AN objection is often urged against this view, viz., that if a substitute be accepted and the penalty of the law be laid upon him, then there is no pardon—no mercy, but justice only in the transaction. For, says the objector, if the debt be paid by another person, it cannot justly be held against the principal; payment cannot be twice demanded. The fatal fault of this objection is this: It regards crime as a debt, which it is not.
A man may owe a debt without any guilt attaching to him; but not so of sin. In the very first step there is mercy toward the sinner in the acceptance of a substitute in his behalf; and after the substitute has suffered the penalty, the sinner is as deserving of punishment in his own person as he was before. He has done nothing to relieve himself of the odium of his crime. All must see, at a glance, that what has been said about the acceptance of conditions is a necessary part of this system of pardon, as the Government not only needs satisfaction for the past, but a safeguard for the future. This the mere payment of a past debt would not furnish. Therefore the acceptance of a substitute who volunteers to bear the penalty of crime opens the way for pardon to be granted consistently with justice. Now if the criminal accepts that substitute so as to make the offering his own, and fulfills the required conditions, so that he unites his efforts with those of the substitute in honoring the law, then the Government has its safeguard against future rebellion. But without this, all the evils of unconditional pardon may accrue from the action of the sinner, even though a substitute have suffered in his behalf.
But if the law be honored by the suffering of the substitute, and the sinner cease to sin, and accept the conditions, as herein proposed, there remains no difficulty. The Government is honored in the justice of the transaction, and the sinner is justified and saved by its provision of mercy. But if any of these particulars be lacking, the system will then be defective. Pardon granted on any other terms tends to iniquity, violating the principles of right and justice, and subverting government.
It is unnecessary to argue, but well to mention, that a substitute, to render satisfaction to justice, must be free from condemnation in his own life; he must be innocent in the sight of the law, or free from its transgression. For one criminal to offer his life for another would not be any satisfaction to justice, seeing his own was already forfeited.
RIGHTS OF SUBJECTS.
While advocating the claims of the Government, we must not lose sight of the truth that the subjects have claims on justice also. As very much is due from the subjects to the Government, so something is due from the Government to the subjects. It is expected of a Government to establish its laws, and of the subjects to obey them; but it should be able to present tangible and substantial claims to obedience. We notice, then,
1. The Government must plainly reveal its laws. It is recorded of a certain tyrant that he caused his laws to be posted at such a height that they could not be read, and then punished those who did not keep them. This was injustice—it was indeed tyranny. It is law that defines our duty; and in order that obedience may be justly enforced, such declaration of duty should be clear and distinct: not left to supposition, or to doubtful inference. We have before considered that a moral government, a system above nature, is acknowledged; but what is due to that government our consciousness, or moral sense, does not inform us. On this point, our opinions, if not guided by revelation, will be as various as our impulses, our interests, or the difference of our circumstances and education. But if our duties be left to our own judgments, with our conflicting feelings and interests, our determinations will be so various that confusion and anarchy must unavoidably be the result. It would in truth be no law—no government. Was ever a government known that proclaimed no laws, but left all actions entirely to the choice of the subjects? No! there could be no government under such conditions. Shall we then admit that God, the Creator of heaven and earth, is a moral Governor, and this we do by admitting a moral system, and yet deny his justice, his wisdom, and, in fact, his very government, by denying the revelation of his will, or law, to man? Such a denial is too unreasonable to be tolerated; it involves conclusions too absurd and derogatory to the divine character. It is really sinking Deity below our ideas of a wise human governor.
But again: As it is the prerogative of the Government to ordain its laws, so it is its sole prerogative, as we have seen, to determine the means whereby a rebel may be restored to citizenship, and as the law must be plainly revealed to serve the purposes of justice, so,
2. The Government must plainly reveal the conditions of pardon. The right to ordain conditions being exclusively in the Government, the subjects or offenders can have no means of ascertaining them, except by direct revelation. If left without this, they can never be restored; for it would be absurd to leave the offenders to devise their own means. That would be to place the dearest rights of the Government into the hands of criminals, a thought unworthy of consideration. In all this we plainly see that one demand of justice is written revelation. And so reasonable is this, so consistent with the plainest principles of justice, that, instead of objecting to a written revelation, every one that is capable of reasoning correctly should expect such a revelation, as strictly necessary to the moral Government of God.
