"So, when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs. He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep. He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep. Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkest whither thou wouldest; but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not. This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto him, Follow me.—Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following, which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee? Peter seeing him, saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do? Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? Follow thou me. Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die; yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die: but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?" John xxi, 15–24.
SOME precious references to the Lord's coming have been lost by the habit into which many believers have fallen of understanding some plain passages in a figurative sense. Passages where Christ's coming is referred to have been considered as referring to the destruction of Jerusalem. Perhaps the verse that has given apparent countenance to this idea more than any other is that in John xxi, 21. The Lord had foretold what should be Peter's lot on earth, and by what death he should glorify God. Peter thereupon was emboldened to ask similar information regarding John, thinking (it appears) that Jesus, who loved him so peculiarly, and who had whispered to him who the traitor was at the last supper, (v, 20) would surely be willing to say something about the future career of one so favored. But Jesus refused to gratify needless curiosity. "Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? Follow thou me." It is evident, we think, that our Lord by that reply meant to make a wide supposition of what he could do, if it seemed right to him, not of what he meant actually to do. He said, "Were it my will, he might remain on earth without tasting death until I come again the second time,—but what is that to thee? Follow thou me."
Here, then, let us ask a few questions:—
1st. Did the ten disciples understand "Till I come"28to mean the destruction of Jerusalem? No; the thought never seems to have crossed their minds. They said, "Our Master means to save his beloved disciple from the pang of dying!" The saying went abroad among them that he should not die! How, then, could they extract such a meaning from the Lord's words but by their having understood him to say, "He shall tarry till I come the second time." They overlooked the "If I will," and concluded that Jesus meant to say that John would abide on earth till his Lord returned. Had they understood the words to be, "He shall tarry until Jerusalem is destroyed," in that case they could only have said, "This disciple shall live long,"—but how would they arrive at the conclusion, "He shall not die?" But no; they were putting the obvious sense on the words "Till I come," but omitting to notice the clause "If I will."
2d. Did John himself understand this saying to refer to the destruction of Jerusalem? No; for he explains in v, 23 where the mistake of the brethren lay. It did not lie in their attaching a wrong sense to "Till I come," but (says he) it lay in not observing that Jesus only said "If I will that he tarry." They were wrong, he says, in saying he would not die, not because the words referred merely to such an event as Jerusalem's destruction,—no, for he really did live after that event,—but they were wrong in thinking that our Lord had asserted anything positive in regard to him; he had only made a supposition with the view of showing that disciples must submit to their Master's will, whether he reveals much or little.
3d. Is it at all natural to understand the words to refer to the destruction of Jerusalem? Surely not. For in that case the Lord would really be found revealing the time of John's death,—which was the very thing he declined speaking of to Peter. And after he had been so often with them, "speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God," (Acts i, 3,) and no doubt showing them clearly that he must first ascend and then return in glory, how natural was it, tacitly referring to some such conversations, to use his own language, "If I will that he tarry till I come." There is something very beautiful in his mode of declining to tell the future career of his disciple. "If it were my will that this disciple, who has leant on my bosom so often, and whom I have loved so peculiarly, if it were my will he should not die at all, but be caught up, like Elijah or Enoch, at my coming again, what is that to thee?" The sovereignty of our Master's will, even in his acts of tender love, must be acknowledged and implicitly relied on. Let us learn this lesson better, and go on "following the Lamb."
Had it been possible, we believe there are some who would have escaped the objections that are conclusive against referring the words to Jerusalem, by saying "Christ's coming often means death." But they cannot think of that here; for the disciples all agreed in inferring from the words that John should not die. It is well worthy of observation that life, not death, was suggested to believers by the mention of Christ's coming in those early days. To them the mention of Christ's coming never seems to have suggested anything connected with death, except the victory over it, "the swallowing up death in victory." To speak to the early Christian of the Lord's being at hand, was equivalent to pointing him upwards to the clouds, not downward to the tomb. A reference to his "coming" suggested not "the night, wherein no man can work," but "the day," when every saint's work shall be rewarded,—not the laying of the body in the cold grave, but the raising it up in glory, like Christ's own glorious body.
