was quite over, when they might with innocency enough resume them, because the length of time and the number of hours assigned for piety were not then so well explained as in after ages.” Prejudice against the Jews was another influence against the Sabbath, and in favor of the first day. This was very strong, and directly calculated to lead the Gentile Christians to fix a stigma upon every religious custom of the Jews, and to brand with Judaism whatever they supposed had any connection with the Mosaic religion. Hence it was in those times, as it often occurs in our own, that to produce disaffection and disgust to the seventh day as the Sabbath, they spoke of it and reproached its observance as Judaizing. This general feeling in relation to Judaism led Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, in Egypt, in the fourth century, who with his people then observed the Sabbath, to say, in his Interpretation of the Psalms, “We assemble on Saturday, not that we are affected with Judaism, but to worship Jesus the Lord of the Sabbath.” In a community of Christians whose religion was formal, and whose celebrations were designed more to act upon the passions and senses than to improve their hearts or to conform them to divine requirements, a more powerful argument could not be used against the Sabbath day, which was kept by the Jews, or one that could more effectually promote the observance of the first day, which was raised up as its rival. Dr. Neander says distinctly, “Opposition to Judaism introduced the particular festival of Sunday very early.” The observance of the Passover, or Easter, by the early Christians, aided the introduction of the first day as a religious festival in the church. If it was not indeed the direct cause of it. This feast was held by the Asiatic Christians, who began it at the same time the Jews began their Passover, and ended it in like manner, without regard to the particular day of the week when it began or closed. The church of Rome does not appear to have observed it until the latter part of the second century, when in the time of Victor, bishop of Rome, it seems that it was observed by the Roman and Western churches. Victor insisted upon the fast being closed on the first day of the week, on whatever day it might commence; and he claimed the night, as bishop of Rome, to control all the churches in this matter.—“Hence,” says Eusebius, “there were synods and convocations of the bishops on this question, and all (i. e. the western bishops) unanimously drew up an ecclesiastical decree, which they communicated to all the churches in all places, that the mystery of our Lord’s resurrection should be celebrated on no other day than the Lord’s day; and that on this day alone we should observe the close of the paschal feasts.” The bishops of Asia, however, persevered in observing the custom handled down to them by apostolic tradition for a considerable time, until, either by the threats of excommunication which were made, or by a desire for union, they were induced partially to adopt the custom of the western churches. This change was made, as we are told, “partly in honor of the day, and partly to express some difference between Jews and Christians.” The question, however, does not appear to have been fully settled, for we find Constantine, in an epistle to the churches, urging them to a uniformity in the day of the celebration, wherein, after a strong invective against the practice of the Jews, he says, “For we have learned another way from our Saviour, which we may follow. It is indeed most absurd that they should have occasion of insolent boasting on account of our not being able to observe these things in any manner unless by the aid of their instruction.” “Wherefore let us have nothing in common with that most odious brood of the Jews.” By this contest an important point was gained for the first day, although it was but an annual celebration. The Sabbath does not yet appear to have been laid aside in any place, but continued to be the principal day of religious worship throughout the whole Christian church. At what time the first day began to be observed weekly, we have no particular account; but from the favor it received from the bishops of Rome and some of the Christian fathers at the close of the third and beginning of the fourth century, we suppose it had become a practice in Rome and some of the western churches. This brings us to near the close of the third century. And here it ought to be noted, that Lord’s day, or Sunday, was not the only holiday of the Church, during these three centuries. Origen names the Good Friday as we call it now, the Paravesce as he calls it there; the feast of Easter and of Pentecost. And anciently, not only the day which is now called Whitsunday, or Pentecost, but all the fifty days from Easter forward, were accounted holy, and solemnized with no less observation than the Sundays were. Of the day of the Ascension, or Holy Thursday, it may likewise be said, that soon after, it came to be more highly reckoned of than all the rest. Such was the estimation in which the Lord’s day was held. It was on a level with those other holy days which are now disregarded by the body of the Protestant Church. It is to be remembered, further, that the term Sabbath was applied exclusively to the seventh day of the week, or Saturday. Indeed, wherever, for a thousand years and upwards, we meet the word Sabbatum in any writer, of what name soever, it must be understood of no day but Saturday. “Sanctify them through thy truth; thy word is truth.” PARIS, MONDAY, MAY 5, 1851. THE SANCTUARY.