CONCLUDING REMARKS AND QUESTIONS.
1. If God has instituted morals, he is a moral Governor, and has a moral law; for there can be no government without a law. If there is a moral law, it must be the only standard of morality; and it follows that we can only determine a man's character in a moral point of view, by comparing his life with the law of God—the moral rule. For, as we have before noticed, there is no earthly Government which is administered on purely moral principles. God alone can govern on such a basis. Therefore, whoever has violated God's law has lost his moral character by such violation as surely as morality consists in obedience to moral law. But we are all conscious of having violated the principles of right and justice—most of our race in a most glaring manner. All around us are evidences that man has ruined himself by sin. How may he be acquitted and restored? Can you devise a plan which will honor the Government, vindicate justice, maintain the authority of the law, and yet save the sinner? Have you ever considered this matter?
2. We have considered that the Government has the sole right to dictate the terms whereby man may be restored to favor. We trace a plain distinction between the systems of nature and morality; but in neither, unassisted by direct revelation, can we discover the measure of obedience due to the divine Government, or the method or means whereby we may be reconciled to our Creator. How shall we obtain this information?
3. We have also seen the utter inability of man to save himself from the penalty of his transgressions, and the imperative necessity of a mediator to atone for us, and to vindicate justice in our pardon. And our fellow-men are all in the same condition, as helpless and unworthy as ourselves. Who shall act as our mediator?
Friendly reader! if you have trusted in reason and nature; if you have been skeptical as to divine revelation, we entreat you to turn not hastily away from these thoughts; pause and reflect. Have you made your boast of reason? "Come, now, let us reason together." Can you invalidate, or with reason deny, the positions taken in the preceding pages? Can you answer the three questions proposed above? Can you tell with certainty what duty you owe to your Creator, the moral Governor? or on what principle you expect to be justified before God? Do you know how you may be restored after you have offended? Can you show where we may learn all this? In a word, do you not need a written revelation?
Again, would it not serve the cause of justice, and the true purposes of government, to have the laws of our lives, moral laws, published for the benefit of those amenable thereto? Surely, it would. So far from being astonished at the idea of a written revelation—a publication of the divine laws—we should expect it; justice demands it. And, if we could not produce such a document, would you not esteem it an oversight in the Governor?
Once more: An Atonement has been supposed to lead to immorality. But, according to what has been proved, it is the only possible method of restoring the sinner to favor which does not lead to immorality. It is readily granted that any theory by which the Atonement is claimed to have abolished the law of the Most High, or relaxed its claims, leads to immorality. And we regret exceedingly that there are some systems professing to represent Christianity, which uphold such a demoralizing view; some professedly Christian ministers who preach that the gospel set aside, superseded, or abolished the law of God which he had revealed to man. Such teachings are a perversion of the gospel; subversive of justice and every right principle of Government, and highly dishonoring to the Son of God who came to establish the law and to put down rebellion against his Father. But, can that lead to immorality which acknowledges the justice of law, removes rebellion, and restores the wrong-doer to obedience? You will see that this objection arises, not from any defect in the system of the Atonement, but from the ignorance of the objector as to what that system is. We readily admit that to abolish a good law because it has been disobeyed, and thereby leave men free from its obligations, is to license the crime committed and to utterly subvert all government. We claim nothing for an Atonement on such grounds, and should be obliged to reject anything purporting to be a revelation from God which led to such unjust and unreasonable conclusions. The Bible presents a pure system of morality, and, through the Atonement, a means of pardon, consistent with every requirement of justice, and every correct principle of government. It neither favors indulgence nor gives license. Pardon maintains law; license upholds crime. There is as great difference between pardon and license as there is between liberty and licentiousness; and he who cannot discern the difference as recognized in the Atonement, may well be pitied.