We might show, in like manner, that the words of our Lord, given by three Evangelists, regarding "some not tasting death till they should see the kingdom of God come with power," (see Matt. xvi, 28; Mark ix, 1; Luke ix, 27.) have as little to do with Jerusalem as this passage of John. They all refer to our Lord's Transfiguration, about "an eight days after"—when he did show a specimen of his future kingdom—himself the grand centre of attraction, the light and sun of all,—while his saints, now glorified, were beside him, and earth beneath his feet. The same Peter, whose question led to that interesting passage regarding John, has opened to us his Lord's meaning on the holy mount. For, in his Second Epistle, (i, 16, 17,) he says of that scene, that he was an eye-witness of his Lord's majesty, such as shall be displayed hereafter. "We made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ," are his words in referring to that scene, which he mentions as having been given to assure us of what shall yet be. And so truly was it a specimen of the coming kingdom, that he hesitates not to say that he was an eye-witness of the Lord's majesty, just as he said (1 Pet. v, 1) that he had been a true witness of his sufferings.
Yes, truly, a Saviour coming to us is widely different from our going to him at death. And a Saviour coming to be glorified in his saints, and to give the troubled rest, is widely different from that same Saviour overruling all things by secret providence.—Advent Tracts Vol. I.
OSWEGO MEETING.
By Editor
FOR some time past the cause has not been as prosperous in the vicinity of Oswego, N. Y., as in many other places. We felt when we made the appointment that our labor would be principally for the church. But when we arrived in the city we found hand-bills up for lectures on the Sabbath and First-day.
The brethren came in from the region round about, and on Sabbath morning we assembled in a small, commodious Hall in Bro. Carpenter's new building. Our number on the Sabbath was about 150, with very few exceptions, professed believers in the present truth. Bro. S. W. Rhodes was present. The day was spent in plain, close remarks relative to what constitutes a Christian, and our present duty. It was plain to be seen that the church was on the background, and we trust that all felt it.
The principal causes of the low state of the church we consider to be these: first, leading brethren have erred which has lessened confidence, and has had a scattering, saddening influence; and second, brethren have not always taken a scriptural course relative to little differences of opinion, and little trials arising among them. As to the first mentioned cause, full confessions of wrongs have been made, and humiliation has been manifested, sufficient to restore full confidence. Relative to the latter, the whole congregation of saints covenanted together, henceforth to follow strictly a scriptural course in all differences and trials arising among them, and to have no fellowship for an unscriptural course in such cases.
In all cases of private differences and trials among individual brethren, the course stated by our Lord is the only safe one, and must be strictly followed.
"Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church; but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican." Matt. xviii, 15-17.
The great object of our Lord in presenting this course evidently was to save the church, especially the young and the weak, the burden of hearing all the little trials that might arise among brethren. In most every case, this course will prove effectual in settling all differences; it will restore confidence with those concerned, in each other, and the church will be saved a burden.
But it is a shame, and a disgrace to many who profess to be Bible Christians, and the followers of Christ, that they will disregard this rule of Him whom they style their Lord, and if they feel that their brother or sister is in the fault, and has wronged them, instead of going directly to them, as the Lord directs, they will go to all the church first and magnify the supposed fault of a brother or sister. Such a course is calculated to produce hard feelings with the one supposed to be in the wrong, bring the whole church into trouble, discourage the weak, and drive away those who come to inquire for the truth.
The church in Oswego and vicinity have solemnly covenanted to take a scriptural course in these things in the future. If this covenant is kept, and if the faith of Jesus (all the principles of the New Testament) is lived out by them, they will be saved many unhappy trials, they will grow in grace, the power of God will be with them, the servants of God will have freedom when they visit them, (and not have to labor with burdened souls most of their time for the church,) many souls will be anxious to hear the truth, and there will be strength in the church to bring them out into the freedom of the truth.
We will here notice another passage from the lips of the great Teacher, in his sermon on the Mount. "If thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath aught against thee, leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift." Matt. v, 23, 24.