—There is much importance attached to a correct and thorough understanding of the subject of the Sanctuary to be cleansed at the end of the 2300 days. The correct view of this subject shows clearly that the days have terminated, harmonizes our past Advent experience, and shows that the proclamation of the Advent which produced such happy and sanctifying effects up to 1844, was the work of God. Those who apply the word Sanctuary to the earth, or Palestine, and the cleansing of it to the burning of the world, cannot explain their own position. It is hoped that some, at least, of those who have advocated the end of the days this spring, and have again been disappointed, will now look at our views of this subject, before seeking a new date for their termination. But it is a fact that many who profess to stand on the present truth, have neglected a prayerful and persevering study of the Scriptures, and are, therefore, unprepared to give the reasons of their faith. Such are not only unprepared to instruct, and lead others into the truth, but they are in danger of being overthrown by the reasonings of those who oppose it. We wish to urge upon all the importance of taking heed to the injunction of Christ, to “Search the Scriptures.” To aid the brethren and sisters in studying the subject of the Sanctuary, we give the following from the pen of O. R. L. Crosier. “The definition of the word Sanctuary is, “a sacred place,” [Webster,]—“a holy or sanctified place, a dwelling place of the Most High,” [Cruden.] It seems to us that the word Sanctuary cannot be applied to the earth upon any principle whatever. The primary meaning of the word forbids such a use of it, and it cannot be so applied in a figurative sense, because the thing to which it is figuratively applied must possess a quality agreeable to the meaning of the word—it must be holy. This cannot be said of the earth. Therefore the Sanctuary is not the earth. We now notice the Scriptural usage of the term. The word Sanctuary occurs 104 times in the Bible—100 in the Old Testament, 6 in Daniel, and 4 times in the New Testament, all in the epistle to the Hebrews. It occurs 5 times in its plural form, Sanctuaries. It is applied 90 times to the tabernacle and temple, sometimes to a part and sometimes to the whole. It is so applied twice in Daniel, chap. ix, 17, 26, and three times in Hebrews, chap. ix, 1, 2; xiii, 11. In two texts it is by some supposed to be applied to the land of Canaan, Ex. xv, 17, and Ps. lxxviii, 54; in two to the Lord, Is. viii, 44 and Ezek. xi, 16; in one to Judah, Ps. cxiv, 2; in three to Heaven, Ps. cii, 19, Jer. xvii, 12; and Heb. viii, 2; in one to Moses’s place of prayer, Is. xvi, 12; and in one to Jeroboam’s chapel at Bethel, Am. vii, 13, (margin.) We have not counted Dan. viii, 11, 13, 14; xi, 31, because its meaning in these texts is disputed by some. We believe that any who will take the pains to examine will find the above to be a full and faithful statement of the different senses in which the word Sanctuary is used in the Bible. From these we can learn its primary meaning and legitimate usage. If the vast majority of evidence can determine our judgment in favor of any one among the several, as the proper application of the term, we should decide at once that its appropriate application was to the tabernacle and temple, while they stood; and after their day, to that of course which they, while standing, represented, while its application to other objects is unnatural and figurative. This we hope, if the Lord will, to make appear to the satisfaction of the sincere.79 Let us, in the first place, examine those texts in which the term Sanctuary seems to be applied to other objects than the tabernacle and the temple; and, we doubt not, that we shall find “the testimony of Jesus” uniform. 1st. “Thou shalt bring them in, and plant them in the mountain of thine inheritance, in the place, O Lord, which thou hast made for thee to dwell in; in the Sanctuary, O Lord, which thy hands have established.” Ex. xv, 17. This is a part of the prophetic song of Moses, sung upon the banks of the Red Sea, in praise to God for deliverance from Egypt, and in prospect of their settlement in Canaan. It is quoted in Ps. lxxviii, 54, and its fulfillment declared, “And he brought them to the border of his Sanctuary, even to this mountain, which his right hand had purchased.” Some have understood the word Sanctuary in these texts to mean the land of Canaan; and then, from the fact that that land was a type of the whole earth, they inferred that the Sanctuary in the vision of Dan. viii, was the earth. On Ex. xv, 17, Cruden says, “By Sanctuary here may be understood the temple on Mount Moriah, which God would certainly cause to be built and established.” This opinion is conclusively shown to be correct from the context of Ps. lxxviii, 54. After declaring in v 54 that God brought his people to the border of his Sanctuary, the Psalmist in vs. 68 and 69 tells us what his Sanctuary was which his hands established, “But chose the tribe of Judah, the Mount Zion which he loved. And he built his Sanctuary like high palaces.” This was the temple of Solomon, built on mount Moriah, near mount Zion in Jerusalem; and this mount Zion was the “mountain of his inheritance,” “the border, (i. e. the place) of his Sanctuary.” There the Lord dwelt upon the mercy seat among his people. This