Do not think that we discard reason because we plead for the Bible and its truths. And we entreat you not to abuse your reason in a vain effort to make it answer a purpose which it will not, and for which it was never designed. Reason is not evidence; nor can it create evidence. It can only weigh the evidence when presented. But revelation and evidence are the same. And now if it can be shown, we claim, that the Bible is in perfect harmony with these principles, and enforces them strictly, there will remain no reasonable objection against it as a revelation from the great "Lawgiver." Will you join in a patient investigation of this matter? No subject can be more worthy of your attention. Let us examine the Bible itself, and discover what is the morality which it teachers, and what means it reveals for the salvation of those who have dared to disregard the claims of the divine Government.
The Responsibilities of Wealth.
The simple giving of money for great public or for charitable purposes is the discharge of only one, and not the most important duty connected with wealth. Men have founded useful and benevolent institutions and scattered money quite freely among the poor, whose personal influence has been far from wholesome. Wealth brings special temptations to the person endowed with it. It affords the means of gratifying the appetites, which it stimulates. It creates an insatiable desire for further accumulations. It brings the person almost necessarily into the society of utterly worldly men. It loads the mind and life with such incessant burdens that opportunities for thoughtful, religious meditation and social services are crowded aside. The relief it gives from a sense of constant dependence upon God for the support of the daily life occasions the absence of that continued filial trust in an imminent special Providence out of which heart-felt prayer is born. The multiplied comforts with which it can surround its earthly life dim the brightness of the concealed glory of the heavenly mansions. These things sometimes make dying terrible. They so benumb as well as burden the spiritual life as to give solemn emphasis to the Saviour's words: "How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God."—Zion's Herald.
NOTE.—The Sabbath-school notes this week were written at the camp-meeting, under circumstances not the most favorable, as we did not have the Instructor containing the lesson, and our time was quite fully occupied with other duties. Since there was no paper last week, we thought best to briefly pass over both lessons, as there were points in the lesson that would have been omitted, upon which we wished to comment. Other points would be noticed if we had space.
THERE are those who think more of apostolic example than they do of the commandments of God. We do not believe that they that were sent were greater than He who sent them, therefore we give the commandments of God and Christ (which are always the same) the preference. But we believe in following the example of the apostles in the main, because they were usually exactly right. Acts 17:2 presents a practice which we believe in following. When Paul came to Thessalonica he found a congregation of the Jews; "And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three Sabbath days reasoned with them out of the Scriptures." From this we learn that Paul was in the habit of observing the Sabbath. We are not surprised at this, for he himself said, "I delight in the law of God." Compare this statement in regard to Paul's custom with the fact that we have the record of only one sermon preached by Paul upon the first day of the week, and that upon that same first day he traveled twenty miles. Upon which side is the weight of apostolic example? We shall have more on this point hereafter.
IT is interesting to notice Paul's method of preaching. He "reasoned with them out of the Scriptures, opening and alleging that Christ must needs have suffered," etc. He did not use a single text as an excuse for reading a learned essay, or delivering an eloquent oration, but he preached the Bible itself. The Bible was his text-book, and he studied it with his congregation. And he did not present his views in an apologetic manner. He knew what the Bible taught, and believed it; there was no guess-work about the matter. He presented the truths of God's word as facts. It is this sort of preaching that wins souls if anything will, and it was so in this case. Many believed; "of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few."
BUT envy had possession of many of the Jews, so that facts had no weight with them. They attempted to do by force what they were unable to do by legitimate argument. They "took unto them certain lewd fellows of the baser sort" and made an uproar, trying to destroy Paul and Silas. This move was ostensibly in the interest of religion, yet they were willing to accept the assistance of the lowest rabble. No doubt these lewd fellows took great credit to themselves for the zeal which they manifested in the cause of religion. In their minds that act would atone for all the profligacy of which they had been guilty, and that in which they proposed to indulge. When men can be religious by persecuting the righteous, all the wicked suddenly become converted.