From this we learn, that if a brother comes into the assembly of the saints, and there remembers that one of his brethren has something against him, he is not to take a part in the exercises of the meeting. His prayer or exhortation would not be acceptable to God in such a case. Or, rather, we learn from these words of our Lord, that the saints should have such tender watch-care over each other, as to lose no time and spare no pains in removing all trials from each other, so that when they assemble to worship God, love and unity may prevail, and their united worship ascend with acceptance, a sweet-smelling savor before the Almighty. But there have been too many cases in the vicinity of Oswego, as well as some other places, where brethren, who neglected their duty out of meeting, have come together professedly to serve God, have talked out each others' faults, which has grieved the Holy Spirit away from them. Those who have thus trampled on the mercy of God, and the plain teachings of Christ, and have repeatedly grieved and driven from them the Holy Spirit, are very weak, and seem to be void of judgment in the things of the Spirit of God. Although they may have professed the truth for years, many who have just been converted are able to instruct them in the first principles of religion.
The brethren in the vicinity of Oswego have now taken a good stand in favor of gospel order and discipline, and we may hope that these unpleasant things will forever cease from among them. Heaven grant that it may be so. Notwithstanding this sad state of things, several have recently embraced the truth.
On First-day we gave two lectures. The Hall was filled with attentive hearers. The prospect now looks fair for a good work. If the church gets right, and keeps right, the Lord will work for them, and raise up a people for his name in Oswego.
The Apostle Paul
HATH said, [1 Thess. v, 22.] "Abstain from all appearance of evil." He mentions this among other important duties, such as, "Pray without ceasing," and "Quench not the Spirit." The precious cause of our Lord has often been wounded, and the good of his people has been evil spoken of, for this reason: Many of the professed followers of Christ have not been on their watch to "Abstain from all appearance of evil." It is not only the duty of God's people to depart from all evil, and live holy in the sight of Heaven, but they must watch with the greatest care, especially when in the presence of the ungodly, to abstain from all appearance of evil.29
But it may be asked, How do you understand verse 26? "Greet all the brethren with an holy kiss." We answer, this text must be understood in manner to harmonize with verse 22. The Apostle has not here advanced contradictory sentiments. He would be understood that the salutation was a sign of Christian fellowship, not to be given before the ungodly." He calls it a "holy kiss," therefore, not to be frequently and commonly given. It is a sin to be ashamed of any portion of God's Word. It is no less sin, through carelessness and ignorance, to make a bad use of it, and make common what the Holy Ghost has called "holy."
"Abstain from all appearance of evil. And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit, and soul, and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. Faithful is he that calleth you, who also will do it. Brethren, pray for us. Greet all the brethren with an holy kiss. I charge you by the Lord that this epistle be read unto all the holy brethren. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen." 1 Thess. v, 22-28.
Why can we not Believe in the New Time?
By Uriah Smith
THERE are many and definite reasons why those who hold the views we hold, cannot believe in time; so many and so definite that we shall consider ourselves safe in the following positive declaration:
It is utterly impossible for those who believe in "present truth," to believe in the new time.
A few reasons for this assertion, we shall now attempt to present; and in order to come at the question at once, we will notice briefly our position on those points which have any direct bearing on time.
1. We believe that the prophetic period of 2300 days given to Daniel, did commence at the going forth of the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem, in the 7th of Artaxerxes, B. C. 457, and that it consequently did terminate in 1844. 2. We believe that the Sanctuary is in heaven where our great High Priest is ministering for us; the great antitype of the sanctuary which was upon the earth from Moses to Christ; that its cleansing is, not by fire, but by blood, as we are taught in the type; that Christ at the end of the 2300 days entered into the Most Holy Place, and commenced the final work which is termed, the cleansing of the Sanctuary, as was shadowed forth by the ministration on earth. Hence we find there was no failure in the passing of the time in 1844: we only mistook the event to transpire, in misapplying the term, Sanctuary. 3. We believe that the three angels' messages, [Rev. xiv,] are distinct messages to be fulfilled, in order, just previous to the coming of the Son of man. We believe that the first and second had their fulfillment in the mighty move which spread throughout the world, especially during the years of 1843-4. We believe that we are now living under the third and last: "If any man worship the beast and his image," &c.