explanation of the Psalmist dissipates the only plausibility that exists for calling the Sanctuary the earth; and shows beyond all cavil that those very Scriptures which have been taken to support that opinion actually condemn it. Will our respected brethren, who have taught us this opinion, candidly look at this matter and honestly confess the truth. May the Lord help them to do it. 2nd. Isaiah, chap. viii, 13, 14, says, “Sanctify the Lord of hosts himself; and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread. And he shall be for a Sanctuary:” and the Lord says in Eze. xi, 16, “Although I have scattered them among the countries, yet will I be to them as a little Sanctuary in the countries where they shall come.” The Sanctuary was a place of security from the avenger of blood and from their enemies, and when in foreign countries they prayed with their faces toward the temple at Jerusalem, hence God’s providence towards his people while scattered in their captivity was “for” or “as,” i. e., instead of their Sanctuary. 3d. “Judah was his Sanctuary,” Ps. cxiv, 2, “when Israel came out of Egypt,” i. e. God was among them in a cloud and a pillar of fire; and, in the division of Canaan, Jerusalem, where the temple was afterwards built, fell in the lot of Judah, Josh. xv, 63; and when the ten tribes revolted, Judah remained loyal, and was the kingly tribe. 4th. When Moab “Shall come to his Sanctuary to pray, he shall not prevail,” Is. xvi, 12. This shows that the heathen Sanctuary was a place of religious gathering and worship. 5th. The chapel which the King of Israel built at Bethel, as a rival to the temple at Jerusalem, was called his Sanctuary. Am. vii, 13, (margin.) The way is now prepared to notice the primary meaning of the word Sanctuary, and its history. In Bible history the Mosaic Tabernacle was first the Sanctuary, then the temple which took its place, and from the time the Temple was “left desolate” the Sanctuary was in Heaven. The first name given to these things of which the Tabernacle formed a part, was, Sanctuary. While Moses was in the mount with God he received the institutions which Israel were to observe in the land to which they journeyed. He was commanded to receive from the people their voluntary offerings of the necessary materials, and the Lord said, “Let them make me a Sanctuary; that I may dwell among them. According to all that I shew thee, after the pattern of the tabernacle, and the pattern of all the instruments thereof, even so shall ye make it.” Ex. xxv, 1-9. From this we learn, that the Sanctuary embraced the tabernacle and all the instruments thereof, which are described in this and the following chapters of Exodus,—the principal parts of which are, the Ark with its Mercy-Seat and Cherubims, the two Altars, one of Incense, the other of Burnt-Offerings, the Table of Shew-bread, the Candlestick and the Laver. These were all enclosed in a Court 100 cubits long and 50 broad, made of curtains hung upon brazen pillars. The tabernacle itself seems to have been only an adjunct to the Sanctuary to hide its most sacred parts and services from the common gaze. This is evident from the book of Numbers. After the tabernacle had been set up at Sinai, the Lord chose the tribe of Levi to be dedicated to its service. They were divided into three families, descended from the three sons of Levi, Gershon, Kohath and Merari. The sons of Gershon had charge of “the tabernacle, and the tent, the covering thereof, and the hanging for the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and the hangings of the court, and the curtain for the door of the court, which is by the tabernacle, and by the altar round about, and the cords of it for all the service thereof.” Num. iii, 25, 26. The sons of Kohath were to “keep the charge of the Sanctuary,” defined to be, “the ark, table, candlestick, altars, and the vessels of the Sanctuary, wherewith they minister, and the hanging, (“between the holy and the most holy,” Ex. xxvi, 31-33,) and all the service thereof,” vs. 27-32. The “charge of the sons of Merari was, the boards of the tabernacle, and the bars thereof, and all the vessels thereof, and all that serveth thereto, and the pillars of the court round about, and their sockets, and their pins, and their cords,” vs. 36, 37. When the camp was to set forward, Aaron and his sons covered the Sanctuary, composed of the things mentioned in Kohath’s charge, and all its vessels, which were the furniture of the altars, table and candlestick, such as spoons, bowls, tongs, snuf-dishes, oil-vessels, censors, flesh-hooks, shovels, basons, &c., and the sons of Kohath came “to bear it,” ch. iv, 4-15. It is distinctly said that when the camp set forward, the sons of Kohath should bear the Sanctuary upon their shoulders, ch. vii, 9; x, 21. In the charges of these three families of Levi we find a particular definition of the Sanctuary. The sons of Kohath had charge of all that properly constituted the Sanctuary, the things embraced in the charges of Gershon and Merari being only the appurtenances of the Sanctuary. In strict definition, therefore, the Sanctuary was composed of those things only which were necessary to, and actually used in, the work of making atonement for the people. The reader, perhaps, cannot now see the importance of defining so particularly what the Sanctuary was; but the reason for it will appear in the sequel, if the Lord permit us to pursue the subject. This Sanctuary was called “the house of God,” Josh. ix, 