"AND when they found them not, they drew Jason and certain brethren unto the rulers of the city, crying, These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also." Well, if that is what they had been doing, ought they not to have been stopped? What business had Paul and Silas to go around the country stirring up the people? Just this right: The Lord had sent them out with a special message of truth for the people. Their only work was to deliver their message. If people rejected it, and grew angry at them, that was none of their business. Indeed, that is just what they were taught to expect. The Saviour said, "For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household." Matt. 10: 35, 36. It was not because Christ loved strife, that he said this; but he had come to speak the truth, and he knew that the truth would cause division. Men who reject the truth will ever be opposed to those who, by accepting the truth, condemn them. We hear men deprecating the preaching of Sabbath reform, because it causes divisions. Such ones would have used all their energy to choke down Paul, had they lived in his day, for he stirred up more strife than any other man of whom we have any knowledge. Yet these persons profess to believe in Paul. We are strongly reminded of Matt. 23: 29-31.
WHEN Paul and Silas were forced to leave Thessalonica, they came to Berea, where also there was a congregation of Jews, of whom Luke says: "These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so." Here we have true nobility, according to the Bible standard. It is now considered a mark of wisdom and honor to doubt the word of God, and to criticise and try to pick flaws in it; but God decides differently. The words "more noble" mean literally "of better birth"; so those who with meekness receive the word of God into good and honest hearts are of far higher birth than those who despise it, since they are the sons and daughters of God.
THEY "searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so." What Scriptures did they search? The Old Testament—the only Scriptures they had. What things were Paul and Silas preaching? The things concerning Jesus of Nazareth—his life, death, resurrection, ascension, and second advent. Then, since these Bereans searched the Old Testament to find out the truth of the apostles' preaching, it must be that they referred them to that same book. Then it must be, also, that the gospel is found in the Old Testament as well as in the New. And so it is, for Paul says that the gospel was preached to Abraham, and he lived many hundred years before any of the New Testament was written. Indeed, although we have the New Testament, we could not be certain that it is true, or that Christ is the Son of God, and the Saviour of the world, if it were not for the Old Testament.
It is worth while also to notice how the Bereans studied the Scriptures. They searched them daily. Nothing but daily study of the word will give a person a knowledge of its truths. And they studied with an object; they desired to find out if those things were so. And we may well suppose that, since they searched for this purpose, it was their firm intention to accept the teaching of Paul and Silas, if they were found to be true. And this is proved by the next verse: "Therefore, many of them believed." This would be the case now if men would search the Scriptures; but as it was then so now, the majority prefer to search tradition, the testimonies of the Fathers, or science (falsely so called), or if they do search the Scriptures, they do so with a spirit of caviling and doubt, and do not, like the noble Bereans, receive the word "with all readiness of mind."
WHEN Paul came to Athens, his spirit was stirred, powerfully agitated, because he saw the city wholly given to idolatry, or full of idols. Athens was then the metropolis of the world, the seat of all learning and art. It no doubt had more in it to attract the eye than all the rest of the world. Livy says that it "was full of the images of gods and men, adorned with every variety of material, and with all the skill of art." Another writer humorously said that "it was easier to find a god than a man there." Paul was educated and refined; he doubtless had an eye for the beautiful, both in nature and art. But his was the true culture and refinement—the culture that comes from an acquaintance with God. The vanities of Athens had no attraction for him. He could think only of the one thing—that all these were leading from God. How many Christians are there at the present time who, like Paul, are agitated over the wickedness that abounds, rather than attracted by and lost in admiration for the splendor which is often only a covering for vice? In this age of the world especially the Christian has something far higher to attract the attention than mere sight-seeing.
"THEN certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoics, encountered him." The Epicureans derived their name from Epicurus, who lived about 300 years before Christ. "They denied that the world was created by God, and that the gods exercised any care or providence over human affairs, and also the immortality of the soul. [They denied all future existence.] One of the distinguishing doctrines of Epicurus was that pleasure was the summum bonum, or chief good, and that virtue was to be practiced only as it contributed to pleasure." It is easy to see to what practices such doctrines would lead. The Stoics believed that the universe was created by God, but that all things were fixed by fate; that even God was under the dominion of fate. It will be readily seen that Paul's teaching would be diametrically opposed to such doctrines as these.