Such is the outline of our position on these points. If any require proof, they can be furnished with publications giving abundant and explicit testimony for these views. We shall not therefore present the reasons of our faith here, but proceed to inquire, Why cannot those who hold these views believe in the new time? We will present our answers to this question in order:
1. Because to agree with the new-time theory, the date of the 2300 days must be moved in order to make them terminate in the future. Their commencement, as we learn from Dan. ix, is from a commandment to restore and build Jerusalem: the 70 weeks being the first 490. But when we find that there is, in reality, no other decree for the restoration of Jerusalem than the 7th of Artaxerxes, [see Ez. vii,] we begin to suspect that that is the place for their commencement; and when we find that no other date will answer the conditions of the prophecy, in regard to the Messiah the Prince, the crucifixion—causing the sacrifice and oblation to cease—and the confirmation of the covenant for one week;—when we see that no other date will answer these conditions of the prophecy, we are positively certain that they can commence no where else. Therefore to change the date from where it has been indisputably fixed, is all wrong.
2. If the preaching of time is right now, it follows that the preaching of time in 1843-4 was wrong. If the preaching of time was wrong then, and nothing accomplished by it, it follows that the first and second angels' messages were wrongly applied. If they were misapplied, or were not fulfilled in the great work which then took place, it follows that the whole Advent movement was a complete failure and the work of man. This, no one who was a partaker in it, or even a witness of its mighty power, should be willing to admit. If the two first messages were wrong, or have not been given, we cannot of course now be having the third; consequently our position in this respect is all false.
Thus by taking for a moment this ground, and following out the conclusions to which it leads, we find the whole system of the Advent faith completely demolished. And what have we in its stead? We have a theory in which the main pillar in prophetic chronology is wrested from its true foundation, and placed where there is no warrant for placing it; placed where it will not agree with the conditions of the prophecy, or harmonize with events along the stream of time. And why is all this? Simply that it may terminate yet future, and that people may hold the unnatural, and unscriptural view, that this sin-cursed earth is God's Sanctuary, that it will be cleansed by fire, and Christ will come at the end of the 2300 days; which views we have no warrant in the Word of God for believing. Infinitely better it would be to heed the harmonious and plain teachings of the Scriptures on these points; to believe that the purposes of God are fulfilling all about us; that his plans are moving on, and his work progressing to its final accomplishment; that what he has done is well done, and will stand forever. The mighty angel with one foot on the land and the other on the sea, [Rev. x,] has lifted up his hand to heaven, and sworn by him that liveth forever and ever, that there should be (prophetic) time no longer; and it is not for us to presumptuously array ourselves against his testimony, or recklessly exclaim, The days are prolonged and every vision faileth. Eze. xi, 22.
We consider our first proposition sufficiently demonstrated: that it is utterly impossible for those who believe in "present truth," to believe in the new time. We cannot hold one position and at the same time believe another, which directly contradicts and destroys it. We cannot serve God and mammon.
It has been asked if it was not "time" that roused the world in 1843-4; and, "What would have been accomplished without the preaching of time?" We admit that it was the preaching of time that accomplished the work then; and why? Because it was ordained of God and came in its appointed time and place; and as sure as it is that the preaching of time did the work then, so sure it is that it will never again rouse the world. Its mission is accomplished; and one fulfillment, only, to prophecy, is the order of an unchangeable God.
It has also been suggested that "the third angel's message when rightly understood stands intimately connected with definite time." We think not: the first angel, only, proclaims time: The hour of his judgment is come. The third brings to view the saints in the patient waiting time, keeping the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.
The mighty move that roused the world in 1843-4, is not over yet. The Advent doctrine is not a doctrine to claim attention for a while and then pass off and be forgotten. People may think the past a failure, and that whatever theories are advocated now must be something distinct and separate from that; but not so. The position we occupy is no new position disconnected with the past. It is only a further development of that true Advent faith which has its immovable foundation on the Word of God—further developed as we have been led along down the track of prophecy. And while we can trace to our joyful satisfaction every step through which we have been guided thus far, and see by the light of truth where we stand in the prophetic and moral history of the world, we are prepared to remain steadfast a little longer till the atoning work of our great High Priest shall be accomplished; till we see the end of the race, the close of the warfare, and receive our palms of victory and our crowns of life. U. S.
The Hour of His Judgment Come.
By J. N. Loughborough
[We shall be pardoned for inserting the following in the REVIEW, though not written for publication; as it meets inquiries which have been presented to us.]
I shall dissent from the view taken by some, that the judgment referred to here, is the session of judgment on Papacy; and for so doing I will assign my reasons.