23; xviii, 1; Judges xviii, 31; xix, 18; xx, 18, 26, 31; xxi, 2; 1 Sam. i, 3, 7. It was his prepared dwelling place among his people,—the place of his special presence was in the most Holy place of the tabernacle, on the mercy-seat, between the cherubims, (Ex. xxv, 22; Lev. xvi, 2; 1 Sam. iv, 4; 2 Sam. vi, 2,) though at the morning and evening sacrifices he met them at the door of the congregation, Ex. xxix, 38-44. This continued to be the Sanctuary and house of God, till Solomon built him an house for the Sanctuary, 2 Sam. vii, 4-13; 1 Chr. xxii; xxviii, 1-10. David received the patterns for it, “by the Spirit,” and gave them to his son, vs. 11-13. When Solomon had built the temple, the ark and the holy vessels were brought into it, 1 Chr. xxii, 19; 1 Kings viii, 6. While in battle or in their enemies land, they were to pray with their faces toward this house, 1 Kings viii, 44-49, which was called the “temple of the Lord’s holiness,” Ps. v, 7, (margin.) This Daniel did at Babylon, Dan. vi, 10. The Sanctuary being the place whence they looked for help, Ps. xx, 2, and the place of their sacrifices, it was, among the gifts of God, the centre object of their affections—a thing indispensable to the perpetuity of their peculiar polity. When the Assyrian desolated their Sanctuary, their religion was prostrated—their nationality gone. Hence Daniel’s fervent interest in prayer to God, to cause his face to shine upon his Sanctuary that was desolate, Dan. ix, 17. We feel confident that we have now presented, though briefly and doubtless imperfectly, the true view of the Sanctuary for the period of time spoken of, that is, from Moses to Daniel. No other view can be supported from Scripture. We apprehend none will be attempted, unless it be that which applies the term to Palestine; but that theory is refuted by the context of the only two texts that can be adduced to sustain it. Within three months from the time that the song was sung, of which Ex. xv, 17 is a part, the children of Israel were commanded to make the Lord a Sanctuary at Sinai, Ex. xxv, 8. There is not the least hint that any thing else was the Sanctuary besides that which they then made, until the Lord appointed his people a place and “planted them,” 2 Sam. vi, 10-13, according to Ex. xv, 17, by the building of the temple and the establishment of the kingdom under Solomon. Its fulfilment is again recorded in Ps. lxxviii, 54, and explained in verse 69:—“And he built his Sanctuary like high palaces.” Though that song may have contemplated a more remote and glorious fulfilment, yet these scriptures declare, at least, its temporary fulfilment, and they have not a shred of plausibility for the theory that the land of Palestine was the Sanctuary—not a foothold for even an inference. We come in the next place to inquire what the Sanctuary of Dan. viii, 14 is. The chronology of that prophecy makes it certain that it was not the Jewish Sanctuary, because our Saviour declared it “left desolate,” Matt. xxiii, 38, the Romans “destroyed the city and the Sanctuary,” about A. D. 70, and “the end thereof shall be with a flood,” Dan. ix, 26—irrecoverably destroyed. Yet, though the Jewish Sanctuary ceased to be the Sanctuary 1800 years ago, something else existed to the end of the 2300 days which was called the Sanctuary, and was at the end of that period, to undergo a change which is expressed by the word “cleansed,” “justified,” “vindicated,” or “declared just.” Do the Scriptures teach us to what the name Sanctuary was transferred from that which had been the Sanctuary under the Mosaic dispensation? We think they do. Paul, after stating the prominent parts and uses of that Sanctuary, tells us that it “was a figure for the time then present,” Heb. ix, 1-9. Of what was it a figure? On this question two positions have been taken: 1st. That it was a figure of the Gospel church; 2d. That it was a figure of heaven or something in heaven. In the epistle to the Hebrews one thing is made very clear, which if kept in view will greatly aid us in the solution of this question, viz: That Christ at his ascension entered the place of which the Jewish Sanctuary was a figure, pattern or type, and that it is the place of his ministry during the Gospel dispensation. This fact Paul places beyond all controversy. Now, if the Gospel Church be the antitype of the Mosaic tabernacle and the temple of Solomon, as many believe, then Jesus never ascended to heaven as his disciples thought he did, and the angels said he did, Acts i, 9-11; but he vanished into his disciples that “stood gazing up into heaven,” and the two angels only completed the deception—he never “went away” and will never “come again,” and our hope is vain; for, if there be no second coming, there will be no resurrection, no reward. “The sum” of Paul’s argument to the Hebrews is: “We have such an High Priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty80 IN THE HEAVENS; A MINISTER OF THE SANCTUARY, and of the true tabernacle; which the Lord pitched, and not man.” This is the only text in the New Testament in which the word Sanctuary is found, except the three that speak of the Jewish Sanctuary. And now we feel safe in stating, that there is no Scripture authority for calling any thing else the Sanctuary under the Gospel dispensation, but the place of Christ’s ministry in the heavens, from the time of his ascension to the Father till his second coming. If there be, let it be produced. May grace, mercy and peace be with you.—Amen.—Day-Dawn.