WE should not fail to notice the adroitness and skill with which Paul introduced his subject. The philosophers had said, "He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods." Now the Athenians were very jealous of the worship of their gods. Pausanias says that they greatly surpassed all others in their zeal for religion. It was dangerous for any one to speak against their idol worship. About 400 years before, Socrates, one of their own philosophers, the wisest and most highly esteemed of any among them, had been put to death because they thought he was unsettling the minds of the young, and teaching disrespect for the gods. Now if Paul had introduced his subject bluntly, it is doubtful if he would have been allowed to speak at all. Thus he would have defeated his own purpose. So he took them on their own ground. He said, "I perceive that ye are somewhat superstitious." The word "superstitious," as used here, means "excessively religious." He had seen an altar with the inscription, "To an unknown God;" so he said, "Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you." They could find no fault with him for teaching them more perfectly concerning a God whom they professed to worship. By this means he was able to preach to them further, "Jesus and the resurrection." Paul showed on this occasion the wisdom of the serpent, in winning souls to Christ, as the apostles had been commanded. Those who labor in these days would do well to learn a lesson from this. And yet, how many are there who would not compromise the truth should they be placed in Paul's circumstances, and attempt to do as he did?
IT was only lately that we noticed a criticism on Paul, because he did not preach Christ, but attempted to convince the Athenians by science. He must be a very careless reader who could make such a criticism. It is not to be supposed, of course, that we have the whole report of Paul's sermon, for it would not have taken him two minutes to deliver it. This report gives only the heads of his discourse. It is a perfectly legitimate thing to prove the existence of God, from nature, and this is what Paul did. Having proved the existence of God, and his nature, he introduced the gospel in these words: God "now commandeth all men everywhere to respect; because he hath appointed a day in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead." We do not think a more powerful gospel sermon could have been preached than Paul preached at Athens. E. J. W.
JUST ISSUED.
A BOOK FOR OLD AND YOUNG.
SKETCHES FROM THE LIFE OF PAUL.
By MRS. E. G. WHITE.
In this book the history of Paul's life, from the time when he “made havoc” of the church until he was “offered up” as its chief representative, is traced in a clear and connected manner. Paul's allusions to himself in his epistles are connected with the record in the book of Acts in such a manner as to throw great light both on the epistles and the “Acts.” But that which gives the book even greater value than its historical accuracy, is the lessons that are drawn from Paul's words, and the hardships which he endured, and their practical application to our own times. This is a marked feature of this work, and the instruction given in this way cannot be estimated in dollars and cents. 234 pp., neatly bound in cloth, $.80.
Address SIGNS OF THE TIMES, Oakland, Cal., or REVIEW AND HERALD, Battle Creek, Mich.
JUST ISSUED.
By Editor
A BOOK FOR OLD AND YOUNG.
SKETCHES FROM THE LIFE OF PAUL.
By MRS. E. G. WHITE.
In this book the history of Paul's life, from the time when he "made havoc" of the church until he was "offered up" as its chief representative, is traced in a clear and connected manner. Paul's allusions to himself in his epistles are connected with the record in the book of Acts in such a manner as to throw great light both on the epistles and the "Acts." But that which gives the book even greater value than its historical accuracy, is the lessons that are drawn from Paul's words, and the hardships which he endured, and their practical application to our own times. This is a marked feature of this work, and the instruction given in this way cannot be estimated in dollars and cents. 234 pp., neatly bound in cloth, $.80.
Address SIGNS OF THE TIMES, Oakland, Cal., or REVIEW AND HERALD, Battle Creek, Mich.
Who Was Melchizedek?
Our readers, and especially those who have been in the faith of the Third Angel's Message for a number of years, may be surprised that we present this query again in our paper. It has been so often noticed that we have some fears of its becoming tedious. And we speak especially of those of our faith, because our views of the sanctuary and the priesthood are so well established, they have received such close examination and borne such rigid criticism, that it would seem impossible for any one who is well acquainted with our positions to admit the chance of a further argument. But it is a truth, a sad truth, that some will spend more time in speculating on improbable points than in developing plain truths and duties. We do not speak thus by way of complaint; we are always willing to notice any subject whenever it becomes necessary to vindicate the truth, and whenever the opportunity is presented of helping those who are in doubt.