1. The three messages of Rev. xiv, are warnings of great events. God's order is to give the warning before the event comes; if it is not so in this instance then we have one inconsistent exception to the great general rule, and that exception one of the most important warnings this world was ever to hear, inasmuch as it heralded the great event which was to seal the destiny of thousands: "The hour of judgment come." If the judgment referred to, is the deadly wounding of the Papacy, then that message we see must necessarily have gone forth prior to 1798; for that is the point where the deadly wound was given. But we find upon close investigation, that the first angel's message could not go while the book was sealed, which that message was founded on, which was to be sealed until the time of the end, 1798. See Dan. xi; xii.30Again: If we should take the position that the first angel's message was to be given prior to 1798, when we look for its fulfillment we find no such message given there. Some of the Advent people have tried to claim that the reformers gave that message; but they gave no such message. The first angel's message is a definite one. Take the definiteness from it, and it would herald no new idea, but would only be "Fear God, . . . for the judgment is coming." Neither Luther, Wesley, or any of the reformers gave a definite proclamation in regard to the judgment. Said Martin Luther, "The judgment is not far off. I am persuaded the Lord will not be absent above 300 years longer." Let us see if he gave it.—"Fear God;" for the judgment is coming in 300 years. Is that the message? No. "The hour of his judgment is come." Wesley thought the Lord would come about 1836: not in his day. He did not give that message; neither did any one give it until the Advent proclamation of 1843-4 came out, claiming that the Lord was coming at the end of the 2300 days. Although they made a mistake in the event for which they looked, yet they gave that message. They supposed that judgment did not set until Jesus' second advent; and they preached that his second advent would take place in 1844. They gave a definite message. Not long since I was talking with an Adventist who said, "The first angel's message was only the agitation of the subject of the judgment, by the reformers." I asked, Was not that to be a definite message? He said no more on that point.
According to Paul, [2 Thess. ii, 3,] Christ's coming could not be until the man of sin had performed his work; and they were charged to let no man deceive them. Then if any man should come while Papacy was working and say, "The hour of God's judgment (or Jesus' coming) had come," it would be a deception, for Papacy was performing its work. But these are only incidental arguments. I will now try and come to the point.
What is meant by the hour of God's judgment? (first angel's message.) In order to ascertain this point, I shall claim that the Advent proclamation was the true first angel's message, and inquire, What great event was truly heralded by that proclamation?
The foundation stone which gave definiteness to that message, was the 2300 days, the great prophetic period of Dan. viii, which period ended 1844, as all just and true reckoning will show; and the event which took place at the end of that period was the cleansing of the Sanctuary, which was to be cleansed at the end of 2300 days from the going forth of the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem, 457 B. C., the seventh of Artaxerxes. The Sanctuary to be cleansed we at once see is not the earth, but the one that our great High Priest ministers in. In the type the priest did not work 364 days in the first apartment of the Sanctuary, and then go off 1000 miles and clear the rubbish off of some patch of ground, (which would have been a type, we should think of cleansing the earth, if anything,) but he goes into the same building he has performed his 364 days' service in, and performs the work called cleansing. But our Advent brethren all admit that our great High Priest has been performing his ministerial office since he entered heaven: but when the time comes to cleanse the Sanctuary, he must leave heaven and come to this dark, sublunary globe, to cleanse the earth. Nay, verily, he will cleanse the Sanctuary he ministers in, if he carries out the type. O well, says the brother, it needs no cleansing. Strange wisdom, whence is it. Paul says, [Heb. ix, 23.] "It was necessary that the patterns of things in heaven should be purified" or cleansed. It is strange that the patterns need cleansing, if the original does not. Yes; but Paul says they were to be cleansed with better sacrifices. Then it is necessary that the heavenly Sanctuary should be cleansed; and we proceed to inquire,
What was that work of cleansing? Is the work of cleansing the Sanctuary fitly heralded by the first angel's message? In other words, Is it a work of judgment? For light on this subject, we shall be obliged to go to the type. Let us look at the type. See the high priest preparing himself to cleanse the Sanctuary; almost the first thing he did was to gird upon him the breast plate of judgment. For what does he put that on? It certainly looks as though he was going to do a judgment work.
Again: his work was an atonement for the blotting out of sins. I often use the expression, "It is not common to blot out accounts until they are settled;" so our sins are not blotted out until the time of refreshing comes, which is when Jesus leaves the Sanctuary, and lays the blotted-out sins on the head of the scape-goat.
Again: it was a day of decision. On the morning of the day of atonement the trumpet was sounded which called the attention of the people to the sanctuary. They were required to gather around the sanctuary and afflict their souls; every one that afflicted his soul received the blessing of the high priest when he came out: those who did not afflict themselves, were to be put to death. The antitypical day of atonement has come. The third angel is commissioned to perform his work of measuring the temple of God and them that worship in it. His golden reed is the commandments of God, "better than gold, yea, more to be desired than much fine gold." As it was in the type, so now. Every one that did not heed the call on the day of atonement must die. So it is now: every one that hears distinctly the call and does not obey, there is no more mercy for them. In the type, men were not condemned because they were not around the sanctuary on the sixth or eighth days of the seventh month, because the time had not come. So in the antitypical work: we are not condemned for not having the light of the third angel's message, before that message comes; but when it comes, if we do not heed it, we must suffer the consequences.
Again: it was said to Daniel that he should "rest and stand in his lot at the end of the days," or prophetic periods. I can find none that extend beyond 1844. The periods of 1290 and 1335 days commence at the downfall of Paganism, 508: adding the 1290 years, they carry us to 1798, and 1335 full years would carry us to 1844, the last period. I know of no period that can be so reckoned as to come this side of 1844; so that the time Daniel was to stand in his lot at the end of the days was 1844. The word which is rendered lot, does not signify his redeemed state, but, chance. Daniel should stand his chance. Why? Because his sins had been confessed, and on the day of atonement those sins which have been confessed are opened before-hand to judgment. Now read 1 Pet. iv. Verse 5 declares that Christ is ready to judge the quick and the dead. Verse 7. "But the end of all things is at hand." Verse 11. "If any man speak let him speak as the oracles of God." (Oracles—ten commandments. See Acts vii, 38.) Why speak as the oracles of God? Because the oracles are the duty brought out by the third angel's message. Verse 17. "The time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God." Verse 19. Commit the keeping of your souls to God. 1 Tim. v, 24. "Some men's sins are open before-hand going before to judgment." We see by this what the judgment is that the first angel of Rev. xiv, refers to.
Communication from Bro. Waggoner.
By J. H. Waggoner
DEAR BRO. WHITE:—On my return West, I stopped at Cold Spring Prairie, Illinois, and gave eight lectures. Some were much interested, and I hope good to the cause will be the result. Some of those calling themselves Adventists, refused to hear; they had a summary way of disposing of the whole matter, which was this: they knew the "Age to Come" was right, and that my lectures would contradict that theory; and of course they would be wrong. Therefore it was no use to hear. Babylon never gave a more arbitrary or unreasonable opposition to the doctrine of the Second Advent than this. But the god of this world has blinded their minds, and it is to be feared they will never awake to a sense of their condition until our High Priest has cleansed the Sanctuary, and comes to take vengeance on them that know not God, and obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Thinking that a more extended notice of my visit to Salem, Ind., might be of interest, I will mention some particulars. I arrived there on Fifth-day, Nov. 3d, and was informed that the next First-day was the time of the regular appointment of Eld. E. Miller Jr., that at his last meeting he had preached against the Sabbath, and had given notice that at his next appointment he intended to overthrow the whole theory by presenting positive testimony that the Sabbath was abolished. Being anxious to know what would be considered "positive testimony" on that point, I attended his meeting; but so far from redeeming his promise, he did not attempt to offer any "positive testimony" to that effect, but rested it on the sweeping declaration that "The whole code of laws from Sinai, moral, civil and ceremonial, went by the board." He made quite an effort to narrow down and contract that which the Word says, is "exceeding broad." Ps. cxix, 96. In order to show that the commandments of God do not include all moral duties he said that restoring four-fold was a moral duty not found in the Decalogue. But does the duty of restoring four-fold grow out of any proper or natural relation which we sustain to one another? We read in Ex. xxii, 1, thus: "If a man shall steal an ox or a sheep, and kill it or sell it, he shall restore five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep." The obligation to restore four-fold arises from the transgression of the commandment. It is truly singular that men will not see a difference between obedience to a law, and the restitution for disobedience. To avoid the necessary conclusion from a comparison of Gen. xxvi, 3-5; 1 Chron. xvi, 14-18, and Deut. iv, 12, 13, to wit: that the ten commandments existed as a law before given from Mount Sinai, he affirmed and reaffirmed that the covenant, (law) spoken of in 1 Chron. xvi, was the promise of the land of Canaan! Again, in commenting on Paul's epistle to the Romans, he said that Chaps. v and vi, were a digression from the main argument. The fallacy of such a position must be evident to every one who reads the first seven chapters. But he was under the necessity of making out a digression, or admit what the Apostle shows, that the transgression of "the law" of which he is all along speaking, was the introduction of sin into the world.