This is not an unimportant question. It is so closely connected with the subject of the sanctuary and the priesthood that we are free to confess that if it is possible to identify Melchizedek, to tell who he was further than is revealed in the reference to him in Gen. 14 and the letter to the Hebrews, we shall have to reconstruct our faith in some important particulars. But we have no fears in this respect; we have examined our ground over and over, and always to be more confirmed in the position we took about thirty years ago, when studying the theory of the "Age to Come." They who have had some of our experience with that theory, and have seen its fruits as we have seen them, will not be surprised that we are jealous of everything that will give "aid and comfort" to its advocates.
There are but two prominent positions assumed by those who profess to be able to tell who Melchizedek was, namely: one, that he was Shem. But as we know his genealogy there is no use to consider this. The other, that he was the Son of God himself. This we will consider.
1. This supposition is not necessary, as all the statements of the Scriptures are explainable without it. It is assumed that to no one but to Christ will those declarations apply. But we must consider the usages of those times in explaining such texts. On that subject we give a few authorities.
Dr. Clarke says: "He who could not support his pretensions by just genealogical evidence, was said by the Jews to be without father. . . . This sort of phraseology was not uncommon when the genealogy of a person was unknown or obscure."
The "Comprehensive Commentary" says: "The commentators generally agree that what is meant is that his name is not preserved, or the names of his parents, in the sacred genealogies."
The "Biblical Commentary" says: "Melchizedek stands in the Scripture narrative with no mention of father, mother, or pedigree, of the beginning or end of his life; and the suppression of these details adapts him for standing as a type of the Son of God. . . . The sacred narrative regarding Melchizedek was so ordered, both in what it said, and in what it left unsaid, that the historical picture is singularly fitted to represent in typical outline the Son of God."
The Syriac renders it: "Of whom neither his father nor his mother are written in the genealogies; nor the commencement of his days, nor the end of his life; but, after the likeness of the Son of God, his priesthood remaineth forever."
Barnes argues the question at length, and says the Syriac has given the correct view.
Chrysostom wrote: "We know of no beginning or end in either case; in the one, because none are recorded; in the other, because they do not exist."
Kitto says: "Others, . . . have held that Melchizedek was no other than the Son of God himself. But in this case it would hardly have been said that he was made like unto the Son of God, or that Christ was constituted a priest after the order of Melchizedek, or, in other words, was a type of himself."
Scott rejects the idea for the same reason, that Christ could not stand as a type of himself.
The Scriptures present a complete type of Christ in his priesthood, but not in any one individual. Without "the example and shadow" of the priesthood and service of Aaron we could form no just idea of the work of Jesus "in the sanctuary and the true tabernacle" in which he ministers. But if we followed the type of Aaron alone we should form very incorrect ideas of the priesthood of Christ. The apostle Paul points out a number of differences between his priesthood and that of Aaron, and shows conclusively that all the deficiencies in the type of the Aaronic priesthood are made up in that of Melchizedek. See Heb. 5 and 7. If it were possible to identify Melchizedek, or to produce his genealogy, then the whole argument would be overthrown.
2. The language of the oath by which Christ was made priest forbids the supposition that he was Melchizedek. Ps. 110 is prophetic throughout. It looks forward to the time when Messiah as a priest shall sit "on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens," as a priest. The word "order" expresses much in this oath. Christ is to be king after the order of David. It would be absurd to say that David was a king after the order of David. Zacharias was a priest after the order of Aaron. It would be absurd to say that Aaron was a priest after the order of Aaron. Now if Christ were Melchizedek it would be equally absurd to say he was a priest after the order of Melchizedek. That would be to say that Christ was a priest after the order of Christ! It would make him a successor of himself. It leaves us without any type of some of the most important points in his priesthood, or makes him a type of himself. In every way the supposition is inadmissible.
3. But we have recently had presented to us an argument (or rather an objection) which is supposed to be conclusive that Melchizedek was Christ. It is said that if he were not, if his priesthood did not commence until A. D. 33, then the faithful in the preceding dispensation were without a priest, without an intercessor, and therefore without salvation. But there is no scripture to show that this inference is necessary; we will see if it will stand the test of just reasoning.
(1) The facts concerning the service of the sanctuary show just when his priestly work commenced. It will not be denied that the editors of the Review and Herald have given this subject very thorough examination, and we offer no apology for introducing their testimony. In Review, Vol. 35, No. 5, Jan. 1870, in the article, "Order of Events in the Judgment," Eld. Andrews spoke as follows:—
"The period of 490 years belonged to old Jerusalem, the place of the earthly sanctuary. But the remainder, viz., 1810 years, coming wholly within the gospel dispensation, must pertain only to the sanctuary of the New Testament. And it is remarkable that the very verse which tells us how much of the vision pertained to the earthly sanctuary, does present to our view the sanctuary of the new covenant in close connection with the introduction of the new covenant. Dan. 9:24, 27. For one of the last events in the period of 70 weeks is the anointing of the most holy. This is not the anointing of the Saviour, for the term is literally, in Hebrew, the holy of holies, a plain reference to the sanctuary itself. This anointing was performed in the earthly sanctuary when the ministration therein began. Lev. 8:10, 11. . . . Its anointing was an event preparatory to Christ's ministering therein, just as the earthly sanctuary was anointed in both its holy places before the Levitical ministration commenced in it."
The same substantially is found on p. 13 of his tract, "The Sanctuary of the Bible."
In Eld. Smith's book, "The Sanctuary and the Twenty-three Hundred Days," in the comment on Dan. 9, are the following words:—
"'To anoint the most holy.' Verse 24. This brings to view an act which was performed preparatory to the commencement of the ministration of the sanctuary, which was to anoint both the holy places and all the sacred vessels. Ex. 40:9-11."
In "Thoughts on Daniel," commenting on the same prophecy of the work of the Saviour, he says:—
"Before the ministration in the sanctuary commenced, the sanctuary and all the holy vessels were to be anointed. Ex. 40:9, 10."
The type places this work before the ministry in the sanctuary. The prophecy locates it when Jesus ascended on high, A. D. 33. Now if there is anything in "the shadow and example," or any prophecy or history of the Scripture which places the commencement of his ministry at an earlier date, we shall be pleased to consider it when it is presented.
(2) Paul, speaking of those things which were taken away at the cross of Christ, namely, the ordinances of the Levitical service, says they "are a shadow of things to come." Col. 2. And in his argument on the priesthood in Hebrews, he says the law had a shadow of good things to come. But if the priestly work of Christ existed through all preceding dispensations, then the types of the law were a shadow of things past as truly as of things to come. And if so it is singular that in all the Scripture statements and arguments and types concerning the priestly work there is not a single hint of the fact. On that subject the Bible is as silent as on the change of the Sabbath!
(3) Paul says in Heb. 8:3, "For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices; wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer." This necessity arises from the fact that "without shedding of blood there is no remission." It is the offering which gives efficacy to the intercession of the priest. Now we ask any person who thinks the priestly work of Christ was necessary to the salvation of those who lived in past dispensations to consider the fact that there was no offering, no sacrifice, to present as the ground of such intercession. There is not a type, a statement, or an intimation in all the Scriptures showing that a priestly service without an offering would avail anything for sinners. But the priesthood of Christ answers every demand of the Scriptures in this respect. "By his own blood" he has entered "into Heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us." Heb. 9:12, 24.
It can only be answered that their faith took hold on a future offering, typified by those in the law. That answer is correct. And it is true also that their faith laid hold of a future priesthood, even that of the coming Messiah, typified by the priests under the law, and also by Melchizedek. Their faith could look forward to a future intercessor as well as to a future sin-offering, without which the intercession would have no efficacy.
This subject is extensive; we could greatly enlarge upon it. But we think we have said enough to justify our assertion that if we are wrong on this point the Seventh-day Adventists will have to reconstruct their faith. But we have no apprehensions on this point. When the objectors show that they have studied this question in all its bearings as thoroughly as they who have providentially done so much to set forth our faith; as they whom we quote in this article, we feel assured that they will no longer appear as objectors. There is consistency in truth when it is fully considered; but when examined superficially it appears beset with difficulties. The subjects of the sanctuary and the priesthood are cardinal doctrines with us as a people. We are thankful that the Lord has given us so clear light in reference to them.