In Chap. vii, he said that Paul, by a figure of speech, threw himself back under the law, to illustrate how the law worked when it was yet in force. Then when he said he delighted in the law of God, he must have meant that he would have delighted in it if there had been any such thing, and that the law would be holy, just, good and spiritual, if it had not "all gone by the board."
But the most strange and untenable views were held forth in his exposition of the New Testament law. To fill up the "gap" between the resurrection and day of Pentecost, he quoted 2 Thess. iii, 6, without, however, attempting to show what traditions Paul, or any of the apostles, delivered during the period in question. After stating that we were at liberty to do whatever is not prohibited by the apostles, he made use of the second commandment, as it stands in the Decalogue, to prove that it is wrong to make or worship graven images; and after repelling the charge, (said to have been made by some) that he advocated a "no-law" theory, he made the following singular declaration: "Christ never proclaimed a code of laws for the government of the world, either in person or by his apostles. At the present time he has no code of laws for the government of the world; saving this, to repent. He dont tell the world to do this or that, but to repent and become members of his body, and then fall in with a rule for Christians." This, it seems to me, is a bold and dangerous stroke at the authority of revelation. If this is true, the world can have no sin, for where no law is there is no transgression. If Christ has no code of laws for the government of the world, then the world is in greater safety than the church, because the church may lose some, but the world can lose none; the Christian may "fall from grace" and be condemned by the law for Christians, but the world cannot be condemned, for "Sin is not imputed when there is no law."
The investigation at this place was attended with the happiest results; as many by it were confirmed in the truth of our position, thinking truly that nothing but an extremity to save a sinking cause would lead any sane man to deny the plain distinction between a law and a promise, or affirm that a digression from an argument on justification by faith, should commence with, "THEREFORE being justified by faith," &c., or, again, that all the law, moral, civil, and ceremonial went by the board at the death of Christ, leaving us entirely dependent on the apostles for a rule of moral obligation, and that their first commandment inculcated repentance! If such are the strongholds of our opponents, surely "their rock is not as our rock." Many around us are laboring under equally erroneous impressions; and let us, dear brethren, awake to the importance of diligence in placing the true light before them, and ever praying that God may open their eyes to see the danger of their position.
Yours in hope, J. H. WAGGONER.
Metomen, Wis., Jan. 22d, 1854.
THE ADVENT FAITH.
WITHOUT faith it is impossible to please God, or to receive his truth. The doctrine of the speedy coming of our blessed Lord is of God. It is a fundamental part of the Scriptures, and it cannot be received except through living FAITH in His word. It is not perceived nor retained by sight, or by the will or wisdom of man, but by implicit confidence in every word which God has spoken. Through prayerful and patient examination of the Bible, we find a REASON for our faith immutable as the promise of the Father, and sure as the eternal councils of his throne.
The traditions and opinions of men are alike conflicting and unsafe, but the word of the Lord abideth forever. The Son has said, "I will come again," and "surely I come quickly," and has given us data and signs by which we may know assuredly that he is near even at the doors. All these way-marks of the inspired text, and the increasing signs in our moral, political, and natural heavens, demonstrate the hour at hand, when we shall "see the Son of Man coming on a cloud with power and great glory." Having this confidence, we are not easily shaken in mind, nor discouraged by the SEEMING darkness or lateness of31the hour. We have placed ourselves upon the word of God and we are willing to abide the issue. Though the mountains pass on each side, the sea yawn before, and the scoffing enemy press behind, we fear not. He that is with us is mighty, Jehovah is his name, and at the appointed time he will surely deliver.